Inside Putin’s Bid to End the War in Ukraine on Moscow’s Terms | The 10-Point for October 19

Putin is reportedly proposing a three-way summit involving himself, Donald Trump, and Xi Jinping. Reuters reported that the Kremlin said the leaders could meet in China next month to discuss a possible deal over the war in Ukraine. The idea would place Russia, the United States, and China at the center of negotiations.

The suggested mechanism is leader-level diplomacy. Putin would discuss the settlement directly with Trump and Xi, rather than first negotiating a framework with Ukraine. The proposal therefore treats the war as an issue for major powers to manage. It also creates a striking omission: Zelenskyy is reportedly not included.

The proposal remains a reported plan, not an announced peace agreement. Its outcome would depend on whether Trump and Xi accepted the idea and whether Ukraine agreed to any result. Excluding Kyiv could make the meeting politically explosive, because any durable settlement would need Ukraine’s participation and consent.

A summit is a formal meeting of top national leaders. It is used to discuss major disputes, negotiate broad principles, or announce cooperation. A meeting among Putin, Trump, and Xi would be unusual because it would bring together leaders of Russia, the United States, and China to discuss a war being fought in Ukraine.

The unusual feature is the proposed format. Putin would be one leader from a country fighting the war. Trump would represent a major outside power, while Xi would represent China. Zelenskyy, the leader of the country under attack, would reportedly not attend. The Guardian framed this concern by saying Ukraine’s future is not theirs to bargain away.

The summit could create diplomatic momentum, but it could not automatically settle the war. Any agreement would need practical terms, Ukrainian acceptance, and a way to carry out promises. Without those elements, a leaders’ meeting might produce headlines without producing a workable peace.

The two main parties directly fighting the war are Russia and Ukraine. Under the reported proposal, Russia would be represented by Putin. Ukraine would not be represented because Zelenskyy is reportedly excluded. That means one of the two principal combatant states would have a seat at the proposed meeting, while the other would not.

The format would instead add two major outside powers, Trump and Xi. Their presence could give the meeting international weight, but it would not change who is directly fighting. A summit among Russia, the United States, and China would therefore be a great-power discussion about a war occurring on Ukrainian territory.

This imbalance matters because negotiations usually require the parties whose conduct must change. Russia and Ukraine would need to address territory, security, military activity, and implementation. A meeting without Ukraine could discuss those issues, but it could not legitimately settle them on Ukraine’s behalf or guarantee Ukrainian compliance.

The supplied headlines do not list Russia’s detailed terms. In broader public Russian demands, ending the war on Moscow’s terms means securing political and territorial concessions from Ukraine rather than restoring the prewar status quo. It would likely involve accepting Russian control or claims over occupied areas and limiting Ukraine’s future security choices.

Russia has publicly demanded recognition of its claims over Crimea and other Ukrainian regions it says it has annexed. It has also sought Ukrainian neutrality, meaning no membership in NATO or comparable military alliances. Russian proposals have additionally included restrictions on Ukraine’s armed forces and demands for security arrangements that reduce Western military support.

These demands remain contested, and the reported summit proposal does not show that Ukraine has accepted them. A settlement based on them would affect borders, defense policy, and Ukraine’s relationship with Europe and the United States. The central question would be whether any agreement reflects consent or results from pressure on Kyiv.

The supplied headlines do not explain Putin’s motives. A plausible, well-established diplomatic rationale is that involving Trump and Xi could elevate Russia’s position from one side in a war to a central power in a global negotiation. It could also reduce the role of Ukraine and its European supporters in setting the agenda.

Trump could matter because the United States has major influence over Western policy and military support. Xi could matter because China is a powerful state and a significant diplomatic partner for Russia. Bringing both leaders into the discussion could help Putin seek outside pressure for concessions, broader recognition of Russian demands, or a settlement framed as a decision by major powers.

That strategy would carry risks. Ukraine might reject terms reached without it, while European governments might resist an arrangement that affects their security without their participation. The summit proposal is only reported, so it does not show whether Trump or Xi support the plan or whether it could produce negotiations.

A peace agreement normally gains legitimacy when the parties whose rights and conduct are directly affected help negotiate and accept it. If Ukraine were excluded, the deal could be seen as an imposed arrangement rather than a settlement. That concern echoes The Guardian’s warning that Ukraine’s future is not for Trump and Putin to bargain away.

The practical mechanism is consent and implementation. Ukraine would need to stop fighting, accept territorial or security provisions, and change policies under the agreement. If its government had not negotiated those commitments, it could reject them, face domestic opposition, or lack the authority and capacity to carry them out. Outside leaders could promise support, but they could not automatically deliver Ukrainian compliance.

The result could be a fragile pause rather than durable peace. Russia, the United States, China, and European states might still help monitor or guarantee terms, but enforcement would remain uncertain. Exclusion could therefore weaken both the agreement’s legal and political standing and its prospects for lasting compliance.

International law does not give outside powers the right to decide another country’s borders or political future by themselves. Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and people’s right to self-determination are central principles. Borders can change through lawful, freely agreed arrangements, but not simply because a stronger state demands it or occupies territory.

Applied to Ukraine, this means the Ukrainian state and its people must have a decisive role in any settlement. Russia cannot unilaterally make its territorial claims lawful through force. Trump and Xi also cannot transfer Ukrainian land, impose permanent neutrality, or choose Ukraine’s government without Ukrainian consent and a valid legal process.

The proposed summit matters because its reported format excludes Zelenskyy. A meeting of Putin, Trump, and Xi could discuss ideas, but it would not itself possess authority to determine Ukraine’s borders or political system. Any durable settlement would need Ukraine’s participation, lawful commitments, and practical mechanisms for implementation.