By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Trump administration official Keith Kellogg criticized the assassination of Russian Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov in Moscow, arguing that such actions, especially targeting high-ranking officers in their home country, may violate the laws of war and are strategically unwise. Kellogg noted the reported use of a recruited individual in the assassination, deeming the method ill-advised. While acknowledging the action as a regrettable aspect of warfare, he emphasized that it doesn’t inherently impede potential peace talks. The US previously distanced itself from the event.
Read the original article here
The Trump team’s criticism of the killing of a Russian general in Moscow is, frankly, baffling. Their stated concern seems to center on the act of killing a high-ranking officer within their own city, deeming it an escalation or a violation of some unspoken rule of war. This position, however, feels incredibly tone-deaf given the context of the ongoing conflict.
The very notion that there are unwritten rules protecting high-ranking military officials from targeted attacks during a war in which countless war crimes have already been committed is questionable at best. Russia’s actions in Ukraine – including the targeting of civilians in cities – clearly demonstrate a disregard for any such rules, making the Trump team’s concerns appear selective and hypocritical.
This critique is particularly striking given Trump’s own history. The fact that the same people now expressing such moral outrage were previously associated with the decision to eliminate a high-ranking Iranian general seems to be a glaring inconsistency. This stark contrast highlights the perceived hypocrisy and raises serious questions about the Trump team’s motives.
Furthermore, the timing and nature of this criticism are suspicious. The argument that killing a general in their hometown somehow violates the rules of war seems to be a conveniently chosen talking point, rather than a genuine expression of concern for international law or the sanctity of human life. The team’s focus on this particular aspect of the conflict seems designed to deflect from the larger picture and the immense suffering caused by Russia’s unprovoked invasion.
The comments hint at a troubling alignment with Russia’s perspective. The implied justification for Russia’s actions in Ukraine is a concerning sign of potential appeasement. The Trump team’s apparent disregard for the countless atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine—a sovereign nation—further solidifies this impression of being far too willing to overlook Russia’s blatant disregard for international norms.
The perceived pro-Russia stance taken by the Trump team is causing considerable alarm and outrage among many. The suggestion that Trump’s administration might actively undermine support for Ukraine and negotiate a peace deal that would essentially concede Ukrainian territory to Russia is deeply disturbing. Such a scenario is viewed as a potential betrayal of a key ally and a major blow to the Western alliance. The idea that Ukraine might be forced to disarm under such a deal, only to face renewed aggression later, is chilling and reflects a concerning lack of strategic thinking.
This situation raises serious questions about the Trump team’s loyalty to the United States and its commitment to international alliances. The perceived willingness to accept or even encourage a Russian-favorable outcome is a grave concern. The comments raise the specter of a future where American foreign policy is dictated not by American interests but by those of a foreign power, specifically Russia. The lack of condemnation for Russia’s actions and the implicit condoning of Russia’s behavior paint a picture far removed from a traditional understanding of American foreign policy.
The silence on Russia’s war crimes and consistent attempts to normalize and even excuse Russia’s actions are alarming. The emphasis on a specific, seemingly minor, aspect of the conflict, while ignoring the much larger and more horrific picture of the war, further reinforces the perception of a pro-Russian bias. Many are deeply concerned that such sentiments might shape a future Trump administration’s policies towards Russia and Ukraine, potentially jeopardizing the security of Ukraine and undermining the global standing of the United States. The lack of clear condemnation of the invasion and the subsequent atrocities is fueling fears of a deeply compromised and pro-Russia-leaning administration in the near future. The sheer volume of negative reactions and expressions of concern illustrate widespread apprehension regarding the direction a future Trump administration could take.