Examining Trump’s Ukraine Policy Through Kellogg’s Tactical Framework
The article discusses the U.S. strategy towards Ukraine, emphasizing a plan by retired Lt Gen Keith Kellogg which suggests reducing military aid to compel Ukraine to negotiate with Russia. The approach reflects on past assertions from Trump, asserting power dynamics, and touches on the implications for NATO membership, territorial concessions, sanctions, and security guarantees, highlighting inconsistencies in the current U.S. stance.
The recent reduction in weapons and assistance to Ukraine by the U.S. has evoked significant reactions from Western allies. This strategy aligns with plans set forth by Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general and current envoy, suggesting that curtailing military aid could induce Ukraine to negotiate a peace settlement. His plan, titled “How an America First Foreign Policy Reduced Risks from Russia During the Trump Administration,” outlines this approach clearly.
Kellogg’s analysis argues that a decisive American stance could have potentially deterred Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, which culminated in the invasion on February 24, 2022. Trump’s approach combines power play without emotional ties to allies or adversaries, supposedly replicating a firm strategy that he claims previously prevented Putin from advancing.
The proposed strategy includes seeking a cease-fire and a diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine conflict while arming Ukraine to bolster its defenses. According to Kellogg’s vision, the U.S. would continue to supply Ukraine with military aid, contingent upon its engagement in peace talks with Russia. This has largely unfolded as predicted, with Trump initiating peace discussions, albeit after a problematic exchange with President Zelensky that resulted in a cutback on U.S. military assistance.
A key component of Kellogg’s plan is to delay NATO membership for Ukraine to entice Russia into meaningful negotiations. This concession was voiced by U.S. defense leaders before the peace talks began, contradicting Ukraine’s desire to secure NATO membership for stronger post-war support. Without NATO’s backing, European nations are assembling a coalition to aid Ukraine, contingent on U.S. support, which is uncertain.
Despite assurances that Ukraine would retain its territorial ambitions, American officials have increasingly suggested territorial concessions as a pathway to peace. Various rhetoric from Zelensky points to the recognition that military victory may be elusive, thus making diplomacy essential, even as Russian forces continue their territorial occupation.
Kellogg’s strategy included a commitment to only lift sanctions on Russia following a satisfactory peace agreement with Ukraine. Nonetheless, U.S. officials are reportedly discussing easing these sanctions prematurely, causing concerns among allies that such actions may bolster Russia’s war efforts.
Moreover, while there is a call for levies on Russian energy profits to fund Ukrainian reconstruction, inconsistencies remain. Trump has expressed intentions to impose more tariffs on Russia, but actual measures are not evident. He finds negotiations with Russia more straightforward than with Ukraine, contributing to a complex dynamic.
Finally, the plan anticipates that the U.S. must provide a secure framework for Ukraine’s defense, positioning it strongly in negotiations. Yet, current interactions suggest a reluctance by the U.S. to offer definitive security guarantees, leaving other nations, particularly in Europe, to assume this responsibility. Ukraine’s proposed ceasefire strategy indicates a need for substantial security assurances amid ongoing tensions.
The evolving strategies regarding U.S. assistance to Ukraine reveal a deliberate and calculated approach influenced by outdated military strategies. The comprehensive plan outlined by Lt Gen Kellogg emphasizes negotiation and diplomacy over military engagement, although the actual implementation appears inconsistent. The future of Ukraine’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity remains precarious, contingent upon both U.S. leadership and responses from international coalitions in the ongoing conflict with Russia.
Original Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
