Ambassador Kellogg's Resignation and the Ukraine Ce
The former U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine under the Trump administration explicitly stating that "a ceasefire depends on Putin" indicates that the U.S. mediation strategy has reached its limit, and the war's outcome has shifted to the internal dynamics of the Russian leadership. This statement is a structural signal that will determine the success or failure of ceasefire negotiations in spring 2026.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • Former Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg gave an interview to NHK as the Trump administration's Special Envoy for Ukraine-Russia Peace.
- • Kellogg explicitly stated that a necessary condition for a ceasefire is "President Putin acknowledging that he cannot take any more land."
- • Kellogg was appointed Special Envoy for Ukraine-Russia Peace by President Trump in early 2025 and resigned in February 2026.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
Russia's territorial ambitions, extending beyond military, economic, and diplomatic sustainability, represent an "overreach of power." This, combined with a "spiral of conflict" where the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine make mutual compromise impossible, and the international community's "failure of coordination," structurally hinders a ceasefire.
── Probability and Response ──────
• Base case 55% — Delay in appointing a successor envoy, decrease in President Trump's statements related to Ukraine, prolonged stalemate on the front lines, tendency for Western countries to reduce the scale of aid packages.
• Bull case 20% — Sharp drop in oil prices, emergence of anti-war sentiment within Russia, unusual message at the China-Russia summit, signs of increased back-channel negotiations.
• Bear case 25% — Accidental attack by Russia on NATO member territory, further revision of nuclear doctrine, signs of Belarusian military mobilization, dramatic reduction of Ukraine aid by the Trump administration.
📡 SIGNAL — What Happened
Why it matters: The former U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine under the Trump administration explicitly stating that "a ceasefire depends on Putin" indicates that the U.S. mediation strategy has reached its limit, and the war's outcome has shifted to the internal dynamics of the Russian leadership. This statement is a structural signal that will determine the success or failure of ceasefire negotiations in spring 2026.
- Figure — Former Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg gave an interview to NHK as the Trump administration's Special Envoy for Ukraine-Russia Peace.
- Statement — Kellogg explicitly stated that a necessary condition for a ceasefire is "President Putin acknowledging that he cannot take any more land."
- Diplomacy — Kellogg was appointed Special Envoy for Ukraine-Russia Peace by President Trump in early 2025 and resigned in February 2026.
- Military Situation — Russian forces have continued gradual advances in the Donbas region since late 2024, but have not achieved a large-scale breakthrough.
- Territory — Russia unilaterally declared the annexation of four regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—in September 2022, but its effective control remains at approximately 60-70% of the declared territory.
- Economic Sanctions — Sanctions against Russia have been progressively strengthened since 2022, with over 40 countries participating, including the EU, the U.S., and Japan.
- U.S. Politics — The Trump administration pledged to "end the war within 24 hours," but a ceasefire has not been achieved more than a year after his inauguration.
- Russian Economy — Russia's military spending in 2025 is projected to reach approximately 6% of GDP, the highest level since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
- Human Losses — U.S. Department of Defense estimates place Russian military casualties at over 300,000 by the end of 2024.
- Diplomatic Trends — Informal talks were held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in early 2026, but no concrete progress has been reported.
- International Opinion — Many countries in the Global South maintain economic ties with Russia, limiting the effectiveness of sanctions.
- Energy — Europe's reliance on Russian natural gas decreased from approximately 40% in 2022 to about 15% in 2025, but a complete disengagement has not been achieved.
To understand former Special Envoy Kellogg's statement that "a ceasefire depends on President Putin's decision," it is necessary to survey the structural shifts from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 to the present.
First, the fundamental origin of this war lies in the conflict between NATO's eastward expansion after the end of the Cold War and Russia's security perceptions. NATO's accession of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in 1999, the Baltic states in 2004, and the promise of "future NATO membership" to Ukraine and Georgia at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, were seen by Russia as the progression of strategic encirclement by the West. President Putin explicitly challenged "unipolar dominance" at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, and progressively transformed his grievances into military action with the 2008 Georgia conflict and the 2014 annexation of Crimea.
The full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, exposed the fundamental error in Putin's assumption of a limited intervention, which he called a "special military operation." With the withdrawal from near Kyiv, the recapture of Kharkiv Oblast, and the liberation of Kherson city, the Ukrainian military demonstrated unexpected resilience, backed by Western military aid. However, as the counteroffensive in the summer of 2023 failed to achieve its anticipated results, the war intensified into a war of attrition, and a "stalemate without victory" became the norm.
In this context, the actions of President Trump, who took office in January 2025, become crucial. Trump, who boasted during his campaign that he would "end the war within 24 hours," appointed Kellogg as special envoy and began engaging both Russia and Ukraine. However, the Trump administration's approach had a fundamental contradiction. Its dual strategy of, on one hand, attempting to use military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip, and on the other, seeking a "deal" through personal relations with Putin, resulted in mutual distrust.
The background to Kellogg's resignation lies in this structural deadlock in negotiations. Russia refused to concede sovereignty over Crimea and the four regions as a precondition for talks, while Ukraine maintained its stance of not accepting territorial concessions without a clear path to NATO membership. Kellogg's statement, "it depends on Putin's decision," is also an admission that the U.S. side's room for negotiation has effectively run out.
Why this timing now? Early 2026 marks a period where multiple structural pressures intersect. First, the Russian economy is facing an abnormal situation with rising inflation and a central bank policy rate of 21% due to ballooning military spending. Second, Ukraine's mobilization capacity and ammunition supply remain unstable, raising questions about the sustainability of a protracted war. Third, the U.S. midterm elections are scheduled for late 2026, increasing the Trump administration's political motivation to demonstrate some "achievement" on the Ukraine issue.
Furthermore, in the context of international order, it is recognized that the outcome of this war will have a "signal effect" on other geopolitical hotspots such as the Taiwan Strait, the Korean Peninsula, and the Middle East. The answer to the question of whether or not the use of force to change the status quo will ultimately be tolerated is being forged on the battlefields of Ukraine. Kellogg's statement reflects the cold reality that, at this historical juncture, the decisive variable lies not in Washington or Kyiv, but in the Kremlin in Moscow.
The delta: Former Special Envoy Kellogg's post-resignation interview is the first official signal acknowledging that the Trump administration's "deal diplomacy" has hit a wall on the Ukraine issue. The phrase "it depends on Putin's decision" is a de facto admission that the U.S. has limited ability to control the outcome of this war, meaning that the initiative in future negotiations has shifted to Moscow and its internal dynamics. This marks a turning point indicating a structural retreat in U.S. diplomatic influence.
🔍 READING BETWEEN THE LINES — What the Reports Aren't Saying
The true intent of Kellogg's interview is not "ceasefire analysis" but "clarification of responsibility." For a resigned special envoy to publicly state "it depends on Putin" should be interpreted as strategic communication aimed at attributing the failure of the Trump administration's peace efforts to Russia, thereby seeking to absolve the administration and himself. Furthermore, the timing of Kellogg's choice of NHK (a Japanese media outlet) for the interview is noteworthy. This can be read as an indirect signal to allies in the Indo-Pacific region, conveying the message that "the U.S. is not constrained by the Ukraine issue," and signaling its commitment to deterring China. It is highly probable that within the Trump administration, the priority of the Ukraine issue has already significantly decreased, and a transition to the next phase, premised on the "failure of a deal," has begun.
NOW PATTERN
Overreach of Power × Spiral of Conflict × Failure of Coordination
Russia's territorial ambitions, extending beyond military, economic, and diplomatic sustainability, represent an "overreach of power." This, combined with a "spiral of conflict" where the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine make mutual compromise impossible, and the international community's "failure of coordination," structurally hinders a ceasefire.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three dynamics of "overreach of power," "spiral of conflict," and "failure of coordination" form a vicious cycle that mutually reinforces each other.
Russia's overreach of power makes it politically difficult for Putin to show flexibility in negotiations. Bound by the unattainable goal of full control over the four annexed regions, any compromise could appear as a "defeat" to Putin. This rigidity fuels the sustained spiral of conflict. Because Russia does not lower its objectives, Ukraine and the West are forced to maintain military and economic pressure, which in turn further hardens Russia's stance, creating a vicious cycle.
Furthermore, the spiral of conflict exacerbates the failure of coordination. At each stage of escalation, trust between the parties is further eroded, raising the bar for agreement. While a provisional framework was discussed in the Istanbul negotiations in March 2022, escalation events such as the Bucha massacre and attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant destroyed trust and closed off negotiation possibilities.
Conversely, the failure of coordination fosters the overreach of power. With no prospect of a ceasefire, Russia leans towards the logic that "negotiating power is born only through military achievements," continuing to expand military spending regardless of economic sustainability. This "locked-in" state, where these three dynamics are interconnected, is the structural reason why even a seasoned negotiator like Kellogg could not achieve a ceasefire, and it is the true meaning of his statement, "it depends on Putin's decision." In other words, it reflects the recognition that only internal changes on the Russian side, which bears the greatest cost of overreach, can break this structural stalemate.
📚 PATTERN HISTORY
1979-1989: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
Overreach of Power → War of Attrition → Internal Collapse
Structural similarities with the current situation: The Soviet Union invaded with the intention of a "limited intervention," but a decade of quagmire led to accumulated military and economic exhaustion, ultimately accelerating the collapse of the Soviet system. It took approximately six years (until Gorbachev's inauguration in 1985) for the leadership to decide to withdraw. Internal political changes, rather than external pressure, were the decisive factor in the withdrawal.
1980-1988: Iran-Iraq War
Spiral of Conflict → War of Attrition → Ceasefire due to Mutual Exhaustion
Structural similarities with the current situation: Both countries fell into an optimistic bias, believing they could win with "just one more push," leading to an eight-year war of attrition. The ceasefire was achieved not through military victory, but when both sides reached their limits of exhaustion. UN Security Council Resolution 598 was adopted in 1987, but it took another year for the actual ceasefire to take place. The parties' recognition of "we can't do this anymore," rather than the presence of mediators, was decisive.
1950-1953: Korean War Armistice Negotiations
Failure of Coordination → Prolonged Stalemate → Frozen Conflict
Structural similarities with the current situation: Armistice negotiations, which began in July 1951, took two years and ultimately solidified into a "frozen conflict." Negotiations were prolonged over the single issue of prisoner repatriation, and fighting continued during this period, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties. This is a precedent where the conflict was "managed" as a de facto freeze of the status quo, rather than a complete peace.
2008: Russia-Georgia War (South Ossetia Conflict)
Limited Success of Overreach of Power → Misreading of Lessons
Structural similarities with the current situation: Russia made the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia a fait accompli in a five-day short war. This "successful experience" reinforced Putin's perception that changing the status quo by force was possible, sowing the seeds for escalation to the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the full-scale invasion in 2022. A typical pattern where limited success induces the next, larger overreach.
2014-2015: Minsk Agreements (Minsk I・II)
Failure of Coordination → Incomplete Agreement → Resurgence of Conflict
Structural similarities with the current situation: The ceasefire agreements mediated by France and Germany merely masked the fundamental disagreement of the parties' objectives. Russia aimed to secure influence over Ukraine's internal affairs through expanded autonomy for Donbas, while Ukraine sought to restore its territorial integrity. With fundamentally different interpretations of the agreements, a seven-year "frozen conflict" led to the full-scale war in 2022. Insufficient coordination only postpones problems; it does not solve them.
Patterns Revealed by History
Historical precedents consistently demonstrate a structural pattern: "wars of attrition caused by the overreach of power end not by external pressure, but by internal political change." The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was made possible by Gorbachev's emergence, and the Iran-Iraq War ended with Ayatollah Khomeini's bitter decision, which he described as "drinking the cup of poison." External mediators (like Kellogg, or the UN) can offer an "exit," but the decision to "take the exit" can only be made by the leader themselves.
The precedents of the Korean War and the Minsk Agreements show that "frozen conflict" can be a "second-best option" when a complete peace is impossible. However, as the Minsk Agreements led to the full-scale war in 2022, a frozen conflict is merely a postponement of the problem, not a fundamental solution, and carries the inherent risk of reigniting if conditions change. Kellogg's perception that "it depends on Putin's decision" is entirely consistent with this historical pattern. The question is how much time and cost Putin will require to reach that decision, and history suggests it is a process spanning several years.
🔮 NEXT SCENARIO
The most probable scenario is that a ceasefire agreement will not be reached in 2026, and a low-intensity war of attrition will continue. Following Kellogg's resignation, the Trump administration is likely to take time appointing a successor envoy or deprioritize the Ukraine issue. As the U.S. midterm elections in November 2026 approach, the Trump administration will shift its focus to domestic economic policies, and Ukraine's positioning will change from a "risk to be managed" to a "problem to be left alone." Russian forces will continue inch-by-inch advances on the front lines but will not achieve a strategic breakthrough. Ukraine will maintain its defensive lines with Western support but will not be able to accumulate enough strength to launch a counteroffensive. Economic sanctions will exert continuous pressure on Russia, but immediate collapse will be averted through bypass trade with countries like China, India, and Turkey. In this scenario, an unofficial "contact line freeze" will begin to establish itself as the de facto status quo. A state of "hot frozen conflict" could emerge, where the intensity of fighting gradually decreases without a formal ceasefire agreement. International attention will gradually shift away from Ukraine, and "Ukraine fatigue" will become evident in Western political discourse. Allied nations, including Japan, will express continued support, but the scale of that support will tend to gradually decrease.
Implications for Investment/Action: Delay in appointing a successor envoy, decrease in President Trump's statements related to Ukraine, prolonged stalemate on the front lines, tendency for Western countries to reduce the scale of aid packages.
The optimistic scenario is one where some form of ceasefire agreement is achieved between late 2026 and early 2027. The conditions for this scenario to materialize are a rapid deterioration of the Russian economy that changes Putin's calculations. Specifically, a significant drop in oil prices (below $50 per barrel), uncontrollable inflation, or severe supply disruptions in the military-industrial complex could fundamentally constrain Russia's ability to continue the war. Another possibility is a scenario where China exerts clearer pressure on Russia. If the slowdown in the Chinese economy becomes severe and improving relations with the West becomes economically indispensable, there is a non-zero chance that Xi Jinping could persuade Putin to accept an "honorable exit." In this case, a ceasefire is likely to take the form of a cessation of military actions along the contact line, the establishment of a demilitarized zone, and the deployment of international observers. Territorial issues would be shelved, "to be entrusted to future negotiations," and Ukraine's EU accession process would proceed, but NATO membership would be effectively "frozen." Russia would gain a gradual easing of sanctions, and Ukraine would receive Western reconstruction aid and a security framework. While a complete "victory" would not exist for either side, there would be room for a rational compromise to "avoid further losses."
Implications for Investment/Action: Sharp drop in oil prices, emergence of anti-war sentiment within Russia, unusual message at the China-Russia summit, signs of increased back-channel negotiations.
The pessimistic scenario is one where the conflict escalates and develops into a direct crisis involving NATO member states. Triggers for this scenario could include the worsening of intentional or accidental Russian incursions into the airspace or territorial waters of NATO member states (such as the Baltic states or Poland), or a further escalation of Russia's threats to use tactical nuclear weapons. Particularly dangerous is a scenario where Putin faces internal power struggles, and maintaining a hardline stance becomes essential for his political survival. Prigozhin's rebellion (June 2023) demonstrated the potential for cracks within Russia's elite to surface. If succession struggles or military discontent intensify, Putin might take a "gamble" by escalating an external crisis to consolidate domestic unity. Furthermore, if the Trump administration significantly reduces aid to Ukraine, there is a risk that Russia could perceive a possibility of military victory and launch a large-scale offensive. If Ukraine responds by attacking strategic targets within Russia with long-range weapons, the nature of the conflict would fundamentally change. In the worst-case scenario, the opening of a second front from Belarus or a spillover into Moldova (Transnistria) would destabilize the entire region. In this scenario, the impact on the global economy would also be immense, with energy prices soaring, significant financial market adjustments, and supply chain disruptions occurring simultaneously.
Implications for Investment/Action: Accidental attack by Russia on NATO member territory, further revision of nuclear doctrine, signs of Belarusian military mobilization, dramatic reduction of Ukraine aid by the Trump administration.
Key Triggers to Watch
- Appointment (or non-appointment) of Kellogg's successor special envoy by the Trump administration: March-June 2026
- Scale and outcome of Russia's spring offensive: April-June 2026
- Agreement on the continuation and scale of Ukraine aid at the G7 Summit: June 2026 (scheduled to be held in Alberta, Canada)
- Oil price trends (can Russia maintain approximately $70 per barrel needed for fiscal balance?): Full year 2026
- Politicization of Ukraine policy in the U.S. midterm elections: September-November 2026
🔄 TRACKING LOOP
Next Trigger: Announcement of Kellogg's successor special envoy by the Trump administration — If a successor is not named by the end of April 2026, the deprioritization of Ukraine peace will become definitive.
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: Structural Stalemate in Ukraine Ceasefire Negotiations — Next milestones are discussions on the aid framework at the June 2026 G7 Summit and the outcome of Russia's spring offensive (around June 2026).
>How do you read this? Participate in the prediction →
