In the evolving landscape of international relations, the proposed summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has captured global attention. Originally floated as a potential breakthrough in resolving the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the meeting—slated for Budapest, Hungary—has been placed on hold. This development raises critical questions about who truly controls the timing and agenda of such high-stakes diplomacy.
Understanding the Trump-Putin Summit:
The idea of a second Trump-Putin summit emerged following a phone call between the two leaders last week, where they discussed potential talks in Budapest within two weeks. This followed their August meeting in Alaska, which produced no concrete outcomes on Ukraine. Budapest was chosen as a neutral venue, potentially influenced by Hungary’s balanced relations with both nations. However, recent statements from U.S. officials indicate that preparations are now paused, with no immediate plans for the encounter. Trump has emphasized avoiding a “wasted meeting,” pointing to unresolved differences as the core issue.
The pause comes amid stark contrasts in peace proposals for Ukraine. The U.S., aligned with Ukraine and European partners, advocates for freezing the conflict along current front lines to halt fighting immediately. Russia, however, demands Ukrainian troop withdrawal from eastern regions like Donbas, recognition of Russian sovereignty there, and Ukraine’s demilitarization—terms deemed unacceptable by Kyiv.
Who Holds the Trump-Putin Summit?
The question of “who holds” the summit can be interpreted in multiple ways: who initiates it, who controls the agenda, who benefits most, or who has the power to delay or cancel it. Let’s break it down from various perspectives.
U.S. Leadership vs. Russian Leverage
The U.S. appears to hold the summit as the primary initiator. Trump announced the Budapest plans after his call with Putin, positioning it as part of his administration’s push for a swift Ukraine resolution. This aligns with Trump’s diplomatic style, emphasizing high-profile leader-to-leader talks to broker deals quickly. Possibilities here include Trump using the summit to showcase U.S. influence in global conflicts, potentially boosting domestic support amid other challenges like economic pressures.
Russia holds significant leverage by setting preconditions. Moscow’s consistent rejection of a frontline freeze suggests Putin controls the pace, only engaging when terms favor Russia. Why? Russia may view the summit as an opportunity to legitimize territorial gains without concessions, holding out for a weakened Ukrainian position or shifts in U.S. policy. If Russia perceives the U.S. as eager for a win, Putin could delay to extract more, such as reduced sanctions or recognition of annexed areas.
Third-Party Influence: Hungary’s Role and Neutral Ground
Budapest’s selection implies a third party—Hungary—holds a facilitative role. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s ties to both leaders make the venue appealing, but it also introduces EU tensions, as some members criticize Hungary’s Russia-friendly stance. Possibilities: Hungary could “hold” the summit logistically, mediating to bridge gaps, or it might be a strategic choice by Russia to avoid ICC-related travel risks for Putin, given arrest warrants in certain airspaces.
Mutual or Asymmetric Power Dynamics
In a balanced view, both nations hold the summit mutually for shared interests like de-escalation to focus on domestic issues—U.S. elections or Russian economic strains from the war. However, asymmetries exist: Trump may hold more urgency for a “win” in Ukraine talks, while Putin holds military advantages on the ground, allowing Russia to prolong the conflict. Why pursue it at all? For Trump, it’s about fulfilling campaign promises on ending wars; for Putin, it’s securing long-term gains without full withdrawal.
- Why Trump Believes Ukraine Can’t Win the War Against Russia?
- Is Cyber Warfare the New Battleground for US-China Rivalry?
- How Tomahawks Shape Trump’s Talks with Putin
Is There Any Paperwork Left ?
While no official date is set, preparatory work remains incomplete. Recent updates show that a planned in-person meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was deemed unnecessary after a productive phone call. This suggests some diplomatic groundwork—like agenda outlines or position papers—has been exchanged, but fuller documentation is pending.
Possibilities for remaining paperwork include formal ceasefire proposals, security guarantees, or verification mechanisms for any deal. Russian officials have stressed the need for “serious preparations,” implying unresolved drafts on key demands like Donbas sovereignty. Without alignment, items like joint communiqués or post-summit implementation plans are on hold. If resumed, expect hurried exchanges of position papers via diplomatic channels to avoid surprises.
Holding Secret Talks?
Publicly, talks are not secret but low-key. The Trump-Putin phone call and Rubio-Lavrov discussion were acknowledged, focusing on Ukraine. However, possibilities for undisclosed backchannel communications exist, common in sensitive diplomacy. U.S. officials have not ruled out future calls, and Russian statements affirm preparations continue despite the pause.
Why secret? To test concessions without public backlash. For instance, discussions on sanctions relief or arms supplies could occur via envoys. Yet, no evidence points to active covert negotiations; the hold suggests even these are stalled due to positional gaps.
Has Trump Brought Russia and Ukraine to the Negotiating Table?
Trump’s efforts have advanced dialogue but fallen short of uniting Russia and Ukraine directly. He hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, endorsing a ceasefire at current lines—a position Kyiv supports. This garnered European backing, pressuring Russia indirectly.
Positively, Trump’s involvement has spotlighted negotiations, with his Putin call yielding initial summit plans. However, Russia refuses direct talks with Ukraine until maximalist demands are met, viewing Zelensky as illegitimate for such discussions. Trump has not bridged this; the Alaska summit yielded nothing, and current delays highlight Russia’s intransigence. Ukraine insists on a Putin-Zelensky meeting for progress, but Moscow demands pre-agreed terms. Overall, Trump has elevated U.S. mediation but not compelled Russia to the table with Ukraine—military dynamics and demands remain barriers.
If Trump offers incentives like delayed aid to Ukraine, it could shift dynamics, but risks alienating allies. Without concessions, stalemate persists.
Why Is the Meeting Being Denied?
The meeting isn’t outright denied but indefinitely postponed. Key reasons include Russia’s rejection of an immediate ceasefire, sticking to demands for territorial concessions and demilitarization. Trump cited avoiding a unproductive encounter, echoing the Alaska outcome.
Why deny now? The gulf between proposals is too wide—U.S./Ukraine favor freezing lines for sustainable peace, while Russia seeks “root cause” resolutions implying capitulation. Logistical hurdles, like Putin’s travel risks, add layers. Politically, Trump may avoid another fruitless summit amid domestic scrutiny, while Putin holds firm to project strength.
In summary, the Trump-Putin summit’s hold reflects deeper diplomatic challenges. As positions evolve, watch for renewed talks that could reshape Ukraine’s future and U.S.-Russia ties.
