Content1. Why was the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact signed?2. Consequences of the agreement and reasons for its long-term secrecy3. Comparison with current events: parallels with the Russian–Ukrainian warThis agreement between Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union not only allowed the two totalitarian regimes to divide spheres of influence but also demonstrated how diplomatic “appeasement” of an aggressor can lead to catastrophic consequences. Today, in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, similar ideas are resurfacing: proposals for a diplomatic settlement that would involve dividing Ukraine, with part of its territory handed over to Russia and the rest integrated into the Western sphere. In particular, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his willingness to consider a “land swap” between Ukraine and Russia to quickly end the conflict. This raises alarming parallels with the past, also recalling the 1938 Munich Agreement and the policy of appeasement, which only led to an even greater war.Why was the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact signed?The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, officially known as the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, was signed on August 23, 1939, in Moscow by Foreign Ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov. This document was the culmination of secret negotiations between two ideological enemies—Nazis and Communists—who suddenly found common ground due to pragmatic interests.The reasons for this pact stem from the geopolitical situation of the late 1930s. Führer Adolf Hitler initially sought to avoid a two-front war, which had devastated Germany in World War I. He planned an invasion of Poland but feared Soviet intervention. Meanwhile, Joseph Stalin did not trust the Western democracies - Britain and France - which in 1938 signed the Munich Agreement, ceding the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to Hitler without involving the USSR. Stalin saw this as a kind of betrayal and an opportunity for the West to push German aggression further east. In addition, the USSR aimed to expand its influence in Eastern Europe, particularly in the Baltic states, Finland, and Poland, as Soviet communist policy was, in many ways, intertwined with Russian imperial ambitions.A key element of the pact was a secret protocol that divided Eastern Europe into “spheres of influence”: Germany received western Poland, while the USSR took the eastern part, as well as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and part of Romania. This protocol allowed both sides to avoid confrontation and prepare for further expansion.Consequences of the agreement and reasons for its long-term secrecyThe consequences of the Pact were immediate and devastating. Just a week later, on September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, marking the start of World War II. After some hesitation - Stalin was assessing the situation and seeking a way to “legitimize” the aggression - on September 17 the USSR occupied eastern Poland, claiming to “protect” the population from the Nazis and arguing that, in fact, the British and French were the aggressors who had provoked the conflict.This led to the fourth partition of Poland in history, mass repressions, and deportations: Soviet forces killed thousands of Polish officers in Katyn, while the Germans initiated the Holocaust. The Pact also allowed the USSR to annex the Baltic states in 1940 and attack Finland (the Winter War).Interestingly, despite Poland's guarantees of assistance, the West did not respond immediately. After France and Britain formally declared war on Germany, there was a long period of “phoney war.” At that time, French forces simply stood at the border and watched Germany, but did not attack, which allowed Hitler to conveniently regroup his forces. As a result, in May-June 1940, the Nazis calmly bypassed the French “impregnable” Maginot Line through the Benelux countries and occupied France.For both totalitarian regimes, Nazi and Communist, it was clear that a war between them would happen sooner or later. Ultimately, Hitler was the first to break the agreement with Stalin, and on June 22, 1941, he launched Operation Barbarossa - a lightning attack on the USSR that opened the Eastern Front and led to millions of deaths and massive destruction, especially in Ukraine.The secret protocol on the division of spheres of influence was hidden by the Soviet Union for decades. Official Soviet propaganda denied its existence, portraying the pact as a “peaceful agreement” that supposedly provided time to prepare for war. Only in 1989, during Perestroika, did Mikhail Gorbachev acknowledge the protocol, publishing it in the press. The secrecy was due to ideological discomfort: Stalin could not admit an alliance with the Nazis, as communism was positioned as anti-fascist. Moreover, acknowledging the division of Europe would have undermined the Soviet narrative of the “Great Patriotic War” as a just defense. In reality, this war was merely the protection of one dictator by another, only later evolving into a struggle for the fate of Europe.Comparison with current events: parallels with the Russian–Ukrainian warToday’s situation in Ukraine raises troubling parallels with both the Munich Agreement and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Vladimir Putin, like Stalin and Hitler, seeks to revise borders by force. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s proposals for a diplomatic settlement, including a “land swap” - recognizing Russian control over occupied territories such as Crimea and parts of Donbas (or even all of them) in exchange for peace - echo the short-sighted policy of British Prime Minister Chamberlain, who handed the Sudetenland to Hitler, promising the world “peace,” but in reality set in motion a major war.“Coddling a bloodthirsty murderer with pieces of territory and promises of good behavior didn’t bring “peace in our time. Appeasement will bring Trump no closer than Chamberlain to the Nobel Peace Prize,” American Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal wrote recently.The Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska has caused particular concern. Discussions about Ukraine’s borders closely resemble the secret 1939 protocol, where Poland was divided without its participation and spheres of influence were decided behind closed doors. As Politico notes, the U.S. president believes Ukraine will have to accept a deal largely on Kremlin terms to end the war. In other words, Trump is pushing Ukraine toward peace on Russian terms. Yet Putin’s ultimate goal is to destroy an independent Ukrainian state, just as Hitler aimed to destroy Czechoslovakia. Any peace with an unpunished aggressor can only be a prelude to an even greater war.“Handing over massive fortification lines to an expansionist neighbor hellbent on destroying your state tends to be a bad idea,” Politico points out with a bit of irony.Various experts are drawing parallels. For example, historian and journalist Paul Mason writes that Putin admires the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact because it “justifies imperial ambitions,” similar to the current attempts to “divide” Ukraine.Indeed, as early as 2019, Putin publicly dismissed Western criticism of the 1939 pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, claiming that it was the Western powers, not the USSR, that were responsible for attempts to appease the Nazis, according to AP. For Putin, it was the victim - Poland - that bore the main responsibility for “provoking” World War II, because it was morally guilty due to its own annexations of Czech territory following the 1938 Munich Agreement. A similar narrative is now heard about Ukraine from Russian propagandists: that Russia was forced to attack for its own security and that the “Kyiv regime” is to blame for its problems, rather than the aggressor, Russia, which deliberately attacks civilians every day.The Atlantic Council notes that Putin’s rehabilitation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (which he calls “pragmatic”) underscores the need for real security guarantees for Ukraine, rather than a rushed appeasement of the aggressor.As early as Trump’s second presidency, the Wall Street Journal warned that his fascination with authoritarianism and with Putin - who has been in power for a quarter-century - could ultimately lead to a “new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.” This time, it would be a “Trump-Putin Pact” - a return to old imperial politics, as the Russian leader desires, where major powers decide the fate of smaller ones through force and personal agreements. In effect, this is already happening. Many American analysts have therefore drawn parallels between the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska and the Munich Agreement of 1938 and the 1939 Pact.Renowned historian Timothy Snyder, on the eve of this year's Munich Conference, explained in detail the consequences of appeasement and the importance of resisting it, saying that the symmetry between Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Russia and Ukraine in 2022 is "striking, and by pausing to consider this similarity for a moment, we can take a broader view of the present."“Hitler denied the legitimacy of the Czechoslovak state. As German chancellor, he systematically denied that it had a right to exist. Although its leaders were democratically elected, he claimed that they had no right to rule. He claimed that the existence of national minority gave him the right to intervene in Czechoslovak politics. We know what comes next: Britain and France, together with Germany and Italy, decided in Munich on September 30th that Czechoslovakia should cede crucial border territories to Germany. These were the most defensible parts of the country. Czechoslovakia’s leaders, although they were not consulted, chose to accept the partition of their country…Had Czechoslovakia resisted, however, we can be reasonably confident that there would have been no Second World War, at least not of the sort that Europe experienced beginning in September 1939…Had Czechoslovakia resisted, the much harder for the Soviets to have chosen that most active form of appeasement of the Nazis. It is not clear that Germany would have dared to invade Poland at all without Soviet support,” says Snyder.A well-known quote, attributed either to Albert Einstein or another scientist, says that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. It seems that politicians of the past - and present - are particularly fond of doing just that.Thus, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Munich Agreement show how diplomatic compromises with an aggressor lead not to peace, but to new wars. Today’s various proposals to divide Ukraine risk repeating these mistakes, weakening global security and encouraging autocrats worldwide to use force against their neighbors under the guise of legitimacy. In short, if history teaches anything, it is that sacrificing one country’s sovereignty for the sake of “peace” often becomes merely a prelude to a larger war. Ukraine needs maximum support, not division and the hope that this will be the end of it.