Reports of a possible meeting among the leaders of the United States, China and Russia have revived an old concern: can powerful states negotiate over global security while leaving the countries most affected without a meaningful voice?

Reuters reported on November 14 that discussions about a potential three-way meeting remained unsettled, with no agreed format or agenda. The distinction matters. Diplomatic speculation is not a signed accord, and proposed talks should not be described as an accomplished summit.

Arms control dialogue could reduce risks if it produces verifiable commitments. Yet decisions affecting Ukraine, Taiwan or regional security cannot command lasting legitimacy when directly affected communities and governments are excluded from the process. Transparency about objectives, consultation with partners and respect for international law are practical safeguards, not ceremonial extras.

The measure of successful diplomacy should be credible de-escalation and enforceable outcomes, not the spectacle of leaders appearing together. Smaller nations need agency in the decisions that shape their security and economic future.

Context: Reuters, November 14, 2026. Featured photo is illustrative; Saj Shafique/Unsplash.