Marco Rubio Schools George Stephanopoulos on Ukraine, Putin, and Trump’s Peace Plan (VIDEO)

Screenshot: This Week / abc

Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismantled George Stephanopoulos’s predictable left-wing narrative, exposing the media’s blatant double standard when it comes to President Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

While Biden’s administration fumbled through foreign policy disasters, from Afghanistan to Ukraine, Rubio made it clear that Trump is taking the only logical approach—bringing Russia to the table to stop the bloodshed.

From the start, Stephanopoulos attempted to paint Trump’s push for negotiations with Russia as some kind of betrayal. He parroted the same tired narrative that daring to engage in diplomacy with Vladimir Putin is akin to “placating” him. But Rubio was having none of it.

One of Stephanopoulos’ most pathetic moments came when he tried to manufacture outrage over President Trump calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator.” The ABC host demanded to know why Trump is willing to negotiate with Putin but has criticized Zelensky.

Rubio’s response was a masterclass in common sense.

George Stephanopoulos:
Why is it okay to call President Zelensky a dictator but not, as you say, call Vladimir Putin names?

Marco Rubio:
Listen, we’ve spent three years calling Vladimir Putin names. That’s not the point. The point that we’re at now is we’re trying to get the man to a table—the Russians. I’ve said from the very beginning, maybe they don’t want a deal either. We don’t know, but we haven’t talked to them in three years. But maybe they do.

The point is, do we want to make—I would ask everybody this—if there are no negotiations, what is the alternative? Another four years of war? Another three years of war in which the United States and Europe continue to pour billions of dollars into a war in Ukraine? Is there an alternative? I’ve asked every foreign minister I meet with, “Tell me your idea of how this turns out.” Most don’t have a plan. A few have said, “Well, let’s give them another year of fighting. A year from now, after another year of death, another year of destruction, then maybe Putin will be ready to negotiate at that point.”

That doesn’t sound like a good plan to me, and it certainly is not a plan the President is on board with.

Stephanopoulos tried to pivot to Putin’s history of broken agreements, but Rubio stayed on offense.

George Stephanopoulos:
It’s not just about getting people to the table. It’s about keeping agreements that are made. That was one of the points the President made in the Oval Office on Friday—that Vladimir Putin has not kept the agreements that were made in the past. Wasn’t he right about that?

Marco Rubio:
Moving forward is the question, not the past. No one here is claiming Vladimir Putin is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize this year or that he should be the Man of the Year for the Humanitarian Association.

What we’re arguing here is he has a very large country. They’re in full war footing. They’re cranking out weapons now at a war-footing pace, and we need to figure out: Is there a way to get them to stop the war? The only way you’re going to do that is to get the Russians engaged in negotiations—something the Europeans haven’t been able to do, the Biden administration wasn’t able to do, or didn’t even try.

That’s the goal here. It’s that simple. Can we try to sit with them and figure out: What are the Russians’ demands? Under what conditions would the Russians be willing to stop this war? As I said, we don’t know what those are because we haven’t talked to them in three years.

That’s the singular goal here—to try to bring about an end to this conflict, and it begins by getting them to the table. Ultimately, like any truce or any peace agreement anywhere in the world, those things will have to be enforced, they’ll have to be enduring, and safeguards will have to be put in place.

Everybody understands that, but it begins with the first step, and that is engaging them to see if it’s even possible. Because if it’s not possible, then what we’re looking at is a protracted, connected stalemate with thousands of people dying, billions of dollars pouring in, and more death and destruction. That’s not something the President wants to be a part of. He’s made it very clear.

When Stephanopoulos floated security guarantees for Ukraine as a prerequisite, Rubio swatted it down.

George Stephanopoulos:
Aren’t those talks feasible only if the United States is willing to also provide security guarantees to Ukraine? That was the point President Zelensky was also making in the Oval Office.

Marco Rubio:
Well, the security guarantees—which I actually like to call a deterrence—are all contingent upon there being a peace. Everybody is saying, “Security guarantees to secure the peace.” You first have to have a peace. We don’t even know if peace is possible.

This was understood by the Ukrainians. It was explained to them repeatedly. That is, “Here’s our strategy: We’re trying to get Putin to a negotiating table.” Everyone knows the history here, the back and forth. We understand that. We all understand that.

But the question now is: Can we get them to a table to negotiate? That’s our goal. Don’t do anything to disrupt that. That’s what Zelensky did, unfortunately—he found every opportunity to try to “Ukraine-splain” on every issue. Then he confronts the vice president. When the vice president says, “The goal here is diplomacy,” he immediately jumps in and challenges the vice president, saying, “Well, what diplomacy?”

We all understand that Putin is not going to be an easy negotiator in this regard. We all get that. But we have to start the process to see if something is even possible.

I honestly am puzzled. I just don’t understand. The Biden administration berated Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israelis, put all kinds of conditions and pressure on them to try to get a ceasefire. In this particular case, we’ve been nice by comparison. All we’re trying to do here is figure out whether a peace is possible.

All these other things that people keep bringing up, that’ll have to be a part of a negotiation. Right now, there is no negotiation. Shouldn’t we at least try to see if there is a way to end this war in a way that’s acceptable to both sides and is enduring and sustainable? How is that a bad thing? I really am puzzled why anyone thinks that trying to be a peacemaker is a bad thing. It’s only a bad thing when it’s Donald Trump trying to do it, when it’s President Trump. It’s absurd to me.

Stephanopoulos then tried another tired media trick—citing weak-kneed RINOs like Lisa Murkowski to attack Trump. Murkowski had accused the administration of “walking away from our allies” and “embracing Putin.”

Stephanopoulos then accused Trump of placating Putin, which triggered Rubio.

George Stephanopoulos:
Well, even some of your Republican allies are puzzled by the steps that President Trump has taken to placate Vladimir Putin. I want to bring up a post of Lisa Murkowski.

Marco Rubio:
Which one? What steps has the President taken to placate? Which steps has he taken?

George Stephanopoulos:
Let me show you what Lisa Murkowski said.

Marco Rubio:
Are we arming the Russians? Are we providing economic assistance to the Russians? Have we given the Russians $180 million? What are we doing to placate?

George Stephanopoulos:
Please let me ask you the question. This is Lisa Murkowski, and here’s what she says:

“This week started with administration officials refusing to acknowledge that Russia started the war in Ukraine. It ends with a tense and shocking conversation in the Oval Office and whispers from the White House that they may try to end all U.S. support for Ukraine. I know foreign policy is not for the faint of heart, but right now, I am sick to my stomach as the administration appears to be walking away from our allies and embracing Putin, a threat to democracy and U.S. values around the world.”

Those are not my words. That’s Senator Lisa Murkowski. What’s your response?

Marco Rubio:
Well, yeah, we’re a free country. People have a right to these opinions. I would just say to you, what have we done to placate the Russians? The only thing we’ve done is ask, “Are you guys willing to talk about peace?”

I’ll say the same point. We haven’t given them— You voted with North Korea, Russia, and Belarus in the United Nations and against our Western allies. No. Let me tell you. Do you know what the United Nations resolution was? I’ll tell you if you want to hear it.

It basically said, “This has been a horrible war. It’s time for it to end.” The job of the UN is to bring about peace in the world. I thought that’s what the UN was created to do—to stop wars and to prevent them. That’s what the resolution did. Was it antagonistic toward the Russians? No. But it also didn’t praise the Russians. All it said was, “This is a bad war. It needs to end.”

By the way, at the Security Council—which has not been widely reported—the first resolution on Ukraine that has passed the Security Council in three years passed this week because of the leadership of President Trump.

Marco Rubio:
It’s a resolution that says, “Bad war, needs to end. Let’s bring the two sides together.” That’s what the resolution is. Again, what is the United Nations for? Is it not a forum to promote peace in the world?

Shouldn’t our President—shouldn’t we all—be happy that we have a President who’s trying to stop wars instead of start them? I just don’t get it. I really don’t. Other than the fact that it’s Donald J. Trump. If this were a Democrat doing this, everyone would be saying, “Well, he’s on his way to the Nobel Peace Prize.”

This is absurd. We are trying to end a war. You cannot end a war unless both sides come to the table, starting with the Russians. That is the point the President has made, and we have to do whatever we can to try to bring them to the table to see if it’s even possible.

I’m not promising you it’s possible. I’m not telling you it’s 90% likely. I’m saying it’s 0% likely if we don’t get them to a negotiating table. The sooner everyone grows up and realizes that this is a bad war heading in a bad direction—with death, destruction, and all kinds of dangers that could spiral into a broader conflict—the sooner we can make progress.

Marco Rubio:
But the President is crystal clear. He campaigned on it, and he’s going to govern on it. That is, he is going to be a President who tries to achieve peace.

He has been very clear: this is a war that would have never happened had Donald Trump been in the White House. It needs to end, and we’re going to do everything we can to end it in an enduring, sustainable, and fair way.