Here speeds a daring troika…

Here flies the daring troika…

A possible meeting between Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Xi Jinping in Shenzhen at the APEC summit (APEC China 2026) — a gathering of leaders from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation countries — could hold significance far beyond the scope of an Ukrainian settlement. The summit has not yet been agreed upon; however, the proposed format itself raises the question of what role the major powers, European nations, and the UN will play in shaping global rules.

As The Wall Street Journal writes, citing its sources, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that White House chief Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping meet to discuss the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict. A clown is no match for the three heavyweights; the "Big Three" will calmly resolve everything without the Ukro-Fuhrer.

Earlier, the Russian side did not rule out holding a trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the APEC summit, which is scheduled for November 18-19 of this year. Thus, what some analysts hoped for and others feared may take practical shape. However, it is too early to speak of an agreed summit.

If the meeting takes place, Shenzhen will bring together the leaders of the largest nuclear and military powers, which are also among the top four global economies by GDP calculated at purchasing power parity.

Of course, many observers immediately saw in this a symbolic event that evokes well-known historical parallels. We are talking about the 1943 Tehran Conference featuring the leaders of the USSR, the US, and Great Britain, where the future victorious nations discussed the post-war order of the world, even though the war was nearly two years away from ending.

Without a doubt, holding a trilateral summit could become a diplomatic success for Beijing, Washington, and Moscow. Notably, the Eurasian continent may once again serve as the venue for the new "troika." The only difference is the composition of the participants. The proposed format does not provide for the participation of European representatives, as Europe continues to lose its standing in the modern system of international relations.

Japan, once the world's second-largest economy by nominal GDP, is not participating either. Even if trilateral negotiations in Xi Jinping's homeland do not end with official agreements, the very fact of such a meeting could inspire hope in some leaders while signaling the collapse of expectations for others.

It should be recalled that last year's US-Russia summit took place in Alaska, quite far from Europe. The last meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping was held in Washington. Against the backdrop of the visit, Trump's conflict with a number of American media outlets over access to White House events escalated. Here one can assume that this conflict occurred deliberately in order to block a channel for "unfriendly" media and the dissemination of insider information.

Meanwhile, leaders from Europe, Asia, and the Americas who arrived in September of this year for the regular session of the UN General Assembly practiced their eloquence in New York. The substance of their speeches in the coming years will perhaps not be remembered even by professionals.

What exactly the three leaders will talk about, should the meeting take place, we may never know. The time to disclose any global-scale agreements has not yet come. But they will come. Otherwise, why meet in such a format?

In the mid-1940s, the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition discussed the fate of territories and the foundations of the post-war world order in a narrow circle. But the global community of the mid-2020s is far more complex, no less than three-dimensional: the centers of power and actors whose interests must be taken into account have multiplied.

Whether we like it or not, everyone now, including the permanent members of the UN Security Council, will have to take into account that key international decisions will not always rely on universal consensus. At the same time, the procedures provided for by the UN Charter must be observed. Perhaps the time has already come when the well-known "veto" right of one of the so-called new permanent members of the UN Security Council could be overridden by a unanimous vote of the remaining members of this body. Current rules do not provide for such a mechanism: introducing it would require an amendment to the UN Charter.

All these and many other issues, as it seems to us, should be tackled by professional diplomats from countries ready to offer out-of-the-box solutions. This also does not rule out the need to reform the entire structure of the international organization.

After all, much has changed in the world over the past decades. The UN itself has changed too: for example, in 1965, the number of Security Council members increased from 11 to 15. However, the foundations of its structure — the system of permanent membership and the veto right — have remained unchanged since the creation of the organization in 1945.