Is there a way to end the war in Ukraine? History may be the answer.

By Ricardo Richards

Abraham Maslow argued: “When the only tool you have is a hammer, the temptation is to treat everything like a nail.” The war in Ukraine is a dangerous example of this.

Given Volodymyr Zelensky’s promise to fight to the bitter end, it is tempting to see a military approach as the optimal response. Yet history offers a cautionary tale about the use of force.

After World War II, the Soviet Union cast a shadow over the beleaguered democracies after occupying the formerly independent countries of Eastern Europe, but the Allies decided not to intervene.

Under the leadership of the United States, NATO was formed and the countries of the alliance invested in their mutual defense to deter further Russian aggression.

The US nuclear umbrella ensured that an attack on a member country would be met with retaliation. Perhaps most important, however, was the soft power the West wielded as a beacon of freedom. When the US and its allies offered political asylum to anyone who wanted to defect to the West and denied them basic civil rights, countless Soviet citizens joined the flood of dissidents denied political asylum.

Russia and its satellite states were also barred from trading with the richer, more prosperous democracies. With the tightening of sanctions, chronic shortages became a daily issue in the Soviet Union. When citizens learned that there was a higher standard of living on the other side of the wall, many of them risked life and limb to gain freedom in the West. Others took up arms and tried, like Ukraine today, to forge an independent path free from Russian rule.

Notable examples include Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Old newsreels from that period echo Zelensky’s desperate cry for help as Russian tanks invaded, but NATO was unwilling to cross the border when it came to arms supplies.

As with the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising more than a decade earlier, the Western powers did not actively support the Czechs in their “Prague Spring” because NATO’s obligations under Article 5 do not apply to non-NATO countries.

Our predecessors in the Cold War also knew that confrontation with Russia would be unwise if nuclear weapons were on the table. Less than a quarter of a century later, the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet system collapsed, and the Cold War ended without the West having to fire a shot.

The Soviet republics and the surrounding satellite states peacefully declared their independence, thereby demonstrating that the peoples of Eastern Europe can only be truly free if the Russian people are also free.

There are three lessons to be learned from this period.

First, political goals can be achieved without military force. They may take longer, but they cost less blood and money. Second, economic sanctions can be hard on a country and undermine morale over time. When people see their friends and family enjoying the fruits of a free society in their neighboring countries, they will join them.

Finally, political asylum will encourage oppressed people to flee. Not only will many Russian citizens defect, but Russian soldiers in Ukraine may surrender en masse if offered amnesty. This could do more to end the war than another round of ammunition.

Zelensky’s persistence is reminiscent of General Douglas MacArthur’s strategic retreat from the Philippines after the invasion of Japan. MacArthur vowed, “I will return,” and he returned when the balance of power shifted nearly three years later.

Zelensky would do well to follow MacArthur’s example and head a provisional government in exile until the arc of justice bends toward freedom and he, too, can return victorious.

The choice is clear: we can learn from the past or condemn another generation to a stalemate and a bloodbath the likes of which Europe has not seen since the trenches of World War I. With history as a guide, we can help resist the temptation to swing the heavy hammer of our military power when the best tool in our arsenal is the power of our ideals.

Ricardo Richards holds a PhD in international relations from the University of Cambridge. He teaches sociology, American government, and international relations at Miami Dade College.