Zelensky hopes Beijing can use ‘influence’ over Moscow to help stop Ukraine war

The proposed summit would involve the leaders of the United States, China and Russia: Donald Trump, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. It was suggested for the sidelines of the Apec summit in Shenzhen, China, on November 18-19. Its reported purpose was to discuss the Ukraine war, although Trump said his main focus was nuclear disarmament among the three countries.

Zelensky does not reject multilateral diplomacy. He supports talks involving Russia, United States mediation and European support, with China helping if it genuinely wants to. His objection is to Ukraine being excluded from decisions about its own future. He repeated the principle, “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”

The concern is that three powerful countries could agree on terms Kyiv cannot accept. Zelensky warned against dividing Ukraine and said Kyiv needs friends, not Russian friends. Ukraine has refused to surrender pre-war territory and wants security guarantees before accepting a peace agreement.

When Zelensky says China has influence over Moscow, he means Beijing has enough political and economic weight to affect Russia’s choices. The article describes China as a strong country and Russia as one of its largest trade partners. That relationship gives the two governments regular channels for communication and cooperation.

Trade can create leverage because countries often value major markets, suppliers and commercial partnerships. China could potentially use that relationship to encourage Russia to consider negotiations or stop fighting. This does not mean Beijing automatically controls Moscow. It means China has influence that Zelensky believes it should use to help end the war.

The article does not identify a specific Chinese demand, sanction or trade measure. Zelensky’s position is that China can help through mediation or support for talks. The proposed three-leader meeting therefore matters because Beijing’s relationship with Moscow could shape whether Russia moves toward a ceasefire or a broader settlement.

The article says the war had lasted four and a half years. It describes the Donbas as an eastern region split between Russia and Ukraine. Russia’s military has occupied much of the region since the war began, but the article does not provide a percentage, square-mile figure or precise map of the occupied territory.

That wording matters because “much of” is not the same as all of the Donbas. The source says Moscow demands that Ukraine cede the eastern flank of the country, including part of the Donbas. It also says the battlefield is deadlocked, meaning neither side has achieved a decisive overall result.

The current territorial picture remains central to negotiations. Kyiv has refused to give up any pre-war territory. Moscow insists on territorial concessions and has ruled out a short-term ceasefire without a final security framework. The article therefore gives a broad description, not an exact measurement, of Russian control.

If the United States, China and Russia decided Ukraine’s future without Ukraine, Kyiv could reject the outcome as unacceptable. Zelensky fears such a process could divide the country. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said negotiations without Kyiv would encourage Putin to continue his war.

The key mechanism is exclusion. A government left outside negotiations cannot directly defend its territory, security needs or conditions for peace. In this case, Ukraine has refused to cede pre-war territory and wants security guarantees. Russia, by contrast, demands that Ukraine give up part of its eastern territory, including areas in the Donbas.

A settlement imposed without Kyiv could therefore fail to stop fighting or provide lasting security. The article reports that Russia and Ukraine remain deadlocked on the battlefield, while earlier trilateral rounds made no apparent progress. Zelensky’s position is that Ukraine must be present for any peace agreement to be credible and workable.

Freezing the front lines would stop active fighting where the armies currently stand without immediately settling the border dispute. Zelensky called that a real way to achieve a ceasefire. Ukraine also says it needs security guarantees from Washington and European allies before accepting an enduring peace.

Russia wants more than a temporary pause. Putin said Moscow remained focused on ending the conflict rather than accepting a short-lived ceasefire. Russia says a final framework must ensure the security of both Ukraine and Russia. It also demands that Ukraine cede part of its eastern territory, including areas in the Donbas.

The disagreement is therefore about sequence and substance. Ukraine could view a front-line freeze as an urgent way to stop deaths while negotiations continue. Russia seeks final conditions and territorial concessions before ending the conflict. With both armies deadlocked, the difference could determine whether talks produce a pause or a lasting settlement.

Trilateral talks bring three parties into the same negotiation. Here, Ukraine wants a Kyiv-Washington-Moscow format, rather than a meeting where larger powers decide Ukraine’s future without it. Security guarantees are commitments intended to protect Ukraine after a ceasefire and reduce the risk that Russia resumes fighting.

The mechanism is inclusion plus enforcement. Ukraine can state its territorial and security demands directly, while the United States and European countries can discuss what support would follow a ceasefire. Zelensky said talks could resume at team level, possibly in Abu Dhabi, with European nations also joining. He highlighted guarantees from Washington and European allies.

This approach has not yet produced progress. The three countries have already held three rounds of trilateral negotiations in Abu Dhabi and Geneva. Russia and Ukraine remain deadlocked on the battlefield. Still, Kyiv sees direct talks and credible guarantees as a possible path from a temporary halt to a more durable peace.

National sovereignty is the general principle that a state’s government has authority over its territory, political choices and international agreements. Larger countries may mediate or apply diplomatic pressure, but mediation does not normally transfer the affected country’s decision-making power to them.

Applied here, Ukraine’s government would need to assess any ceasefire, border change or security arrangement. Zelensky’s phrase “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” expresses that principle in direct terms. It also reflects Ukraine’s stated refusal to cede pre-war territory and its demand for security guarantees before ending the war.

Outside involvement can still be valuable. The United States could mediate, Europe could support negotiations, and China could use its influence over Russia. But a durable agreement generally requires the participation and acceptance of the country whose territory and security are being decided. Otherwise, Kyiv could reject the terms, and the agreement might not end the conflict.