In the 20th century, Europe tried every strategy to keep the peace. First, we tried deterrence. Touch a hair on my brother's chin, and I'm going to give you a

In the 20th century, Europe tried every strategy to keep the peace. First, we tried deterrence. Touch a hair on my brother's chin, and I'm going to give you a haircut you won't forget. That didn't work. Blew up in our faces, WW1. Then we tried appeasement. That didn't work. Blew up in our faces, WW2. Finally we tried economic cooperation. Make everyone rich and interdependent, and they won't want to go war. That worked spectacularly, and ever since we've been milking that successful strategy for everything it's worth. People are very eager to talk about how that strategy failed with Putin, but what they forget is that this is the only winning strategy there is. We are switching over to deterrence now, but we're doing it for lack of a better choice, not because it's a winning strategy. If we had switched over to deterrence (or appeasement) earlier, it would not have fixed anything, it would only have changed the manner in which things went wrong. "But doux commerce—the notion that money talks, walks, and wants peace—is well and truly buried." I'm hearing the words of an American who's still at step 1, deterrence. It may be a long time, but eventually we will need to get back to the winning strategy.