The first Trump-Putin-Xi meeting is set for next Thursday, and the White House says nuclear weapons will lead the agenda. That is the right topic. However, a photo of three leaders at one table is not arms control. Washington should walk into Shenzhen with clear terms, not high hopes.
The leaders of the three largest nuclear powers have never met together in this format. That alone makes the trip historic. Still, what matters is whether the talks pull China into a nuclear conversation it has dodged for years. And Washington must not hand Moscow or Beijing anything for free.
What the White House Announced
White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales confirmed the plan on Friday during a call previewing the president’s Asia trip. The three leaders will meet on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, China. According to Wales, “the president has made it clear that, among other topics, he will discuss the reduction of nuclear weapons in the world.”
The schedule is tight. Trump leaves Washington on Monday and attends a Southeast Asian summit in Manila on Tuesday. On Thursday, he holds a working lunch and bilateral meeting with Xi. Then the three-way session closes out the trip.
Officials, however, were blunt about expectations. A senior administration official told Reuters, “we do not expect to get to any kind of agreement” on nuclear issues. The same official added that “it’s time for China to sort of step up” and talk about the subject.
Iran Is In, Ukraine Is Out
U.S. officials said Trump intends to raise the war with Iran. On the other hand, he does not plan to discuss Russia’s war in Ukraine at the three-way table. One official told reporters that Ukraine has a “whole other track” of talks with Kyiv and Moscow, and “China is not really a part of that track.”
Officials also drew a line on technology. After this week’s Nvidia scandal, one said plainly, “We do not negotiate American export controls.” We covered the fallout from that story in our report on why the Nvidia CEO’s exit leaves China chip questions open.
Why Nuclear Arms Lead the Trump-Putin-Xi Meeting
The backdrop is simple. New START, the last treaty limiting American and Russian strategic nuclear forces, expired on Feb. 5, 2026. As a result, the two largest arsenals now have no legally binding caps on their strategic forces.
Putin had proposed in September 2025 that both sides keep honoring the treaty’s central limits for one more year. Trump initially called that a “good idea.” In the end, though, Washington never formally answered. Instead, Trump wrote on Feb. 5 that experts should work on “a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future.”
Since then, Russia says it is still observing the old limits. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the Russian parliament that Moscow would keep that moratorium “only as long as the United States does not exceed the above limits.”
Meanwhile, the State Department laid out two goals in Geneva. Under Secretary Thomas DiNanno called for “taking into account all Russian nuclear weapons, both novel and existing strategic systems, and addressing the breakout growth of Chinese nuclear weapons stockpiles.” He also called Russia’s lead in tactical nuclear weapons an “intolerable disadvantage” for America.
The Numbers Behind the Nuclear Talks
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) publishes the most widely cited public estimates. Its 2026 Yearbook puts the American inventory at about 5,042 warheads and Russia’s at about 5,420 as of January 2026. China holds roughly 620, up from about 600 a year earlier.
At first glance, those figures make China look like a junior partner. Together, the United States and Russia hold around 83% of the warheads available in military stockpiles, SIPRI says. Yet the trend line is what worries American planners.
The Pentagon’s 2025 report on Chinese military power said Beijing’s stockpile stayed “in the low 600s through 2024.” It also said China “remains on track to have over 1,000 warheads by 2030.” Moreover, SIPRI notes the Defense Department assessed that China loaded more than 100 missiles into three new silo fields.
In other words, China is no longer a small, static nuclear power. It is building the infrastructure for a much larger force. So far, it has never agreed to any cap on its warhead numbers.
What Beijing and Moscow Want From the Trump-Putin-Xi Meeting
The three leaders arrive with very different goals. That gap explains why officials are lowering expectations.
Beijing Wants No Part of Arms Limits
China has refused trilateral arms control for years. The first Trump administration tried to bring Beijing into talks in 2020, and that effort went nowhere. After New START lapsed, China’s disarmament ambassador, Shen Jian, said flatly that “China will not take part in nuclear disarmament negotiations at this stage.” Beijing insists that Washington and Moscow cut first.
Even now, Beijing has been cautious in public. Chinese state media reported Xi’s bilateral talks but not the three-way session. A spokesperson for China’s embassy in Washington said only, “We have nothing to share at the moment.”
Edgard Kagan, a former Biden White House official, now works at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He told Reuters that “the Chinese do not want arms control discussions with the United States.” In his view, joining such talks would mean Beijing accepting that it is a major nuclear power subject to similar limits.
Moscow Wants Status, and Ukraine
Russia, by contrast, has pushed hard for the meeting. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “suggestions are being exchanged regarding a possible agenda.” According to Reuters, Moscow wanted a conversation on Ukraine, while Beijing resisted.
Russian nationalists, however, see something bigger. Alexander Dugin called the meeting “a confirmation of a multi-polar world that the West denies.” For that reason, Kyiv is nervous. Last month, Volodymyr Zelenskiy said, “We really don’t want this to turn into ‘Yalta 2, 3, 4,’ with a redistribution of influence.”
The Conservative Case: Talk From Strength, Trade Nothing for Free
To be clear, conservatives should support talking. Ronald Reagan negotiated with Moscow while building up American defenses, and that combination worked. Talking to adversaries is not weakness. Giving away leverage for a handshake is.
First, any nuclear deal must include China, or it should not bind the United States. Freezing American forces while Beijing races toward 1,000 warheads would lock in a worse balance every year. The administration is right that 21st-century arms control without China makes little sense.
Second, verification is not optional. New START came with data exchanges and inspections that let each side check the other. A vague pledge from Moscow or Beijing, with no way to check it, means very little. Any Trump-Putin-Xi meeting that skips verification would repeat old mistakes.
Third, the United States should keep its options open. DiNanno noted that America “retains non-deployed nuclear capacity” that could be used “if directed by the president.” That reserve is leverage, and America should not surrender it for promises.
Keep Ukraine and Taiwan Off the Menu
Officials say Ukraine will not come up at the three-way table, and that is the right call. Peace terms belong in talks that include Kyiv, as we argued in our look at why any Ukraine deal must be verified. Likewise, Taiwan’s future is not a bargaining chip for an arms deal.
There is also reason for caution on Russia. According to the BBC, two moves last month raised concern in Europe. One was a U.S. deal to import Russian diesel. The other was a pause in sanctions on major buyers of Russian oil and gas. Washington should not let goodwill gestures toward Moscow pile up without a return.
Press Beijing on Iran
Above all, Iran is where the White House can apply real pressure. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil and Tehran’s largest trade partner, according to the BBC. That money helps keep the regime standing. We made the case in our post on why the blockade on Iran must stay. Shenzhen is the place to tell Xi directly that those purchases carry a cost.
By contrast, trade belongs in the separate bilateral track. Our analysis of the extended China trade truce showed how much is already riding on that relationship. Washington should never trade nuclear concessions for soybean orders.
What to Watch After the Trump-Putin-Xi Meeting
Since no one expects an agreement, judge the meeting by smaller signals. These four matter most:
- Whether Beijing’s readout even mentions nuclear weapons, or treats the session as a courtesy.
- Whether the leaders agree to a follow-up channel, such as expert-level strategic stability talks with China at the table.
- Whether Russia ties any nuclear restraint to concessions on Ukraine or sanctions.
- Whether Washington and Moscow say anything new about the old New START limits.
The Trump-Putin-Xi meeting can be a useful start. After all, China is expanding its arsenal while refusing even to discuss it. If Thursday ends with Beijing agreeing to sit down for real talks, that is progress worth having. If it ends with smiles and nothing on paper, America should keep building its deterrent. Then Beijing can explain why it fears a conversation about its own weapons.
Sources
- CBS News/AFP: Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping expected to meet in first-ever trilateral of its kind, officials say (Nov. 14, 2026)
- Reuters via Al-Monitor: Analysis: A new ‘Yalta’? Trump and Putin push for a meeting that Xi is wary of hosting (Nov. 14, 2026)
- BBC News: Trump, Putin and Xi plan historic joint meeting in China next week, White House says (Nov. 14, 2026)
- Arms Control Association: New START Expires As U.S. Urges ‘Modernized’ Treaty (March 2026)
- SIPRI Yearbook 2026, Chapter 8: World Nuclear Forces (Table 8A.1, January 2026 estimates)
- Federation of American Scientists: The Pentagon’s 2025 China Military Power Report
