What Lies Behind the Upcoming Trump-Putin Summit in Budapest

The summit between the Presidents of the United States and Russia in Budapest may go beyond discussions about the war in Ukraine, encompassing a wide range of vital issues, including the question of European security

The past week was marked by renewed diplomatic efforts surrounding the war in Ukraine. Donald Trump’s consecutive talks with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky injected new dynamics into the U.S.-Russia-Ukraine triangle, offering a fresh dose of hope to those awaiting a swift end to the conflict. The political context of these developments is evident: after establishing a so-called “permanent peace” in the Middle East, the American leader has shifted his focus to the Russian-Ukrainian confrontation. The reasons lie in Trump’s ambition to cement his reputation as a statesman capable of ending crises, yet he risks becoming entangled in an escalation spiral and discovering that “Biden’s war” has turned into “Trump’s war”. The recent Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and industrial facilities in the rear have revealed a dangerous trend that could lead to an energy collapse in the coming winter. For Washington, this underscores the urgent need to find political solutions that would prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and the loss of control over the situation. Ultimately, the United States is less concerned with achieving an immediate peace than with ensuring a controlled end to the conflict while maintaining American initiative. The first move in this diplomatic sequence was an extended phone conversation between Trump and Putin. According to official reports, the presidents also discussed the organization of a mutual meeting, with Budapest chosen as the venue. Before the summit, high-level contacts involving foreign ministers and advisers are expected to take place to prepare the groundwork for the leaders’ talks. It is worth noting that the very fact that the White House agreed to a call initiated by Moscow on the same day as Zelensky’s arrival in Washington can be seen as a clear demonstration of a desire for a balanced approach and a trust-based line of communication between the United States and Russia. In recent weeks, there has been much speculation about the possible transfer of American Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. Putin warned that such a move would constitute an extreme form of escalation and jeopardize any prospects for normalization of Russian-American relations. Subsequently, Trump stated that the United States “cannot afford to deplete its own stockpiles for a conflict whose outcome will not be altered by a single weapons system”. In effect, with this statement, the White House chief publicly ruled out, at least for the time being, the supply of long-range missiles to Kyiv. This sent a significant signal both to Moscow and to Ukraine itself, indicating one thing: the Americans are pursuing a course of conflict containment rather than its military escalation. The day after his conversation with Putin, a meeting took place at the White House with Volodymyr Zelensky. Its public portion brought few revelations: Trump reiterated his stance on the Tomahawk missiles and confirmed his intention to meet with his Russian counterpart in Hungary, without the participation of the Ukrainian president. Following the talks, Zelensky merely stated that “the parties agreed not to discuss the issue of long-range weapons publicly”. Trump, meanwhile, left the White House immediately after the meeting without holding a press conference and soon posted a brief statement on his social media calling for a “temporary freeze of hostilities”. According to reports, during the closed session, Zelensky offered Trump a deal – Ukrainian drone technologies in exchange for limited deliveries of long-range weapon systems. However, sources claim that the Americans showed little interest in the proposal. Despite outward restraint, a key divergence emerged during the meeting between Washington and Kyiv: Trump operates on the concept of an “unconditional negotiation process” – even without a prior ceasefire, since only in this way can the framework for a possible peace be established, including issues of territory and lines of contact. Ukraine, by contrast, insists on the opposite sequence: first, a complete ceasefire, and only then negotiations. This difference is not merely technical but strategic, directly determining whether any future agreements will be perceived as a temporary truce or as the beginning of a genuine political settlement. Following his contacts with Putin and Zelensky, it appears that Trump is aiming to establish a step-by-step diplomacy through separate negotiation tracks with Moscow and Kyiv, which could later be merged into a single process. The upcoming meeting with the Kremlin leader in Budapest will likely serve as a key moment in this tactical approach. Nevertheless, the likelihood of concrete agreements remains low. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is demonstrating a readiness to make serious compromises that could be formally documented at this stage. For the United States, the complexity of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict creates the risk of a protracted diplomatic process, since, in the event of failure, ultimate responsibility will fall on Washington. This, in turn, intersects with the domestic political context, as voices are growing in Congress both for increasing military support to Kyiv and for shutting down the Ukrainian project to redirect resources to domestic needs. In these circumstances, Trump is forced to balance the image of a peacemaker with the necessity of demonstrating firmness toward Moscow. The two October meetings did not lead to any major breakthrough, but they appear to set new coordinates for the diplomatic game. For now, Washington has refrained from several symbolic measures that could be perceived as escalatory. It is also crucial to note that Budapest was chosen as the summit location for Trump and Putin for a reason. Hungary is positioning itself as a key node in the broader geopolitical landscape. Politically and symbolically, it represents a frontier where the interests of the United States, Russia, China, and the European Union intersect. Here the two presidents can demonstrate their readiness to discuss not only a ceasefire but also broader European affairs. Unlike Anchorage, where the discussions focused primarily on Ukraine and bilateral relations, the Hungarian meeting could cover both a potential correction of the “Budapest Memorandum mistake” of 1994 and a broader range of issues. This time, European security is likely to be on the agenda. It is a matter of crucial importance for Ukraine, as well as for Central and Eastern European countries, including Moldova, which feel particularly vulnerable amid the ongoing war. If anyone thinks that some local issue in Europe, such as the settlement of the Transnistrian issue, is on the periphery of attention for the leaders of major powers, they are seriously mistaken. Without resorting to any conspiratorial theories, one can reasonably assert that the decision to hold the Budapest meeting was being worked out long before its official announcement. It is therefore quite noteworthy that on October 9, a group of Hungarian researchers visited Chisinau and Tiraspol to gather details on the current state of the Transnistrian settlement process. This naturally raises the question: why this issue, and what does Hungary have to do with it? Despite the geographical distance, Budapest is significantly involved in our affairs – consider, for example, the supply of gas to the Transnistrian region by a Hungarian company. It cannot be ruled out that a number of European leaders and politicians, for various reasons unwilling to travel to Moscow, may take advantage of the upcoming event. In this regard, the Hungarian capital provides a unique opportunity to hold confidential contacts with the Russians. Thus, the Budapest summit may become not just a stage in the Ukraine negotiations, but also a new platform for establishing an informal network of contacts that could, in the long run, influence a wide range of issues on the pan-European agenda.