The negotiations between Russia, the USA and Ukraine over the Ukrainian issue are being driven into a sudden derailment, not so much because of the inability of the two opposing sides to compromise, but due to the rift that emerged within the American government, between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.
The deep state, which is “represented” within the Trump administration by Rubio, is reportedly sabotaging every diplomatic move by Witkoff, with the aim of Russian-American rapprochement.
Thus, an unprecedented divergence of strategy in diplomatic history emerged, as Witkoff was planning a meeting with the Ukrainian delegation in Geneva (22 and 23 November), but in the end the head of the State Department preempted him in order to impose his own, pro-Western terms on the talks.
What followed is well known. The original Trump peace plan with its 28 points was cut down to 20, Russia felt that the Miami agreements (between Witkoff, Kushner and Dmitriev) were violated, and the negotiation was led into a new dead end.
What the NBC leak reveals about the Rubio – Witkoff rupture
NBC was the first, through a targeted leak, to speak of a rift that has arisen between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Special Presidential Envoy Steven Witkoff regarding their roles in the process of resolving the conflict in Ukraine.
According to the channel’s sources, Marco Rubio was scheduled to participate in talks with Ukrainian officials in Switzerland in November.
However, as the American media outlet says, echoing the State Department version, Steven Witkoff, without informing the State Department of his plans, departed earlier, possibly in an attempt to preempt the Secretary of State and secure a leading role in the peace process.
Wild behind-the-scenes developments from Rubio’s “diplomatic boarding” in Geneva
Indeed, three NBC sources reported that Marco Rubio nevertheless arrived in Geneva, preventing the meeting with Ukrainian representatives from taking place without his participation.
“This incident, which had not been previously reported, was the latest example of a long-standing rift between two senior officials of the Donald Trump administration, who have diametrically opposed views on how the war in Ukraine should be ended,” the report states.
NBC had also previously reported that Marco Rubio had to ask permission from Steven Witkoff’s team to be allowed to attend a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron.
The deep state’s war against Witkoff and Rubio’s dirty role
However, the deep state’s war against Special Envoy Witkoff did not arise in recent weeks.
For example, a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report months ago published a provocative article stating that American Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the then US representative for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, were persuading Trump not to trust the Russian leader and Steve Witkoff.
All this shows how deeply the leaders of globalization fear the normalization of Russian-American relations.
Insinuating reports state that Rubio and Kellogg disagreed with Witkoff, who urges the American president to recognize Russian territorial gains in Ukraine in order to open the path to a viable peace.
Witkoff has repeatedly traveled to Russia on Fridays to meet Putin.
Officials of the Trump administration increasingly disagree on how to overcome the deadlock between Ukraine and Russia, with Witkoff and Kellogg holding different views, Reuters claims without citing sources.
In an unusual move, Witkoff had invited Kirill Dmitriev, who is under a sanctions regime, to his personal residence for dinner before the White House meeting.
This set off alarms within the White House and the State Department, according to two sources.
American officials avoid hosting figures from Russia, which possesses advanced intelligence capabilities, Reuters reports.
The dinner was rescheduled and took place at the White House.
Witkoff, an old friend of Trump who helped secure significant diplomatic victories for the US president, has gathered some support from skeptics within the Republican Party on the Ukrainian issue, but his proposals have sparked anger among other Republicans who believe the administration has leaned too strongly toward Moscow, Reuters concludes in an arbitrary assessment.
Some Republicans on Capitol Hill worry about the “pro-Russian stance of Witkoff,” while several subsequently called National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to protest, Reuters continues.
Since taking office in January, Trump has overturned US foreign policy, pressing Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire, while relaxing many of the measures taken by the Biden administration against Russia.
However, some American and European officials worry that Witkoff is following Trump’s strategy and that the Russians are exploiting his lack of experience at the negotiating table, the news agency adds in the same vein, openly waging war on the Trump administration.
“Witkoff must go and Rubio must take his place,” a letter dated 26 March from Eric Levine, a major Republican donor, wrote.
Hard battle between two models
It is a given that there is a battle between two models of the near future.
If Trump’s model is based on realism, minimizing American burdens and geopolitical economy, then the second rests on the belief of the representatives of the Party of War that Ukraine will remain an instrument of deterrence against Russia.
If the US administration under Trump is betting on compromise and dialogue, then the leaders of globalization are relying on the continuation of the war in Ukraine, even if the world does not approve.
Intense rumors also of a Rubio – Vance rupture
It is noted that a month ago (29/11) rumors had surfaced according to which Rubio had also come into conflict with Vice President Vance.
The American media at the time spoke of a clash between two “opposing groups” within the American government (one pro-Ukraine, led by Rubio, and one against Ukraine, led by Vance), claims that are categorically denied.
“There is no division, only one team exists and they work closely together,” an Axios source states.
The management of the peace process and relations with Russia is conducted through a unified team, in which both Rubio and Vance participate.
The process of the 28-point peace plan began with the American president’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
When the plan was completed, it was reviewed and discussed with Rubio, who considered it acceptable.
A meeting at the White House followed for approval by President Trump.
Rubio a fervent supporter of military spending – NATO’s purchase of US weapons for Ukraine
However, in reality, the rift between Rubio and other members of the Trump administration is not interpersonal in nature.
Rubio is perhaps, together with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, among the only “representatives” of the US deep state within the otherwise radical Donald Trump administration.
Rubio’s relations with the US war industry are an issue that has prompted considerable discussion and analysis.
It is no coincidence that the cancellation of the Trump – Putin meeting in November almost coincided with NATO’s purchase of US weapons worth 2 billion dollars to be sent to Ukraine.
Rubio, as a Florida senator and member of Congress through the Defense Committee, has repeatedly defended military spending and arms deals, sometimes highlighting his close ties with the American war industry.
He has made it clear that he supports strong military spending and continued investment in US defense technology.
Not only has he defended increasing the national defense budget, but he has also supported various defense procurements and weapons contracts to enhance US military capability.
And this pursuit by the US Secretary of State is favored only by prolonging the war in Ukraine and the continued purchase of American weaponry by Europeans and NATO.
The “saint” of the US defense industry
This stance aligns with the interests of the war industry, which benefits from government contracts for the supply of weapons, equipment and technology.
The funding of his election campaigns by major companies in the defense sector is also a significant issue.
Rubio has received substantial sums from companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon, which are among the world’s largest suppliers of military equipment.
These companies, through their lobbies and political donations, tend to bolster politicians who support increased military spending and the continuation of war programs.
This is part of a broader funding network, where politicians such as Rubio gain support from the war industry to promote their military interests in Washington.
At the same time, the military-industrial complex in America has strong influence in Congress, significantly affecting political decision-making related to defense spending.
It is no coincidence that Rubio is called the “saint” of the US war industry.
Rubio wants war
Moreover, he has often supported US military interventions abroad.
For example, he is known for his fierce support for the war in Syria, the confrontation with Iran, and the need for increased US military presence in the Pacific region.
These policies align with the interests of the war industry, as American military presence in various regions of the world often leads to increased needs for weapons, defense systems and equipment.
His support for military interventions is not limited to declarations, but is also accompanied by the defense of increased defense spending to finance these military operations.
These policies strengthen the positions of defense companies, which view every military engagement as an opportunity to promote their products.
Additionally, he has played a role in promoting legislation that strengthens American military capabilities, something that inevitably benefits large war industries.
The fact that he participated in the Defense Committee allows him to have personal relationships with major defense contractors and to promote their agenda.
A Secretary of State who distances the USA from diplomacy
Rubio’s interaction with the war industry is not without contradictions.
While he supports military spending, he is criticized for a policy that promotes the interests of major defense companies at the expense of other sectors of the American economy.
Some critics argue that the relentless promotion of military spending and his close relationship with this industry may reinforce military interventions and distance the country from diplomatic solutions.
Furthermore, the relationship of the American Secretary of State with the war industry has raised concerns about the extent to which his decisions are influenced by the interests of these companies and how much the independence of American foreign policy is at stake.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών