US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently stated that if ending the war in Ukraine proves impossible, the US should withdraw from the process. According to him, a decision must be made in the coming days as to whether a ceasefire is realistically achievable. If not, Rubio believes that President Donald Trump has reached the point where he will declare, “We’re done.” He also noted that the new US administration has made every effort to stop the war but now must assess whether that is even possible.
Is Ukraine’s ceasefire negotiation process truly at a deadlock? How realistic is the idea of the US pulling out? Former Chief of the General Staff of the Georgian Armed Forces, General Vakhtang Kapanadze shared his thoughts with Front News.
– Is Rubio’s warning about the US potentially leaving negotiations just a bluff? Could this be a tactic used by Trump to pressure both sides?
– Of course, such a statement from the US looks more like a pressure tactic than an indication of actual action. It’s very difficult to predict the validity and follow-through of Trump’s statements. We know he changes his stance quickly. As he himself says, if he hits a wall, he looks for ways to climb over it—so, in politics, he promotes flexibility.
That makes it difficult to say with certainty that he’s serious and will actually take this step. However, since this message comes from such a high-ranking official, Rubio, it’s likely coordinated with Trump and not just a personal opinion. The message is clearly aimed at both Russia and Ukraine—an attempt to frighten both sides. The goal is to speed up negotiations and push for concrete action.
– Wouldn’t a US withdrawal from negotiations hurt Ukraine more than Russia? After all, Ukraine receives most of its support from the US.
–Yes, if it actually happens, it would deal the greatest blow to Ukraine. But it’s not meaningless for Russia either. If the US pulls out, that doesn’t mean sanctions against Russia will automatically be lifted. Russia is interested in these negotiations partly because it wants to get sanctions removed. So it would also be a painful decision for them. Still, for Ukraine, the damage would be much greater—especially if US military and financial support is halted. That’s why I hope this scenario won’t become a reality.
– Steve Witkoff confirmed he discussed territorial issues with Putin during his visit to Russia. He mentioned that Putin was focused on Ukrainian territory and suggested Russia might accept fewer than the five regions it claims. Is Putin’s demand for territory the main roadblock in peace talks?
–Absolutely. Territorial concessions are the deadlock point. Ukraine is categorically opposed to giving up any territory. Meanwhile, Russia isn’t satisfied with the parts of the regions it currently controls—it wants to officially annex entire areas. For example, Russia controls around 70% of Kherson, 65% of Zaporizhzhia, 90% of Luhansk, and about 65% of Donetsk. Putin wants the entirety of these regions as part of Russia.
He’s scaled down his ambition from occupying all of Ukraine to just holding the Donbas—but even that hasn’t been achieved. For Russia’s domestic audience, he would present acquiring full control of these areas as a huge victory, bolstering his political standing. Strategically, though, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson are more important than Donetsk and Luhansk, as they allow access to Mykolaiv, Odesa, and eventually Transnistria.
Therefore, claiming these regions is a clear objective for Putin. But no Ukrainian leader—not even someone other than Zelenskyy—will accept that. The most Ukraine might agree to is a ceasefire along the current front lines and a temporary demarcation zone, but not a formal end to the war.
– President Zelenskyy claimed that China is supplying weapons to Russia, although he didn’t give details. What could he be referring to?
– It’s hard to say exactly what Zelenskyy meant by “lethal weapons.” However, it’s a fact that Russia receives dual-use technologies from China—components used in weapon manufacturing. Western electronics used in drone production have been replaced by Chinese-made parts. After shooting down drones, analysts found Chinese electronics inside.
That doesn’t mean China is directly supplying weapons, and it has no need to do so. Zelenskyy also mentioned China supplying chemicals used to make gunpowder, which is plausible. Still, China prefers to maintain a neutral stance. A total Russian victory wouldn’t benefit China, which sees Russia as a strategic competitor. So a weakened Russia is in China’s interest.
– Witkoff and Rubio are currently in Paris discussing the war in Ukraine. Is Trump now forced to include Europe in the negotiation process, despite previous tensions?
– Yes, Rubio’s recent visit to Brussels and his comments about staying in NATO already indicated a shift. Early on, there were doubts about Trump’s commitment to NATO, but that’s changed. The Paris visit is likely aimed at encouraging Europe to increase its support for Ukraine. A failure in Ukraine would be a major personal setback for Trump and damage his prestige. With his first 100 days as president nearing, Trump is under pressure to demonstrate some success. He will now use every tool available to achieve a political victory—and bringing Europe into negotiations could help with that.
By Elza Paposhvili
