Keith Kellogg has accused The Times of misrepresenting his words about the demilitarized zone and areas of “responsibility”
US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, General Keith Kellogg, has rejected the notion that he proposed partitioning Ukraine like post-WWII Germany, accusing The Times of misrepresenting his remarks about a Cold War-style post-ceasefire security arrangement.
Kellogg told The Times in an interview published on Friday that British and French – but not American – troops could lead a Western military force positioned west of the Dnepr River, while Ukrainian forces would hold territory further east. He also suggested establishing a demilitarized zone (DMZ) roughly 18 miles (30 kilometers) wide along the current lines of control to prevent direct clashes with Russian forces.
“You could almost make it look like what happened with Berlin after World War Two, when you had a Russian zone, a French zone, and a British zone, a US zone,” said Kellogg, a retired US Army lieutenant general, appointed by Trump to deal directly with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky.
Kellogg acknowledged that Moscow “might not accept” the proposed zones of control, and claimed that a DMZ would create conditions for a “sustainable” ceasefire and would “not be provocative at all” to Moscow.
The British newspaper ran its story with the headline “Trump envoy: We can divide Ukraine like postwar Berlin,” prompting Kellogg to accuse the publication of taking his words out of context.
“The Times article misrepresents what I said,” Kellogg wrote on X on Friday evening. “I was speaking of a post-ceasefire resiliency force in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty. In discussions of partitioning, I was referencing areas or zones of responsibility for an allied force (without US troops). I was NOT referring to a partitioning of Ukraine.”
The Times report, however, noted that Kellogg’s idea implies that any final settlement would involve Kiev relinquishing claims to territories already controlled by Russia – a point that echoes proposals recently floated by Trump’s Russia envoy, Steve Witkoff.
Witkoff, who met Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg on Friday, had previously argued that recognizing Russian ownership of Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson was the swiftest path to halting the conflict. The suggestion, reportedly voiced during a White House meeting last week, has triggered internal debate within the Trump administration, with Kellogg allegedly pushing back against full territorial concessions.
READ MORE:
Putin’s latest talks with Trump’s envoy: What we know so far
Kiev’s backers remain split on a proposed “reassurance force” that could potentially be deployed to Ukraine after hostilities between Kiev and Moscow end. Following the latest meeting of the “coalition of the willing” – composed of some 30 predominantly EU and NATO member states – in Brussels on Thursday, only six Western nations expressed readiness to send troops, according to AFP.
Moscow has repeatedly warned the West against deploying troops to Ukraine under any pretext, specifically objecting to forces from any NATO countries ending up in the country. Last month, former Russian president and deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, said that the potential emergence of any NATO “peacekeepers” in Ukraine would mean a war between the bloc and Russia.
