One question, one answer will decide Europe’s fate. How a century-old technique can help hawks rethink Russia to avoid Versailles 2.0. “Every great solution was once a great question.” (The author)Even if history rarely repeats itself exactly, its patterns often echo, chiming and rhyming across generations.In seeking solutions to the conflict in Ukraine, both warring sides frequently invoke familiar historical analogies, trusting they might serve as guiding stars, though their light is but faint – flickering under the weight of reality and treacherously misleading.Yet one often-overlooked parallel blazes with stark, unsettling clarity, demanding closer scrutiny: the settlement that followed the First World War, a cautionary tale whose lessons remain painfully relevant.1. Versailles redux: Lessons ignored, risks rebornAt the Versailles Conference in 1919, the major Entente powers – France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Italy – sought peace but framed Germany, the leader of the Central Powers, as the ultimate aggressor and ever-looming threat, setting the stage for a fragile postwar order fraught with tension and unresolved grievances.As the principal architects of the contentious Treaty of Versailles, the dominant powers approached negotiations as a ruthless zero-sum game – as if dividing a cake, where one slice reduces the others’ – with each move calculated to maximize their gains at Germany’s expense. The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles, 28 June 1919 by William Orpen The punitive measures imposed on what had been the hitherto powerful and proud Second Reich bore witness to deep distrust and deliberate exclusion: crushing reparations (the final tranche was paid by Germany only in 2010), crippling military restrictions, and sweeping territorial losses. Far from fostering reconciliation, the Carthaginian peace entrenched bitter resentment and left Europe exposed and teetering on the brink of its next catastrophic conflict.Remember “History chimes and rhymes”? In The Economic Consequences of the Peace, John Maynard Keynes, a British Treasury official at the Versailles Conference, discerned, with remarkable perspicacity, the toxic consequences of a vindictive settlement. He issued a Cassandra-like prophecy, ignored by those in power:“If the European civil war is to end with France and Italy abusing their momentary victorious power to destroy Germany and Austria-Hungary now prostrate, they invite their own destruction also, being so deeply and inextricably intertwined with their victims by hidden psychic and economic bonds.”Not long afterwards, the economist’s warning, “If we aim deliberately at the impoverishment of Central Europe, vengeance, I dare predict, will not limp”, proved tragically prescient. That vengeance, it turned out, came in the form of Adolf Hitler.In 1919, Germany, though it had not unconditionally surrendered, was compelled to accept peace as the nation hovered on the verge of collapse. Today, the balance of power between Old Europe and Russia – unlike that between the Allies and Germany after the First World War – is one of uneasy parity: Pro-Ukrainian forces wield sanctions and political pressure, yet Russia’s still-formidable military clout keeps the continent locked in a fragile, volatile stalemate.Nonetheless, the helmsmen of Old Europe find themselves trapped in a strikingly similar vicious cycle. In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, they are building on decades of successful efforts to erode Russia’s national brand, further tarnishing its peace credentials. Framing Russia as a grave, perpetual threat to justify relentless military escalation, they have greenlit self-defeating, massive defense projects in but a quixotic attempt to contain a resource-rich adversary.In the shadow of today’s perilous conflict at NATO’s doorstep, a similar paradox persists: Sanctions, military buildup, political isolation, and ideological exclusion mirror the fatefully misbegotten approach of Versailles, allaying immediate fears while corroding long-term trust and undermining geostrategic stability.Echoing the catastrophic miscalculations of 1919, when warped punitive measures against Germany firmly planted the seeds of future ruin, the current ill-conceived game plan teems with unintended consequences. Viewed through the lens of system dynamics, the very steps Old Europe takes to shield itself from Moscow will inexorably drive a spiral of deepening suspicion and hardening enmity, rather than fostering lasting peace and genuine, long-term security.The marked failure of the Old Continent found its most vivid expression in a memorable event in the summer of 2025. During a dramatic visit to the White House on 18 August 2025 – nothing less than an archetypal rite of supplication – Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky assumed the role of the world’s tragicomedian. Adding insult to injury, the ineffectual delegates from Old Europe, powerless to assert real influence, laid their honor and dignity on the altar of might.After this globally televised fiasco, the chiefs of Europe’s anti-Russian bloc desperately need a mental reboot, forced to ponder how to rescue their continent and the rest of the world.2. The Aquinas Toolkit: Reviving a time-honored method for rethinking securityRemarkably, one single question, correctly answered, will determine Europe’s fate and secure global stability – if leaders but dare to confront it fully and wisely. Its simplicity belies its power: Can Old Europe transform Russia from a threat into its greatest asset for security and peace?To answer the make-or-break question, the helmsmen steering the anti-Russian coalition on the Old Continent cannot rely on the confrontational reflexes that have defined Western approaches since the Second World War. Outdated shortcuts must give way to cognitive high tech, averting Versailles 2.0 and replacing conflict with concord – literally, a togetherness of hearts.Intriguingly, the above question, far from being merely a rhetorical gadget, ignites divergent metathinking, a bold new way of thinking combining three mental operations to shatter old habits and uncover truly creative solutions: careful analysis, rigorous questioning assumptions, and audacious imagination. As it turns out, an extraordinarily efficacious instrument for practicing divergent metathinking and grappling with the global security conundrum – one of the most formidable challenges in history – emerges not from today’s think tanks, policy briefs, or 24-hour news cycles, but from centuries past: the scholastic quaestio (Latin for “question”), a timeless method – at once ancient and unexpectedly modern – suited to unraveling the most elusive riddles.This precise intellectual technique – the dialectical art of structured questioning, disputation, and synthesis – has roots extending across millennia, from the bustling agora of ancient Athens to the cloistered halls of medieval Christendom. Long before monks debated the Trinity by candlelight, the Greeks were already sharpening the blade of inquiry beneath the azure expanse of the sunlit sky.Socrates, the philosophical gadfly of Athens, honed the art of relentless, maieutic questioning. Wending his way through the city streets and marketplaces, he provoked his fellow citizens to reexamine what they thought they knew, unmasking contradictions and compelling the mind to confront its own shadows.Through Plato’s dialogues, the inquiring spirit of the seeker of truth, slain in a cruel irony by a polis that prided itself on free speech, still challenges us to question the validity of every complacent assumption, including the presumed certainties of our age. In whispering that knowledge begins in wonder and courage, he kindled the spark of reason.Centuries later, in the vibrant heart of Rome’s Forum, Cicero – the statesman, thinker, and master of eloquence – elevated debate to the pinnacle of oratorical art in Latin. He imbued the dance of argument with structure, rhythm, cadence, and gravitas, seamlessly weaving reason with persuasion into a tapestry that would radiate through the ages.Then came St. Augustine of Hippo, the towering theologian and philosopher, who baptized the dialectical inheritance. For him, disputation was not a mere intellectual exercise, but a ladder to divine truth, a means of ascending from human confusion to heavenly illumination.By the 12th century, the preeminent philosopher and theologian Peter Abelard had formalized this intellectual patrimony into his method of sic et non (Latin for “yes and no”), a catalogue of conflicting authorities to be reconciled.In the 13th century, the foremost scholastic thinker, St. Thomas Aquinas, known as Doctor Angelicus (“Angelic Doctor”), perfected the genre. He sought to answer precisely defined questions, often containing seemingly insoluble contradictions, through a structured problem-solving approach that resolved the inherent tensions. This method was employed in public disputations (quaestio disputata), research, teaching, and – thanks to its memorable canonical sequence – learning.The precise format of his technique, which I call the “Aquinas Toolkit,” is deceptively simple: Pose a tough, divisive question, marshal every possible objection against your position – letting them land with full force – and only then deliver your own answer. To conclude, return to each objection, one by one, and dismantle it with care.The quaestio was the intellectual equivalent of trial by fire. No strawmen, no quick dismissals – you faced your opponents at their strongest before daring to assert your own view.Thomas Aquinas grounded his seminal works in this archetypal structure, a framework that trained Europe’s brightest minds for centuries. Remarkably, it enabled the harmonization of faith and reason at the very time when both seemed destined to clash.St. Thomas’ Summa Theologiae (“Summary of Theology”), the ultimate faith-inspired guide to engaging with the most intractable questions concerning God and his creation, stands as the method’s paradigmatic model, with every article following the same rigorous pattern. Excerpt from St. Thomas Aqinas’ Summa Theologiae, printed in 1471 The saint’s opus magnum (“great work”) moves with steady scholarly and pedagogical rhythm in canonical order: Pose a bold question, line up objections, counter them with authority and reason, and resolve all counterpoints in a persuasive synthesis.Indeed, the technique proved so powerful that St. Thomas employed it to address the most profound question of all: “Whether God exists?” (Lat. Utrum Deus sit, Summa Theologiae, I, q.2, a.3).Notably, the quaestio extended far beyond theology, finding application in multiple forms across disciplines such as law, politics, and medicine, demonstrating its extraordinary versatility as a method of structured reasoning.Even today, the technique survives, at least in rudimentary fashion, shaping legal reasoning, guiding diplomatic negotiations, and informing policy think tanks where structured debate is prized far above polemical shouting.Yet one might still wonder why a method perfected in the Middle Ages should be employed in its fully developed form to tackle the perennial challenge of “solving Russia.”In contrast to many contemporary approaches to problem-solving – whether the empirically precise scientific method, pragmatically efficient decision frameworks, or today’s all-too-common knee-jerk “quick-take” responses – the scholastic quaestio technique stands out for its stringency and thoroughness.One can think of this Aquinas Canon as a logical compass for thorny issues: a navigation method that identifies every roadblock, consults expert guidance, and then charts a reasoned path forward.Unlike contemporary polemical policy discourse, which all too often swings between extremes or reduces complex issues to mere slogans and soundbites, the quaestio demands balanced analytical reasoning, anchored in credible authorities.Most modern analyses proceed in linear form: thesis, evidence, conclusion. By contrast, the quaestio, as a structured form of debate, charts an intellectually exhilarating journey, moving from objections to synthesis in a reversal of contemporary argumentative patterns.The method’s enduring effectiveness stems not only from clarity and rigor, but also from its capacity to hold complexity without collapsing into simplifications. Its genius lies in making disagreement productive: Rather than suppressing objections, it stages them; rather than avoiding contradiction, it treats contradiction as the royal road to truth and harmony.Furthermore, most non-analytical approaches to wrestling with problems today are quick, shallow, fragmented, and polarized: People pick a side, argue loudly, and disregard anything that does not fit. The Aquinas Toolkit does the opposite: It assembles every counterargument, rigorously tests each, and only then ventures to proffer a definitive answer, combining authority, reasoning, and evidence.Admittedly, the scholastic problem-solving process is slower, less flashy, and less provocative than many modern substitutes. Yet it yields conclusions far more resilient than those produced by shallow, unbalanced analyses or by the mere use of heuristics, which ignore objections or blindly chase immediate utility.Exploiting structured dialectical tension rather than resorting to one-dimensional argumentation, the quaestio is a method that compels empathy with opposing views while still driving toward synthesis. Put in a nutshell: The scholastic technique seeks the resolution of differences, whereas polemics thrive on amplifying them.Especially for questions of profound intricacy and enduring significance – justice, ethics, or peace – the quaestio, then, remains a uniquely potent method: one that trades speed for depth, and sophistic persuasion for genuine understanding and conceptual coherence. ────────────────────── ⁂ ──────────────────────To conclude, we turn once more to Keynes, who issued a searing moral indictment in The Economic Consequences of the Peace, unflinchingly assessing the ruinous human and civilizational cost of short-sighted punitive measures:“The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and of depriving a whole nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable – abhorrent and detestable, even if it were possible, even if it enriched ourselves, even if it did not sow the decay of the whole civilised life of Europe.”The clock is ticking. If there was ever a pressing problem demanding careful listening and bold, reconciliatory synthesis – rather than blunt, confrontational posturing that seeks to diminish the adversary – it is pro-Ukrainian Europe’s fraught relationship with Russia.Policymakers on the Old Continent stand at a momentous crossroads, confronted with the weight of history and the stakes of global security. Reflex, repetition, and reaction will not suffice; only mastery of state-of-the-art dialectics will empower them to transcendent the existential crucible – the singular trial destined to change everything.The challenge hangs in the balance: How can the scholastic quaestio be operationalized through a daring aggiornamento (Italian for “bringing up to date”) to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable – resolving entrenched enmities not merely into a belligerent, transient entente cordiale between East and West, but into a shared, harmonious, and enduring pan-Eurasian security architecture?[Part 6 of a series on European defense. To be continued. Previous columns in the series:Part 1, published on 19 March 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 14: ‘Whatever it takes’ revisited – Euromaniacs exploit threat bias again;Part 2, published on 14 May 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 15: Kakistocratic defense splurgers destroy Europe;Part 3, published on 30 August 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 23: The art of political tragicomedy – Zelensky’s playbook;Part 4, published on 6 September 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 24: Diplomacy by disembowelment – Old Europe’s self-destructive DC tour;Part 5, published on 14 September 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 25: Reflex won’t protect – Old Europe needs divergent metathinking]