Could Ukraine Be Putin’s Afghanistan?

Even before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine earlier on 24 February,several commentators, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, argued convincingly that a Russian occupation of more of Ukraine, perhaps including Kyiv, would lead to an insurgency like that which the Soviet Union faced in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Defeat in Afghanistan was a major factor in the break-up of the Warsaw Pact and ultimately the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which Russian President Vladimir Putin has called the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”

It is important to understand how the Soviets were defeated by the mujahideen in the 1980s to understand if Ukraine could be a repeat. The Afghan resistance did virtually all the fighting against the Russian 40th Army that occupied Afghanistan starting on Christmas Eve 1979. The resistance was massive and spontaneous. But the Afghans were not alone.President Jimmy Carter rapidly mobilised a strategic alliance to fight the Russians. Within two weeks he had persuaded Pakistani leader Zia ul-Huq to support the mujahideen with refuge, bases, and training in Pakistan. 

The United States and Saudi Arabia would jointly fund the insurgency. The Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), would be the patrons of the mujahideen; the CIA and the Saudi intelligence service would be the financiers and quarter masters of the war. No CIA officer ever was deployed in Cold War Afghanistan. The British counterparts, MI6, did send officers into Afghanistan to deliver select weapons and training. The ISI did all the rest; it was Zia’s war. The ISI trained and occasionally led the mujahideen in battle, even striking into Soviet Central Asia. Being the frontline state behind the mujahideen brought considerable risk and danger for Pakistan. 

The Russians supported Pakistani dissidents who organised terror attacks inside the country including hijacking Pakistani civilian aircraft and attempts to assassinate Zia (who died in a suspicious plane crash in 1988). Pakistani fighters engaged Soviet aircraft in dogfights. The Pakistani tribal border areas became dangerous and unruly. A Kalashnikov culture emerged that still haunts Pakistan today. For Washington and Riyadh, the operation was fairly inexpensive. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, has recently written that the Saudis spent $2.7 billion supporting the Afghans; the CIA spent about the same. Saudi private sources led by then-governor of Riyadh province, now King Salman, raised another $4 billion for the rebels. Saudi citizens including Osama bin Laden joined the mujahideen but very few actually engaged in combat. 

The Afghan people paid a horrible cost for the war. At least a million Afghans died, five million became refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and millions more were displaced in their own country. But they won.The Soviets never sent enough soldiers to defeat the insurgents and could not recruit enough Afghans to fight with them. The Pakistanis were not intimidated by the Russians. The Afghan people fought for their independence. The Afghan analogy offers important questions for the new war in Ukraine. Which state or states will be the frontline sponsor? Are they ready to take the heat from Russia? 

How much support will the United States and NATO provide? Will the insurgency spark a broader conflict, and can it be contained? Are Ukrainians prepared to pay the price? Poland and Romania are the states closest to the Ukraine. Both are NATO members with U.S. troops deployed in their territory. The U.S. has an explicit commitment to come to their defense in Article Five of the NATO Treaty; we had no such commitment to Pakistan. (Ironically, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan wasv in Moscow during the week of invasionfor a long-planned visit.)

l believe the United States and NATO should help the Ukrainian resistance but we should understand the potential consequences, risks, and costs up front. Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine could well prove to be another geopolitical catastrophe for Russia but only if we help the Ukrainian resistance.

Olufemi Aduwo.

Permanent Representative,Centre for Convention on Democratic Integrity( CCDI) ,to the United Nations .CCDI Is international non governmental organisation with ECOSOC- United Nations Consultative Status.

UKRAINE:TIME FOR SOLIDARITY

The  Center for Convention on Democratic Integrity (CCDI)  condemns  the  Russian  military  invasion of Ukraine.  It  is  an  illegal  act  of  aggression.  It  is  causing  the  death  of  innocent  civilians  and placing  the security  of  the entire  world  at  risk. The  threat  or  use  of  force  to  resolve  disputes  is  prohibited  under  Article  2  of  the  UN Charter.  Russia  was not  under  any  threat  that  offered  no  recourse  other  than  force.  In of  aggression.

Infact,  President  Putin,  in  ordering  military  attacks  against  Ukraine,  has  committed  a Crime Against  Peace  in  violation  of  the  UN  Charter  by  planning,  preparing,  initiating, and  waging a war Russia’s  acts  of  war  will  burden  Ukraine  with  an  enormous  cost  in  human  suffering, stimulate  a  massive  crackdown  on  the  civil  liberties  of law  and  peace, Russians  who  respect  international expand the  conflict,  and  even  place  the  entire  wo rld  at  risk  of  elevation  to a  nuclear  exchange.  President  Putin  has  threatened  to  use  nuclear  weapons  against adversaries  in  this  conflict.  Such  a  threat  places  the  entirety  of  civilization  in  jeopardy  and is  unacceptable. 

A  war  of  aggression  is  not  only illegal  and  immoral,  it  is  also  impractical.  Every  nation today  needs  to  cooperate  in  addressing  many  pressing  issues  such  as  climate  change, eliminating  poverty, protecting  the  health  of eliminating  the  pandemic all  species and  the  oceans,  curtailing  and ,  and  fulfilling  the Sustainable Development  Goals. We  regret  that  better  use  was  not  made  of  diplomacy,  mediation,  and  common  security mechanisms  earlier  in  the  conflict  to  address  and  resolve  historical  grievances.  We  now call  the  international  communi ty  to  use  all  non outlined  in  Ar ticles  33–- military  means  possible,  including  those 41 of the UN Charter  for  the  peaceful settlement  of those  disputes. These  provisions  of  the  UN  Charter  provide  a  route  to  mitigate,  contain,  and  reverse  the dangerous  presen t  situation  and  provide  diplomatic tools  to  obtain  peace. 

We respect the courage and rights of the people of Ukraine to exercise self-defense, express our solidarity with them, and encourage support for them from all peace-loving nations. Further, we decry the curtailing of civil liberties of Russians who do not agree with the policies of their leaders and honor their courage.    We encourage the utilisation of further diplomatic mechanisms available in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), in which both the US and Russia are participants. We further urge the UN Security Council and the General Assembly to remain seized of the issue of ending the violence and conflict in Ukraine, and to obtain an immediate ceasefire..

Furthermore, the deployment of a UN peacekeeping mission should be considered with the consent of all parties involved. We call on world leaders to demand an immediate cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, as requested by the international public opinion, and we urge all parties and individuals in a position of influence to renew efforts for a diplomatic solution, starting with immediate negotiations under UN aegis. 

Olufemi Aduwo

President 

..CCDI is a Maryland 501 (c)(3) non-profit corporation,registered both in Nigeria and United States. Granted special consultative status by UNITED Nations/ ECOSOC