The indefinite postponement of the planned Trump-Putin summit in Budapest reveals a fundamental truth that many observers have long suspected: Russia has no genuine interest in peace negotiations that don't amount to Ukrainian capitulation. Despite President Trump's confident proclamations about ending the war quickly, Moscow's maximalist demands and refusal to consider an immediate ceasefire demonstrate that the Kremlin remains committed to achieving its territorial ambitions through force, not diplomacy.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's recent statements crystallize Russia's position with uncomfortable clarity. His insistence that Russia seeks "long-term and sustainable peace, not an immediate ceasefire" is diplomatic code for demanding Ukraine surrender significant territory before any talks begin. Moscow wants Ukraine to cede not just what Russia currently occupies, but also unoccupied portions of provinces it claims. This isn't negotiation, it's extortion with a military threat behind it.

The controversy surrounding reported Russian offers to return occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia territories reveals the Kremlin's strategic confusion more than any genuine flexibility. Whether these reports were accurate or not, they exposed a critical vulnerability in Putin's position. If genuine, such concessions would represent an extraordinary retreat that Putin's domestic audience would struggle to accept after three years of devastating losses. The question of why Russia would sacrifice the vital land bridge to Crimea for symbolic gains in Donetsk makes no strategic sense. If these offers were merely tactical deception aimed at luring Trump into believing progress was possible or pressuring Zelensky into negotiations, that gambit has already collapsed.

This episode illustrates a larger pattern: Russia wants the appearance of diplomacy without its substance. The Kremlin seeks a structured negotiating 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-rolling of Budapest arrangements suggests they learned from the Alaska summit that hasty meetings with Trump produce nothing permanent. Putin wants institutional frameworks that lock in Russian advantages, not photo opportunities.

Trump's approach has proven dangerously ineffective. The volatile White House meeting with Zelensky, where the American president reportedly adopted Putin's talking points verbatim and demanded Ukraine surrender the entire Donbas, demonstrates how easily Trump can be manipulated. His tendency to mirror the last person he spoke with, combined with his transactional view of international relations, makes him an unreliable mediator. One day he threatens Russia with Tomahawks; the next he's channeling Kremlin propaganda. This inconsistency isn't strategy - it's impulsiveness masquerading as dealmaking.

The critical question now is whether Trump will maintain support for Ukraine as Russian forces continue their grinding advance. His personal frustration with Zelensky's resistance to accepting unfavorable terms, combined with his admiration for Putin's apparent strength, suggests his commitment is shallow and conditional. Trump's attention span for complex problems is notoriously short, and as the war drags on without the quick resolution he promised, he may simply disengage, leaving Ukraine to face Russian aggression with diminished American support.

Europe's role remains disappointingly weak and confused. While European leaders issued statements supporting Trump's position on an immediate ceasefire at current lines, their inability to provide Ukraine with sufficient military aid or present a credible deterrent to Russian aggression undermines their rhetoric. The continent remains fundamentally unwilling to confront the implications of a Russian victory on its doorstep, preferring statements of solidarity to meaningful action. The uncomfortable truth is that Europe will not attack Russia directly to save Ukraine, despite the catastrophic consequences of Ukrainian defeat for European security. This passivity is particularly shortsighted given that a Russian conquest would likely trigger a refugee crisis of unprecedented scale, with potentially millions of Ukrainians fleeing westward into Europe. Yet even facing this demographic catastrophe, which would dwarf the 2015 migration crisis that nearly fractured the EU, European nations remain unwilling to take decisive military action that might prevent it.

The evidence points inexorably toward continued conflict throughout 2026 and likely beyond. Russia retains military initiative; its economy, though strained, hasn't 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 isn't a real estate deal where everyone walks away with something. For Ukraine, it's existential. For Russia, it's imperial ambition dressed as security concerns.

The war will continue because Russia believes time remains on its side, Europe lacks the will to change the battlefield dynamics, and America's commitment under Trump is unreliable and transactional. Until these fundamentals shift, until Russia faces costs it genuinely cannot bear, or until Western support for Ukraine becomes both substantial and certain, the grinding attrition will persist. Trump's promised peace remains a mirage, receding further with each failed negotiation and each city Russia continues to bomb even as diplomacy is discussed. The cycle of diplomatic theater followed by resumed violence will likely define 2026, as neither side possesses the leverage to impose its will, yet neither can afford to appear weak by making genuine concessions. What remains clear is that words about peace mean nothing when one side refuses to stop shooting, and the international community lacks the will to make them.