Follow us on social

google cta
Marco Rubio

Rubio: Trump ready to walk away from Ukraine peace talks

But if we are going to threaten, there needs to be some clear demands first

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

In a dramatic statement early this morning, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said President Donald Trump would give it a few more days to see if progress could be made on getting a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, if not, he will "move on."

"We're not going to continue with this endeavor for weeks and months on end. So we need to determine very quickly now, and I'm talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable in the next few weeks," Rubio said Friday in Paris after meeting European and Ukrainian leaders.

The Reuters report did not indicate what, if anything, in those meetings, sparked the somewhat foreboding turn. It is true, though, that broader discussions, at least publicly, have not yielded the straightforward progress that the administration had hoped for, if not promised when Trump took office in January. The administration, led mostly by envoy Steve Witkoff but other top officials including Rubio and Vice President Vance, too, has engaged in numerous meetings now — with Moscow, Kyiv, and European heads of state — but seem no closer to hammering out the fundamentals necessary for a permanent agreement.

"If it's not possible, if we're so far apart that this is not going to happen, then I think the president is probably at a point where he's going to say, 'well, we're done'," Rubio told reporters.

Both Ukraine and Russia appear locked into maximalist demands and attempts at a temporary ceasefire have yielded mixed results, with Russia actually increasing the lethality of its missile strikes, not on energy targets, but on cities, killing dozens of civilians in the last month. In recent weeks, the Trump team as well as Trump, have appeared increasingly frustrated with Russia. Late last month the president said he was "angry" and "pissed off" with what he saw as Moscow's attempts to put monkey wrenches into the process, and threatened more sanctions on the government.

"Whatever Trump may have promised in the past, no sensible analyst ever thought this peace process was going to be quick or easy," noted Lieven after the news.

According to Reuters, three European diplomatic sources told them that Rubio comments reflected growing frustration in the White House over Russian intransigence to end the war. According to the Wall Street Journal, "other Western officials were more optimistic than Rubio about the fate of the talks, saying that Paris meetings had been productive and the U.S. indicated that he has developed a draft concept for how a comprehensive cease-fire might be monitored."

Interestingly, this comes days after Witkoff emerged from talks with Putin himself with a more positive take, saying Monday that he “finally” got an answer to the Russian president's demands for a permanent peace. Witkoff indicated — and this is no surprise — that it revolved around Russian held territories in Ukraine and insisting on no NATO membership for Kyiv. “And I think we might be on the verge of something that would be very, very important for the world at large,” he said.

“It was a compelling meeting,” Witkoff said. “And toward the end, we actually came up with — I’m going to say ‘finally,’ but I don’t mean it in the way that we were waiting, I mean it in the way that it took a while for us to get to this place — what Putin’s request is to get, to have a permanent peace here.”

Lieven said threats like these are part of the negotiation process but the U.S. needs to lay down clear demands for both sides as it is doing so.

"To achieve even a lasting ceasefire, the U.S. negotiating team will need to put forward some concrete and detailed terms for ending the war, and make an explicit threat as to the consequences for whichever side is seen by Washington as most at fault for a failure to agree," he said.

"Russia will need to accept that it will not get any more territory beyond that already occupied, and that the rest of Ukraine will remain sovereign, independent, and sufficiently armed for a credible defense," he added. "Ukraine and the EU will need to agree to a formal promise that Ukraine will not to try to recover its lost territory by force, that it will not get NATO membership or a European 'reassurance force' and that certain categories of weapons will be limited."

These are fundamental to a peace agreement, he added. While Russia can be incentivized by the offer of wider US-Russian detente and the lifting of sanctions, the EU could look forward to a massive EU fund for reconstruction. But both will have to give up their present maximalist demands.

"The threat to Russia must be that if they reject compromise, the U.S. will walk away from the talks, but U.S. aid to Ukraine will continue, greatly strengthening the likelihood that Ukraine will be able to go on making Russian military advances extremely slow, limited, and costly," Lieven added. "The threat to Ukraine and the EU is that if they are intransigent, U.S. aid will stop, greatly increasing the possibility of a Ukrainian collapse."

Of course, it is also quite possible that both sides will remain intransigent. If so, US aid should continue, but at a gradually diminishing level, giving time for the EU gradually to replace it — if it is capable of doing so."

This story has been updated according to ongoing developments


Top photo credit: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives at the Quai d'Orsay, France's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, before a bilateral meeting with his French counterpart in Paris, France April 17, 2025. JULIEN DE ROSA/Pool via REUTERS
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.