WASHINGTON, DC – After weeks of intense, back-and-forth diplomatic turbulence – including a visit by President Volodymyr Zelensky to Washington on Friday and US President Donald Trump’s stated intention to meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin – a potential high-level summit has been stalled, at least for now.

Veteran US diplomat Daniel Fried, whose 40-year Foreign Service career spanned seven US administrations, sharply criticized the proposed venue - Budapest.

In an interview with Kyiv Post on Tuesday, Fried, a fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former Assistant Secretary of State who was part of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum delegation, dismissed the Hungarian capital as a “very strange one” and “mistake,” arguing that the location itself signaled weakness and futility.

Diplomatic standstill and Kyiv’s alarm

The highly anticipated Trump-Putin summit, which was tentatively planned for Hungary, has reportedly been jeopardized by Moscow’s inflexible demands. US media on Tuesday cited senior White House sources reporting that talks towards planning the meeting were “on hold.”

The sticking point, according to reports, is Moscow’s refusal to budge on its stance that Ukraine must cede additional territory before any ceasefire – land Russia has proven unable to capture militarily.

A senior White House official confirmed to Kyiv Post the official diplomatic pause: “Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio and [Russian] Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov had a productive call. Therefore, an additional in-person meeting between the secretary and foreign minister is not necessary, and there are no plans for President Trump to meet with President Putin in the immediate future.”

The official noted that another call between the two top diplomats is expected sometime this week.

The delay quickly drew a pointed reaction from Kyiv. President Volodymyr Zelensky directly tied the cooling of Russian engagement to Washington’s hesitation on supplying long-range Tomahawk missiles.

In his nightly address, Zelensky warned that Russia “almost automatically became less interested in diplomacy” once it became clear the Tomahawk decision had been put off.

Critique of a “worthless” venue

Fried’s objection to the Budapest venue was threefold. First, he condemned the location for its historical failure, noting that the city was the venue of a “failed effort which provided empty assurances to the Ukrainians. They proved to be worthless.”

More immediately, the former envoy argued against holding talks in a country whose leader is openly hostile to Ukraine, pointing out that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán “is actually not neutral. He favors Putin. He’s hostile to Ukraine.”

Finally, Fried argued against the very concept of a near-term presidential meeting, calling it a “mistake to push for another meeting, unless you think something useful will happen.”

He warned that Moscow was “in no mood to make any concessions,” suggesting the White House may have pulled back because “the Russians are setting it up for another failure, like Anchorage.” The last face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin took place in Anchorage, Alaska,  in August.

Fried concluded that traveling to Budapest merely to “simply get another lecture from Putin about Russian history” risked the US being “played by Putin.”

From wavering to warfare: tactical advice

Beyond the summit’s failure, Fried turned his fire on the administration’s broader approach to military support, lamenting the “inconsistency of the US position is either a tactical mistake or worse.”

He argued that the US appears “wavering” when it “walks up to the line of putting additional pressure on Russia, and then walks back,” a pattern that damages credibility and risks turning US policy “into a joke.”

Fried urged the White House to recognize and utilize its position of strength, advising them: “You have a strong hand. You can play it. Don’t let the Russians dictate terms.”

He recommended they “Stick with the [US] President’s public statement that these current cease fire lines should be the basis of a cease fire.”

His most striking recommendation concerned the Tomahawk missile decision. Rather than continuing the public debate that has damaged credibility, Fried suggested a more clandestine approach. “I would do that,” he affirmed regarding the missile delivery, elaborating, “Actually, my advice, if it were - if they asked me, I would say, don’t talk about it in public. Just deliver a few and then let the Russians guess and find out when the Tomahawks are used. And then just deny it, you know, keep them guessing.”

He concluded: “Don’t make these an issue of public debates.”

Call for European autonomy

Finally, Fried advised European allies and Ukraine to take decisive action independently of Washington’s fluctuating focus.

He called for Europe to “not wait for the US,” but instead “move ahead promptly with this clever plan for repatriation loans backed by the Russian immobilized assets.”

The diplomat urged Europe to “show some leadership and continue to show leadership,” adding: “Don’t give up on the US, but don’t sit waiting for the US to act.”