Kellogg proposes creating a new defense alliance to replace NATO, with Ukraine’s participation
3 April 06:56
Former U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, has called for the creation of a new defense system to replace the current NATO model and mentioned Ukraine among the potential partners of such an alliance. In comments to Fox News, he sharply criticized the Alliance, calling it weak in responding to modern crises, and stated that the United States should reconsider its approach to international defense alliances, reports "Komersant Ukrainian"
During the broadcast, Kellogg said that “perhaps a new NATO, a new defense system, is needed,” and cited Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which provides for a state’s withdrawal from the Alliance one year after official notification.
He named Japan, Australia, Poland, a “renewed” Germany, and Ukraine—which he described as an effective ally—as potential participants in the new format.
What exactly did Kellogg say?
Kellogg’s main argument boils down to the idea that new security alliances should not be built out of inertia, but rather around states that are genuinely prepared to take on responsibility during crises. He publicly questioned the effectiveness of NATO in its current form, particularly against the backdrop of disputes within the West regarding the response to a war against Iran. It is in this context that he began speaking of a “new defense system” to replace the Alliance’s traditional architecture.
It is important to note that this statement was not presented as an official decision by the U.S. administration, but as Kellogg’s own political and public position.
Why Ukraine was mentioned in this statement
The special attention to Ukraine in Kellogg’s remarks carries political weight. He effectively placed Kyiv on par with states that, in his view, have demonstrated combat capability, resilience, and a genuine readiness to confront major security challenges. In this list, Ukraine is mentioned alongside Poland, Japan, and Australia—countries that are often considered key pillars in their respective regions within American security thinking.
For Ukraine, such rhetoric is also important because it once again highlights the point that Kyiv is increasingly viewed not merely as a recipient of aid, but as a potential full-fledged participant in a new security system. This does not mean that such an alliance is being formed right now, but it does indicate a shift in perspective among some in the American political establishment regarding Ukraine’s role in the future defense architecture. This conclusion stems from Kellogg’s own words and the list of countries he named.
Is this a real alternative to NATO?
As of now, this is merely a political idea, not an ongoing international process. There are no official U.S. decisions regarding withdrawal from NATO, although the debate on this has indeed intensified following Donald Trump’s recent statements that he is “absolutely” considering such a move. Against this backdrop, Kellogg’s remarks fit into a broader debate about the Alliance’s future and the extent to which the U.S. is prepared to continue bearing the main burden of the West’s collective defense.
In other words, the new alliance Kellogg speaks of currently has neither a charter, nor an official format, nor a negotiating platform. But the very fact that such statements are coming from someone who until recently was part of the U.S. decision-making system regarding Ukraine shows that the conversation about alternative security structures in the West has already moved beyond purely theoretical discussions. This is an interpretation based on public statements and the context of the debate surrounding NATO.
