Does Trump like Russia? (1)

"This article is solely a personal opinion and aims to discuss current affairs without involving legal issues or sensitive political positions."

A dispute at the White House has once again pushed Trump into the global spotlight. While many are still talking about Zelensky's toughness, what has been overlooked is that Trump’s outburst happened only after Zelensky called Putin a killer.

It seemed as if Trump lost his temper because Zelensky disrespected Putin. After their falling out, Trump even explicitly warned Zelensky not to speak ill of Putin again. Honestly, Trump's pro-Russian stance is no secret, but this level of devotion is striking—he scolded an ally just to defend the reputation of an adversary.

So why does Trump have such a pro-Russian attitude? Where do his thoughts originate? Is his affinity for Russia based on personal relationships, or is it a strategic decision for the nation?

Let’s take a look at history. In the 1930s, Europe's political landscape was growing increasingly tense, and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain became one of the most prominent figures of the time. World War I had ended only about a decade earlier, and Europe was still reeling from its devastating losses.

However, there was one exception—Germany. As a defeated power in World War I, Germany had lost 7 million people, was burdened with 132 billion marks in reparations, had its territory carved up, and faced strict military restrictions. This humiliation filled Germans with deep resentment, which, under Hitler's leadership, transformed into a fervent desire for revenge.

At this critical moment, Britain, as the world's leading power, had a crucial decision to make. Conventional wisdom suggests that a dominant power should immediately suppress any rising challenger before it grows too strong.

Yet, Chamberlain adopted a policy of appeasement, meaning he sought to avoid war by making concessions to Germany.

His approach lacked any meaningful boundaries. In 1935, Hitler announced that the German army had grown to 300,000 soldiers, violating the Versailles Treaty, which had limited its military to 100,000. Chamberlain merely lodged a verbal protest without imposing any sanctions.

That same year, Germany followed Japan in withdrawing from the League of Nations, freeing itself from international constraints on military expansion. Still, Chamberlain did nothing.

In 1936, Hitler ordered German troops into the Rhineland, a demilitarized buffer zone intended to prevent a surprise attack on France. This move shattered the postwar European security order, but Chamberlain remained silent.

In 1938, Germany annexed Austria. Again, Chamberlain believed Hitler would stop after getting what he wanted and took no action.

At the Munich Conference that year, Chamberlain even agreed to cede the Sudetenland—Czechoslovakia’s border region—to Germany, without consulting Czechoslovakia itself. Upon returning home, Chamberlain triumphantly waved the agreement and declared, “I have brought peace for our time.”

Yet, the deal lasted less than a year. In March 1939, Hitler broke the Munich Agreement and occupied all of Czechoslovakia. Even then, Chamberlain naively insisted that Hitler had promised him peace.

Finally, on September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, forcing Britain to declare war. However, for the next eight months, Britain remained in a "phony war," refraining from actual combat.

Many historians later argued that Britain had multiple opportunities to stop Germany’s expansion. Instead, Chamberlain's weakness and appeasement only fueled Hitler’s ambitions. Had Chamberlain been firmer, the war—which ultimately claimed over 100 million lives—might never have occurred.

Even today, Chamberlain is widely regarded as a foolish politician who naively believed he could achieve peace through appeasement. But was he truly naive, or was this part of a calculated strategy that others failed to understand?

Let’s examine Britain’s position at the time. Although it had been the world's leading power for over a century, new challengers were emerging. By the early 20th century, the U.S. had surpassed Britain in industrial output, becoming the new "world’s factory."

In the 1920s, the Soviet Union rose as a communist superpower, terrifying the capitalist world. In the 1930s, Nazi Germany defied the Versailles Treaty, becoming another formidable force.

Britain faced two options:

1.Wait for Germany and the Soviet Union to clash. These two nations had fundamentally opposing ideologies, making conflict inevitable.
2.Confront Germany directly. At the time, Britain had the power to crush Germany.

However, destroying Germany would come at a high cost. Meanwhile, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union would gain opportunities to rise, potentially replacing Britain as the world’s top power. This was not in Britain’s best interest.

Thus, Chamberlain pursued appeasement, withdrawing British forces while sacrificing Czechoslovakia to provoke a German-Soviet war. Since Czechoslovakia was close to the Soviet Union, it could serve as a trigger for conflict between the two powers. If Germany and the USSR exhausted each other, Britain could step in at the right moment to claim victory.

Even in the worst-case scenario—where either Germany or the Soviet Union emerged victorious—the threat to Britain would be limited. Both nations were land-based powers, while Britain, with its superior navy, could still maintain control over the seas.

The real challenge to Britain’s dominance was the United States. To counter the U.S., Britain needed to preserve its naval strength rather than waste resources on land battles.

However, Chamberlain’s health was failing—he had cancer and was forced to resign. His successor, Winston Churchill, abandoned appeasement, adopting a hardline stance against Germany, leading Britain into full-scale war.

Even after Nazi-occupied France surrendered, Hitler desperately sought peace with Britain. The second-highest-ranking Nazi leader, Rudolf Hess, even flew to Britain in an attempt to negotiate. But Churchill refused, vowing to fight Germany to the end.

What was the result? After exhausting itself to defeat Germany, Britain was left utterly drained. Its global empire crumbled, and the British pound was replaced by the U.S. dollar. Britain handed over its status as the world’s top power to America.

Looking back, whose strategy was actually correct from Britain’s perspective?

A century later, history is repeating itself. The U.S. remains the world’s dominant power but is in decline, struggling to maintain control.

Meanwhile, China is rapidly rising, quietly building its strength. Its industrial output has not only surpassed that of the U.S. but now exceeds that of the entire Western world combined.

Russia, on the other hand, is stirring up trouble in Europe—invading Georgia in 2008, annexing Crimea in 2014, seizing parts of eastern Ukraine, and launching a full-scale invasion in 2022.

The key difference is that Britain once started with appeasement before switching to a hardline stance, whereas the U.S. began with confrontation before shifting toward appeasement.

But does the U.S. still have the means to sustain its tough stance? With trillion-dollar deficits and a national debt of $37 trillion, can it continue pouring billions into Ukraine?

Trump sees this clearly. If he returns to power, he will immediately revert to appeasement—sacrificing Ukraine’s interests to end the war, refocusing America’s efforts on countering China’s rise.

Even if critics label him the modern-day Chamberlain, Trump remains steadfast in his commitment to appeasement. Because, from his perspective, history has already proven him right.