Staff Reports
President Donald Trump says he’d be willing to meet President Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin — and Russia’s leader reportedly floated the idea first. On the surface it sounds like big‑league diplomacy: three heads of state at APEC in China, talking about ending the war in Ukraine and even nuclear issues. Underneath it smells like a play that could hand Moscow the map.
What Putin proposed — and why Kyiv is furious
According to reporting, the proposal for a trilateral summit came up during a phone call between President Putin and President Trump, with the Kremlin floating a meeting on the margins of the APEC leaders’ summit in China. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was careful to call the idea “hypothetical,” saying there’s “no clear understanding yet” of an agenda — which is telling, because vagueness benefits the stronger party.
Ukraine’s government has been blunt: a three‑way meeting that leaves President Volodymyr Zelenskyy out of the room “would do only the opposite: encourage Putin to continue this war.” That’s not grandstanding. Kyiv is fighting on its soil while towns lose power and people sleep in basements. Having the aggressor and two great powers decide the fate of the country they’re shooting at? That’s not diplomacy; it’s a rout.
Leverage, legitimacy, and the cost to America
Here’s the practical bit: a summit that sidelines Kyiv risks legitimizing a settlement shaped around Russian demands. Right now Russian forces remain active, U.S. and allied support is shifting, and reports of back‑channel deals — diesel purchases, sanction wrangling, diplomatic shuttle runs — all add up to a risky moment to hand Moscow negotiating leverage.
For everyday Americans that matters. If a deal hands Russia advantage, it could prolong instability in Europe, push more burden onto U.S. taxpayers for future aid, and force Congress into ugly fights over funding. It can also demoralize allies who count on Washington to keep its word — and once trust frays, we don’t get it back cheaply.
Politics, posture, and prudence in Washington
Yes, Presidents negotiate. And yes, ending wars is a good thing. But there’s a difference between ending a war and rewarding conquest. Domestic critics across the political spectrum have already called a Putin‑floated, Ukraine‑excluded summit a “serious mistake.” That’s not just about optics; it’s about strategy and American credibility.
If the point of foreign policy is to protect American interests and honor our commitments, then we should ask: do we walk into a trilateral that hands the opening moves to the Kremlin, or do we insist any talks include the people whose land and lives are at stake? The answer will tell us whether Washington still thinks alliances and principle matter — or whether we’re willing to cut a deal that looks convenient now and costs us later. Which will it be?
