UKRAINE Settlement >>Trump choses retired lieutenant-general Kellogg as special envoy for Ukr...

.

US president-elect Donald Trump has put forward his pick to negotiate peace in Ukraine. Keith Kellogg is a retired lieutenant-general who was a national security adviser during the first Trump administration. He's expected to play a crucial role in achieving Trump's stated aim of ending the war - that began after Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor in 2022. For more on this, we talk to Gustav Gressel. He is a Russia expert focusing on military and defense policy at the Austrian National Defence Academy. And we talk to military analyst and senior lecturer in War Studies at Portsmouth University, Frank Ledwidge.
252,232 views Nov 29, 2024 #WarinUkraine #Trump #Kellogg

.

us president-elect Donald Trump has put

0:03

forward his pick to negotiate peace in

0:05

Ukraine Keith Kellogg is a retired

0:08

lieutenant general who was the National

0:10

Security adviser during the first Trump

0:12

Administration he's expected to play a

0:14

crucial role in achieving Trump's stated

0:17

aim of ending the war that began after

0:19

Russia's fullscale invasion of its

0:21

neighbor in

0:23

2022 congratulations thank you Donald

0:26

Trump has criticized Joe Biden's

0:28

handling of the war in Ukraine

0:30

saying it would never have started had

0:32

he been in office the president elect is

0:34

also said he could end the conflict in

0:36

one day without providing

0:40

details on the campaign Trail he alarmed

0:43

officials in keev with comments like

0:46

this Ukraine is gone it's not

0:51

Ukraine

0:53

anymore any deal even the worst deal

0:55

would have been better than what we have

0:58

right now if they made a bad deal it

1:01

would have been much better they would

1:02

have given up a little bit and everybody

1:05

would be living and every building would

1:07

be built and every Tower would be Aging

1:11

for another 2,000 years keeve worries

1:15

Trump will push it to give up land

1:17

seized by Russia in return for peace

1:20

almost 3 years into the war Moscow

1:22

controls about 1if of Ukraine's

1:25

territory he's a great this man will

1:27

play a key role in all future us

1:30

negotiations Keith Kellogg is a Vietnam

1:32

War veteran who served as National

1:34

Security adviser to vice president Mike

1:36

Pence in the first Trump Administration

1:39

in April he published a strategy paper

1:41

suggesting battle lines should be Frozen

1:44

and both sides should be forced to enter

1:46

peace talks under his plan any future US

1:49

military aid would be contingent on

1:51

Ukraine joining the talks and if Moscow

1:53

refused the US would increase its

1:56

support of Ukraine as added incentive

1:59

for Russia Ukraine's desire to join NATO

2:02

would be put off for an extended

2:08

period Ukraine has always seen NATO

2:10

membership as crucial to its long-term

2:13

security it wants guarantees not

2:16

strategies for attaining peace and with

2:19

so much already lost it's unlikely to be

2:22

pleased with any deal where Moscow

2:23

retains control of its land even

2:26

temporarily

2:30

now let's bring in Gustaf gresle he is a

2:32

security and defense expert with the

2:34

Austrian National Defense Academy Gustaf

2:37

do you think Russia is looking forward

2:39

to the Kell plan becoming reality under

2:41

President

2:43

Trump well as they hear freezing the

2:46

front they try to push the offensive as

2:48

hard as they can to achieve as much as

2:50

possible and then see where talks fall I

2:53

mean to be very honest the Kell plan

2:55

isn't that new um the Biden

2:58

Administration was was uh not willing to

3:01

invite Ukraine to Nato uh Biden

3:03

Administration never uh talked about

3:06

Victory or regaining any Borders or

3:08

regaining liners of control um basically

3:11

they talked about a just peace or

3:14

ceasefire on good terms whatever that

3:17

meant but they were not as outspoken as

3:20

the Trump Administration but basically

3:21

meant the same freezing the war so

3:23

whether that works or not like it didn't

3:26

work before will depend on handling the

3:28

details and yeah here I guess Kell is a

3:32

competent man but his president is

3:34

rather impulsive or he to be president

3:36

rather impulsive so we just can make

3:39

guesses whether this will work or not

3:42

well you mentioned the details the plan

3:43

suggests freezing the bad lines where

3:46

they are and delaying Ukraine's

3:48

accession to Nato to allow negotiations

3:51

how much does this differ from the

3:53

policy that Ukraine's partners are

3:54

pursuing

3:56

now well it doesn't doesn't differ much

3:59

uh at least as far as the Americans are

4:01

concerned there are of course a lot of

4:03

Europeans that want Ukraine in NATO and

4:05

see it as the biggest and only viable

4:08

security guarantee for a post war

4:11

Ukraine um but the Biden Administration

4:14

and as well as the German Chancellor was

4:15

never really keen on forwarding that um

4:19

I just uh think that in

4:21

Washington moscow's appetite for

4:24

so-called neutrality is a bit overstated

4:26

the Russians used neutrality as a fig

4:28

Leaf uh to to prevent Ukraine from

4:31

getting any weapons from the West that's

4:33

what they thought with neutrality that

4:35

is kind of insulating Ukraine to make it

4:37

an easier victim now if you look at the

4:38

Kell plan actually weapons deliveries is

4:41

foreseen for Ukraine during the war and

4:43

then to guarantee a stalemate or

4:46

ceasefire um after that and in that

4:49

actually the C plan doesn't differ at

4:51

all from what the Biden Administration

4:53

did just that the Biden Administration

4:55

was very late in its military supply and

4:56

the military supply never was enough but

4:59

the Trump Administration will get this

5:01

right I don't know we can only

5:03

guess now what would the implementation

5:06

of this plan mean for Ukraine's

5:08

neighbors the Baltic countries or Poland

5:11

for

5:13

example well they are of course all

5:16

scared by the perception that outside

5:18

Powers kind of divide and carve out um

5:21

uh another European country uh there

5:23

were also greater emphasize their

5:25

defenses seeing that once you lost some

5:27

kind of land to Russia you will never

5:29

get it back

5:30

um of course a lot will matter in how

5:32

the so-called freeze will come about

5:35

what uh the West will then uh command

5:37

from Ukraine whether Ukraine needs to

5:39

recognize this which would be uh a

5:42

pretty tough call um but uh and and if

5:45

that is demanded of course it would

5:47

greatly shake the confidence in in

5:50

alignment with America but yeah they are

5:52

all nervous and they all know that uh

5:55

they might be next in line in in this

5:57

game of reconquering Russian Earth

6:00

and and so you see polish defense

6:02

spending going to 4.7% of the GDP and

6:05

Baltic countries following in suit as

6:08

does Finland now coming back to uh

6:12

Ukraine there could the current

6:14

Ukrainian government under President

6:16

zilinski even agree to such a plan

6:18

without losing its

6:22

credibility well there is um sort of iny

6:26

if people see that uh very differently

6:28

the a lot of the civilian leaders uh in

6:32

in KF warry that you might have people

6:35

who have sacrificed so much than being

6:37

very dis satisfied when I talk to

6:40

soldiers they say look we know that the

6:42

the military equipment for doing more

6:45

isn't forthcoming and the West isn't

6:47

interested and we have lost so much um

6:50

if we at least have a perspective for a

6:52

secure postwar Ukraine uh then will'll

6:55

have to accept whatever the outcome is

6:57

and there will be no revolt I think U

7:01

that uh that that will be the case

7:03

however the tricky issue for Ukraine

7:06

more than territories is the the

7:09

perspective of having a guarantee or

7:11

credible deterrence against the future

7:14

Russian aggression because most of those

7:16

people who fight now especially those

7:18

who volunteer fight now they say look

7:20

we're fighting now because we don't want

7:22

our kids to have to fight the same War

7:24

all over again um if you have a shady

7:27

agreement that doesn't provide long-term

7:29

security exactly this rational why they

7:32

joined will be jeopardized and I think

7:34

that is more destabilizing than um

7:37

Reckoning with with the fact that Crimea

7:40

is gone now can you imagine a scenario

7:43

in which the Europeans continue to

7:46

support Ukraine's current cause while uh

7:48

the US under Donald Trump takes a

7:50

different

7:52

direction that would be an extremely

7:54

tough call because uh Europeans don't

7:57

produce uh many defense good at the

7:59

quantity that Ukraine needs um look at

8:02

air defense missiles the Americans

8:04

produce more Patriot missiles than uh

8:08

France the United Kingdom Germany uh

8:11

together uh any heavy Sam system or we

8:14

we cannot uh compete here with the US

8:16

defense industrial base there might be a

8:19

solution that Europeans buy for some of

8:21

the American Equipment ammunition that

8:23

is De needed then of course the costs

8:26

are shifted on European shoulders but

8:29

that would of course demand the Trump

8:30

Administration to be willing to sell

8:32

these goods and not for example uh

8:35

trying to uh add caveats to that for

8:39

example trade dispute issues and

8:41

Europeans need to accept them as as a

8:43

return favor for weapons Gava there with

8:47

the Austrian National Defense Academy

8:48

thank you very

8:50

much you're

8:53

welcome let's get some analysis now from

8:55

Frank ledwidge he's a military analyst

8:57

and Senior lecturer in war studies at

8:59

Port Portsmouth University Frank Donald

9:01

Trump has chosen Keith Kellogg as his

9:04

special Envoy for Ukraine what do you

9:06

make of

9:09

that good morning Terry my view is it's

9:13

very positive General Kellogg's been

9:16

involved in this issue for the last

9:17

three years he's demonstrated I think

9:20

and spoken about I want to say support

9:23

for Ukraine but he's not one of these uh

9:26

disdainful and hostile commentators in

9:29

the in the United States he's got a very

9:31

serious military background you heard in

9:33

the report there he's thought a lot

9:35

about this and his report for the think

9:37

tank the American America First policy

9:40

Institute which was summarized there

9:42

seems to me to be the closest thing

9:44

we've seen for quite some time to any

9:47

kind of strategy coming out of the

9:48

United States now of course all of these

9:51

things involve tradeoffs but I think

9:54

there could have been worse choices and

9:56

I can't think of too many better to to

9:58

carry on this process within the context

10:01

of a trump

10:02

presidency now Kellogg's plan for ending

10:05

the war involves freezing the battle

10:07

lines and forcing both Ukraine and

10:09

Russia to the negotiating table is that

10:12

the most likely scenario at this point

10:17

Frank who knows war is contingent War

10:21

has a life of its own my concern about

10:23

this is despite the fact that it does

10:25

look something like a strategy the thee

10:29

elements within it all present

10:30

significant problems you heard there

10:32

that Ukraine would effectively have to

10:34

abandon NATO Ambitions in return for

10:37

some kind of strong security guarantee

10:39

and the only worthwhile security

10:40

guarantee is from the United States

10:43

which again presents problems the

10:45

implication is there would be a

10:46

demilitarized zone along the Frozen

10:48

front line who's going to police that is

10:51

that going to be Western Powers well

10:53

probably not I can't see the Russians

10:54

doing that and the other problem and

10:56

it's a overriding issue is Leverage the

10:59

Russians are winning this war at the

11:01

moment and uh it's not clear to me that

11:04

the threat to withdraw weapons or indeed

11:07

let's say flood weapons into into

11:10

Ukraine is going to be much of a it's

11:13

going to convince Putin to do anything I

11:15

think the Americans have con conceded

11:18

and rightly that there's very little

11:20

left to give that they haven't given

11:22

already although some may say there are

11:25

things they could have done two years

11:26

ago and that's certainly the case can't

11:27

do it now now President Putin uh is

11:31

threatening to use Hypersonic missiles

11:34

to strike what he calls decision making

11:37

centers in keev is this something to be

11:39

concerned about

11:42

Frank yes again there are unknowns here

11:47

the missile which is the rs26 arnik we

11:50

saw used last week is a it's it's not

11:52

necessarily it's a new development

11:54

essentially of a rather older design and

11:56

you see it there on the screen rather

11:58

frighteningly and what you see there are

12:00

multiple uh multiply targeted Warheads

12:03

now those aren't Precision guided what

12:05

they are designed they're actually

12:06

designed to hold nuclear

12:08

warheads uh you can put High explosives

12:10

in them the problem from the Ukrainian

12:13

perspective is that and the Western

12:15

perspective because these are these

12:17

missiles are designed to be used in

12:18

Europe and have the range to hit any

12:20

Target in Europe they're the equivalent

12:22

of the old missiles we used to talk

12:23

about in the Cold War intermediate range

12:26

ballistic missiles the problem is are

12:28

very very difficult to shoot down

12:30

however they're not Precision guided so

12:33

those Warheads you saw they're targeted

12:35

on denpro were not hitting targets

12:38

within meters as other kinds of missiles

12:41

can is there any kind of defense for

12:45

against this kind of missile Frank could

12:47

the us maybe provide Ukraine with the

12:50

technology needed to defend itself

12:52

against these

12:55

missiles the only technology which might

12:57

be able to counter them is called the th

12:59

which we One battery of which we saw

13:01

deployed to Israel recently that would

13:03

be a significant uplift in us help there

13:05

are only I think seven batteries of THS

13:08

they have been used successfully against

13:11

this kind of Target in uh in the Middle

13:13

East in the past I think it unlikely the

13:15

US would would uh transfer them to

13:18

Ukraine for the simple reason that these

13:20

are always under Us control they come

13:21

under Missile Command not under the line

13:24

Armed Forces as it were technically they

13:26

can shoot these down but they have to

13:28

hit them before those Warheads are

13:30

released which presents other problems

13:32

so the answer to your question is in all

13:33

likelihood no it's very unlikely

13:35

ukrainians are going to get any kind of

13:37

capability which will challenge the Ares

13:39

however it also must be said we don't

13:41

know that the Russians have any more of

13:42

these it is as I think was said in your

13:44

report an experimental missile of course

13:47

we saw it experimented in Deno how many

13:50

of these the Russians have we don't know

13:54

Frank thank you very much as always our

13:55

military analyst Frank Leed there