Keith Kellogg

The answer to that last question, just as you framed it, the answer is no. The answer to the earlier part of that question is yes, of course the Ukrainians are going to be at the table.

To me, there's going to have to be things like territorial concessions. Some of it is unrealistic to expect where you'd want to go to, but it's some territorial. It could be the engagement of refusing to use force, renouncement of the use of force into the future. from a political side. He's not going to downsize his military forces.

What we're going to try to do is basically force him into actions. What you want to do is force him to actions maybe he's uncomfortable with. What I mean by that is an example. Right now, what we're going to do is try to break this alliance that he currently has. He's got an alliance around North Korea that wasn't there before. He's got an alliance with Iran that wasn't there before.

He's got an alliance with China that wasn't there before, meaning four years ago.

No, but remember what President Trump said. He actually talked about the potential of getting territory back from the Russians. He said that. That's a public comment from him.

Pardon? Can you tell us? It's almost like, you know, remember the president said he was going to end the war in 24 hours. We didn't say what day.

No, but remember what President Trump said. He actually talked about the potential of getting territory back from the Russians. He said that. That's a public comment from him. So, pardon? But he didn't say. It's almost like, you know, remember the president said he was going to end the war in 24 hours. We didn't say what day.

We'll set the conditions for the president, and then he'll eventually get to a position where he'll be talking to President Putin and also Prime Minister, President Zelensky as well. And I think they're going to come to a solvable solution in the near term. And when I say by the near term, you know, I would like to set a goal on a personal level, professional level.

I would say let's set it at 100 days and move our way back. And figure a way we can do this in the near term to make sure that this solution is solid, it's sustainable, and that this war ends so that we stop the carnage. I think that's going to be very important to do.

It's going to be important for our national security, it's part of our vital national interest, and it's also good for Europe as well, and the globe as well.

Out of the box, he's trying to engage and he's putting the United States in a position of global leadership. So when you look at it historically, there's a lot of things he is saying is very, very accurate. HISTORICALLY, AND IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE INTERNATIONALLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE FOR THE FUTURE.

YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO PANAMA, I WAS AN ASSAULT BRIGADE COMMANDER DURING JUST CAUSE, THE INVASION OF PANAMA. WE ACTUALLY DID TAKE THE PANAMA CANAL BACK IN THE LATE 80s DURING OPERATION JUST CAUSE, AND THREE WEEKS LATER WE GAVE IT BACK TO THEM. SO WE'VE TAKEN IT BEFORE.

And I think his point about the Chinese running the canal is a good point because over 70% of the commerce that goes through the Panama Canal is, in fact, American. So it is in our vital interest, in our vital national interest, that that canal stays sovereign.

You know, I don't want to divulge anything that the president says or doesn't say because he speaks for himself. I do not speak for him. We've had an opportunity to talk about it. And we'll have more after the 20th of January when he's officially the president, not president-elect.