Marco Rubio Is Trying To Sabotage A Peace Deal In Ukraine.

Trump's Neo-Con Secretary Of State, Marco Rubio Is Trying To Sabotage A Peace Deal In Ukraine.

A recent report in the New York Times suggests that Trump’s neo-con Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is trying to sabotage an end to the proxy war in Ukraine, by adding provisions in the deal he knows Russia will not accept, namely crossing Russia’s red line and allowing NATO membership and NATO troops in Ukraine.

According to the report, neo-con Republicans like Mitch McConnell were “blistering about the leaked proposal” to end the proxy war in Ukraine, and “Mr. Rubio was in damage-control mode. He headed to Geneva to meet with Ukrainian and European officials”.

The report wrote, “By Sunday night, Mr. Rubio appeared to have wrestled back control of the negotiations. He excised — for now — sections that would forever bar Ukraine from joining NATO and that banned NATO member states from forming a security force inside Ukraine”.

Responsible Statecraft’s Eldar Mamedov has noted that Germany, France, and Britain are trying to sabotage the peace deal in Ukraine by “hollow(ing) out the American proposal until it becomes unacceptable to Moscow”.

As he noted, “a demand that Ukraine foregoes NATO membership shouldn’t be a dealbreaker — those European leaders who now oppose Trump’s plan know full well that Ukraine won’t be joining NATO, in part because they themselves haven’t shown any readiness to directly fight for it. Then what is the point of prolonging the war by insisting on something both sides — existing NATO members and Ukraine — know is not going to happen?”.

He noted that by crossing Russia’s red line and demanding NATO membership for Ukraine, “Europe is not protecting Ukraine; it is condemning it to more bloodshed and itself to strategic irrelevance”.

He noted in his second piece on the subject :

The original American draft contained clauses directly addressing the alliance, which is Russia’s primary security grievance. It stated, “It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further,” and that “Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO.” This was the absolute core of the proposal — an acknowledgment that ending the war requires confronting the question of European security architecture, namely, the place of NATO and Russia in it.

The European initial counter-proposal, by contrast, excised these clauses entirely. It removed the principle of no further NATO expansion and, regarding Ukraine, merely noted that a consensus for membership does not currently exist, while deliberately leaving the door open for a theoretical future accession.

For Moscow, which launched a war largely to prevent this exact scenario, agreeing to a ceasefire that leaves that door ajar is an unequivocal surrender of its stated war aims. By insisting on keeping the 2008 Bucharest Summit promise to keep the door open to NATO membership for Ukraine alive, Europe is ensuring the Kremlin will dismiss the entire proposal outright.

He added, “This is the fatal flaw of the European approach. It appears a strategically cynical move, allowing European leaders to posture as defenders of Ukrainian sovereignty while ensuring the war continues.”

The exact same thing is true about Marco Rubio, by excising clauses that “would forever bar Ukraine from joining NATO and that banned NATO member states from forming a security force inside Ukraine”, Rubio is ensuring the Ukraine war will continue in coordination with neo-con proxy war supporters like Mitch McConnell.

NATO’s expansion to Ukraine has also been the main provocation of the Ukraine proxy war.

As far back as 1997, U.S. diplomat George F. Kennan warned that NATO expansion towards Russia’s borders would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era,” correctly predicting it would, “be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking”.

In a 1998 interview with the New York Times, Kennan said of Bill Clinton’s expansion of NATO, “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war, I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else”.

He added, “Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong”.

New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman added, “One only wonders what future historians will say … If we are unlucky, they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia’s border, triggering a new cold war”.

In 2008, when NATO “welcomed Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership” at the Bucharest Summit, U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns, warned :

Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests

Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face

In his recent memoir, the former Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, admitted that at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, some NATO member states thought, “granting Ukraine membership would provoke Moscow, leading to an increased risk of crisis and conflict in Europe”.

He admitted in the book, “In Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, the Russians had begun military operations in order to ward off NATO membership”.

Marco Rubio is fully aware of this and knows that Russia will never accept a deal that allows NATO membership for Ukraine or NATO troops in Ukraine, but, along with the UK, France, and Germany, he is attempting to sabotage the peace deal to continue the proxy war.

While they want to continue the war to weaken Russia, Volodymyr Zelensky’s former press secretary, Iuliia Mendel, notes that, “Every subsequent deal for Ukraine will only be worse — because we are losing. We are losing people, territory, and the economy … My country is bleeding out. Many who reflexively oppose every peace proposal believe they are defending Ukraine. With all respect, that is the clearest proof they have no idea what is actually happening on the front lines and inside the country right now”.

---

Note to readers: The Dissident is a reader-supported outlet. If you liked this article, consider becoming a paid subscriber.