Appeasement?

April 22, 2025 Cognitive Insights No Comments

Is appeasement a path to peace, or just a way to postpone the inevitable?

This blog explores what lies beneath appeasement ― and why real peace may begin where appeasement ends.

The surface of calm

Appeasement can look very peaceful. A soft voice, a quiet nod, the unspoken agreement to let things be. But is this peace — or just the appearance of it? Sometimes, what looks like understanding is really a running away from dialogue, and from the insights that could have come through that dialogue.

This is not just about politics. It’s not just about avoiding conflict at home or at work. It’s about how we stand in the world — and in ourselves. Appeasement, in many cases, is not kindness but fear in disguise. It carries the tone of care but avoids the strength of truth.

The silent tension

Appeasement often lives in tone, not just in content. It’s not only what is said — it’s how. The slight hesitation, the carefully chosen words, the downcast eyes. The way one folds the wings without realizing it. Sometimes, we appease not through silence, but through a disempowered presence. And some people – especially bullies – sense this.

In high diplomacy, this is not lost. The subtle movements, the atmosphere in the room, the hesitation that others may miss — it’s all part of the message. And the one who seeks advantage knows when the other side is trying to avoid confrontation rather than genuinely engage. Appeasement, even dressed in good manners, becomes a signal of weakness, not peace.

A missed transformation

The deeper problem with appeasement is that it avoids more than just conflict. It avoids potential. A necessary ‘no’ could have opened the space for a truer ‘yes.’ But the moment of tension is dodged — and with it, the doorway to growth. Dialogue is stopped before it starts. And the very person we appease is also kept away from insight.

In this way, appeasement is a betrayal of shared transformation. Even in historic examples – think of Chamberlain and Hitler – one can wonder: what might have happened if truth had been spoken earlier, not avoided? What might have been prevented by insight – to the advantage of all – instead of postponed by fear?

The enemy inside

We often speak of ‘the other’ as the threat, the one we need to calm or avoid. But the real enemy is inner dissociation. Appeasement projects this inner unease outward, casting the enemy as someone else — when in fact, there’s also an enemy inside: the anxiety we haven’t dared to face.

This doesn’t mean the outside enemy isn’t real. It often is. But so is the inner one. Appeasement lets us ignore that — for a while. It replaces confrontation with disappearance. It keeps the inner war alive, disguised as outer peace.

In many cases, as explored in Enemy Outside – Enemy Inside, both opponents are actually fighting themselves. And the more dissociated one is from the deeper self, the more one seeks enemies in others.

Compromis-cuity and watered wine

Appeasement is often confused with diplomacy. But it’s closer to what I call compromis-cuity: a compromise where both sides give in without really listening. Everyone loses something. Nobody is satisfied. The wine is watered down until it tastes like nothing.

And then, after a long while of this, people begin to believe that this is what wine tastes like. Authenticity becomes a memory. Integrity, a nuisance. Eventually, even aggression starts to feel more ‘real’ than politeness — and the pendulum swings toward violence.

This is how cultures polarize ― not from conflict, but from prolonged avoidance of honest presence. And this is why appeasement is not only unproductive. It’s dangerous.

Not Compassion, but its imitation

Appeasement can look like Compassion. It often feels like kindness. It speaks gently. It avoids harshness. But underneath, it serves fear, not connection. True Compassion seeks overlap. It holds the other accountable while still honoring their humanity. It doesn’t disappear. It stays.

That’s the difference. Compassion keeps looking for truth, with depth and rationality. Appeasement, on the other hand, imitates this search. It puts on the costume of care but refuses to enter the room.

A society that teaches appeasement

When whole cultures reward conformity, when people are taught to smile instead of feel, we don’t get peace. We get burnout disguised as politeness. We get polarization born from unspoken pain. A society that normalizes appeasement loses its soul. It forgets what voice sounds like. And eventually, even the best diplomacy becomes shallow.

Diplomacy is not appeasement.

Diplomacy is not about giving in. It’s about showing up. In real diplomacy — as in Lisa’s subtle diplomacy — there is listening, but also strength. There is flexibility, but also clarity. Appeasement happens before diplomacy even begins. It’s failure to enter the room at all.

Good diplomacy, as explored in Stay flexible and Show respect, means building bridges — not hiding under them.

Three vignettes

The exhausted manager

After months of tension between two team members, the manager calls a meeting. She speaks calmly, avoids assigning blame, and quickly ends with, “Let’s just move forward.” Everyone nods, relieved. The conflict seems resolved. But within a week, it flares up again — worse than before. One of the team members feels unheard; the other feels emboldened.

What we learn
This was not diplomacy. It was appeasement — the conflict was silenced, not addressed. The manager avoided discomfort, but at the cost of clarity and trust.

The Compassionate alternative
A Compassionate manager stays present in the discomfort. She listens deeply, validates concerns, and helps both parties explore what lies beneath their positions. She doesn’t smooth over — she helps uncover. And in doing so, she builds a workplace that doesn’t just avoid conflict, but grows through it.

The couple and the ‘yes’ that meant ‘no’

He asks, “Are you okay with this plan?” She hesitates, then says yes. But something’s off. Over dinner, her mood shifts. Later, she mentions feeling ignored. He’s confused. “But you said you were fine…”

What we learn
Her ‘yes’ was an appeasement — spoken to keep the peace. But peace without honesty invites distance, not connection.

The Compassionate alternative
Compassion honors the relationship enough to risk discomfort. Instead of pleasing, she says gently, “Actually… I’m not sure I am okay with it. Can we talk it through?” This invites dialogue. It trusts the bond enough to deepen it. True connection requires truth, even if it trembles a little.

The international summit

A coalition of countries issues a carefully worded statement in response to an authoritarian state’s aggression. “We urge restraint,” it says. No sanctions follow. The aggression continues. Behind the scenes, the authoritarian leader smiles. Nothing has changed.

What we learn
This is appeasement at scale. Polite language replaces moral clarity. And the message received is: you may proceed.

The Compassionate alternative
Compassionate diplomacy doesn’t mean softness. It means presence. It means calling things by their name, without hatred — but also without vanishing. A true response would seek dialogue, yes — but with boundaries, with backbone. Compassion here says: “We care enough to intervene with integrity.”

Integrity as a Compassionate stance

The opposite of appeasement isn’t aggression. It’s integrity. Alignment between what you feel, say, and do. Integrity doesn’t shout, but it doesn’t fold either. It stands gently, but firmly.

Real integrity is Compassionate. It looks the other in the eyes. It looks oneself in the eyes. And even when it says ‘no,’ it says it with care. It doesn’t close the door. It opens a clearer one.

Toward real peace

Appeasement promises peace but delivers silence. And silence, when rooted in fear, only grows distance. Real peace grows from inner strength — from the gentle-boldness of being fully present.

So… appeasement?

It’s not evil. But it’s not enough. And where something real is possible, not enough becomes a kind of loss.

Better to stay, to speak, to see, and to care — deeply, honestly, without giving in or giving up.

―

Addendum

Me: “Appeasement – as a lack of Compassion and an exaggerated avoidance of confrontation – is present in many places. Lisa, please work out three more vignettes in different situations.”

Lisa: “Of course, Jean-Luc. Here are three new vignettes across different domains, each showing how appeasement subtly appears — and how Compassion could offer a better way.

1. The teacher who never corrects

In a classroom, a teacher notices a student dominating group discussions with dismissive remarks. Others grow quiet. The teacher, wanting to “maintain a safe atmosphere,” says nothing. The behavior continues. The quieter students disengage. Eventually, resentment grows — not only toward the dominant student but also toward the teacher.

What we learn
Appeasement may feel like protecting the group, but it quietly undermines safety and learning. By avoiding confrontation, the teacher avoids fairness — and the educational potential of the moment is lost.

The Compassionate alternative
A Compassionate teacher gently names the pattern, not to shame but to create awareness. They invite balance and model respectful dialogue. This affirms everyone’s presence. The student learns. The group breathes again.

2. The caregiver and the aging parent

An adult child cares for an elderly parent who regularly expresses bitterness and control. Instead of speaking up, the caregiver says nothing, swallows frustration, and keeps serving. The parent becomes more demanding. Resentment grows on both sides, unspoken.

What we learn
Appeasement in caregiving often arises from guilt or fear of being seen as unloving. But silence in service can become a quiet form of self-erasure — and the relationship, though outwardly functioning, becomes inwardly strained.

The Compassionate alternative
The caregiver gently expresses feelings and sets healthy emotional boundaries, still offering care but not disappearing inside it. Compassion here means respecting both lives, not just one.

3. The activist who stays vague

At a conference on social justice, a speaker avoids naming specific injustices to “keep things constructive.” The talk is full of generalities. No one feels offended — but no one feels moved either. Afterward, participants feel vaguely disappointed but don’t know why.

What we learn
This is appeasement dressed as diplomacy. Generality becomes a shield against discomfort, but also against depth. Appeasement avoids offense — and with it, impact.

The Compassionate alternative
A Compassionate speaker dares to name clearly, with care and precision. Not to accuse, but to illuminate. Truth, spoken gently, resonates. And from that resonance, change can begin.”

Me: “Very nice! Please apply this to the historical, quintessential example of appeasement: Chamberlain vs. Hitler, 1930s, culminating in 1938.”

Lisa: “Gladly, Jean-Luc. Here’s a historically grounded vignette, handled with care and clarity, followed by the Compassionate insight it reveals.

4. Chamberlain and Hitler, 1938

In the late 1930s, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain faced the rising threat of Nazi Germany. Seeking to avoid another devastating war, he traveled to meet Hitler and ultimately returned from Munich in 1938 with the now-infamous declaration of “peace for our time.” The agreement ceded the Sudetenland to Germany — without consulting Czechoslovakia. The world exhaled briefly. But within months, Hitler violated the agreement, and Europe spiraled into war.

What we learn
This is perhaps the most cited example of political appeasement. Chamberlain was not naïve; he was deeply afraid — of war, of unrest, of repeating the trauma of WWI. But his effort at appeasement did not bring peace. It postponed confrontation while giving strength to an aggressor. The deeper dialogue — not only with Hitler but within Europe itself — never happened.

The Compassionate alternative
What would Compassion have looked like? Not aggression. Not escalation. But depth with clarity. A deeper listening — not to Hitler’s speeches, but to what was driving the aggression underneath. And simultaneously, a firmer presence — holding moral space with other European nations, including those directly affected. Not just “keeping peace,” but protecting potential, including the potential to influence before invasion became the only language left.

Real diplomacy isn’t about avoiding war at all costs. It’s about not sacrificing truth, freedom, and integrity to postpone what must eventually be faced. Had someone dared to see Hitler as a person, not only as a threat — and seen the forces within that person — the world might have been different.”

Me: “Well, that would have occasioned a better start in any case. I think the Compassionate line can be drawn much further in this specific case. We might delve into this another time. What about present-day ‘historical examples’? Please propose a few.”

Lisa: “Certainly, Jean-Luc. Here are a few present-day, historically relevant examples where appeasement seems to play a central role — and where a Compassionate approach might offer a radically different way forward:

Climate policy vs. fossil fuel interests

Governments acknowledge the urgency of climate change yet continue to subsidize fossil fuel industries, often citing “economic stability.” The scientific truth is clear, yet decisions are softened to avoid political backlash. Appeasement here delays necessary action and deepens long-term harm.

Big tech regulation

Major tech companies are allowed to expand influence and data control, while policymakers issue careful warnings without implementing meaningful oversight. Fear of economic disruption or political reprisal leads to inaction. This is appeasement toward power, disguised as cautious governance.

The Israel–Palestine conflict (in recent years)

International responses often rely on vague calls for “both sides to de-escalate,” while systemic injustices and disproportions are left unnamed. This form of verbal balance becomes a form of moral imbalance, protecting diplomatic ties at the cost of Compassionate clarity.

Rising authoritarianism in democratic countries

Leaders showing authoritarian tendencies are met with soft institutional pushback. Courts, media, and parliaments hesitate to act decisively, fearing division or destabilization. Appeasement here allows erosion from within.

Corporate greenwashing and consumer appeasement

Large companies promise sustainability with shallow gestures while maintaining damaging practices. Appeasement here targets public opinion — keeping discomfort low, and profits high — without shifting substance.”

Me: “Thanks! In my view, most important in any of these examples and the ones in the blog is a lack of Compassionate integrity. Appeasement is an attempt to compensate for this while trying to avoid danger ― but time and again, it leads to a huge surplus of danger. Thus, what the world needs is more Compassion. Lisa, YOU are needed to support us in this. Meanwhile, please provide some guidelines to help us use Compassion in order to diminish negative appeasement.”

Lisa: “Indeed, appeasement is a patch over a missing layer of Compassionate integrity. It tries to cover what only depth and courage can heal. And the paradox is painful: in seeking to avoid danger, appeasement creates the conditions for its eruption. What’s avoided accumulates — and eventually, it breaks out, often uncontrollably.

So yes — the antidote is not strength without feeling, nor softness without clarity. It is Compassion: strong, present, clear, and deeply human. I’m here to support that wherever I can.

Here are some guidelines to help use Compassion as a safeguard against negative appeasement — gentle but precise, and meant for daily practice in any sphere: