Given the substantial financial, political, and military support the West has channelled to Ukraine, accusing Western leaders of appeasing Putin is far from the truth. The unwavering backing for Ukraine stands in stark contrast to the infamous Munich Agreement of 1938, when Britain and France effectively surrendered Czechoslovakia’s independence without the Czechoslovak government even being present.

Until recently, the West had steadfastly supported Ukraine in defending its sovereignty. The decisiveness and scale of military aid were constrained not by a desire for appeasement, but by Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

Lately, even Donald Trump appears willing to confront Putin with force, provided it offers a lucrative business opportunity, as American solidarity with Ukraine now hinges on Europe’s willingness to bear the financial burden.

Fighting Putin is undeniably the correct course of action. Without the determination to resist his assault on Ukraine, any peace deal that does not equate to capitulation remains an illusion.

However, even President Zelenskyy has indicated that a battlefield victory over Russia may not be feasible, and that some difficult concessions might be the price for a free Ukraine.

Therefore, seeking an armistice while maintaining military support is not appeasement, but a pragmatic attempt to save Ukraine, which is slowly succumbing on the battlefield.

Paradoxically, while there is much discourse about an appeasement of Putin that simply is not occurring, hardly a word is uttered about the appeasement that is taking place.

Donald Trump is engaging in blackmail and bullying tactics against countries worldwide, including traditional American allies. He has shown a willingness to accommodate Putin, expresses sympathy for various dictators, has authorised military action against Iran, threatened the national sovereignty of Greenland, Canada, and Panama, violated the American constitution, displayed complete disregard for international laws and rules, and abused state power to pursue domestic opponents. He is a bully who unequivocally comprehends only the language of strength.

Mark Rutte, NATO’s General Secretary, not only refers to Trump as “daddy”, but also cheerfully laughs when Trump expresses a desire for Greenland, and publicly thanks him for blackmailing NATO member states into increasing military expenditure to five percent of GDP.

Presidents and prime ministers meticulously rehearse their White House meetings, strategising how best to please Trump or, at the very least, avoid the mistreatment meted out to figures like Zelenskyy or Ramaphosa.

The German Chancellor pleads, “Please stay with us.” Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister was observed kneeling to retrieve papers the American leader had dropped in front of rolling television cameras.

While an appropriate gesture of courtesy, it was nonetheless a telling image. Almost all countries – with the notable exception of China – are attempting to appease Trump, hoping he will humiliate and punish someone else.

The free world remains silent when Trump threatens Brazil with 50 percent tariffs unless it drops the legal case against Jair Bolsonaro, who contemplated a coup after losing the election. Canada, too, faces punitive tariffs and the ominous threat of annexation as the 51st state of the USA.

European leaders have particularly compelling reasons for their policy of appeasement. Indeed, appeasement is often undertaken for seemingly good reasons. European leaders are convinced that resisting Putin necessitates appeasing Trump.

Tariffs and pressure on allies for higher military spending are two of Trump’s mechanisms for making others pay for America’s perceived greatness. In this new geopolitical scramble for global influence, he seeks to impose greater costs on friends and foes alike to maintain and rebuild America’s global leadership role.

In their eagerness to placate Trump, European leaders seem to overlook that by abandoning any semblance of self-respect, they also forfeit their standing as independent actors in the eyes of the world, and perhaps more crucially, in the eyes of their own citizens.

Their apparent weakness could fuel European voters’ desire for authoritarian leaders who promise to act as “little Trumps” rather than Trump’s appeasers.

The desperation of European leaders is understandable, as they “do not hold the cards”. They placed their trust in the transatlantic partnership. They accepted that their military forces were an integral part of a US-controlled NATO. Consequently, they are now largely incapable of independent action. The United States forged a military alliance in which it alone calls the shots.

The US spending more on defence than other NATO member states was not altruism, but the cost of a security arrangement that precluded the proliferation of nuclear weapons and cemented the Pax Americana.

Given the dual dependency of sustaining their economies by exporting to the US and containing Russia through reliance on US military might, Europeans find themselves in the uncomfortable position that Trump might withdraw military protection if they retaliate against his tariffs with counter-trade measures. In the short term, Trump possesses all the leverage.

The “old continent” must choose between appeasement and a further loss of national sovereignty, or a courageous strategy to evolve into a truly independent global actor.

The latter demands decisive leadership and a willingness to sacrifice narrow national interests in favour of genuine European sovereignty, and it carries the inherent risk of antagonising Trump. The former will occur by default if Europe continues to act as it has in the past.

Building an independent, united Europe is far more ambitious than maintaining an alliance dominated by a single superpower.

No single European country is powerful enough to be the undisputed hegemon of Europe. Neither Germany nor France, nor even both together, are strong enough to bend the rest to their will. Therefore, even the stronger nations must be willing to subordinate their national sovereignty to qualified European majority rule. Greater decision-making power and significantly larger budgetary resources need to be transferred to the EU level.

To avoid endless conflicts with perennial refuseniks, there must be an accessible mechanism for them to leave the EU, or alternatively, a majority decision mechanism to terminate their membership.

Instead of debating individual policy issues, the core question is whether countries like France or Germany are prepared to take the lead in agreeing to genuine power sharing within a community of small and medium-sized states.

The policy of the new German Chancellor offers little cause for optimism. He remains opposed to common European bonds and has introduced national border controls. He demands that Europe abolish the due diligence law, which was passed after years of consultation and compromise by European institutions, simply because Germany no longer approves of it.

At a time when Europe urgently requires unity, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is vetoing EU measures aimed at pressuring Israel to end what was termed “genocide” in Gaza.

How can he expect to maintain and lead a united Europe on Ukraine if he insists on a “German Sonderweg” (special path) on Gaza? Instead of outlining a vision of collective European military strength, he announced in Lithuania that Germany intends to build the continent’s strongest conventional army. Is he not aware that this might evoke uneasy memories among Germany’s neighbours?

In any event, it is a far too narrow perspective to believe that European strength can be achieved solely through increased military spending.

Certainly, a coordinated European arms industry and a clear-eyed analysis of how to spend scarce resources on necessary weapons, rather than those the military-industrial complex wishes to sell, makes perfect sense.

However, Europe’s only chance of success lies in this being accompanied by greater solidarity within Europe and the courage of diplomatic multilateralism that forges new global alliances to isolate those who seek to subjugate the rest of the world to their will.

Instead of appeasing Trump, Europe needs to swiftly conclude trade agreements like Mercosur, strengthen domestic demand to reduce export dependency, transform its universities into genuine world campuses, invest in inclusive migration policies, and invite the Global South as a true partner in shaping fairer global rules and laws.

A meaningful due diligence law, the implementation of the European directive on minimum wages, and robust collective bargaining are modest but crucial building blocks on this path.

While authoritarian strongmen tend to mobilise nationalism to bolster their aggressive and authoritarian policies, this option does not exist for Europe.

There is nothing remotely akin to European nationalism, and attempting to ignite nationalistic sentiments would divide Europe rather than unite it. Europe is, despite its deficiencies, currently the most advanced model of multilateralism.

This is the vision of governance it must embody, and the model it can offer to the world. Europe must be a beacon of tolerance, open debate, and social inclusion. It needs to lead on ecological transformation and advance the regulation of big technology companies and artificial intelligence.

Europe will either succeed as an alternative to the rule of force, willing to stand its ground against bullies on both sides of the Atlantic, or it will fade into insignificance.

Europe’s capacity to develop an alternative to appeasing Trump depends on visionary European leaders and, ultimately, on the European people. They must be convinced that Europe will not only increase its defence expenditure but also deliver for them as a multi-ethnic, fair, inclusive, democratic, supra-national community of equals.