That's not what I see happening at all. Russia is the oppressor here and Ukraine is the oppressed so objectively speaking there is no neutral position due to this fact.
If a person is acting as a mediator and trying to broker a deal, "neutrality" in the sense I was referring to it, refers to not giving either side the impression that the mediator is on the other guy's side.
I mentioned the tug-o-war between that concept, and pragmatism.
Pragmatism dictates that there's zero upside in Trump doing anything that would cause Putin to leave the negotiating table.
Unless the US is willing to put boots on the ground, then Russia is the team that we'll need verbally placate just a bit to make sure they don't leave the table.
Putin can walk away from the table tomorrow, shut down all lines of communication with the West, and continue terrorizing Ukraine.
Think of it as a hostage situation.
When the negotiator is trying to ease the situation, do they come out and publicly deride and bash the hostage taker, and go on an on about how the hostages are morally better than the hostage taker? Or do they try to built a report, and handle the hostage taker with some kid gloves to a degree to keep them on the line?
Hence the reason I said that it's a balance between pragmatism and principle.
If someone is holding a gun to someone's head, obviously, in a purely principled sense, there's no moral "neutral position". The Gunman would be wrong.
However, one can certainly employ the pragmatic approach of some coddling to calm them down and make them more receptive to a peaceful resolution.
"Well, the hostage got their head blown off, but at least I can sleep soundly knowing that I told the gunman in no uncertain terms that they were a scumbag and were in the wrong and refused to concede to any talking they had" -- said no Crisis Intervention Team ever...