Kellogg proposes British and French zones in Ukraine ceasefire plan

Trump’s Ukraine envoy suggests a demilitarised buffer monitored by allies to enforce peace.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy meets with U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy, General Keith Kellogg, in Kyiv, Ukraine, on February 20, 2025. Photo by Maxym Marusenko/Nur

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

Keith Kellogg, former national security advisor and special envoy for Donald Trump, has floated a provocative and detailed plan to bring about a ceasefire in Ukraine — one that would see British and French troops operating within designated zones west of the Dnipro river. In an interview with The Times published Saturday, Kellogg explained that such an initiative could serve as a reassurance force, not a provocation, in an attempt to stabilize the front lines of a war now entering its third year.

The idea, he explained, draws on Cold War history. “You could almost make it look like what happened with Berlin after World War II,” Kellogg said, referencing the division of post-war Berlin into Russian, French, British, and American sectors. However, he clarified via a later post on X that his plan excludes U.S. boots on the ground, focusing instead on European allies to carry out the peacekeeping operation.

Kellogg proposes British and French zones in Ukraine that would function within a clear boundary, monitored and maintained to prevent misfires and escalation. The 80-year-old retired lieutenant general believes that Ukraine is geographically large enough to support such multinational peace enforcement, with clear demilitarised lines to separate NATO-friendly forces from Russian-controlled areas.

A Cold War-style division of responsibility

Kellogg’s analogy to Berlin is not just historical whimsy. His suggestion is rooted in practical military strategy: divide areas of control among trusted allies and build a buffer between them and the enemy.

“You’re west of the [Dnipro], which is a major obstacle,” he told The Times, emphasizing that stationing troops in those regions would not be viewed by Moscow as an incursion. According to Kellogg, such positioning would be defensive in nature and not trigger Russian aggression. He underscored that the proposal is for a post-ceasefire force — not a combat-ready mission but one of reassurance, stabilization, and support.

Crucially, Kellogg proposes British and French zones in Ukraine to reinforce a peace framework that could be monitored in real time. “You have a... DMZ that you can monitor, and you've got this... no-fire zone,” he said. Acknowledging potential violations, he noted that oversight and accountability would be manageable in such a setup.

Putin’s potential resistance

The elephant in the room, of course, is the Kremlin. When asked whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would accept such a scheme, Kellogg admitted, “He might not accept it.” Despite that, he maintains the logic behind his proposal is grounded in historical precedent and geopolitical pragmatism.

Putin has increasingly questioned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s legitimacy, especially after Zelensky’s initial five-year mandate ended in May 2024. Under martial law, Ukrainian elections have been suspended, and the debate over leadership has become a tool in Russia’s propaganda arsenal.

Yet Kellogg believes that once a ceasefire is in place, elections will likely follow. “I think Zelensky is open to do that... but that's a call for the Ukrainian people in the Ukrainian parliament. Not ours.”

Clarification and broader context

Kellogg’s post on X added crucial context to avoid misunderstanding. “I was speaking of a post-ceasefire resiliency force in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty,” he wrote. “I was NOT referring to a partitioning of Ukraine.”

The distinction is important. While “zones of control” might suggest division to some, Kellogg’s concept is about allied supervision and protection — not the redrawing of Ukraine’s national boundaries.

The reassurance force idea, now under discussion by Britain and France, would involve a coalition of willing nations — reportedly as many as 30 — providing non-U.S. military support. The aim is to maintain peace and prevent renewed conflict, especially if Trump returns to the White House and pushes for an early ceasefire deal.

Both London and Paris have championed this dialogue as a step toward offering Ukraine tangible security guarantees in the event of a fragile peace. However, much remains uncertain — from the size of any such force to its precise mandate and the extent to which Washington would endorse the plan.

Strategic ambiguity and realpolitik

Kellogg proposes British and French zones in Ukraine not out of nostalgia for Cold War structures but as a form of strategic clarity. He envisions a map marked not by battle lines but by monitored spaces of de-escalation. In his view, this approach acknowledges Ukraine’s sovereignty while creating breathing room for diplomacy to work.

He believes the Dnipro river provides a natural and strategic division, making the western area suitable for allied military presence without crossing into Russian-sensitive zones. This geographical clarity would minimize misunderstandings and potential clashes — a priority for a buffer zone intended to uphold, not disrupt, peace.

Still, Kellogg recognizes the inherent risks. “Are there going to be violations? Probably, because there always are,” he said. But the predictability of such incidents, he argues, makes them manageable within a well-monitored framework.

Beyond military planning: economic and diplomatic layers

In addition to his military plan, Kellogg pointed to signs of restored dialogue between Ukraine and the United States. Talks have resumed on a proposed deal involving Ukraine’s valuable mineral resources — a deal he believes can evolve from a business transaction into a strategic diplomatic agreement.

That shift reflects a broader Trump-era tactic of integrating economic leverage into foreign policy — using partnerships on trade, energy, and resources to complement military strategy. It also signals that the U.S. may be looking for ways to remain engaged in Ukraine's future without direct military involvement.

Toward a new peace architecture?

While Kellogg proposes British and French zones in Ukraine as part of a post-ceasefire reality, the viability of such a plan hinges on multiple variables: the political will of NATO countries, Ukraine’s internal cohesion, and, most of all, Russia’s reaction.

Whether this becomes a real solution or remains a theoretical exercise, the plan has added a new dimension to the debate over Ukraine’s future. By drawing on historical lessons and proposing a monitored, demilitarised framework, Kellogg has reignited discussion around what a peacekeeping presence might actually look like.

Though critics may view it as premature or even fanciful, Kellogg’s vision aligns with a growing sentiment in Europe that postwar planning must begin now — not after the final shot is fired.

The conversation around Kellogg’s proposal will likely intensify in the months ahead. For now, it serves as a bold reminder that ceasefire enforcement is as much about ideas as it is about arms — and that the architecture of peace is often shaped long before peace itself is achieved.