By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent statement, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged the United States and its allies to apply greater pressure on Russia, asserting that Moscow only responds to strength. He highlighted Ukraine’s repeated attempts at peace, contrasting them with Russia’s continued aggression, including consistent attacks on critical infrastructure. This call for action comes as former US President Donald Trump is preparing to potentially meet with Vladimir Putin in Budapest, a location favored by Putin’s ally, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Zelensky also emphasized that any potential negotiations must address the issue of Ukrainian territory, which Russia is aiming to occupy before any ceasefire.
Read the original article here
‘Putin Cannot Be Stopped by Talk — Only by Pressure,’ Zelensky Says amid Plans for Trump-Putin Summit in Budapest, and that statement really lays the groundwork for understanding the situation. It’s clear, concise, and essentially sums up the core issue: dialogue alone won’t achieve the desired outcome. The prevailing sentiment is that Putin is not amenable to negotiations in the traditional sense, and that any attempt to sway him through mere words is likely to be fruitless.
The impending summit in Budapest, specifically with the involvement of Donald Trump, adds another layer of complexity to this already volatile situation. There’s a palpable sense of skepticism surrounding Trump’s intentions and his potential role in any future talks. The concerns are multifaceted, ranging from his perceived affinity for Putin to the suspicion that the summit is designed to serve other, potentially less-than-altruistic, purposes. The fact that the summit is planned for Hungary, a country perceived to be friendly to both Trump and Putin, only fuels these suspicions further.
Many express a deep-seated distrust of Trump’s diplomatic approach. There’s a pervasive feeling that he lacks the genuine desire to impede Putin, raising questions about the sincerity of any potential peace initiatives. The focus shifts from the actual substance of any potential talks to the potential motivations behind them. The general consensus appears to be that the summit, regardless of its stated objectives, may have more to do with undermining existing geopolitical structures and supporting certain political figures than with genuinely resolving the conflict in Ukraine.
The very premise of a “peace summit” is questioned by those who feel it’s a wasted effort. There’s an underlying belief that time spent in discussions is time lost, especially when lives are being lost on the ground. The urgency of the situation demands decisive action, and there’s a growing impatience with what’s perceived as mere posturing. The focus is squarely on the grim realities of the conflict and the devastating consequences it inflicts daily.
The prospect of any kind of negotiation involving Trump is viewed by many as a cause for concern. The fear is that the situation will devolve into a media circus, with little of substance emerging from the discussions. The concern is that it could potentially weaken existing global structures that are designed to hold Russia accountable.
The actions of Putin are highlighted as indicative of his mindset. His unwillingness to compromise and his continued military aggression are seen as evidence that he is only motivated by strength. The belief is that he is not inclined to negotiate in good faith until he is faced with a clear and undeniable threat to his own position.
There’s a strong emphasis on the importance of real, tangible pressure, primarily in the form of military and economic actions. The argument is that this is the only language Putin understands. The belief is that pressure, not dialogue, will be the catalyst for any potential shift in his position. This can involve anything from providing Ukraine with advanced weaponry to imposing stricter sanctions on Russia.
The implications of a summit in Budapest are further compounded by its location. The selection of Hungary is viewed with suspicion, given its perceived affinity for both Trump and Putin. The concern is that the venue is not neutral and that it may be designed to serve specific political agendas.
The discussion then veers into the potential for this summit to be a carefully orchestrated event, perhaps even a trap. The worries that the process is not designed to find peace but rather to put down other international bodies such as the International Criminal Court. This could further divide the international community.
The stark contrast between Putin’s tightly controlled information environment and Trump’s willingness to engage with friendly media outlets is noted, emphasizing the disparity in their approaches to diplomacy and communication. This disparity serves to underscore the sense that Trump treats foreign diplomacy like a form of entertainment.
The potential for Putin to travel through specific territories, such as Albania and Serbia, is also brought up, further highlighting the complexities involved in any potential travel arrangements and negotiations. It points to a situation where strategic planning is occurring behind the scenes.
In short, the prevailing sentiment is one of deep skepticism. The idea of stopping Putin through mere talk is dismissed. The expectation is that the only way to achieve any meaningful progress is through firm pressure. The planned summit in Budapest is viewed as a potentially detrimental distraction.