The US will abandon its efforts “within days” to broker a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs a settlement can be reached, the US secretary of state,Marco Rubio, has said, as Kyiv says it has signed a memorandum with the US over a controversial minerals deal.Speaking in Paris on Friday after meeting European and Ukrainian leaders, Rubio said Donald Trump was still interested in a deal. But he added that the US president had many other priorities around the world and was willing to move on unless there were signs of progress.Rubio’s comments are the clearest signal yet that the White House is ready to walk away from its diplomatic attempts to negotiate an end to the war. Last monthUkraineagreed unconditionally to a US proposal for a 30-day ceasefire.The Kremlin, however, has rejected the plan. Instead, it has launched a fresh military push across the 600-mile (1,000km) frontline and stepped up its air attacks on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure. On Sunday itbombed the city of Sumy, killing 35 people and injuring 117.Since Trump returned to the White House in January he haspiled pressure on Ukraine, stopping most US military assistance and temporarily cutting off intelligence sharing. This week he falsely blamed Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Joe Biden for “starting” the war.In contrast, Trump has refused to criticise Vladimir Putin or to impose sanctions on or punish Moscow. Senior US officials – including thespecial envoy Steve Witkoff, who held talks last week with Putin in St Petersburg – have instead parroted Kremlin talking points.View image in fullscreenMarco Rubio (right) with Steve Witkoff at the Paris talks.Photograph: Tschaen Eric/Abaca/Rex/ShutterstockMeanwhile, significant details of the minerals deal remain unclear, including whether Kyiv has agreed to a White House demand that it “pays back” the cost of earlier military assistance.Zelenskyy was poised in February to sign a framework agreement over a wide-ranging economic partnership. It was derailed after his disastrous encounter with Trump and the US vice-president, JD Vance, in the Oval Office.Since then negotiations have continued. Overnight, Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Yuliia Svyrydenko, said a memorandum had been finalised. It paved the way for the setting up of an investment fund for the reconstruction of Ukraine, she indicated.“We are happy to announce the signing with our American partners,” she said. Speaking to reporters in the White House, Trump said a deal could be signed next Thursday.The US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, added: “We’re still working on the details.” He said the latest version ran to 80 pages and was “substantially what we’d agree on previously”. “That’s what we will be signing,” he said.According to the latest draft, seen by the Guardian, Ukraine acknowledges the “significant material and financial support” Kyiv has received from the US since Russia’s 2022 invasion and the desire from both countries for a “lasting peace”.It says Ukraine’s prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, will visit Washington next week to hold final “technical talks” with Bessent. They are expected to complete discussions on a “reconstruction investment fund”, the memo adds.The deal would need to be ratified by Ukraine’s parliament, Ukraine’s deputy minister of economy said on Friday.Zelenskyy is keen to improve relations with the Trump administration. At the same time, he hasso far rejected the White House’s demandthat revenue from the new joint fund is used to cover the cost of weapons deliveries provided by the Biden administration.Trump has previously said Ukraine “owes” the US $300bn (£226bn). Zelenskyy has pointed out this assistance was given as a grant, not as a loan, with Republicans and Democrats approving it in Congress. Any future partnership has to be based on “parity”, and should benefit both countries, he says.The deal may help US weapons manufacturers who are facinga critical shortfall of key rare-earth mineralsimported from China. Beijing has restricted their export in response to Trump’s escalating trade war.Volodymyr Landa, a senior economist with the Centre for Economic Strategy thinktank in Kyiv, said the deal had gone through “multiple iterations”. He added: “It’s hard to say what’s inside.”Ukraine war briefing: China arming Russia and building weapons on its soil, says ZelenskyyRead moreLanda said he did not expect Kyiv to accept that previous “non-refundable military aid” was now “debt”. “That’s not only unfair and unrealistic, but may also negatively affect the full global financial system,” he said.He continued: “If it suddenly turns out that countries and organisations can demand payments for aid given unconditionally in previous years, it will make recipients more cautious, and could reopen difficult issues from previous decades around the world.”The latest negotiations came as Russia killed one person and injured at least 74 in a ballistic missile strike on a residential area in the city of Kharkiv, in the north-east of Ukraine. Five of the wounded were children.Kharkiv’s mayor, Ihor Terekhov, said the Russians used ballistic missiles equipped with cluster munitions. “That is why the affected areas are so extensive,” he said. At least 20 blocks of flats, 30 houses and an educational institution were damaged.On Palm Sunday Russiadropped two Iskander missiles in the city centre of Sumy. One of them hit a congress centre. The other exploded between two university buildings and next to a crowded bus and cars.
US ready to abandon Ukraine peace deal if there is no progress, says Marco Rubio
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"US Signals Potential Withdrawal from Ukraine Peace Efforts Amid Lack of Progress"
The Guardian
6.5
TruthLens AI Summary
The U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has indicated that the United States may withdraw its efforts to negotiate a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia unless there is a clear indication of progress in the talks. Speaking in Paris after discussions with European and Ukrainian leaders, Rubio emphasized that President Donald Trump, while still interested in a deal, has other global priorities and is prepared to move on if no advancements are made. This statement marks a significant shift in U.S. diplomatic strategy, especially after Ukraine's recent unconditional acceptance of a 30-day ceasefire proposal, which the Kremlin promptly rejected. Instead of pursuing peace, Russia has escalated its military operations, including a devastating bombing in Sumy that resulted in numerous casualties among civilians. Rubio's remarks suggest a growing impatience with the ongoing conflict and a potential pivot away from U.S. involvement in peace negotiations if tangible results are not achieved soon.
In parallel with these diplomatic developments, Ukraine has reportedly signed a memorandum with the U.S. related to a controversial minerals deal, which remains shrouded in uncertainty regarding its specifics. Ukrainian officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko, have expressed optimism about the agreement, which is intended to facilitate a reconstruction investment fund for Ukraine. However, there are concerns regarding the U.S. demand that Ukraine 'pays back' previous military assistance, a point that has been contested by Ukrainian leadership. President Zelenskyy has insisted that such military aid was granted, not loaned, and any future agreements must reflect a mutual benefit. As negotiations continue, the situation remains fluid, with significant implications for both U.S.-Ukraine relations and the broader dynamics of the conflict, particularly as Russia continues its aggressive military campaign, causing further civilian casualties and infrastructure damage in Ukrainian cities.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article highlights a significant shift in the U.S. diplomatic stance regarding the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, particularly under the influence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recent comments. This news piece serves as a critical reflection of the current geopolitical climate and the pressures faced by foreign policy decision-makers.
U.S. Diplomacy at a Crossroads
The statement from Marco Rubio indicates a precarious position for U.S. involvement in negotiating peace between Russia and Ukraine. By suggesting that the U.S. might abandon its diplomatic efforts if no progress is observed, the article underscores the urgency and complexity of the situation. Rubio's remarks also hint at a broader strategy that prioritizes other global issues over the Ukraine conflict, possibly influenced by political pressures from within the U.S.
Perception Management
The article seems designed to create a sense of urgency and uncertainty about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. By emphasizing the potential withdrawal from peace negotiations, it may be aiming to rally domestic support for continued involvement or to pressure Ukraine to reach a settlement more quickly. The juxtaposition of U.S. military assistance being curtailed while simultaneously pursuing a minerals deal adds to the complexity of the narrative, possibly suggesting a transactional approach to foreign policy.
Hidden Agendas
While the article focuses on U.S. diplomatic efforts, it may be obscuring other critical issues, such as the implications of the minerals deal and its potential impact on Ukraine's long-term sovereignty and resource management. The framing of Trump's influence and the lack of criticism towards Putin may also serve to divert attention from discussions about the U.S.'s strategic interests in the region.
Manipulative Elements
The article contains manipulative language, particularly in its portrayal of Trump and the administration's stance towards Ukraine and Russia. By framing Trump as uninterested in holding Putin accountable, it may be attempting to sway public opinion against the former president and his approach to foreign policy. This narrative could be seen as an effort to shape the political discourse around accountability and U.S. leadership on the global stage.
Trustworthiness of the Source
The reliability of the information presented hinges on the framing of the subjects involved and the selection of quoted statements. While the facts regarding military actions and negotiations are verifiable, the interpretation of these events through a specific lens raises questions about bias. The article does provide a factual basis but may lack objectivity, which is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the geopolitical context.
Potential Impact on Society and Economy
The implications of this article could extend into societal and economic realms, particularly if U.S. support for Ukraine diminishes. Public perception of the conflict, as well as the political ramifications of reduced assistance, could lead to shifts in investment and economic stability in the region. Furthermore, the potential abandonment of peace negotiations might escalate tensions, impacting global markets and geopolitical alliances.
Supportive Communities
The article may resonate more with communities that prioritize a robust U.S. foreign policy and are critical of Trump's approach to international relations. This includes political groups that advocate for democratic values and accountability on the world stage. Conversely, it may alienate those who support a more isolationist stance or who are sympathetic to Russia's position.
Market Reactions
In terms of market implications, the uncertainties surrounding U.S. foreign policy can influence investor confidence. Sectors involved in defense and energy might see fluctuations based on perceived risks associated with the conflict. Companies linked to military contracts or those with interests in Ukrainian resources could be particularly affected by any shifts in U.S. policy.
Geopolitical Significance
The article touches on a crucial point in the broader context of global power dynamics. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is intertwined with larger issues of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law. As the situation evolves, the U.S.'s stance could significantly influence alliances and rivalries, particularly in relation to NATO and European security.
Artificial Intelligence Considerations
There is no clear indication that artificial intelligence was employed in crafting this article. However, if AI were used, it could have influenced the narrative tone or the selection of quotes, potentially steering the piece toward a particular ideological viewpoint. The absence of diverse perspectives may suggest a lack of nuanced analysis that is often enhanced by human editorial judgment. The article, while grounded in fact, demonstrates a selective narrative that may reflect underlying political motives. The manipulation of public perception through language and emphasis on certain issues over others raises questions about the broader implications of such reporting. Overall, the reliability of this news piece is somewhat compromised by its framing and potential biases.