Rubio Calms the Chaos: U.S. Softens Deadline and Shifts Tone in Geneva Ukraine Talks

Sen. Marco Rubio’s arrival in Geneva changed the tenor of U.S. diplomacy over Ukraine after a week of confusion and competing messages from Trump administration envoys. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, an unconventional choice to lead talks, had spent two days telling Kyiv and European partners to accept a 28-point peace proposal by Thanksgiving — or face consequences. Rubio joined the delegation on Sunday and the team quickly moved away from the hard deadline, taking a more measured approach that European and Ukrainian officials welcomed.

What happened in Geneva

According to multiple participants who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions, Rubio’s presence slowed the pace of negotiations and produced greater U.S. flexibility. Officials said the administration began taking allied and Ukrainian concerns into account rather than pressing the earlier, rigid timeline.

“We believe that Marco Rubio's engagement in the continuation of talks is important,” said an official from a NATO country, adding that the negotiating rhythm became "slower and more deliberate," which they viewed as constructive.

Roles and friction inside the U.S. team

The chaotic week highlighted two recurring dynamics: first, foreign and congressional interlocutors increasingly see Rubio as a stabilizing, corrective figure on the Russia-Ukraine track. Second, the White House’s informal approach to foreign policy — with senior principals operating with substantial independence — has produced mixed messages and internal friction.

Before Rubio’s arrival, the effort appeared to be driven in part by Vice President J.D. Vance through his close ally Dan Driscoll. By the weekend, multiple sources said Rubio had assumed de facto leadership in Geneva, narrowing competing U.S. positions and directing more coordinated engagement. He was joined in Geneva by deputy national security adviser Andy Baker, special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who sources say continued to press positions that sometimes diverged from Rubio’s approach.

“He certainly had more control over the process Sunday than he had since Wednesday,” a European official said.

Substance of the negotiations

Rubio emphasized finishing talks "as soon as possible" rather than a fixed holiday deadline. U.S. negotiators also appeared less wedded to the initial 28-point package that alarmed many allies. Those familiar with the conversations say a new 19-point draft — reportedly excluding territorial concessions — has been developed and will be discussed by the American and Ukrainian presidents.

Still, questions linger about the provenance of the original 28-point proposal. U.S. officials initially described it as an American plan with Russian input, while some lawmakers said Rubio told them the document originated with the Russians. Rubio later said publicly that "the peace proposal was offered by the U.S." Observers continue to raise questions about the role of Kremlin-linked figures, including Kirill Dmitriev, who recently met one of the administration’s intermediaries.

Official statements

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump’s envoys are acting under presidential direction: "At President Trump’s direction, the entire national security team is working cohesively towards a shared goal — to end a war that has taken the lives of millions of people and prevent further loss of life through a durable and enforceable peace." The State Department declined to comment beyond saying that the team has been focused on ending the war.

Observers and former aides note that President Trump’s preference for a looser, more competitive foreign-policy process leads him to deploy different officials and "see who can get the best result." That approach, they say, creates both opportunities and risks when rapid alignment is needed.

For now, participants say the talks in Geneva represent a modest reset: the pace has slowed, positions are being harmonized more effectively, and negotiators are working from a narrower set of options. But significant questions remain about the origin of earlier proposals and whether all senior U.S. envoys are fully aligned.

Contributors: Daniella Cheslow, Paul McLeary, Veronika Melkozerova.