Molotov–Ribbentrop is an fitting analogy. Another fitting analogy is Sykes-Picot. Neither is a perfect fit. Both reflect arrogant imperialist nations deciding they can redraw other people’s borders without including those other people in the discussion. But, specifically common with Molotov–Ribbentrop is the current discussions normalizing that powerful nations who start wars of conquest should be entitled to keep (and ethnically cleanse) what they have seized. Trump has also mused about American expansions through conquests of military and other coercive means (economic force). It is very much in Canada’s interests that the road to any internationally recognized peace agreement include Ukraine in defining that solution … and, if any belligerent is excluded from the discussion, the excluded party should ne the one that started the conquest invasion.
I don’t think a Putin/Trump solution that excludes Ukraine from discussion can be defended via the Neville Chamberlain argument of give the bad man what he wants and he will stop doing the bad things. Appeasement did not avoid Hitler & Stalin carving Poland, and it will not stop Putin from invading & ethnically cleansing neighbours.
