Former President Donald Trump’s recent invitation to Russian President Vladimir Putin to attend the upcoming G20 summit in Miami has reignited debates over his vision for a new global power structure centered around summit diplomacy among the leaders of the United States, Russia, and China.
Trump extended the invitation as part of what observers say is a broader geopolitical ambition to revive a "Big Three" framework reminiscent of the World War II era, where the foremost global decisions would be dominated by the leaders of Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. This approach notably elevates Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping as key partners with whom Trump seeks to revise existing international norms.
Putin, however, has signaled he will not attend the Miami G20 meeting. Russian officials have instead suggested holding a trilateral meeting with Trump and Xi at the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Shenzhen, China, scheduled for November. Putin’s travel to international summits has been limited since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, partly due to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant and his frequent exclusion from Western-led forums.
The possibility of the United States engaging in a high-profile summit with both Putin and Xi would represent a major shift in Western diplomacy and could be interpreted as a form of Kremlin rehabilitation on the world stage. Critics warn that such a development might signal a pivot away from the US’s traditional role as leader of the democratic alliance, toward a realignment accommodating authoritarian powers.
Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in meeting with Putin and Xi to address issues such as nuclear arms control and defense spending. Analysts suggest this reflects his relative indifference to the longstanding principles of the liberal democratic order, instead embracing a vision that favors bilateral power arrangements over multilateral democratic coalitions.
Despite moments where Trump has asserted strong influence among Western allies, such as at the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague, his apparent reluctance to back unified Western positions on issues like continued support for Ukraine and sanctions against Israeli settlements raises concerns. Some European officials view recent developments with cautious optimism, speculating that Trump’s disruptive influence may be waning, especially with the prospect of Democratic gains in upcoming US congressional elections.
Nevertheless, strategic uncertainties remain. Russia is actively seeking to reshape the diplomatic landscape to its advantage, pushing the United States toward sanction relief before a resolution to the Ukraine conflict and attempting to minimize European involvement in negotiations by promoting Chinese mediation.
European and allied governments are also apprehensive about how Trump might respond to future provocations by Russia that stop short of outright war but could include cyberattacks or infrastructure sabotage, especially given Russia and China’s material support for Iranian actions that have targeted American personnel.
In response to these evolving challenges, some analysts advocate for deeper integration among democracies spanning the European Union and the CANZUK countries — Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. This bloc could serve as a counterbalance to any emerging “Big Three” dominated by authoritarian regimes, reinforcing cooperation across energy, minerals, defense, and technology sectors.
Most recently, Trump’s hosting of Xi Jinping at a White House banquet underscored his openness to alliances blending authoritarian governance, American interests, and major technology firms. Observers argue that the alternative to this vision lies in strengthening democratic coalitions committed to preserving a rules-based international order.
As the global landscape shifts, debates about the US role and how democracies will coordinate their responses to authoritarian powers remain central to discussions on future international engagement.