The proposal emerged from a telephone conversation between Putin and Trump on October 9. While the Kremlin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, confirmed that discussions regarding a possible meeting are ongoing, he clarified that there is no clear understanding of the format or agenda, stating that all three parties acknowledge the “hypothetical possibility” of such a summit. A former Russian intelligence officer briefed on the matter told the WSJ that Putin raised the idea during that call. Concurrently, the two leaders reached an agreement for the United States to purchase Russian diesel oil and facilitate its sale on the global market. This commercial link is significant, as it intertwines energy trade with diplomatic leverage.
For Chinese President Xi Jinping, hosting such a dialogue would represent a critical step in elevating China’s role as a diplomatic mediator. Russian officials conveyed the idea to Beijing through diplomatic channels, and sources close to recent Moscow-Beijing negotiations indicate that the Chinese side signaled it would not object if Trump joined the conversation. The White House has declined to comment, while the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for clarification. However, a senior U.S. official noted that Trump has not yet agreed to the summit, though he may view the idea positively given his campaign promise to end the war.
The exclusion of Kyiv has triggered immediate alarm. As the WSJ noted, a summit without Zelenskyy would be unprecedented. European capitals and allies in Washington are concerned that this arrangement allows Putin to exploit the warming relations between him and Trump to dictate terms. This anxiety is compounded by recent U.S. actions that appear to shift the balance of power. Trump recently defended his decision to temporarily lift sanctions on Russian diesel exports and issued an executive order on October 18 waiving new Russia sanctions from a bill introduced by the late Senator Lindsey Graham.
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has publicly opposed this trajectory. In a post on X, he stated that the decision to block these sanctions measures “seems wrong to me.” He told Bloomberg that “steps have been taken to convince Ukraine to capitulate,” adding, “I don’t want to think that our American partners believe the war could be ended sooner at Ukraine’s expense. But that’s how it looks.” Zelenskyy also criticized the lack of reciprocity from Moscow, noting that Russia is using signals of opportunity to make money, proving that their bet on war is paying off.
The economic implications of the diesel deal and the broader sanctions relief are central to the current standoff. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) argued in a report that Trump’s October 16 Executive Order does not support his stated foreign policy objectives. Instead, the ISW contends it will enable Russia to continue financing and protracting the war without proper incentives to engage in meaningful peace negotiations. This assessment contrasts with Trump’s own justification, where he stated on Truth Social that his sanctions relief was intended to avoid doing “anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.”
Tensions have escalated further over military infrastructure and communications. Trump told Ukraine to stop striking Russian energy infrastructure, claiming such attacks were driving up diesel prices. A so-called “energy ceasefire” announced by Trump on October 11 saw Moscow continuing strikes on Ukraine’s infrastructure. Ukraine paused its strikes for three days but resumed attacks last Thursday. In response, Kyiv accused Washington of ordering restrictions on its Starshield networks, the military-grade version of SpaceX’s Starlink used to control military forces and defend against Russian strikes.
The dispute over Starlink has become a focal point of distrust. Ukrainian media reported that Zelenskyy called the restrictions a “planned operation,” noting that cars equipped with Starlink sent to EU countries did not experience similar connectivity issues. Reuters reported, citing two U.S. officials, that the order to restrict Starlink in Ukraine came from the White House. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk pinned responsibility on the U.S. government, writing on X that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the U.S. government.” The restrictions reportedly affected platforms traveling above 160 kilometers per hour, such as interceptor drones, causing a loss of connectivity. The Telegraph reported that Musk had approached Trump with the idea of slowing down Starlink in Ukraine, and both played a hand in imposing the limits.
On the battlefield, the diplomatic maneuvering is mirrored by continued kinetic exchanges. Over the weekend, Kyiv and Moscow traded strikes. Ukraine launched a strike involving over 1,000 drones into Russia, setting fires at an oil export terminal and a refinery in St. Petersburg. Simultaneously, Moscow pounded Kyiv with ballistic missiles. The ISW’s analysis that Russia is not taking reciprocal steps in response to sanctions relief is supported by these continued military actions.
As the date for the APEC summit in Shenzhen approaches, the economic and diplomatic stakes continue to rise. The proposed trilateral dialogue remains unconfirmed, but its mere suggestion has reshaped the landscape of peace negotiations. For households and markets, the uncertainty lies in the potential for a de facto recognition of the war’s status quo if a deal is struck without Kyiv’s participation. The next critical moment will be whether Trump agrees to attend, and whether the European allies and Ukraine can influence the outcome before the leaders convene in the Chinese city.
