Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed a meeting with US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss a possible settlement of the war in Ukraine, according to reports citing people familiar with the discussions.
The proposed summit could take place on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Shenzhen, China, scheduled for November 18–19. The meeting has not been confirmed, and the agenda and participation arrangements remain uncertain.
The proposal reportedly emerged during a telephone conversation between Putin and Trump on October 9. According to reporting by The Wall Street Journal, Putin raised the possibility of bringing the three leaders together to discuss an end to the conflict on terms favourable to Moscow.
The idea comes amid shifting US policy toward Russia, renewed tensions between Washington and Kyiv, and growing concern among Ukraine’s European partners that diplomatic engagement could weaken pressure on the Kremlin without securing meaningful concessions.
A meeting involving the leaders of Russia, the United States and China—but excluding Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy—would also raise questions about whether the country at war would have a direct role in negotiations over its territory and security.
The proposal comes as Trump defends recent decisions to ease certain economic restrictions on Russia, including a waiver affecting Russian diesel exports and a delay to the implementation of new sanctions. His administration has presented the measures as part of efforts to keep Moscow engaged in negotiations and ease pressure on global fuel supplies.
Critics, including Ukrainian officials, argue that relaxing restrictions risks providing Russia with additional economic room to sustain its war effort without requiring Moscow to make comparable concessions.
Trump has said he does not want to take steps that could drive Russia away from the negotiating table. He has also criticised Zelenskyy, accusing the Ukrainian president of failing to pursue an end to the war. Zelenskyy has rejected the suggestion that Kyiv is obstructing peace efforts.
The diplomatic dispute has unfolded alongside renewed attacks on energy infrastructure. Ukrainian authorities reported on October 19 that Russian strikes had hit power facilities, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without electricity, heating or water. The attacks have reinforced Kyiv’s argument that a durable settlement requires enforceable commitments rather than announcements that are not respected on the ground.
Ukraine warns against decisions made without Kyiv
The possibility of a trilateral summit has raised concerns in Ukraine that negotiations among Washington, Moscow and Beijing could sideline the country whose territory and sovereignty are at stake.
Kyiv has maintained that Ukraine must be directly involved in any discussions about ending the war. A settlement negotiated without Ukrainian representation could place pressure on the country to accept terms shaped primarily by the interests of larger powers.
Zelenskyy has also criticised the US approach to sanctions and energy trade, arguing that concessions to Moscow could weaken the pressure intended to end Russia’s invasion. Ukrainian officials have expressed concern that the combination of reduced economic restrictions and demands to limit attacks on Russian oil infrastructure could constrain Kyiv while leaving Moscow’s military campaign largely unaffected.
Washington, by contrast, has argued that keeping diplomatic channels open is necessary to make progress toward a settlement. The administration’s position reflects an effort to balance pressure on Ukraine to limit attacks on Russian energy assets with its stated objective of ending the war.
China’s role remains uncertain
China’s potential participation would add another major power to any diplomatic initiative. Beijing has maintained close economic ties with Moscow since the invasion began and has called for negotiations, while avoiding alignment with Western sanctions against Russia.
A meeting involving Xi could provide a forum for discussions among the three governments, but it remains unclear what role China would play in shaping a settlement or whether Beijing would support proposals acceptable to Kyiv.
The Kremlin has confirmed that preliminary discussions about a possible meeting have taken place, but detailed arrangements have not been announced. Trump has not committed publicly to attending, and there is no confirmed agreement on the summit’s agenda.
Even if the leaders meet, substantial differences would remain over territorial control, security guarantees, sanctions and the conditions under which fighting could stop. The parties would also need to determine how any agreement could be monitored and enforced.
Energy pressures complicate diplomacy
Energy has become a central element of the dispute between Washington and Kyiv. The Trump administration has linked its efforts to increase diesel supplies to concerns about fuel prices, while Ukraine argues that Russian oil revenues help finance the invasion.
The proposed Russian diesel arrangement has therefore become more than a commercial question. It is part of a wider debate over whether economic engagement can encourage Moscow to negotiate or instead reduce the costs Russia faces for continuing the war.
For Ukraine, the stakes extend beyond energy markets. Continued attacks on power infrastructure threaten civilian access to essential services as winter approaches, while restrictions or uncertainty affecting military assistance could complicate the country’s defence.
For the United States, the challenge is to pursue negotiations without creating incentives for either side to prolong the conflict or undermining confidence among allies.
The proposed Trump-Putin-Xi meeting remains uncertain, and no settlement has emerged from the discussions reported so far. Whether the initiative advances will depend on the leaders’ willingness to meet and, more importantly, whether any diplomatic framework includes Ukraine and addresses the central disputes driving the war.
