Alvin M. Keeling 
Mavaza says: CCC must learn lessons from Ukraine
By Dr Masimba Mavaza | President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Ukrainian troops “you are all we have” accusing European countries of insufficient reaction to the Russian invasion.
The Russian invasion will disrupt the lives of 44 million Ukrainians. But the relevance of Ukraine, on the edge of Europe and thousands of miles from the United States, extends far beyond its borders. His fate has huge implications for the rest of Europe, the health of the global economy, and America’s place in the world.
The problems in Ukraine came to a head in February 2014, after a decade of increasingly destabilizing political clashes, Ukrainian nationalists overthrew the Russian-backed government of Ukraine in what became known as the Revolution of Maidan. Russian annexation of Crimea and covert support for “Russian Ukrainian separatists” in the eastern oblasts of Ukraine soon followed. Nine months later, the Russian military openly intervened to support Ukrainian separatist forces.
The conflict settled into a large and complex example of Hybrid (or Russian Next Generation) warfare in a context reminiscent of the static military operations of World War I.
We must therefore be aware of the lessons emerging from Ukraine, which has been strong since the beginning of the conflict. While some of these efforts are far-reaching, they can generally be grouped into two categories: geopolitical and tactical/technical. If, as some have argued, the conflict in Ukraine represents a 21st century version of the Boer War or the Spanish Civil War – where emerging military technologies and concepts were employed in nascent form but paved the way towards a disruptive future – so much more needs to be done to develop lessons in the middle broad.
Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the American-led NATO made outrageous promises to Ukraine and its people. America has promised eternal love and that they will flow into Ukraine like the tsunami to support and help the Ukrainian people against Russia.
Learning lessons from these types of conflicts requires an integrated approach. Direct lessons applicable to current capacities are often obscured by the particular economic, political and social characteristics of the participants. Recent efforts by the military services (particularly the US military) to gather lessons from Ukraine are notable but generally limited in both subject and application.
Projecting these lessons into the future and, more importantly, into conflicts of a different character than the one under consideration, requires a different approach.
Ukraine learned this the hard way. After being urged at the end of the day there was no Europe to help not America only Russia. This prompted the Ukrainian president to tell his army “you are all we have”.
Many African opposition parties live in a dream. They are promised help once they overthrow their governments. Zimbabwe’s opposition parties have been pure puppets of the West, but the West can’t be trusted if you don’t believe in Ukraine now. This is a big lesson for Chamisa and other members of the opposition. The money Chamisa boasts about is in the hands of Western sponsors. As a people, Zimbabweans must learn from the situation in Ukraine. Do not trust those who have just promised you. You only have one country to deal with.
Why do Russia, the United States and Europe care so much about Ukraine? It seemed in recent weeks like a scene from the Cold War, a perilous episode from a bygone era. An unpredictable Russian leader was gathering troops and tanks at a neighbor’s border. A bloody East-West conflagration was feared. Ukraine was pushed by the West, but the West was there all the way. Then the Cold War got hot: Vladimir Putin sent his forces across the border into Ukraine, with immediate and far-reaching repercussions. In the days leading up to the invasion, even as Russian forces grew to an estimated 190,000 strong and were forming a pincer movement around Ukrainian territory, and even as the United States warned in a tone of increasingly serious that a military strike seemed inevitable, there was hope. Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, maintained his message of optimism. Mr Putin claimed he was open to diplomacy and European leaders were desperately trying to persuade the Kremlin to step aside.
Ukraine took comfort in the promises of the West. Then just before 6 a.m. Thursday, the Russian president, addressing his nation, declared the start of a “special military operation” in Ukraine. The goal, he said, was to “demilitarize” but not to occupy the country. Minutes later, large explosions were visible near Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, and explosions were reported in Kyiv, the capital, as well as other parts of the country. And soon, the Ukrainian Interior Ministry reported that Russian troops had landed in Odessa and crossed the border.
The invasion threatens to destabilize the already volatile post-Soviet region, with serious consequences for the security structure that has governed Europe since the 1990s.
President Putin has long lamented the loss of Ukraine and other republics in the breakup of the Soviet Union, but the dwindling of NATO, the military alliance that helped control the Soviets, could be its true mission. reaching demands to reshape this structure – positions that NATO and the United States have rejected.
The Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which were once part of the Soviet Union, joined NATO, as did Poland, Romania and others. As a result, NATO moved several hundred kilometers closer to Moscow, on the direct border with Russia. And in 2008, he said he planned – one day – to enlist Ukraine, although that was still seen as a distant prospect. Putin described Soviet disintegration as a catastrophe that robbed Russia of its rightful place among the world’s great powers and put it at the mercy of a predatory West. He spent his 22 years in power rebuilding the Russian military and reasserting his geopolitical influence.
The Russian president describes NATO expansion as threatening and the prospect of Ukraine’s membership as a major threat to his country. As Russia has become more assertive and stronger militarily, its complaints against NATO have become more strident. He has repeatedly invoked the specter of US ballistic missiles and combat forces in Ukraine, though US, Ukrainian and NATO officials insist there is none.
Mr Putin also insisted that Ukraine and Belarus are fundamentally part of Russia, culturally and historically. He wields considerable influence over Belarus and has been talking about some form of reunification with Russia for years. But East-West relations soured dramatically in early 2014, when mass protests in Ukraine ousted a president with close ties to Mr Putin. Russia quickly invaded and annexed Crimea, part of Ukraine. Moscow also fomented a separatist rebellion that seized control of part of Ukraine’s Donbass region, in an ongoing war that killed more than 13,000 people.
The West has insisted that President Putin seems determined to turn back time more than 30 years, establishing a vast Russian-dominated security zone resembling the power wielded by Moscow in Soviet times. Now 69 and perhaps in the twilight of his political career, he clearly wants to bring Ukraine, a nation of 44 million people, back into Russia’s orbit.
The problem of having one nation stronger than the other creates bullies. Russia isn’t the only Bully here. America has attacked many countries at will and deposed several governments they claim are “for America’s sake”. Russia is therefore not allowed to act to protect its interests.
Ukraine under US influence is a security threat to Russia and preventive action is in Russia’s best interest.
Russia submitted a series of written requests to NATO and the United States in December that it said were necessary to ensure its security. Foremost among them are guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO, that NATO will withdraw its forces from the countries of Eastern Europe that have already joined, and that the ceasefire of 2015 in Ukraine will be implemented – although Moscow and Kiev are in deep disagreement about what this would mean.
The West has dismissed the main demands out of hand, while making overtures to other concerns and threatening sanctions. Moscow’s aggressive posturing has also inflamed Ukrainian nationalism, with citizen militias preparing for a long guerrilla campaign in the event of Russian occupation. Putin’s timing could also be tied to the transition from President Donald J. Trump, who was notably friendly with him and disparaging of NATO, to President Biden, who is committed to the alliance and suspicious of the Kremlin. He may also want to energize nationalists at home by focusing on an external threat, as he has done in the past.
As the war continues with Ukraine on the verge of surrender, the West is behind closed doors and paying lip service.
The best lesson for all is not to trust foreign leaders to help you with your domestic problems. The sooner Chamisa realizes this, the better.
This idea of trusting foreign countries only destroys your country.
As far as Ukraine is concerned, it is the Ukrainian people who are paying with their blood. We only have one country, let’s love it.
[email protected]
