US Vice President JD Vance said the war in Ukraine is “not going to end any time soon,” just hours after Washington and Kyiv signed a key minerals agreement that has peace in Ukraine among its goals. Speaking to Fox News on Thursday, Vance poured some cold water on earlier statements from the White House, while also claiming that US President Donald Trump managed to secure “a really big breakthrough” in the peace process. “It’s going to be up to them (Ukraine and Russia) to come to an agreement and stop this brutal, brutal conflict. It’s not going anywhere. It’s not going to end anytime soon,” Vance told Fox News. “Of course they (the Ukrainians) are angry that they were invaded, but are we going to continue to lose thousands and thousands of soldiers over a few miles of territory this or that way? I hope both of them come to their senses.” Trump suggested just last week that Russia and Ukraine were “very close to a deal” after his foreign envoy, Steve Witkoff, spent three hours meeting with Putin at the Kremlin. Talks to end the war — which Trump previously promised to do within 24 hours of taking office — have largely stalled, despite several top level meetings and at least two direct phone calls between Trump and the Russian President Vladimir Putin. Moscow continues to refuse the 30-day ceasefire agreement proposed by the US and agreed by Ukraine. The Kremlin also demands the recognition of the Ukrainian territories it took by force as part of Russia. Such a move would upend decades-long international laws. At the same time, Russia continues its brutal aggression against Ukraine, bombing cities hundreds of miles away from the frontlines on an almost daily basis. Vance said that the fact that the talks were happening was itself a victory. “I really don’t believe that any person, the 8 billion people in the world, I don’t think anybody could have gotten this deal done other than Donald J. Trump. When I say this deal, I mean getting these guys to actually propose a peace settlement,” the vice president told Fox News. Earlier this week, Putin declared a unilateral three-day ceasefire in Ukraine from May 8 to May 11. In response, the Trump administration and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated calls for a permanent truce. Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to flip-flop between blaming Moscow and blaming Kyiv for the lack of progress. Last week, Trump slammed Zelensky for his comments that Ukraine wouldn’t recognize Russian control of Crimea, the southern Ukrainian peninsula that was illegally annexed by Moscow in 2014, calling the remarks “very harmful to the peace negotiations with Russia.” “It’s inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy’s that makes it so difficult to settle this War. He has nothing to boast about! The situation for Ukraine is dire — He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country,” Trump posted on Truth Social. Yet on Saturday, after speaking to Zelensky privately on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral, Trump questioned whether Putin “maybe… doesn’t want to stop the war.” The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to walk away from the talks, most recently on Thursday, when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Trump may need to reassess efforts to broker the peace deal if the US doesn’t see a breakthrough “very soon.”
Vance says war in Ukraine ‘not going to end any time soon,’ hours after US signs minerals deal with Kyiv
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Vance expresses doubt on quick resolution to Ukraine conflict after US signs minerals agreement"
CNN
6.5
TruthLens AI Summary
US Vice President JD Vance has voiced skepticism regarding the prospect of an imminent end to the war in Ukraine, stating that it is 'not going to end any time soon.' His comments came shortly after the US and Ukraine formalized a significant minerals agreement, which aims to promote peace in the region. During an interview with Fox News, Vance expressed disappointment with earlier optimistic statements from the White House and emphasized that a resolution to the conflict ultimately relies on negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. He highlighted the heavy toll the war has taken on both sides and questioned the rationale behind continued military losses over territorial disputes. Vance underscored the need for both nations to reach a consensus to halt the violence that has resulted in countless casualties and devastation.
In the context of ongoing diplomatic efforts, former President Donald Trump has previously claimed that a breakthrough in peace talks is possible, citing a meeting between his envoy and Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, progress toward a ceasefire has been stymied, with Moscow rejecting a proposed 30-day truce while insisting on the recognition of annexed territories. Despite these challenges, Vance noted that the mere existence of discussions represents a positive step forward. The political landscape remains complicated, as Trump has alternated between criticizing both Kyiv and Moscow for the stagnation in negotiations. Recently, he condemned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's remarks regarding Crimea, suggesting they hinder peace efforts. Meanwhile, there are concerns about the Kremlin's intentions, with Trump speculating that Putin may not desire to conclude the conflict. As the situation evolves, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that the administration may reconsider its approach to the peace talks if substantial progress is not achieved soon.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article provides insight into statements made by US Vice President JD Vance regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and a newly signed minerals agreement between the US and Ukraine. Vance's remarks suggest a pessimistic outlook on the prospect of a swift resolution to the war, contrasting with previous optimistic statements from the White House. This divergence highlights the complexities of US foreign policy and the role of key figures in shaping public perception.
Implications of the Statements
Vance’s assertion that the war will not end "any time soon" implies a long-term commitment to military and diplomatic efforts in the region. By emphasizing the enduring nature of the conflict, he may be preparing the American public for continued involvement and potential sacrifices. This stance could serve to manage expectations while also framing the administration's actions as necessary rather than reactive.
Perception Management
The article seems designed to create a narrative that underscores the challenges of the peace process. By citing Trump's previous claims of a potential deal, it juxtaposes Vance's more somber outlook with a hint of nostalgia for Trump's leadership style. This could appeal to Trump supporters and those skeptical of the current administration, suggesting that past leadership was more effective in dealing with such crises.
Potential Omissions
While the article focuses heavily on Vance’s comments, it does not delve deeply into the broader implications of the minerals agreement mentioned. This could indicate an attempt to downplay the significance of this development, which might otherwise suggest a proactive approach to supporting Ukraine. The lack of detail on the agreement could leave readers unaware of its potential impact on the conflict and US-Ukraine relations.
Manipulative Elements
The language used by Vance and its presentation in the article could be seen as manipulative. By framing the issue in dire terms and suggesting that both Ukraine and Russia need to come to their senses, it places the onus on both parties while potentially absolving the US of responsibility for its role in the escalation of the conflict. This can shape public opinion to view the situation as more complex, diverting attention from the actions of key players.
Comparative Context
In the context of other news, this article fits within a broader narrative where US officials often express skepticism about rapid resolutions to international conflicts, especially ones involving Russia. It reflects a trend of cautious optimism often seen in Western media, which contrasts with more aggressive or simplistic narratives that may emerge from other sources.
Economic and Political Consequences
The statements made in this article could have ramifications for public support for continued military aid to Ukraine. If the perception is that the war will drag on without resolution, public opinion may sway toward skepticism about further investment in the conflict. This could impact political dynamics in upcoming elections and influence the stock market, particularly for defense contractors and companies involved in mineral extraction or energy.
Support Base
Vance’s comments are likely to resonate with conservative audiences, particularly those who favor a more isolationist approach to foreign policy. This demographic may appreciate a candid acknowledgment of the conflict's complexities and the potential for continued US involvement without immediate results.
Market Influence
The article may affect investor sentiment regarding companies involved in defense and energy sectors due to the ongoing conflict's implications for supply chains and geopolitical stability. Stocks related to these industries may experience volatility as public sentiment shifts in response to developments in the conflict.
Global Power Dynamics
The situation in Ukraine remains crucial to the balance of power in Europe and beyond. The ongoing conflict, coupled with the US's response, will likely continue to shape international relations, especially concerning NATO and Russia. The article underscores the urgency of the situation while hinting at the complexities involved in diplomatic negotiations.
AI Utilization
There is no direct evidence that AI was used in the composition of this article, but the framing and language choices could suggest a systematic approach to influencing audience perceptions. If AI tools were involved, they might have contributed to the tone and structure, emphasizing certain viewpoints while downplaying others.
In summary, the article reflects a complex interplay of political narrative, public perception, and geopolitical strategy. The emphasis on Vance's pessimism and the omission of details regarding the minerals deal suggest a deliberate effort to shape discourse around the conflict and the US's role in it. The reliability of the article is moderate, as it presents a specific viewpoint without extensive context on the broader implications of the developments discussed.