Ghosts and signs: What tactics is Trump's team using in the games surrounding the end of the war?

On the night of Monday, February 3, U.S. President Donald Trump announced in Kyiv that his administration is negotiating with Ukraine, Russia, and "other parties." "We are dealing with Ukraine and Russia. We have meetings and conversations planned with various parties, particularly Ukraine and Russia. I think the discussions are going well," emphasized the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Just a few hours earlier, Trump's special representative for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, warned that both sides would need to make concessions if they hope to reach an agreement to resolve the conflict. "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has already indicated that he will soften his stance on the territories. Putin will also have to soften his positions. We will have discussions with everyone, and likely very soon. And this is good for both sides," Mr. Kellogg stated.

Overall, despite the fact that Donald Trump's recent statements fall within the paradigm of his many previous remarks, the mention of "serious discussions" between the U.S. and the aggressor country draws attention, as the current occupant of the White House deemed it necessary to announce publicly. In general, the public line of Trump's team is systematically being filled with new outlines. For instance, the aforementioned special envoy Kellogg, in a recent interview with Fox News, expressed that Donald Trump "has a good, reliable plan to move forward, to start talking and working" on the resolution. Without going into details, he referred to Trump as a "master of deal-making." "He knows where to push, where not to push, but more importantly, he will create leverage for both Ukrainians and Russians," explained the retired general.

An important point in Keith Kellogg's interview was the mention of the expected timeframe for achieving progress on a peaceful resolution. "I would like to say that we are talking about months, not years. I would like to believe that we can achieve something in the short term. What do I mean by 'short term'? I would like to determine where we are in 100 days: either at a ceasefire stage or at a stage of lasting peace," Kellogg stated. He also acknowledged the possibility of introducing new anti-Russian sanctions, noting that "the decision rests with the U.S. president." In Mr. Kellogg's view, the measures imposed by the previous administration against Putin's Russia were not the strictest: they could be rated a six on a ten-point scale, while compliance monitoring could be rated even lower, at three points.

It seems that the mention of a hundred-day deadline necessary to move the negotiation-peace process off dead center was not coincidental in Keith Kellogg's interview with Fox News. According to sources from The Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump had previously tasked his special envoy with reaching a decision to end the Russian-Ukrainian war specifically within 100 days. At the same time, the publication assessed that "striking a deal with Putin will be a much more complicated task than Trump envisioned during the election campaign."

Meanwhile, Reuters, citing sources within the White House, reports that there is an ongoing debate within the new American administration about whether to insist on a ceasefire before a final resolution is reached. Additionally, according to the agency, Keith Kellogg and other White House officials are actively discussing whether to encourage Ukraine to hold presidential elections at the initial stage of a ceasefire. It should be noted that President Zelensky's term expired on May 20 of last year; however, it is quite logical and understandable that new elections are not being held due to the military situation in our country. In a comment to Reuters, Kellogg emphasized that the White House is interested in holding presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine this year. He added that such elections could take place after achieving a temporary ceasefire in Ukraine, and obviously, their winner would then be a key figure in reaching an agreement for long-term peace. However, Keith Kellogg did not rule out that elections could occur even without achieving preliminary agreements on ending military actions. He stated that "the beauty of democracy" lies in conducting such competitive elections.

"Democracy truly has its beauty. However, it remains completely unclear how Keith Kellogg and his boss Donald Trump envision the actual conduct of elections in Ukraine before the end of hostilities. The Ukrainian Constitution explicitly prohibits any electoral process while martial law is in effect. Imagining the lifting of martial law when Ukrainian troops continue to hold back the Russian army's advance on their territories, and Ukraine remains under constant threat of missile strikes and drone attacks from the enemy, is, to put it mildly, not very realistic. Not to mention that participating in elections could be considered quite dangerous due to the potential gathering of large crowds in areas at risk of enemy missile or drone strikes. Moreover, other issues may arise regarding conducting elections under martial law: the integrity of voting, the possibility of Ukrainian servicemen voting, as well as millions of people who are outside Ukraine. Finally, there is the competitiveness of voting, which General Keith Kellogg refers to as beauty. It is evident that political competition during presidential and parliamentary elections would create even more serious conditions for the division of Ukrainian society, and consequently, failure in the war against the Russian Federation," notes the well-known international journalist Vitaly Portnikov on his authorial YouTube channel.

In turn, political scientist Vadim Denisenko emphasizes the following: "I have repeatedly stated that the first stage of negotiations will likely be sabotaged by the Russians using the hands of Ukrainians. The demand for elections is, de facto, the same formal excuse for delaying real negotiations. In any case, we must understand three things for now. First. Apparently, we will be forced to hold elections as quickly as possible. The ideal option from Washington's perspective is a pause in the war, followed by elections, and then negotiations, although this currently appears very vague. But it seems the U.S. does not rule out a Plan B, where elections occur during the war.

The second important point is that the U.S. seems to have settled on two main starting demands for negotiations – that Ukraine does not join NATO and the elections. The third aspect concerns the reasons for the decision on elections, which are as follows: the U.S. realized that it would not be possible to conduct swift negotiations without elections, which are the main demand of the Russians. Here, Putin has trapped himself because he personally stated this without imposing additional demands. And it seems that Trump has accepted this game. The U.S. believes that any negotiation resolutions should be signed and implemented by a newly elected Ukrainian leadership. Thus, elections are becoming almost inevitable, with all the resulting consequences for internal destabilization. I will say something idealistic: we need a unity government as a result of the elections. But no political force desires that. Just as no political force wishes to discuss negotiation positions. Everyone will speak in terms of 'betrayal.' Our main challenge is to stabilize the front line. This is the alpha and omega of everything."

There is also a strong belief that hypothetical elections this year would open Pandora's box and destabilize the internal situation, as noted by the head of the Institute of World Politics, Viktor Shlynchak. In particular, analyzing the electoral signals from Keith Kellogg, the expert stated: "Elections under the current conditions pose an even greater threat than war. Because this is Putin's Plan B – to destroy us from within using our own hands. Getting caught up in this issue will lead to a decrease in attention to the most important matter – the war and the military. We simply cannot manage two fronts. Today, we definitely should not be thinking about elections. But about how not to plunge into a sharp nosedive by the end of the year, from which there will not even be a neutral exit. This applies to both Volodymyr Oleksandrovych (Zelensky – ed.) and all of us."