…

In the internationally accepted economic ranking by nominal GDP, the U.S. remains the world’s leading economy, while Russia ranks 11th. Volodin referred to Russia’s ranking by the purchasing power parity, or PPP, not the actual size and strength of the economy.
…

WASHINGTON — Retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who was chief of staff on former President Donald Trump’s national security council, spoke with VOA about his vision for ending the war in Ukraine.

Kellogg says he is not a formal adviser to the former president and has not presented his plan to Trump, but it is one of the options that he could consider if he is elected in November.

Kellogg also served as the national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence in the Trump administration. He now co-chairs the Center on American Security at America First Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group.

The Ukraine strategy was published back in May by AFPI as part of their An America First Approach to U.S. National Security, edited by Fred Fleitz, who also served as chief of staff at the National Security Council during Trump’s presidency and co-wrote with Kellogg the chapter on the Russia-Ukraine war.

It suggests that the U.S. should begin a formal policy “to seek a cease-fire and negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict.” The U.S. would continue to arm Ukraine to deter Russia from attacking during or after a deal is reached, but under the condition that Kyiv agrees to enter into peace talks with Russia.

To persuade Russia to participate in the negotiations, the U.S. and other NATO partners would delay Ukraine’s membership in the alliance for an extended period in exchange for a “comprehensive and verifiable deal with security guarantees.”

They write that Ukraine will not be asked to give up its ambition to regain all land seized by Russia, but Kyiv should agree to use diplomatic means only and realize that it might take a long time to regain all the territories. The strategy proposes to use the partial lifting of sanctions on Russia to encourage the Kremlin to take steps toward peace and establish levies on Russian energy imports to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction.

The interview with Kellogg, recorded on July 18 at the Republican convention in Milwaukee, has been edited for brevity and clarity.

VOA: Can you tell a little bit about the plan? I think it’s the most detailed paper coming publicly from Republican and Republican-affiliated groups.

Retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg: We’ve said very clearly in our paper that Ukraine has fought valiantly. They are very well led. We think the Russians did clearly an unwarranted invasion of a sovereign state and this must be addressed. President Trump, to his credit, said in the very first debate when he was asked by one of the commentators, Dana Bash, do the Russians basically get to keep the territories? He said no, not at all. He said not once, he did it twice.

So, there’s a negotiation, you are going to figure out what your starting points are going to be. You want to make sure that Ukrainians are not put at the position when they’re operating from weaknesses, but from strength. So, the question is how do you do that? And how you put all the pieces and parts in place? Nobody is ever saying that: “Oh, we just have to make Ukrainians to give up land and give it to Russia.” Look when you look at your losses, the losses in Ukraine alone, depending on who you talk to, you’re talking between 100,000 and 130,000 deaths. That’s enormous because when I look at [Russia’s losses] they have had three times that. The United States of America lost 60,000 in the Vietnam war. That was a 20-year war we went away from. The Russians, then the Soviets, lost 15,000 in Afghanistan and walked away from it.

If the Ukrainians say no and the Russians say no, then they can do it in a different way. But I think you started to ask yourself questions is this what’s best for Ukraine as a nation? I don’t care about Russia. I care about Ukraine.

Let’s say a year and a half ago the Russians turn their heels and if the West had provided the equipment that [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy asked for, then you probably could have finished the job. You could have gotten into the Sea of Azov through Kherson, splitting them in half, and that is what you wanted to do. So, I blame this administration and the West to a degree for not supporting Ukraine when they should have.

VOA: The Biden administration is saying that they want to put Ukraine in the position of strength before it can negotiate with Russia. You are suggesting pretty much the same, right?

Kellogg: No, that’s a false statement. Have the United States given Ukraine a support of F-16s? No. Did we provide long-range fires early for the Ukrainians to shoot in Russians? No. Did we provide permission for them to shoot deep into Russia? No. Did the United States provide them the armored capabilities they needed? We gave 31 tanks. Thirty-one tanks is not even a battalion in the United States army. So, they talk about it, but it didn’t really happen.

VOA: Ukrainian officials might be cautious about entering into the negotiations with Russians because it might send a signal to their partners that they don’t need military aid anymore.

Kellogg: You have to give more arms to them because you can’t trust the Russians. You just have to do it, and the question is, do you do this before Europe tires, Americans tire, Ukrainians tire? Two and a half years — that’s a long war and the destruction is enormous. Sometimes you have to look at what we call in America the long game. And that is security guarantees, financial support and military support. We have to bring that to the American people, you know, President Biden has only talked to American people one time. You got to talk to them a lot. President Biden has only talked to [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin one time. When I was with President Trump, he was talking to him 17 different times. It doesn’t mean he likes him. But you have to talk to your adversary.

VOA: Why would Russians want to negotiate?

Kellogg: You need to give them reasons to negotiate. You can give an extreme reason and say, OK, you’ve got to get back all the land from Ukraine. Maybe, short-term you tell Ukraine, we’re not going to support you coming to NATO, but we give you a bilateral security agreement.

VOA: The U.S. and Ukraine have just signed a security agreement.

Kellogg: That was not a defense agreement. A defense agreement should be ratified by the Senate. What you have to do is to come up with a peace agreement like we’ve done with Korea, we did years ago with Taiwan.

VOA: But what is the contingency plan if Russia doesn’t abide by the agreement.

Kellogg: That is part of negotiation. That’s where both sides draw the red lines. That’s where both sides make the determination: this is what we’re going to do or not do.

VOA: Ukraine already tried that signing the Minsk agreements with Russia.

Kellogg: Minsk agreements worked very well, didn’t they? They’re lousy. They didn’t do anything because nobody trusted anybody, and nobody worked together. You had Minsk 1, failed; Minsk 2, failed. Budapest memorandum, failed. So, you have to have some kind of degree of confidence and security.

VOA: One of the reasons why the negotiations in Istanbul broke down was that Russians demanded Ukraine’s demilitarization, a smaller army.

Kellogg: Yes. And this is an unacceptable demand. And you don’t walk into negotiating with unacceptable demands. But you have to have an ability, we call it an interlocutor. An interlocutor is somebody who can sit down and actually negotiate with both parties. It can be Trump, President Trump believes he can do it, but you also have to look at who else is out there. President [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan of Turkey, do you think he could do it? No, he’s not going to do it. [Chancellor Olaf] Scholz from Germany, you think he will do it? No, he is not going to do it. [President Emmanuel] Macron from France, he tried but hasn’t done it. Well, now they had a change in government in Britain. So that’s gone away. You know, I don’t know maybe [Klaus] Iohannis, [the president] of Romania. Maybe he could do it, but you have to have somebody that both sides could talk to.

President Trump is talking to both parties. And President Biden is not. Now the option is quite clear: If Ukraine doesn’t want to negotiate, fine, but then accept the fact that you can have enormous losses in your cities and accept the fact that you will have your children killed, accept the fact that you don’t have 130,000 dead, you will have 230,000–250,000. Demographically, what does that do to the country?

You have to accept the fact that maybe the threat will remain on Kyiv, you have to accept the fact that Kharkiv will have more damage or do you want to say this is time maybe we take a pause and figure out how to push the Russians out of there so that they don’t get territorial gain. And how do you have a long-term peace agreement?

Let’s use NATO as an example. NATO has already said they’re not going to support Ukraine going into NATO until the war is over. That’s the reality and that’s where you need somebody to stand as a negotiator and say no, this is where we want to go.

The size of this war is not appreciated in the West. That is the largest war in Europe since World War II, it is between the two largest countries in Europe. The losses have been horrific.

It is too great of a country, and I’ve been there. I have been to Izyum, I’ve been to Kharkiv and I’ve seen what Russians did to it. There’s no love for Russians. There’s a support for sovereignty. Figure out a way does not mean we say give up land.

VOA: The other reason why the negotiations in Istanbul broke down is because it became known what happened in Bucha. It means that if Ukraine allows Russia to continue occupying any of its lands, it condemns the people who live there. …

Kellogg: Who is saying to give up land?

VOA: Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance alluded to that.

Kellogg: J.D. Vance was just nominated as the vice president last night. Until that, he was just a senator, one of 100. Yeah, you can say a lot of things in the Senate. When you speak for an administration, things change. 
…

New Delhi — The United Nations’ cultural agency rejected recommendations Wednesday to place Stonehenge on the list of world heritage sites in danger over concerns that Britain’s plans to build a nearby highway tunnel threaten the landscape around the prehistoric monument.

Stonehenge was built on the flat lands of Salisbury Plain in southern England in stages, starting 5,000 years ago, with the unique stone circle erected in the late Neolithic period about 2,500 B.C.

It was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1986 — an honor bestowed upon sites that have special cultural or physical significance.

UNESCO experts had recommended listing Stonehenge as “in danger” over the plans for highway development.

But at the 46th session of the World Heritage Committee, which maintains the list and oversees the conservation of the sites, members led by Kenya and Qatar said Britain’s plans to mitigate the effect on the site were sufficient and that it should not be added to the “in danger” list.

The highway project, which has been touted for decades and mired in legal challenges, is aimed at trying to ease traffic along a stretch of road prone to gridlock by moving the main highway underground and slightly farther away from the famous stone circle.

It has faced fierce opposition from local residents and archaeologists, as well as concern from UNESCO, over potential damage to the environment, wildlife and possible new archaeological finds.

Kenya, in amending the recommendation to list the site as in danger, focused on the fact that the main stone circle would be farther away from the road with the new construction, and not the experts’ assessment that the road project would significantly impact the greater site. It also noted that Britain had considered more than 50 proposals for the highway plan.

“What needs to be protected is not just the henge but the overall landscape of which the henge is a central focus,” the UNESCO experts had argued in their draft proposal, which was rejected.

“The main henge is a highly visible and well-known monument and the proposed tunnel would improve its immediate setting, but this monument has to be considered in its context, surrounded by and inextricably linked to a large number of prehistoric features, which together form an ancient landscape.”

After rejecting the proposal to list Stonehenge as in danger, the committee agreed to ask Britain for an updated report on the state of conservation of the property by December 2025.

UNESCO says a site’s inclusion on its List of World Heritage Sites in Danger is not punitive, but rather meant to draw international attention to the urgent need for conservation measures and “encourage corrective action.”

If issues are not rectified, sites face the possibility of being de-listed by UNESCO, though that is rare.
…

…

…

Paris — French President Emmanuel Macron said Tuesday he will keep a centrist caretaker government on through the Olympics to avoid “disorder,” brushing aside an 11th-hour prime minister nomination by the country’s leftist coalition.

Macron made his widely expected announcement in a TV interview late Tuesday. Just prior to that appearance, the leftist coalition that won the most votes in this month’s parliamentary elections selected little-known civil servant Lucie Castets as their choice for prime minister.

But Macron told the France 2 network that the current government, who resigned last week to take on a purely caretaker role, would “handle current affairs during the Olympics,” which are being staged in Paris and elsewhere in France through Aug. 11.

“Until mid-August, we’re not in a position to be able to change things because it would prompt disorder,” Macron said. “I have chosen the stability” to safeguard the Games, which will soon gather about 10,500 athletes and millions of fans.

Party leaders in the leftist coalition immediately slammed Macron’s unwillingness to immediately consider their prime minister candidate.

There is no firm timeline for when Macron must name a new prime minister, following legislative elections that left the National Assembly, France’s influential lower house of parliament, with no dominant political bloc in power for the first time in France’s modern Republic.

Asked about the leftist coalition’s choice, Macron said “the issue is not a name provided by a political group,” adding that there must be a parliamentary majority behind the candidate to “pass reforms, pass a budget and move the country forward.”

France has been on the brink of government paralysis since the National Assembly elections resulted in a split among three major political blocs: the leftist New Popular Front, Macron’s centrist allies and the far-right National Rally of Marine Le Pen.

Macron, who has a presidential mandate until 2027, has the ultimate say in who is appointed prime minister. However, that person would need enough support from lawmakers to avoid a no-confidence vote.

Macron urged politicians from both the moderate left, the center and the moderate right to “work together” during the summer, arguing that with no outright majority, none of the main blocs can implement their political platforms.

He said “compromises” are needed.

Macron said he’d like to form a government as soon as possible, but that “Obviously, until mid-August, we need to be focused on the Games.”

The leftist coalition has repeatedly demanded the right to form a government after it won the most seats in the National Assembly, yet deep internal divisions have prevented its members from agreeing on a prime minister candidate for more than two weeks. The coalition is composed of three main parties — the hard-left France Unbowed, the Socialists and the Greens.
…

TOKYO — Russia has banned the head of Toyota and 12 other senior Japanese business figures from entering the country, prompting a protest by Tokyo on Wednesday.

The list published by Russia’s foreign ministry on Tuesday includes Toyota chairman Akio Toyoda, Rakuten chief Hiroshi Mikitani and Akihiko Tanaka, president of the government-backed Japan International Cooperation Agency.

The decision was a “response to Japan’s ongoing sanctions against our country in connection with the special military operation,” the foreign ministry statement said, using Moscow’s term for its invasion of Ukraine.

It did not explain how individuals were chosen for the list, which did not include the heads of major Japanese firms like Mitsubishi, Honda and Sony.

Japan has strongly backed the Western position on Ukraine, providing Kyiv with financial and material support and sanctioning Russian individuals and organizations.

Japan’s pacifist constitution restricts it from exporting weapons, but in December, Tokyo loosened arms export controls to enable it to sell domestically made Patriot missiles to the United States.

The move was aimed at replenishing U.S. inventories of the air defense missile systems that have run low because of supplies sent to Ukraine.

“Measures announced by Russia this time will restrict fair activity by Japanese companies, and are absolutely unacceptable,” Japanese government spokesman Yoshimasa Hayashi said Wednesday.

He said Tokyo had lodged a protest and that “all of our sanctions stem from Russia’s Ukraine invasion, which is a clear violation of international law.”
…

Rights groups accuse French authorities of “social cleansing” ahead of the Paris Olympics by uprooting migrants, sex workers and others around the capital — undermining promises of making these Games the most inclusive ever. The government says it’s simply trying to address a longstanding problem. Lisa Bryant has more from the French capital.
…

Budapest, Hungary — Hungary’s foreign minister voiced indifference on Tuesday over a decision by the European Union’s top diplomat to shift an EU ministers’ meeting from Budapest to Brussels in a sign of disapproval over Hungary’s initial use of the EU presidency.

“It was all the same to me in the beginning, and it’s all the same to me now,” Peter Szijjarto said in a statement.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell acted after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban began a self-styled Ukraine peace mission by holding talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Orban, a nationalist who has often been at odds with broader EU policy, embarked on his quest without coordinating it with other EU government leaders or Ukraine just days after Hungary took on the 27-bloc’s rotating presidency on July 1.

“We have to send a signal, even if it is a symbolic signal,” Borrell told reporters in Brussels on Monday after the last meeting of EU foreign ministers before the summer break.

Borrell said there had been no consensus among EU members over whether to attend the ministerial meeting in the Hungarian capital, Budapest, planned for Aug. 28-29  and a gathering of defense ministers afterwards.

He said he opted to switch both meetings to Brussels given that a majority of countries wanted to send a message to Hungary over Orban’s outreach to Russia, which is subject to EU sanctions over its nearly two-and-a-half-year-old invasion of Ukraine.
…