Holding a Trump-Putin summit in Budapest would be a charade

If anyone ever wondered what the overlapping goals of Russian and US foreign policy might be, the announcement of a potential summit between president Donald Trump and Russia’s Vladimir Putin in Budapest leaves little doubt. 

The joint objectives — at least for this US administration — are unmistakably to weaken and divide the European Union by exposing its vulnerabilities, ridiculing its rules, deepening its internal divisions, and supporting nationalist, radical-right leaders who do the same job from within, such as Hungary’s semi-authoritarian prime minister Viktor Orbán.

There is hardly any other explanation for why the US administration would reward the Hungarian regime — which over the past three and a half years has done almost everything possible to undermine EU efforts to support Ukraine and punish Russia for its war of aggression — with such a high-level diplomatic spectacle. 

Yet Washington appears ready to further elevate Orbán on the international stage as host of the summit, fully aware that this will bolster the Hungarian strongman’s position both against his rising domestic opposition — currently leading in the polls — and against the European mainstream.

However, the summit is not primarily about Orbán. 

It is about the European Union and its perception — both globally and among its own citizens. 

The EU maintains active sanctions against Putin and key members of his entourage, and its member states are obliged to implement the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against him — except Hungary, which in March declared its withdrawal from the ICC and permformatively hosted Benjamin Netanyahu for a state visit in April.

It is already a huge diplomatic gift to Putin that he can meet Trump and parade on the territory of an EU and Nato member state — even if that member is only Hungary, which has gladly hosted him four times since 2014. 

For his domestic audience, Putin can sell this as proof that the West is divided and must ultimately accept his terms. 

Assisting in this charade is clearly an unfriendly act by the US administration

But it is one thing for Putin to be welcomed in Budapest; getting him there is another matter entirely. 

How to fly there?

Since he would certainly seek to avoid Ukrainian airspace, Putin would have to cross the airspace of at least one, if not more, EU and Nato member states to reach Budapest. 

This would mean that one EU country, under US pressure, would have to breach its obligations under EU law (sanctions) and international law (the ICC arrest warrant) to grant safe passage to a convicted war criminal and perpetrator of crimes against humanity — the Russian dictator threatening Europe’s security. 

That is a tough ask, not only from the perspective of EU unity but also considering the domestic political cost of yielding to US and Russian pressure. 

If Trump is tactful enough to spare his ideological ally, Polish president Karol Nawrocki, from this dilemma, the most likely targets for overflight would be Bulgaria, Greece (with Serbia as entry route to Hungary), Croatia or Slovenia.

None of these countries or their governments are necessarily ready to face the wrath — and accusations — of Trump for allegedly undermining his “peace efforts.” 

European leaders know they cannot risk a fierce reaction that might prompt Trump to walk away from the table or, as he already did earlier this year, suspend US support for Ukraine. 

They cannot risk that — because of Ukraine. The earlier case in March 2025 demonstrated the immense cost of the suspension of US intelligence sharing for Ukrainian lives and combat capabilities.

This, together with the expectation that the Budapest summit will likely yield the same non-results as the previous bilateral meeting in Alaska, explains the cautious and timid response from the European Commission and its president, Ursula von der Leyen. 

Asked about the planned meeting, the commission stated that “any meeting that moves forward just and lasting peace in Ukraine is welcome.” 

Yet it is clear that if Trump gets what he wants and proceeds with this ridicule of the EU, he will soon repeat such moves. 

If one lesson is clear since J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, it is that the old transatlantic partnership between the US and Europe has degenerated into an abusive relationship — held together only by Europe’s dependency and a kind of political Stockholm Syndrome.

Try India or Turkey?

To break this vicious circle, EU leaders — especially those who have Trump’s ear, such as Giorgia Meloni and Alexander Stubb — should, after swift coordination with potential partners like India or Turkey, pull a new card from their sleeves. 

They should offer Trump an alternative: a higher-level, more spectacular summit hosted by Narendra Modi or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. 

They could discreetly hint at the strong opposition among EU countries neighbouring Hungary to opening their airspace for Putin and remind Trump that he surely would not want to jeopardise the success and spectacle of his meeting with logistical uncertainties and massive public protests — both in Budapest and in front of US embassies in the countries overflown by Putin. 

Modi might be particularly interested. 

Hosting such a summit would give him a chance to help resolve the dispute over the 50-percent US tariffs imposed on India for importing Russian oil, while allowing him to play the role of an equal global partner.

Even if the plan does not take off — either with the Indians or the Americans — it would still demonstrate more European agency than merely crossing fingers and hoping that the Budapest summit will prove as fruitless as the previous one in Alaska.  

Anything else could be fatal — for Europe’s standing, for Ukraine, for the transatlantic relationship, or for all three together.