Rubio declares Russia has ‘get something' from peace deal as Putin demands Ukraine's Donetsk region
Rubio didn't specify what concession Ukraine will have to make in order to get Russia to end its brutality, but hinted that it will likely be a tough ask.
However, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin proposed taking all of the Ukrainian region of Donetsk — even the parts Ukraine currently controls — in exchange for a deal, The Post previously reported. Ukraine's leader has flatly rejected that idea.
3 Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that peace negotiations are going to result in both Russia and Ukraine making tough concessions.
AP
'What it's going to take to stop the fighting, if we're being honest and serious here, is both sides are going to have to give, and both sides should expect to get something from this,' Rubio told CBS News' 'Face the Nation' on Sunday.
'It's very difficult because Ukraine obviously feels, you know, harmed, and rightfully so, because they were invaded,' he added. 'And the Russian side, because they feel like they got momentum in the battlefield.'
Rubio didn't delve into specifics about the territorial concessions Ukraine will have to make, which is expected to be the topic of discussion between President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump during their White House meeting on Monday.
3 President Trump met with Russian leader Vladimir Putin for several hours on Friday.
AP
On Sunday, Trump reposted a user's remark on Truth Social that Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions to Russia in order to end the war.
At Friday's summit in Alaska, Putin had demanded that Ukraine surrender the remaining quarter of Donetsk, a minerals-rich, Russian-speaking region, as part of a deal to end the war.
In exchange, Putin expressed a willingness to freeze up fighting in the front lines of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, where Russia has struggled to make significant progress, Axios reported.
Critics fear that, because of the heavy Ukrainian fortifications in Donetsk, if they were to surrender that to the Russians, the Kremlin could cut much further into Ukraine in the future.
Former National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, who served under the Biden administration, cautioned that ceding land to Russia 'diplomatically' could 'just set Russia up to attack Ukraine in the future.'
'We definitely should not take Russia's word for it when they say, 'Oh, we won't do this again, even if they put it in legislation in Russia,'' Sullivan told 'Fox News Sunday.'
Ahead of Trump's meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday, the US president threatened to slap crippling secondary sanctions and tariffs on countries that import Russian oil.
Rubio stressed that Trump is being cautious about pulling the trigger on those sanctions out of fear that it could end peace talks for an extended period of time.
'If this morning the president woke up and said I'm putting these terrible, strong sanctions on Russia, that's fine. [It] may make people feel good for a couple hours,' Rubio told Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures.'
'But here's what you're basically saying. You're saying talks are over. For the foreseeable future, for the next year or year-and-a-half, there's no more talks, because there's no one else in the world that can talk to him [Putin].'
3 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is set to meet with President Trump in the White House on Monday.
Getty Images
The secretary of state also indicated that while Trump pivoted away from a ceasefire push to the pursuit of a full-fledged peace deal, a ceasefire is not out of the question.
'No, it's not off the table,' Rubio told NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday. 'Now, whether there needs to be a ceasefire on the way there, well, we've advocated for that. Unfortunately, the Russians as of now, have not agreed to that.'
Rubio also appeared to downplay the possibility of Russia getting all of the Ukrainian territory it has conquered as part of a deal — roughly 20% of Ukraine.
'If there's going to be a peace deal, it's not going to look like that,' Rubio said, referring to a graphic about the Ukrainian territory Russia occupies. 'But he [Putin] certainly is making demands.'
'He's certainly asking for things that the Ukrainians and others are not willing to be supportive of and that we're not going to push them to give. And the Ukrainians are asking for things that the Russians are not going to give up on.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Switzerland moves to strengthen its competitiveness after US tariffs
ZURICH (Reuters) -Switzerland is intensifying efforts to strengthen its attractiveness as a business location, its government said on Wednesday, after being hit with some of the highest U.S. tariffs worldwide. Efforts will focus on regulatory relief for Swiss companies, and new rules incurring high costs for businesses could be pushed back, the government said in a statement. U.S. President Donald Trump this month imposed U.S. import tariffs of 39% on Swiss goods, though pharmaceuticals and some other sectors have so far been spared the duties. "(The government) wants to decisively press ahead with its economic policy agenda and is focusing on reducing the regulatory burden on companies," the government said. Geographical diversification and Swiss companies' access to alternative international markets should also be strengthened, the statement said. The new U.S. levies currently affect around 10% of Swiss goods exports, and could have potentially severe consequences for some companies, the government said. Switzerland does not anticipate a recession akin to the global financial crisis or the pandemic, it added. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump doesn't have to quit UNESCO again because we never lawfully rejoined
President Trump recently announced that the United States was quitting the United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the third time. This is good news – UNESCO has championed gender ideology in education, discriminatory DEI policies, and the entire litany of woke doctrines. It has also worked to erase Jewish history in the Holy Land. But the administration did not need to bother with formally withdrawing from the treaty — from a constitutional perspective, the U.S. hasn't been a member at least since Trump first quit it in 2017. When Biden sought to rejoin the Paris-based agency in 2023, he neglected to seek authorization from Congress. No one made a big deal of it then, but it means that, for domestic law purposes, the U.S. never actually rejoined. This is an important point with implications for numerous international organizations, especially as the administration sets out on an agenda of U.N. reform. Membership in international organizations was not supposed to be a political revolving door. Congress authorizes membership at the outset. After the U.S. leaves, a whole new congressional authorization must be obtained by any president wishing to rejoin. Under the Constitution, the president can only bring the country into a treaty with the 'consent' of two-thirds of the Senate. That is a substantial hurdle, and deliberately so: Commitments to foreign countries can be harder to pull out of than domestic ones. They can become a way of imposing obligations on the country that are then out of reach of the democratic process. In the 20th century, presidents have often relied on the approval of a majority of both Houses instead, a dubious practice but now widely followed. When the U.S. first joined UNESCO in 1946 (and the World Health Organization in 1948), President Truman was acting pursuant a law passed by both Houses authorizing him to do so. But Congress did not reauthorize Biden's reentry to UNESCO. Instead, he treated the 1946 authorization as a lifetime membership, when in fact it was only a one-time pass. If the U.S. quit a treaty that the Senate had ratified — say the NATO treaty — then a decision to rejoin would be subject to a new requirement of advice and consent. Congressional authorization is a stand-in for Senate ratification and should be subject to the same rules. Consider a parallel case: If a president fires a senate-confirmed appointee, and he or a subsequent president wishes to return him to the same post, no one would argue that he could do so simply on the grounds that the Senate had previously confirmed him. Indeed, Andrew Jackson's Attorney General resigned from his position, and was then reappointed to it — only to be rejected by the Senate. As a statutory matter, the 1946 agreement on UNESCO allowed the president to 'accept membership' — not accept, and accept, and accept again. If a congressional authorization is good for infinite rounds of quitting and rejoining, it makes getting out of international agreements harder than getting in – exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended. The argument of perpetual authorization was invented by Jimmy Carter, who purported to rejoin the International Labor Organization in 1980 based on a 1934 authorization. President Bush neglected to seek congressional approval when he rejoined UNESCO in 2002, nearly two decades after Reagan quit. Neither instance attracted much attention, and two modern actions do not prove a constitutional rule. There is a good argument for the Trump administration having withdrawn from UNESCO as if it were a member — to avoid any doubt or subsequent quibbling. But the administration should clarify that it is 'quitting' only out of an excess of caution, and does not see the U.S. as properly joined, which is consistent with its nonpayment of any dues. To avoid abuse by future administrations, Congress should repeal the antiquated authorizations for UNESCO and WHO, which Trump also announced withdrawal from. If a subsequent president wants to rejoin, he should have to sell it to Congress on the organization's existing records, not the hopes and dreams of the 1940s.
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats launch radio ad attacking GOP over cuts to rural radio funding
The Senate Democrats' campaign arm is launching a new radio ad Wednesday attacking Republicans for slashing funding for rural radio stations as a part of more than $1 billion Republicans made in cuts to public broadcasting in their recissions package. 'Thank you for listening to your local radio station. But stations like these might not be around for long,' a narrator says in the 30-second ad, which was first shared with The Hill. 'Last month in D.C., Republican Senators cut radio funding, voting to end weather alerts, community news and our way to stay connected,' the narrator continued. 'Rural America relies on radio. But Republican politicians left us behind.' They added, 'We can't trust them to fight for us.' The ads are being aired in recognition of National Radio Day, and they're expected to run in rural stations in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, all of which Senate Democrats are eyeing as potential pick-up opportunities next year. 'Rural communities rely on local radio to stay connected on everything from local news to lifesaving alerts about severe weather — but Republican Senators left them behind,' Maeve Coyle, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), said in a statement. 'Republican senators will be forced to explain to their constituents why they're robbing the programs that support their communities in order to pay for a giveaway to billionaires,' she added. President Trump signed a recissions package last month, which rescinds around $9 billion Congress had previously approved for funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps fund NPR and PBS and its affiliates, and global aid programs. CPB is contending with more than $1 billion in cuts alone. Federal funding makes up a smaller percentage of the money NPR and PBS rely on, but rural stations have already warned it will impact them more severely since it makes up a higher proportion of their overall funding. Republicans have attacked NPR and PBS, arguing they're liberally biased and their programs push 'radical left positions,' which its leaders have pushed back on. Contending with the cuts, the CPB announced it would begin to shut down, with its president Patricia Harrison saying in a statement 'we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations.'
