When the Strong Do What They Can, and the Weak Suffer What They Must

THE MELIAN DIALOGUE AND THE POWER POLITICS OF OUR TIME: HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF

By Victoria Boucovalas

Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue is more than just an ancient historical episode—it is a timeless reflection of how power operates when unchecked by moral or ethical constraints. In 416 BCE, the Athenians stood before the neutral Melians, demanding submission. The response was a cold, realist declaration: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” Justice, in their eyes, was an illusion—meaningless without the force to back it up. The Melians, believing in fairness, the gods, and their Spartan allies, resisted. Their reward? Total annihilation.

Fast forward to February 2025, and we see an eerie modern parallel unfolding at the White House. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. President Donald Trump alongside Vice President J.D. Vance. The topic? The war in Ukraine and continued U.S. military aid. According to sources, the meeting turned tense as Trump warned Zelensky that he was “gambling with World War Three” and that Ukraine needed to “make a deal” with Russia, the aggressor country who invaded Ukraine in 2022. The underlying message was clear: submit to a peace deal favorable to Moscow or risk losing U.S. support.

The Corruption of Institutions and the Dismissal of Justice

This moment is not just about Ukraine—it is about a larger, more disturbing trend in global politics. Much like in Thucydides’ time, the concept of justice is often sidelined when the interests of powerful nations are at stake. When institutions—whether in ancient Athens or modern-day Washington—become driven purely by pragmatism and self-interest, they lose their moral compass.

Consider the warnings of historians and political analysts who have long pointed out that the so-called “rules-based international order” is only as strong as the will of its enforcers. If those in power decide that justice no longer matters—if they embrace the logic of the Athenians—then history tells us what happens next: the erosion of global stability, the collapse of smaller nations, and ultimately, the downfall of the very powers that sought to impose their will.

From Melos to Kyiv: The Arrogance of Power

There is an undeniable parallel between the Melians in 416 BCE and Ukraine in 2025. The Athenians, much like Trump and his administration, presented their terms as realpolitik—a stark choice between survival through submission or destruction through resistance. Just as the Melians placed their hopes in the gods and the Spartans, Ukraine places its faith in Western allies and the belief that justice will prevail over brute force. And yet, in both cases, the stronger power cynically dismisses such hopes as naive.

History warns us about the arrogance of power. The Athenians believed their empire was untouchable, yet within a few decades, Athens was defeated, its imperial ambitions crushed. When a nation prioritizes strength over justice, it eventually collapses under the weight of its own hubris.

What Happens When We Ignore History?

The Trump-Zelensky negotiations remind us that, despite thousands of years of history, we still fail to learn its lessons. Institutions, when corrupted by power and stripped of their moral obligations, become instruments of coercion rather than guardians of justice. The question we must ask ourselves is: Are we doomed to repeat the past? Will the fate of Melos befall Ukraine—or any other small nation that dares to resist a larger power?

Thucydides did not just write history—he provided us with a warning. The question is whether we are wise enough to listen.

“Human consciousness has historicity, it is shaped within historical circumstances, it is shaped by institutions and circumstances, and each time human consciousness projects its choices as the needs of the historical moment, as life values.”

  _F.K. Voros, The Melian dialogue and the Athenians: a message of contemporary political thought and practice OR An ancient discourse on the arrogance of power.

Here is a glance to Thucydides’ reproduction of the Melian dialogue with the Athenians:

THE MELIAN DIALOGUE (WORD-FOR-WORD TRANSLATION)

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5, Chapters 84-116

Athenians: Since our words will not be addressed to the people, to prevent the masses from being deceived by a continuous speech filled with attractive and unchecked arguments—because we understand that this is why you have brought us before a small audience—do something even more certain: do not respond to us with a single, long speech, but interrupt and object at any point where you believe we are speaking against your interests. And first, tell us if you agree with this approach.

Melians: The fairness of your idea to exchange views in calm discussion is not something we object to. However, your military preparations, which are not about the future but are already present, stand in clear contradiction to this proposal. For we see that you have come as judges of what will be said, and the likely outcome of this discussion is either war, if we prevail by defending justice and refuse to yield, or servitude, if we are persuaded.

Athenians: If you have gathered here to make predictions about the future or for any other purpose, rather than considering the present circumstances and your city’s survival, we can stop now. But if you have come for this reason, we can continue.

Melians: It is natural and excusable, in our position, that our minds turn to many things—arguments and considerations. We recognize that today’s meeting is indeed about our survival, and so let the discussion proceed in the manner you suggest.

Athenians: Then we will not make long speeches with grand phrases claiming our rule is just because we defeated the Persians, nor that we are now making war on you because we have suffered injustice. And we ask that you do not expect to persuade us by arguing that, although you are a Spartan colony, you have not fought at their side and have done us no harm. Instead, let us seek what is possible, recognizing—as we both know—that in human reasoning, justice applies when there is equal power to enforce it, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Melians: Since you place expediency above justice and ask us to abandon moral arguments, let us consider what is beneficial for both sides. You should not abolish what is in the common interest of all—that reason and fairness should still be a consideration for those in danger. If nothing else, this benefits you, as well as us, for if you ever fall from power, you may serve as an example to others who might wish to impose upon you the harshest penalties.

Athenians: As for our downfall, if it ever comes, we are not concerned about those who, like the Spartans, rule over others—for we are not rivals to them—but rather about our own subjects, who, if they ever revolt and defeat us, will be the ones we fear most. But that is our concern. Right now, we are here for our empire’s interest and for your city’s survival, because we want to rule you without trouble and for you to avoid destruction.

Melians: But how can it be equally beneficial for us to become your subjects, as it is for you to rule over us?

Athenians: Because you will avoid the worst by yielding before suffering terrible misfortunes, and we will gain without having to destroy you.

Melians: So, you would not accept that we remain neutral, neither as allies nor as enemies, and allow us to live in peace?

Athenians: No, because your hostility does not harm us as much as your friendship, which would be taken as proof of our weakness by our subjects, while your enmity is a testament to our power.

Melians: Do your subjects see no difference between a people related to the Spartans who have remained neutral and those who have revolted and been subdued?

Athenians: No, because they think that all claim to justice is only made by those with the power to enforce it. They also believe that those who remain free do so because they are strong, and that we do not attack them out of fear. Thus, if we defeat you, apart from expanding our empire, we also strengthen our security, especially because you, as islanders, are weaker and would not have been able to resist us, the dominant naval power.

Melians: But is there no safety for you in our neutrality? Just as you asked us to set aside arguments of justice, should you not also consider our advantage, if it is also yours, and accept it? For if you destroy us, do you not fear turning others who are now neutral into enemies, seeing how we were treated? Instead of strengthening your empire, you will only push more against you.

Athenians: No, because those who live on the mainland will take a long time to prepare resistance, while those like you—small island states and already dissatisfied subjects—are the real threat. Your reckless hope of freedom could lead you to bring danger not just to yourselves but to us as well.

Melians: But surely it is dishonorable and disgraceful for us, who are still free, to submit without a fight?

Athenians: No, if you act wisely. You are not engaging in an equal contest for honor, but making a decision about your very survival against an overwhelming power. Resisting will only lead to ruin.

Melians: Still, we trust that fortune may favor us and that the gods will not forsake us, since we stand against unjust aggression. Moreover, the Spartans, as our kin, must help us out of honor.

Athenians: The gods, as we understand them, and men alike follow the rule that the strong impose their will where they can. We did not establish this principle; we found it existing and will leave it in place. And we know that if you had our power, you would act the same way. As for the Spartans, we commend your innocence but do not envy your lack of understanding. They will not act for your sake against their own interest. They are cautious and do not take risks for justice alone.

Melians: Yet we believe they will support us, if only to avoid betraying their kin and harming their own credibility.

Athenians: And do you not think they prioritize safety over honor? They rarely act unless assured of victory. It is unlikely they will send forces to an island when we control the sea.

Melians: But they may send others. And the sea is wide enough for them to avoid detection. Even if they fail, they can retaliate against your allies on land, forcing you into wider conflicts.

Athenians: You are relying on hopes and speculations. Yet in all history, we Athenians have never abandoned a siege due to fear of intervention. If you do not reconsider, your fate will be sealed.

Melians: We will not abandon our belief in the gods, nor our kinship with the Spartans. We choose to defend our freedom.

Athenians: Then you have put everything on chance—on hope, on fate, and on uncertain allies. You will soon realize you have gambled and lost everything.

(The Melians refused to submit, and the Athenians, after a prolonged siege, conquered Melos. All men were executed, women and children enslaved, and Athenian colonists settled on the island.)