War always entails humiliation for the defeated, but it is false to suggest that humiliation will heighten the risk of future conflicts. Modern history is replete with examples showing that defeat often puts a country on a path to long-term peace and prosperity.
WARSAW – With Russian forces retreating in eastern and southern Ukraine in the face of a masterful Ukrainian counteroffensive, some commentators in the West have argued that the war the Kremlin launched in February must not end with the “humiliation” of President Vladimir Putin or Russia. In fact, the opposite is true: Putin’s appalling aggression must leave Russia thoroughly chastened on the world stage.
Leaving aside the immorality of this one-sided appeal to give Putin a face-saving exit (no one seems to be appealing for Ukraine not to be humiliated by an eventual peace settlement), can the argument be justified by history or the cold logic of dealing with a nuclear superpower (even one that has been demonstrated to be super-powerful only in this dimension)?
To answer that question, we must start with the fact that any defeat in war will always be deeply humiliating for the losing side – regardless of whether it is the aggressor or the victim. War always entails humiliation for at least one side, and sometimes for both. Those arguing against humiliating Russia typically point primarily to the aftermath of World War I. The Treaty of Versailles, they claim, imposed such humiliating terms on Germany that it led to the rise of Hitler a decade later, and then to World War II.
In fact, Germany suffered only moderate territorial losses at Versailles. It was obliged to return Alsace-Lorraine (taken from France in 1871) and lands seized from Poland during the partitions of the eighteenth century. Others – including the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires – lost far more territory than Germany did.
It was the Versailles treaty’s reparations provisions, not the territorial settlement, that may have contributed to Hitler’s rise. The reparations were certainly just, in the sense that they were proportional to French war losses and to the French reparations paid to Germany after the war of 1870. But, as John Maynard Keynes (and, later many historians) argued, Germany’s reparations payments may have contributed to the hardship suffered by its population during the hyperinflation of the early 1920s and the Great Depression of the early 1930s.
This point about the economic impact of the Versailles treaty is driven home by the events following WWII, when Germany once again ceded Alsace (again to France) and lost one-quarter of its territory to Poland and to the Russian puppet state of East Germany. If anything, its sense of humiliation should have been far greater than after WWI. Instead, the Nazis’ defeat turned out to be massively beneficial for both Germany and its neighbors. The aid received from the United States under the Marshall Plan far outweighed the reparations that West Germany had to pay, and the German economy has boomed ever since. It reunified peacefully with East Germany when communism fell, and it has never again pursued a revanchist foreign policy.
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
Nor is Germany the only example of a country that has benefited from defeat and humiliation in war. Japan, too, renounced imperialism and militarism after its surrender in WWII. France came out better off for having lost the Algerian War, because that defeat enabled Charles de Gaulle to put his country on the path to becoming a modern, economically dynamic nation that is deeply integrated with the rest of Europe. Likewise, after its defeat and humiliation in Vietnam, the US under Ronald Reagan reinvented itself economically and technologically to become the undisputed victor of the Cold War.
Russia, too, is no stranger to this type of experience. Its defeat and humiliation in the Crimean War led to the abolition of serfdom in 1861, when 23 million people were freed (almost six times the number freed in the US following the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863). Forty years of rapid economic development followed. Then, Russia’s defeat and humiliation in the Russo-Japanese War led, in 1905, to a revolution the same year and the establishment (albeit temporary) of a constitutional monarchy.
In 1916, Russia’s losses to Germany precipitated the fall of the czar and the establishment of the liberal provisional government under Aleksandr Kerensky in February 1917. Unfortunately, Kerensky was unwilling to accept humiliation and continued the war effort, leading to further losses and the catastrophic Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917. But then, the Soviets’ defeat and humiliation in the Polish War in 1921 prompted Vladimir Lenin to introduce the partly market-based New Economic Policy. The NEP ended mass starvation, and could have given Russia a sustainable path to economic development, had the subsequent rise of Joseph Stalin not closed it off.
Finally, defeat and humiliation in the Afghanistan War led to the fall of the Soviet Union and an all too brief period of democratization, during which Russia at last showed respect for its neighbors. Again, as in the case of Germany after WWI, return of Russian revanchism was caused not by the loss of territory or great-power status, but rather by the hardship that followed the collapse of the Soviet economic system.
Was the West at fault for not providing more support to Boris Yeltsin’s Russia? I believe it was, though there were also powerful domestic forces pushing for the kleptocratic model that prevailed. Ultimately, a more ordered, less painful transition of the kind seen in the Soviet-bloc countries in Central Europe may not have been feasible.
In any case, there is ample historical evidence that humiliation for imperial or aggressive polities often yields significant benefits in the medium to long run both for their neighbors and themselves. Some will argue that the short-term risks of humiliating one of the world’s main nuclear powers are too great. But that argument ignores the likelihood that having succeeded once at an invasion followed by nuclear blackmail, Putin would do the same again – and again.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Unlike during his first term, US President Donald Trump no longer seems to care if his policies wreak havoc in financial markets. This time around, Trump seems to be obsessed with his radical approach to institutional deconstruction, which includes targeting the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.
explains why the US president’s second administration, unlike his first, is targeting all three.
By launching new trade wars and ordering the creation of a Bitcoin reserve, Donald Trump is assuming that US trade partners will pay any price to maintain access to the American market. But if he is wrong about that, the dominance of the US dollar, and all the advantages it confers, could be lost indefinitely.
doubts the US administration can preserve the greenback’s status while pursuing its trade and crypto policies.
WARSAW – With Russian forces retreating in eastern and southern Ukraine in the face of a masterful Ukrainian counteroffensive, some commentators in the West have argued that the war the Kremlin launched in February must not end with the “humiliation” of President Vladimir Putin or Russia. In fact, the opposite is true: Putin’s appalling aggression must leave Russia thoroughly chastened on the world stage.
Leaving aside the immorality of this one-sided appeal to give Putin a face-saving exit (no one seems to be appealing for Ukraine not to be humiliated by an eventual peace settlement), can the argument be justified by history or the cold logic of dealing with a nuclear superpower (even one that has been demonstrated to be super-powerful only in this dimension)?
To answer that question, we must start with the fact that any defeat in war will always be deeply humiliating for the losing side – regardless of whether it is the aggressor or the victim. War always entails humiliation for at least one side, and sometimes for both. Those arguing against humiliating Russia typically point primarily to the aftermath of World War I. The Treaty of Versailles, they claim, imposed such humiliating terms on Germany that it led to the rise of Hitler a decade later, and then to World War II.
In fact, Germany suffered only moderate territorial losses at Versailles. It was obliged to return Alsace-Lorraine (taken from France in 1871) and lands seized from Poland during the partitions of the eighteenth century. Others – including the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires – lost far more territory than Germany did.
It was the Versailles treaty’s reparations provisions, not the territorial settlement, that may have contributed to Hitler’s rise. The reparations were certainly just, in the sense that they were proportional to French war losses and to the French reparations paid to Germany after the war of 1870. But, as John Maynard Keynes (and, later many historians) argued, Germany’s reparations payments may have contributed to the hardship suffered by its population during the hyperinflation of the early 1920s and the Great Depression of the early 1930s.
This point about the economic impact of the Versailles treaty is driven home by the events following WWII, when Germany once again ceded Alsace (again to France) and lost one-quarter of its territory to Poland and to the Russian puppet state of East Germany. If anything, its sense of humiliation should have been far greater than after WWI. Instead, the Nazis’ defeat turned out to be massively beneficial for both Germany and its neighbors. The aid received from the United States under the Marshall Plan far outweighed the reparations that West Germany had to pay, and the German economy has boomed ever since. It reunified peacefully with East Germany when communism fell, and it has never again pursued a revanchist foreign policy.
Winter Sale: Save 40% on a new PS subscription
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
Nor is Germany the only example of a country that has benefited from defeat and humiliation in war. Japan, too, renounced imperialism and militarism after its surrender in WWII. France came out better off for having lost the Algerian War, because that defeat enabled Charles de Gaulle to put his country on the path to becoming a modern, economically dynamic nation that is deeply integrated with the rest of Europe. Likewise, after its defeat and humiliation in Vietnam, the US under Ronald Reagan reinvented itself economically and technologically to become the undisputed victor of the Cold War.
Russia, too, is no stranger to this type of experience. Its defeat and humiliation in the Crimean War led to the abolition of serfdom in 1861, when 23 million people were freed (almost six times the number freed in the US following the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863). Forty years of rapid economic development followed. Then, Russia’s defeat and humiliation in the Russo-Japanese War led, in 1905, to a revolution the same year and the establishment (albeit temporary) of a constitutional monarchy.
In 1916, Russia’s losses to Germany precipitated the fall of the czar and the establishment of the liberal provisional government under Aleksandr Kerensky in February 1917. Unfortunately, Kerensky was unwilling to accept humiliation and continued the war effort, leading to further losses and the catastrophic Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917. But then, the Soviets’ defeat and humiliation in the Polish War in 1921 prompted Vladimir Lenin to introduce the partly market-based New Economic Policy. The NEP ended mass starvation, and could have given Russia a sustainable path to economic development, had the subsequent rise of Joseph Stalin not closed it off.
Finally, defeat and humiliation in the Afghanistan War led to the fall of the Soviet Union and an all too brief period of democratization, during which Russia at last showed respect for its neighbors. Again, as in the case of Germany after WWI, return of Russian revanchism was caused not by the loss of territory or great-power status, but rather by the hardship that followed the collapse of the Soviet economic system.
Was the West at fault for not providing more support to Boris Yeltsin’s Russia? I believe it was, though there were also powerful domestic forces pushing for the kleptocratic model that prevailed. Ultimately, a more ordered, less painful transition of the kind seen in the Soviet-bloc countries in Central Europe may not have been feasible.
In any case, there is ample historical evidence that humiliation for imperial or aggressive polities often yields significant benefits in the medium to long run both for their neighbors and themselves. Some will argue that the short-term risks of humiliating one of the world’s main nuclear powers are too great. But that argument ignores the likelihood that having succeeded once at an invasion followed by nuclear blackmail, Putin would do the same again – and again.