The Trump administration envoy for Ukraine and Russia blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Thursday for the U.S. pause in military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
The Ukrainians “brought it on themselves,“ Ret. Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg told a Council on Foreign Relations symposium on Thursday, referring to Zelensky’s confrontation with Trump at the White House last week. Speaking of the February 28 encounter, Kellogg said “that 50 minutes in the Oval Office was entirely preventable,” and he claimed that Zelensky had been “forewarned” that the meeting was not the place for a public discussion about the war. “Some people misread the room,“ Kellogg said.
Those 50 minutes have been watched and analyzed extensively over the last week – with some blaming Zelensky and others blaming President Trump and Vice President JD Vance for an encounter that veered into an unprecedented public meltdown that was followed by a White House shutdown of military and intelligence support for Ukraine.
“President Zelensky clearly wanted President Trump to side publicly with the United States against Russia,” Kellogg said. “You don't negotiate peace discussions in public. You don't try to challenge the President of the United States in the Oval Office, that in fact you need to side with me and not the Russians.”
In a pair of directives earlier this week, the Trump administration ordered a halt to the delivery of U.S. military aid and then ordered a cutoff on sharing some U.S. intelligence with Ukraine. That intelligence, sources tell The Cipher Brief, has been used to alert Ukraine to incoming Russian attacks, and to provide information about targets inside of Russian territory.
Kellogg acknowledged the pain that the cutoffs would bring to Ukraine but said they were imposed as a “forcing function” to change Ukraine’s approach. Kellogg likened the U.S. moves to “hitting a mule with a two-by-four across the nose,” as a way to compel a change in the Ukrainian approach.
Pressed on whether President Zelensky’s more recent statements – his expressions of gratitude to the Trump Administration, his willingness to sign a minerals deal with the U.S., and a new peace plan he put forward Tuesday – would change U.S. policy, Kellogg wouldn’t say. Nor did he offer any specific answer to the question of what Zelensky and his government would have to do to compel a change in policy.
U.S. national security advisor Mike Waltz said on Wednesday that the pause of military and intelligence support would be lifted when a date for peace talks with Russia is set. After Kellogg's comments on Thursday, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff told reporters that U.S. and Ukrainian officials are planning to meet in Saudi Arabia next week to discuss a “framework for a peace agreement and an initial ceasefire as well.”
The Cipher Brief Honors Dinner is on April 18th in Washington D.C. Request an invitation to the most glamorous national security dinner of the year.
Defending the “reset” with Russia
In his address to the symposium, Kellogg also defended the Trump administration‘s recent engagement with Russia as being in the “vital national interest“ of the United States. He blasted the Biden administration for refusing to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said the isolation of Russia was no longer a “sustainable strategy“ for the United States.
“There is a broader strategy at play in President Trump's approach to this war that is informed by the realization that the United States needs to reset relations with Russia,” Kellogg said. “The continued isolation and lack of engagement with the Russians as the war in Ukraine continued is no longer a viable or a sustainable strategy, and is certainly not a responsible approach diplomatically for the United States to continue.”
Asked in a question-and-answer session to name examples of pressure being placed on Russia, Kellogg referenced sanctions on the Russian energy sector and its “shadow fleet“ of oil tankers, and the threat to use frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. When asked whether there were examples that Russia had “changed,” Kellogg offered nothing concrete, saying only that the Russians had shown they were willing to talk.
“What you're witnessing are urgent efforts by the Trump administration to bring both sides to the table in order to get to a peace settlement,” Kellogg said. “And bringing both sides to the table, meaning applying pressure points and incentives, sticks and carrots on both sides to get them to the table and agree to peace terms.”
Various experts on a panel that followed Kellogg’s speech noted what they saw as an uneven application of U.S. pressure on Moscow and Kyiv.
“On one side, we've got a criminal aggressor, and in the world's eye we're treating that criminal aggressor with kid gloves,” said Cipher Brief expert and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe Gen. Philip Breedlove (Ret.), speaking about the U.S. approach to Russia. “On the other side, we have a nation that's been invaded, clearly the victim, and we seem to be dealing with them with a hammer.”
Breedlove said that the direct U.S. engagement with Moscow, the freezing out of the Europeans, and a series of recent Trump administration statements – no NATO membership for Ukraine, the likelihood that Russia would keep captured territory and others – had been gifts to the Kremlin.
“Before the negotiations even start, we have given huge, huge policy concessions to Russia,” Breedlove said. “And I don't think we're walking in the door with a strong hand when that's the way we begin.”
Alina Polyakova, President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis, called the U.S. approach a “strategy of carrots for the Russians and a strategy of sticks for the Ukrainians.” Fiona Hill, a former Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs at the National Security Council, and a diplomat with extensive experience in Russia, echoed that point.
“What I've seen coming back in some of the pronouncements, not from General Kellogg but from some of the statements from Special Envoy [Steve] Witkoff and others,” Hill said, “is that they've taken completely on board both the Russian talking points and the Russian positions.”
She added that when it comes to any carrot-and-stick negotiation with Russia, “depending on the texture of the carrots, they’ll either eat them or hit you over the head with them.”
Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that provides the best way to unwind while staying up to speed on national security.
A departure from Trump: Naming the aggressor
Kellogg’s speech opened with a catalogue of Ukrainian suffering that might have been delivered by any staunch supporter of Ukraine. He highlighted Russian attacks on the Ukrainian cities of Mariupol and Izium, detailed visits he had made to wounded Ukrainian soldiers in Irpin, and the deprivation caused to civilians from a lack of electricity. He also named the aggressor in ways that President Trump himself has not.
“Russia's actions have been a catalyst for a broader crisis throughout Europe to include ongoing refugee energy, security, food scarcity, inflation, and defense readiness issues across the entire common,” Kellogg said. “I've seen the destruction of Russia's war firsthand, having visited Ukraine, including the Donbas region.”
Last week, the Trump Administration voted against a United Nations vote that would have named Russia the aggressor in the war.
Kellogg also noted that “Russia's war effort has led to a deepening of alliances with the Chinese, the Iranians and North Koreans, where the Europeans are supporting Ukraine by proxy, in a simple fear that if Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, the war will spill over to the rest of Europe.”
But while the previous administration would have used such examples as reasons to support Ukraine and isolate Russia, Kellogg used them as evidence of the urgency of finding a path to peace – even if that meant making concessions to Russia.
“President Trump has been clear that the United States' primary objective in this war is to stop the killing and give both sides to the table and implement an enduring peace structure,” he said. “We have found from previous approaches, you cannot avoid talking to your adversaries or friends alike.”
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
