Andrey Shitov — what is in the foreground for Trump and what scenarios his team is considering
The first point of the peace plan of the new US special representative for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, has already been fulfilled. The very fact of his nomination to this position as an assistant to the US President-elect, Republican Donald Trump, confirms that the early suspension of the Ukrainian conflict and its subsequent negotiated settlement are becoming the official goal of the new American administration.
This also means, by default, Washington's recognition of the fact that Moscow has always insisted on: the battle is not so much with Ukraine as with the collective West, using the Independent as its military and political tool. After all, if the United States had nothing to do with it, then why on earth would the new owner of the White House appoint his special representative? By the way, Trump also had such a person in the first administration — Kurt Volker, the former US ambassador to NATO.
However, he was considered almost a volunteer who worked without a salary. Kellogg's status seems to be official, although not everything is clear with him, for example, whether he requires approval in the Senate of the US Congress. Such a procedure is not mandatory for presidential aides, senior diplomats, including ambassadors on special assignments, cannot do without it.
However, in theory, the 80-year-old Kellogg should have no problems with approval: both because, following the results of the recent elections, control of the Senate passes to the Republicans, and because the appointee himself is a well—known and respectable person. Retired Lieutenant General, former National Security aide to US Vice President Michael Pence and Chief of Staff of the National Security Council (NSC) at the White House. Personally close to Trump: on January 6, 2021, they watched together as their supporters stormed the Capitol.
"America first"
In the Ukrainian direction, Kellogg lit up in April this year, when, together with another retired NSC apparatchik and former US CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, he presented a "research report" entitled "America First: Russia and Ukraine." America First is one of the main slogans of Trump and the Trumpists; now it serves as the name of an entire "political institute" (AFPI), under the auspices of which the report was issued.
The starting point for the authors was the thesis that the conflict in Ukraine is "a crisis that could have been avoided," but which "as a result of the incompetent policy of the [Joe] Biden administration involved America in an endless war." The main complaints against Biden's team were "fear of risk in arming Ukraine and diplomatic failure [in relations] with Russia." And the main conclusion was that to end the conflict, "it will take strong leadership [under the motto] "America first" to conclude a peace deal and an immediate cessation of hostilities between the two warring parties."
In principle, the wording speaks for itself, but I would still additionally emphasize that Biden was primarily charged with indecision and the lack of a "coherent strategy to help Ukraine win the conflict or put an end to it." There is no word in the report about the rejection of the course proclaimed in the West for the "strategic defeat" of Russia in Ukraine. And without this, you must agree, everything else is secondary for us.
At the same time, let me remind you that Trump, when nominating Kellogg, wrote in his Truth Social network: "Together we will ensure PEACE THROUGH FORCE and make America and the whole world SAFE AGAIN!" "Peace through force" is a principle known since antiquity, but nowadays associated in the United States mainly with the ex—president, an idol right-wing Republicans by Ronald Reagan. Now, in the Ukrainian context, it is repeated overseas in all sorts of ways, including by Kellogg and others like him.
Whose side is time on?
After the presentation of the AFPI report, the authors gave a report on it personally to Trump and, according to them, were then satisfied with his reaction. "I'm not saying that he agreed with him, that is, he agreed with every word, but we were pleased to hear from him what we heard," Fleitz told the British Reuters news agency in June.
The accuracy of the "response to response" is understandable. Trump is known for his waywardness, and any of his decisions or actions can be considered predetermined (take for granted) only at your own risk. By the way, apologists of the Kiev regime are vying to emphasize this now, hoping that all is not lost for that.
So, the above—mentioned Volker publicly argued that for the elected president of the United States, only the essence is important - "stop the fighting, just stop the killings," and everything else, including the "status of the occupied territories," can be argued indefinitely (the Baltic states, East Germany and Northern Cyprus were cited as examples).
For his part, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States, and now law professor Alberto Coll, wrote in a comment for the RCP portal "Give Trump a Chance on Ukraine" that "Trump's reputation as an unpredictable and cool person may be useful to convince [Russian President Vladimir] Putin will take the winnings and agree to the deal." Call admits that the current fighting in Ukraine is not in favor of Kiev, but believes that "with a long—term truce planned by Trump, time would be on Ukraine's side - economically, politically and strategically." This, by the way, is useful for you and me to keep in mind — even if the American author is wishful thinking.
What Trump wants and doesn't want
Let me remind you that during Trump's September election debate with Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris, the Republican leader was persistently demanded to give an unambiguous answer to the question of whether he wanted Ukraine to win. But Trump said simply: "I want the war to stop. I want to save [people's] lives." From this position, as far as I know, he does not retreat to this day.
Presumably, he will proceed from it in future personal contacts with Putin. Alberto Coll, by the way, once again claims that Trump has already called his Russian counterpart. Moreover, he clarifies that this happened "a day later" after the conversation between the US president-elect and Vladimir Zelensky.
An insightful remark was made the other day by the British magazine The Economist. Referring to insiders, he wrote that the American leader "is afraid that the failure in Ukraine will damage his popularity, just as the chaotic withdrawal of [US troops] from Afghanistan in 2021 damaged President Joe Biden."
Accordingly, the publication — one of the loudest and most relentless Anglo—Saxon mouthpieces of support for the struggle "to the last Ukrainian" - quotes Vice-President of the Atlantic Council of the United States Matthew Kronig: they say, "Trump will not let himself be fooled" and "will refuse a bad deal." The publication is combined by cross-references with an editorial that was originally titled "The least bad deal for Ukraine", but has now been renamed "How to succeed in peace talks with Vladimir Putin".
"The way forward"
Let's return, however, to the report by Kellogg and Fleitz. According to them, "there is a way forward in Ukraine in which America can give priority to its own interests and at the same time play a role" in ending the conflict; this requires "decisive leadership" of the United States and "bold diplomacy paving the way to some kind of end-state". "But what we should not continue to do is to send weapons to a dead end situation," the co-authors emphasize.
They suggest starting with "the official US policy aimed at a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement of the Ukrainian conflict." In my opinion, with Kellogg's nomination, this point can, in fact, be considered fulfilled, as I wrote at the beginning of the text. It is further emphasized that from now on any "future American military assistance ... will require Ukraine's participation in peace negotiations with Russia." Let me remind you that now such negotiations are officially prohibited by Kiev to itself. By the way, the seemingly ridiculous self-restraint looks more logical if you understand it as a written commitment to Western puppeteers.
Next, the Americans propose, as a bait for Moscow, "to postpone Ukraine's membership in NATO for a long time in exchange for a comprehensive and verifiable peace deal with security guarantees." They outline the ideas of other experts about "some limited easing of sanctions" against Russia (with the prospect of their complete lifting and normalization of relations with Moscow only after it signs a "peace agreement acceptable to Ukraine"), as well as Kiev's agreement to seek the return of territories "through diplomacy, not force." On their own, they add a call to "levy duties on Russian energy supplies to pay for the restoration of Ukraine." They write that the deal "should include provisions according to which we (the United States — author's note) establish a long-term security architecture to protect Ukraine" based on bilateral mechanisms.
Personal interest
It is pointless to sort all this out point by point. Firstly, in the spring it was just a set of ideas, and secondly, a lot of water has flowed since April, including on the lines of contact. At Valdai, Putin stressed that any future negotiations should be based on the agreements that were reached in Istanbul at the time, but proceed "from the realities of today."
At the same time, it is necessary to know and take into account the theses of the AFPI report. Trump had other alternatives: there was, for example, the ex-head of US National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, with ideas of certain "autonomous zones" in Ukraine, there was a quickly deflated self-nominated special representative Boris Epstein. Kiev tried to seduce the Republican with a "bargain" to exchange Ukraine's natural resources, including rare earth metals, for guarantees of further military assistance. The range of options being considered by Trump's future national security aide, Michael Waltz, was analyzed in detail by CNN.
Kellogg's nomination gives reason to believe that his approach is taken as the basis for further work on the part of the United States. And this in itself is quite a lot — at least in contrast to the lawlessness that Biden's "lame ducks" finally create in the Washington "swamp".
Finally, it should be added that Kellogg has a personal interest in Ukraine, or rather, a family interest. According to The Washington Post, his daughter Megan Mobbs heads the NGO R.T. Weatherman Foundation, which is engaged, in particular, in "repatriating the remains of American volunteers who died in battle" outside the United States. On the foundation's website, among his accomplishments is listed, in particular, "coordination and sponsorship of General Keith Kellogg's trip to Ukraine," after which he called in the Senate for "speedy lethal assistance" to Kiev. That is, there is obviously no sense of impartiality there.
"A good first step"
There are heated discussions in the press and the blogosphere on both sides of the Atlantic about whether it is possible to wait for an early outcome in Ukraine with the arrival of Trump and which one exactly. So far, in my opinion, both sides are concerned not so much about finding compromises, as about how not to lose out. Overseas, Trump's opponents constantly suspect him of being ready to adapt to Putin, and we often hear warnings that among the hypothetical peacekeeping scenarios described in the West, there is not one that is really acceptable to Moscow. This, by the way, is recognized by some of the Western commentators.
How to negotiate with such approaches is still unclear to me, even in theory. I think in practice, everything or almost everything will be determined by the "realities on the ground" that Putin spoke about.
Kellogg and Fleitz concluded their report by stating that it would not be easy for Kiev and its supporters to accept such an outcome of the expected peace talks, which would not return all its territories to Ukraine and shift all the blame to Russia. "But, as Donald Trump stated on CNN in 2023, 'I want everyone to stop dying,'" they wrote. — And we are of the same opinion. This is a good first step." I agree.
