A Putin–Trump–Xi summit on Ukraine would be a trap that serves Russia and China and ends badly for Trump and Ukraine
Source: Fred Kaplan. "Ukraine: Putin is throwing Trump a bone—but it's laced with poison.." October 19, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
Kaplan says Putin's offer of a summit with Trump and Xi looks flattering to Trump, but it's a trap. Trump has already given up his bargaining chips, so the meeting would likely be used to force terms on Ukraine while helping Russia and China weaken American influence. He hopes Trump will say no, but isn't confident.
Conclusion
Trump should not (and, Kaplan hopes, may not) accept Putin's proposed three-way summit with Xi on ending the Ukraine war, because it would serve as a forum for dictating terms of Ukraine's surrender, would leave Trump outmatched and without leverage, and would harm U.S. influence and global alliances while benefiting Russia and China.
Premises
- The summit idea appeals to Trump's worldview and his admiration for autocrats: great powers dividing spheres of influence while excluding Europeans and Ukrainians, and elevating Trump as a great-power leader.
- Historical analogies to Yalta or the Congress of Vienna are self-flattering fantasy, because those meetings were convened by or among victors to stabilize or reorder Europe after a war, whereas here the summit would include the aggressor (Putin) and a supporter of the aggressor (Xi).
- Trump would enter the summit with no leverage, because he has cut off aid to Ukraine, waived the congressionally passed sanctions on Russia, and declared himself, in effect, a Russian ally, abandoning the tools he could have used to pressure Putin.
- Putin's stated goal is to eliminate Ukraine as a sovereign nation, so a summit with Putin would likely be used to codify and begin enacting Ukraine's surrender, and Zelensky himself acknowledges Ukraine cannot win if the U.S. allies with Russia.
- Xi would benefit from the summit because Trump's abandonment of Ukraine would accelerate the decline of U.S. influence, pushing Europe and Asia to make separate trade and security arrangements.
- The timing is perverse: the moves favoring Russia come when Ukraine had been making headway and Russia had suffered major setbacks.
- Trump's top aides and bipartisan backlash over the diesel deal and sanctions waiver might restrain him, but this is only a hope, since Trump's craving for recognition as a powerful leader and a peacemaker's legacy may override consequences he may not understand.
Assumptions
- Putin's stated aim of eliminating Ukraine as a sovereign nation is sincere and would drive his behavior at any summit.
- Trump's psychological desire for recognition from strongman leaders strongly influences his foreign-policy decisions.
- Leverage in negotiation depends on credible threats of aid and sanctions, which Trump has already given away.
- A deal negotiated without Ukraine and Europe would be illegitimate or unfavorable to Ukraine's interests.
- Declining U.S. influence and weakened alliances are bad outcomes, and Xi's interests lie in bringing them about.
- The factual reports (WSJ account of the proposal, Trump's sanctions waiver, aid cutoff, Musk satellite limits) are accurate as characterized.