Where Things Stand
President Trump is making a renewed push for a truce in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, with a critical meeting scheduled with President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. This comes just a day after Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin and announced plans for a future meeting with him in the coming weeks. While Zelensky is expected to press for more American weapons, including the powerful Tomahawk missiles Trump has hinted at, the U.S. President has remained non-committal, suggesting he favors continued negotiations with Putin to end the war.
Separately, John R. Bolton, who served as National Security Adviser during Trump’s first term and later became a prominent critic, made his initial court appearance in Maryland. He faces charges of mishandling classified information. This case is one of several legal actions targeting individuals perceived as adversaries of the president, though the investigation into Bolton gained momentum during the current Biden administration.
Adding another layer to global diplomacy, President Trump confirmed he will meet with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, in South Korea within two weeks. This marks the most definitive announcement yet regarding anticipated talks coinciding with an upcoming Asian regional summit.
***
John Bolton, the former National Security Adviser under President Trump, who has been indicted on charges of mishandling classified information, was expected to appear before a judge this morning. The U.S. District Court of Maryland in Greenbelt, Md., was bustling with reporters and a large camera crew awaiting Bolton’s formal presentation.
***
For Ukraine, Budapest brings back painful memories of security promises broken.
For Ukraine, the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit in Budapest carries a deeply unsettling weight. It’s not just that the Hungarian capital has historically maintained close ties with Moscow, but more profoundly, it stirs memories of the international community’s past failures to protect Kyiv from aggression.
In 1994, a newly independent Ukraine signed a memorandum in Budapest. Under this agreement, Ukraine committed to returning Soviet nuclear weapons from its territory to Russia in exchange for ‘security assurances’ from Russia, the United States, and Britain. The document explicitly stated that the three signatory nations pledged ‘to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.’
However, the memorandum was vague on the specifics of these assurances, crucially omitting any promise of military assistance in the event of an attack. Ukrainian officials assert that this lack of robust international backing effectively emboldened Russia to launch its aggressions, beginning in 2014.
Since its inception, the so-called Budapest Memorandum has become a source of profound disillusionment and even mockery in Ukraine. In a January interview with American podcaster Lex Fridman, President Volodymyr Zelensky vehemently criticized the agreement, using strong language to convey his view of the signatories’ indifference to Ukraine’s security.
As recent peace initiatives have unfolded, the hollow nature of the memorandum has cast a long shadow. When Kyiv’s western allies announced plans to formulate security guarantees as part of a potential settlement to prevent future Russian attacks, Ukrainian officials unequivocally demanded that these new guarantees be ironclad.
“In order to avoid the fate of the Budapest Memorandum, these guarantees must be legally binding and also provide for specific steps and an algorithm of actions by the guarantors in the event of repeated aggression against Ukraine,” stated Yehor Chernev, the deputy chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament’s defense and intelligence committee, at the time.
Russia, for its part, insisted on being included in negotiating these guarantees—a demand that, in essence, would grant the aggressor a voice in the victim’s future security. Ukrainian officials interpreted this insistence as further proof that Moscow had no genuine interest in a meaningful peace deal.
Beyond the painful historical context of the Budapest Memorandum, a summit in the Hungarian capital also risks undermining the West’s unified stance with Ukraine. Such a meeting would pull President Vladimir V. Putin further out of diplomatic isolation, allowing him to visit a European capital for the first time since his invasion. While Putin faces international arrest warrants for alleged war crimes, Hungary, which is in the process of withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, has publicly stated that the Russian leader would not be detained.
***
How would Putin, who faces an international arrest warrant, get to Hungary to see Trump?
Plans for a meeting between President Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin in Hungary in the coming weeks face a significant hurdle. For Putin to attend, he would likely need to traverse airspace belonging to European nations that are members of the International Criminal Court.
The critical issue is that the I.C.C. has an active arrest warrant for the Russian leader.
Paradoxically, this very arrest warrant makes Hungary a convenient location for the summit. The nation is in the process of withdrawing from the I.C.C., a move initiated earlier this year following a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Hungarian President Viktor Orban in Budapest. The I.C.C. has also issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
However, reaching Hungary would probably require Putin to fly over countries such as Poland, Romania, or Ukraine, all of which are signatories to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court. This raises questions about whether Putin could be apprehended during his transit.
“I think the answer is: He just goes,” commented Philip Bednarczyk, the Warsaw office director for the German Marshall Fund. Bednarczyk explained that while I.C.C.-aligned nations *can* arrest someone subject to a warrant who enters their airspace, they are not necessarily *obligated* to do so, especially if they are uncertain about which specific plane the individual is on.
“It’s risky, but it leaves the door open for Putin to fly on over,” he added.
Alternatively, Bednarczyk suggested, the United States could request that an ally like Poland grant Putin’s flight path as a gesture to facilitate diplomacy. When pressed on whether diplomatic exemptions would apply to Putin’s arrest warrants, the I.C.C. public affairs office responded via email, stating only that member states have “a legal obligation to the Court” to enforce arrest warrants.
The I.C.C. further noted that “in case of noncooperation, the Court may make a finding” and alert an oversight body.
***
President Trump has confirmed on Fox News that he will meet with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, in two weeks. “We’re going to meet in South Korea actually with President Xi,” Trump stated in an excerpt from an interview scheduled to air on Sunday. Trump was anticipated to meet with Xi around the time of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea, but this is the most explicit confirmation he has provided to date.
***
John Bolton has arrived at a federal courthouse in Greenbelt, Md., to formally surrender and make his first court appearance. He faces charges of mishandling classified information during his tenure as President Trump’s national security adviser in his first term. Bolton has publicly stated his intention to contest these charges.
***
President Trump recently claimed that India would cease purchasing Russian oil. However, data from Kpler, an energy shipping tracker, indicates little evidence that Indian refineries are stopping their Russian oil imports. Russia remains the leading supplier of crude oil to India, with Kpler reporting that Russian crude flows to India in October are at 1.8 million barrels a day, a significant increase of 250,000 barrels per day from the previous month.
***
News Analysis
Putin’s strategy with Trump involves flattery and talk of business deals.
After weeks of escalating tensions with President Trump, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin initiated a phone call. The Kremlin acknowledged that Russia had made the call on Thursday, highlighting a key Russian priority, as significant as any battlefield in Ukraine: to appease Trump.
Even as Putin has intensified his attacks on Ukrainian cities and continued the grueling warfare in eastern Ukraine, he has dedicated extensive time to flattering Trump, hinting at potential Russian-American business ventures, and conveying Russia’s openness to peace talks to end its invasion.
This tactic has allowed Putin to circumvent repeated deadlines and sanction threats from the American president without scaling back Russia’s military efforts. For example, in June, when some Republican allies of Trump advocated for sanctions against Russia, Putin called Trump to wish him a happy birthday. Trump described Putin’s gesture as “very nicely” done, and no new sanctions materialized.
In August, as Trump threatened to enforce a 12-day deadline for Russia to end the war, Putin hosted Steve Witkoff, a White House envoy and close friend of Trump, for a three-hour meeting. This set the stage for their summit in Alaska.
More recently, the cease-fire in Gaza provided Putin with a new reason to call and praise Trump. However, a more pressing concern for Putin was the scheduled visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House on Friday.
“We proposed the phone conversation on the heels of President Trump’s successful trip to the Middle East,” Dmitri S. Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, said on Friday. “President Putin’s first thought, of course, was to congratulate Trump on such a success.”
Thursday’s call, occurring after Trump’s threats to potentially send Ukraine powerful Tomahawk cruise missiles “if this war doesn’t get settled,” marked Putin’s eighth phone conversation with the American leader this year. Additionally, he has engaged in five hour-long, in-person meetings with Witkoff.
Including the August summit in Alaska, Putin has had roughly as many meetings and calls with Trump and Witkoff this year as he has with his closest international ally, President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko of Belarus, according to official Kremlin statements.
On Friday, Putin was already preparing for another face-to-face meeting with Trump, while simultaneously indicating that an end to the war in Ukraine was not yet close. He spoke with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to discuss a potential Trump-Putin summit in Budapest.
However, the Kremlin’s statement about that call clarified that Putin informed Orban that U.S. and Russian officials would first need to “discuss the algorithm for further actions in the context of finding ways to peacefully resolve the Ukrainian crisis.”
The Kremlin is also employing more creative methods to appeal to Trump, beyond mere praise, by proposing business deals. In February, Putin suggested that American companies could assist in developing aluminum production in Siberia and mining rare earth metals in Russian-occupied Ukraine. On Thursday, Kirill Dmitriev, a senior aide, posted on social media platform X, proposing that Elon Musk’s tunneling company could construct a “Putin-Trump tunnel” connecting eastern Russia and Alaska.
“We also spent a great deal of time talking about Trade between Russia and the United States when the War with Ukraine is over,” Trump posted on social media after Thursday’s call. The nature of the trade discussions remained unspecified.
From the Kremlin’s perspective, this charm offensive has proven worthwhile. While it hasn’t led to any announced business deals or Trump conceding to Putin’s broad demands regarding Ukraine, it appears to have successfully deterred Trump from significantly increasing American military aid to Ukraine.
A clear indication of this came after Thursday’s call, when Trump expressed doubts about his willingness to supply Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. “It’s a vicious, offensive, incredibly destructive weapon,” Trump remarked, acknowledging his discussion of the matter with Putin. “Nobody wants Tomahawks shot at them.”
Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, noted that “Putin hasn’t wasted any time in learning how to massage Trump’s ego.” He predicted that the United States would likely suspend significant aid deliveries to Ukraine while a potential Budapest summit is arranged, adding, “Even if that buys Russia a month — it’s already a good investment.”
Ivan Nechepurenko contributed reporting.
***
Zelensky is set to meet with Trump at the White House.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is slated to meet with President Trump at the White House on Friday to delve into arms agreements and prospects for peace. This meeting follows Trump’s recent announcement that he plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin in the coming weeks, aiming to end the war.
Zelensky arrives in Washington seeking to secure more American support. Trump has previously hinted at the possibility of providing Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles, capable of deep strikes into Russia.
However, after a two-hour call with Putin on Thursday, Trump’s stance on supplying Tomahawks remained ambiguous. This suggests he might again be relying on further talks with Putin to resolve the conflict.
This situation is not new for Zelensky. He has repeatedly faced instances where Trump delayed imposing sanctions on Russia and held back aid to Kyiv, offering Putin numerous negotiation opportunities that have yielded no discernible progress.
In this instance, Trump appears energized in his peacemaking efforts, buoyed by his recent success in brokering a cease-fire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas. He has explicitly stated his ambition to end Russia’s war on Ukraine next. Over the past week, he has framed the potential sale of Tomahawks as an incentive for Putin to come to the negotiating table.
The upcoming meeting will be the third between Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office, and their sixth encounter this year. This highlights Zelensky’s persistent efforts to secure Trump’s backing, even after a strained meeting in late February where Trump and Vice President JD Vance reportedly criticized him for insufficient gratitude toward the United States.
“There is now a very strong momentum for peace in the world — following the agreements reached in the Middle East,” the Ukrainian president remarked this week.
Zelensky has consistently tried to guide Trump toward Ukraine’s preferred strategy for ending the war: prioritizing more weapons deliveries over endless talks to enable strikes against Russia, thereby forcing genuine negotiations.
Recently, Zelensky has urged the Trump administration to provide American-made Tomahawk cruise missiles. These would significantly enhance Ukraine’s capacity for long-range strikes inside Russia. Ukraine believes such attacks, particularly targeting economic infrastructure like oil facilities, would escalate the cost of the war for Russia and ultimately compel it toward a settlement.
On Wednesday, Zelensky characterized these strikes as “our long-range Ukrainian sanctions capabilities,” drawing a parallel to sanctions on Russia’s lucrative oil industry, a vital funding source for the Kremlin’s war. He also seeks additional air defense systems to protect Ukraine’s skies from Russian assaults, which have recently caused severe damage to the Ukrainian power grid.
Yet, following his call with Putin on Thursday, Trump seemed to emphasize the risks associated with providing Tomahawks to Ukraine. “It’s a vicious, offensive, incredibly destructive weapon,” Trump stated, confirming he had discussed the matter with Putin. “Nobody wants Tomahawks shot at them.”
The Kremlin has issued warnings against selling these weapons to Washington, deeming it a severe escalation of the conflict. Even if Trump greenlights more arms sales, experts caution that Ukraine would require a substantial number of Tomahawks, which boast a range exceeding 1,000 miles, to make a decisive impact. With the latest versions costing approximately $2.5 million each, funding such an acquisition would be a significant challenge.
Ukraine hopes to leverage a new NATO procurement system, utilizing European funds to acquire American weaponry. Approximately $2 billion worth of weapons have already been secured through this mechanism, and ten more European NATO members joined the plan this week.
A high-level Ukrainian delegation visited Washington earlier this week to prepare for Zelensky’s visit. They met with executives from Raytheon, the manufacturer of Tomahawk missiles, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. lawmakers. Zelensky himself arrived in Washington on Thursday and also held meetings with Raytheon representatives.
***
John Bolton’s indictment invites comparisons to Trump’s classified documents case.
The indictment on Thursday of John R. Bolton, who served as President Trump’s former national security adviser before becoming a vocal critic, for his handling of classified information, inevitably draws comparisons to Trump’s own prior indictment on similar charges.
Trump was accused of illegally retaining classified documents after leaving the White House in January 2021 and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them from his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago. However, that case was dismissed last year after Trump won the 2024 election.
Bolton, in his case, is accused of illegally transmitting classified information to two close family members lacking security clearances, and of unlawfully keeping copies of those messages at his Maryland home.
Here’s a closer look at how these two cases stack up.
Both were accused of handling data insecurely.
Both men faced accusations of failing to implement proper safeguards for classified information.
In Trump’s case, he was alleged to have stored boxes containing classified information in various unsecured locations at Mar-a-Lago, including a bathroom and a ballroom stage. Given that Mar-a-Lago operates as a club, not solely a residence, many individuals could have potentially accessed these documents before the F.B.I. finally recovered them in August 2022.
Conversely, Bolton was accused of transmitting these sensitive entries via personal email accounts and an encrypted consumer messaging app, none of which were authorized for sending or storing classified material. The indictment noted that one of his email accounts was seemingly compromised by Iran in 2021. Furthermore, while his home had an approved facility for classified storage during his tenure as National Security Adviser, it no longer possessed one afterward.
Both faced multiple counts of unauthorized retention.
A significant area of overlap in the two indictments lies in the charges of unauthorized retention. Both men were charged with multiple counts under Section 793(e) of Title 10 of the United States Code, a provision of the Espionage Act, concerning the unlawful retention of national defense information.
In both instances, prosecutors selected a subset of the files recovered from their respective homes during court-authorized searches. These were presumably documents deemed sensitive enough to sway a jury but not so highly classified that their public discussion in court would pose undue risks. Trump faced 38 such counts, while Bolton was charged with eight.
The indictments used their past statements against them.
Both indictments remarkably leveraged the defendants’ own public statements criticizing others for mishandling classified information, aiming to demonstrate their awareness of the wrongdoing involved.
In Trump’s case, the indictment cited numerous remarks he made during the 2016 presidential campaign emphasizing the importance of rigorously enforcing laws designed to protect classified information. At that time, Trump frequently used this issue to attack his rival, Hillary Clinton, for her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.
For Bolton, the indictment extensively quoted his comments from the spring of 2025, where he criticized Trump administration officials who had discussed plans for an upcoming military strike in Yemen on the consumer app Signal, in a group chat that inadvertently included a journalist. Notably, the Justice Department under Trump’s prior administration did not pursue criminal charges for that incident.
Only Trump was charged with obstruction offenses.
The charges in the two cases diverged significantly in other areas, with each man facing distinct sets of offenses not leveled against the other.
A major component of Trump’s case involved his alleged obstruction of efforts to retrieve files. These accusations included claims that he caused false statements to be made to law enforcement agents and conspired to hide documents from them. He faced eight additional charges directly stemming from this alleged behavior, which the indictment detailed extensively.
Bolton’s indictment, however, criticized him for failing to inform the F.B.I. that he still possessed classified information when he reported an apparent Iranian hacker had breached his email account in 2021. Yet, he was not charged with obstruction.
Only Bolton was charged with transmission offenses.
Conversely, Bolton faced eight counts of unauthorized transmission of national defense information under Section 793(d). These charges were based on allegations that he emailed or used a messenger app to send diary entries to his relatives, despite their lack of security clearances to view such classified material.
The indictment against Trump detailed two occasions where he was accused of showing classified files to unauthorized individuals after his presidency. One instance involved a recorded interview at his Bedminster, N.J., club with a writer and publisher, along with two staff members, during which he reportedly displayed a classified military plan for attacking Iran.
However, while Trump was charged with the unauthorized retention of that specific document, he was not charged with the act of showing it to people who were not approved to see it.
Both got out of earlier trouble in part because of elections.
Another notable parallel exists: both men avoided at least some legal difficulties due to the timing of elections.
The criminal case against Trump regarding his handling of classified documents dissolved after his victory in the 2024 election. Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida unexpectedly dismissed the case before trial in July 2024, ruling that the special counsel who brought the charges was improperly appointed.
Her ruling contradicted decades of precedent set by higher courts. The Justice Department sought an appeals court review to overturn her decision and reinstate the charges. However, before the appellate court could act, Trump won the election. As the department considers sitting presidents temporarily immune from prosecution, the case against Trump was subsequently dropped.
Four years prior, in 2020, the Justice Department under the first Trump administration had initiated a criminal and civil investigation into Bolton’s handling of classified information in connection with the publication of a memoir that criticized Trump. However, in 2021, following the Biden administration taking office, that inquiry was also dropped.
The New York Times has reported that the current investigation into Bolton stems from the U.S. government’s acquisition of data from an adversary’s spy service. This data included emails containing sensitive information that Bolton, while still serving in the first Trump administration, reportedly sent to individuals close to him using an unclassified system.