Xi-Trump-Putin Summit Raises Fears of New Yalta

Fears of a new Yalta are growing as China, the United States and Russia prepare for a possible three-way summit at the APEC meeting in Shenzhen on November 18 and 19.

The meeting between Presidents Xi Jinping, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has prompted alarm that the three leaders could settle questions of war and territory with little regard for Ukraine, Europe, Taiwan or anyone else. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned of a Yalta-like “redistribution of spheres of influence” for the 21st century.

Analysts say that apart from a historic photo opportunity, the meeting will likely achieve little.

What happened at Yalta in 1945?

When US president Franklin D. Roosevelt, Britain’s Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin met in Yalta in February 1945, they laid out the post-war settlement and new territorial boundaries in Europe. The meeting, held in a town then in the Soviet Union and now in a part of Ukraine annexed by Russia in 2014, laid the foundations for Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the Cold War.

“The original Yalta opened the path to the Korean War and Indochina Wars in addition to various conflicts and insurgencies across Asia, Africa, and Latin America,” said Chong Ja Ian at the National University of Singapore. He warned that any Yalta-style agreement “will almost certainly run into the same kinds of issues”.

A new Yalta is unlikely, analysts say

Beyond the symbolism, analysts say divergent interests make a new world order unlikely in Shenzhen. Russia has suggested the meeting focus on Ukraine, Trump has pushed for talks on nuclear weapons and the Iran war, and China has stayed tight-lipped on both. Even the agenda remains contentious.

“The three parties have vastly different demands, making the management of expectations difficult. There is a high probability that talks could end without a breakthrough,” Wang Wen, dean of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University in Beijing, told AFP.

The trilateral format itself rankles Kyiv and its European supporters. “The idea that a few great powers can decide the security and future of other countries over their heads” is the signal it sends, Tsiporah Fried at the Hudson Institute told AFP. The format alone “would already send a message about who counts, and whose interests can be negotiated by others”, she said.

At talks in Abu Dhabi this week, the first direct Russia-Ukraine talks since February, Russian negotiators rattled Ukraine and its European supporters by pushing a review of Europe’s security architecture as part of any peace deal, while the US floated a new framework. Russia’s delegation chief, Vladimir Medinsky, fanned the fears by questioning the inclusion of Europe in further talks.

Taiwan watches closely

Taiwan, which China claims, will watch the meeting closely. “If the Trump administration is open to abandoning one partner (Ukraine) out of convenience, then it can abandon another,” said Wen-Ti Sung, a political scientist at Australian National University.

China has opposed the logic of Yalta, the quiet division of spheres of influence and major powers deciding the fate of other nations, “from the very beginning”, according to Renmin University’s Wang. Beijing could calm fears by using the summit to defend sovereignty and support multilateral organisations, he said. If Beijing insists on European inclusion in talks on the continent’s security, it “could, in fact, open a new window for communication between China and Europe”.

Beijing has repeatedly said Europe should be part of peace negotiations over Ukraine. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that in a recent meeting, Xi showed “irritation” when the idea of the trilateral talks covering Ukraine came up. “He explicitly pointed out that this is a European conflict, in which the Europeans must also be at the table,” Steinmeier told ARD.

On nuclear arms, China has long insisted that the US and Russia reduce their own giant arsenals before it agrees to talks on its own stockpile. The summit is therefore more likely to produce minor outcomes such as crisis hotlines or cooperation on counter-terrorism, public health or climate change, Wang said.

“There is no single enemy to unite all three great powers the way that the fight against Nazi Germany united Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin,” Sung said. “It follows that piecemeal horse-trading is in; a grand bargain is out.”

The Trump administration has also sought to reassert US dominance over the Western hemisphere, including by capturing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January.

The summit in context

The meeting comes as Ukraine and Russia edge closer to a peace deal, with a prisoner release under way, and as Trump tours Asia after midterm losses at home. US envoys have met Putin and Zelensky in recent days, and Xi has separately warned that Taiwan’s reunification must happen.

Frequently asked questions

When is the Xi-Trump-Putin summit?

The three leaders are expected to meet at the APEC summit in Shenzhen on November 18 and 19.

Why is it compared to Yalta?

Critics fear the three leaders could divide spheres of influence as Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin did at Yalta in 1945, deciding the fate of smaller states over their heads.

What could the summit actually achieve?

Analysts expect little beyond minor outcomes such as crisis hotlines or cooperation on counter-terrorism, public health or climate change.

Why is Taiwan watching the meeting?

Taipei fears that if Washington can set aside Ukraine, it could also set aside Taiwan, which China claims.