OPINION — For the reason that starting of the battle in Ukraine, I’ve discovered the acquainted rhetoric supporting Ukraine’s proper to self-defense towards Russian aggression paying homage to the discourse that adopted America’s engagement in Afghanistan. From the outset, I anxious that Ukraine would possibly expertise the identical trajectory: beneficiant assist early on, adopted by political fatigue and eventual “abandonment.” The sample of improvement of dependency—the place the supported authorities is unable to maintain itself with out steady assist—might be deeply damaging and depart a nation susceptible.
Regrettably, as a substitute of totally leveraging America’s affect to pursue an early diplomatic decision to the Ukraine battle, the Biden administration targeted totally on navy assist—an method that, whereas crucial in serving to Ukraine survive the preliminary invasion, could have contributed to the battle’s prolongation. To make sure, U.S. management in rallying allies and delivering weapons enabled Ukraine to resist the darkest days and push again towards Russia on a number of fronts. But the absence of a severe diplomatic initiative in parallel left untested whether or not a negotiated settlement may need been attainable earlier than the battle escalated. Whereas it’s unclear whether or not Putin would have engaged in good-faith talks, neglecting diplomacy altogether restricted strategic choices and ceded the initiative to the battlefield.
Because the battle progressed, this method not solely extended the battle but additionally started to institutionalize Ukraine’s dependency on Western weapons and monetary assist. Ukraine has since turn out to be closely reliant on U.S. monetary assist, weapons, and intelligence. But this assist has usually appeared unstable, sometimes threatened by inner U.S. politics. Notably, President Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled a willingness to halt assist, a place that intensified following political tensions between his administration and President Volodymyr Zelensky. This rising reliance locations Kyiv in a susceptible place—strikingly just like the state of affairs Kabul confronted in the course of the U.S.-Taliban negotiations underneath President Trump’s first time period. The U.S. held monumental leverage in each conflicts and thus bore a big accountability for his or her outcomes. As somebody who was concerned within the Afghanistan peace course of and follows Ukraine peace efforts intently, I see a troubling resemblance between Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s dealings with the Taliban, and the best way American politics are actually shaping Ukraine’s destiny.
President Trump has expressed robust curiosity in resolving the battle in Ukraine and has solid himself as a “President of Peace.” Because the chief of essentially the most highly effective nation on this planet, he does possess the flexibility to affect the battle’s trajectory. Nevertheless, the crucial query stays: what sort of peace is being pursued? Will it mirror the end result in Afghanistan, the place the U.S. successfully handed over energy to the very group answerable for the 9/11 assaults, sidelining its allies and undermining their legitimacy? The U.S. should proceed with authority—not one other “Doha-style” deal which might ship harmful alerts globally, about America’s reliability as a peace maker, negotiator and at last accomplice.
Specialists are gathering at The Cipher Temporary’s NatSecEDGE convention June 5-6 in Austin, TX to speak about the way forward for battle. Be part of the dialog.
Parallels in Negotiation Dynamics:
There are a number of notable parallels between the U.S. method to the Afghanistan peace course of and its present involvement within the Ukraine battle. Whereas the contexts differ, the patterns in negotiation ways, therapy of allies, and use of leverage reveal putting similarities. These shared dynamics supply vital classes—classes that, if ignored, may result in repeated strategic failures. Three key parallels stand out:
1. Russia’s Insistence with the U.S. Led Talks:
President Putin’s refusal to have interaction straight with President Zelensky in Istanbul, insisting as a substitute on first reaching an understanding with the U.S., mirrors the Taliban’s place in the course of the Doha talks. The Taliban demanded negotiations completely with america earlier than any engagement with the Afghan authorities. This tactic successfully marginalized the nationwide authorities, granting the Taliban higher legitimacy. In Ukraine’s case, ought to Russia safe a cope with Washington that renders the U.S. impartial or much less engaged, it could doubtless tilt the battlefield dynamics in Moscow’s favor. We witnessed the same shift in Afghanistan, the place repeated Afghan objections to their exclusion had been dismissed as obstructionist to the peace talks. I recall a number of conferences on the presidential palace in Kabul, the place Ambassador Khalilzad emphasised that “the U.S. doesn’t want anybody’s permission to barter with the Taliban or to withdraw its troops.” This narrative turned a rhetorical weapon to close down legitimate issues about an orderly and inclusive peace course of.
2. Public Discrediting of Allies:
One other shared sample is the notion of “undermining allies.” In Afghanistan, Ambassador Khalilzad publicly criticized the Afghan authorities—particularly President Ashraf Ghani—for being an impediment to peace, relatively than acknowledging official issues. Ghani’s polarizing management type made him a simple goal, permitting Khalilzad’s narrative to realize traction amongst Afghan elites and the general public. In Ukraine, the tone of public discourse from U.S. officers, together with the President, has at instances appeared dismissive or crucial of the Ukrainian authorities. This public framing might be damaging. It echoes the stress confronted by the Afghan authorities to make main concessions—similar to the discharge of 5,000 Taliban prisoners—regardless of warnings from Afghan management. In each circumstances, U.S. rhetoric has eroded the morale of accomplice forces and given adversaries the higher hand in psychological warfare. In Afghanistan, this contributed on to the collapse of state buildings and navy cohesion. Language issues. Classes from Afghanistan ought to inform a extra cautious, respectful U.S. posture in Ukraine.
3. Conditioning Help and Misusing Leverage:
Threats to droop assist for Ukraine don’t advance peace. They embolden adversaries and sow uncertainty. American leverage needs to be used to finish violence, not threat enabling it. Any withdrawal of assist needs to be tied to the profitable cessation of hostilities and institution of a viable simply peace. In any other case, efforts at diplomacy threat failing, and President Trump’s envisioned “peace legacy” could as a substitute be remembered as a geopolitical failure.
Join The Cipher Temporary’s Nightcap publication: one of the simplest ways to unwind daily whereas nonetheless staying on top of things on nationwide safety.Enroll in the present day.
Suggestions:
Primarily based on the teachings realized from Afghanistan, the next suggestion is essential for avoiding comparable pitfalls in Ukraine:
Firstly, the U.S. should keep away from the crucial mistake made in the course of the Afghanistan peace course of—negotiating straight with adversaries whereas sidelining official nationwide governments. Within the case of Afghanistan, excluding the Afghan authorities and the Afghan individuals from early levels of the U.S.-Taliban talks severely weakened its authority, emboldened the Taliban, and contributed to the collapse of the Afghan state. This method not solely demoralized U.S. allies but additionally delegitimized them within the eyes of their very own individuals and the worldwide neighborhood. In Ukraine, america should undertake a unique course. Any peace initiative should place the Ukrainian authorities and the individuals of Ukraine on the middle of negotiations—not as a passive recipient of choices made elsewhere, however as an energetic, equal stakeholder. Peace achieved with out the consent and management of each side of the battle—the Ukrainian individuals and its adversaries—will probably be fragile, not sustainable, and short-lived.
Secondly, public messaging should replicate respect and unity. Criticizing allies in public, whereas signaling tolerance or engagement with aggressors behind closed doorways, undermines belief, morale, and credibility. Strategic ambiguity might be exploited by adversaries to sow discord, because it was by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Ukraine deserves a peace course of that’s inclusive, dignified, and respectful of its sovereignty. The world can’t afford a repeat of the Kabul state of affairs—the place allies had been sidelined, and adversaries gained the upper-hand. The U.S. management as at all times, should be principled, constant, and anchored in classes realized from previous missteps. If managed properly, the peace course of in Ukraine may certainly mark a transformative legacy for American diplomacy, not solely because the accomplice to depend on however as a negotiator with making the correct deal.
Opinions expressed are these of the writer and don’t symbolize the views or opinions of The Cipher Temporary.
The Cipher Temporary is dedicated to publishing a spread of views on nationwide safety points submitted by deeply skilled nationwide safety professionals.
Have a perspective to share primarily based in your expertise within the nationwide safety subject? Ship it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.
Learn extra expert-driven nationwide safety insights, perspective and evaluation in The Cipher Temporary
