Trump-Putin talks produced enough movement to justify Ukraine meeting, Rubio says
theprint.in -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 3:26:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
European leaders will accompany Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy 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 Zelenskiy and the Europeans," Rubio told the "Face the Nation" show.
Rubio's comments were among the first by senior U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. sanctions on Russia would continue, and more could be added.
When Zelenskiy 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 Zelenskiy.
"They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelenskiy from being bullied. They're coming here tomorrow because we've been working with the Europeans," he said.
(Additional reporting by David Morgan and Raphael Satter in WashingtonEditing by Rod Nickel)
Sign Our PetitionThe recent discussions surrounding the conflict in Ukraine, particularly the negotiations involving prominent figures like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, highlight the complex geopolitical landscape that has evolved since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. These talks raise significant questions about the implications for Ukraine’s sovereignty, the long-term security of Eastern Europe, and the role of the United States as both an ally and a negotiator. As we delve into the intricacies of these discussions, it is essential to understand the historical context and the broader implications of potential peace agreements.
The backdrop of these negotiations is steeped in a history of Western imperialism and the post-Cold War transition of Eastern Europe. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO expanded its reach into former Soviet states, an act that Russia perceives as a direct threat to its sphere of influence. The arguments surrounding NATO expansion often reflect deeper ideological divides, where proponents see it as an essential measure for collective security, while opponents argue that it exacerbates tensions, as evidenced by the current conflict in Ukraine. The ongoing war represents not only a struggle for territorial integrity but also a reaffirmation of national identity in the face of external aggression. This historical lens is crucial for understanding the stakes involved in any potential peace deal.
Moreover, the negotiations as outlined in the article raise profound ethical questions about the nature of compromise in warfare. Rubio’s comments suggest a willingness to entertain a peace deal that includes concessions from Ukraine, potentially undermining its sovereignty. The notion that Ukraine might cede territory in exchange for security guarantees is particularly troubling. Historically, such compromises have often led to further instability and resentment. The Treaty of Versailles is a stark example of how punitive measures can lead to long-term conflict rather than resolution. The voices of those advocating for a just peace must be amplified in these discussions, emphasizing that any agreement should prioritize the rights and desires of the Ukrainian people, rather than merely appeasing external powers.
This situation is further complicated by the role of the United States as both a mediator and a military supplier to Ukraine. While U.S. military aid has been essential for Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression, the prospect of the U.S. offering “Article Five-like” protections raises concerns about whether this would adequately substitute for full NATO membership. Critics argue that such an arrangement would essentially leave Ukraine in a perpetual state of limbo, where its security is contingent upon U.S. interests rather than a collective European defense strategy. This paternalistic approach is reminiscent of historical instances where powerful nations have dictated terms to weaker states, often with devastating consequences.
As discussions progress, it is vital for advocates of social justice and self-determination to remain vigilant and vocal. The plight of the Ukrainian people is not merely a foreign policy issue; it is a matter of human rights and dignity. The ongoing struggle for freedom from tyrannical rule is echoed throughout history, from the decolonization movements of the 20th century to contemporary battles against authoritarianism worldwide. Engaging in these conversations requires an understanding of the historical injustices that have led to current conflicts and an unwavering commitment to uphold the principles of sovereignty and self-determination in international relations.
In conclusion, the potential outcomes of the Trump-Putin talks and the subsequent meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy are fraught with implications that extend far beyond the immediate geopolitical landscape. They call into question the ethical considerations of peace negotiations, the historical context of European security, and the need for a principled approach to international relations that prioritize human rights over political expediency. As citizens and advocates, it is essential to scrutinize these developments and advocate for a resolution that genuinely respects the sovereignty of Ukraine and promotes lasting peace in the region.
The recent developments surrounding the discussions between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin regarding Ukraine signal a significant shift in the geopolitical landscape, with implications that extend far beyond the immediate context of the war. Senator Marco Rubio's statements about the potential for a peace deal, albeit tempered with caution, highlight the complexities involved in negotiations that could ultimately reshape not only Ukraine's future but also the relationship between the U.S. and NATO. The historical backdrop of U.S.-Russia relations, marked by a long-standing tension and the ramifications of the Cold War, informs the current situation, underscoring the delicate balance between diplomatic engagement and military commitments.
Historically, the region has seen its fair share of conflict and power struggles, with Ukraine often caught in the crossfire of larger geopolitical ambitions. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine serve as painful reminders of the fragility of sovereignty and the dangers of appeasement. Trump's proposal to provide "Article Five-like protection," while not formally invoking NATO's mutual defense clause, raises critical questions about the reliability of U.S. commitments to its allies. The idea of offering security guarantees outside the NATO framework could weaken the alliance itself, potentially emboldening aggressors while leaving vulnerable countries like Ukraine in precarious positions.
As Americans, we must recognize the importance of advocating for a foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy over militaristic posturing. Engaging with our political representatives to express a preference for comprehensive, multilateral negotiations that prioritize human rights and territorial integrity could help shape a more constructive approach to the crisis. Encouraging a public discourse that challenges the notion that any concession to Russia is equivalent to weakness is essential. It is vital to emphasize that peace cannot be built on the back of territorial compromises that fundamentally undermine a nation's sovereignty.
Moreover, we must educate ourselves and others about the complexities of the conflict and the historical grievances that shape the narratives of both Ukraine and Russia. Understanding the perspectives of those living in war-torn regions will enhance our ability to advocate for policies that reflect a nuanced view of the situation. By promoting dialogue that includes voices from Ukraine and civil society, we can help ensure that any resolution honors the rights and aspirations of those most affected by the war, rather than merely serving the interests of great powers.
In this moment of uncertainty, it is crucial for citizens to remain vigilant and engaged. By harnessing the power of grassroots movements, we can push back against narratives that prioritize expediency over justice. This includes mobilizing support for humanitarian aid initiatives, urging local representatives to take a stand on Ukraine's sovereignty, and participating in community discussions that elevate the discourse around U.S. foreign policy. Ultimately, fostering a well-informed electorate that demands accountability and transparency from its leaders can lay the groundwork for a more equitable and peaceful resolution to the crisis in Ukraine, ensuring that the lessons of history guide our actions in the present.
Analyzing the dynamics of international relations and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine requires an understanding of how local actions can influence larger political outcomes. Here’s a detailed list of ideas for what individuals can do in response to the recent developments discussed in the article:
### What Can We Personally Do?
1. **Advocate for Peaceful Solutions**: Encourage dialogue-oriented approaches to ending the conflict rather than aggressive military strategies.
2. **Engage with Local Representatives**: Reach out to your elected officials to express your views on the U.S. role in the Ukraine conflict and advocate for policies that prioritize diplomacy over conflict escalation.
3. **Support Humanitarian Aid Initiatives**: Contribute to or volunteer with organizations that provide humanitarian relief to those affected by the war in Ukraine.
4. **Educate and Raise Awareness**: Share information about the complexities of the situation in Ukraine, emphasizing the importance of peaceful resolutions and the humanitarian impact of the conflict.
### Exact Actions We Can Take
1. **Write to Elected Representatives**: - **Who to Write**: Your local Congressional representatives and senators. - **Example of Representatives**: - **Senator Bernie Sanders** (VT) - Email: sanders.senate.gov/contact - Mailing address: 1 Church Street, Suite 201, Burlington, VT 05401 - **Representative Ilhan Omar** (MN-5) - Email: https://omar.house.gov/contact - Mailing address: 3000 1st Avenue South, Suite 101, Minneapolis, MN 55408
- **What to Say**: - Express your support for a diplomatic approach to resolving the Ukraine conflict. - Urge them to prioritize humanitarian aid and oppose military escalation. - Suggest they advocate for increased dialogue between the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia.
2. **Sign Petitions**: - **Petition Example**: "Support Ukraine's Sovereignty and Call for Peaceful Resolutions" - Websites like Change.org and Care2 often host petitions on relevant issues. Search for petitions that aim for diplomatic solutions in Ukraine or support for humanitarian aid.
3. **Participate in Local Activism**: - **Join or support local organizations** that focus on peacebuilding and international solidarity. Many groups focus on Ukraine, human rights, and anti-war activism. - Attend town hall meetings or community forums to discuss the situation and mobilize others around the cause.
4. **Raise Funds for Humanitarian Aid**: - Support organizations like **Doctors Without Borders**, **Human Rights Watch**, or the **International Rescue Committee**, which provide crucial assistance to those affected by the conflict. - Organize fundraising events or donation drives in your community to support these efforts.
5. **Utilize Social Media**: - Share information and action alerts on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram about the situation in Ukraine. - Use hashtags related to peace in Ukraine to amplify your message and connect with a broader audience.
6. **Engage in Educational Efforts**: - Host or participate in community discussions or webinars about the Ukraine situation, focusing on the importance of peaceful resolutions. - Collaborate with local universities or community centers to create informative materials or lectures.
### Conclusion
Individual actions can collectively influence larger political dynamics. By engaging with representatives, supporting humanitarian efforts, and advocating for peace, we contribute to a more conscientious and humane approach to international conflicts.