The News

A significant diplomatic ripple emerged recently as the Kremlin confirmed discussions around a potential trilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin, former (and potential future) US President Donald Trump, and Chinese President Xi Jinping. This high-stakes summit, floated for the sidelines of next month’s APEC summit in China, was reportedly proposed by Putin to specifically address the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov acknowledged that the “subject of such a hypothetical meeting was indeed raised,” but quickly tempered expectations, stating that “no specific proposals or agreements were discussed or put forward by anyone, either regarding the meeting itself or the possible agenda and content of that meeting.” He also underscored that while Russia appreciates US mediation efforts, a final peace deal in Ukraine would necessitate direct involvement from Kyiv.

Predictably, the idea met with strong disapproval from Kyiv. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha sharply criticized the proposed format, tweeting that while a “trilateral meeting between the leaders of Ukraine, the US, and Russia could help end the war sooner,” a summit excluding Ukraine and including China would “do only the opposite: encourage Putin to continue this war.” This highlights the core tension surrounding any peace initiative that does not directly involve the primary belligerent, Ukraine.

Background: A World in Flux

This audacious proposal by the Kremlin is not an isolated diplomatic gambit but rather a reflection of the profound shifts in global geopolitics:

The Stalemate in Ukraine

Nearly two years since the full-scale invasion, the conflict in Ukraine remains a brutal war of attrition. Despite significant Western military and financial aid to Ukraine, and crippling sanctions against Russia, neither side has achieved a decisive breakthrough. Traditional diplomatic channels for peace talks have largely collapsed, with the last US-mediated discussions reportedly occurring in February, achieving little. The terms for any possible peace deal remain diametrically opposed, with Ukraine demanding full territorial integrity and war reparations, while Russia insists on its annexed territories.

Evolving Geopolitical Alliances

• Russia-China Axis: Beijing and Moscow have forged an increasingly robust “no-limits” strategic partnership. China has refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, instead offering diplomatic support and economic lifeline, positioning itself as a potential mediator while tacitly backing Russia against Western hegemony.
• US-China Dynamics: The relationship between Washington and Beijing is characterized by intense competition across economic, technological, and military domains, yet also by deep economic interdependence. Dialogue, albeit strained, continues on various fronts.
• Trump’s Shadow Over US Policy: The proposal gains particular relevance due to the prospect of Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency. Trump’s past presidency saw a distinct approach to Russia, marked by a desire for improved relations and a skepticism towards traditional alliances. His “deal-maker” persona and past rhetoric on Ukraine, often suggesting a swift resolution, make him a uniquely intriguing (and potentially disruptive) figure in such a trilateral setting, especially compared to the current Biden administration’s firm support for Ukraine and its allies.

APEC as a Diplomatic Stage

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, traditionally focused on economic cooperation and trade liberalisation among 21 member economies, often serves as a crucial backdrop for high-level bilateral and multilateral diplomatic engagements. Its location in China offers a relatively neutral setting for such a proposed meeting, away from European or North American pressure points.

Impact on Pakistan: Navigating a Multipolar World

For Pakistan, a nation strategically located and historically balancing complex international relationships, such a high-level trilateral proposal carries several implications:

Economic Stability and Commodity Prices

The Ukraine conflict has had a profound impact on global energy and commodity markets, driving up inflation worldwide. As a net importer of energy and various commodities, Pakistan is highly susceptible to these fluctuations. Any genuine movement towards de-escalation or resolution, even if partial, could bring greater stability to global markets, indirectly benefiting Pakistan’s economy by easing inflationary pressures and reducing import bills. Conversely, a prolonged or intensified conflict would continue to exert negative pressure.

Geopolitical Balancing Act

Pakistan maintains strong strategic ties with China, its “all-weather friend,” and has been steadily improving relations with Russia, particularly in energy cooperation. While traditionally allied with the United States, Pakistan has increasingly sought a more independent foreign policy. A direct dialogue between these three global powers could reshape the international order, forcing countries like Pakistan to recalibrate their diplomatic strategies. Pakistan’s desire for regional peace and stability could align with efforts to resolve major global conflicts, but it must carefully navigate the implications of any new power alignments.

Precedent for Regional Conflicts

How the Ukraine conflict is ultimately addressed – whether through multilateral dialogue, imposition of terms, or protracted warfare – sets a significant precedent for the resolution of other regional disputes globally, including those in South Asia. Pakistan keenly watches these dynamics, as stability in its own region is paramount for its national development and security.

Analysis: Putin’s Calculated Diplomacy

The Kremlin’s overture for a trilateral summit is a masterclass in strategic diplomacy, laden with multiple objectives:

Testing the Waters and Exploiting US Political Cycles

By floating this idea now, Putin is clearly probing the international landscape, particularly in anticipation of the upcoming US presidential election. A meeting with a potential President Trump is a vastly different proposition than one with the current Biden administration, which staunchly supports Ukraine and views Russia as an aggressor. This move allows Moscow to signal its openness to dialogue, albeit on its own terms, while simultaneously hoping to sow discord within the Western alliance or present an alternative pathway to peace that bypasses traditional diplomatic structures.

Legitimacy and Multipolarity

A summit involving the leaders of Russia, China, and the US would elevate Russia’s standing on the global stage, lending it a degree of legitimacy that the West has sought to deny through isolation and sanctions. It underscores Russia’s view of a multipolar world order, where key decisions are made by a few dominant powers, rather than through Western-led institutions. Such a meeting would implicitly validate Russia’s narrative as a key global player whose input is essential for international stability.

China’s Delicate Balancing Act

For China, hosting and participating in such a summit would further solidify its image as a global diplomatic heavyweight, capable of mediating high-stakes conflicts. It aligns with Beijing’s stated goal of promoting a “political settlement” for Ukraine. However, it also presents a delicate balance: while strengthening its partnership with Russia, China must also manage its extensive economic ties with the West. Xi’s participation would implicitly endorse a mechanism outside traditional UN-backed peace processes, potentially granting legitimacy to Russia’s position.

The Ukrainian Dilemma: Exclusion vs. Inclusion

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Sybiha’s strong reaction is entirely understandable. The idea of major powers deciding Ukraine’s fate without its direct participation is a non-starter for Kyiv. While Peskov later acknowledged that a “final settlement is impossible without the participation of someone in Kyiv who is prepared to take responsibility,” this initial proposal to exclude Ukraine from the primary discussion suggests an attempt to dictate terms rather than truly negotiate. Any durable peace agreement must have Ukraine’s full consent and involvement.

Feasibility and Broader Implications

Under the current US administration, the prospect of such a summit materializing in this format is highly improbable. President Biden’s policy has consistently focused on strengthening alliances and supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty. However, the mere discussion of such a meeting, especially with the ‘Trump factor’ looming, reveals the fragility of the current international order and the ongoing attempts by non-Western powers to reshape global governance. If such a high-level, exclusive dialogue were to occur, it would signal a profound shift in global power dynamics, moving towards a more direct, transactional form of diplomacy among a select few, potentially sidelining established multilateral institutions and principles of national sovereignty.

Ultimately, Putin’s proposal is less about an immediate peace deal and more about strategic positioning, leveraging the current geopolitical climate and the uncertainties of Western leadership to advance Russia’s long-term interests on the global stage.