Abstract

In an era when global diplomacy is being redefined through real estate transactions and personal bonds forged in front of a deli counter, the war in Ukraine becomes the laboratory for a radical transformation: from military strategic analysis to the logic of the 'deal', from multilateral institutions to private negotiators. While a veteran General compares Zelenskyy to Lincoln and is called an 'idiot', a real estate magnate sits with Putin for three hours discussing ceasefire and mining development. The question is no longer who will win the war, but who is right in reading the facts: the national security expert or the dealmaker whom the Kremlin likes.

The Sandwich That Changed the World

There is something profoundly American, and at the same time disturbing, in the idea that the future of European security might depend on a ham and Swiss cheese sandwich. The story is now legendary: in the 1980s, at a New York deli, Steve Witkoff – then a young real estate developer – offered a sandwich to Donald Trump, who was momentarily without cash. A trivial gesture, one of those small acts of courtesy that are forgotten after a coffee. But Trump, evidently, did not forget.

Four decades later, that 'sandwich incident' has become the symbol of a friendship that today shapes global diplomacy. Witkoff, devoid of any diplomatic experience but rich in unconditional loyalty, is today the de facto special envoy of the Trump administration for Russia. Not a career diplomat, not a national security expert, but a man who speaks the language of business and who, above all, 'Putin likes'.

In February 2025, Witkoff secured the release of Marc Fogel, an American teacher detained in Russia, consolidating his position as the president's main 'troubleshooter'. A few weeks later, he spent over three hours in direct talks with Vladimir Putin, discussing not only ceasefire but also future investments in critical minerals and development projects that evoke his Manhattan real estate plans.

This is not conventional diplomacy. It is foreign policy as an extension of business, where contracts replace treaties and handshakes between real estate developers count more than strategic analyses by three-star generals. And it is exactly in this vacuum of institutional expertise that the dramatic contrast at the center of this story emerges: the conflict between those who read the Ukrainian conflict through facts on the ground and those who interpret it as a 'deal' to close.

The Heretic: When a General Compares Zelenskyy to Lincoln

In March 2025, during the Brussels Forum of the German Marshall Fund, General Keith Kellogg – 36 years of military service, former national security advisor – uttered a phrase that would seal his political fate. "Volodymyr Zelenskyy is like Abraham Lincoln. He is fighting a war of national survival on the soil of his country. He's a tough son of a bitch. He's stubborn. He has his own opinion."

It was not hyperbole. It was a historical analysis based on objective parameters. Lincoln had to preserve the Union during an existential civil war; Zelenskyy was defending the very existence of Ukraine against an invasion that, in the early days of February 2022, much of international intelligence had predicted would end with the fall of Kyiv within 72 hours. Zelenskyy's 'stubbornness' – that firmness that Kellogg identified as a martial virtue – was what had prevented the collapse of the Ukrainian state.

Donald Trump's reaction was immediate and contemptuous: he called Kellogg an 'idiot'. This epithet was not accidental. It revealed a deep divergence in the perception of international leadership and the strategic value of alliances. For Kellogg, Zelenskyy represented a leader who had transformed an announced catastrophe into an epic resistance, building a coalition of 57 nations and obtaining financial commitments exceeding 300 billion dollars. For Trump, instead, Zelenskyy's stubbornness was an obstacle to closing a 'deal', and Kellogg's analysis a cumbersome loyalty to institutional principles rather than to negotiating logic.

The General had committed an unforgivable sin in the Trumpian universe: he had put facts before narrative. He had recognized that, from the point of view of national sovereignty and strategic deterrence, Zelenskyy had achieved extraordinary results. He had dared to apply an institutional analysis to a situation that the Trump administration preferred to frame as a matter of 'communication' between leaders.

The Ukrainian Metamorphosis: From Predicted Annihilation to a Coalition of 57 Nations

In February 2022, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was still largely perceived through the prism of his past: a comic actor who became president, a figure that many analysts considered inadequate to manage an existential crisis. The Russian invasion seemed destined to confirm these judgments. The predictions were unanimous: Kyiv would fall quickly, the Ukrainian state would collapse, Zelenskyy would flee or be captured.

Instead, a metamorphosis occurred that defies the conventions of traditional political science.

Under Zelenskyy's leadership, Ukraine not only repelled the initial attack on the capital, but became the pivot of an unprecedented international coalition: the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, known as the 'Ramstein format'. This coalition grew to include all 32 NATO member states and 25 additional global partners, coordinating the supply of armaments ranging from HIMARS missiles to Leopard tanks, from air defense to advanced drones, to the creation of specific coalitions for air force and IT technology.

The Architecture of Support: Figures and Mechanisms

The United States alone approved approximately 175 billion dollars in military aid and assistance between 2022 and 2024. This figure does not represent a simple transfer of resources, but a strategic investment aimed at degrading Russian military capabilities without direct involvement of NATO troops.

MechanismBillion USDFunction Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA)24.9Direct shipment of equipment from Department of Defense stocks Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI)24.9Contracts with the private sector for training and new equipment Foreign Military Financing (FMF)3.9Replenishment of stocks of NATO allies sending weapons to Kyiv Total Approved (2022-2024)~175Comprehensive support (defense, economy, humanitarian aid) Assistance was channeled through a trilateral system: the Presidential Drawdown Authority for immediate supplies from American military stocks, the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative for long-term contracts with the private sector, and Foreign Military Financing to replenish the stocks of NATO allies who sent their own armaments to Kyiv. This financial ecosystem has guaranteed the operational sustainability of a Ukrainian army that today counts approximately 800,000 effectives.

As Kellogg observed, Zelenskyy's ability to keep this international front united for over three years is a unique fact in modern United States history. Ukraine was not only saved from annihilation; it was de facto integrated into the Western defense architecture through specialized capability coalitions – air defense led by France and Germany, drones coordinated by Latvia and the United Kingdom, armored vehicles supplied by Germany and Poland, IT infrastructure developed by Estonia and Luxembourg.

Putin's Strategic Failure: A Balance in the Red

If Zelenskyy transformed a predicted defeat into an epic resistance, Vladimir Putin obtained the exact opposite of his declared objectives. The Russian military operation, initially presented by the Kremlin as a rapid action to guarantee Kyiv's neutrality and stop NATO expansion, produced diametrically opposite results.

Putin wanted to push NATO away from Russian borders; he obtained the accession of Finland and Sweden, doubling the direct border line between Russia and the Atlantic Alliance. He wanted to prevent Ukraine's European integration; he pushed Brussels to grant EU candidate status to Kyiv. He wanted to change the regime in Kyiv; Zelenskyy not only remains in power, but has become a global icon of democratic resistance.

The Human and Economic Cost

On the military front, the price paid by Russia has been exorbitant. Estimates of human losses indicate between 200,000 and 400,000 soldiers killed or wounded, a figure that has forced the Kremlin into continuous mobilization and a restructuring of the economy along wartime lines. Despite the capture of some key cities and territorial advances such as the one towards Pokrovsk in December 2025, Russia has failed to achieve a decisive victory, finding itself instead mired in a war of attrition that is eroding its financial and technological reserves.

Russia now faces a reality in which its regional influence has diminished, its economy is subject to a long-term financial siege through sanctions that have frozen over 210 billion euros in assets, and its main adversary – Ukraine – has become one of the most experienced and best-equipped armies in Europe.

Putin's attempt to neutralize Ukraine as a geopolitical actor has produced its opposite: a militarized Ukrainian state, integrated into Western structures, and equipped with a support coalition that continues to function despite political pressures within member states.

This is the factual context that Kellogg was observing when he defined Zelenskyy as a leader of historical stature. And this is the context that Trump seems to want to ignore when he replaces military analysis with the logic of the 'deal'.

The Rise of the Dealmakers: The New Real Estate Diplomacy

The progressive marginalization of Keith Kellogg in favor of Steve Witkoff marks the definitive triumph of a vision of foreign policy as an extension of private business. Witkoff is not a diplomat; he is a real estate magnate who built his fortune developing properties in New York and Miami. His appointment as special envoy for the Middle East – and, de facto, for Russia – did not happen on the basis of diplomatic skills or strategic knowledge, but on a much simpler criterion: 'Putin likes him' and he shares the language of business with Trump.

The Witkoff-Kushner Model

Witkoff operates in tandem with Jared Kushner, also a real estate businessman and Trump's son-in-law, who has acted as an informal intermediary between Washington, the Gulf monarchies, and Moscow. Kushner and Witkoff participated in talks in Berlin and Saudi Arabia, promoting a vision of the Ukrainian post-war that includes investments in critical minerals and development projects reminiscent of their real estate operations.

Witkoff has built a direct relationship with Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian sovereign fund (RDIF), and has had direct talks with Putin that lasted over three hours. These meetings discussed not only ceasefire, but also future economic cooperation – an approach that transforms the war in Ukraine into a post-conflict business opportunity.

ActorBackgroundRole in the Conflict Steve WitkoffReal estate developer; longtime Trump friend from the 'sandwich incident'De facto special envoy for Russia; ceasefire negotiator; direct talks with Putin (3+ hours) Jared KushnerReal estate businessman; Trump's son-in-lawInformal intermediary with the Kremlin and Arab mediators; promotion of post-conflict investments Keith KelloggThree-star General; 36 years of service; national security expertUkraine specialist progressively marginalized; called 'idiot' by Trump for the Zelenskyy-Lincoln comparison Marco RubioSecretary of State; career politicianFormal role often bypassed by Witkoff's personal channels; tensions due to lack of coordination Witkoff's loyalty to Trump is absolute and devoid of ideological baggage, a characteristic that the President appreciates above all others. Their decades-long friendship, symbolically cemented by that sandwich in the 1980s, has transformed into a parallel diplomatic channel that systematically bypasses the formal structures of the State Department. Marco Rubio, the nominal Secretary of State, has repeatedly found himself excluded from decisions made through the Witkoff channel, creating internal tensions in the administration.

The Temporary Ceasefire Plan

The plan supported by Witkoff for Ukraine provides for a temporary 30-day ceasefire as a basis for building the trust necessary for a long-term agreement. This proposal reflects the mentality of the real estate negotiator: create a moment of 'pause' to allow the parties to explore a comprehensive deal.

But what does this proposal really mean on the ground? It means freezing the conflict lines, leaving occupied territories under Russian control indefinitely. It means postponing the issue of Ukrainian territorial sovereignty to future negotiations whose outcome would depend on Putin's willingness to 'make a deal'. It means, in essence, transforming a war of aggression into a matter of 'price' and 'communication'.

Europe Responds: From Russian Asset Profits to Strategic Autonomy

While the Trump administration courts Moscow through its real estate dealmakers, the European Union has taken a radically different path. In December 2025, Brussels approved a plan that transforms temporary sanctions into a long-term war reparations system: using the profits generated by frozen Russian assets (approximately 210 billion euros) to finance a loan of 165-175 billion euros for Ukraine for the 2026-2027 biennium.

This move has three fundamental strategic implications:

First, it ensures that Kyiv has the financial resources to resist even in the event of a downsizing of US support. Europe is building an autonomous financial cushion that makes Ukraine less dependent on political fluctuations in Washington.

Second, it transforms frozen Russian assets from a temporary pressure tool into a structural source of financing. The profits generated by these assets – which continue to produce returns even if frozen – become a form of 'anticipated war reparations', economically binding Russia to the consequences of its aggression.

Third, it signals a fundamental strategic divergence with the United States. While Washington seeks a quick and transactional agreement, Brussels and Kyiv insist on a just peace based on international law and European collective security.

The contrast is sharp and irreducible. On one side, a vision that treats war as a communication problem between leaders; on the other, a vision that considers it a matter of legal principles and national sovereignty. On one side, dealmakers discussing mining investments with Putin; on the other, institutions transforming the aggressor's assets into resources for the aggressed.

Putin, for his part, seems to bet that Trump's approach will lead to a fragmentation of the Western coalition, allowing Russia to consolidate territorial gains obtained by force while the West divides between those who want to quickly close a deal and those who insist on a just solution.

Who Is the Idiot? A Question of Stubborn Facts

The epithet hurled by Trump against Kellogg – 'idiot' – raises a question that goes well beyond American domestic politics. It is a question about the very nature of strategic analysis and the value of facts in public debate.

Kellogg, starting from documented facts, observed:

• A leader (Zelenskyy) who transformed an announced catastrophe into an epic resistance
• A coalition of 57 nations that continues to function after three years
• Financial commitments exceeding 300 billion dollars between USA and EU
• A Ukrainian army that has inflicted devastating losses on an enemy considered invincible
• An aggressor (Putin) who has failed every declared strategic objective

These are not opinions. They are verifiable facts through institutional data, international reports, and public figures. Kellogg's analysis was rooted in a solid understanding of the power dynamics on the ground.

Trump, on the other hand, seems to consider an 'idiot' anyone who puts ideological principles or institutional analyses before the logic of negotiated compromise. His vision is that war is a problem of 'communication' and that sending someone 'Putin likes' can facilitate closing the game.

But what if Putin's objective is not an agreement, but total victory and the destruction of the European security order? If his strategy is precisely to wait for the West to tire, divide, and accept a deal that consolidates Russian territorial gains? In this case, the transactional approach is not pragmatism – it is a fundamentally wrong assessment of the very nature of the conflict.

The question 'who is the idiot' thus becomes an epistemological question: who is correctly reading reality? Those who start from the stubborn facts produced by three years of war, or those who prefer the narrative that everything is negotiable with the right dealmaker?

The data suggest that Kellogg, with his 'idiotic' fidelity to facts, had a more accurate understanding of the situation. The marginalization of figures with military and diplomatic experience in favor of real estate mediators represents a bold and risky experiment in world politics, whose outcomes will determine the security of the West for generations to come.

The Persistence of Reality

There is a bitter irony in the fact that European security might today depend on a ham and Swiss cheese sandwich consumed at a New York deli four decades ago. That trivial courtesy has become the symbol of a friendship that has redefined American diplomacy, replacing institutional expertise with personal loyalty, strategic analysis with the logic of the deal, generals with real estate developers.

Steve Witkoff now sits with Vladimir Putin to discuss the future of Ukraine, while Keith Kellogg – the General who dared to tell the truth about the facts – is called an idiot and pushed to the margins. It is a metamorphosis that reveals the fundamental tension at the heart of contemporary foreign policy: the war between those who consider facts stubborn and those who prefer flexible narratives.

But facts, by their nature, are stubborn. Zelenskyy transformed a predicted defeat into a coalition of 57 nations. Putin obtained the exact opposite of every strategic objective. Ukraine has been de facto integrated into the Western defense architecture. Europe has built an autonomous financing system that makes it less dependent on Washington. These are verifiable data, not negotiable opinions.

The question that remains open is whether Trump's transactional approach – embodied by Witkoff and Kushner – can actually resolve a conflict that is driven not only by economic interests, but by conflicting visions of sovereignty, national identity, and international order. If Putin considers war not as a problem to solve but as an instrument to demolish the liberal Western order, then sending a dealmaker he likes might not be pragmatism, but strategic naivety.

Ultimately, history will judge not based on intentions or narratives, but based on results. If the success of a leadership is measured by results achieved against set objectives, documented facts place Zelenskyy in a position of extraordinary strategic resilience and Putin in one of systemic failure. And they pose an uncomfortable question: in this geopolitical chess game, who is truly the idiot? Those who analyze facts with institutional rigor, or those who believe that a sandwich can replace strategy?

The answer will determine not only the future of Ukraine, but the credibility of the West as guardian of an order based on law, sovereignty, and resistance to aggression. The stubborn facts patiently await recognition. And reality, with its obstinate persistence, will continue to exist regardless of the quality of the deals we try to build on it.

Notes and Sources

This article is based on a documented analysis of leadership dynamics in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, examining institutional sources, intelligence reports, public statements by government officials, and verifiable financial data for the period 2022-2026. The information has been cross-referenced with official communications from the US State Department, the Pentagon, NATO, the European Union, and with investigative reporting from international outlets.

Figures relating to military and financial aid have been verified through the following institutional channels:

• US Department of Defense – Presidential Drawdown Authority reports
• European Commission – Asset Management and Sanctions Implementation Unit
• NATO – Ukraine Defense Contact Group (Ramstein Format) official statements
• Kiel Institute for the World Economy – Ukraine Support Tracker database

General Keith Kellogg's statements were reported during the Brussels Forum of the German Marshall Fund and verified through official transcripts and contemporary reporting. Information regarding Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and their diplomatic activities has been documented through White House press releases, statements by US officials under anonymity, and investigative articles published in verified outlets.

Data on Russian military losses come from cross-estimates of Western intelligence, statements by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense (verified by international observers), and analyses by think tanks specializing in strategic studies. Figures relating to frozen Russian assets and European financing mechanisms have been confirmed through official documents of the Council of the European Union and communications from the European Central Bank.

The author acknowledges that some information relating to private talks between American officials and foreign leaders comes from anonymous sources cited in journalistic reports. Where possible, such information has been corroborated by subsequent public statements or indirect confirmations through official communications.

Article produced to document the transformation of American diplomacy in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, with particular attention to the tensions between institutional strategic analysis and transactional approach in contemporary foreign policy.