The cancellation of the planned meeting between Trump and Putin in Budapest reveals a fundamental truth that many observers have long suspected: Russia has no real interest in peace talks that do not amount to a total surrender by Ukraine. Despite Trump’s assurances of a quick end to the war, Moscow’s maximalist demands and its refusal to consider a temporary ceasefire demonstrate that the Kremlin remains committed to achieving its territorial ambitions through force, not diplomacy.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s latest statements crystallize Russia’s position with bitter clarity. His insistence that Russia seeks “a long-term and sustainable peace, not an immediate ceasefire” is diplomatic code for demanding that Ukraine surrender significant territory before any negotiations can begin. Moscow wants Ukraine to cede not only what Russia currently occupies but also the unoccupied parts of the provinces it claims. This is not negotiation — this is blackmail.
The controversy surrounding the speculated (but unconfirmed) Russian offers to return the occupied territories in Kherson and Zaporizhia reveals the Kremlin’s strategic confusion more than any real flexibility in the negotiation process. Whether or not this speculation is true, it reveals a critical vulnerability in Putin’s position. If true, such concessions would represent an extraordinary retreat that Putin’s domestic audience would find difficult to accept after three years of devastating losses. The idea that Russia would sacrifice the vital land bridge to Crimea for symbolic gains in Donetsk makes no strategic sense. If these offers were simply a tactical deception aimed at luring Trump into believing that progress in the peace process was possible, or at pressuring Zelensky to start negotiations, then this gambit was a failure.
This episode also illustrates a broader pattern: Russia wants the appearance of diplomacy without its substance. The Kremlin seeks a structured negotiation process reminiscent of the Paris peace talks that ended the Vietnam War—a forum where Russia can legitimize its territorial gains while excluding Ukraine and Europe from meaningful participation. Moscow’s slow drag-out of the Budapest deal suggests it learned from the Alaska meeting that hasty meetings with Trump produce nothing lasting. Putin wants institutional frameworks that guarantee Russian gains, not photo ops.
Trump’s approach has proven dangerously ineffective. The sidelong White House meeting with Zelensky, in which the US president repeated Putin’s rhetoric verbatim and demanded that Ukraine hand over all of Donbas, demonstrates how easily Trump can be manipulated. His tendency to repeat what the last person he spoke to told him, combined with his transactional view of international relations, makes him an unreliable mediator. One moment he is threatening Russia with Tomahawk missiles; the next he is spewing Kremlin propaganda. This inconsistency is not strategy — it is impulsiveness disguised as “making the best deal.”
The critical question now is whether Trump will maintain his support for Ukraine as Russian forces continue their advance. His personal frustration with Zelensky’s resistance to accepting unfavorable terms, combined with his admiration for Putin’s apparent strength, suggests that his engagement is shallow and conditional. Trump’s attention span for complex problems is short, and as the war drags on without the quick resolution he promised, he may simply distance himself, leaving Ukraine to confront Russian aggression with diminished American support.
Europe’s role remains disappointingly weak and confused. While European leaders have issued statements supporting Trump’s call for an immediate ceasefire on the current front lines, their failure to provide Ukraine with sufficient military assistance or to present a credible deterrent against Russian aggression undermines their rhetoric. The continent remains fundamentally unwilling to face the consequences of a Russian victory on its doorstep, preferring statements of solidarity to meaningful action. The inconvenient truth is that Europe will not “attack Russia directly” to save Ukraine, despite the catastrophic consequences of a potential Ukrainian loss for European security. This passivity is particularly short-sighted, given that a Russian conquest would likely trigger a refugee crisis of unprecedented scale, with potentially millions of Ukrainians fleeing westward to Europe. But even faced with this demographic catastrophe, which would surpass the migration crisis of 2015, European nations are still unwilling to take decisive military action that could prevent it.
The evidence points inexorably to a continuing conflict through 2026 and likely beyond. Russia retains the military initiative, its economy, while stressed, has not collapsed, and Putin shows no willingness to accept anything less than substantial territorial gains. Ukraine cannot accept terms that would validate Russian conquest and leave it permanently vulnerable. Trump’s diplomatic efforts have failed because he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the conflict: this is not a real estate deal where everyone walks away with something. For Ukraine, it is existential. For Russia, it is imperial ambition, embellished with “national security concerns.”
The war will continue because Russia believes that time is on its side, Europe lacks the will to change the dynamics of the battlefield, and America’s commitment under Trump is unreliable and transactional. Until these fundamentals change, until Russia faces a price it truly cannot afford, or until Western support for Ukraine becomes both substantial and certain, the war of attrition will continue. Trump’s promised peace remains a mirage, receding further with each failed negotiation meeting and each city that Russia continues to bomb, even as diplomacy is discussed. What remains clear is that words of peace mean nothing when one side refuses to stop shooting and the international community lacks the will to force it.
