Peace on American Terms? The Geopolitics Behind the Kellogg-Witkoff Plan

As the war in Ukraine grinds into its fourth year, and global attention threatens to wane, the United States has once again positioned herself as the indispensable broker of peace. The so-called Kellogg-Witkoff Plan, reportedly presented in outline by retired General Keith Kellogg to European and Ukrainian officials in London in April 2025, and later to Russian President Vladimir Putin by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, marks the most serious American attempt to date to shape an end to the war.

US President Donald Trump then decided to prioritise other American domestic and foreign policies over ending the war in Ukraine, until a flurry of activity in early July in which he had telephone conversations with President Putin of Russia and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine seemingly to try to push the plan again. He subsequently reported that the conversation with President Putin was negative, while the Ukrainian media reported that the conversation with President Zelenskyy was constructive. There was talk of US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suspending arms deliveries to Ukraine, something that had been talked of before, only for Secretary Hegseth apparently to be overruled by President Trump a few days later.

So US support for Ukraine seems stable for now; but the United States is maintaining the Kellogg-Witkoff plan and is seemingly trying to work out how to force it upon Russia. A "secondary sanctions" package remains dormant in the US Senate but with overwhelming support, but as a practical matter it requires a decision of the US President to proceed with it. So the world waits to see what transpires over the summer. We will write further about the proposed secondary sanctions package in a follow-up article.

Nevertheless it is is the Kellogg-Witkoff plan that the United States continues to have in mind as the end to this horrifying war, so it is worth revisiting its terms and consequences. Although no official text has been published, leaked reports from both The Daily Telegraph and the Russian state agency TASS suggest a shared understanding of its core elements. These proposals however reveal not just the contours of a ceasefire, but the deeper geopolitical priorities of the United States in the twenty-first century.

The Seven Pillars of the Proposal

According to both Western and Russian reporting, the Kellogg-Witkoff Plan rests upon seven key provisions:

1. A 30-day ceasefire, initially in the air and at sea, including a halt to drone and missile strikes by both parties, then to be extended to the ground and indefinitely.

   
   

2. The freezing of front lines, with existing positions retained provisionally by both Russia and Ukraine pending future negotiations.

   
   

3. The non-return of Crimea to Ukraine for the foreseeable future, but the eventual withdrawal of Russian forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts (excluding Crimea).

   
   

4. A permissive framework for a European (non-NATO) military peacekeeping force to be deployed in Ukraine under OSCE or EU auspices.

   
   

5. Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, coupled with the postponement of NATO membership for at least ten years.

   
   

6. A formal mineral agreement between the United States and Ukraine for rare earth and energy extraction, that has already been signed.

   
   

7. A joint US–Russia verification mechanism, to ensure compliance and facilitate prisoner exchanges and humanitarian corridors.

These points, while ostensibly focused on ending hostilities, are revealing in their asymmetry — and in their alignment with long-term American strategic goals.

Washington’s Priorities: Order, Resources, and Containment

From the vantage point of Washington, the Kellogg-Witkoff Plan does not simply aim to stop the war. It seeks to freeze the conflict on terms acceptable to the United States, cementing her role as guarantor of European security while limiting further Russian expansion.

The ceasefire in air and sea domains is particularly favourable to Ukraine, allowing her port infrastructure — especially Odesa — to resume full operation. This is vital for grain exports and maritime trade, not to mention for American commercial and logistical access to Ukraine’s economy. The freezing of the front line without immediate territorial withdrawals is a de facto recognition of military realities — Russia has occupied a vast swathe of the southeast — but delays any legal concession of sovereignty. Crimea, already effectively conceded by many in the West, is excluded from the core territorial restitution. Its future status remains ambiguous.

Crucially, the mineral clause — rarely emphasised in press reports — signals the increasing linkage of American industrial policy with its diplomacy. Ukraine’s deposits of lithium, titanium, and other rare earths are of strategic importance for the American green energy transition and defence production. Securing privileged access to these resources prior to the peace agreement demonstrates the interdependence of American geopolitical and economic objectives.

The deployment of a European peacekeeping force underlines Washington’s preference for burden-sharing. In a second Trump presidency, US troop commitments abroad may face sharp limits. By placing the enforcement of peace in European hands — while retaining American strategic oversight — the plan allows the US to lead from a distance while containing Russia by proxy.

Ukrainian Reactions: Reluctant Realism or Imposed Capitulation?

The Ukrainian government’s response to the Kellogg-Witkoff Plan has been cautious, occasionally verging on indignant. President Zelensky, under pressure from a war-weary population but constrained by national principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, has not formally endorsed the proposal. Kyiv objects strongly to any formalisation of Russian control over Crimea and the temporary freezing of Russian positions elsewhere. Ukraine also remains sceptical of Russian compliance, especially in light of the Kremlin’s past violations of ceasefire agreements.

Nonetheless there are signs of pragmatic debate within Ukraine’s political class. The promise of EU accession — long sought and rarely made concrete — carries weight. The provision of a European military presence is welcomed by some as a stabilising factor. And the American mineral deal, while controversial, could eventually unlock large-scale reconstruction and foreign direct investment.

Yet the deepest unease in Kyiv centres on agency. The plan has been discussed with Ukraine, but not by Ukraine. Its formulation, presentation, and even language have been American-driven, with the strong implication that non-compliance may result in diminished Western support. The US government has repeatedly threatened to “walk away” from the peace process if no progress is made, but in fact has not done so and US support for Ukraine remains in concrete terms much the same as it was under the Biden administration, notwithstanding the occasionally curious rhetoric emerging from Washington, DC. Nevertheless there is a constant allusion to an implicit coercive element into what purports to be a diplomatic blueprint.

Russian Calculations: Sanction Relief or Strategic Delay?

From Moscow’s perspective, the Kellogg-Witkoff Plan is both an opportunity and a trap. It offers a way out of battlefield attrition and international isolation, but it also limits Russia’s ambitions. Accepting a deal in which she retains Crimea for some indefinite period but cedes claims to the rest of Ukraine would be a major reversal of the maximalist war aims that the Kremlin said justified the invasion in the first place.

However the Russian economy is under severe stress, manpower is thinning, and the prospects for a battlefield breakthrough are diminishing. For Putin, a ceasefire offers the chance to consolidate gains, redeploy resources, and rebuild his military. The inclusion of a joint verification mechanism with the United States may appeal to his desire for great power parity — even as the peacekeeping force and economic carve-outs favour the West.

Kremlin propaganda outlets have so far portrayed the plan ambivalently, acknowledging its existence but attacking its “Western bias.” Yet Russian negotiators have not rejected it outright. This suggests a potential willingness to consider the proposal if sufficient sanctions relief and legal recognition of territorial gains can be negotiated later. However Russia is clearly not ready yet, Vladimir Putin having apparently snubbed Donald Trump in the pair's telephone call last week.

Europe: Divided but Watching

European reactions to the plan have been fragmented. France and Germany reportedly view it as a potential opening. Poland and the Baltic States have expressed concern about its implications for future Russian behaviour and the precedent of rewarding aggression. The proposed EU accession clause has revived internal tensions among member states over enlargement, rule of law and funding allocations.

Yet even critics admit that the US plan has galvanised the diplomatic process. For the first time in over a year, substantive peace talks appear plausible, albeit tenuous, and the relevant parties are talking albeit via different intermediaries, whether in Washington, Istanbul or Saudi Arabia. The EU’s willingness to provide troops for a peacekeeping mission — a novelty in modern European military history — is itself a diplomatic breakthrough.

Whose Peace, and at What Cost?

The Kellogg-Witkoff Plan is not simply a peace proposal. It is an articulation of American strategic preferences in Eastern Europe: freeze Russian expansion, secure economic advantage, hand off enforcement to Europe, and claim diplomatic credit.

Whether Ukraine can accept such a plan depends not only on battlefield realities, but also on how deeply Washington insists upon her terms. The moral hazard of rewarding partial conquest cannot be ignored — nor can the exhaustion of a nation under siege.

If this is peace on American terms, it remains to be seen whether it is peace on Ukrainian terms — and whether the difference matters in a world where power, as ever, speaks loudest at the table.