Trump-Putin talks produced enough movement to justify Ukraine meeting, Rubio says - CNBC TV18
cnbctv18.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 11:55:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
US President Trump and Russian leader Putin's talks show progress, says US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. European leaders to meet Trump and Zelenskiy in Washington.Talks between US President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin produced enough movement to justify a meeting with Ukrainian and European leaders, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS on Sunday (August 17).
Rubio also said both Russia and Ukraine would have to make concessions to end the war, adding that the United States might not be able to produce a scenario guaranteeing peace.
European leaders will accompany Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to meet Trump in Washington on Monday, seeking to bolster him as the president presses Ukraine to accept a quick peace deal after meeting Putin on Friday.
"I'm not saying we're on the verge of a peace deal, but I am saying that we saw movement, enough movement to justify a follow-up meeting with Zelensky and the Europeans," Rubio told the "Face the Nation" show.
Rubio's comments were among the first by senior US officials present at the talks with Putin.
In a social media post, Trump wrote, "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!" he gave no details
Speaking separately to Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" program, Rubio said the talks had narrowed down the key issues. These included drawing borders, long-term security guarantees for Kyiv, and which military alliances Ukraine could have, he said, adding "there's a lot of work that remains."
Putin has ruled out Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. Article 5 of the alliance's charter is a mutual defence pact obliging allies to defend a member from attacks.
Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to Russia, told CNN that the US side had won "the concession that the United States could offer Article Five-like protection."
Pressed for details, he said, "the United States is potentially prepared to be able to give Article Five security guarantees, but not from NATO, directly from the United States, and other European countries." This would be one of the topics for discussion on Monday, he said.
According to sources, Trump and Putin discussed proposals for Russia to relinquish tiny pockets of occupied Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine ceding a swathe of fortified land in the east and freezing the front lines elsewhere.
"We may not like it, it may not be pleasant, it may be distasteful, but in order for there to be an end of the war, there are things Russia wants that it cannot get, and there are things Ukraine wants that it's not going to get," said Rubio.
In a separate interview with ABC, Rubio said if a deal could not be reached to end the war, existing US sanctions on Russia would continue, and more could be added.
When Zelensky visited the White House in February, the meeting ended in a shouting match. Rubio, speaking to CBS, dismissed the idea that the European leaders were coming to Washington to protect Zelensky.
"They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelensky from being bullied. They're coming here tomorrow because we've been working with the Europeans," he said.
"We invited them to come."
Also Read: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to meet PM Modi during 2-day India visit
Sign Our PetitionThe recent discussions between U.S. President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, as reported regarding the upcoming meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders, bring to light the complex and precarious nature of international diplomacy in times of conflict. The dialogue surrounding Ukraine's sovereignty and the ongoing war with Russia is not merely a political chess game; it reflects deep historical tensions, and the implications of these negotiations resonate far beyond the confines of the conference room. As we analyze these developments, it is crucial to consider the broader historical context, the social justice implications, and the potential consequences of the decisions made by those in power.
Historically, Ukraine has been at the crossroads of East and West, a geopolitical battleground shaped by centuries of foreign dominance and internal strife. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 allowed Ukraine to assert its independence, yet this autonomy has been continuously challenged by Russian aggression, particularly in the wake of the 2014 annexation of Crimea. This backdrop is essential in understanding the stakes involved in the current discussions. While Trump's administration may tout "progress" in negotiations, we must interrogate the implications of any possible concessions that Ukraine may be forced to make, especially in light of its historical struggle for self-determination. Encouraging Ukraine to compromise on territorial integrity risks undermining the agency of a nation that has already faced immense suffering.
In the context of social justice, it is essential to recognize the human cost of geopolitical decisions. The ongoing war has led to widespread displacement and suffering among Ukrainian civilians. Any discussions of "concessions" must consider the lived experiences of those affected by the conflict. To suggest that Ukraine might cede territory in exchange for temporary peace dismisses the reality that these regions are not merely lines on a map; they are home to countless individuals whose lives would be irrevocably altered by such decisions. Moreover, the language of "concessions" typically underplays the significance of national identity and self-determination—principles that have been hard-won and should not be negotiable pawns in international diplomacy.
The role of the United States in these negotiations also bears scrutiny. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggests that the U.S. could offer "Article Five-like protection" without NATO involvement, one must question the legitimacy of such assurances. The mutual defense commitments enshrined in NATO were established to prevent aggression against member states; to consider a bilateral security guarantee as a replacement invites skepticism about the U.S.'s long-term commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty. This scenario raises important questions about the reliability of U.S. foreign policy, particularly for nations that have historically relied on American support. A lack of genuine commitment from the U.S. could leave Ukraine vulnerable, potentially emboldening further aggression from Russia.
Furthermore, the current geopolitical climate is entwined with the ongoing struggles for democracy and self-governance around the globe. The Ukraine-Russia conflict is emblematic of a larger narrative where powerful nations often dictate terms to weaker states, sidestepping the voices of the very people who live in these regions. The rhetoric of negotiation often glosses over the realities of power dynamics, where the aspirations of ordinary Ukrainians may be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. In bringing this discussion to right-wing audiences, it is vital to emphasize that the principles of respect for national sovereignty and the right to self-determination are universal, transcending partisan divides.
In conclusion, the impending talks between Trump, Putin, Zelensky, and European leaders underscore a crucial moment in international relations that carries significant implications for Ukraine and the broader global order. As discussions unfold, it is imperative to keep in mind the historical context, the human experiences behind territorial disputes, and the need for genuine commitments to democratic principles. Engaging in these conversations helps to illuminate the complexities of foreign policy, reminding us all that the stakes are not merely political but profoundly human. By advocating for a foreign policy that prioritizes the voices and rights of those most affected, we can work towards a more just and equitable world.
The recent discussions between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, as reported, raise critical questions regarding the United States' foreign policy approach to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. These talks, touted by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio as a sign of "progress," indicate a move toward pragmatic solutions—even if they involve concessions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. This scenario illuminates the broader implications of American diplomacy and the precarious state of international alliances, especially in the context of historical U.S.-Russia relations.
To understand the current situation, it is essential to reflect on the historical backdrop of U.S.-Russia relations and the evolution of NATO. After the Cold War, NATO expanded eastward, incorporating former Soviet states, which has been a point of contention for Russia. The West’s support for Ukraine, particularly after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, represents not only a defense of Ukrainian sovereignty but also a commitment to the idea of a democratic Europe free from Russian influence. However, the prospect of negotiating concessions with a regime known for its aggressive tactics raises ethical and strategic dilemmas. By potentially accepting a deal that requires Ukraine to cede territory or accept diminished security guarantees, the U.S. risks legitimizing Russia’s expansionist policies and undermining the principles of self-determination and national sovereignty.
What can Americans do in response to this complicated situation? First and foremost, it is essential to remain informed and engaged with foreign policy discussions. Public discourse should challenge the normalized narrative of "realpolitik," which often prioritizes expediency over ethical considerations. By advocating for a foreign policy that upholds democratic values and human rights, citizens can push their representatives to consider the long-term consequences of their actions. Moreover, grassroots movements can be instrumental in fostering a collective understanding of the meaning of security in the 21st century—one that prioritizes the welfare of people and nations over geopolitical gamesmanship.
Educational initiatives also play a crucial role in equipping citizens with the tools to engage in these discussions meaningfully. By promoting comprehensive education on international relations, history, and the nuances of diplomacy, Americans can cultivate a more informed electorate. Programs that encourage critical thinking about foreign policy and its implications can empower individuals to hold their leaders accountable. Workshops, community discussions, and even social media campaigns can help disseminate information and create a culture of informed engagement.
It is also vital to address the economic aspects of the situation. The sanctions placed on Russia have significant implications for global markets and the international economy. Advocating for a nuanced approach to sanctions—one that considers their impact on ordinary citizens rather than solely focusing on punitive measures against the elite—can foster a more ethical foreign policy. Activism that promotes economic justice, both domestically and internationally, can help bridge the gap between foreign policy and local interests, highlighting how global decisions affect everyday lives.
Ultimately, the ongoing negotiations about Ukraine's future reflect the complexities of modern diplomacy. As citizens, we must remain vigilant and vocal in advocating for policies that prioritize human rights and the dignity of nations. By fostering informed discussions and demanding accountability from our leaders, we can actively shape a foreign policy that reflects our values and aspirations for a more just world. The current moment in U.S.-Russia relations is a call to action, reminding us that engagement is essential—not just in the halls of power, but in our communities, classrooms, and everyday conversations.
In light of the recent developments regarding U.S.-Russia talks about the situation in Ukraine, it's crucial to recognize the implications these discussions have on international relations and the future of peace in the region. Here are several actionable ideas that individuals can implement to advocate for a more just and peaceful resolution to the conflict:
### Personal Actions to Take:
1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - Stay informed about the latest developments regarding Ukraine and Russia. Share articles and discussions with your community, focusing on the implications of negotiations and the importance of maintaining Ukraine's sovereignty.
2. **Contact Elected Officials** - Reach out to your local and national representatives to express your views on the U.S. approach to Ukraine and Russia. Emphasize the importance of supporting Ukraine without compromising its territorial integrity.
**Example Contacts:** - **Senator Elizabeth Warren** Email: senator_warren@warren.senate.gov USPS: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203
- **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez** Email: ocasio-cortez.house.gov/contact USPS: 144 E constituent office, Bronx, NY 10451
- **Senator Bernie Sanders** Email: senator_sanders@sanders.senate.gov USPS: 1 Battery Park Ave Suite 360, Burlington, VT 05401
3. **Start or Sign Petitions** - Create or support petitions that advocate for peace negotiations that prioritize human rights, sovereignty, and support for displaced families in Ukraine.
**Example Petition:** - Change.org has various petitions related to Ukraine. Consider starting one that calls for a commitment to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and human rights in negotiations.
4. **Support Humanitarian Organizations** - Donate to or volunteer with organizations that provide aid to those affected by the conflict in Ukraine.
**Examples:** - **Doctors Without Borders**: They provide medical care in conflict zones. - **International Rescue Committee (IRC)**: They support refugees and those displaced by war.
5. **Engage on Social Media** - Use platforms like Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook to raise awareness about the situation in Ukraine. Share informative posts, articles, and videos that highlight the human impact of the conflict and the need for a peaceful resolution.
6. **Organize or Attend Local Events** - Host or participate in community discussions, rallies, or vigils that focus on peace in Ukraine. This can help raise awareness and show solidarity with those affected by the war.
7. **Write Letters to the Editor** - Submit letters to local newspapers expressing your concerns about the U.S. government’s approach to the war in Ukraine and advocating for a peaceful resolution that respects human rights.
### What to Say:
When contacting officials or writing letters, consider using points such as:
- **Support for Ukraine’s Sovereignty**: Emphasize that any peace negotiations must respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. - **Human Rights Considerations**: Advocate for the protection of civilians and the need for humanitarian aid in any agreements reached.
- **Long-term Peace Solutions**: Urge officials to consider sustainable solutions that address the root causes of the conflict rather than temporary fixes.
- **Opposition to Military Compromises**: Express opposition to any deals that would involve Ukraine ceding territory or military capabilities under pressure.
By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to creating a more just and peaceful approach to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Engaging with representatives, supporting humanitarian efforts, and fostering community awareness are all vital steps in advocating for a resolution that prioritizes human rights and sovereignty.