The scandal over the interpretation of the words of US President Donald Trump's special ambassador Kelloga exploded after publication in The Times , which stated that, as part of a potential peace agreement, Ukraine could be divided into areas of control with an analogy with the division of Berlin in 1945. The article argued that Kellogo provides an option in which the Union forces of Great Britain and France would be in the west of Ukraine, Russian - in the east, and between them there would be a Ukrainian army.
However, Kellog himself categorically rejected such interpretation. On Friday, April 11, in his post on the social network X (former Twitter), he stated that The Times had distorted his words.
“ The Times has distorted what I said. I talked about the "peace forces" after ceasefire to support Ukraine's sovereignty. In the discussions of "division" I meant a zone of responsibility for the Union forces (without US troops). I ** did not mean a section of Ukraine, ”Kellogo wrote.
According to the general, we are talking about the possible presence of a multinational contingent after reaching the ceasefire agreements. Peace support forces, including UK military units, France and other allies, can be placed in part of the Ukrainian territory solely in order to guarantee compliance with the terms of the agreement - like the UN peacekeeping missions or NATO in other conflicts.
This approach, according to Kallog, should create a buffer without the involvement of US troops and ensure the presence of an international coalition that would make it impossible to restore Russia's aggression.
Earlier, the British edition of The Times reported that according to one of the possible scenarios, which was allegedly discussed by the US side, Ukraine can "divide" into zones of influence - the West under the control of the Allies, the East - under the control of Russia, and they will be in the Armed Forces. This format really causes analogies with post-war Berlin, divided between four victorious states, which subsequently led to the emergence of GDR and Germany.
However, in the case of Ukraine, such interpretation has caused a wave of criticism and anxiety. The Ukrainian and international circles talked about the risks of legalization of Russian occupation and potential loss of territorial integrity.
Kellogo tried to dispel these fears, emphasizing that his words concerned the temporary mechanism of international control, not the country's redistribution.
