‘Russia Is a Global Problem, Not a Powerʼ: Sybiha Reacts to Trilateral Proposal Without Ukraine

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha drew a sharp contrast between two possible summits. He said talks involving Ukraine, the United States and Russia could help end the war faster. He said a meeting involving Russia, China and the United States could have the opposite effect. The difference, in his view, is whether Ukraine has a seat in discussions about its own war and future.

Sybiha made the comments on X after reports that Putin had proposed meeting Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. The proposed gathering could occur during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, China, on Nov. 18-19. Sybiha argued that excluding Ukraine would encourage Putin, rather than push him toward ending the conflict.

The proposal was not finalized. Trump had not agreed, Rubio said discussions were underway, and China had not confirmed it. Meanwhile, Zelensky said the United States was preparing a possible Ukraine-US-Russia summit, with locations under consideration in the Middle East, the United States or Europe.

A trilateral summit is a meeting involving the leaders of three countries. The word “trilateral” means three-sided. Such a summit is usually designed to address major political issues directly at the highest level. It can set goals, test possible agreements and give negotiators direction.

Broader peace negotiations are usually a larger process. They may include technical teams, diplomats, mediators and other governments. They can cover military arrangements, territory, security, humanitarian issues and implementation. A summit is therefore one meeting or stage, while negotiations can continue through many meetings and working groups.

The article presents two possible trilateral formats. One would bring together Ukraine, the United States and Russia. Another, proposed by Putin, would involve Russia, China and the United States. Sybiha supported the first format because Ukraine is directly involved in the war. The article does not provide a full definition of peace negotiations, so this distinction uses the standard meaning of the terms.

Putin’s proposed summit would involve the leaders of three countries: Russia, China and the United States. The reported participants are Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. The meeting would focus on the war in Ukraine, according to reports about Putin’s proposal.

Ukraine would not be part of that format. The omission matters because Ukraine is the country whose territory and future are central to the war. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha objected to the idea, saying that a Russia-China-US meeting could encourage Putin to continue the conflict. He contrasted it with a summit that includes Ukraine.

The proposed meeting remained uncertain. It might take place alongside the APEC summit in Shenzhen on Nov. 18-19, but Trump had not agreed. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said discussions were underway, while China had not confirmed the proposal and Russia said there was no clear agenda.

Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a meeting with US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The proposed summit would discuss the war in Ukraine. It would bring together Russia, China and the United States, without Ukraine participating in the format described in the article.

The possible venue is Shenzhen, China. The meeting could happen on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit scheduled for Nov. 18-19. Holding it alongside an existing international summit could provide a convenient setting for the three leaders to meet, but the article does not say that a date or venue had been accepted.

Several details remained unresolved. Trump had not agreed to attend. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said discussions were underway but that no summit had clearly been finalized. A senior US official confirmed Putin made the proposal, while Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said the sides saw a possible meeting but lacked a clear agenda. China had not confirmed it.

If Ukraine is excluded, talks about ending the war could lose the participation of the country whose territory and future are being discussed. Any outcome would then be developed mainly by Russia, the United States and China. Ukraine could be unable to present its priorities, challenge proposals or help determine whether an agreement is workable.

The article gives Sybiha’s warning as the clearest example. He said a Russia-China-US summit would have the opposite effect from a Ukraine-US-Russia meeting. In his view, excluding Ukraine could encourage Putin to continue the war instead of creating pressure for a faster end. Ukraine has therefore called for Kyiv to have a seat in negotiations about the country’s future.

This does not mean an agreement would certainly fail. It means the diplomatic process could become less representative and harder to implement. The article reports that Zelensky was seeking a Ukraine-US-Russia summit, while a Putin-proposed meeting without Ukraine remained uncertain and had no clear agenda.

Ukraine has supported talks involving its own leadership, the United States and Russia. Zelensky said on Oct. 17 that Washington was preparing a proposal for such a summit. Earlier, in September, he said the United States had proposed technical-level trilateral talks, with the United Arab Emirates suggested as a possible venue.

Including Ukraine would change the discussion by putting Kyiv directly in the room. Ukraine could state its position on ending the war and on decisions affecting its future. The United States and Russia would still be central participants, but the conversation would no longer be limited to outside powers discussing Ukraine without its government.

The format was not yet scheduled. Kyiv was waiting for the United States to propose a date for the technical-level talks. Possible venues for a leaders’ summit included the Middle East, the United States and Europe. Neither Washington nor Moscow had confirmed those plans, but Sybiha clearly favored this format over a Russia-China-US meeting.

When governments negotiate the end of a war fought on a country’s territory, that country’s participation is generally important because its future is directly at stake. Its leaders can describe the conflict’s effects, identify acceptable terms and explain what their population and institutions can support. Their involvement also gives the process a more direct connection to the people affected.

In this article, Ukraine is the clearest example. Sybiha said a Ukraine-US-Russia meeting could help end the war faster. He opposed a Russia-China-US format because it would exclude Kyiv and, he argued, encourage Putin to continue the war. Ukraine has therefore called for a seat in negotiations about its future.

Participation does not automatically produce peace. It can, however, make discussions more representative and expose disagreements that must be resolved. The article reports that possible Ukraine-US-Russia talks were still only under discussion, while Putin’s alternative proposal had no confirmed agenda or final agreement.