Rubio Desperately Tries to Spin Trump's Putin Flop
By: Peter Wade (Rolling Stone)
trumpski rolls out the red carpet for a wanted war criminal and fellow autocratic scum ...
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Secretary of State Marco Rubio scrambled to justify the administration's lack of progress toward a Ukraine-Russia ceasefire during Donald Trump's recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
In a round of interviews on four Sunday news programs, Rubio, who used to be strongly anti-Putin, struggled to defend the administration's position, despite Trump's boasting that he made "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA" in a Truth Social post that morning.
That's a big change of tune to what Trump said before he met with Putin: "I want to see a ceasefire rapidly. I don't know if it's going to be today, but I'm not going to be happy if it's not today."
This Week host Martha Raddatz pointed out this inconvenient fact, asking Rubio if Trump changed his mind.
"The fighting hasn't stopped. The killing hasn't stopped. And there is no ceasefire. What changed President Trump's mind?" Raddatz asked.
"I don't think his mind has changed at all," Rubio said. "I think, ultimately, if this whole effort doesn't work out then, yes, there is going to have to be additional consequences to Russia, but we're trying to avoid that by reaching a peace agreement. And that's not going to be easy. It's going to take a lot of work."
Rubio continued to hedge: "So, we're still a long ways off. I mean, we're not at the precipice of a peace agreement. We're not at the edge of one, but I do think progress was made."
But Rubio refused to elaborate on what that progress was, nor would he name any concessions that Putin agreed to.
Raddatz pressed Rubio. "The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. Where are the consequences?" she asked.
"That's not the aim," Rubio responded.
"The president said that was the aim," Raddatz said.
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. Where are the consequences?RUBIO: That's not the aimRADDATZ: The president said that was the aim
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)2025-08-17T14:11:44.869Z
The public meeting between Putin and Trump went so poorly, even Fox News described it as a flop where Putin clearly dominated the conversation: "The way that it felt in the room was not good. It did not seem like things went well. And it seemed like Putin came in and steamrolled, got right into what he wanted to say and got his photo next to the president and then left," the network's senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich said.
On Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, Rubio said that while "there's a lot of work that remains," the U.S.-Russia conversation zeroed in on issues of borders, long-term security for Kyv, and Ukraine's military alliances.
Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to Russia, disclosed more details, saying on CNN that the U.S. allegedly won "the concession that the United States could offer Article Five-like protection" to Ukraine, referring to the kind of protection NATO countries provide one another. Putin has vehemently opposed Ukraine becoming a NATO member.
Rubio's role in the administration has led him to compromise his views on Putin's aggression toward Ukraine. On Meet the Press, host Kristen Welker rolled out a clip of Rubio from 2022 arguing that "you can't cut deals with guys" like Putin.
As a senator, Rubio called Putin several things — "bloodthirsty," "a butcher," and "a monster." He also pressed the Biden administration to continue supporting Ukrainians "as long as they are willing to fight."
Welker plays Rubio a clip of him saying in 2022 that "you can't cut deals with guys" like Putin
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)2025-08-17T14:24:08.117Z
Democrats have been staunchly critical of the administration's handling of Russia's aggression twoard Ukraine.
"That meeting was a disaster. It was an embarrassment for the United States," Sen. Chris Murphy said Sunday on Meet the Press. "It was a failure. Putin got everything he wanted."
"[Putin] didn't have to give up anything. Nothing, right?" Murphy continued. "President Trump said he wanted a ceasefire. It appears the ceasefire wasn't even seriously discussed. And, then… there's no consequences. Trump said, 'If I don't get a ceasefire, Putin's going to pay a price.' And then he walked out of that meeting saying, 'I didn't get a ceasefire. I didn't get a peace deal. And I'm not even considering sanctions.' You heard Secretary Rubio downplay sanctions. And, so, Putin walks away with his photo op, with zero commitments made and zero consequences. What a great day for Russia."
Murphy also unleashed on congressional Republicans for doing Trump's bidding. "In the Congress, the Republicans essentially work for President Trump," he said. "And if President Trump tells them that his number one priority is to keep Vladimir Putin happy, not to actually levy the kind of sanctions that would create a realistic negotiating table, Republicans are gonna listen."
Murphy: "In the Congress, the Republicans essentially work for President Trump. And if President Trump tells them that his number one priority is to keep Vladimir Putin happy, not to actually levy the kind of sanctions that would create a realistic negotiating table, Republicans are gonna listen."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)2025-08-17T14:35:13.140Z
Rep. Jason Crow also pointed out what a failure the meeting was, calling it a "historic embarrassment" for the U.S.
"What [Putin] cares about is three things: economic pressure in form of sanctions, being a pariah state, and military defeat… This admin continues to be unwilling to do anything to assert pressure in any of those three areas," he said.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky will visit Washington on Monday where he will meet with Trump. The last time Zelensky visited D.C., both Trump and Vance publicly berated him in the Oval Office, with Vance bashing him for not saying "thank you" enough to the United States.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
126 visitors
gee, I wonder what was in the note that melania handed putin?
location of the missing classified documents trump still has ...
a final plea to destroy all the pee tapes she was featured in ...
a dual citizenship request for barron ...
east european travel dates and itinerary ...
required props for her fetishes ...
free login to her only fans account ...
and her phone number
meh, that's on the wall of the west wing men's room ...
she put it there herself with one of her baby daddy's felt tip pens ...
Although he doesnt deserve it I feel sorry for Rubio today. Likely because Witkoff , Trumps main negotiator , is incompetent to get on tv interviews and be convincing, they sent Rubio out there to stammer.
As I am saying in other comments, we as a country have allowed Trump to do things like call an embarrassing failure a "success". We are reaping what we sowed.
Okay, it's been proven beyond doubt that Trump can't obtain peace in Ukraine. So, who's going to step up now? If Trump can't then who will?
We hear a lot about what Trump is doing wrong. What would be the correct course of action? What's the alternative? The war in Ukraine didn't start on Trump's watch. Russia pounded Ukraine for 3 years before Trump returned to the White House. Biden sanctioning Russia didn't work. Biden convincing the International Criminal Court to declare Putin a war criminal didn't work. Biden arming Ukraine hasn't worked. Biden expanding NATO hasn't worked. So, how would demanding Trump to follow Biden's policies change things?
If Trump is too incompetent and weak to confront Putin then what's the alternative? It's been amply proven that Ukraine can't defeat Putin even with support from the United States. If we're not going fight and we're not going to pursue diplomacy then what's left? Trump is incompetent so who among the NATO and European leaders is sufficiently competent to take over?
Or should we just allow Ukraine to suffer until the next election and then move the goal posts?
I don't deal with any woulda, coulda, shouldas. trump has put his fingers on the scale in this conflict in favor of russia too many times. address the topic of this seed and justify trump's actions this weekend, and the optics he has just exhibited to our allies and enemies alike.
There's no way to justify Trump's actions this weekend. So, why is Zelensky and European leaders rewarding Trump with a White House meeting this week? The European rush to the Oval Office isn't a woulda, shoulda, coulda; it's a planned event that elevates Trump's status as peacemaker.
they probably set that meeting thinking that putin would take trump out with a novichok and diet coke cocktail ...
I suppose you know what that means, so good on ya.
Wait, so it's actually BIDEN'S fault Putin invaded Ukraine? He burn your toast too?
Biden claimed to have seen the Russian invasion coming. What did Biden do to stop the invasion? Biden's threats of sanctions didn't seem to accomplish much. And Biden imposing sanctions after the invasion didn't change Putin's mind, either.
You seem to be doing a LOT to make sure you don't blame Putin...
You seem to be using Putin as a convenient excuse to avoid blaming Biden.
[✘]
Uh...excuse me. Putin invaded Ukraine...Biden didn't.
Funny thing is you are on an article blaming Trump for not fixing a Biden era action, While defending Biden, does the same grace go to trump? I'm betting not.
Twice according to conventional wisdom. Obama didn't do anything to stop the invasion of Crimea. Biden didn't do anything to stop the invasion of greater Ukraine. In fact, the small NATO and US military presence in Ukraine hurriedly retreated from Ukraine prior to the invasion.
Both Obama and Biden sanctioned Russia and Russians. Both Obama and Biden provided military aid to the government of Kiev.
So, what's the next step? Expect Trump to do what Obama and Biden failed to do? If sanctions and military aid did not work for Obama and Biden then why would anyone believe they would work for Trump?
At least they did something. That something didn't work but at least they tried
Mike Pence is right, Trump needs to drop the hammer on Putin, but like you said, trump is a weak and incompetent 'leader'.
What hammer does the United States have?
Sanctions, for starters, support the Ukraine, (not with troops).
What other sanctions can the United States impose? Should the United States begin sanctioning Hungary, Germany, France, Italy, and Turkey for continuing to trade with Russia? Russian gas was being delivered to Europe through Ukrainian pipelines until earlier this year. Why should Ukraine be more important to the US than it has been to Europe? Should the United States sanction India for trading with Russia? India is a developing economy that the United States doesn't want to alienate. Everyone is already upset with the tariffs imposed on China. How would sanctioning China for supporting Russia improve things? How does the United States lower the hammer by imposing sanctions while continuing to trade with sanctioned countries?
We've trained Ukrainian troops and supplied advanced weapons. Ukrainian demands for weapon systems and munitions are bumping up against the production capacity of the United States. At best, the arms and munitions supplied by the United States has only slowed the Russian advance. Weapons supplied to Ukraine hasn't given them any advantage. And Russia doesn't seem intimidated by the prospect of lethal support provided Ukraine.
The hammer you've advocated has already been dropped. Putin hasn't flinched. We're gonna need a bigger hammer. What bigger hammer does the United States have?
71 nuclear submarines all equipped with dozens of ICBM, both conventional and nuclear.
Russia is vulnerable from the pacific, the Black sea, the Baltics and the Artic, the Bering, The Azov...
just saying, its a hammer.
Conventional...maybe. Nuclear...NO!
And Russia won't retaliate? Which city should the US trade for Kiev?
France has nukes. The UK has nukes. Why not expect them to drop the hammer? The war is in their backyard, after all.
The US has treated the world as its backyard since the end of WWII.