The Game of Interests in Appeasement: Countries Bowing to Dictators for Their Own Considerations

Starting today, I only sympathize with the Ukrainian people and no longer support the Ukrainian government. Such a low-cognition government should step down!

In the arena of international politics, the term "appeasement" is often used to describe the actions of countries making concessions to aggressive or authoritarian regimes in order to avoid conflict. This strategy stems from Britain's connivance with Nazi Germany before World War II, which ultimately led to a global catastrophe. Today, we see similar phenomena repeating themselves: when facing dictators, countries often prioritize their own interests rather than principles or morality. Recently, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the Munich Security Conference, reiterating adherence to the "one-China principle" and promising to protect the rights and interests of Chinese citizens and enterprises in Ukraine. This statement may seem like diplomatic etiquette, but it actually exposes the core logic of international relations—every country is appeasing dictators for its own interests. If the Ukrainian government holds this kind of cognition, getting "beaten up" when facing Russian aggression can only be said to serve it right, because it ignores the fact that the cost of appeasement is often a greater crisis.

First, let us examine this move by Ukraine. Ukraine is deeply bogged down in the quagmire of war with Russia and urgently needs international support, especially aid from major powers. As the world's second-largest economy, China has potential influence in promoting a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine crisis. Sybiha's statement is not an isolated incident, but part of Ukraine's long-term diplomatic strategy. As early as the tenure of former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine repeatedly stated publicly that it adheres to the one-China policy and avoids angering Beijing on the Taiwan issue. During this meeting, Ukraine emphasized that China and Ukraine are "important strategic partners" and hoped that China would play a greater role in ceasefire and humanitarian aid. On the surface, this is a pragmatic move to seek help: Ukraine needs funds, weapons, and diplomatic mediation, and China can provide these resources. But in essence, this is appeasement—currying favor with Beijing, which has been accused of being an authoritarian regime, for short-term gains. Ukraine has not officially recognized Taiwan's independence nor established diplomatic relations with it, which is consistent with its consistent position, but is this act of bowing for support truly beneficial to national security?

Looking globally, such phenomena of appeasement are everywhere. Western countries have also made concessions for interests many times when facing Russia. After Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, although the EU and the US implemented sanctions, many countries continued to rely on Russian natural gas and oil supplies. Germany's Nord Stream pipeline project is a typical example: for energy security, Merkel's government turned a blind eye to Putin's expansionism. It was not until the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022 that the West truly cut off its energy dependence, but this was already a post-facto remedy. Similarly, when facing China, the appeasement by the US and the EU is even more complex. US companies rely on Chinese supply chains, and tech giants like Apple and Tesla have huge investments in China. Even as the US-China trade war is in full swing, corporate lobbying groups still push to ease relations. European countries such as France and Germany are visiting China frequently for economic interests; the visits of Macron and Scholz to China both emphasized "strategic autonomy" while actually avoiding losses caused by decoupling from China. These behaviors are nothing less than appeasement: compromising with an authoritarian regime for economic interests while ignoring human rights and democratic values.

Let us look at examples in the Middle East and Asia. Saudi Arabia, as an authoritarian monarchy, is favored by the West because of its oil resources. The US has long provided military support even as Saudi Arabia became embroiled in the Yemen war and human rights scandals. India also chooses appeasement when facing China: despite frequent border clashes between China and India, Modi's government maintains economic and trade cooperation to avoid all-out confrontation because China is an important trading partner for India. Even small countries like the Philippines curried favor with China during the Duterte era in the South China Sea dispute to exchange for infrastructure investment, although this sacrificed sovereignty claims. These cases prove that appeasement is not the patent of weak countries, but a global chronic ailment. Every country calculates its interest ledger: short-term economic gains, energy security, and geopolitical strategic balance often override moral considerations.

However, the cost of appeasement often exceeds expectations. The history of World War II tells us that connivance with Hitler led to a global war. Today, Ukraine's plight is a living lesson. If the Ukrainian government believes that it can exchange for support against Russia by appeasing China, it ignores the tacit understanding between dictators. Russia and China are allies of each other in the UN Security Council, and Beijing is unwilling to publicly condemn Moscow's aggression. Although Ukraine's statements have won the favor of the Chinese side, China has not yet provided substantial military aid, limiting itself to humanitarian and diplomatic mediation. More ironically, while seeking help, Ukraine reiterated the one-China principle while facing Russian artillery fire at home. This reflects its cognitive bias: appeasing dictators is not a long-term solution, and may instead encourage more aggression. If Ukraine had realized earlier that principles such as territorial integrity and democratic values are not negotiable, it might have strengthened its defenses before the war and avoided today's passive situation. Being "beaten up" by Russia is not destiny, but the consequence of an appeasement mentality—it makes the country weak in front of powerful forces and loses international credibility.

Of course, appeasement is not entirely wrong. In a multipolar world, the games between countries are complex, and absolute confrontation may trigger a greater catastrophe. But the problem is that much appeasement is short-sighted, sacrificing long-term security for immediate interests. The international community should reflect on how to maintain the bottom line while safeguarding interests—for example, through multilateral mechanisms such as the United Nations or the European Union to collectively pressure dictators rather than acting individually. Ukraine's case reminds us that appeasement is like drinking poison to quench thirst, and the ultimate victim is oneself.

In short, every country is appeasing dictators for its own interests; this is not a conspiracy, but a portrayal of realpolitik. If Ukraine continues with this cognition, being invaded by Russia can only be said to serve it right, because it has forgotten the historical lesson: appeasement often trades for a greater war. Only by awakening and prioritizing the defense of principles can a country gain a foothold in troubled times.