From Ukraine to Taiwan, from Moscow's internal shadows to the Middle East, one proposed summit could become a diplomatic breakthrough - or another grand performance in the theatre of global power.
Previously, I wrote about the alleged neo-Nazi
element within the Russia-Ukraine war, examining a conflict that has become
much bigger than two countries exchanging fire. Readers who missed the earlier
discussion can revisit it here:
Now… 19 October 2026: Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly proposed a
trilateral summit with US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi
Jinping to discuss ways to end the war in Ukraine.
The possibility of such a meeting, reportedly linked to the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Shenzhen, China, could send shockwaves far beyond Europe. However, the proposal should not be confused with a confirmed meeting or an agreed peace plan.
On paper, the idea sounds promising. Three
powerful leaders, one table, and the possibility of ending a war that has
consumed lives, money and political goodwill for years. Who would complain
about peace?
Even the most cynical person in the room might
put down his coffee for a moment. But hold on. Before we start distributing
Nobel Peace Prizes in our imagination, perhaps we should ask a more
uncomfortable question: peace on whose terms?
Putin may want a settlement that protects
Russia's strategic interests and preserves its gains.
Trump may see an opportunity to demonstrate that
his administration can deliver a diplomatic breakthrough.
Xi may welcome the chance to position China as a
major power capable of bringing Washington and Moscow into the same room.
3 leaders, 3 political agendas, 3 different definitions of victory.
And where, exactly, is Ukraine in this
conversation?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy leads the
country whose territory, sovereignty and people are directly at stake.
Who is paying the contractor?
Of course, an initial summit involving three
major powers does not automatically mean Ukraine will be excluded from
subsequent negotiations.
Quiet diplomacy can open doors that public
speeches cannot.
And some say:
35% probability to a limited diplomatic
breakthrough:
The three leaders might agree on a framework for
further negotiations, including an initial ceasefire, prisoner exchanges,
humanitarian arrangements or restrictions on attacks against certain
infrastructure.
Such a development could reduce immediate
suffering, calm markets and create space for more serious discussions. The
catch is that the hardest questions -territorial control, sanctions, security
guarantees and future military deployments - might remain unresolved. A
ceasefire can be a beginning, but it is not a magic wand.
25% probability of a settlement that
substantially favours Moscow:
Washington and Moscow might move towards an
arrangement that accepts certain territorial realities on the ground or limits
some of Ukraine's future security choices.
In the short term, the reduction in hostilities
could bring relief to civilians and reduce the economic burden of war.
But if territorial conquest appears to have been
rewarded without credible safeguards against renewed aggression, other
governments may draw a dangerous conclusion: that military force can eventually
produce diplomatic gains. Ukraine could receive a ceasefire without receiving
the security needed to make that ceasefire last.
25% probability could be assigned to a
summit that produces headlines but little substance:
The leaders meet, exchange carefully prepared statements, promise to keep talking and return home to explain why the meeting was a success.
The cameras capture the handshakes while diplomats continue
arguing over the details. This would not necessarily be a complete failure;
even limited communication can reduce the risk of miscalculation. But if the
meeting is marketed as a historic breakthrough before any substantive agreement
exists, public expectations could collapse as quickly as they rose.
15% probability to a breakdown in
negotiations accompanied by heightened tensions:
The parties might fail to agree on a framework, or one side might interpret the discussions as an attempt to pressure it into unacceptable concessions. Military operations could continue, sanctions could remain a major point of contention, and political rhetoric could harden.
A
diplomatic breakdown would not automatically mean a wider war, but the absence
of a credible route towards peace could prolong the conflict and increase the
danger of miscalculation.
P/S: "These figures add up to 100% for presentation purposes. Real events, however, do not always follow a tidy spreadsheet."
The view is simple: peace is not merely the absence of gunfire. It is an arrangement in which people do not have to live permanently under "the threat that the next war is already being prepared."
The three leaders may have the power to open negotiations, but they cannot
manufacture lasting peace by exchanging handshakes alone.
In geopolitics, everybody wants to write history.
The real test is whether the people who pay the price of that history are
allowed to help write its ending...
Standby for Part 2...
Comments
Post a Comment