President-elect Donald Trump has named General Keith Kellogg, an 80-year-old retired military officer, as his special envoy for the resolution of the Russia-Ukraine war. Kellogg, a seasoned figure in American defence and security, has an extensive history with Trump, having served as Acting National Security Advisor and later as National Security Advisor to Vice President Mike Pence during Trump’s first term.
Kellogg, who is also a Vietnam War veteran, is recognised for his staunch loyalty to Trump. He has been a trusted advisor, frequently defending the former president’s policies. This relationship suggests Kellogg will have significant influence in shaping Trump’s approach to resolving the conflict, as the president-elect prepares to assume office in January 2025.
The Kellogg-Fleitz Plan
Kellogg, alongside Frederick Fleitz, another former National Security Council official, is credited with drafting a proposal often referred to as the “Trump Plan” for resolving the war. However, labelling it solely as Trump’s vision may be misleading, as the plan is attributed primarily to Kellogg and Fleitz.
The core of their proposal centres on freezing the conflict along the current lines of control between Russian and Ukrainian forces. This approach would involve an immediate ceasefire, without requiring Ukraine to formally recognise territories occupied by Russia as part of the Russian Federation. For an indefinite period, Russia would retain control over the areas it occupies at the moment of disengagement.
This plan also hints at postponing Ukraine’s aspirations for Euro-Atlantic integration, effectively shelving the question of NATO membership. The underlying assumption is that halting the war temporarily could save lives and prevent further escalation. Kellogg has publicly argued that this approach would prevent the loss of another generation of young people.
A Strategy of Coercion
The plan reportedly relies on a dual-pronged strategy of coercion to bring both Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table. Ukraine would face a halt in U.S. military and financial aid if it refused to engage in talks with Russia. Conversely, Russia would be threatened with increased U.S. military support for Ukraine if it declined negotiations.
However, this coercive approach raises significant questions about its feasibility and potential consequences. Ukraine, heavily reliant on Western military aid to counter Russian aggression, might feel compelled to comply with such conditions. Yet, it remains unclear whether this strategy could effectively pressure Russia into meaningful negotiations.
Criticism and Risks
Critics argue that the Kellogg-Fleitz plan lacks a clear answer to a critical question: What happens if Russian President Vladimir Putin ignores Trump’s calls for peace and continues the war? Russia’s strategy in Ukraine has demonstrated a willingness to escalate, even in the face of increasing Western support for Kyiv. The plan does not adequately address how the U.S. would respond if Russia used the ceasefire to regroup and prepare for further aggression.
Moreover, the proposed freezing of the conflict risks creating a de facto recognition of Russian occupation, allowing Moscow to solidify its control over Ukrainian territory. Analysts warn this could embolden Russia to resume hostilities at a time of its choosing, particularly if it perceives American political will to wane after Trump’s term.
Ukraine’s Position and Broader Implications
For Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, agreeing to such a proposal may be politically untenable. Freezing the conflict without reclaiming lost territories could be perceived domestically as a concession to Russian aggression. At the same time, Kyiv’s dependence on Western military support might limit its options.
The implications extend beyond Ukraine. A frozen conflict could destabilise the region further and create precedents for dealing with aggressors. Additionally, shelving Ukraine’s NATO aspirations may signal to other states in Russia’s sphere of influence that their Euro-Atlantic ambitions could be compromised under pressure.
The Role of Trump’s Administration
Questions remain about the Trump administration’s preparedness to address a potential escalation with Russia if Moscow rejects peace overtures. The Kellogg-Fleitz plan includes the option of increasing military aid to Ukraine as a countermeasure, but the broader geopolitical impacts of this strategy are unclear.
Economic pressure on Russia carries its own risks. Although the Russian economy shows signs of strain, it has maintained the capacity to sustain military operations. If the U.S. adopts this plan, it will need to confront the long-term challenges associated with a frozen conflict and the likelihood of renewed hostilities.
General Kellogg’s appointment and the potential implementation of his plan highlight the intended direction of U.S. policy on the Russia-Ukraine war. However, the plan’s feasibility, sustainability, and long-term outcomes remain uncertain. While it seeks to end active conflict, it risks entrenching a prolonged geopolitical struggle, raising questions about the likelihood of achieving a durable peace.
Read also:
Rouble Expected to Slide Further to 115–120 Per Dollar by Year-End
