Follow us on social

Trump and Keith Kellogg

Trump Ukraine envoy Gen. Kellogg faces 6 stubborn knots on Day 1

From talking to Putin to acknowledging Zelensky's weaknesses, actual responsible statecraft will not be easy

Analysis | Europe

Responsible Statecraft involves hard choices and unpalatable compromises. General Keith Kellogg, President-elect Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, will need to confront head on a number of stubborn foreign policy obstacles as he seeks to broker peace in Ukraine in 2025.

Right now there is no strategy

Failure in Ukraine has emerged out of western disunity as the U.S., the EU, and the UK and intra-alliance interests collided on key issues such as sanctions, war aims, financial and military support. The run-up to the US Presidential elections, and its aftermath, saw repeated appeals to “Trump-proof” U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

Kellogg should encourage Ukrainian and European leaders to coalesce around a single, realistic vision for Ukraine’s future. Defeating Russia is not a legitimate foreign policy goal as Ukraine will never be in a position to deliver this. The focus might include rebuilding a strong, democratic and prosperous Ukraine that attains EU membership at a determinate time.

We cannot strike a peace deal without talking to Putin 

In their America First paper, Kellogg and Fred Fleitz expressed an understanding of what the Biden Administration did not — that any approach to Russia must involve both deterrence and diplomacy. As they pointed out, “Biden was not interested in working with Putin. He wanted to lecture and isolate him.”

Not talking to Putin has also been an unshakeable UK foreign policy approach since 2014 and is now hardwired within the EU, with its hawkish new foreign policy chief, former Estonian prime minister Kaja Kallas, ruling out direct engagement. Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky has made negotiations with Russia illegal. By contrast, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said repeatedly that he is willing to engage with President Trump and other world leaders to resolve the Ukraine crisis.

Kellogg needs to encourage European leaders to reengage with diplomacy and get on board with a more transactional approach with Russia that seeks workable solutions for all sides.

Ukraine is never going to join NATO

NATO cannot continue to hold a principled line on future Ukrainian membership that it will not underwrite with force of arms. Putin talks about the proximity of NATO rather than its size. Yes, he was forced to swallow Finnish membership, which he regarded de facto as halfway in NATO before his invasion of Ukraine.

However, he has staked his political career on Ukraine never joining NATO for over 16 years, and that will never change. NATO membership should finally, irrevocably and without caveats be taken off the table as part of a deal which provides security guarantees to Ukraine. Who provides those security guarantees will require skillful negotiation, as Russia will expect guarantors to include non-NATO countries.

Kellogg’s role here is in drawing a U.S. line firmly in the sand and killing the idea, in the face of potentially heated European resistance. Ukraine will undoubtedly want to secure a quid pro quo.

The Europeans should stop kicking the EU can down the road

European leaders have disingenuously kicked the issue of Ukraine’s EU membership down the road while supporting the war’s continuation. French President Emmanuel Macron has said that it could take 20 years for Ukraine to join.

I have long been an advocate for Ukrainian membership in the EU. However, and as I have previously pointed out, this will come at a huge and potentially damaging cost to the EU project and to neighboring Poland, if not handled well. Specifically, the EU cannot afford to expand based on its current settlement without intolerable political risks of instability, which we are seeing play out in France and Germany.

Kellogg should press European leaders to chart a realistic membership concept for Ukraine. This might allow for an accelerated political-level membership, even if the more contentious challenges around regional funds for infrastructure investment (called cohesion funding) and agricultural subsidies are deferred for later consideration.

Sanctions haven't worked but can help deliver peace

Russia remains in a vastly stronger position economically than Ukraine because of its size and its effective fiscal and monetary policy since 2014. Sanctions have never nor will they ever tip the balance in favor of Ukraine which is becoming an economically failed state. But even today, considerable effort in the West is invested in exploring how to make sanctions more impactful. This is wasted effort.

There is considerable scope to offer an easing of sanctions that nonetheless maintains economic pressure on Russia. I revealed earlier this year that 92% of all UK sanctions on individuals and 77% of sanctions on companies have had zero impact; the people or entities sanctioned have no freezable assets within our jurisdiction. If the same were to apply across all sanctioning jurisdictions including the U.S., 20,000 Russian “zero-effect” sanctions could be removed upon the agreement of a peace plan between Ukraine and Russia.

This would serve as a hugely symbolic confidence building measure with Russia while offering no short-term economic relief. The harder-hitting sanctions would remain, contingent on Russia meeting its obligations under any peace deal. This should include clarity on how and under what circumstances frozen Russian reserves of around $300 billion will be released.

Zelensky may be part of the problem, not the solution

An end to the war will signal an end to Zelensky’s political career, at least for now. Opinion polls suggest he will lose a presidential election when war ends.

Zelensky’s regular prognostications about putting his country in a stronger position to negotiate look increasingly self-serving. Ukraine will never be in a stronger position than today, militarily economically or demographically. This performative illusion and delusion merely puts off the inevitable and much-needed elections in Ukraine that would follow on from a ceasefire.

Zelensky has undoubtedly played a colossal role as a rallying point for Western support for his nation at war. But he is a politician and not a demigod. And our well-intended political beatification of Zelensky has effectively given him a veto over peace.

Kellogg needs to be hard-headed and recognize that, rather than being part of the solution, Zelensky may be part of the problem in ending the war. He should encourage Zelensky to play his biggest role so far, in putting Ukraine first and taking the country to elections.


Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump and then- chief of staff of the National Security Council at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida U.S. February 20, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Analysis | Europe
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.