Rubio refused to call Putin a "war criminal" - why?

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on May 21 faced serious questions during hearings at the Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee. He acknowledged that some events during the war in Ukraine were "war crimes," but refused to directly call Russian President Vladimir Putin a "war criminal."

“Russia is an aggressor — that’s clear”

During the hearing, Democratic Congressman Bill Keating asked Rubio the first question: “Do you consider Russia to be the aggressor against Ukraine?” Rubio’s response was without hesitation: “Yes, Russia invaded Ukraine.”

The question about Putin — six times in a row

Then Keating moved to a sharper point: “Do you consider Vladimir Putin — the person we are negotiating with — to be a war criminal?” Instead of giving a direct answer, Rubio emphasized that “war crimes were definitely committed,” but said that “the main task now is to stop the war.”

According to the Secretary of State, peace cannot be achieved without negotiations: “We can’t end this war without talking to Putin.” Keating accused him of dodging the question and repeated it a total of six times.

“Time will come — we will evaluate”

Continuing his remarks, Rubio repeatedly stressed that “war crimes have been committed.” “Who committed them and who will be held accountable — that will be determined later,” he said. “Right now, people are dying every day, new war crimes are happening. We must act actively to stop it.”

Context and Rubio’s previous stance

Interestingly, in 2017, Rubio himself had called for Putin to be named a “war criminal.” At that time, then-Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson declined to give a direct statement about Putin, and Rubio expressed disappointment, saying: “Calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal should not be difficult. I’m upset that you were unable to state an obvious fact.”

From the Zamin.uz editorial team:
Is Rubio’s current ambiguous statement a sign of diplomatic caution or geopolitical inertia? On the one hand, U.S. officials call Russia an aggressor, but on the other — they still leave the door open for negotiations. What do you think: is silence better for peace, or a clear position?