‘His tool is blackmail’ How Ukrainian media reacted to Trump’s appointment of Keith Kellogg as Ukraine-Russia envoy
On November 27, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump chose retired General Keith Kellogg to serve as his special envoy for the war in Ukraine. Kellogg, who previously served as chief of staff for the National Security Council and as national security adviser to then-Vice President Mike Pence, has long been considered a contender for the role; his name gained traction in June when Reuters revealed a ceasefire plan he co-authored. Here’s a closer look at Kellogg’s potential strategy for ending the war — and how Ukrainians are responding to his appointment.
The Kellogg plan
Kellogg’s proposed plan, as reported by Reuters, involves pressuring both Ukraine and Russia to negotiate. With regard to Ukraine, the plan includes leveraging military support as a bargaining chip: Washington would threaten to withhold further aid if Kyiv refuses talks. For Russia, the U.S. would issue the opposite threat: escalating weapons supplies to Ukraine if Moscow rejects negotiations.
Fred Fleitz, another former Trump advisor who reportedly helped draft the plan, emphasized to Reuters that the proposal wouldn’t necessarily require Ukraine to formally cede territory. It would, however, entail freezing the conflict along the current front lines, with the understanding that territorial claims would be addressed diplomatically in the future — and likely not anytime soon. Fleitz explained:
Ukraine would not be asked to relinquish the goal of regaining all its territory, but it would agree to use diplomacy, not force, with the understanding that this would require a future diplomatic breakthrough, which probably will not occur before Putin leaves office.
The plan also proposes delaying Ukraine’s NATO membership “for an extended period” in return for a “comprehensive and verifiable peace deal with security guarantees.”
In an interview with VOA after Reuters reported on the plan, Kellogg framed the proposal as an effort to prioritize diplomacy over combat while helping Ukraine negotiate from a place of strength, saying: “I don’t care about Russia. I care about Ukraine.” He also blamed the Biden administration for the war’s current state, suggesting more support to Ukraine earlier on could have ended the war with a better outcome for Ukraine.
The reaction in Ukraine
While Kellogg is generally seen as being “highly loyal” to Trump, whose statements about the war have sparked alarm in Kyiv, his appointment isn’t seen as the worst-case scenario for Ukraine and might even offer some grounds for cautious optimism. Following the announcement of Kellogg’s nomination, reactions in Ukrainian media ranged from mild relief to mild disappointment, with many commentators doubting the feasibility of his plan.
The popular Ukrainian newspaper Strana.ua called Kellogg’s nomination “perhaps the clearest signal from Trump since the election about how he envisions his policy on the war.” The outlet noted that Kellogg has suggested ending the war by freezing the front line “through negotiations forced on Kyiv and Moscow, while also shelving the issue of Ukraine’s NATO membership for the near future.” Strana.ua also reported that many in Kyiv had been holding out hope for the appointment of a more hawkish figure like former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has advocated for bolstering Ukrainian defenses, rather than someone pushing for a swift resolution to the war.
Shortly before Kellogg’s nomination was announced, former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said it was “inconceivable” that Zelensky would sign a deal that surrenders territory — as Kellogg’s effectively would. Kuleba argued that the U.S. cutting off weapons supplies for Ukraine could therefore lead to a collapse of the front. However, Strana.ua noted that this implies Ukrainian leaders would prefer a collapse of the front to a ceasefire along the front lines, which is unlikely to be the case — and that it’s thus “far from certain” that Zelensky would refuse to enter negotiations even if it requires territorial concessions.
Ukrainian political scientist Serhiy Taran, meanwhile, referred to the selection of Kellogg for the envoy position as “one of the best personnel decisions Trump has made in recent times.” At the same time, Taran called the proposal to delay Ukraine’s NATO membership the “worst part” of Kellogg’s plan, predicting that Ukraine will face “extremely difficult diplomatic negotiations with all parties and intensifying pressure from Russia” in the near future. He concluded, however, that the likelihood of “Trump betraying Ukraine” has now decreased significantly.
Ukrainian journalist and AFU soldier Oleksii Yarmolenko wrote on X that he’s doubtful about the plan: “[Kellogg’s] tool is blackmail with military aid, on both sides. But whether it will work — I don’t believe it yet.”
Analyst Yuriy Bohdanov echoed this sentiment, saying that Ukraine will not agree to a ceasefire without security guarantees and that it could continue fighting with support from Europe even if the U.S. stopped providing weapons. As for Russia, Bohdanov argued they Moscow will not agree to a freeze along the current front lines unless they “genuinely fear refusing.” Therefore, he said, in order for the plan to work, the Trump administration must put “serious pressure” on Russia, offering Ukraine either increased defensive capabilities or “tough security guarantees” under which allies would automatically provide military assistance if Russia violates the agreement.
If the plan does work, he said, the result will be a scenario like the one between North and South Korea: “a demarcation of the sides without an official peace agreement, and no resolution.”
Journalist Viktor Shlynchak, head of the Institute of World Policy think tank, wrote on Facebook that the plan “includes points that we won’t like” as well as “some that are quite acceptable.” He predicted that the U.S. “will likely follow this scenario,” but asks: “Will this be enough for Russia, considering the Kremlin has become emboldened and is trying to paralyze the West with fear, hoping to pressure it into agreeing to Ukraine’s capitulation? Or will the U.S. need to use additional leverage to make Putin believe that such a ‘deal’ might also be a good option for him?”
The military analyst who uses the pseudonym Tatarigami expressed doubt that it will be possible to freeze the war at all. “For Ukraine, freezing the front line without defense agreements — such as NATO membership or a scenario similar to the Korean one (involving the presence of Western troops and a military intervention clause akin to NATO’s Article 5) — would be effectively suicidal,” he wrote. At the same time, he noted that Kellogg “has supported Ukraine and visited it personally” and called him “a much better candidate than those who spread disinformation about biolabs or ‘Krushchev’s mistake.’”