Brandon To: Appeasement won’t work on Trump
This affects the entire country.
Brandon To is a Politics graduate from UCL and a Hong Kong BN(O) immigrant settled in Harrow
In September 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich waving a piece of paper and proclaiming “peace for our time”. Britain and France had agreed to let Nazi Germany annex the Sudetenland, a concession made in the hope that satisfying Hitler’s demands would preserve peace in Europe.
It did not. Within a year, Europe was at war.
The lesson was brutally clear: appeasement does not moderate aggressors; it feeds them. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile. Concessions are not interpreted as goodwill, but as weakness.
This is not merely a historical curiosity. It is a pattern, and one we are in danger of repeating.
Only today, the aggressor is not Nazi Germany, nor even Russia, but the United States under Donald Trump’s renewed protectionist instincts.
This is not a hypothetical concern. As he started his second term, Trump imposed global tariffs — including on close allies — treating Europe not as a partner, but as a competitor to be disciplined. Trade became a blunt instrument of pressure rather than a means of shared prosperity.
Now, he openly toys with territorial ambitions over Greenland while once again threatening Europe with punitive tariffs. The danger lies not in any single demand, but in the precedent it sets. If Europe concedes over Greenland on the grounds of “national security”, what comes next? The North Sea, framed as a strategic energy asset? Pressure on Britain’s manufacturing, justified as supply-chain resilience?
Once the language of security is normalised as a tool of economic and territorial coercion, it can be redeployed endlessly. Appeasement does not end when demands are met; it ends only when we are weakened enough to depend on the aggressor’s favour. And when that moment arrives, one question remains: what, then, are Britain and Europe reduced to?
The message is unmistakable: no alliance is sacred, no friendship immune, when “America First” demands sacrifice from others.
For too long, Europe, and Britain in particular, has relied on the comfort of the “special relationship”, assuming that shared history and past alliances guarantee fair treatment. Trump’s posture should finally disabuse us of that illusion. Alliances exist only so long as interests align and powers balance. When they diverge, sentiment counts for very little.
What makes this moment more troubling is the predictable response from both ends of the political spectrum.
The Left will posture loudly when dealing with domestic opponents, but grow timid when confronted by external pressure. Faced with real power, their instinct is always the same: de-escalate, appease, compromise, regardless of the long-term cost. They mistake submission for …
This affects the entire country.
Brandon To is a Politics graduate from UCL and a Hong Kong BN(O) immigrant settled in Harrow
In September 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich waving a piece of paper and proclaiming “peace for our time”. Britain and France had agreed to let Nazi Germany annex the Sudetenland, a concession made in the hope that satisfying Hitler’s demands would preserve peace in Europe.
It did not. Within a year, Europe was at war.
The lesson was brutally clear: appeasement does not moderate aggressors; it feeds them. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile. Concessions are not interpreted as goodwill, but as weakness.
This is not merely a historical curiosity. It is a pattern, and one we are in danger of repeating.
Only today, the aggressor is not Nazi Germany, nor even Russia, but the United States under Donald Trump’s renewed protectionist instincts.
This is not a hypothetical concern. As he started his second term, Trump imposed global tariffs — including on close allies — treating Europe not as a partner, but as a competitor to be disciplined. Trade became a blunt instrument of pressure rather than a means of shared prosperity.
Now, he openly toys with territorial ambitions over Greenland while once again threatening Europe with punitive tariffs. The danger lies not in any single demand, but in the precedent it sets. If Europe concedes over Greenland on the grounds of “national security”, what comes next? The North Sea, framed as a strategic energy asset? Pressure on Britain’s manufacturing, justified as supply-chain resilience?
Once the language of security is normalised as a tool of economic and territorial coercion, it can be redeployed endlessly. Appeasement does not end when demands are met; it ends only when we are weakened enough to depend on the aggressor’s favour. And when that moment arrives, one question remains: what, then, are Britain and Europe reduced to?
The message is unmistakable: no alliance is sacred, no friendship immune, when “America First” demands sacrifice from others.
For too long, Europe, and Britain in particular, has relied on the comfort of the “special relationship”, assuming that shared history and past alliances guarantee fair treatment. Trump’s posture should finally disabuse us of that illusion. Alliances exist only so long as interests align and powers balance. When they diverge, sentiment counts for very little.
What makes this moment more troubling is the predictable response from both ends of the political spectrum.
The Left will posture loudly when dealing with domestic opponents, but grow timid when confronted by external pressure. Faced with real power, their instinct is always the same: de-escalate, appease, compromise, regardless of the long-term cost. They mistake submission for …
Brandon To: Appeasement won’t work on Trump
This affects the entire country.
Brandon To is a Politics graduate from UCL and a Hong Kong BN(O) immigrant settled in Harrow
In September 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich waving a piece of paper and proclaiming “peace for our time”. Britain and France had agreed to let Nazi Germany annex the Sudetenland, a concession made in the hope that satisfying Hitler’s demands would preserve peace in Europe.
It did not. Within a year, Europe was at war.
The lesson was brutally clear: appeasement does not moderate aggressors; it feeds them. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile. Concessions are not interpreted as goodwill, but as weakness.
This is not merely a historical curiosity. It is a pattern, and one we are in danger of repeating.
Only today, the aggressor is not Nazi Germany, nor even Russia, but the United States under Donald Trump’s renewed protectionist instincts.
This is not a hypothetical concern. As he started his second term, Trump imposed global tariffs — including on close allies — treating Europe not as a partner, but as a competitor to be disciplined. Trade became a blunt instrument of pressure rather than a means of shared prosperity.
Now, he openly toys with territorial ambitions over Greenland while once again threatening Europe with punitive tariffs. The danger lies not in any single demand, but in the precedent it sets. If Europe concedes over Greenland on the grounds of “national security”, what comes next? The North Sea, framed as a strategic energy asset? Pressure on Britain’s manufacturing, justified as supply-chain resilience?
Once the language of security is normalised as a tool of economic and territorial coercion, it can be redeployed endlessly. Appeasement does not end when demands are met; it ends only when we are weakened enough to depend on the aggressor’s favour. And when that moment arrives, one question remains: what, then, are Britain and Europe reduced to?
The message is unmistakable: no alliance is sacred, no friendship immune, when “America First” demands sacrifice from others.
For too long, Europe, and Britain in particular, has relied on the comfort of the “special relationship”, assuming that shared history and past alliances guarantee fair treatment. Trump’s posture should finally disabuse us of that illusion. Alliances exist only so long as interests align and powers balance. When they diverge, sentiment counts for very little.
What makes this moment more troubling is the predictable response from both ends of the political spectrum.
The Left will posture loudly when dealing with domestic opponents, but grow timid when confronted by external pressure. Faced with real power, their instinct is always the same: de-escalate, appease, compromise, regardless of the long-term cost. They mistake submission for …
0 Comments
0 Shares
38 Views
0 Reviews
