CNN: Trump's plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine will destroy the unity of the West
Trump's appointed special representative for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, has come up with a plan for a diplomatic settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, CNN reports. But this plan will suit only Putin, the author of the article is sure. And Western unity will begin to crumble.
Nick Paton Walsh
In one post on social media, the president-elect told the world what the end of the conflict in Ukraine might look like. For diplomacy, this will be, to put it mildly, a tough nut to crack.
“I am very pleased to appoint General Keith Kellogg to the post of assistant to the president and special representative for Ukraine and Russia," Trump wrote on his Truth Social channel. "Together, we will ensure PEACE THROUGH FORCE and bring America and the world back to SAFETY!”
Simultaneously with the appointment of Keith Kellogg, Donald Trump chose a very specific, pre-announced plan for the most sensitive of the foreign policy issues that he will have to solve.
Kellogg, 80, a former Trump national security adviser, detailed his intentions in an April article for the political institute, “America First.”
It calls the conflict an “avoidable crisis,” and accuses the Biden administration of dragging America into an “endless war” with its “incompetent policies.”
In short, it is assumed that there will be a cease-fire and a freezing of the front, after which the parties will sit down at the negotiating table. But if we go into details, the situation becomes more complicated.
Another degree of U.S. involvement
Kellogg spent a lot of time criticizing Biden's actions, arguing, among other things, that his administration provided too little lethal aid and, moreover, too late. He emphasizes that Trump's decision to transfer weapons to Ukraine for the first time in 2018 demonstrated the strength needed to confront Putin, and that it is Trump's soft approach to the head of the Kremlin — and not Biden's demonization — that will allow him to make a deal.
Kellogg argues that more weapons should have been provided before and immediately after the entry of Russian troops so that Ukraine could win.
However, Ukraine is no longer satisfied with the plan of further actions that Trump's future national security adviser is hatching.
Kellogg believes that there is no point in the United States intervening in another conflict, and assistance to Ukraine has emptied arsenals and made the country vulnerable in a possible conflict with China over Taiwan. He argues that Ukraine's membership in NATO is actually a very distant prospect, offered to Kiev “in advance” as a sign of symbolic solidarity, and should be postponed indefinitely “in exchange for a comprehensive and effective peace agreement with security guarantees.”
But first of all, the plan says that it should become “the formal policy of the United States to achieve a ceasefire and a diplomatic settlement.”
It says that future U.S. assistance to Ukraine — probably in the form of a loan — will be conditional on the start of negotiations with Russia, and Washington will arm Ukraine so that it can defend itself and stop further Russian offensives before and after the peace agreement. The last sentence could already be outdated due to Moscow's rapid advance in eastern Ukraine. In addition, Kellogg may be disgusted by the current high level of U.S. aid.
Kellogg, by his own admission, drew some of his further ideas from an article by Richard Haas and Charles Kupchan from 2023.
Freezing the front line
The front lines will be frozen with a cease-fire and the introduction of a demilitarized zone. For agreeing to this, Russia will be rewarded with limited sanctions relief. They will be completely lifted only after the signing of a peace agreement that will suit Ukraine. The restoration of Ukraine will be paid for by taxes on the export of Russian energy resources. Ukraine will not have to renounce the occupied territories, but it will agree to seek their return through purely diplomatic means. Kellogg admits that this will require “a diplomatic breakthrough, which is unlikely to happen while Putin remains in power.”
Kellogg's approach is seductively simple and quick. But it does not provide for any measures against Moscow's counterclaims and cynical consolidation of military successes, for which it has repeatedly resorted to diplomacy in the past. The freezing of the front lines will be preceded by harsh months on the battlefield, as Moscow tries to capture as much territory as possible. The Kremlin has ignored the ceasefire in the past and pursued its own territorial goals — and often categorically denying this.
In addition, the demilitarized zone will have to be guarded — perhaps NATO troops or soldiers from countries not involved in the conflict will do this. To put it mildly, it will not be easy to man these lines with personnel. The border will stretch for hundreds of kilometers and will require huge financial investments.
Arming Ukraine so that it can stop current and future Russian offensives will also be difficult. The plan notes that the United States produces only 14,000 155 mm artillery shells per month — Ukraine can use them up in just 48 hours. Paradoxically, Kellogg wants the United States to better arm Ukraine, but at the same time he admits that they are not able to do this.
Changing values
The following lines give us a better idea of the author's train of thought. He argues that national security and the American way come primarily from practical needs.
“Biden replaced Trump's approach with a liberal internationalist approach with an emphasis on Western values, human rights and democracy,” he writes. These are rather gloomy prerequisites for finding a compromise on European security.
He adds that some critics of further assistance to Ukraine — apparently referring to this camp and himself - “are wondering whether America's vital strategic interests are at stake in the Ukrainian conflict, whether there is a risk of direct involvement of the US armed forces and whether America is involved in a proxy war with Russia, which may escalate into a nuclear conflict.”
These two proposals outline the final background for the proposed deal: that Ukraine is fighting for values that we do not need to defend, and that we must yield to Putin's nuclear threat. This is the opposite of the current unity of the West, which prioritizes its own security and values, based on the bitter lesson of the thirties that “pacified” dictators do not stop there.
The plan gives Ukraine a welcome chance to put an end to the bloodshed at a stage when it is losing on all fronts and experiencing an acute shortage of manpower. Perhaps, in principle, she will never overcome this obstacle, since Russia will always be ahead of her.
However, he is starting a process that will appeal to the insidious and deceitful Putin. Taking advantage of the ceasefire and the weakness of the West is his long—standing dream. He had been waiting for this moment for almost three years. The plan seems to come to terms with the fatigue of the West, with the fact that it is lagging behind in the production of weapons, and with the fact that its values require sacrifices. Finally, the measures that Russia will take to disrupt it are not taken into account.
It's a grim compromise for a grim conflict. But instead of putting an end to it, it can open a new page when Western unity and support begin to crumble, and Putin moves even closer to his goals — both at the negotiating table and at the front.
