In a provocative suggestion, General Keith Kellogg, former envoy to Ukraine under Trump, proposed the idea of partitioning Ukraine, reminiscent of Berlin’s post-WWII division. The suggested plan, covered extensively by The Times, calls for British and French troops to establish controlled zones in western Ukraine, while Russian forces would oversee the eastern regions. A demilitarized zone would be set up for Ukrainian forces, aiming to maintain a ceasefire amidst the tumultuous ongoing conflict.
Kellogg, now 80, asserted that the presence of an Anglo-French force in Ukraine’s western territory, particularly west of the Dnipro River, would not incite Russian hostility. He noted that, much like Berlin was divided into zones by Allied forces, Ukraine could similarly manage military allocations to enforce peace. He remarked, “You could almost make it look like what happened with Berlin after World War Two.” The Dnipro River is posited as a geographical divider, facilitating the separation of forces.
The delineation of zones insinuates recognition of Russian control over occupied territories, an inherently delicate issue. Following stern warnings from Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov against NATO peacekeepers, Kellogg’s proposal might aggravate the existing tensions. The comparison to Berlin’s partition may further trouble the Ukrainian government, especially considering Russia’s dubious rationale for its invasion, often cloaked in the guise of “de-Nazification.”
This proposal sheds light on the Trump administration’s direction regarding Ukraine’s future, marking the suggestion of the Dnipro as a critical line of demarcation. Kellogg, however, affirmed no support for conceding further Ukrainian territory to Russia. Yet, he acknowledged that Russian President Putin might vehemently reject the control zones, necessitating careful mitigation measures to prevent clashes.
To avert conflicts, Kellogg suggested retreating both sides by 15 kilometers to create a clear demilitarized zone, easily monitored, despite anticipated minor violations. Moreover, to encourage dialogue, he indicated a potential for fresh elections in Ukraine post-ceasefire, stressing that the decision rests with the Ukrainian populace and parliament, independent of US influence.
Kellogg admitted that US officials had miscalculated the complexities surrounding the path to peace, especially concerning Ukraine’s valuable mineral resources under the oversight of the Rada. He mentioned, “The last time anybody did a geological survey was the Soviets,” highlighting the opacity surrounding valuable resources. US officials now face the challenge of shifting Kellogg’s vision from a mere economic transaction into a genuine diplomatic accord as they await Russia’s latest negotiating positions.
General Keith Kellogg proposed the partitioning of Ukraine reminiscent of Berlin post-WWII to establish peace. The plan suggests British and French military zones in the west, with a demilitarized zone for Ukrainian forces between them and the Russian-controlled east. Recognition of Russian territorial control creates complications, alongside Ukrainian sovereignty concerns, as negotiations progress towards transforming economic discussions into diplomatic resolutions.
General Kellogg’s proposal for Ukraine’s partition echoes the historical Berlin division, offering a controversial yet intriguing approach to achieving peace. By suggesting controlled zones for various military forces and emphasising the importance of a demilitarized zone, Kellogg aims to curb conflict. However, entrenched geopolitical complexities, Russian resistance, and the inherent sensitivity around territorial governance will significantly influence the feasibility of this plan. Moving forward requires delicate negotiations and mutual acceptance among all parties involved.
Original Source: caliber.az
