Marco Rubio in an interview Thursday, accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of lying about their meeting with Vice President JD Vance. The US Secretary of State said that Zelensky falsely claimed publicly he rejected a rare earth minerals deal offered by U.S representatives, which Rubio.
Rubio and Vance met with Zelensky at the Munich Security Conference, where they discussed a $500 billion economic investment deal on rare earth minerals. The president reportedly agreed to the deal and said he needed to run it through the Ukrainian parliament for approval.
However two days after the meeting, Zelensky publicly stated that he had rejected the deal, which Rubio found to be a misrepresentation of what transpired.
In the interview with journalist Catherine Herridge published on X Thursday, Rubio expressed US frustration with Kiev, saying he was "very upset" by Zelensky's statements, and noted that such behavior was "very counterproductive" for the ongoing negotiations.
President Donald Trump also criticized Zelensky, saying he was making it "very hard to make deals" and called the initial travel of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to Ukraine for the minerals agreement a "wasted trip." The US president called the Ukrainian president a "dictator without elections."
In a radio interview with Fox News' Brian Kilmeade Friday, Trump said Putin “wants to make a deal. And he doesn’t have to make a deal, because if he wanted, he’d get the whole country.”
The US president also said of Zelensky, “I've been watching for years, and I've been watching him negotiate with no cards. He has no cards. And you get sick of it. You just get sick of it. And I've had it. He's been at a meeting for three years, and nothing got done. So, I don't think it's very important to be at meetings, to be honest with you. He makes it very hard to make deals.”
Meanwhile in a long post on X Friday, responding to left-wing and neocon critics of the administration's Russia-Ukraine policy, JD Vance wrote,
"1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you call the administration's posture "appeasement." We are negotiating to end the conflict. It is "appeasement" only if you think the Ukrainians have a credible pathway to victory. They don't, so it's not."
The vice president continues,
"2) As far as I can tell, accusations of "appeasement" hinge on a few arguments (not all of them from Niall, to be clear). The first is a criticism that we're even talking to the Russians. Well, the President believes to conduct diplomacy, you actually have to speak to people. This used to be called statesmanship. Second, the idea--based often on fake media reports--that we've "given the Russians everything they want." Third, that if we just passed another aid package, Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow, raise Navalny from the dead, and install a democratic and free leader to Russia (I exaggerate, but only a little). All of these arguments are provably, demonstrably false.
"Many people who have gotten everything wrong about Russia say they know what Russia wants. Many people who know the media reports fake garbage take anonymously sourced reports on a complex negotiation as gospel truth.
"But the bigger issue, as I think Niall knows, is that most of those loudly shouting "appeasement" are people who aren't dealing with the reality on the ground.
"3) On the specifics of the negotiation, I"m not confirming details publicly for obvious reasons, but much of what I've seen leaked ranges from entirely bogus to missing critical info. The president has set goals for the negotiation, and I am biased, but I think he's awfully good at this. But we're not going to telegraph our negotiating posture to make people feel better. The president is trying to achieve a lasting piece, not massage the egos or anxieties of people waving Ukraine flags.
"The idea that the President of the United States has to start the negotiation by saying "maybe we'll let Ukraine into NATO" defies all common sense. Again, it's not appeasement to acknowledge the realities on the ground--realities President Trump has pointed to for years in some cases.
"4) Many of the subjective criticisms amount to pearl clutching that don't ultimately matter. I'm happy to defend POTUS's criticisms of the Ukrainian leadership (not that it matters, because he's the president, but I agree with him). You're welcome to disagree. But these critiques of POTUS don't bear on the war or on his negotiation to end it."
