‘Zelenskyy should get someone else’: Trump open to Putin-Xi talks on Ukraine war

Donald Trump said he would consider trilateral talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Ukraine would not necessarily be represented by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The proposed group would therefore bring together the leaders of the United States, Russia, and China.

The meeting would mainly address nuclear weapons and denuclearisation. Trump also said trade and other issues could be discussed. The idea reportedly came from Putin during an October 9 phone call with Trump. The Kremlin said discussions were underway, but no meeting or agenda had been settled.

The summit could take place alongside the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, China, on November 18 and 19. Trump said he would participate if Xi supported it. Because the meeting would discuss the war while Ukraine’s leader might be absent, it has raised questions about Ukraine’s representation and negotiating authority.

Denuclearisation generally means reducing, limiting, or eliminating nuclear weapons and the ability to develop or use them. It can involve weapons, materials, delivery systems, and verification arrangements. The article does not define the term in detail, but Trump presented it as the meeting’s main purpose.

Trump said the leaders would talk about “nuclear weapons and denuclearization.” He also said trade and other issues could be included. His proposal would place the United States, Russia, and China in one discussion, reflecting the article’s focus on their leaders and nuclear concerns.

Trump said he would attend if Xi wanted the meeting. The Kremlin reported that talks about a possible summit were underway, but its agenda was not clear. The summit remains unconfirmed. If it happens, nuclear policy could dominate the discussion, while the war and trade might become additional subjects.

The article presents an enormous human cost, but it does not provide a verified casualty breakdown. Trump claimed that “a million people” were dead and said Ukraine was losing its male population. He also described the death toll as tremendous. These statements show the scale Trump attributed to the war.

Trump contrasted the alleged deaths with limited territorial change. He said “very little land has moved,” while a million people had died. He used that comparison to argue that Ukraine should have reached a settlement earlier. The article does not identify how many casualties belong to each side or distinguish military from civilian deaths.

The figures therefore should be understood as claims made by Trump in the reported remarks. The article gives no independent estimate or supporting methodology. Regardless, the reported human cost is central to Trump’s criticism of Zelenskyy and his call for someone else to negotiate for Ukraine.

Ukraine is the country directly fighting Russia, so excluding its president creates a representation problem. A discussion among Trump, Putin, and Xi could address Ukraine’s war without Ukraine’s elected leader at the table. The article therefore asks who would have authority to negotiate or accept terms for Ukraine.

Trump suggested that “somebody else” should negotiate on Ukraine’s behalf. He criticised Zelenskyy and said the Ukrainian leader should have settled earlier. But the article does not name a replacement or explain whether that person would be authorised by Ukraine. Without clear authority, any promises made could be disputed or rejected.

The possible summit has already raised questions about Ukraine’s representation. Zelenskyy separately said a meeting involving Putin might occur in the United States during the December G20 summit, though Moscow and Washington had not confirmed it. The central issue is whether talks can produce a durable settlement without Ukraine’s direct approval and participation.

Sanctions restrict economic and political pressure on Russia, while intelligence and satellite services can help Ukraine communicate, observe events, and plan defence. If the United States eases sanctions or reduces those services, Russia could face fewer constraints and Ukraine could lose important support. The article identifies these as growing concerns but does not measure their effects.

The reported tensions include US moves to ease certain sanctions and worries about disruptions to Ukraine’s satellite communications and intelligence-sharing arrangements. In practical terms, weaker access could make it harder for Ukraine to communicate or use shared information. Reduced pressure on Russia could also affect the balance surrounding negotiations.

The exact consequences remain uncertain because the article gives no operational details or timeline. It does state that Washington and Kyiv are increasingly divided over policy toward Russia. If support changes, the war’s military and diplomatic balance could shift, potentially increasing pressure on Ukraine during negotiations.

A three-leader summit is only one possible negotiation format. Russia and Ukraine could hold direct talks, possibly with another country acting as a mediator. The United States could also join bilateral discussions, or a broader peace conference could include European states and other affected parties. These options are general diplomatic possibilities, not plans confirmed by the article.

Direct talks would put the two parties to the war at the center of negotiations. A broader conference could gather several governments around security, territory, sanctions, and implementation. Mediation could help keep communication open when the sides cannot meet productively alone. The article itself focuses on Trump’s proposed summit and Zelenskyy’s separate suggestion of a possible US meeting during the G20.

No alternative arrangement is confirmed in the report. The possible Trump-Putin-Xi summit has no settled agenda, and the Kremlin said there was no clear understanding of the meeting. Any process would still need agreement on participants, authority, and terms.

International law generally protects a state’s sovereignty and its right to decide matters affecting its territory and political future. A country directly involved in a war therefore normally participates in, or approves, negotiations about ending that conflict. The article does not explain this legal principle, so this answer uses established general knowledge.

For Ukraine, an agreement discussed by other governments could involve land, security, sanctions, or political arrangements. If Ukrainian authorities did not authorise the negotiator, they might reject the outcome. The article highlights this concern by reporting Trump’s suggestion that someone else negotiate for Ukraine while Zelenskyy might be absent.

This does not mean every diplomatic contact requires every leader to attend. Governments can use representatives, mediators, or allies when they have clear authority. But a lasting settlement usually depends on the directly affected country accepting the terms. The article says the possible summit is unconfirmed and does not identify any authorised replacement for Zelenskyy.