“Peace is not decided where blood is shed, but where maps are redrawn.”
By Lieutenant General (ret) Corneliu Pivariu
For more than two and a half years, the war in Ukraine has become not only a human tragedy and a test of national resilience but also a battleground of great powers — a field where diplomacy intertwines with global economic and geopolitical interests. Throughout this period, there have been discreet attempts at dialogue between Washington and Moscow, as well as several European or regional initiatives seeking to outline the premises of a potential peace.
Increasingly, Budapest seems to emerge as a link between the two power centers. Hungary, maintaining an active channel of communication with Moscow while remaining a NATO and EU member state, is skillfully positioning itself as an informal yet pragmatic intermediary in a context where other European actors prefer firm rhetoric over direct dialogue.
General Context
Both the United States and Russia share, in the medium term, an interest in stabilizing the situation. Washington envisions a global strategic reconfiguration in which the Asia-Pacific pivot becomes a priority, requiring that efforts and resources allocated to Ukraine be rationalized. Moscow, on the other hand, seeks to consolidate its territorial gains and avoid internal exhaustion that could threaten the regime’s stability. Within this fragile balance, any credible intermediary—be it a state, organization, or leader—can play a role of varying importance.
Budapest – A Discreet Channel Between Washington and Moscow
Hungary has cultivated a unique position within the European Union: it maintains close economic and energy relations with Russia, yet participates fully in NATO structures and EU mechanisms. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been among the few European leaders to continue direct dialogue with the Kremlin while simultaneously keeping a pragmatic openness toward Washington, regardless of the administration in power.
Regarding the outcome of the negotiations that were supposed to begin shortly in Budapest[1], the most likely scenario is that they would mark a principled agreement and a formulation along the lines of: “the parties acknowledge the necessity of a negotiated solution and commit themselves to avoiding further escalation.” The front will remain relatively stable, and diplomacy could regain the initiative in place of military actions. More, however, will become clear after the Budapest round.
It is not by chance that some working diplomatic channels between East and West seem to discreetly pass through Budapest. Against the backdrop of an evident deadlock in multilateral negotiations, this seemingly peripheral capital is transforming into a balancing point for indirect Russo-American discussions about the architecture of Europe’s future order.
A Symbol of Security Guarantees: The Budapest Memorandum
Budapest also carries special historical significance. It was here, in 1994, that the Budapest Memorandum was signed — the document by which Ukraine renounced its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia. The memorandum stipulated respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity—commitments gravely violated with the annexation of Crimea and later, with the 2022 invasion.
Budapest’s return to the forefront of peace discussions is thus not merely a geographical coincidence but also a symbolic reactivation of an international commitment that once seemed to guarantee regional stability—or perhaps, an irony of history itself.
The European Union – Between Declarative Solidarity and Strategic Fragmentation
The European Union as a whole is going through a period of strategic ambiguity. Although support for Ukraine remains a point of declarative consensus, there are significant differences among member states regarding the level of military involvement, the economic sustainability of aid, and perspectives on possible negotiations with Russia.
Hungary plays here a double, yet calculated, game: through its critical discourse toward Brussels, it consolidates its internal and regional position, but never leaves the European institutional framework. In reality, Budapest capitalizes on the EU’s internal contradictions to legitimize itself as a “realist voice” in a chorus of often idealistic messages.
Thus, the European Union—caught between its economic dependencies and its desire for strategic autonomy—fails to articulate a concrete peace proposal of its own (or perhaps chooses not to), leaving the initiative to others.
Washington and Moscow – Signs of a Cautious Recalibration
In both the American capital and the Kremlin, a more measured tone has become noticeable in recent months. In the United States, public opinion and Congress appear increasingly reluctant to support an open-ended military effort, while Russia seeks to achieve a “positional peace” that would legitimize its territorial gains.
Hence the renewed interest in indirect negotiation formats involving intermediary capitals. Budapest, but also Ankara and even Beijing, play subtle roles in this network of diplomatic messages and signals—where nothing is officially declared, yet everything is carefully calculated.
Bucharest – Spectator or Actor?
Romania, situated on the border of the conflict and holding major strategic interest in the stability of the Black Sea region, appears to remain more a cautious spectator than an engaged actor. Although a member of both NATO and the EU, Bucharest has not managed to build a distinct initiative or role in the European dialogue on Ukraine.
While Hungary, Turkey, and even Poland actively promote their own agendas, Romania’s absence from this diplomatic game risks becoming a constant. The lack of a coherent foreign policy strategy, compounded by internal decision-making fragmentation, limits the country’s ability to be perceived as a partner with initiative and regional vision.
In fact, the question in the subtitle is eminently rhetorical, as long as Romania’s political class remains captive to other interests and narrow perspectives.
Peace through Washington and Moscow, via Budapest, is not a metaphor but a diplomatic reality in the making.
Budapest has understood that in a world where great powers negotiate over the heads of regional actors, the one who succeeds in becoming an intermediary or catalyst gains influence—even without major military or economic power. Romania, by contrast, continues to remain within the comfortable zone of strategic conformity, without proposing its own solutions or dialogue platforms.
If peace in Ukraine is ultimately decided—one way or another—through Washington and Moscow, via Budapest, at least two legitimate questions remain for Romania: Where does Bucharest stand?; And how long will Bucharest remain merely an informed but uninvolved capital in the process that will shape the future of Eastern Europe?
Brașov, October 22, 2025
Selective Bibliography
Official Sources and Primary Documents
1. Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed in Budapest, 5 December 1994.
– United Nations Treaty Collection, Depositary Notification C.N.911.1994.TREATIES-5.
2.U.S. Department of State. Press Statements and Briefings on Ukraine and Russia (2022–2025).
3. The Kremlin. Official Transcripts and Statements on the “Special Military Operation” and Peace Proposals (2022–2025).
4. European External Action Service (EEAS). EU Foreign Affairs Council 5. Conclusions on Ukraine and Security Architecture (2023–2025).
NATO. Vilnius and Washington Summit Communiqués (2023, 2024).
Geopolitical Analyses and Think Tanks
6. Chatham House (London). “Security and Diplomacy in Post-Conflict Ukraine.” Research Paper, 2024.
7. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Negotiating with Moscow: Lessons from the Minsk and Astana Formats.” Policy Brief, 2023.
8. RAND Corporation. “Frozen Conflicts and Negotiated Settlements in Eastern Europe.” Santa Monica, 2023.
9. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). “The Future of U.S.–Russia Relations: Limited Engagement under Pressure.” Washington D.C., 2024.
10. Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). “Hungary’s Strategic Hedging in the NATO–Russia Equation.” London, 2024.
11. European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). “Europe’s Divided Response to the Ukrainian War: Between Values and Realpolitik.” Brussels, 2023.
Theoretical Analyses and Reflections
12. Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books, 1997.
13. Kissinger, Henry. World Order. New York: Penguin Press, 2014.
14. Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton, 2021 (Updated Edition).
15. Walt, Stephen M. “Realism and Restraint in the Age of Multipolarity.” Foreign Affairs, 2023.
16. Severin, Adrian. Policentric Harmony: A New Model of Global Cooperation and Security. Bucharest, 2024.
17. Pivariu, Corneliu. Global Geopolitical Evolutions in the First Quarter of the 21st Century. Romania in This Context. Forecasts for 2050, Financial Intelligence, 2025
Selected Analytical Articles and Media Sources
18. Financial Times. “Trump, Putin, and the New Architecture of Power: Why Budapest Matters.” October 2025.
19. Reuters. “Hungary to Ensure Putin Can Enter Country for Trump Meeting in Budapest.” October 2025.
20. France 24. “Zelensky Ready to Join Putin–Trump Summit if Invited.” October 2025.
21. Bloomberg. “EU Uneasy as Hungary Hosts Potential Trump–Putin Talks.” October 2025.
22. Diplomat Magazine (The Hague). “Regional Balances and the New European Security Format.” Issue 3/2025.
[1] According to a statement released by the White House on October 21, 2025, President Donald J. Trump announced the postponement of the planned meeting in Budapest with Russian President Vladimir Putin to an unspecified later date. The statement noted that the decision was made “following ongoing diplomatic consultations and recent international developments.” (Source: White House Press Office, Statement by the President, October 21, 2025; Reuters, Associated Press, October 22, 2025.)
