IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

From Munich to Munich

By Bret Stephens

But it was Lindsey Graham who put in the most impressive

performance of the [Munich] conference. Do you really believe any of this
you have heard [from the Russians]? the South Carolina Republican asked
of Ms. Merkel from the conference stage. Who are you trying to upset? Are
you worried about upsetting people who just lie to your face and could give
a damn about their neighbor and the rule of law? How about trying to help
somebody that you actually do have something in common with?
He continued:
I dont know how this ends if you give [the Ukrainians] a defensive
capability. But I know this: I will feel better because when my nation was
needed to stand up to the garbage and stand for freedom, I stood for
freedom. They may die. They may lose. But all I can tell you is that if
somebody doesnt push back better, were all going to lose.
Mr. Graham tells me that he is seriously considering a run for the
presidency. Why not? The worst that could happen is to expose GOP
primary voters to the views of a foreign-policy heavyweight in an era of
encroaching global disorder.
#####
Full article available below and online: http://on.wsj.com/16KoT9Y

From Munich to Munich

By Bret Stephens
Munich
The news from last weekends annual Security Conference is that Angela Merkel has flatly
refused Kievs pleas to supply it with defensive arms in the face of Russias onslaught in eastern
Ukraine. I cannot envisage any situation in which an improved equipment of the Ukrainian
army leads to a situation where President Putin is so impressed that he will lose militarily, the
German chancellor bluntly told an audience of high-level dignitaries.
To which one might reply that its a good thing Franklin Roosevelt took a different view of
Britains military chances during the Lend-Lease debate of 1941. Or that Harry Truman didnt
give up on West Berlin during the Soviet blockade of 1948.
How Germany chooses to remember its past has always been crucial to Europes future. Modern
Germany is the product of not one but two wars: World War II, in which defeat gave the
Germans their democracy; and the Cold War, in which victory gave the Germans their unity. Yet
Berlins foreign policy is now ruled by the clich that force is neither the answer nor even part of
the answer, whatever the question. This, from a country that is still defended by 50,000
American troops stationed in Germany at an annual cost of some $8 billion.
So its dismaying, to say the least, to watch Ms. Merkel demonstrate how little she understands
of her own history. Look, I grew up in [East Germany], she said during a question-and-answer
session after her speech. As a 7-year-old child I saw the Wall being erected. She went on to
explain that it was reasonable for the West not to respond militarily to the building of the Berlin
Wall, even as it consigned her and millions of Germans to another 28 years of tyranny. And I
dont actually mind, she added. Things take long but Im 100% convinced that our principles
will in the end prevail.
Ms. Merkel seems to think of herself as a latter-day John F. Kennedy, who said at the time that
a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war. But Berlin in 1961 is the wrong analogy. The Soviet
Union wasnt trying to overturn the status quo when it built the Wall; it was trying to salvage it.
Territory wasnt seized. And the West did, in fact, deploy its tanks to Checkpoint Charlie to
make sure the Soviets didnt take another step.
The better analogy, unflattering as it is, is to Munich in 1938. Then, as now, an irredentist
dictator sought to seize foreign territory using as his excuse his obligation to protect persecuted
ethnic cousins and defy an unjust postwar settlement. Then, as now, conflict-averse democratic
leaders tried to pay off the dictator in the coin of someone elses territory. Then, as now, local
paramilitaries sprang up to fight for the cause of their liberation: the Donbass Peoples Militia
is the Sudetendeutsche Legion of our day. Then, as now, an embattled democratic leader was
told he could either swallow a diplomatic fait accompli or shove off.

And then, as now, those Western leaders didnt much seem to mind making agreements with
liars. Ms. Merkel arrived at the conference fresh from a parley with Vladimir Putin in Minsk,
where four months ago Russia had signed a cease-fire agreement that it is now violating. At
Munich, Russian officials did their best Gromyko impressions by denying that there were any
Russian troops in Ukraine.
They lie not because they think they are being believed, but because they know they can get
away with it. The West will usually prefer its illusions to its principles, at least until it has no
other choice but to defend those principles.
***
There were some bright spots at the Munich conference. Joe Biden delivered a powerful
statement in support of Ukraine, probably the best speech of his long career, marred only by the
fact that he does not speak for the president. John McCain dismissed Ms. Merkels position as
foolishness and caused a firestorm of German indignation, one in which they ought to stew.
The similarity of views is a reminder that a bipartisan consensus in foreign policy still exists,
despite the aberration in the White House.
But it was Lindsey Graham who put in the most impressive performance of the conference. Do
you really believe any of this you have heard [from the Russians]? the South Carolina
Republican asked of Ms. Merkel from the conference stage. Who are you trying to upset? Are
you worried about upsetting people who just lie to your face and could give a damn about their
neighbor and the rule of law? How about trying to help somebody that you actually do have
something in common with?
He continued:
I dont know how this ends if you give [the Ukrainians] a defensive capability. But I know this:
I will feel better because when my nation was needed to stand up to the garbage and stand for
freedom, I stood for freedom. They may die. They may lose. But all I can tell you is that if
somebody doesnt push back better, were all going to lose.
Mr. Graham tells me that he is seriously considering a run for the presidency. Why not? The
worst that could happen is to expose GOP primary voters to the views of a foreign-policy
heavyweight in an era of encroaching global disorder.