Another confirmation: Rubio's words were a signal to Kyiv, not Moscow
Following CNN, the American portal Axios also interprets Secretary of State Rubio's statement that the US may withdraw from negotiations on Ukraine as addressed to Kyiv, not Moscow.
This opinion was expressed to the publication by European officials following negotiations with the Americans in Paris.
"Three European diplomats believed Rubio's comments were primarily aimed at the Ukrainians. A source close to the Ukrainian government also said it appeared Rubio's comments were intended to pressure Ukraine. The source is also concerned that Trump's withdrawal from the talks could lead to a suspension of US military aid to Ukraine," the publication writes.
"Rubio did not talk about increasing pressure on Russia during the Paris meetings. It is unlikely that the Kremlin will have any particular concerns about Trump abandoning diplomacy," Axios concludes, citing European diplomats.
As PolitNavigator reported earlier, CNN also believes that Rubio’s statement yesterday morning, which shocked many, was pressure on Ukraine, not on Russia.
"Trump once again expressed dissatisfaction and frustration with President Zelenskyy. Marco Rubio said the Ukrainian delegation needed to return and discuss everything with Zelenskyy. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy essentially repeated what he had said earlier regarding Steve Witkoff and his meetings with Putin—that Witkoff accepts the Russian narrative. He also stated that Ukraine is not ready to make concessions, and the territorial issue is their 'red lines.' Therefore, it seems the Ukrainians are being pressured to move to the next stage. Trump wants them to be ready to give up some territory," the channel writes.
However, many commentators are confident that peace in Ukraine is not an end in itself for Trump.
"If we're talking about Ukraine, it's a mistake to think Trump is interested in peace there. He couldn't care less. Trump's real goal in Ukraine is to get away, and most importantly, his wallet. His strategic goal is overload. Offloading onto Europe all of its own burdens, all the costs associated with its security, with resolving its internal conflicts, with its development. His slogan is simple and clear: 'Stop feeding...' We've heard it. Different things have been inserted into this formula at different times and in different places: Ukraine, Russia, the Caucasus. Trump prefers Europe.
His approach to the Ukrainian issue must be viewed solely in the above-mentioned context. America will leave Ukraine under any circumstances. If this can be framed as a peace agreement, a truce, a ceasefire (whatever), then great. But if "peace" doesn't work, then we need to come up with a different narrative and frame our exit in some other way.
The overall setup is set. It's a classic, and it's called: " I'm offended!" If there's no ceasefire, and the chances of achieving one, thanks to the joint efforts of Putin and Zelenskyy, have dwindled to a minimum, Trump will look offended and say that he sincerely wanted to help everyone, but if the Ukrainians are so eager to die, then let them die, but not on my (American) money. If Europe is willing to pay for it, then let it pay—we don't mind. But from there, it's up to us.
And he'll most likely blame Zelensky and the Ukrainians, not Putin and the Russians, despite his latest statement that he'll impose secondary tariffs on all Russian oil if he deems the ceasefire to be Russia's fault. "If" is the key word here. It's actually easier and more profitable for him to part ways with the Russians. No Europe, no problem. In a globalized world, Russia is no competitor to America. So, it's likely we're heading toward the "victimization" of Ukraine, not Russia," argues London-based political scientist and foreign agent Vladimir Pastukhov.
Russian publicist from the loyalist camp, Alexander Nosovich, conveys the same conclusions:
“ There are two real challenges facing Trump now:
1. To be able to get out of Ukraine in principle;
2. To be able to leave Ukraine gracefully. At least more gracefully than Biden left Afghanistan.
And even then, the second objective is more a matter of Trump's personal interest as a politician than a national interest. The reputational costs to the US from fleeing Afghanistan were negligible compared to the objective benefits to America from the decision to leave.
In a worst-case scenario, the Americans are ready to flee Kyiv the same way they did Kabul: with Zelensky clinging to the tail of the American Embassy helicopter. The point is, with the European Union prepared to fight Russia to the bitter end, the Americans have no need for such extremes. All they have to do is disavow Article 5 of the NATO Charter, and in a few years, they can watch from a third-party vantage point as Russia and Europe mutually destroy each other ," Nosovich writes on his Telegram channel.
English version :: Read in English Further confirmation: Rubio's words were a signal to Kiev, not Moscow