Nikolay Novik — about the ideas of the future administration of the 47th President of the United States on the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine
Keith Kellogg is a professional military man, a former paratrooper who passed Vietnam, Iraq and Grenada, a knight of orders and state awards, a lieutenant general and Trump's first—term adviser - a man of iron will and a tough negotiating position. His election to the post of special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, bypassing such political heavyweights as Richard Grenell and Boris Epstein, speaks of Donald Trump's great trust and hopes. But there was already a Kellogg in the history of the United States.
Points of the plan
In the summer of 1928, the first treaty on the creation of a collective security system in Europe was solemnly signed in Paris, initiated by French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand and US Secretary of State Frank Kellogg. And now, almost 100 years later, the namesake and military adviser Keith Kellogg and Fred Flitz have presented a new plan to ensure peace on the European continent.
It is obvious that Kellogg's proposals on Ukraine, presented back in the spring, are most clearly and accurately integrated into his picture of foreign policy.
The most significant and relevant points of the Keith Kellogg and Fred Flitz plan:
- ceasefire and freezing of the front line — the parties end hostilities, and the front line will become a new border and a demilitarized zone; Russia will be able to receive a partial easing of sanctions, followed by their complete lifting after the signing of the final peace agreement;
- financial and material assistance to Ukraine with its willingness and consent to negotiations;
- freezing Ukraine's attempts to join NATO as part of security guarantees;
- reparations to Ukraine due to the export tax on Russian energy resources with sanctions and restrictions lifted.
However, an obvious question arises about the reaction to such theses and proposals from the main actors involved in the conflict.
Who needs it
For the countries and institutions of the EU, as well as the UK, in which the "hawks" occupy the most stable and consistent position, freezing the situation or such a peace treaty is tantamount to a crushing defeat of the entire sovereign democratic idea. In their opinion, such a decision will immediately give "the green light for the advance of the Russian army into Eastern Europe and the establishment of tyranny."
Vladimir Zelensky's reaction also fully confirms the desire to continue the conflict. If at the end of November his statements sounded the idea of leaving part of the lost territories in exchange for peace and security guarantees — the NATO "umbrella", then at the beginning of December the rhetoric of his statements became tougher again and it came to the borders of Ukraine for 1991. What contributed to this — promises of support from the EU and the UK or the latest financial and material "gifts" from the Democrats and Biden — remains a mystery.
The Russian authorities are also not interested in promoting such a plan. Earlier, Vladimir Putin had already named the conditions for resolving the conflict, which included the withdrawal of the Ukrainian armed forces from Donbass and Novorossiya, Kiev's refusal to join NATO, the lifting of all Western sanctions against Moscow and the establishment of a non-aligned and nuclear-free status of Ukraine. We will also take into account the fact that the historical capitals of the two newly annexed regions are now partially part of Russia, like Kherson, or not at all, like Zaporozhye.
As we can see, all the parties involved strongly opposed the proposed peace initiatives and messages. Such plans are unacceptable neither for Russia, nor for Ukraine, nor for European pro-government elites, which will force Trump and his emerging loyal administration to look for new keys and approaches.
