Putin floats summit idea with Trump and Xi to discuss Ukraine

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed a three-way summit next month with President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine on terms favorable to Moscow, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the discussions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be excluded from the talks.

The idea, raised during a phone call between Putin and Trump on October 9, would be unprecedented and has already prompted concern among Ukraine’s allies in Europe and Washington. Such a meeting would sharply break from earlier formats, which at least nominally included Kiev or its European backers.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that discussions about a potential meeting are underway, though he said there is “no clear understanding yet regarding the meeting itself or its potential agenda.” A senior US official indicated that Trump has not agreed to participate but could be open to the idea as he continues to seek a negotiated resolution.

Moscow has proposed holding the talks on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, scheduled for November 18–19 in Shenzhen. Chinese officials have indicated they would not object to Trump joining, as long as the gathering does not overshadow Beijing’s own regional priorities at the APEC event.

The same October 9 conversation that produced the summit proposal also led to an agreement for the US to purchase Russian diesel fuel and to help sell it in global markets. The US Treasury later issued a temporary license authorizing these imports through April 2027, lifting a ban in place since 2022.

Russian officials have indicated that initial shipments could begin within weeks of finalizing commercial contracts, with volumes potentially reaching hundreds of thousands of tons in the near term and scaling higher depending on the condition of Russian refineries. Moscow has described the volumes as manageable for its domestic market while still allowing meaningful exports.

Washington already has substantial domestic energy production capacity, so Russian diesel imports are not needed to meet standard American demand. The disruption consumers have experienced stems less from physical shortages than from how companies pass along international price changes.

US oil companies raise domestic prices to match global benchmarks, even when American production is abundant. By securing alternative supplies from Russia, the Trump administration signals that it can challenge corporate pricing decisions and that firms cannot automatically pass global crisis costs on to American citizens.

This aligns with Trump’s “America First” approach, which goes beyond foreign policy to signal an effort to curb the outsized influence large corporations have wielded over US institutions and energy policy for decades. Corporations have long shaped political outcomes and economic rules, prioritizing their interests over those of the state and ordinary citizens.

In this context, the diesel deal offers a concrete example of the state using its leverage over private energy interests—not simply expanding supply. Companies that keep tracking global prices risk prompting the government to seek alternatives, limiting their ability to raise domestic prices and shifting power between the state and industry.

At the same time, energy cooperation is not a lasting strategic realignment between Washington and Moscow. Western pressure on Russia remains fundamentally unchanged. An energy deal may be a tactical step to buy time or ease specific pressures—such as domestic fuel costs ahead of US mid-term elections next month—without changing the issues over Ukraine or Europe.

If the summit were to take place, excluding Ukraine’s leadership while including China would reinforce the perception that Trump prefers dealing directly with major powers rather than engaging with Ukraine or Europe. European capitals have expressed alarm at the prospect of a settlement process that sidelines Kiev. Ukrainian officials have also criticized the diesel deal and the summit proposal, warning that both steps risk emboldening Moscow.

Trump continues to claim negotiations are progressing while publicly criticizing Zelensky for not securing a better outcome sooner. Whether the proposed three-way meeting will take place, and on what terms, remains uncertain. Peskov’s caution and the lack of a firm US commitment suggest that hurdles remain.

For Moscow, the proposed summit and diesel arrangement offer opportunities to shape outcomes in Ukraine while easing Western sanctions. For Washington, the diesel step offers a short-term way to influence domestic prices and signal limits on corporate pricing.

Ukraine and its European partners risk having decisions made without their direct involvement, a shift that could further strain already tense relations with Washington and leave Kiev with less leverage in any eventual settlement. Trump’s participation in such a summit would powerfully acknowledge Russia’s battlefield dominance and signal a shift in the global order in which Europe is no longer a major player.