Can Trump, Putin and Xi Make a Ukraine Peace Deal Without Ukraine?

Introduction

Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping can negotiate a peace proposal concerning Ukraine without Ukrainian participation, but they cannot legally impose a binding settlement on Kyiv through an agreement among themselves. The proposed Trump–Putin–Xi Ukraine peace deal raises a fundamental question of international law: whether three powerful governments can determine another sovereign state's territorial boundaries, military obligations, or political future without its consent. International treaty law generally prevents such an agreement from creating obligations for Ukraine, although the participating governments could make commitments regulating their own conduct.

The question acquired immediate diplomatic significance on October 19, 2026, when Reuters reported that Putin had proposed a trilateral summit with Trump and Xi to discuss ending the war in Ukraine on terms favorable to Moscow. According to reporting initially published by The Wall Street Journal, the suggestion arose during an October 9 telephone conversation between the Russian and American presidents. The proposed encounter could take place alongside the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders' meeting in Shenzhen, China, scheduled for November 18–19. The Kremlin subsequently acknowledged that a possible meeting had been discussed but stated that no concrete arrangements or negotiating agenda had been agreed (Reuters, 2026a, 2026b).

The possibility of a trilateral summit raises legal questions distinct from its diplomatic significance. Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties protects states against treaty obligations created without their consent, while the United Nations Charter establishes separate restrictions concerning sovereignty, aggression, and territorial acquisition. Any settlement requiring Ukrainian territorial concessions or constitutional changes would also encounter Ukraine's domestic legal requirements. These restrictions do not prevent Washington, Moscow, and Beijing from negotiating, but they limit what those negotiations could lawfully determine on Ukraine's behalf.

1. The Proposed Trump–Putin–Xi Meeting

The reported initiative emerged amid continuing Russian military operations in Ukraine and serious disagreements between Washington and Kyiv over American policy toward Moscow. In its October 19 report, Putin Proposes Summit with Trump and Xi to Discuss Ukraine Deal, WSJ Says, Reuters attributed the original proposal to Putin, citing The Wall Street Journal. The reported objective was to explore an arrangement for ending the conflict that would accommodate Russian interests (Reuters, 2026b).

The suggested location was Shenzhen, where China was scheduled to host the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting on November 18–19, 2026. The gathering could provide an opportunity for bilateral or trilateral diplomatic encounters. Its existence, however, does not establish that the three presidents have agreed to hold a separate meeting concerning Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the possibility of such a meeting had been raised. He also stated that no specific proposals or agreements concerning its organization, agenda, or substance had been adopted. These remarks were reported in Reuters' separate October 19 article, Kremlin Says Putin, Trump and Xi Could Hold a Three-Way Meeting in China Next Month (Reuters, 2026a). A possible summit is not an agreed negotiating process, and preliminary diplomatic conversations do not establish the existence of a peace treaty.

1.1 Putin's Initiative and Trump's Response

Putin's reported proposal would bring Russia's preferred settlement of the Ukraine conflict into discussions involving the leaders of the United States and China. Such a format could give Moscow an opportunity to address its security demands directly with Washington while involving Beijing in a diplomatic process that might influence the conflict's eventual outcome.

That prospective advantage remains a matter of diplomatic assessment. The reporting does not establish that Russia obtained American or Chinese agreement on territorial concessions, Ukrainian neutrality, or military restrictions. Descriptions of Putin's intentions attributed to informed sources must also be distinguished from official negotiating positions expressed publicly by the governments concerned.

Trump subsequently indicated that he would be willing to participate in a trilateral meeting. In its October 19 report, Trump Says He Is Open to Joining Trilateral Meeting with Xi, Putin, Reuters recorded his interest in discussing nuclear weapons and denuclearization (Reuters, 2026c). His response did not confirm acceptance of a Ukraine-specific settlement agenda. Negotiations concerning the nuclear policies of the United States, Russia, and China would involve a different set of legal commitments from an agreement purporting to determine Ukrainian sovereignty.

1.2 China's Position on Negotiations Involving Ukraine

China has articulated its position on the war through several official diplomatic documents. On February 24, 2023, its Ministry of Foreign Affairs published China's Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis, a twelve-point statement addressing sovereignty, hostilities, humanitarian concerns, nuclear security, and the resumption of peace negotiations. Its opening principle called for respect for the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of all countries (Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2023).

In May 2024, China and Brazil issued their Common Understandings on Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis. The document supported an international peace conference recognized by both Russia and Ukraine, with equal participation and discussion of competing peace proposals. It reflected a diplomatic preference for negotiations involving the principal belligerents rather than a settlement determined exclusively by outside governments (Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2024).

These positions are relevant to the October 2026 proposal, but they do not conclusively establish Xi's intentions concerning it. Beijing's declared support for sovereignty and negotiations involving Russia and Ukraine does not necessarily prevent Chinese participation in preliminary discussions with Washington and Moscow. Equally, China's relationship with Russia cannot be treated as evidence that Beijing has agreed to endorse Russian territorial claims or negotiate binding concessions on Ukraine's behalf.

1.3 Ukraine's Objections and Europe's Position

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha publicly criticized the proposed trilateral format. In remarks reported in Reuters' October 19 account of the Kremlin's response, he distinguished negotiations involving Ukraine, the United States, and Russia from a meeting involving Russia, China, and the United States. He argued that the latter arrangement could encourage Putin to continue the war rather than accelerate its conclusion (Reuters, 2026a).

Ukraine's objection is consistent with its established diplomatic position. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's ten-point Peace Formula addresses nuclear safety, food and energy security, the release of prisoners and deported persons, restoration of territorial integrity, Russian troop withdrawal, accountability, environmental protection, security guarantees, and confirmation of the war's end. The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs continued promoting these objectives in 2024 as elements of a comprehensive settlement grounded in the UN Charter. The formula represents Ukraine's diplomatic proposal, not a treaty binding Russia or other governments (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, 2024).

The European Union has also insisted upon Ukrainian participation. In its conclusions of June 18, 2026, the European Council reaffirmed Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and internationally recognized borders. It maintained that decisions concerning the path to peace could not be made without Ukraine and that the Union would determine questions falling within its own competences or affecting European security (European Council, 2026). These positions establish the interests of the affected governments, although they do not themselves create an unconditional legal right to participate in every preliminary diplomatic conversation.

2. Can Trump, Putin and Xi Legally Bind Ukraine?

International law recognizes states as sovereign legal entities possessing rights and obligations independently of the preferences of other governments. A state's military strength, economic influence, or permanent membership of the UN Security Council does not ordinarily confer authority to create treaty obligations for another state without its consent.

Governments regularly discuss conflicts involving states that are absent from particular diplomatic meetings. Such discussions may produce proposals, political declarations, or commitments among the participating governments. Their legal effects depend on the character of the instrument and the identity of the states that have accepted obligations under it.

The decisive treaty-law distinction concerns obligations undertaken by the parties to an agreement and obligations purportedly imposed upon a third state. Articles 34–38 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establish the relevant rules. They also distinguish treaty-created rights from obligations arising independently under customary international law.

2.1 Pacta Tertiis and Vienna Convention Article 34

The governing principle is pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt, conventionally understood to mean that treaties neither impose obligations nor confer rights on third states without their consent. Article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention expresses this general rule. Its purpose is to preserve the distinction between states that have accepted an international agreement and those that remain outside it (United Nations, 1969, art. 34).

Ukraine would remain a third state if the United States, Russia, and China concluded a treaty without Kyiv becoming a party. Provisions requiring Ukraine to withdraw its armed forces, adopt permanent neutrality, relinquish territorial claims, or accept restrictions on its sovereign powers could not become binding on Ukraine merely because the three governments included them in their agreement. The principle belongs to the broader law of treaties governed by the Vienna Convention, under which consent is central to the creation of treaty obligations.

The Convention's formal application requires a qualification. Russia, China, and Ukraine are parties to the 1969 Convention, whereas the United States signed it on April 24, 1970, without subsequently ratifying it. The United States nevertheless treats many Convention provisions as reflecting customary international law, as explained in the US Department of State's account of international treaty-law authorities. The principle concerning third-state consent has a customary foundation independent of American ratification.

The International Court of Justice's 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf judgments provide a related, but narrower, illustration. The Court distinguished obligations arising under a particular treaty from rules capable of binding states independently as customary international law. Those judgments did not concern Ukraine or directly interpret Article 34. Their relevance is the distinction between treaty participation and other recognized foundations of international legal obligation (ICJ, 1969).

2.2 Third-State Obligations and Rights Under Articles 35–36

Article 35 of the Vienna Convention specifies the conditions for creating a treaty obligation for a third state. The parties must intend the treaty provision to establish that obligation, and the third state must expressly accept it in writing. An agreement requiring Ukrainian demilitarization or neutrality could not satisfy this provision through the consent of Washington, Moscow, and Beijing alone.

Article 36 governs rights intended to benefit third states. A treaty may confer a right where its parties intend that result and the third state assents. Assent may be presumed unless the contrary is indicated or the treaty provides otherwise. A provision intended to grant Ukraine financial assistance or a defined security benefit could potentially fall within this mechanism, depending on the instrument's legal character and precise wording (United Nations, 1969, arts. 35–36).

A political declaration offering assistance does not necessarily create an enforceable third-state treaty right. The governments' intention to be legally bound, the terms of the proposed benefit, and the applicable rules concerning assent must all be considered. Nor does Ukraine's acceptance of a benefit establish consent to separate obligations concerning territory or military policy.

Article 38 preserves another distinction. A rule contained in a treaty may become binding on third states independently through customary international law. This does not permit three governments to transform a specific Ukrainian territorial concession into a customary obligation merely by agreeing upon it. Such a concession would require its own lawful basis.

2.3 Negotiating Without Ukraine and Concluding Peace for Ukraine

International law generally permits states to exchange diplomatic proposals concerning conflicts in which they are not direct belligerents. Mediation, preliminary negotiations, and consultations among interested governments may occur without every affected state attending every meeting. The absence of Ukrainian representatives would not, by itself, make a Trump–Putin–Xi conference unlawful.

The legal position changes when negotiations produce commitments intended to bind Ukraine. Under the Vienna Convention, a state expresses consent through recognized procedures, including signature, ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession where applicable. Article 7 also distinguishes representatives authorized to act on behalf of a state. Ukraine's president would not necessarily need to attend every negotiation personally, provided that any eventual commitment was accepted by properly authorized Ukrainian representatives through the applicable procedures (United Nations, 1969).

A trilateral document could consequently contain provisions with different legal effects. Its commitments concerning Russian military conduct or American sanctions policy might bind the participating governments, while proposed Ukrainian obligations remained ineffective against Kyiv. Describing the document as a final peace agreement would not remove that limitation. Its legal consequences would depend on what each government had actually undertaken and the legal authority supporting those undertakings.

3. What Could the Three Powers Agree Without Kyiv?

An agreement that cannot impose obligations on Ukraine may still produce significant legal and political consequences. Washington, Moscow, and Beijing could negotiate commitments concerning their own military, economic, and diplomatic conduct, provided those commitments complied with their existing international obligations and applicable domestic law.

The participating governments possess different forms of influence over the conflict. Russia controls the conduct of its own armed forces. American decisions concerning military assistance and sanctions affect Ukraine's security and Russia's economic circumstances. China's diplomatic and economic relations with Moscow may influence broader negotiations, although their extent and application depend on Beijing's actual decisions.

These powers permit substantial diplomatic bargaining without establishing a right to decide Ukraine's sovereign obligations. The scope of any trilateral agreement must be assessed according to whose conduct it regulates and which governments have validly accepted its terms.

3.1 Sanctions, Military Assistance, and Security Commitments

The United States could negotiate changes to sanctions operating under American jurisdiction, subject to applicable statutory restrictions and the powers conferred upon the executive branch. Some measures may be modified through executive action, while others depend on legislation or prescribed procedures. A presidential commitment to remove sanctions would consequently require examination of the specific measures involved rather than an assumption of unrestricted executive authority.

Washington could also alter aspects of military assistance and diplomatic cooperation within applicable legal limits. Such changes might affect Ukraine's ability to defend itself or Russia's incentives to negotiate. Their political consequences could be extensive without creating corresponding Ukrainian treaty obligations.

China could undertake diplomatic or economic commitments of its own, including measures intended to support negotiations. A security assurance might also create legal obligations if embodied in an instrument that genuinely established them. Other assurances could remain political commitments without treaty status. The distinction depends on the agreed terms and the participating governments' intention to create legal obligations.

3.2 NATO Membership, Ukrainian Neutrality, and EU Competence

Ukraine's future relationship with NATO cannot be determined exclusively by Russia, China, and the United States. Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty requires unanimous agreement among existing members before an eligible European state may be invited to accede. The United States could withhold the agreement necessary for Ukrainian membership, but Russia and China possess no formal authority within NATO's accession procedure (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, art. 10).

Permanent neutrality raises a separate question. An undertaking by Ukraine to refrain from joining military alliances or hosting foreign forces would affect its own sovereign conduct. Washington might promise not to support Ukrainian NATO accession, but such a commitment would not independently bind Kyiv to neutrality. Ukrainian acceptance and the relevant constitutional requirements would remain necessary for obligations undertaken by Ukraine itself.

The European Union exercises equally distinct institutional competences. Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union establishes the procedure for admitting new members, involving EU institutions, existing member states, and the applicant country. A trilateral agreement could neither confer EU membership on Ukraine nor terminate its accession process. Likewise, sanctions adopted under EU law would require decisions through the Union's applicable procedures. The European Council's June 2026 conclusions expressly preserved the Union's authority over matters falling within its competence (European Union, 2016; European Council, 2026).

3.3 Unilateral Ceasefires and Reciprocal Military Obligations

Russia could undertake to suspend its own military operations without Ukraine assuming a reciprocal obligation. A commitment to cease particular attacks or withdraw Russian forces would concern conduct under Moscow's authority. Depending on the circumstances and terms, such an undertaking could take the form of a treaty obligation, another legally binding commitment, or a political declaration.

A reciprocal ceasefire would involve additional legal requirements. If Ukraine were expected to withdraw troops, maintain demilitarized areas, restrict weapons deployments, or comply with monitoring procedures, those obligations would require an applicable legal basis. An agreement signed exclusively by Russia, China, and the United States would not create Ukrainian treaty duties through the ordinary rules concerning third states.

The operational requirements of a ceasefire also differ from those of a permanent peace settlement. Effective arrangements generally require identifiable parties, defined obligations, communication procedures, and mechanisms for monitoring compliance. The distinction between temporarily suspending hostilities and resolving the underlying conflict is explained through the legal meaning and effects of a ceasefire. A unilateral Russian suspension could reduce violence without settling Ukraine's territorial or political status.

4. Ukraine's Borders and the Prohibition of Annexation

The restrictions on a trilateral agreement extend beyond treaty consent. International law prohibits the acquisition of territory through unlawful force, a principle associated with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law. A government cannot acquire lawful territorial sovereignty solely through military occupation or unilateral annexation measures.

These restrictions are directly relevant to Russia's territorial claims in Ukraine. Russia occupied Crimea in 2014 and subsequently purported to annex it. In September 2022, Moscow declared the annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, despite not controlling the entirety of those regions. The declarations did not establish lawful Russian sovereignty over the territory concerned.

A peace proposal could address military positions, territorial administration, or the sequencing of future negotiations without resolving sovereignty. Its legal character would depend on its provisions. An arrangement suspending fighting along existing lines of control would not necessarily have the same implications as an agreement recognizing Russian territorial title.

4.1 The UN Charter and Russia's Territorial Claims

Article 2(1) of the UN Charter establishes sovereign equality, Article 2(3) requires peaceful settlement of international disputes, and Article 2(4) prohibits the unlawful threat or use of force against another state's territorial integrity or political independence. These rules govern the legal assessment of territorial claims arising from Russia's military operations (United Nations, 1945).

The UN General Assembly addressed Russia's actions through successive resolutions. Resolution 68/262 of March 27, 2014, affirmed Ukraine's territorial integrity and rejected the validity of the purported Crimean referendum. Resolution ES-11/4 of October 12, 2022, condemned Russia's attempted annexation of four additional Ukrainian regions and called upon states not to recognize the purported changes in status (UN General Assembly, 2014, 2022).

General Assembly resolutions should not be confused with binding judicial judgments. Their significance lies in the positions expressed by the Assembly and the principles of international law to which they refer. Military occupation, administrative control, or domestic annexation legislation does not itself establish territorial sovereignty under international law.

The distinction can also be observed in the legal status of Russian elections in occupied Ukraine. The organization of elections or administrative institutions by an occupying power does not independently transfer sovereignty from the territorial state. The law governing occupation regulates the exercise of authority over territory without treating occupation as a lawful means of acquiring territorial title.

4.2 Recognition by Washington and Beijing

Recognition by the United States and China could affect diplomatic relations and the international treatment of Russian territorial claims. It could not, however, independently transfer sovereignty over Ukrainian territory to Russia. Recognition is a legal and diplomatic act by the recognizing state, not an unrestricted power to dispose of territory belonging to another sovereign state.

The principle of non-recognition is especially relevant where territorial situations arise from serious breaches of peremptory international norms. Article 41(2) of the International Law Commission's 2001 Articles on State Responsibility addresses the obligation not to recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach falling within Article 40. The Articles are an International Law Commission text rather than a treaty, and their individual provisions must be assessed according to their relationship with customary international law (ILC, 2001).

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the prohibition on territorial acquisition through force in its advisory opinion of July 19, 2024, concerning the Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem. In paragraphs 175–179, the Court considered the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force and concluded that Israel's policies and practices involving annexation violated that principle (ICJ, 2024).

The opinion addressed Israel's conduct rather than Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Its relevance to Ukraine lies in the general rule concerning territorial acquisition, not in any judicial determination of Russia's particular claims. The Court's reasoning supports the distinction between military control and lawful sovereignty, while the application of that rule to a hypothetical future settlement would still depend on the settlement's actual terms.

4.3 A Ceasefire Line Is Not a Recognized Border

A ceasefire line identifies where military forces agree to suspend or regulate their operations. It does not necessarily establish an international boundary. States may agree to military separation arrangements without relinquishing competing territorial claims or recognizing changes in sovereignty.

This distinction could become central to a Ukrainian settlement. Kyiv might accept a temporary cessation of hostilities along existing military positions while maintaining its legal claim to the occupied territories. Such an arrangement could regulate troop movements, monitoring, humanitarian access, and military conduct without purporting to transfer territorial title.

A permanent territorial settlement would raise different questions. The prohibition on acquisition through unlawful force must be distinguished from the possibility of lawful boundary changes agreed through valid procedures and consistent with applicable international law. A state is not categorically prohibited from participating in a peaceful territorial settlement, but an agreement cannot simply validate territorial acquisition produced by unlawful aggression. The circumstances of consent and the substantive terms would remain decisive.

5. Would Ukrainian Consent Make a Peace Deal Valid?

Ukraine's participation could resolve the immediate problem posed by an agreement purporting to impose obligations on a nonparticipating state. It would not automatically establish the legality of every proposed provision. Treaty validity also depends on how consent is obtained and whether an agreement conflicts with fundamental rules of international law.

International law distinguishes a state's capacity to conclude treaties from the validity of particular commitments. A state may possess the authority to enter into international agreements while facing restrictions concerning coercion, prohibited treaty provisions, or the competence of officials acting on its behalf.

The distinction would be particularly significant if a proposed settlement combined military measures, territorial concessions, neutrality obligations, and security guarantees. Each element could engage different legal requirements. A ceasefire suspending military operations would not necessarily require the same constitutional procedures as a permanent alteration of Ukrainian territory.

5.1 Article 52: Peace Treaties Concluded Under Coercion

Article 52 of the Vienna Convention provides that a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force contrary to the principles of the UN Charter. Article 51 separately concerns coercion of a state's representative through acts or threats directed against that person. The provisions address different forms of interference with the valid expression of treaty consent (United Nations, 1969, arts. 51–52).

The International Court of Justice considered an allegation of coercion in Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Judgment on Jurisdiction of February 2, 1973. Iceland had referred to the difficult circumstances surrounding a 1961 exchange of notes, including earlier British naval operations. In paragraph 24, the Court recognized the invalidity of agreements procured through unlawful force but found that the allegation before it lacked sufficient evidentiary support (ICJ, 1973).

The existence of an armed conflict does not automatically invalidate every treaty concluded during that conflict. The application of Article 52 requires examination of whether unlawful threats or force procured the particular agreement. Diplomatic bargaining, economic pressure, and the military circumstances surrounding negotiations cannot all be treated as legally identical.

Article 53 establishes a separate restriction concerning treaties conflicting with peremptory norms of general international law, commonly described as jus cogens. Its operation depends on the relevant norm and the substance of the agreement. The distinction between ordinary treaty obligations and norms from which derogation is not permitted belongs to the broader hierarchy of international legal norms. Ukrainian consent could not cure a treaty provision that genuinely conflicted with an applicable peremptory norm.

5.2 Ukraine's Constitution and Territorial Concessions

Ukraine's constitutional order places substantial restrictions on territorial changes. Article 2 declares that Ukraine's sovereignty extends throughout its territory and that its territory within existing borders is integral and inviolable. Article 9 addresses the incorporation of international treaties into Ukrainian law and requires constitutional changes before the conclusion of treaties inconsistent with the Constitution (Constitution of Ukraine, 1996, arts. 2 and 9).

Article 73 reserves questions concerning changes to Ukraine's territory exclusively to an all-Ukrainian referendum. A decision by the president or a negotiated commitment by foreign governments could not independently substitute for the constitutional procedure applicable to territorial changes. The provision also cannot be interpreted in isolation from the Constitution's substantive guarantees.

Article 157 prohibits constitutional amendments directed toward eliminating Ukrainian independence or violating territorial integrity. It separately prohibits constitutional amendments during martial law or a state of emergency. Article 19 of Ukraine's Law No. 389-VIII, On the Legal Regime of Martial Law, also prohibits national and local referendums while martial law is in force (Ukraine, 2015).

These rules complicate proposals involving immediate territorial referendums or permanent constitutional changes during wartime. Even after martial law ends, the constitutional permissibility of a proposed territorial concession would require examination beyond Article 73 alone. A referendum cannot be assumed to authorize every possible change regardless of the Constitution's substantive restrictions.

Temporary military arrangements raise different questions. A ceasefire that leaves Ukraine's internationally recognized borders unchanged may regulate operational conduct without constituting a change to Ukraine's territory. The applicable constitutional procedures would depend on the agreement's actual legal effects, rather than the fact that military forces remain separated along a particular line.

6. Could the UN Security Council Impose a Settlement?

The legal position differs where an agreement is replaced or supplemented by a binding decision of the United Nations Security Council. Article 24 of the UN Charter gives the Council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, while Article 25 requires UN members to accept and carry out Council decisions in accordance with the Charter. These institutional powers are distinct from the treaty-making authority of individual governments (United Nations, 1945).

Under Chapter VII, the Security Council may determine the existence of a threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression and adopt measures addressing the situation. Certain decisions may establish binding obligations independently of the ordinary treaty consent of all affected states. The Council's powers nevertheless operate within the Charter's purposes, principles, and applicable rules of international law.

Trump, Putin, and Xi could not exercise those powers merely by agreeing among themselves. Article 27 requires at least nine affirmative votes for substantive Security Council decisions and applies the rules governing permanent-member concurrence. Established Council practice treats a permanent member's abstention differently from a veto. Article 27(3) also contains a provision concerning abstention by a party to a dispute in decisions under Chapter VI and Article 52(3), although its application must be distinguished from the rules governing Chapter VII decisions.

A trilateral understanding might form the basis for a proposed Security Council resolution, but it would not itself constitute one. France, the United Kingdom, and the Council's elected members would retain their institutional roles in the decision-making process. Russia's position as a permanent member would also be relevant to the prospects for adopting particular measures.

The Council's authority should not be treated as an unrestricted power to extinguish another state's territorial sovereignty. The prohibition on acquiring territory through force and the Charter's principles of sovereign equality remain central to the legal assessment. Although the Council can adopt binding peace-and-security measures within its competence, no general judicial determination establishes that it could lawfully transfer Ukrainian sovereignty to Russia against Ukraine's will. Such an assertion would require a legal basis beyond the political agreement of three permanent members.

7. The Munich Agreement of 1938 and Ukraine's Exclusion

The Munich Agreement of September 29, 1938, offers a historically relevant comparison with proposals for major-power negotiations affecting Ukraine without its participation. Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy agreed on arrangements for the transfer of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Germany. Czechoslovakia was not a signatory and did not participate as an equal party in the principal conference (Munich Agreement, 1938).

The agreement specified the evacuation of the territory and its occupation by German forces. It also provided for an international commission involving representatives of the four signatory governments and Czechoslovakia. The latter's limited role in implementing arrangements already negotiated illustrates the difference between participation in the administration of a settlement and equal participation in deciding its essential terms.

The diplomatic circumstances were marked by German military threats and the British and French policy of appeasement. Czechoslovakia faced pressure to accept concessions affecting strategically important territory and defensive infrastructure. Contemporary diplomatic correspondence confirms the sequence. In a September 30, 1938 telegram reproduced as document 682 in the US Department of State's Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1938, General, Volume I, American Minister Wilbur Carr reported that the Munich Agreement had been delivered to Czechoslovakia's foreign minister and that the government was considering its response (US Department of State, 1938).

The agreement did not establish lasting European peace. Germany occupied the remaining Czech lands in March 1939, demonstrating the limits of the diplomatic assurances associated with Munich. Its historical significance lies partly in the belief that territorial concessions negotiated among major powers could resolve a security crisis despite the exclusion of the state whose territory was being transferred.

The comparison with Ukraine concerns unequal bargaining power, territorial concessions, and the risks of excluding an affected state from decisive negotiations. It does not establish that the circumstances of 1938 and 2026 are legally or politically identical. The Munich Agreement preceded the UN Charter and the contemporary prohibition on territorial acquisition through unlawful force.

Munich is consequently a historical warning rather than a direct legal precedent governing a possible Ukrainian peace treaty. Its relevance is strongest when assessing whether arrangements negotiated without the principal affected state can provide credible security assurances and durable political commitments. The legality of any contemporary settlement must still be determined under the international rules applicable to Ukraine.

8. What Happens if Ukraine Rejects a Trilateral Agreement?

Ukraine's rejection of a proposed settlement concluded by Russia, China, and the United States would prevent the agreement from creating Ukrainian treaty obligations through the ordinary rules of third-state consent. Kyiv would not become legally required to surrender territory, adopt neutrality, or implement reciprocal military restrictions merely because the three other governments had agreed upon them.

That position would not necessarily prevent the participating governments from implementing commitments concerning their own policies. Washington might alter military assistance, Moscow might change its military operations, and Beijing might undertake diplomatic or economic measures. Such decisions could affect the conditions surrounding the conflict without creating new Ukrainian obligations.

The consequences of rejection would depend on the agreement's actual content and the subsequent conduct of the governments involved. An instrument establishing commitments among three states could retain legal force between those states even if Ukraine refused to accept the proposed peace terms. A comprehensive settlement requiring Ukrainian performance, however, would remain incomplete without an appropriate basis for that performance.

8.1 Political Pressure and the Limits of Legal Protection

American influence over Ukraine arises partly from the military, intelligence, economic, and diplomatic assistance Washington provides. Decisions affecting that support could alter Kyiv's negotiating position, subject to applicable American legislation and international commitments. The significance of such decisions would depend on the scale of the changes and the availability of alternative assistance.

Russia's influence arises through its direct military involvement and control over Russian state operations. Moscow could undertake to halt attacks or withdraw forces, but continued hostilities could also exert pressure on Ukraine. China's diplomatic and economic relations with Russia provide another potential source of influence, although no established trilateral agreement demonstrates that the three governments have coordinated these forms of pressure to impose a settlement.

International law does not treat every unfavorable diplomatic decision as unlawful coercion. Withholding assistance, negotiating economic concessions, and making diplomatic commitments require legal assessment under the rules governing the particular conduct. They cannot automatically be equated with the unlawful threat or use of force addressed by Article 52 of the Vienna Convention.

Ukraine's legal entitlement to reject obligations imposed without consent does not eliminate the practical consequences of its decision. The country could retain its territorial rights while facing reduced external assistance or continuing military pressure. The distinction between legal validity and negotiating leverage is essential to understanding how a proposed agreement might influence the war without acquiring authority to bind Ukraine.

8.2 Existing Obligations, Reparations, and Implementation

Ukraine's sovereignty and security were addressed in international instruments long before the proposed October 2026 summit. On December 5, 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon state. The memorandum reaffirmed commitments concerning Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, existing borders, and protection against threats or uses of force (Budapest Memorandum, 1994).

The memorandum was transmitted to the United Nations through documents A/49/765 and S/1994/1399. Its precise legal character and the enforceability of its security assurances have been subjects of scholarly disagreement. It did not establish an automatic collective-defense mechanism comparable to NATO Article 5. Its diplomatic significance remains substantial because Russia and the United States had already participated in a formal instrument expressly addressing Ukrainian sovereignty and borders.

Existing obligations concerning internationally wrongful conduct also remain relevant. The International Law Commission's 2001 Articles on State Responsibility address cessation, non-repetition, and reparation for injuries resulting from internationally wrongful acts. The provisions must be distinguished from a treaty directly binding states as parties, although important elements reflect customary international law (ILC, 2001).

These principles, developed in the law of state responsibility under international law, prevent a peace settlement from being treated automatically as the extinction of every existing legal claim. A trilateral agreement could propose compensation arrangements or establish commitments among its participants. It could not, merely through their consent, waive Ukraine's claims or remove obligations arising independently under applicable international law.

The Minsk process illustrates the separate difficulty of implementation. On February 12, 2015, the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements addressed a ceasefire, military withdrawal, monitoring, and political arrangements concerning eastern Ukraine. Security Council Resolution 2202, adopted on February 17, endorsed the package and included a declaration by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and France (UN Security Council, 2015).

Ukrainian participation did not prevent persistent disputes over compliance and implementation. The failure of the Minsk process cannot be attributed to a single legal or political cause merely from the fact that its arrangements did not produce lasting peace. It nevertheless demonstrates that participation and international endorsement do not guarantee observance of negotiated commitments.

A future settlement would require more than an agreement on general political objectives. Military obligations would need to be defined, monitoring arrangements made workable, and responsibilities assigned to authorities capable of implementing them. Territorial questions, humanitarian measures, security guarantees, and unresolved legal claims could require distinct procedures. The effectiveness of a settlement would depend not simply on the influence of its sponsors, but on the validity and implementation of the commitments actually undertaken.

Conclusion

Trump, Putin, and Xi can negotiate proposals concerning the war in Ukraine, coordinate policies among their governments, and make agreements regulating their own conduct. They could influence military assistance, sanctions, diplomatic relations, and the conditions under which a peace settlement becomes politically possible. Such authority does not extend to imposing binding territorial or military obligations on Ukraine through a trilateral treaty to which Kyiv has not consented.

The restriction follows from the principle of pacta tertiis, reflected in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Further constraints arise from the UN Charter, the prohibition on territorial acquisition through unlawful force, and Ukrainian constitutional law. An eventual agreement accepted by Ukraine would require separate examination of valid consent, coercion, constitutional competence, and compliance with fundamental international obligations.

The practical consequences of exclusion may nevertheless be serious. Decisions taken in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing could alter Ukraine's negotiating position even without establishing a legally binding settlement of its sovereign rights. The 1938 Munich Agreement illustrates the historical risks associated with territorial arrangements negotiated among powerful governments without equal participation by the affected state, while the more recent Minsk process demonstrates the difficulties of implementing agreements even when the principal parties participate.

A durable peace would require legally valid commitments capable of implementation by the governments concerned. The three leaders may possess considerable influence over the diplomatic conditions in which Ukraine negotiates, but that influence is not equivalent to legal authority over Ukraine's territory, constitutional order, or sovereign future. Under international law, the capacity to shape negotiations and the power to bind a state remain fundamentally distinct.

References

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1994) Signed 5 December 1994. United Nations documents A/49/765 and S/1994/1399, Annex I, 19 December 1994. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/169471 (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2023) China's Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis [online]. 24 February. Available at: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/gjhdq_665435/3265_665445/3250_664382/3251_664384/202302/t20230224_11030713.html (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2024) Common Understandings Between China and Brazil on Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis [online]. 23 May. Available at: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbzhd/202405/t20240523_11310698.html (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

Constitution of Ukraine (1996) Adopted 28 June 1996, Law No. 254k/96-VR, as amended. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80 (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

European Council (2026) European Council conclusions on Ukraine and on European defence and security [online]. 18 June. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/06/18/european-council-conclusions-on-ukraine-and-on-european-defence-and-security/ (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

European Union (2016) Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 202, 7 June, pp. 13–45. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016M (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/51 (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (1973) Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of 2 February 1973, ICJ Reports 1973, p. 3. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/55 (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (2024) Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, ICJ Reports 2024. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186 (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, UN Doc. A/56/10, Chapter IV. Reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (2024) Формула миру [Peace Formula] [online]. 24 July. Available at: https://mfa.gov.ua/protidiya-agresiyi-rf/formula-miru (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

Munich Agreement (1938) Signed 29 September 1938 by Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy. Official text reproduced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Available at: https://mzv.gov.cz/file/198473/MunichAgreement.pdf (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

North Atlantic Treaty (1949) Signed at Washington, D.C., 4 April 1949; entered into force 24 August 1949. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

Reuters (2026a) ‘Kremlin says Putin, Trump and Xi could hold a three-way meeting in China next month’, 19 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/kremlin-says-putin-trump-xi-could-hold-three-way-meeting-china-next-month-2026-10-19/ (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

Reuters (2026b) ‘Putin proposes summit with Trump and Xi to discuss Ukraine deal, WSJ says’, 19 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/putin-proposes-summit-with-trump-xi-discuss-ukraine-deal-wsj-says-2026-10-19/ (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

Reuters (2026c) ‘Trump says he is open to joining trilateral meeting with Xi, Putin’, 19 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-says-he-is-open-joining-trilateral-meeting-with-xi-putin-2026-10-19/ (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

Ukraine (2015) Law of Ukraine No. 389-VIII: On the Legal Regime of Martial Law.

Adopted 12 May 2015, as amended. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, 2015, No. 28, Article 250. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/389-19 (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations. Signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945; entered into force 24 October 1945. Available at: https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cun/cun.html (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (2014) Territorial integrity of Ukraine. Resolution 68/262, UN Doc. A/RES/68/262, adopted 27 March 2014. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/767883 (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (2022) Territorial integrity of Ukraine: defending the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Resolution ES-11/4, UN Doc. A/RES/ES-11/4, adopted 12 October 2022. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3990673 (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

United Nations Security Council (2015) Resolution 2202 (2015). UN Doc. S/RES/2202 (2015), adopted 17 February 2015, including Annex I, Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, and Annex II, Declaration by the Presidents of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, the President of the French Republic and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/787968 (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

United States Department of State (1938) ‘The Minister in Czechoslovakia (Carr) to the Secretary of State’, telegram dated 30 September 1938, document 682, in Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1938, General, Volume I. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Available at: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1938v01/d682 (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

United States Department of State (n.d.) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [online]. Office of the Legal Adviser, archived treaty affairs guidance. Available at: https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm (Accessed: 19 October 2026).

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Adopted 22 May 1969; opened for signature at Vienna, 23 May 1969; entered into force 27 January 1980. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (Accessed: 19 October 2026).