What does the right-hand to Lt. General Kellogg think?
Highlights from the America First Policy Institute’s writing by aid to Presidential Envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Gloria McDonald
Following last week’s inauguration, on X I came across the below with Fred Fleitz, Vice Chair of the America First Policy Institute Center for American Security, and former NSC Chief of Staff:
As closely as I follow the Ukraine war, I had not come across Gloria before. A quick X search (despite her not having her own account) reveals how trusted Gloria is by Lt. General Kellogg – himself appointed “Assistant to the President and Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia” by President Trump in November:
Gloria is clearly experienced with Ukraine:
As well as badass:
(Like me doing Spartan Races. What the world needs right now – Spartan Racing diplomats!)
I learned, from my stint in 10 Downing Street, it’s quite often the deputy who actually ultimately shapes policy.
So along with Sang-Hwa Lee at Listening to the Other Side, we decided to read everything Gloria has written for AFPI on Ukraine, often in co-authorship with Lt. General Kellogg, from back-to-front. It’s a great read. I regret not having come across Gloria’s writing much sooner.
The following are our highlights – what we consider are likely indicators of U.S. policy to come – intertwined with commentary from our own (incredibly like-minded) writing over the past two years:
Biden’s Intelligence Disclosures: An Escalatory Approach to Russia (May 2022)
The Biden Administration’s goal throughout this disclosure strategy is to offer Ukraine the necessary support while avoiding the outbreak of a wider war. As Secretary Blinken stated, the administration has operated with the intent “not to start a war, but to prevent one.” However, the introduction of leaking unverified intelligence on Russian chemical weapons to the press as part of their deterrent strategy has served no strategic purpose to either the United States or Ukraine. It has only raised the chances of America entering the war. Furthermore, it has escalated tensions between the United States and Russia at a time when the U.S. should be looking for diplomatic solutions.
> Jared Kushner was saying the same, very early on
By designating President Putin as a war criminal, the Biden Administration has already progressed towards invoking the United Nations Right to Protect to justify U.S. military intervention. Chemical warfare allegations are yet another mark of escalation.
The administration should halt its promotion of unverified and noncredible intelligence and remain strategically focused on supplying defensive aid to Ukraine and ushering in a diplomatic end to the war.
> I was arguing the same in 2022, citing JFK’s Ambassador to Japan, Edwin Reischauer, and his (unheeded) early advice in Vietnam
Defining National Security: A comparison of the Trump and Biden Administration’s National Security Strategies (Mar 2023)
The Biden Administration’s 2022 National Security Strategy (NSS) puts America last as it prioritizes investing American resources in multilateral accords that undermine American interests and promote globalist aims and falsely designates climate change as the top existential threat rather than China.
In stark contrast, the 2017 NSS produced under the Trump Administration offered an approach towards national security in which American interests and safety were prioritized, including countering China, restoring America’s domestic prosperity, bolstering American military power, and keeping Americans and their communities safe.
The release of the Biden Administration’s NSS and the current state of the world details why the renewal of an America First approach to national security is needed and, ultimately, demonstrates the need for strong American leadership that preserves peace through strength, both domestically and abroad.
Pentagon Leaks Highlight Biden’s Incomplete Strategy for Ukraine Spring Counteroffensive (Apr 2023)
Russia currently controls 18% of Ukraine’s territory. If, for argument’s sake, the spring counteroffensive leads to Ukraine recapturing 5% of that territory, will the U.S. then deliver another aid package for a new counteroffensive to capture more territory?
With the war entering its second year and U.S. investments surpassing $113 billion in support to Ukraine, this question remains unanswered. This question also falls on the grim reality of Ukraine’s situation: Ukraine’s resources and manpower are waning. That nation cannot sustain a prolonged war, regardless of how many weapons the West pours into the country. The recently disclosed material from the Pentagon only served to highlight the actuality that Russia is making advances in Ukraine and is holding out for a war of attrition.
> The exact same happened with Pentagon leaks in Vietnam
> And no British publication was willing to publish anything on this in 2023
American leadership, in this context, means not singularly prioritizing all its efforts in the continual armament of Ukraine as part of its proxy war with Russia. Instead… should be on establishing an American interlocutor who can deliver peace through strength via negotiations.
Negotiations are not a call for territorial compromise. Rather, it is laying the groundwork for diplomatic talks between Presidents Putin and Zelenskyy and establishing terms that are favorable to America and our ally, not our adversary. This is the endgame strategy that must come after the spring counteroffensive.
(Richard Haass was then writing the exact same in Foreign Affairs.)
The $113 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine has undoubtedly prevented Russia from capturing the country. But now it is a question of how much more the U.S. continues down a military pathway in its proxy war with Russia. Without having a plan for what comes after the spring counteroffensive — namely, whether there will be negotiations — the U.S. may be entering an endless war and inching closer to a wider escalation with Russia.
The U.S. should lead negotiations to deliver peace through strength, not commit America to an endless war. As former President Donald Trump stated, “We need peace without delay.” This is the America First position and one that must be embraced.
Pushing for Ukraine’s NATO membership threatens to derail an end to the war (Nov 2023, co-authored with Lt. General Kellogg)
The incentive the U.S. could offer Ukraine would be promoting the policy that in lieu of Ukraine’s NATO membership, the U.S. will implement bilateral security agreements, thereby guaranteeing collective defensive measures without playing the provocative NATO membership card.
Many, including Ukrainian officials and Biden Administration officials, believe that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are impossible, or as a Ukrainian official stated, talks with Putin are a “deal with the devil.” The reality, however, is that there is still room for negotiations, which is likely the most feasible pathway to ending the war in Ukraine. Particularly since the “slow pace” of Ukraine’s counteroffensive points to a long war of attrition that will further wreck the country and kill additional thousands of Ukrainians regardless of whether Ukraine could eventually “win” such a conflict.
> We were saying the same on talking with Putin: Should the West talk to him? (October 2023)
As well as detailing a “bilateral-plus” security guarantee – deeply studying the work of Professor Stephen Kotkin and how the 1953 Korean Armistice was composed. (May 2024)
Expert Insights: Ukraine End State (Nov 2023, co-authored with Lt. General Kellogg)
Though President Biden says U.S. support will be for “as long as it takes” and resolute, that is not true. Support for Ukraine has been reactionary, incremental, and void of strategy.
History and experience have shown that incrementalism in conventional warfare is ill-advised, and limited warfare is the path to defeat. Successful warfare means going all in, decisively, with a predetermined end-state. It does not mean going half-in through a drawn-out process. U.S. incremental support in the form of key weapons systems, including ATACMS missiles and advanced F-16 fighter jets, have belied President Biden’s rhetoric on America’s commitment to Ukraine’s goal of militarily defeating Russia.
...This America First approach to national security does not mean retrenchment or isolationism in which America recedes from engagement in the world. Rather, it means a nuanced way to approach national security by ensuring that America’s actions are guided by “principled realism,” tied directly back to advancing America’s vital national interests. This approach, therefore, avoids vague, grandiose, and other ideological paradigms that seek to justify U.S. engagement abroad unnecessarily. Furthermore, an America First national security strategy means staying out of endless wars or interventions that lack clear objectives or benefits.
> Ric Grenell citing Kissinger and Nixon, and the same on “the national interest”
...Options to end the war are limited. A total victory by either side is implausible. Distasteful as it may sound, it is time to address some type of negotiation for peace. Otherwise, this conflict becomes a long-term war of attrition that Russia, with its vastly larger resources and population, as well as the economic backing of China, might eventually win.
Negotiation does not mean surrender.
> Shortly after, the Pope was saying the same
On the contrary, during negotiations, warring will continue. As we experienced in both the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, combat continued during negotiations. There should be no “frozen conflict.” Once negotiations start, we should understand that U.S. military aid to Ukraine will not immediately come to a halt due to the need to enable Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength.
...Bringing an end to the war in Ukraine will not appease the foreign policy personnel who view this conflict as a mission of promoting democracy and defeating Russia as a nation. Instead, the war in Ukraine will be brought to an end by those who understand that the ultimate moral good in this war is to reach an end-state through decisive, America First leadership.
...For negotiations to be successful, incentives and pressure points for both parties are needed. Major discussion points must include a full withdrawal of Russian forces from Eastern Ukraine while ruling out Ukraine’s near-term NATO membership.
> This directionally emulates an ingenious aspect of the 1953 Korean Armistice, in balancing two sides
Ukraine could then be offered bilateral security agreements between the U.S. and European nations. Russia would be warned that a failure of negotiations means a continuation of war, with the West fully and unconditionally supporting Ukrainian military operations to evict Russia forcefully from Ukraine.
...One of the consequences of the Biden Administration’s approach of sending endless aid packages to Ukraine without a defined end state has been to eliminate any incentive for Ukraine to join peace talks and instead opt for total victory.
> The mistake Chiang Kai-shek made (with US-backing) in the Chinese Civil War, 1945–47
Ukraine, for example, was open to negotiations – and even pressed for negotiations – throughout March of 2022.
> 30-minute video I did covering the March/April 2022 negotiations here (90k views)
Yet, President Biden’s assertion that the U.S. will send aid “as long as it takes” has given Ukraine the greenlight to use American resources to achieve its own national goals.
The U.S. should, therefore, consider leveraging its military aid to Ukraine to make it contingent on Ukrainian officials agreeing to join peace talks with Russia to negotiate an end state to the conflict.
The consequences of failure must be addressed as well. Previous attempts by France and Germany to bring peace to the region through Minsk I and II were profound failures. It must be clear to both warring parties that failure to bring peace to the region will have consequences.
> Ric Grenell talking about this and the Minsk agreements here
If Ukraine balks on the initiation of peace talks, U.S. military aid should cease. If Russia balks, the U.S. should provide and press the European allies to provide complete and total aid to Ukraine to pursue military escalation. If these consequences are communicated early to both, the potential for success will increase.
> Exactly how President Eisenhower did it, coming in as the new Republican President, three years into a war, in 1953
As the body that provides advice and consent, the U.S. Senate can ensure a bilateral security arrangement with Ukraine is formulated as we have historically done.
> Exactly how this was done by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, December 1953 (including the actual treaty/text presented to the Senate)
This formal bilateral arrangement through the Senate is necessary to circumvent America’s past broken promises to Ukraine.
> We wrote about this detail – spending two months speaking with figures who were involved in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (and coming to the same conclusion).
President Bill Clinton’s initiative to have Ukraine give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the U.S. in the Budapest Memorandum cannot be repeated.
> We concur
Most importantly, solving the issue of Ukraine allows us to pivot intellectually, diplomatically, militarily, and economically to the greatest threat we face today and will continue to face in the next decade—Communist China.
Zelenskyy and the U.S. military-industrial complex (Dec 2023, co-authored with Lt. General Kellogg)
The U.S. needs a strong defense industrial base to deter our nation’s adversaries and when necessary provide the resources to fight and win our nation’s wars. The U.S. defense industrial base is also vital to preserving national security as it ensures that our country has the innovation and resources necessary to maintain the most powerful and advanced military force in the world. At the same time, the U.S. has had a troublesome history with the defense industrial base improperly influencing U.S. policy.
Mr. Zelenskyy’s recent meeting with U.S. defense contractors brought Eisenhower’s warning of the “permanent armaments industry” promoting military engagement over alternative statecraft tools to the forefront. Both the Biden administration and Mr. Zelenskyy remain committed to military engagement in Ukraine without equally prioritizing viable diplomatic channels to bring the war to an end. Mr. Zelenskyy, for example, has imposed a ban on any Russia-Ukraine peace talks if they include Russian ruler Vladimir Putin [...]
> “Mr. Zelensky, lift this decree” (October 2023)
Challenging the military-industrial complex is not incompatible with supporting a strong military. It is necessary to sustain our military readiness and credible deterrence as it prevents sending America’s finite military resources abroad to endless wars.
> Yes: Diplomacy and deterrence. The two are complementary.
Death of Russian Opposition Leader Ahead of Russian Presidential Elections Undermines Aspirations for a Post-Putin Government to Navigate the Ukraine War (Feb 2024)
With Navalny’s passing, the reality the Western allies must come to terms with is that Putin will remain in power for the foreseeable future, and reaching an end-state to the war must be formulated with Putin in mind. These developments in Russia merit that the U.S. and Western allies begin to establish the necessary conditions and steps to begin peace talks, even as Putin becomes more authoritarian.
> Dominic Cummings, prescient as ever, wrote exactly this in early March 2022
*
I’ll close citing a little-watched radio interview Lt. General Kellogg gave in December:
We’re going to use American influence. We’re going to basically Europeanise the war. Meaning more and more European influence; get them more involved in it. Is that going to be a positive sign? Is that going to help? I think it will, yeah... That’s the kind of approach we’re going to take.
If the incoming team needs a few like-minded allies in Europe, who’ve been writing the same in parallel the past two years, they know where to find us!