Cities around the globe are positioning themselves as potential hosts for a trilateral summit involving former U.S. President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. However, significant challenges, including an international arrest warrant for Putin, complicate arrangements.
Following the recent bilateral discussions between Trump and Putin in Alaska and a meeting of European leaders in Washington, the prospect of a three-way summit regarding Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine appears more likely, reports 24brussels.
Potential locations for the summit include Budapest, Geneva, Vienna, Rome, Istanbul, Doha, and even Moscow. Yet, doubts persist about whether any meeting with Zelenskyy will materialize from Trump’s mediation efforts.
If the summit takes place, Budapest seems to be the front-runner. Michael Benhamou, director of the OPEWI defense think tank, noted that Hungary, not being a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), would have no legal obligation to arrest Putin. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is expected to warmly welcome both leaders.
The Trump factor
Location choices for the summit are not merely logistical but are also influenced by optics and Trump’s political strategy. “This is a communications exercise – about scoring points before the midterms. If it was up to him, he’d do it at one of his golf courses in Scotland,” asserted Benhamou.
Trump is likely to gain from the publicity and political theatrics that such a summit would generate. Orbán would provide the red carpet treatment, while Geneva and Vienna may not align with Trump’s MAGA philosophy, which typically avoids multilateral settings.
Rome has the potential for symbolism appealing to conservatives, yet Italy’s ICC membership presents complications, alongside the risk of massive protests against both leaders.
ICC complications
The ICC’s arrest warrant against Putin remains a critical logistical barrier for any peace talks venue. Countries like Switzerland and Austria have contemplated granting Putin immunity, but domestic legal obligations would incite contentious debates.
“If peace succeeds, people will ignore it. But if it fails, bending of norms will be politically leveraged,” cautioned Lars Bangert Struwe, a former secretary general of the Danish Atlantic Council.
Trilateral or bilateral?
Trump has hinted at stepping back from direct mediation, suggesting that Zelenskyy and Putin meet bilaterally first. “I just want to see what happens at the meeting,” Trump expressed.
Struwe believes it is crucial to involve other parties in the initial meeting to prevent potentially disastrous outcomes. “Things will fall off the rails quickly if the two are left to their own devices,” he warned.
Looking further east?
Many analysts discount Moscow as a viable host for negotiations due to significant security concerns for Zelenskyy. Meanwhile, Doha is neutral for both factions but may lack political significance for Trump.
“Trump’s already achieved what he wants from the Gulf,” noted Benhamou. Istanbul presents a more feasible option; however, its tense bilateral relations with MAGA circles might limit its chances.
Can it happen at all?
Experts agree that the primary question is not the location of the summit but the feasibility of its occurrence within the next year. “There is little to suggest that Putin is actually interested in peace right now,” Struwe remarked.
“Serious negotiations require parity on the battlefield,” emphasized Benhamou, indicating that European troop support and U.S. air power are essential for making progress. He warned of the risk of a collapse of Ukraine’s military by 2026 if needed reinforcements do not materialize.
“The priority is not to create peace now, but to foster Russian willingness to negotiate peace later,” he concluded.
