In just a few days’ time, U. S. President Donald Trump, Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and Russian President Vladimir Putin could be holding a three-way summit on the sidelines of next week’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Shenzhen, China. According to The Wall Street Journal, Putin floated the idea of a trialogue last month as an opportunity to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. No firm plan has yet been announced, but even the prospect of this meeting has provoked widespread consternation. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski warned against a repeat of the Yalta Conference of 1945, when U. S. President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill capitulated to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s push for the Soviet Union to dominate Eastern Europe. U. S. Senator Chris Coons wrote on X that “There can be no talks about Ukraine’s future without Ukraine at the table, and there can be no real negotiations as long as Trump signals weakness and servitude to Xi and Putin at every opportunity.”These worries are entirely justified; Trump has a track record of cozying up to autocrats while turning his back on democratic allies. Should he sit down with Xi and Putin, he must avoid selling out European and Asian partners who will not be at the table. And given the three leaders’ headstrong personalities and competing national interests that pit the United States against what Xi calls a “no limits” partnership between China and Russia, the meeting may ultimately yield little progress on major issues. Nevertheless, Trump would be right to join a summit with Xi and Putin. No U. S. president has ever held a trilateral meeting with the leaders of China and Russia, and the proposed talks would break the ice and begin to normalize much-needed dialogue. Authoritarianism is not going away, so autocracies and democracies must learn not only to live comfortably alongside one another, but also to work together to tame geopolitical rivalry and tackle global challenges in an interdependent world. Americans will not find it easy to get along with the likes of Russia and China, whose political systems threaten the U. S. commitment to spreading democracy. But Trump is taking a bold step in the right direction by engaging with the heads of the world’s leading autocracies. If he meets with Xi and Putin, Trump should aim low and focus on making meaningful, if limited, progress on a small number of core issues that could benefit from a three-way conversation: the flashpoints of the Korean Peninsula, Ukraine, and Iran, as well as arms control and strategic stability. But even if the summit yields no concrete results, it will nonetheless have been worthwhile. Trump, Xi, and Putin are paving the way for their successors to advance great-power cooperation across ideological lines and stabilize a fragmented world. CONCERTED EFFORTI have argued previously, including in a 2021 Foreign Affairs essay with Richard Haass, that a global concert—an informal steering group of great powers modeled on the nineteenth-century Concert of Europe—offers the best hope of curbing geopolitical competition and enabling collective action in a multipolar world. In addition to the United States, China, and Russia, a new concert would include India, Japan, the European Union, and representatives from Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Concerts sacrifice representation for efficacy and give only the geopolitically influential states that must be there a seat at the table. They set aside ideological differences and bring democracies and autocracies together to focus on international cooperation. Because concerts eschew binding, enforceable procedures in favor of informal consensus-building, they can succeed when formal institutions such as the UN Security Council are paralyzed and when the United States wavers in its commitment to rules-based multilateralism. But the time has not come for a global concert. Concerts function effectively only when their members are committed to the territorial status quo, willing to exercise strategic restraint and pursue mutual benefits, and ready to settle disputes diplomatically. Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Xi’s decision to back Russia have, for now, scuttled hopes that the great powers will normalize restraint and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Meanwhile, Trump’s “America first” statecraft shuns joint action and mutual gain in favor of unilateralism. Yet even though Trump, Xi, and Putin are the wrong leaders at the wrong time to establish a great-power steering group that other major players would eventually join, Trump’s iconoclastic diplomacy sets a useful precedent. His Alaska summit with Putin last year and two summits with Xi this year were admittedly long on pageantry and short on substance. But by taking the controversial step of pursuing joint talks with the two leaders, Trump is widening the diplomatic Overton window and expanding what is politically possible for future U. S. presidents. Avoiding great-power conflict and taming a world in increasing disarray requires the United States to build constructive relations with both China and Russia. Trump deserves credit for starting a trialogue that his successors can carry forward. WAR AND PEACEIf they meet in Shenzhen, Trump, Xi, and Putin should focus on easing tensions at key geopolitical flashpoints. The Korean Peninsula presents the best opportunity for the three leaders to collaborate. At the UN General Assembly in September, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung laid out an ambitious plan for normalizing relations with Pyongyang, including a proposal to replace the peninsula’s 1953 armistice with a “peace regime” that promotes “respect for each other’s systems and acknowledgement of our differences.” As part of that plan, Lee has advocated a phased approach to North Korean denuclearization, with an initial freeze on weapons development followed by gradual reductions in Pyongyang’s arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles until the peninsula is denuclearized. Lee’s bold proposal could bring U. S., Chinese, and Russian interests into alignment. Trump has made it clear that he wants to de-escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula and is already seeking a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Beijing and Moscow are competing for influence over Kim, but both want a stable relationship between North and South Korea, so they may be willing to cooperate on proposals to halt nuclear weapons production and encourage talks between Seoul and Pyongyang. Trump, Xi, and Putin should aim to emerge from their meeting with a plan for advancing Lee’s peace agenda; jointly supporting a freeze on North Korean nuclear weapons development is a good place to start. The prospects for progress toward ending the war in Ukraine are much dimmer, but not nonexistent. Trump should be striving to weaken Russia’s ability to sustain the war, but he has long resisted tightening sanctions on Moscow. He talks up potential business ventures with Russia, and, in recent weeks, even struck a deal with Putin to get more Russian diesel into global markets and waived a new round of congressional sanctions against Moscow. Trump evidently cares more about trying to bring down fuel prices than about curbing Russia’s ability to fund its war against Ukraine. Trump deserves credit for starting a trialogue that his successors can carry forward. A summit offers Trump the opportunity to change course and try to convince Xi to restrain Putin. Trump has vowed to bring the war in Ukraine to an end, and the Chinese leader can help him achieve that goal. Xi has enormous leverage over Putin: China backs the Kremlin diplomatically, is the largest buyer of Russian oil and gas, and is the main supplier of dual-use items such as semiconductors and machine tools that are critical to Russian weapons manufacturing. Xi has played along with Putin’s war against Ukraine so far, presumably because the conflict diverts U. S. attention and resources away from Asia, divides NATO, and allows Xi and Putin to cast themselves as leading a global resistance to Western hegemony. But when Xi and Trump met this May, the leaders agreed to pursue “a constructive relationship of strategic stability” between China and the United States, which Xi can advance by pressing Putin to de-escalate. As more Russians feel the effects of the war, the Kremlin may be newly receptive to such pressure. Ukrainian drone strikes are taking a significant toll on Russia’s oil sector and logistics networks, which means Russian citizens face mounting gas and commodities shortages. Meanwhile, some 35,000 Russian soldiers per month are losing their lives or sustaining severe injuries in eastern Ukraine, forcing Putin to consider the unpopular move of ramping up military mobilization. With no battlefield victory in sight, Putin has reasons to entertain a diplomatic off-ramp. Trump and Xi can press Putin to accept a set of limited but consequential steps to de-escalate the conflict. These could include an agreement between Russia and Ukraine—brokered and monitored by Washington and Beijing—to end attacks on energy installations and infrastructure, civilian targets, and commercial shipping. Trump and Xi could also jointly press Putin to refrain from actions that could broaden the war, such as penetrating NATO airspace with Russian drones, sabotaging European infrastructure, and threatening to use nuclear weapons. This pressure, combined with the allure of improving diplomatic and commercial ties to the United States, may convince Putin to relent on at least some of these issues. STRAIT TALKTrump could also use a trilateral summit to seek help extricating the United States from its war in Iran—a quagmire that has produced regional mayhem and soaring oil prices. As Tehran continues to issue maximalist demands and the war disrupts shipping through the straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb, Trump needs an out. Neither Xi nor Putin has yet been inclined to lend a hand. China is still buying Iranian oil and providing Tehran with military intelligence and dual-use items that end up in Iranian drones and missiles, and Russia is providing satellite targeting data, munitions, advanced drone technology, and logistical support. Both Beijing and Moscow are happy to see the United States mired in a conflict that is exacerbating divisions within the American electorate and fracturing NATO. As a major energy exporter, Russia benefits from the spike in oil prices that the conflict has triggered, so pressing Putin to cease supporting Iran is likely a lost cause. But China is the world’s largest oil importer, and Beijing has a vested interest in lowering energy prices by stabilizing exports from the Middle East. Although China’s large oil reserves have buffered its economy from rising oil prices so far, those reserves have been significantly depleted. China’s crude oil imports have begun to climb again, leaving its economy exposed to high energy prices if the conflict drags on. And, as the world’s largest exporter of goods, China suffers from the dampening effect high energy prices have on global growth. Xi might therefore be amenable to helping Trump end the war. Trump should ask Xi to stop, or at least slow, the flow of Chinese dual-use items to Iran. Washington’s naval blockade and financial and commercial sanctions on Tehran have already taken a toll on Iran’s economy and military supply chains. By cutting off Chinese technology shipments to Iran, Beijing could deepen this economic isolation and help convince Tehran to negotiate an end to the conflict. Xi can also press Iran to drop its unrealistic demands for ending the war, including that the United States withdraw its forces from the Gulf and release frozen Iranian assets and remove economic sanctions. Washington may well be willing to offer economic relief, but only as part of postwar negotiation of a deal that reins in Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Xi can help clear the way for those talks by urging Iran to accept credible terms for ending the immediate conflict. A NEW STARTBeyond working to resolve current conflicts, Trump should promote future strategic stability by pursuing arms control negotiations with Putin and Xi. Every arms control agreement negotiated between Washington and Moscow has expired; their final nuclear pact, New START, ended in February. There are currently no caps on the American and Russian strategic arsenals and no regular inspections, data exchanges, or notifications of nuclear exercises. This nuclear free-for-all is particularly dangerous given Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling amid the war in Ukraine and the Kremlin’s fondness for provocations such as sending explosive-laden drones into NATO airspace. In October, Trump appropriately proposed that a trilateral summit include a discussion of nuclear arms control. China has long resisted engaging in arms control talks, arguing that it should not have to limit its nuclear program when its arsenal is much smaller than that of the United States and Russia. But Beijing is rapidly expanding and modernizing its nuclear arsenal. The Pentagon projects that China will possess more than 1,000 operational warheads by 2030, putting it nearly in the same league as the United States and Russia, which have stockpiles of roughly 1,800 operational warheads each. With the uncertain trajectory of U. S.-Chinese relations, instability on the Korean Peninsula, and China’s tense relationship with Taiwan heightening the risk of conflict in East Asia, Beijing must be part of high-level nuclear arms control discussions. Realistically, Trump can do little more than start this conversation and invite Xi and Putin to continue it in future trilateral negotiations led by teams of diplomats and arms control experts. In future talks, the three countries should discuss not only caps on nuclear weapons stockpiles but also military-to-military contacts, crisis management protocols, notifications of military exercises, counterproliferation, and other measures that can contribute to strategic stability. HOLD THE LINETrump could add a host of other topics to the summit’s agenda, including trade, energy security, and AI regulation, but he should avoid a wide-ranging conversation that goes nowhere. He might, however, notch an easy win by proposing a three-way initiative in an area where cooperation is relatively straightforward—for example, a joint medical mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help fight Ebola or a joint aid operation to deliver humanitarian relief to Yemen or Gaza. A concrete, public effort along these lines would show that trilateral dialogue can yield viable cooperation. Yet Trump should guard against being so eager for a win that he lets Xi and Putin take advantage of him. The APEC summit takes place only two weeks after American voters dealt Trump and his party a historic rebuke in the U. S. midterm elections. The notoriously thin-skinned president could be tempted to make concessions to Beijing and Moscow to score a foreign policy breakthrough. He must avoid making a behind-closed-doors compromise on Ukraine that he then tries to force upon Kyiv and its European supporters. Similarly, he must hold the line on Taiwan even as he seeks Xi’s help on North Korea, Ukraine, and Iran. Otherwise, Trump will leave the trilateral meeting confirming the worst fears of those who foresaw a new Yalta in the making. Capitulating to Xi and Putin would alienate Washington’s allies, project American weakness, and erode global deterrence. Trump must also carefully manage the optics of a trilateral summit. Putin is an indicted war criminal who continues to prosecute a ruthless war of aggression against Ukraine. It is far too soon to let him out of the penalty box. And although Washington is right to seek a good working relationship with Beijing, it is time for Trump’s “truly great friendship” with Xi to bear fruit. Trump must approach talks with sobriety and pragmatism, seeking to demonstrate that Washington, Beijing, and Moscow can work together to help promote global peace and stability. A summit next week will not usher in a new era of great-power collaboration anytime soon. It may not even yield concrete deliverables. Still, the meeting would set a valuable precedent. Simply by sitting down with Xi and Putin, Trump will begin a much-needed trilateral conversation.