OPINION — Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, I’ve found the familiar rhetoric supporting Ukraine’s right to self-defense against Russian aggression reminiscent of the discourse that followed America’s engagement in Afghanistan. From the outset, I worried that Ukraine might experience the same trajectory: generous support early on, followed by political fatigue and eventual “abandonment.” The pattern of development of dependency—where the supported government is unable to sustain itself without continuous aid—can be deeply damaging and leave a nation vulnerable.
Regrettably, instead of utilizing America’s influence to bring about an early diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine conflict, President Joe Biden escalated military support, contributing to a prolonged and increasingly complex war. Ukraine has since become heavily reliant on U.S. financial aid, weapons, and intelligence. Yet this support has often appeared unstable, occasionally threatened by internal U.S. politics. Notably, President Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled a willingness to halt support, a position that intensified following political tensions between his administration and President Volodymyr Zelensky. This growing reliance places Kyiv in a vulnerable position—strikingly similar to the situation Kabul faced during the U.S.-Taliban negotiations under President Trump’s first term. The U.S. held enormous leverage in both conflicts and thus bore a significant responsibility for their outcomes. As someone who was involved in the Afghanistan peace process and follows Ukraine peace efforts closely, I see a troubling resemblance between Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s dealings with the Taliban, and the way American politics are now shaping Ukraine’s fate.
President Trump has expressed strong interest in resolving the war in Ukraine and has cast himself as a “President of Peace.” As the leader of the most powerful country in the world, he does possess the ability to influence the war’s trajectory. However, the critical question remains: what kind of peace is being pursued? Will it mirror the outcome in Afghanistan, where the U.S. effectively handed over power to the very group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, sidelining its allies and undermining their legitimacy? The U.S. must proceed with authority—not another “Doha-style” deal which would send dangerous signals globally, about America’s reliability as a peace maker, negotiator and finally partner.
Experts are gathering at The Cipher Brief’s NatSecEDGE conference June 5-6 in Austin, TX to talk about the future of war. Be a part of the conversation.
Parallels in Negotiation Dynamics:
There are several notable parallels between the U.S. approach to the Afghanistan peace process and its current involvement in the Ukraine conflict. While the contexts differ, the patterns in negotiation tactics, treatment of allies, and use of leverage reveal striking similarities. These shared dynamics offer important lessons—lessons that, if ignored, could lead to repeated strategic failures. Three key parallels stand out:
1. Russia’s Insistence with the U.S.-Led Talks:
President Putin’s refusal to engage directly with President Zelensky in Istanbul, insisting instead on first reaching an understanding with the U.S., mirrors the Taliban’s position during the Doha talks. The Taliban demanded negotiations exclusively with the United States before any engagement with the Afghan government. This tactic effectively marginalized the national government, granting the Taliban greater legitimacy. In Ukraine’s case, should Russia secure a deal with Washington that renders the U.S. neutral or less engaged, it would likely tilt the battlefield dynamics in Moscow’s favor. We witnessed a similar shift in Afghanistan, where repeated Afghan objections to their exclusion were dismissed as obstructionist to the peace talks. I recall several meetings at the presidential palace in Kabul, where Ambassador Khalilzad emphasized that “the U.S. does not need anyone’s permission to negotiate with the Taliban or to withdraw its troops.” This narrative became a rhetorical weapon to shut down valid concerns about an orderly and inclusive peace process.
2. Public Discrediting of Allies:
Another shared pattern is the notion of “undermining allies.” In Afghanistan, Ambassador Khalilzad publicly criticized the Afghan government—especially President Ashraf Ghani—for being an obstacle to peace, rather than acknowledging legitimate concerns. Ghani’s polarizing leadership style made him an easy target, allowing Khalilzad’s narrative to gain traction among Afghan elites and the public. In Ukraine, the tone of public discourse from U.S. officials, including the President, has at times appeared dismissive or critical of the Ukrainian government. This public framing can be damaging. It echoes the pressure faced by the Afghan government to make major concessions—such as the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners—despite warnings from Afghan leadership. In both cases, U.S. rhetoric has eroded the morale of partner forces and given adversaries the upper hand in psychological warfare. In Afghanistan, this contributed directly to the collapse of state structures and military cohesion. Language matters. Lessons from Afghanistan should inform a more careful, respectful U.S. posture in Ukraine.
3. Conditioning Support and Misusing Leverage:
Threats to suspend support for Ukraine, do not advance peace. They embolden adversaries and sow uncertainty. American leverage should be used to end violence, not risk enabling it. Any withdrawal of aid should be tied to the successful cessation of hostilities and establishment of a viable just peace. Otherwise, efforts at diplomacy risk failing, and President Trump’s envisioned “peace legacy” may instead be remembered as a geopolitical failure.
Sign up for The Cipher Brief’s Nightcap newsletter: the best way to unwind every day while still staying up to speed on national security.Sign up today.
Recommendations:
Based on the lessons learned from Afghanistan, the following recommendation is crucial for avoiding similar pitfalls in Ukraine:
Firstly, the U.S. must avoid the critical mistake made during the Afghanistan peace process—negotiating directly with adversaries while sidelining legitimate national governments. In the case of Afghanistan, excluding the Afghan government and the Afghan people from early stages of the U.S.-Taliban talks severely weakened its authority, emboldened the Taliban, and ultimately led to the collapse of the Afghan state. This approach not only demoralized U.S. allies but also delegitimized them in the eyes of their own people and the international community. In Ukraine, the United States must adopt a different course. Any peace initiative must place the Ukrainian government and the people of Ukraine at the center of negotiations—not as a passive recipient of decisions made elsewhere, but as an active, equal stakeholder. Peace achieved without the consent and leadership of both sides of the conflict—the Ukrainian people and its adversaries—will be fragile, not sustainable, and short-lived.
Secondly, public messaging must reflect respect and unity. Criticizing allies in public, while signaling tolerance or engagement with aggressors behind closed doors, undermines trust, morale, and credibility. Strategic ambiguity can be exploited by adversaries to sow discord, as it was by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Ukraine deserves a peace process that is inclusive, dignified, and respectful of its sovereignty. The world cannot afford a repeat of the Kabul scenario—where allies were sidelined, and adversaries gaining upper-hand. The U.S. leadership, as always, must be principled, consistent, and anchored in lessons learned from past missteps. If managed wisely, the peace process in Ukraine could indeed mark a transformative legacy for American diplomacy, not only as the partner to rely on but as a negotiator with making the right deal.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.
