keith kellogg gen afpi ctr am sec
SEE FOX
SEE IRAN WAR 3 // KEANE
PEACE PLAN JUST PUTIN TALKING PTS?
FLYNN
LARRY ELLSION
AMFSTPOL INST
---
---
-=-=
MMA
STUDY: Figures on Fox News' key programs have called for escalation in the Iran war more than 250 times since the initial ceasefire
Mark Levin, Brian Kilmeade, and Gen. Jack Keane accounted for nearly 90 calls for escalation
Written by Harrison Ray
Research contributions from Isabella Sherk, Rob Savillo, Tyler Monroe & Casey Wexler
Published 08/26/26
In the four months since the initial ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and Iran, Fox News figures have continuously warmongered. Throughout the cycle of ceasefire violations and stalled peace talks, individuals on Fox have urged the president to “decapitate and destroy this regime,” send Iran “back to the Stone Age,” and urged him to “send the SEALs in and blow something up just for grins.”
Media Matters found that 7 key shows on Fox News — which includes Fox's evening programming as well as some shows hosted by commentators whom President Donald Trump has praised or promoted during the Iran war — called for escalatory action in the Iran War at least 252 times since the initial ceasefire agreement on April 7.
Key Findings
From April 7, when the U.S. and Iran reached the first ceasefire of the war, through August 6, network personalities and guests called for the Trump administration to escalate its war in Iran at least 252 times. Over the period, figures on Fox frequently argued for military strikes, ground invasions or seizing territory, regime change, arming Iranians, or attacks on civilian infrastructure.
Just 5 individuals — host Brian Kilmeade (35 calls for escalation), host Mark Levin (32), Fox News senior strategic analyst retired Gen. Jack Keane (22), former national security adviser and retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg (16), and Fox News contributor Marc Thiessen (13) — accounted for nearly half of all these calls for escalation. These 5 figures have all played a prominent role at some point in informing Trump's foreign policy, at times specifically on Iran. Trump has discussed Iran with Kilmeade directly and encouraged people to watch Levin's coverage of Iran, while Thiessen and Keane reportedly have his ear on Iran strategy as well. Kellogg has played high-level national security roles in both Trump administrations.
Top 5 warmongers on key Fox News shows
The network's flagship 3-hour morning show, Fox & Friends, led all shows in our study with 92 calls for escalation, followed by Life, Liberty & Levin (50), Hannity (35), and Jesse Watters Primetime (32). Laura Ingraham's show The Ingraham Angle, which has notably pushed back on the war at times, produced only 8 total calls for escalation in our study.
Key shows calling for escalation in Iran war NO GRAPH
Calls for escalation consisted of several types of arguments
The arguments within these calls for escalation fell in 1 of 5 categories — Fox figures arguing for resumed or expanded military strikes, ground invasions or the seizure of territory, further regime change, arming the Iranian populace, or attacks on civilian and non-military infrastructure.
All together, there were 299 unique arguments made over the course of the study period (calls for escalation could — and often did — include more than one argument).
Arguments calling to escalate Iran war
Speakers consistently advocated to resume or expand military strikes
As the Trump administration repeatedly announced imminent peace deals throughout the four-month period, network guests and personalities argued for the resumption or expansion of military strikes. Over that period, speakers on the 7 Fox News programs argued for resuming or expanding military strikes at least 119 times.
Brian Kilmeade, who was the network's chief advocate pushing for military strikes, argued 21 times in favor of additional strikes. Kilmeade frequently argued that the U.S. should resume military action, saying he doesn’t “see any scenario” in which the Trump administration would not have to “go back in and finish the job.” The Fox & Friends host argued that “the quicker we start again, it’s the quicker we end it.”
Fox & Friends led the key shows by a large margin, arguing for resuming or expanding strikes at least 65 times.
Jack Keane (14) and Marc Thiessen (11) followed Kilmeade with the most arguments to resume or expand military strikes. On June 5, in the middle of the supposed ceasefire, Keane said, “Let's go big, take down as much of their capability as we possibly can, and get these guys as close to collapse as a military operation can possibly achieve.”
Video
Citation
From the June 5, 2026, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends
Speakers frequently suggested deploying ground troops or seizing territory
Throughout the war, network guests and personalities frequently advocated deploying ground troops or seizing territory. Suggestions from these figures included seizing Kharg Island or other islands in the region, taking further military action in the Strait of Hormuz including reclaiming or occupying the waterway, and for the Trump administration to go in and physically seize enriched uranium. In total, network guests and personalities argued for deploying ground troops or seizing territory at least 63 times.
Brian Kilmeade led all speakers, arguing at least 13 times that the U.S. should deploy more troops or seize territory, often focusing on U.S. control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Keith Kellogg argued to deploy ground troops or seize territory at least 12 times, the next most of any speaker, often focused on seizing Kharg Island. Kellogg acknowledged in his appearances that he has "repeatedly" and "consistently" argued for taking Kharg Island, adding the president should “put a provisional government in charge.”
Video
Citation
From the May 18, 2026, edition of Fox News' Hannity
Speakers often advocated for further regime change in Iran
After the initial assassination strikes on the first day of the war, network guests and personalities continued to argue for further regime change at least 51 times.
Mark Levin led all speakers, arguing for this at least 11 times. His show Life, Liberty, & Levin led the charge with at least 21 such arguments. Levin frequently argued for the Trump administration to “eliminate” the regime, insisted that nothing would change Iran “except its destruction,” and argued that “the regime itself must be pulled out by the roots.”
Video
Citation
From the April 11, 2026, edition of Fox News' Life, Liberty, & Levin
Speakers pushed for arming Iranians
Network guests and personalities argued for the Trump administration to arm or fund the Iranian populace or Iranian opposition groups in their fight against the Iranian regime at least 42 times.
Life, Liberty, & Levin (27 arguments) led all shows by a large margin, followed by Hannity (12).
Mark Levin was seemingly the network's chief proponent of arming Iranians, arguing for this 22 times. Levin leaned on comparisons to the Reagan administration, saying in one segment, “We need to arm the Iranian people the way we armed other entities, freedom fighters, throughout the world under the Reagan administration,” and in another, touted the “success” of the Reagan administration when they “armed the freedom fighters.”
Video
From the May 9, 2026, edition of Fox News' Life, Liberty, & Levin
Speakers advocated for attacks on civilian and non-military infrastructure
With network guests and personalities seeming to grow frustrated with stalling negotiations, speakers resorted to arguing for attacks on civilian, oil, or other non-military infrastructure at least 24 times over the four month period.
Fox News host Sean Hannity proposed a campaign to “take out 10%” of Iran's infrastructure every three days until “everything is wiped out.” Keane argued to “destroy and dismantle” the country's energy infrastructure “on the mainland.” And Fox host Jesse Watters repeatedly touted Trump's so-called “bridge and power plant day.”
Video
Citation
From the April 7, 2026, edition of Fox News' The Five
Fox News' warmongering rhetoric has real-world implications
Donald Trump's close relationship with Fox News has blurred the line between the network's political commentary and unofficial policymaking. The president watches the channel “religiously,” its personalities have direct access to him, and their on-air demands often worm their way into the administration's political agenda.
And while the promised “four to five week” war — which has strained household budgets, failed to achieve its stated objectives, and killed thousands overseas, including at least 18 U.S. troops — ran on, many of Fox News' personalities and guests spent their time on air encouraging the president to dig in his heels and escalate.
Methodology...
-=-=
---
MMA
Trump’s Fox Cabinet urges escalation as he ponders a return to war in Iran
05/18/26
Trump’s Fox Cabinet urges escalation as he ponders a return to war in Iran
Written by Matt Gertz
:{Published 05/18/26
As President Donald Trump prepares to meet with top aides to discuss next steps in the Iran war, his Fox News Cabinet is advising him to escalate.
Influential pundits on the MAGA propaganda channel are telling the president that he currently holds “the cards” and are urging him to use U.S. military might to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, force open the Strait of Hormuz, assassinate the country’s leaders, and overturn its regime.
Fox has played a key role in getting the U.S. into the quagmire in Iran, with the network’s hosts (who often double as off-the-books presidential advisers) counseling him to launch the campaign in February. They continued to cheer him on over the following weeks, even as Iran’s regime remained intact and in control of its nuclear stockpile, its seizure of the Strait of Hormuz sent fuel prices soaring, public support for the war cratered, and analysts issued dire warnings of U.S. strategic defeat.
With Trump’s ceasefire with Iran failing to produce a more permanent agreement to end the conflict, the president has returned to saber-rattling and reportedly plans to meet with “his top national security team in the Situation Room on Tuesday to discuss military options.” And Fox, which often plays an influential role in shaping Trump’s worldview through its coverage, is already banging the drums for a return to war, telling its viewers — which on any given day can include the president — that the war is a success and that Trump is in control of the situation and can easily escalate without risk.
Brian Kilmeade, one of the network’s most prominent hawks and a co-host of the president’s favorite morning show, Fox & Friends, on Monday morning proposed a series of simultaneous U.S. strikes against Iranian targets.
He called for the U.S. military to “open up the strait,” “grab the uranium,” and “target these bad actors that have been insincerely negotiating with our group,” an apparent reference to assassinating Iran’s diplomatic team. Kilmeade added that “the best chance for no casualties is you open up four different fronts immediately, simultaneously.”
:{Video
Citation
From the May 18, 2026, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends
Fox correspondent Trey Yingst stressed on the same broadcast that Trump’s strategy has put him in control of the situation and left Iranian leaders desperate for a deal to avoid further U.S. strikes.
“President Trump holds the cards here, according to regional officials, who say that his strategic patience has given him not only the upper hand on the battlefield but also at the negotiating table,” Yingst said. “Now the Iranians … are grasping at straws. They are trying to find some path forward that would give them an agreement at least temporarily to enter into deeper negotiations to avoid such a bombing campaign.”
He added that Iran’s economic situation is “truly dire” and its officials “are having to try to sell a reality to the people that doesn’t exist. They were defeated militarily during Operation Epic Fury.”
:{Video
Citation
From the May 18, 2026, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends
And KT McFarland — a former Fox personality turned Trump national security adviser — even suggested during her Fox & Friends appearance that China would hesitate to engage the U.S. militarily because the U.S. success in Iran has shown them to be “no match for America militarily.”
“If you are the Chinese leader, you’ve got to look at what the United States is just pulling off in Iran,” she said. “The unbelievable precision, the capability, how everything seems to work together. We seem to have done the miraculous.”
:{Video :
Citation
From the May 18, 2026, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends
Likewise, Mark Levin, the nasal-voiced Middle East hawk who Trump has urged supporters to watch for his Iran commentary, spent the weekend urging the president to push for regime change in Iran.
On Saturday night, Levin hosted retired Gen. Keith Kellogg, a former Fox contributor Trump named as a special envoy in 2024 who has called for “putting boots on the ground” in Iran and for the U.S. to seize its territory “like the Romans did” in Carthage.
After Levin called Trump “the only president that's put his foot down firmly and said no,” Kellogg added that “there's been eight presidents since the revolution in Iran, and only one, Donald Trump, has done something about it.” He then called for Trump to seize Iran’s Kharg Island and Qeshm Island to force open the strait.
“I would just say, go full in, get rid of this regime, whatever it’s going to take out there, because as long as you’ve got the theocratic leaders, as long you’ve got mullahs running that government, you’re going to have this problem, not just today, tomorrow, a month from now, but five or 10 years for the next presidency or our grandchildren, or children as well,” Kellogg added.
“All right, I appreciate that,” Levin replied. “I agree with that. And we’re there. Let’s get it over with already. And what do I mean by that? Destroy the regime, help the people, so they can help themselves.”
:{Video
Citation
From the May 16, 2026, edition of Fox News' Life, Liberty, and Levin
After a similar segment on Sunday night’s show featuring right-wing commentator Josh Hammer, Levin again said the U.S. needs to “eliminate that regime, because it’s the only way to prevent them once and for all from getting a nuclear weapon, tomorrow, 10 years from now, 20 years from now.”
:{Video :
Citation
From the May 17, 2026, edition of Fox News' Life, Liberty, and Levin
Levin followed that up by interviewing right-wing commentator Jim Hanson, who served in the U.S. Army special forces, about how the U.S. could, as Hanson put it, “slow roll an internal unrest” in Iran “until the regime finally gets overthrown from within.” Levin suggested that this would be necessary because the Iranian regime could not be trusted to follow through on any deal Trump made.
“We have a deal, whatever the deal is, let's say it's the greatest deal since sliced bread,” Levin pontificated. “Are future presidents, future Congresses, the American people in the future, do you think we're going to be willing to enforce a deal if they break the deal, which I think they obviously will when the president leaves?”
//
03/02/26 1:12 PM EST
05/13/26 1:23 PM EDT
03/12/26
---
LVIV HERALD
On 23 April 2025, in an atmosphere charged with fatigue from war and wary hope, a peace proposal was privately delivered to European and Ukrainian officials in London by US Special Envoy General Keith Kellogg. The same document was reportedly handed to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on the same day by US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. Though no official document has been published, reasonably consistent reporting by both The Daily Telegraph in London and Russia’s TASS news agency has enabled observers to reconstruct the seven key points of the proposal—dubbed informally as the “Kellogg-Witkoff Plan.”
The Seven Points of the Peace Proposal
- Recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea by the United States: Crimea would be acknowledged de jure as part of the Russian Federation by the United States (only?), a major concession to Moscow.
- Autonomy for occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (along current front lines) under Ukrainian de juresovereignty: These regions would remain formally part of Ukraine but enjoy a high degree of autonomy, with local militias retaining some policing powers—a model reminiscent of the defunct Minsk agreements.
- A phased withdrawal of Russian forces from other occupied territories: In contrast to the treatment of Crimea, other areas occupied after February 2022—primarily parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson—would be returned to Ukrainian control over a set timetable. For an unknown period, the US Government (including the US Armed Forces?) would take control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant facility at Enerhodar, restarting the facility and distributing electricity between the parts of Ukraine currently under Ukrainian and Russian control.
- Deployment of a European (non-NATO) peacekeeping force in Ukraine: A significant concession to European capitals, this would allow the EU to provide military stabilisation without NATO involvement, a nod to Russian security sensitivities. There would be a mechanism of accountability for war crimes, the details of which are unclear.
- Signing of a US-Ukraine critical minerals agreement prior to final peace: This controversial clause requires Ukraine to commit key mineral extraction rights to US companies as a precondition for the final agreement, raising eyebrows about American commercial motivations.
- Lifting of US sanctions on Russia upon partial implementation: Sanctions would be eased once Russia begins troop withdrawals—without waiting for a full settlement, including on Crimea—contradicting European policies tying sanctions relief to full Russian withdrawal.
- Permanent neutrality for Ukraine with security guarantees: Ukraine would adopt a formal status of neutrality, backed by international guarantees excluding NATO membership, although the nature of the guarantees remains unspecified. EU membership would be permitted.
Reactions: Sharp Divides and Deep Suspicion
The proposal has been met with alarm, confusion and, in some quarters, quiet intrigue.
Ukrainian Reaction: President Zelenskyy’s office issued a terse statement calling the proposal “unacceptable in its current form,” emphasising that any recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea is “a red line no Ukrainian government can cross.” Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba reportedly told EU counterparts that the document “trades sovereignty for false stability” and accused Washington of “negotiating behind our backs.”
Russian Reaction: Moscow, by contrast, has responded with cautious optimism. A Kremlin spokesperson called the plan “a constructive basis for discussion,” though sources close to the Russian Security Council noted that Moscow was “noncommittal” on the phased withdrawal clause and expected more flexibility regarding military tribunals for war crimes.
European Reaction: European capitals were caught off-guard.French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Schulz issued a joint statement reiterating the EU’s stance that “no sanctions will be lifted until the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea”.Diplomatsin Brussels were said to be "infuriated"by the lack of consultation and the commercial elements of the deal,particularly the minerals agreement.
The Trump Factor: Undiplomatic Pressure and Abrasive Deadlines
US President Donald Trump, whose administration dispatched Kellogg and Witkoff, has taken a highly personal approach to the process, one that is unorthodox even by the standards of 21st-century diplomacy. In a press conference at Mar-a-Lago following the London meetings, Trump declared, “If Ukraine and Russia don’t figure this out in a few days, we walk. We’re not in the business of endless war. Europe can pay for it if they want a forever war.”
This hardball rhetoric has done little to calm nerves in Kyiv or Brussels. One senior EU official remarked off-record: “This isn’t diplomacy. It’s extortion with a Stars and Stripes on top.”
Uneven Architecture: Crimea Versus the Rest
A striking feature of the proposal is the differential treatment of occupied territories. By separating Crimea from other areas under Russian control, the document implicitly legitimises the 2014 annexation. This not only undermines years of Western policy upholding the international legal order, but threatens to create a precedent for future conflicts over frozen zones of occupation.
Commercial Strings Attached: The Minerals Clause
The requirement that Ukraine sign a critical minerals agreement with the US before any final peace has been interpreted by critics as the monetisation of war diplomacy. While US officials argue this guarantees Ukraine’s economic future, European and Ukrainian officials see it as a veiled attempt to secure long-term strategic resource control for American firms at a time when Ukraine is vulnerable.
Prospects for Acceptance and Compliance
Ukraine is unlikely to accept the plan in its current form, especially with domestic political pressures and military leadership firmly opposed to the compromise on Crimea. Any government that signed such a deal could face national outrage or collapse.
Russia may be tempted by the offer—especially the partial lifting of sanctions and recognition of Crimea—but would likely delay implementation in hopes of extracting further concessions.
The United States may indeed “walk away” from the process. Given Trump’s transactional approach and the electoral pressures of a volatile 2026 midterm cycle, the US might pivot to a hands-off policy or double down on commercial extraction deals in Ukraine, regardless of the war’s outcome.
What Next? Toward a Fractured Future
Should the US exit the negotiations, the conflict may see a return to unrestrained military escalation. Both Ukraine and Russia are reportedly repositioning forces for a new summer offensive. Without a unified Western front, and with Washington appearing more interested in mineral access than mediation, the war may evolve into a prolonged, decentralised conflict—fuelled by European arms, contested regional legitimacy, and unacknowledged occupation.
The Kellogg-Witkoff Plan, then, may be less a blueprint for peace than a map of fractured priorities—one that reveals the underlying tensions between Western actors, between diplomacy and commerce, between sovereignty and strategy. In this divided landscape, the hope for a durable peace remains, but it grows more precarious by the day.
---
MSN?
Photo: Keith Kellogg, Special Envoy of the US President (Getty Images)
US President Donald Trump wants to make his peace efforts more concrete by sending Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow and Special Envoy Keith Kellogg to Kyiv, stated political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko in a comment to RBC-Ukraine's YouTube channel.
Ceasefire efforts
"According to various reports, Witkoff is expected to be in Moscow and Kellogg in Kyiv almost simultaneously. This most likely means there is an intention to reach as much of an agreement as possible, if it works out. For now, in my opinion, it’s extremely unlikely. To agree that both sides would simultaneously announce a ceasefire – that’s an idealistic scenario, I would say," Fesenko noted.
He explained that Washington might also try to negotiate an airspace ceasefire and further talks on a truce. That option seems slightly more realistic. However, at this stage, there are no prerequisites for Russia to agree to such a scenario.
"My main counterargument as to why this is definitely not the end: if Putin agrees at least to a ceasefire under this ultimatum that ends on August 8, he would essentially fulfill Trump’s ultimatum. And then Trump is the winner, and Putin is the loser," the political analyst emphasized.
At the same time, he noted that the parties might also agree to hold negotiations in Istanbul specifically on a ceasefire – how it could be implemented, when, and under what conditions.
Bilateral relations
Fesenko also suggested that Witkoff might discuss the launch of a separate negotiation track on bilateral relations during his visit to Moscow, particularly concerning nuclear de-escalation.
At the same time, Washington and Moscow could initiate official talks on a treaty related to the limitation of strategic offensive arms. This refers to nuclear weapons and all their delivery systems.
"This treaty is currently suspended by Russia, but its formal expiration date is next year. So it's necessary to start negotiations. In principle, this could also be seen as a US response — as if to say, 'We’re starting negotiations, and in parallel, we’ll also talk about Ukraine'," Fesenko stated.
Leaders' meeting
The political analyst suggests that American officials in Moscow and Kyiv might also be discussing the possibility of a meeting at the leadership level. Ukraine has long supported such an initiative.
"This could also be the subject of agreements or attempts to reach an agreement for such a meeting to take place. If not now, then perhaps a bit later. As they say in Russia, after preliminary expert work. So there will definitely be a surge in negotiations, but it looks more like a prelude to active talks that will take place later in the fall," Fesenko noted.
On August 4, RBC-Ukraine's sources reported that US Special Envoy Keith Kellogg may visit Ukraine. Exact dates have not yet been announced.
Meanwhile, in the early hours of August 4, US President Donald Trump stated that his Special Envoy Steve Witkoff would visit Moscow this week.
---
OMFG SEE BIZARRO
AN 2 25
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was shut out of the discussions concerning the future of his country, which took place in Saudi Arabia on Feb. 18, 2025. In fact, there were no Ukrainian representatives, nor any European Union ones – just U.S. and Russian delegations, and their Saudi hosts.
The meeting – which followed a mutually complimentary phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin just days earlier – was gleefully celebrated in Moscow. The absence of Ukraine in deciding its own future is very much in line with Putin’s policy toward its neighbor. Putin has long rejected Ukrainian statehood and the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government, or as he calls it the “Kyiv regime.”
While the U.S. delegation did reiterate that future discussions would have to involve Ukraine at some stage, the Trump administration’s actions and words have no doubt undermined Kyiv’s position and influence.
To that end, the U.S. is increasingly falling in line with Moscow on a key plank of the Kremlin’s plan to delegitimize Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian government: calling for elections in Ukraine as part of any peace deal.
Questioning Zelenskyy’s legitimacy
Challenging Zelenskyy’s legitimacy is part of a deliberate ongoing propaganda campaign by Russia to discredit Ukrainian leadership, weaken support for Ukraine from its key allies and remove Zelenskyy – and potentially Ukraine – as a partner in negotiations.
Claims by the Russian president that his country is ready for peace negotiations appear, to many observers of its three-year war, highly suspect given Russia’s ongoing attacks on its neighbor and its steadfast refusal to date to agree to any temporary truce.
Yet the Kremlin is pushing the narrative that the problem is that there is no legitimate Ukrainian authority with which it can deal. As such, Putin can proclaim his commitments to a peace without making any commitments or compromises necessary to any true negotiation process.
Meanwhile, painting Zelenskyy as a “dictator” dampens the enthusiastic support that once greeted him from democratic countries. This, is turn, can translate to the reduction or even end of military support for Kyiv, Putin hopes, allowing him a fillip in what has become a war of attrition.
What Putin needs for this plan to work is a willing partner to help get the message out that Zelenskyy and the current Ukraine government are not legitimate representatives of their country – and into this gap the new U.S. administration appears to have stepped.
PIX
Then-candidate Volodymyr Zelenskyy at a polling station during Ukraine’s presidential election in Kiev on March 31, 2019.[Genya Savilov/AFP via Getty Images
Dictating terms
Take the narrative on elections.
At the meeting in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. reportedly discussed elections in Ukraine as being a key part of any peace deal. Trump himself has raised the prospect of elections, noting in a Feb. 18 press conference: “We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law.” The U.S. president went on to claim, incorrectly, that Zelenskyy’s approval rating was down to “4%.” The latest polling actually shows the Ukrainian president to be sitting on a 57% approval rating.
A day later, Trump upped the attacks, describing Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections.”
Such statements echo Russia’s narrative that the government in Kyiv is illegitimate.
The Kremlin’s claims regarding what it describes as the “legal aspects related to his [Zelenskyy’s] legitimacy” are based on the premise that the Ukraine president’s five-year term as president of Ukraine should have ended in 2024.
And elections in Ukraine would have taken place in May of that year had it not been for the martial law that Ukraine put into place when the Russian Federation launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
The Martial Law Act – which Ukraine imposed on Feb. 24, 2022 – explicitly bans all elections in Ukraine for the duration of the emergency action.
And while the Ukrainian Constitution only includes language regarding the extension of parliament’s powers until martial law is lifted, constitutional lawyers in Ukraine tend to agree that the implication is that this also applies to presidential powers.
Notwithstanding what the law says, the Kremlin’s questioning of the democratic institutions of Ukraine and its push for elections in Ukraine have found traction in Washington of late. Trump’s special envoy Gen. Keith Kellogg declared on Feb. 1 that elections “need to be done” as part of peace process, saying that elections are a “beauty of a solid democracy.”
The ballot box trap
Zelenskyy is not opposed to elections in principle and has agreed that elections should be held when the time is right. “Once martial law is over, then the ball is in parliament’s court – the parliament then picks a date for elections,” Zelenskyy stated in a Jan. 2 interview.
And he appears to have the backing of the majority of Ukrainians. In May 2024, 69% of Ukrainians polled said Zelenskyy should remain president until the end of marshal law, after which elections should be held.
The issue, as Zelenskyy has said, is the timing and circumstances. “During the war, there can be no elections. It’s necessary to change legislation, the constitution, and so on. These are significant challenges. But there are also nonlegal, very human challenges,” he said on Jan. 4.
Even opposition politicians in Ukraine agree that now is not the time. Petro Poroshenko, Zelenskyy’s main political rival, has dismissed the idea of wartime elections, as has Inna Sovsun, the leader of the opposition Golos Party.
Apart from logistical problems of ensuring free and fair elections in the middle of a war, the conflict would present logistical hurdles to campaigning and accessing polling sites. There is also the question of whether and how to include Ukrainians in Russian-occupied territories and those who are internally displaced, as well as the 6.5 million who fled fighting and currently reside abroad.
Good elections … and bad
Russia did, of course, hold elections during the current conflict. But the 2024 election that Putin won with 87% of the vote was, according to most international observers, neither free nor fair.
Rather, it was a sham vote that only underlined what most political scientists will confirm: Elections are at best a necessary but insufficient marker of democracy.
This point is not wasted on Ukrainians, whose commitment to democracy strengthened in the years leading up to the 2022 invasion. Indeed, a survey taken a few months into the war found that 76% of Ukrainians agreed that democracy was the best form of governance – up from 41% three years earlier.
There are other reasons Ukraine might be wary of elections. The adversarial nature of political campaigns can be divisive, especially among a society in high stress.
Ukrainian politicians have openly argued that holding an election during the war would be destabilizing for Ukrainian society, undermining the internal unity in face of Russian aggression.
Outside influence
And then there is concern over outside influence in any election. Ukrainians have had enough experience with Russian meddling in their politics to take it for granted that the Kremlin will attempt to put a thumb on the scale.
Russia has since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 employed its substantial resources to influence Ukraine’s politics through all available means, ranging from propaganda, economic pressures and incentives to energy blackmail, threats and use of violence.
In 2004, Moscow’s electoral manipulations in favor of the pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, led to the Orange Revolution – in which Ukrainians rose up to reject rigged elections. Nine years later, Yanukovich – who became president in 2010 – was deposed though the Revolution of Dignity, which saw Ukrainians oust a man many saw as a Russian stooge in favor of a path toward greater integration with Europe.
Putin’s history of meddling in elections extends beyond Ukraine, of course. Most recently, the Romanian Constitutional Court annulled the country’s presidential elections, citing an electoral process compromised by foreign interference.
An impossible position
In raising elections as a prerequisite to negotiations, Putin is setting a “catch-22” trap for Ukraine: The Ukrainian Constitution states that elections can happen only when martial law is lifted; but the lifting of the martial law is possible only when the “hot phase” of the war is over. So without a ceasefire, no election is possible.
But in refusing to agree to elections, Ukraine can be cast as the blockage to any peace deal – playing to a narrative that is already forming in the U.S. administration that Kyiv is the problem and will need to be sidelined for there to be progress.
In short, in seemingly echoing Russian talking points on an election being a prerequisite for peace, the U.S. puts the Ukrainian government in an impossible position: Agree to the vote and risk internal division and outside interference, or reject it and allow Moscow – and, perhaps, Washington – to frame Ukraine’s leaders as illegitimate and unable to negotiate on the behalf of their people.
Lena Surzhko Harned, Associate Teaching Professor of Political Science, Penn State
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
---
===
mma 9 24
September 11, 2024, edition of Fox News' America Reports
JOHN ROBERTS (CO-ANCHOR): You know, General, when you consider the hell that 19 people who made it into this country did, what's the potential for the future with so many millions of people coming into this country in the last few years, many of whom have not been properly vetted, as we discover after they commit crimes?
RET. GEN. KEITH KELLOGG (GUEST): Yeah, John, you're absolutely right. Look, the lights are blinking red. The potential for something like this happening again is there.
...
But, boy, we need to be very, very concerned about what's happening now with our southern border, with those people coming across. How many are coming across that are illegal, we don't know. Undocumented, coming from unprotected states. You know, we talked earlier about the special-interest aliens coming in from countries like Tajikistan. That number last year was over 74,000.
So, I think the potential is out there and we have to be very, very aware of it. You know, just -- if you just imagine just the few number of terrorists, what that did to our nation and the things we had to go through subsequent to that.
So, yeah, I think it's a big concern and we need to be concerned about it. And I think the potential of that happening again is very, very real. Our adversaries see it, they know there's a porous border in the south, they know they can push through what I would call advanced parties that come through and put them into sleeper cells. It's been done before, that's not unknown, it's not unusual. And I think we have to be ready for it.
---
not exactly breaking w trump?
trump scotus immunity amicus
DAILY BEAST no lnx $
TRUMPLANDsubvertical orientation badge
The Unhinged Arguments the Supreme Court Is Fielding on Trump Immunity
BUNKER MENTALITY
“Friend of the court” arguments are coming from across the political spectrum—and are showing the potential consequences of siding with Trump on immunity.
Jose Pagliery
Political Investigations Reporter
Published Mar. 30, 2024
Retired American generals vehemently say that no, Donald Trump cannot deploy SEAL Team 6 to kill a political rival. Gun groups howl that the United States is turning into Communist China. And a convicted Jan. 6 rioter warns that President Joe Biden could someday get sued over the death of a jogger in Georgia.
These are among the 18 various groups that shared their wisdom with the Supreme Court earlier this month, filing amicus briefs on the same day that Trump told the high court why he should be able to dodge a federal prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election on false pretenses.
Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against Trump has finally reached the nation’s highest judicial authority, which will determine whether the business tycoon can be put on trial. The timing of the nine justices’ eventual decision will determine if the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee is to face trial in court before Election Day in November.
But ahead of oral arguments next month, the Supreme Court is already getting inundated with all kinds of opinions about the main question in the case: whether a former president enjoys immunity for actions made while at the White House.
The Daily Beast reviewed the litany of uninvited legal arguments spanning 599 pages, ranging from breathless reiterations of Trump’s claims to head-turning warnings. Yet all bear the signs of a historic case that could determine the fate of the election, if not American democracy.
The most unusual and unexpected amicus brief comes from three former high-ranking military leaders: Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who served as Trump’s own acting national security adviser; Robert Wilkie, who served as Trump’s Veterans Affairs Department secretary; and retired Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, who once led the Army’s elite commandos in Delta Force and Green Berets.
The three former military men felt it necessary to join together and address—in public and at the national level—one of the crazier Trump legal arguments: that Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution is so beyond question that it would allow him to order the assassination of his political enemies.
“No—the president cannot order SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political rival and have the military carry out such an order,” they clarified, marking the first time former military leadership has ever had to utter such a phrase in court.
The trio went further, pointing out that a Reagan-era executive order already prohibits anyone acting on behalf of the United States government from taking part in an assassination. They dedicated a significant portion of their 18-page court filing to making clear that military officers would be legally justified in refusing to even carry out an official order from their commander-in-chief, an assertion rarely made by military brass—and one that underlies just how stark their concerns are at this point.
“That a person is a political rival of the president is neither a justification nor an excuse for an unlawful killing. And deliberately carrying out an order to murder such a person would be acting upon a premeditated design to kill or an intent to kill. Therefore, any officer engaged in murder on the orders of a president would be subject to the death penalty or life in prison—and the officer would know it,” they wrote.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of the other amici curiae—the so-called “friends of the court” who weighed in to give the Supreme Court their two cents—largely sided with Trump.
The right-wing nonprofit America’s Future—which screened a bonkers QAnon Hollywood conspiracy “documentary” at Mar-a-Lago earlier this week—joined forces with Gun Owners of America and similar firearms associations to warn the high court that Smith’s prosecution was making the United States look more like China, Russia, or Zimbabwe.
“The prosecution of President Trump by the Biden Administration has a parallel to a recent event in Communist China,” they wrote, recalling the way former Chinese President Hu Jintao has vanished from public view ever since he was mysteriously escorted out of a public ceremony where he had been sitting next to his successor, Xi Jinping.
The United States is heading down that same route, they warned, lamenting “the explosion of lawfare” aimed at Trump for doing what they deemed totally sensible political speech—an argument that rests, in part, on the gun-toting petitioners’ continued rejection of the 2020 election results. They referenced Trump’s “supposed” defeat in Arizona and Georgia.
The real danger here, though, is that while Trump is currently polling strong, the gun groups concede that “the effect of a conviction may be very different and could determine the outcome of the election.”
But it wasn’t the conglomeration of Second Amendment enthusiasts that made a veiled threat over the high court decision. That came from an Alabama electrical engineer who’s become a political financier.
In his court filing, Shaun McCutcheon describes himself as “a successful, self-made American businessman and constitutional patriot.” And he warned Supreme Court justices that the country’s MAGA loyalists aren’t going to suddenly start trusting the U.S. court system to select fair-minded jurors.
“The former President’s tens of millions of supporters cannot reasonably be expected to accept the typical legal fictions of voir dire under such extreme circumstances,” his lawyer wrote.
McCutcheon assigns malicious intent to the Special Counsel’s decision to indict Trump in the largely liberal District of Columbia—never mind that the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment ensures that a person will be subjected to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury drawn from the district where his alleged crime was committed, which in this case was the White House.
“A prosecutor appointed by a partisan presidential appointee of the opposing political party may prosecute a former president in a hand-picked venue deeply hostile to that former president, his beliefs, political expression, and legacy,” his lawyer wrote.
While the Supreme Court received various interpretations of presidential immunity that cast the Special Counsel’s investigations as a severe threat to the functions of the commander-in-chief’s job, the sharpest example came from someone who knows a thing or two about Trump’s insurrection.
In his brief, Treniss Evans argued that if Trump can be put on trial for allegedly masterminding a months-long and multi-pronged attack on U.S. democracy, then President Biden could be held personally responsible for the death in February of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley, given that an allegedly undocumented Venezuelan man was arrested for her killing.
“If a President doesn’t have immunity from prosecution for his actions, what prevents Georgia murder victim Laken Riley’s family from suing Joe Biden for allowing her illegal migrant murderer into the USA? Or what if hundreds of families all sued, seriatim?” his lawyer wrote, using the Latin phrase that means “one-by-one.”
Evans made the filing through his “legal advocacy group,” which bears the emotionally charged name Condemned USA. He trivialized Trump’s 2020 election fraud claims, but then went on to assert that Trump and his followers can’t possibly be accused of trying to stop certification of the election with a violent riot because technically Jan. 6, 2021, was just the official counting of the already certified votes before Congress.
The Supreme Court justices will get the sense that this topic is deeply personal for Evans. After all, his brief says right up top that “Mr. Evans has been investigating and reporting events of January 6th since January 6th, 2021. He was present at the Capitol on that day.”
In reality, he was in the violent crowd, held a bullhorn, and entered the Capitol—only to be identified by a Facebook tipster, arrested in Texas two months after the insurrection, and eventually sentenced to three years’ probation. To convince the federal judge to go easy on him, his other lawyer wrote that “Mr. Evans is quite self-reproving, sincerely remorseful, and duly contrite. He is embarrassed of this criminal conduct and the shame he has brought upon himself and his family. He has entered his plea of guilty voluntarily.”
But his March 19 brief before the Supreme Court doesn’t exactly hint at that remorse, nor does it morph into any critique of the man who called on him and others to show up that day and march on the Capitol Building.
Yet another legal advocacy firm asked the Supreme Court to give even more deference to Trump for the actions that led up to the disaster at the tail end of his presidency. The Christian Family Coalition Florida, a conservative Miami group that recently lent its support to Gov. Ron DeSantis’ crackdown on transgender kids in girls’ sports teams, reduced Trump’s election interference efforts to merely “core political speech.” And it would give future politicians carte blanche to lie—and follow through with those lies—regardless of their claim’s merit.
“For the sake of the presidency and the nation, criminal liability cannot turn on a mere factual dispute over whether an ex-president’s communications in challenging an election were ‘knowingly false,’” a lawyer for the group wrote.
In this Trump case, justices also heard from a favorite villain of the American progressive movement: Citizens United, the nonprofit behind the Supreme Court’s 2010 landmark decision that opened the door to having corporations spend unlimited funds on elections.
The group joined with two former U.S. Attorneys General: the Reagan administration’s Edwin Meese III, and the George W. Bush administration’s Michael B. Mukasey. Together, they tried to strip the current team of federal prosecutors going after Trump from any legitimacy.
They argued that Smith “wields tremendous power, effectively answerable to no one, by design.” And they contend that’s something he can’t do without the Senate’s confirmation. Instead, they say, AG Merrick Garland should have taken the same approach he did with the separate Hunter Biden investigation and tap an existing, Senate-confirmed federal prosecutor in charge of a regional office, like Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss.
The two conservative former AGs and the nonprofit also claim that most cabinet officials have the authority to appoint officers—minus the Justice Department, a proposition that would give the heads of Agriculture, Education and Homeland Security departments more leeway than the nation’s attorney general. And they warn that Garland’s actions could “create by regulation an entire shadow Department of Justice.”
But leave it to a consortium of 18 state attorneys general—all pro-Trump Republicans led by Alabama AG Steve Marshall—to make the one point everyone can probably agree on.
“If he had not been president, none of this would be happening,” they wrote.
Political Investigations Reporter
@Jose_Pagliery
jose.pagliery@thedailybeast.com
---
9 24
Joseph Keith Kellogg Jr. (born May 12, 1944) is a former United States government official and a retired lieutenant general in the United States Army.[1] He previously served as the National Security Advisor to Vice President Mike Pence, and as the Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff of the United States National Security Council in the Trump administration. He served as National Security Advisor on an acting basis following the resignation of Michael T. Flynn.
Life and career
Early life and military service
Kellogg was born in Dayton, Ohio, the son of Helen (Costello) and Joseph Keith Kellogg.[2] In 1961, he received his diploma from Long Beach Polytechnic High School.[3] Kellogg was commissioned into the Army through the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Santa Clara University as an Infantry Officer. During his time in service, Kellogg earned an M.S. in international affairs from the University of Kansas. Kellogg later went on to study senior level management and diplomacy at the United States Army War College.
During the Vietnam War he served in the 101st Airborne Division[4] and, after qualifying as a U.S. Army Special Forces officer, as a special forces adviser to the Cambodian Army.[5] It was during his time in Vietnam that Kellogg earned the Silver Star, Bronze Star with ["V" Device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22V%22_Device ""V" Device"), and Air Medal with ["V" Device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22V%22_Device ""V" Device"). Kellogg also commanded 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division during Operation Just Cause.
In 1980, then LTC Kellogg commanded 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment and became the first light infantry unit to rotate to the Fort Irwin National Training Center (NTC) located in the Mojave Desert.
During Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, from 1990 to 1991, Kellogg served as the Chief of Staff of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as its Assistant Division Commander. Kellogg was subsequently selected as the Commander of Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR). In 1996, he took command of the 82nd Airborne Division and retired from the Army in 2003, as a lieutenant general after serving as director of command, control, communications and computers for U.S. forces under the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Kellogg was in the Pentagon during the attacks on September 11, 2001. Following the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Kellogg assumed responsibility of the alternate command post at Raven Rock Mountain Complex with United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.[citation ^needed]
From December 2003 to 2004, following his retirement, he held a leading position in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).[6][5][7] Kellogg was asked to serve as Chief Operating Officer for the CPA in Baghdad, the transition government of Iraq, after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of that country and the signing of Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2 which disbanded the Iraqi Army.[8] During this time, Kellogg, with a reputation as an "expediter" known for cutting through red tape, was tasked with ensuring speed and discipline during the massive reconstruction process.[9] Following his service with the CPA, Kellogg was awarded the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service.
Private sector
Following Kellogg's retirement from active duty, he joined Oracle Corporation as an adviser to its homeland security division.[10] He was employed by Cubic Corporation and earlier by CACI International Inc., since January 2005.[11]
Keith Kellogg, Acting NSA, awaiting POTUS on AF1
Trump campaign and administration
Kellogg was named a foreign policy advisor to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in March 2016.[12] Trump put Kellogg in charge of the presidential transition agency action team for defense.[13] On December 15, 2016, it was announced that Kellogg would be appointed Chief of Staff and Executive Secretary of the United States National Security Council by President-elect Donald Trump.[14]
On February 13, 2017, following the resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Keith Kellogg became the Acting National Security Advisor in the interim of a permanent replacement being appointed.[15][1] President Trump interviewed Kellogg and three others to determine who permanently to fill the position of National Security Advisor.[16][17] The position ultimately went to H. R. McMaster.[18]
In April 2018, Vice President Mike Pence chose Kellogg to serve as his national security advisor.[19][20][21] According to the White House, Kellogg would continue to serve as an assistant to Trump.[22][23]
During the Trump–Ukraine scandal which led to Trump's impeachment (and subsequent acquittal), Kellogg said he "heard nothing wrong or improper" in Trump's call with the Ukrainian president.[24]
Kellogg spoke at the 2020 Republican National Convention on August 26, 2020.[25]
During the 2021 United States Capitol attack Kellogg defended Pence's decision not to leave the Capitol. While the Secret Service was attempting to get Pence to ride to a safer place, Pence insisted on staying. Kellogg reportedly told Anthony Ornato, former Secret Service and at the time White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, why Pence would not be evacuated, “You can’t do that, Tony. Leave him where he’s at. He’s got a job to do. I know you guys too well. You’ll fly him to Alaska if you have a chance. Don’t do it.” Kellogg made it clear that Pence would stay, even if he needed to remain all night."[26]
Kellogg is viewed as a "key witness" in the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack because he was with Trump in the White House as the attack occurred. Kellogg testified under oath to the committee in December 2021,[27] telling them that the president's staff encouraged the president to take immediate action to quell the unrest, but that he refused.[28]
In June 2024, Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, who both served in Trump’s National Security Council staff, presented Trump with a detailed peace plan to end Russia's war in Ukraine.[29] Fleitz said Trump has responded favorably to the plan. Kellogg told Reuters: "Our concern is that this has become a war of attrition that’s going to kill a whole generation of young men."[30]
Personal life
Kellogg is the second oldest of four children. His older brother, Mike Kellogg, is a Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge. His sister, Kathy, is a former actress who is now a clinical psychologist and his younger brother, Jeff, is a former Long Beach city councilman, served as President of the Long Beach Community College District Board of Trustees, and now currently works for the California Community College system.[31][32]
Kellogg married his wife, Paige, in 1980. Paige is a former U.S. Army officer and paratrooper who served during the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada.[5] Together, they have three children.
Awards and decorations
---
CMD 3 22
CNP
...Pushing Back Against China, the Left, and a “Woke” Military
Placing China “at the heart of the greatest challenges facing the United States in recent years”—from Covid to currency manipulation, climate policies, and “undue influence over American corporations”—Economic War Room host Kevin Freeman led a discussion titled “The 21st: An American or Chinese Century?”
Freeman was joined in the panel by Beau Brunson, Consumers’ Research Director of Policy and Regulatory Affairs. Consumers’ Research has committed millions in dark money to fight environmental, social, and corporate governance concerns (ESG) and “woke” capitalism, where BlackRock has emerged as a top target of its campaign for its “hypocritical” investments in China.
CMD recently exposed Consumers’ Research as one of the largest sponsors of the State Financial Officers Foundation, a group of Republican treasurers, auditors, and staff from 16 states, which has also prioritized fighting the ESG movement and “woke” capitalism.
Also on the panel were Pete Hoekstra, former ambassador to the Netherlands under Trump, and Steve Milloy, a FoxNews contributor and paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil, and other corporations.
The three also participated in a CNP Action panel on “Countering China,” where they collectively worked “on ways to combat the increasing and pervasive threat China poses to the United States and American life.”
Leading an CNP Action panel discussion on “Defunding the Left,”**Buckeye Institute**President and CEO Robert Altfacilitated a tutorial on how to cut off contributions to “left-wing causes” by targeting public employee unions, trial lawyers, and investment management firms. O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance for Consumers, and Bridgett Wagner, vice president of policy promotion at the Heritage Foundation, joined the discussion.
New CNP Executive Member Boykinled a panel discussion focused on the question: “Can a Woke Military Address Future Threats?” with Mike Berry, First Liberty’s general counsel, and Keith Kellogg, retired Army lieutenant general and co-chair of AFPI’s Center for American Security.The three talked about “extreme policies [that] have been implemented through the Department of Defense” and “how woke ideologies have influenced our armed services.”
Two other CNP meetings are scheduled for this year, May 18–20 in McLean, VA, and September 15–17 in Frisco, TX.
---