Preparations Underway for Putin-Trump-Xi Trilateral Summit, Ushakov Says

Russia, the United States, and China are preparing in principle for a leader-level trilateral summit. It would bring together Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Xi Jinping. The meeting matters because it could place three major powers at the center of discussions affecting global security and diplomacy.

Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov said Moscow, Beijing, and Washington had agreed in principle to hold the meeting. Preparations have already begun. Ushakov indicated that the summit is being planned alongside the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ gathering, rather than as a separate event at an unrelated time.

The expected setting is Shenzhen, China, on Nov. 18–19. Ushakov also described a possible Russia-US-Ukraine meeting in November as exploratory. The results of the November diplomacy could influence whether Putin later attends the G20 summit in Miami, Florida, in December.

APEC stands for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, a regional forum that brings economies around the Pacific together for cooperation. Its leaders’ meeting is a major diplomatic gathering. The source identifies the next leaders’ summit as taking place in Shenzhen, China, on Nov. 18–19.

A meeting on the sidelines is separate from the main APEC agenda. It would use the same city and time window, allowing Putin, Trump, and Xi to hold their own discussions while participating in, or traveling around, the larger leaders’ event. The proposed trilateral summit would therefore not be an APEC session itself.

This arrangement can make high-level diplomacy easier to schedule. Ushakov said preparations had begun after Moscow, Beijing, and Washington agreed in principle. The November meetings could also shape Moscow’s decision about Putin’s possible attendance at the Miami G20 summit in December.

The article does not quantify the three countries’ combined population, economy, military power, or diplomatic influence. Using widely used recent estimates, Russia, the United States, and China together account for roughly 23% of the world’s population and about 45% of nominal global GDP. These figures vary with the year and the economic measure used.

Military power is harder to express as a share. Defense spending is one possible measure, and the three countries together account for roughly half of worldwide military expenditure in recent estimates. That does not capture nuclear forces, equipment, readiness, battlefield experience, or industrial capacity equally.

Diplomatic influence has no reliable global percentage. The article’s concrete point is that these governments are major powers whose leaders could shape wider security discussions. Their proposed meeting therefore matters because decisions made among them might affect Ukraine, Europe, and international diplomacy.

Ushakov said Moscow’s next diplomatic decisions depend on the progress and results of the November meetings in Shenzhen. The clearest consequence concerns Putin’s possible attendance at the G20 summit in Miami, Florida, in December. Washington has formally invited him, but the Kremlin has not confirmed that he will go.

Asked whether the decision depended significantly on the China summit’s success, Ushakov answered yes. He emphasized the sequence: November comes first, followed by December. This makes the APEC meetings a practical checkpoint before Moscow decides whether Putin will travel to the United States.

The source also mentions a possible November meeting involving Russia, the United States, and Ukraine. Ushakov called that track exploratory, or “range-finding,” rather than presenting it as a completed negotiation. Its progress, alongside the proposed Putin-Trump-Xi summit, could affect later diplomatic choices.

Ukraine and several European officials are concerned because the proposed diplomacy could address security matters without the direct participation of those most affected. Kyiv fears that decisions about its sovereignty or borders might be made by larger powers without Ukrainian consent. European officials also object to major security arrangements being shaped without European governments at the table.

The article gives a direct example. Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly said that no diplomatic architecture affecting Ukraine’s sovereignty or borders can be concluded over Kyiv’s head. Arseniy Yatsenyuk compared possible Washington-Moscow-Beijing arrangements to the 1938 Munich Agreement and the 1945 Yalta Conference.

The concern is therefore about both process and outcome. A leader-level meeting could create pressure for agreements that exclude Ukraine and Europe. European Union officials have also criticized White House outreach to Putin, citing alleged hybrid sabotage operations and the ICC warrant concerning Ukrainian children.

The Munich Agreement of 1938 and the Yalta Conference of 1945 are being used as warnings about great-power diplomacy conducted over the heads of affected countries. In the article, former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk says a Washington-Moscow-Beijing arrangement could partition European security structures. The comparisons underline fears of decisions imposed from outside.

The proposed summit has a similar political concern because it could involve three powerful states discussing questions that affect Ukraine and Europe. Ukraine would not automatically control the agenda simply because its security interests were involved. Zelensky has therefore insisted that agreements affecting Ukraine’s sovereignty or borders cannot be concluded without Kyiv.

These historical references do not establish that the proposed summit would produce the same outcomes. They show why critics are sensitive to the format. The key issue is whether major security decisions would be negotiated inclusively, or settled by powerful governments without affected partners.

National sovereignty means a country has authority to govern itself and make decisions without another state overruling it. Territorial integrity means its borders and territory should not be altered through outside coercion. An International Criminal Court arrest warrant is a judicial measure alleging serious crimes and seeking the suspect’s arrest under the court’s legal process.

These principles can limit diplomacy because leaders cannot legitimately promise away another country’s sovereignty or borders without that country’s participation. The article says Zelensky rejects any diplomatic architecture affecting Ukraine’s sovereignty or borders concluded over Kyiv’s head. It also says the ICC warrant charges Putin with war crimes linked to the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children.

The warrant creates legal and political obstacles around Putin’s international travel and meetings. The article does not say it automatically cancels diplomacy or prevents a summit. It shows instead why European officials criticize engagement with Putin and why any agreement would face serious legal and legitimacy concerns.