Trump's Adviser Critiques Putin's Ceasefire Proposal as Absurd

Vladimir Putin has faced criticism regarding his proposal for a three-day ceasefire, which has been labeled as unrealistic by Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, a retired military officer and special envoy to Ukraine for Donald Trump. Kellogg emphasized the need for a more meaningful agreement that encompasses a complete halt to hostilities across various domains—land, air, sea, and infrastructure—suggesting that the U.S. is looking towards a sustainable solution rather than a brief pause in fighting.

Kellogg shared his insights during a discussion on Fox News, asserting that the Trump administration is advocating for a minimum 30-day ceasefire that could be extended afterward. He cited discussions in London where they developed a substantial 22-point proposal aimed at resolving the conflict, noting that while Ukrainian negotiators have had some concerns, progress appears to be unfolding.

He described the ongoing negotiations as resembling a long-distance race, indicating that the most challenging part lies ahead, with Russia needing to engage more constructively. Kellogg firmly asserted that contrary to claims from Russia, they are not achieving significant victories in Ukraine, highlighting their lack of territorial gains, particularly in key locations like Kyiv and Odesa. He asserted that the Ukrainian forces are defending their territory effectively and that the current situation does not support Russia's claims of being in a winning position.

Additionally, since returning to the White House, Trump has been attempting to present himself as a capable negotiator, despite facing scrutiny over his past attitudes toward the Kremlin. Kellogg's appointment has been interpreted by some as an attempt to lend legitimacy to the ongoing and contentious peace negotiation process, with reports indicating that the U.S. might be promoting a ceasefire that would not only freeze the current frontlines but also include terms regarding Ukraine's NATO membership and security guarantees, which critics believe may inadvertently validate Russian offensive actions.