In a rare and candid interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on February 28, 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio shed light on a dramatic confrontation that unfolded earlier that day in the Oval Office between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The heated exchange, which marked a significant moment in U.S.-Ukraine relations, has sparked widespread debate about the future of diplomatic efforts to end the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia.
The clash occurred during a meeting intended to finalize a minerals rights agreement between the United States and Ukraine. However, discussions quickly deteriorated as Zelenskyy challenged the Trump administration’s approach to peace negotiations with Russia, leading to what Rubio described as an “unfortunate and predictable outcome.” In the aftermath, Rubio expressed frustration with Zelenskyy’s actions, suggesting that an apology was warranted for what he termed a “fiasco” that undermined U.S. efforts to broker peace.
A Meeting Gone Awry
The February 28 Oval Office meeting began with high stakes but ended in disarray. According to Rubio, the U.S. had been clear with Ukraine for weeks about its goal: to bring Russia to the negotiating table to explore a potential ceasefire. President Trump, who campaigned on ending the conflict, views the war as one that “should have never started” and believes his leadership can resolve it—a stance Rubio echoed during the interview.
“We’ve explained very clearly what our plan is here,” Rubio said. “We want to get the Russians to a negotiating table. We want to explore whether peace is possible.” However, he accused Zelenskyy of derailing this effort by taking an “antagonistic” tone, particularly when the Ukrainian leader questioned Vice President J.D. Vance about the feasibility of diplomacy with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Rubio pointed to a specific moment when Zelenskyy asked, “What kind of diplomacy are you talking about?”—a question he interpreted as an attempt to undermine Trump’s strategy. “It went off the rails,” Rubio said, noting that Zelenskyy’s references to maximalist demands, such as Russia funding Ukraine’s reconstruction, made negotiations harder. “The President’s a deal maker—he’s made deals his entire life. You’re not going to get people to the table like that.”
Calls for an Apology
When pressed by Collins on what exactly Zelenskyy should apologize for, Rubio was unequivocal: “For turning this thing into the fiasco it became.” He argued that the Ukrainian leader’s insistence on traveling to Washington—despite the agreement being ready for signing five days earlier, on February 23, 2025—created an unnecessary public spectacle. “There was a very clear understanding: Don’t come here and create a scenario where you’re going to start lecturing us about how diplomacy isn’t going to work,” Rubio said.
The Secretary of State suggested that Zelenskyy’s actions might indicate a reluctance to pursue peace, a sentiment Trump himself voiced as he left the White House on February 28, stating he didn’t believe Zelenskyy wanted an end to the conflict. Rubio stopped short of fully endorsing this view but expressed doubts about Zelenskyy’s commitment to the diplomatic process. “You start to wonder what’s behind it,” he said, citing a pattern of public statements from Ukraine over the past 10 days that he believes misrepresent U.S. engagement.
Trust, Verify, and the Putin Question
Collins challenged Rubio on his past statements labeling Putin as untrustworthy, asking how this squared with the administration’s push for negotiations. Rubio clarified that the U.S. approach, as articulated by Trump on February 27, 2025, is one of “trust but verify.” “President Trump’s made deals his entire life. He’s not going to get suckered into some deal that’s not real,” Rubio assured viewers, emphasizing that the administration remains cautious but committed to exploring peace.
He contrasted this strategy with what he called Europe’s lack of a coherent plan, recounting a conversation with an unnamed European foreign minister who suggested the war could drag on for another year until Russia weakens—a scenario Rubio dismissed as “another year of killing” and “not very realistic.”
What’s Next for U.S.-Ukraine Relations?
As of March 5, 2025, the fallout from the February 28 meeting continues to reverberate. Rubio expressed hope that the relationship between Trump and Zelenskyy could be salvaged but stressed that it hinges on Ukraine aligning with U.S. efforts to secure a lasting peace. “When he’s ready to make peace and he’s serious about peace, let him come back then,” Rubio said, echoing Trump’s parting words from a week prior.
The Secretary of State also addressed criticism from Vice President Vance, who noted Zelenskyy’s failure to express gratitude during the meeting. While acknowledging Zelenskyy’s past appreciation—such as during previous visits to Washington—Rubio argued that a simple “thank you” on February 28 could have set a more constructive tone, especially given Trump’s first-term provision of military aid that Rubio credits with extending Ukraine’s resistance.
Looking ahead, Rubio remained cautiously optimistic about diplomacy but ruled out an imminent trilateral meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy, and Putin. “There’s a lot of work to be done before we get to that point,” he said, emphasizing the need for discreet, serious negotiations over public posturing.
A Broader Vision for Peace
Throughout the interview, Rubio framed Trump as the world’s best hope for ending the war, calling him “the only leader on Earth right now that has any chance” to bring the parties to the table. He underscored the unsustainability of the conflict, now in its third year as of March 2025, and criticized open-ended commitments from other nations. “Fifteen years? Twelve years? That’s absurd,” he said.
As the Biden administration’s strategy of “funding a stalemate” fades into history, Rubio positioned Trump’s deal-making experience as a fresh approach to a entrenched problem. Whether this vision can overcome the tensions laid bare on February 28 remains an open question—one that will shape the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy and the war in Ukraine for months to come.