Trump open to Ukraine summit with Putin and Xi – but without Zelensky

US President Donald Trump is open to meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping to discuss the war in Ukraine, with a possible three-way summit in China in November. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has not been invited. Even before a date is confirmed, that raises a fundamental question: what can talks about Ukraine’s future achieve if its president has no seat at the table?

Trump’s signal opens the prospect of a diplomatic meeting between three countries that can influence the course of the war in different ways. It is not, however, a firm commitment to attend a summit, nor does it imply any breakthrough in negotiations. For now, this is an expression of willingness to talk, not an agreed peace process.

Three powers, different interests

The proposed line-up would be politically significant. Russia has been waging a full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine since February 2022. The United States has supported Ukraine militarily and financially since that invasion began. China maintains close political and economic ties with Russia while also being an important trading partner for Western countries.

These would not, therefore, be three neutral mediators around the table. Putin would represent the aggressor in the war. Trump could bring US influence to the discussions. At a meeting in China, Xi would be both host and the representative of a power with its own strategic interests. Those roles differ fundamentally, even though all three leaders carry considerable international weight.

A joint meeting could consequently matter without signalling a shared position. Willingness to talk reveals nothing about whether the participants might move closer on territorial questions, security guarantees or the conditions for a ceasefire. Those issues lie at the heart of the conflict. Whether, and how, a possible summit would address them remains open.

Ukraine would be absent

The absence of an invitation to Zelensky is particularly significant. Ukraine would be the subject of the discussion, but its president would not be part of it. That does not rule out contacts in other formats. Yet there is a substantial difference between the government directly affected negotiating for itself and other countries first discussing possible terms.

An exchange between Washington, Moscow and Beijing could clarify positions or explore room for diplomacy. But this three-way format alone could not guarantee a peace supported by Ukraine. Kyiv’s consent and participation would be essential to any durable agreement, especially on matters concerning Ukrainian territory and the safety of its population.

The distinction between a ceasefire and a peace settlement is central. A ceasefire is intended to stop the fighting; a peace settlement would also have to resolve political disputes. Both raise the question of how commitments could be verified and upheld. A summit photograph would be no substitute for that work. The meeting’s value would have to be judged by its substance, rather than simply by the prominence of those attending.

Why it matters to Switzerland

For Switzerland, this is more than a question of international summit diplomacy. The war affects Europe’s security order and the principle that national borders must not be changed by military force. After Russia’s full-scale invasion, Switzerland adopted European Union sanctions while also pursuing humanitarian and diplomatic efforts.

By hosting the conference at the Bürgenstock in June 2024, Switzerland also provided a setting for discussions about peace in Ukraine. Russia did not participate. A possible meeting in China would have a different composition: Russia would be represented, while the Ukrainian president has not been invited. Both arrangements illustrate the difficulty of creating a framework for talks that connects political agreement with the ability to put it into practice later.

For people in Switzerland who have fled Ukraine, or who have relatives there, the crucial test is whether diplomacy actually brings greater security. Trump’s openness to talks does not yet offer a reliable basis for expecting that outcome. Nor does it justify expectations that sanctions will be eased or economic relations with Russia normalised.

The distinction matters when assessing the potential summit from Switzerland: an opening for discussion is not the same as a change in conditions on the ground. The questions facing those affected by the war remain unresolved by the prospect of a meeting alone.

The terms of the talks will be crucial

The next key question is whether the possible November encounter becomes a confirmed meeting. A concrete agenda would be equally important, along with clarity about how Ukraine could be included in any subsequent process. Without those elements, the three-way summit’s political significance would outweigh its foreseeable practical benefits.

Trump’s willingness is thus a diplomatic signal, but not yet a breakthrough. A meeting with Putin and Xi could open new avenues for discussion. Whether it became a step towards a lasting peace would depend largely on what the participants agreed — and whether Ukraine could support those agreements.