Comments by Secretary of State Marco Rubio tends towards confirming that the Trump administration has not, despite some no doubt genuine intentions. made the necessary shift in thinking to end the Ukraine war. I have written about this recently and the comments by Rubio confirm what I thought.
This, quoted from the Guardian:
This is about actions. If you’re interested in peace, you stop fighting and you lay out the conditions by which you’re willing to end the war, and they have to be reasonable conditions, right, not crazy stuff. If you’re interested in peace, that’s what you do.
If you’re not interested in peace, then you sort of drag it out, and you come up with excuses, … we know that, and we’re not going to get pulled into that. But let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.” [1]
What worries me primarily is that the idea is that the ceasefire comes first. Wasn’t Rubio listening? Back in June last year Putin spelt it out very clearly. The condition for talks is their main demands being met; no Ukraine into NATO and a complete Ukrainian withdrawal from the 4 provinces:
As soon as Ukraine begins withdrawing troops from Donbas and Novorossiya (in those regions) and undertakes not to join NATO, the Russian Federation will cease fire and be ready for negotiations. I don’t think it will take long, [2]
Recently he is reported as also demanding that a ceasefire must also include a halt to Western arms deliveries. [3] This is hardly surprising given all the talk in the EU-UK of taking advantage of any ceasefire to pump in arms and even locate European troops in Ukraine.
The line about “dragging out” the talks originates in Ukrainian intelligence (probably Baltic state intelligence as well) and is adopted by the demented leaders in Europe and the UK. It is worrying to see the US administration also echoing this line. It looks like they have been got at. There is an initiative in the Senate I think where anti-Russia neo-cons are joining forces with liberal internationalists to increase sanctions on Russia. [4] That is an example of the kind of pressure they are under. Putin is not “dragging” anything “out”. He is being true to his word. They need to see that a ceasefire will further their strategic security aims, not undermine it. At the moment, all the signs are that any ceasefire is being interpreted in Europe as a Russian defeat and were it to happen they would rush forces to Ukraine to “bolster the peace”. Of course Russia cannot agree to a ceasefire which so openly works against their aims – of demilitarising a threatening state on their borders. Especially given they are, albeit painfully, winning on the battlefield. So far Russia has been acting very rationally, trying to find areas which don’t cost them anything where they can agree – e.g. a possible new Black Sea deal and this possible limitation of strikes on energy infrastructure. They are not dragging anything out; they are following the published route map and trying to be friendly.
Meanwhile the UK’s embarrassment for a Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has this to contribute: “Our judgment is that Putin continues to obfuscate, continues to drag his feet… We see you, Vladimir Putin. We know what you are doing.” He thinks he is so clever; telling Putin in this rude way that he has seen his games. (How does he expect to sit down and talk to Lavrov after this rudeness?) But, as per the above, there are no games. Everyone seems to think that you just say “ceasefire” and all sides should just fall into line – and jump through the provided hoop. (Notice; that no one is demanding that the US join the ceasefire by ceasing its arms supplies and targeting assistance to Ukraine). It doesn’t work like this in any war. A ceasefire only works when both sides believe they are unlikely to get all that they want on the battlefield and a ceasefire would be more advantageous for them. The ceasefire has to offer the sides something. A ceasefire without a Ukrainian withdrawal is not in Russia’s interests, especially if the pause would be used to arm Ukraine to the teeth. So why are they going to agree to it?
It seems, sadly, like we may be going to have what was always the most likely outcome of this US initiative. The US would make some kind of offer but without really understanding the Russian position and without respect to the specific fixed positions which have been declared. They would be rebuffed. They will then go off in a huff. “Putin didn’t really want peace”. I hope this doesn’t happen, but I’d say that this is more likely to happen than the other option; a real settlement. As long as the US think that they can simply say “ceasefire” and Russia should jump, then the prospects do not look good. They need to get to grips with, just as Putin, says, the root causes of the war – and understand that Russia will keep fighting until it looks like those are being addressed.
Notes
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/apr/04/marine-le-pen-rally-paris-emmanuel-macron-france-europe-latest-updates-news?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-67efcfc98f082d3642a78243#block-67efcfc98f082d3642a78243
- https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/putin-lists-russias-conditions-for-peace-talks-with-ukraine/3249951
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-18/putin-is-said-to-want-all-arms-to-ukraine-halted-for-trump-truce
- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/apr/1/senators-introduce-bipartisan-russia-sanctions-bill-bolster-peace/