Ukraine war: Trump nominates Kellogg as US envoy
Retired General Keith Kellogg is to become US special envoy for Ukraine and Russia under Donald Trump. Kellogg was security advisor for the White House during Trump's first term in office - and presented a plan last spring for ending the war in Ukraine according to which the US would bring the parties to the conflict to the negotiating table by exerting pressure on both sides.
Not a plan for sustainable peace
Glavkom comments drily on Kellogg's ideas for ending the hostilities:
“In short, the proposal to Ukraine is to freeze the war at the borders of the territory we currently control. In return for agreeing to this we would receive weapons and security guarantees from the US, Russia would secure an easing of sanctions and Ukraine would refrain from joining Nato. At some point in the future we would in theory have the prospect of the occupied territories being returned 'by diplomatic means', but a new war unleashed by Russia just as soon as it has been able to regroup thanks to the pause is just as likely.”
Reminiscent of Korea
El Mundo is also suspicious:
“Keith Kellogg wants to turn off the tap in Kyiv and keep Moscow on a tight leash by threatening to turn it on again. ... Trump's realpolitik evokes Korea, which is divided by a piece of no man's land from which the North and South Korean military watch each other through binoculars as if it were still 1960. ... The plan means abandoning the notion of a just peace: the military positions would be consolidated - Russia would keep 20 percent of Ukrainian territory - and Putin would be exempt from paying for his war crimes. ... A plan that sounds like a stopgap measure until the next Russian attack. Which could tear Europe apart.”
An old-school warhorse
Political scientist Sergiy Taran breathes a sigh of relief on Facebook:
“Among Trump's staffing decisions, the appointment of retired General Keith Kellogg as his special envoy for Ukraine and Russia is one of the better ones. First and foremost because he is a representative of the classic school of US security policy. And his experience of working with former vice president Mike Pence and – more importantly – his having fought in the Vietnam War indicate that the general has no illusions about how the world really works.”
Nobel Peace Prize not to be ruled out
In a Facebook post, US-based Russian economics professor Konstantin Sonin sees Kellogg's appointment as an opportunity to end the war:
“Of course this plan is not going to make everyone happy. Ukraine's territorial integrity will remain only on paper. In exchange for its return to the global markets, Russia will have to pay compensation to Ukraine for decades. But unlike many other plans, this one has the potential to work. The war would end. It is precisely for such decisions that Nobel Peace Prizes were once awarded to statesmen. Similar solutions were found in Korea and Cyprus, and some of the Israeli peace agreements were also based on similar principles.”
Are the US's arguments credible?
Tvnet sees a weak point in Kellogg's plan to end the war in Ukraine:
“Kellogg's idea that the US should show Russia who's boss here by taking a tough stance isn't bad in itself. However, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence supporting the idea to convince both the aggressor state and Ukraine. After all, there's no reason to believe that the US will really multiply its military deliveries if Russia refuses to sit down at the negotiating table or violates the terms of the ceasefire - which would really tip the scales in Ukraine's favour. If this is possible, why hasn't it been done before now?”
Europeans can only look on
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung warns:
“Kellogg already presented a plan for a quick end to the Ukraine war in the spring, which boils down to a ceasefire in which Ukraine wouldn't get back all its territories and would have to renounce its bid for Nato membership for a long time. ... In any case, it would be a break with current Western policy, which is aimed at weakening Russia but has not yet been able to achieve this to a sufficient extent. It's hard to imagine that the Europeans would be able to fundamentally oppose such a change of course. So far they haven't been able to support Ukraine on their own and will continue to be reliant on America's protection.”