At the end of June, 2024, the world got its first glimpse at what Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Ukraine in one day might look like. Retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg and former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz submitted a plan to then candidate Trump. In an interview, Kellogg revealed that U.S. leverage would have two fronts. The first is you tell Putin, “He’s got to come to the table and if you don’t come to the table, then we’ll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field.” And the second is, “We tell the Ukrainians, ‘You’ve got to come to the table, and if you don’t come to the table, support from the United States will dry up.’”
Keith Kellogg now serves as Trump’s special presidential envoy for Ukraine and Russia.
The threat could not have been clearer: continued aid was conditional on Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate an end to the war, and if they were not, then U.S. aid would stop. Knowing that clear conditional, Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, sealed his fate with two sentences.
In the televised February 28 meeting at the White House, U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance repeated the Trump policy that “the path to peace” is not the path of war, but the path of “engaging in diplomacy.” Zelensky publicly attempted to refute him with the historically revisionist objection that negotiations with Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, is impossible because Putin cannot be trusted not to break the agreements he signs in negotiations. “What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?” Zelensky objected. “What do you mean?”
Zelensky rejected negotiations as the path to peace. But willingness to travel that path was the condition for continued aid. “If you don’t come to the table,” the plan said, “support from the United States will dry up.’”