In a move that raised many eyebrows, President-elect Donald Trump selected General Keith Kellogg as his Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, who has laid out a detailed vision for ending the ongoing war.
On November 27, Donald Trump revealed on his Truth Social platform that he had selected General Kellogg as his Special Envoy to end the Ukraine war. He highlighted a strategy of “peace through strength” to secure not just American interests but global stability. Kellogg, a seasoned military figure and former White House National Security Council chief of staff, has been vocal about his approach to the Ukraine crisis.
His peace plan, which he co-authored with former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, was presented to Trump earlier this year. It outlines a roadmap to freeze the conflict and bring both Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table.
The document, titled America First, Russia & Ukraine, takes aim at what it describes as the Biden administration’s “incompetent” handling of the conflict. It calls the war an “avoidable crisis” and criticizes US policies that, according to Kellogg and Fleitz, have led to an “endless war” and embroiled America in a global quagmire.
The proposed approach includes an immediate ceasefire that would freeze the frontlines and force Moscow and Kyiv into negotiations.
However, Kellogg’s plan also includes a controversial ultimatum: If Ukraine refuses to negotiate, the US will stop further military aid. On the other hand, American support for Ukraine would only increase if Russia declined negotiations.
Under the proposed framework, a ceasefire would freeze the frontlines and establish a demilitarized zone. In return, Russia would receive partial sanctions relief, with the promise of full relief contingent upon signing a peace agreement acceptable to Ukraine.
While seeking to force both parties toward diplomacy, this plan places heavy stakes on each side’s willingness to cooperate. A levy on Russian energy exports would finance Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts.
While Ukraine would not be expected to forfeit its claim to occupied territories, it would commit to reclaiming them solely through diplomatic channels. The plan also admits that a diplomatic resolution is unlikely to be achieved until Vladimir Putin is in power.
A Different Approach
Kellogg and Fleitz’s argument centers around a critical assessment of Biden’s foreign policy. They accuse the current administration of putting “idealistic agendas” ahead of pragmatic international relations, which results in a breakdown in US-Russia ties.
The pair argue that the US alienated Russia by pursuing a “hostile” policy, which not only resulted in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but also drove Moscow closer to China, creating a new axis of power involving Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.
Kellogg’s plan also addresses the wider consequences of the US’s global stance. It criticizes the Biden administration for its “precipitous” exit from Afghanistan, for straining relationships with important allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, and for adopting a weak and inconsistent approach toward China.
Trump, who has long advocated for an “America First” policy, has responded positively to the plan and signals his intention to move away from the current trajectory of US foreign policy.
The proposed strategy also aligns with the views of Trump’s vice president-elect, Ohio Senator JD Vance, who has frequently argued that US resources should be concentrated on countering China, not on supporting Ukraine.
Kellogg argues that aiding Ukraine has depleted its weapons stockpiles, potentially weakening its position in a future confrontation with China over Taiwan.
The Kellogg-Fleitz plan also advocates indefinitely shelving Ukraine’s NATO membership—a prospect already distant and largely symbolic—in exchange for a comprehensive, verifiable peace agreement with security guarantees.
All in all, the proposal’s cornerstone, inspired partly by a 2023 article by Richard Haas and Charles Kupchan, is the establishment of a formal US policy to pursue a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement.
The plan frames this as an opportunity for Ukraine to halt the violence, especially at a time when it is reportedly struggling on all fronts, grappling with severe manpower shortages—a challenge it may never overcome, particularly against Russia’s superior resources.
Flaws in the Plan
The plan is strikingly straightforward and quick in its approach. However, it also carries various risks. It acknowledges that Putin could exploit a ceasefire, leveraging it as a chance to capitalize on perceived Western fatigue and disunity.
Pro-Ukrainian supporters believe that the plan does not account for Russia’s likely demands or its established pattern of exploiting ceasefires to press territorial ambitions while denying its involvement.
A ceasefire and frozen frontlines could trigger an intense surge in violence, with Moscow scrambling to seize as much territory as possible before negotiations begin.
Additionally, the creation of a demilitarized zone would pose substantial challenges. Monitoring this buffer would likely require NATO forces or troops from neutral nations, placing them in a precarious and high-risk position between the warring factions.
The logistics of maintaining such a zone are also daunting, with its vast stretch across hundreds of miles necessitating a considerable financial outlay and a strong commitment of personnel and resources. However, it’s worth noting that Trump appears to be against sending US troops into Ukraine.
Another sticking point is equipping Ukraine to counter current and future Russian advances. The plan concedes that Western arms production cannot sustain the current pace and implies that its values and strategies are inefficient.
The US manufactures merely 14,000 155mm artillery rounds per month, an amount Ukraine can exhaust in just 48 hours. Yet, the plan offers little consideration for how Russia might destabilize or undermine its objectives.
Meanwhile, in an unusual show of praise, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently lauded U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, calling him an “intelligent and experienced politician” with the potential to resolve ongoing global conflicts.
Putin expressed confidence in Trump’s ability to find solutions but also voiced concerns about the safety of the incoming president, alluding to the multiple assassination attempts Trump has survived.
That said, Western media depict this proposal as, at best, a bleak compromise in the effort to end a devastating war. Rather than securing peace, it may instead pave the way for a new phase of the conflict—one where Western unity and support begin to falter, and Putin, both in negotiations and on the battlefield, moves closer to achieving his goals.
- Contact the author at ashishmichel(at)gmail.com
- Follow EurAsian Times on Google News
