Will the war in Ukraine end after the Trump-Putin meeting in Budapest?
How Hungary Sees It
Editor’s Note: Peter G. Feher writes for Magyar Hírlap (Hungarian Gazette). His current assignment is Central Europe, the V4 group, the Balkans, Ukraine, and Turkey. The following article appeared on October 17th in Magyar Hirlap under the title Véget ér az ukrajnai háború a Trump-Putyin budapesti találkozója után? (Will the war in Ukraine end after the Trump-Putin meeting in Budapest?) It is published here in English by permission.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a lengthy phone conversation yesterday and agreed to meet in person in Budapest in an effort to bring the war in Ukraine to an end.
The American president described the call as “very productive.” This suggests that behind the scenes, they have likely already found several points on which agreement may be possible.
Hungary’s long-standing and consistent diplomatic efforts appear to have come to fruition. The fact that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will negotiate in Budapest over ending the war in Ukraine has made it undeniable that Hungary has become an unavoidable actor in international politics.
In politics, there are rarely coincidences. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said at the very beginning of the Ukrainian conflict that this war could and should be ended not on the battlefield, but at the negotiating table. Despite the attempts by President Zelensky and his Western European allies to continue the fighting, it is hoped that the upcoming talks in the Hungarian capital will bring the conflict to a close.
As for the Ukrainian position, it should be noted that the Budapest summit will take place after the U.S. president receives his Ukrainian counterpart at the White House. Knowing Zelensky’s persistent and stubborn pro-war stance, it is difficult to predict the outcome of that meeting.
What seems clear, however, is that the strong American’s will to bring the war to an end cannot currently be broken.
The Hungarian daily Magyar Hírlap had already raised a question earlier, after the Sharm el-Sheikh summit — where Viktor Orbán was the sole representative of Central and Eastern Europe: What would be the long-term diplomatic outcome for Hungary of this major event? It was well known that the U.S. president is more of a businessman than a career politician; he never acts without a concrete plan.
It was no coincidence that Trump spoke in superlatives about the Hungarian prime minister before the entire world in Sharm el-Sheikh.
Hungary’s full-scale diplomatic “offensive” gained particular significance when Orbán, during Hungary’s EU presidency, met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Donald Trump, who was then preparing for the U.S. presidential election as the Republican nominee.
The outcome of the Budapest talks is impossible to predict. What is already known is that Moscow has consistently rejected an unconditional ceasefire, arguing that it would only give Kyiv time to strengthen its military position. The Kremlin will not back down from this stance; it seeks guarantees that it will not be attacked from behind again, as happened in late April 2022 after the Istanbul ceasefire agreement had already been signed.
At that time, both sides had agreed to a truce — but in early May, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrived in Kyiv and reportedly ordered Zelensky to continue the war. Another key topic certain to arise will be the future of the territories currently held by Russian forces.
Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula back in 2014 after a referendum, integrating it as part of its territory. Most of the Donbas region — between 70 and 90 percent — is now under Russian control.
Given the significant proportion of ethnic Russians living there and considering that Ukraine waged war against its own civilian population for years (which reportedly claimed around 14,000 lives),
Moscow is unlikely to make major concessions on this front. On the contrary, Russia will likely seek some form of international recognition for these territories.
If this happens, it will have serious domestic political consequences in Ukraine and will certainly raise questions about President Zelensky’s political future.
It is also worth recalling that despite the 1989 Malta Summit, where U.S. President George H. W. Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev agreed that Moscow would not interfere in the social transformations of Eastern Europe in exchange for NATO refraining from expanding eastward, today almost every country in the region — including the three former Soviet Baltic republics, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — has joined NATO. Washington has responded to Russia’s objections by saying that no binding commitments were ever made. That may be true, but Moscow still viewed the outcome as a betrayal.
This issue is seen as a major obstacle to reaching an agreement by Stephen Bryen, a renowned military technology expert and former U.S. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense under the Reagan administration. As he put it: “NATO’s presence poses a challenge for Moscow. Although the war is largely territorial in nature, NATO’s deep involvement — supplying weapons, intelligence, advisors, operators, and military strategy — deeply concerns Russia, which continues to view NATO as a strong hostile force.”
Nonetheless, the very fact that this meeting will take place is grounds for optimism. We do not know what is happening behind the scenes, but one thing is certain: neither side would enter into such talks unless there were already several issues on which some form of agreement could be reached
Until Russian security concerns are addressed or Ukraine defeated, the war will continue. And NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine is a nonstarter.
Snippets from:
Commentary by Aide to the President of Russia Yury Ushakov following a telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/78237
"The conversation lasted almost two and a half hours. Clearly, it was a rather substantive and at the same time very open and frank exchange."
"The issue of potential supplies of long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine was also raised."
"In this context, it is worthy of note that the presidents discussed the possibility of holding another personal meeting. This is indeed a very significant development. It was agreed that representatives of both countries would immediately begin preparations for the summit, which could potentially be organised in Budapest, for instance."
There are a number of interesting details, but you can use the link I provided to read the full publication.
My general conclusion from Ushakov's comments is that they convey less certainty about a Trump-Putin meeting than is portrayed in US media reports.