The possibility of a rare trilateral meeting between US President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin next week has sparked intense international attention, with governments around the world closely watching whether the gathering could reshape discussions on some of the planet’s most pressing security challenges.

Negotiations over the proposed summit remain ongoing, and officials familiar with the planning say discussions have yet to produce a final agenda or agreed format. Nevertheless, expectations are growing that the three leaders could meet in Shenzhen on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.

If it takes place, the meeting would bring together the leaders of the world's three most influential powers at a time of mounting geopolitical tensions, including the war in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, concerns over Iran, strategic competition between Washington and Beijing, and growing debate surrounding artificial intelligence and nuclear deterrence.

Despite the significance of such an encounter, expectations for a major breakthrough remain limited. The three leaders are expected to arrive with fundamentally different priorities and strategic objectives.

For Putin, the meeting represents an opportunity to reinforce Russia’s standing as a global power and potentially secure momentum towards ending the war in Ukraine under conditions favourable to Moscow. Russian officials and nationalist commentators have portrayed the proposed summit as evidence that Russia remains one of the central pillars of the international system despite years of Western sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Trump, meanwhile, is said to be seeking a major diplomatic achievement that could strengthen his international legacy. Among his interests is the possibility of initiating discussions on future nuclear arms control arrangements involving the United States, Russia and China. According to a senior administration official, Washington does not expect an immediate agreement on nuclear issues but believes that “it's time for China to sort of step up” and engage in discussions on the subject.

Xi faces a more complicated calculation. Chinese leaders traditionally favour meticulously planned and carefully choreographed diplomatic engagements, making Trump’s highly personalised and unpredictable negotiating style a source of discomfort in Beijing. Chinese policymakers also remain wary of being drawn into a framework that treats China as an equal participant in strategic nuclear arms limitation negotiations alongside the United States and Russia.

Edgard Kagan, a former senior Biden administration official for East Asia now at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, highlighted Beijing’s concerns. “This is something the Chinese hate,” he said. “I think it's fair to say the Chinese do not want arms control discussions with the United States. And they certainly don't want to do it with the United States and Russia, because it suggests that they accept the framing that they are now a major nuclear power that should be subject to similar restrictions.”

Chinese concerns stem in part from the disparity in nuclear arsenals. Russia and the United States each possess more than 5,000 nuclear warheads, while China's stockpile is estimated at roughly 500, despite its rapid nuclear modernisation efforts. Beijing continues to argue that it remains at a significantly lower level than the two traditional nuclear superpowers.

The prospect of the summit has also generated anxiety among countries that would not be represented at the table. Governments from Kyiv to Tokyo fear that decisions affecting their security interests could be discussed without their direct participation.

Particular concern has emerged in Ukraine, where officials worry that a great-power understanding could emerge over the country's future. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy recently warned: “We really don't want this to turn into 'Yalta 2, 3, 4,' with a redistribution of influence.”

The reference to Yalta reflects growing comparisons between the proposed summit and the 1945 Yalta Conference involving the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union. That meeting helped define the post-Second World War order and became associated with major powers determining the fate of smaller states through private negotiations.

In Russia, some nationalists have openly celebrated the symbolism. Russian political thinker Alexander Dugin told Radio Sputnik: “It shows who is important in the world: We are, China and the West. It's deeply symbolic - it's a confirmation of a multi-polar world that the West denies.”

While Moscow has reportedly pushed for discussions on Ukraine, Beijing has resisted placing the conflict formally on the summit agenda. Individuals briefed on the planning process say Chinese officials have sought to avoid turning the gathering into a forum centred on the war. A US official similarly suggested that Trump is unlikely to raise Ukraine during three-way discussions, arguing that such a forum is not the appropriate venue for negotiations on the conflict.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov acknowledged that suggestions regarding a possible agenda are still being exchanged. “In any case, the meeting will certainly be interesting. And, of course, it will capture the attention of people all over the world,” he said.

China’s role as host carries its own challenges. Beijing has strengthened ties with Moscow in recent years through growing energy trade, expanding strategic cooperation and deeper exchanges in technology and military expertise. At the same time, China seeks to portray itself as a champion of developing nations and a supporter of a more inclusive international order. Comparisons with Yalta are therefore politically sensitive because China itself was excluded from that historic conference.

For Trump, the summit would represent the latest in a series of high-profile diplomatic encounters, following previous meetings with Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Those earlier engagements generated considerable publicity but ultimately failed to produce lasting strategic breakthroughs.

Facing a more challenging domestic political environment, Trump may view international diplomacy as an avenue for demonstrating leadership and reinforcing his statesmanlike credentials. Potential progress on arms control, strategic stability or broader international security issues could provide a significant foreign-policy achievement.

Kurt Tong, a former senior US State Department official responsible for East Asia and now a managing partner at the Asia Group consultancy, said, “The president will undoubtedly be seeking to use this trip to reassert leadership, authority, demonstrate his statesmanship capabilities, and essentially show off on the international stage.”

Whether the meeting produces substantive outcomes or remains largely symbolic, its significance lies in the image of the leaders of the United States, China and Russia sitting together at a moment when the international order is under increasing strain.

For supporters, it offers an opportunity for dialogue among major powers. For critics, it raises fears that the interests of smaller nations could be overshadowed by geopolitical bargaining among the world's strongest states.

Agencies