Almost a year into the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I met with the then Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the Republic of South Africa, Mozambique and Botswana; Liubov Abravitova. It was a face-to-face engagement to hear their side of the story. A tragic story to be precise. I was in particular, seeking enlightenment on two issues. Firstly, as to how Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky arrived at the decision to host a proxy war between Russia and NATO. And secondly, the strategic calculus. That is, besides ululations, adulations and accolades from the West, what was Zelensky’s end goal. However, early on into the conversation, I frustratingly grew anxious. The Ambassador was clearly at pains to articulate Ukraine’s position and reasoning in this war. Which at the time, was her primary business. But there she was, at sixes and sevens. The sense she was not making, was incomprehensible if not inexcusable. However, the one thing the Ambassador was exuding, was hope. And that is okay, because hope, is the last thing to lose. But even the earliest rudimentary societies, never marched their troops to the battlefield on hope. How could a modern man like Zelensky do that; I wondered. May be there was something the Ambassador was keeping away from me; I thought.
But as our conversation progressed, it became abundantly clear that Ukraine had ‘hope’ for a war plan. There was hope that somehow Ukraine will win the war or that somehow Russia would lose the war. There was hope that NATO’s ‘wonder’ weapons, would perform wonders in the battlefield and drive Russians out of the Dombass. There was hope that somehow the egregious sanctions from the West would collapse the Russian and the population would rise and overthrow Vladimir Putin. There was hope that by painting Russia as an ‘aggressor,’ would generate social capital for Ukraine that would leave Russia as an isolated pariah state. But most importantly, there was hope that US weapons and dollars would flow eternally like the mystical rivers of Babylon, to nourish and sustain Zelensky’s appetite for war and his hatred of Putin. But even hope, is measurable. And hope is a moral variable, it is not an instrument of hard power. Therefore, it cannot be the premise to a matter of strategic existentialism. It is common sense that, any strategic pursuit to bring NATO right into Russia’s doorstep, would inevitably provoke existential anxiety on the latter. This is as elementary as the first three letters of the alphabet. There is no way Zelensky could have missed this. It is therefore, safe to conclude that the US gave him an offer he could not refuse.
As we posed for photos, I remarked at the Ambassador, “Remember, the sheep spend all their lives in fear of the wolf, only to be eaten by the shepherd.” The scenes we recently saw unfolding live at the oval office between President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D Vance and the helpless Zelensky is nothing uncommon in strategic cannibalism. In other words, Zelensky no longer carries any strategic value in relation to the strategic outlook of the Trump administration. What Trump and Vance were explicitly saying to Zelensky in that heated exchange is that, he is now a strategic liability. And that they stand more than ready to throw him to the wolves if need be. But to be fair to Trump, he had explicitly warned Zelensky that, “You don’t have the cards…with us you have the cards…without us, you don’t have the cards. You either make a deal or we are out.” And Trump has just put action into his words by ‘pausing’ all US military aid to Ukraine. Trump demands Ukraine to payback US military aid estimated to be $350bn or come to a deal to co-own Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. Ukraine is reported to have significant deposits of rare earth metals that are used to produce weapons, Artificial Intelligence electronics and other products vital in the modern world. At this moment, Zelensky, is a very vulnerable man. He is sandwiched by two hounds. On one flank is Putin and the Russian war-machine grinding Ukraine inch by inch. On the other, is Trump, taking every ‘pound of flesh’ from Zelensky
At this point, Zelensky is stuck with two options, either strategic capitulation or strategic recalibration. He has so far demonstrated inclination for the latter; strategic recalibration. He is decoupling from the US and pivoting towards Europe, in particular Britain and France. For some weird reason, Zelensky is convinced that Europe can counter and neutralise Russia’s strategic interests and ambitions on its own. But he is once again wrong. He is wrong not because Europe does not have military might to do so, but primarily because of two reasons. Firstly, Europe does not have a common strategic posture towards either Russia or Ukraine. European countries have diverse and divergent strategic interests both in Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, synthesising a common posture towards Russia would be hard to come. Secondly, Zelensky seeks to pivot with UK which has since exited the European Union. Therefore, its presence can only be read in the context of NATO, which is a military alliance. And that is provokingly unacceptable to Russia. Hence the issue of European peacekeepers in Ukraine to provide ‘security guarantees’ is part of the problem, not the solution. How is their deployment different from NATO deployment?
