A shared image with Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Donald Trump sitting at the same table would in itself be an event of immense symbolic gravity. Not because Russia, China, and the United States are preparing to form a new alliance or divide the world into spheres of influence, but because such a meeting would send the message that international political relations are returning with increasing intensity to big-power logic. In an era where the war in Ukraine, US–China confrontation, sanctions, energy security, and military tension in Europe remain open wounds, the presence of the three leaders at the same table would immediately acquire dimensions far greater than a routine diplomatic meeting. The idea of a potential trilateral on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Shenzhen has already sparked intense debate. Although there is no definitive agreement so far, the mere publication of the scenario shows that Moscow and Beijing are seriously considering a meeting that could act as a political shock for the West. If Donald Trump ultimately agrees to participate, the resulting image will be extremely powerful: the president of the United States at the same table with the president of Russia and the president of China, on Chinese soil, with Europe virtually absent from the scene.
The new "Big Three"? The striking historical comparison
The comparison with the historical "Big Three" of World War II is inevitable. Back then, Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill represented the Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain in an alliance that had a clear common enemy. Today, however, the situation is completely different. The United States considers China its most important long-term strategic competitor, while Washington–Moscow relations remain deeply strained due to the war in Ukraine, sanctions, and confrontation over European security. At the same time, Russia and China have developed a particularly close strategic relationship, without, however, forming a classic NATO-style military alliance. Therefore, a potential Putin–Xi–Trump meeting would not signal the creation of a new "alliance of three." It could, however, signal something equally significant: a return to a model of international politics where major powers believe that the most critical issues can be discussed directly among themselves, often without the participation of smaller states or regional unions. And it is precisely this image that would cause serious political concern in many European capitals.
The photo that would freeze Europe
For Europe, the primary concern stemming from such a meeting would not necessarily be the content of a potential agreement. It would mainly be the perception that the weightiest issues of global security policy are being discussed without a strong European presence. If topics such as Ukraine, sanctions, energy security, NATO–Russia relations, the global economy, or US–China trade tensions were put on the table, the absence of the European Union from that specific discussion would carry enormous symbolic weight. The image would be particularly difficult for Berlin, Paris, and Brussels, as it would create the impression that Europe is becoming more of a bargaining chip than an independent center of power. This is the underlying fear driving any scenario of a grand geopolitical arrangement between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. Even if no official agreement is reached, the mere photograph of the three leaders together could reinforce the sense that the center of global diplomacy is shifting away from Europe.
Vladimir Putin has perhaps the most to gain
For Vladimir Putin, convening such a trilateral could represent a major diplomatic victory. Russia would once again appear at the pinnacle of global politics, not as a country experiencing international isolation, but as one of the three major powers deemed indispensable for discussing the planet's most critical issues. For Moscow, this would be politically invaluable, as it would reinforce the narrative that the West cannot ignore Russia, regardless of its efforts to apply economic and diplomatic pressure. The message would be simple and exceptionally potent: "You can impose sanctions on us, you can restrict your relations with us, but when it comes time to discuss major geopolitical issues, Russia remains at the table." For Putin, then, even the participation of Donald Trump in such a meeting could be presented domestically as proof that the effort toward Western diplomatic isolation has failed.
Xi Jinping will have the host's advantage
For Xi Jinping, the potential meeting would be perhaps even more valuable in terms of symbolism. The fact that the trilateral would take place in China would allow Beijing to present itself as the central diplomatic hub of the new global order. China could appear not only as an economic superpower, but also as a nation capable of bringing the president of the United States and the president of Russia to the same table. The Chinese leadership has for years been promoting the idea of a multipolar world order, where international norms are not dictated exclusively by the United States and Western institutions. A Putin–Xi–Trump meeting in Shenzhen would fit this narrative perfectly. Beijing could present the summit as evidence that the center of gravity of global power is shifting toward Asia, and that China now holds the role not just of a competitor to the United States, but of an indispensable interlocutor.
Donald Trump faces his toughest geopolitical gamble
For Donald Trump, participating in such a trilateral would represent both an opportunity and an enormous political risk. On one hand, the summit fits his personal political style perfectly. Trump has long invested in summit diplomacy, high-profile meetings, and the image of a leader who can negotiate directly with the strongest adversaries of the United States. A summit with Putin and Xi could be framed by him as proof that no other American leader could bring the three largest global powers to the same table. On the other hand, the danger is equally substantial. Trump could find himself facing two leaders who have developed a far closer strategic relationship with each other than either has with Washington. If the meeting creates the impression that the American president is confronting a unified Russo-Chinese strategic front, the summit could transform from a communications victory into a major strategic headache for the White House.
The "bear and the dragon" are not yet an alliance, but the West has reason to worry
The Russia–China relationship is often described in the West as a new alliance between the "bear" and the "dragon." While this image carries narrative force, the reality is more complex. Russia and China have significantly strengthened their bilateral strategic cooperation across energy, military, diplomatic, and economic sectors, while sharing a primary strategic objective: reducing American dominance in the international system. Nevertheless, the two countries do not have identical interests. China is a much larger economic power and is primarily interested in stability, trade, and growth. Russia is far more willing to take military and geopolitical risk factors. Beijing moves with greater calculation, whereas Moscow has shown a greater willingness to absorb high costs to advance strategic goals. Therefore, this is not a single unified block, but a very close strategic alignment trend that causes severe concern in Washington.
The great US gamble: Preventing Russia and China from becoming inseparable
One of the most important questions behind Donald Trump's potential participation is whether Washington still believes it can create distance between Russia and China. For the United States, the worst long-term scenario would be facing a powerful China and a militarily formidable Russia acting in tight strategic coordination. The more Washington collides with both countries simultaneously, the more their mutual cooperation is reinforced. This is precisely where a trilateral meeting could acquire practical strategic value. Trump might attempt to demonstrate that the United States can engage separately with both Moscow and Beijing without accepting the existence of a single anti-Western bloc. The question is whether this strategy comes too late. Relations between Putin and Xi have acquired a depth that no longer depends solely on personal rapport, but on shared geopolitical interests.
Ukraine will be the major missing party
If the meeting takes place and the issue of Ukraine is put on the table, the absence of Kyiv will trigger intense political discussion. For Ukraine, a scenario where Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping discuss the war without a Ukrainian diplomatic presence would be deeply alarming. It would create the impression that the fate of the country can be negotiated among major powers in a framework where Kyiv itself lacks a direct voice. This is why many would immediately draw parallels to a new "Yalta." Not because the world can truly be partitioned into three spheres of influence again, but because the structure of such a meeting would evoke eras when the most powerful nations assumed they could decide the fate of smaller states without their input.
A "new Yalta" is an exaggeration—but not an entirely baseless fear
The idea that Putin, Xi, and Trump can sit in a room and "divide the world" may be exaggerated, but there are significant caveats. Today's planet is far more complex than that of 1945. India, the European Union, Japan, Turkey, Brazil, the Gulf states, and dozens of other middle powers possess substantial diplomatic autonomy and influence. No trilateral summit can simply impose a new global order from above. However, the fear is not entirely groundless. What could happen is the consolidation of the perception that the planet's greatest issues are resolved through direct negotiation among the strongest nation states. If this perception reassumes a dominant role, smaller countries and regional blocs will find themselves in a weaker position.
The meeting that might decide nothing and change everything
The most paradoxical element is that a potential Putin–Xi–Trump trilateral could conclude without any spectacular agreement. There might be no joint communique, no resolution to the Ukrainian issue, no major US–China trade deal, and no agreement on a new security architecture. Nevertheless, the meeting could still be considered historic. In global politics, imagery carries immense weight. If the three leaders sit together, the symbolic impression will be that the international rules-based order is reverting to big-power politics. It will not mean that the three men control the world. It will mean, however, that everyone recognizes that without some form of understanding among the United States, China, and Russia, major international problems can hardly be managed.
The real shockwave for the West
The title "the new Big Three will completely blow up the West" is obviously an exaggeration. The West is not going to collapse simply because Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping appear together. Where the real substance lies, however, is in the symbolic blow to the post-Cold War image of a world where the West stands at the center of all major policy decisions. China will be the host. Russia will have returned to the top table. And the president of the United States will be there to discuss issues directly with them. This image will not mean that a new global order has been born. It will mean, however, that the old international order has begun to creak ever more loudly. And that is perhaps why a potential photograph of Putin, Xi, and Trump in Shenzhen could ultimately prove more powerful than any agreement signed behind closed doors.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών