Putin wants to discuss Ukraine with Trump and Xi Jinping, but leaves Zelensky at the door

A proposal for a trilateral summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Xi Jinping was reported by The Wall Street Journal, with the intention of negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine. This initiative originated from a telephone conversation on October 9 between Putin and Trump, although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not included in these initial discussions. The proposed meeting is set for November and could take place on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Shenzhen, China.
The objective of the talks, as suggested by the report, would be to secure an end to the war under terms favorable to Russia, situated within a context of rapprochement between Russian and American presidents. The exclusion of Ukraine from these discussions is noted as a point that is expected to generate reservations in Kyiv and European capitals.
Furthermore, the initial contact between Putin and Trump also addressed energy issues, leading to an understanding regarding the purchase of Russian diesel by the United States and efforts to facilitate its international commercialization. While the Russian Foreign Minister defended this diesel agreement as a bilateral matter, Ukrainian President Zelensky publicly accused Trump of pressuring Kyiv toward surrender negotiations.

* Vladimir Putin proposed a trilateral summit involving himself, Donald Trump, and Xi Jinping.
* The proposal was reported by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ).
* The initial proposal stemmed from a phone conversation on October 9 between Putin and Trump.
* Volodymyr Zelensky was excluded from these initial conversations.
* The summit is planned for November.
* The objective of the summit is to negotiate the end of the war.
* The proposed terms aim to favor Russia, within a context of rapprochement between Russian and American presidents.
* The meeting could take place on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Shenzhen, China.
* The October 9 conversation also addressed energy issues concerning Russian diesel purchases by the United States.
* Sergei Lavrov defended the diesel agreement as a bilateral issue between Moscow and Washington.
* Zelensky accused Trump of pressuring Kyiv to accept a surrender.

The structure of this proposed diplomatic initiative highlights a significant divergence between interests, where an outcome favorable to one major power appears to be sought while isolating the directly affected party. The fact that the proposal was initiated without the presence of Ukraine suggests a strategy focused purely on bilateral or geopolitical maneuvering external to Kyiv's immediate agency. This dynamic establishes a pattern where regional security concerns are effectively sidelined in favor of high-level external negotiations concerning peace terms, which naturally invites skepticism from the entity whose future is directly at stake.
The focus shifts between high-stakes geopolitical talks and transactional energy agreements. The agreement on diesel reflects an attempt to manage immediate economic realities separate from the larger conflict narrative, allowing actors to pursue pragmatic gains while simultaneously engaging in broader diplomatic signaling. However, the context suggests that any perceived 'rapprochement' is layered with underlying antagonism; for Kyiv and its allies, such moves risk undermining established security frameworks simply because the central actor—Zelensky—is omitted from the decision-making loop. The unfolding process tests whether pragmatic transactional agreements can supersede the fundamental requirement of inclusive negotiation when existential stakes are involved.
Bridge Questions: If a summit is framed around terms favorable to one party without the directly affected party, what conditions would be necessary for Kyiv to view such an agreement as legitimate? How do the documented energy arrangements interact with the larger war objectives, and does transactional success in one area inherently negate diplomatic failure in another? What mechanisms exist for incorporating the concerns of excluded states into high-level strategic dialogues?