Rumors are swirling of a possible summit involving the leaders of the world’s three most powerful nations: the United States, China, and Russia. Ostensibly, the purpose of such a gathering would be to discuss an end to Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine. On the surface, any effort to halt bloodshed and restore stability to Europe should be welcomed. Peace, after all, is among humanity’s most urgent aspirations. Yet one cannot shake a deep sense of unease.

When the heads of the three largest nuclear powers contemplate a grand bargain, the international community has every right to ask a simple question: whose peace is being negotiated, and at whose expense? Is it really an attempt to restore international peace and security?

The prospect of Washington, Beijing, and Moscow sitting together to determine the future of nations beyond their borders evokes troubling images from history. Great powers have often justified their arrangements as necessary for stability, while smaller nations have frequently found themselves treated as bargaining chips rather than sovereign actors. Ukraine has already paid an extraordinary price in lives, territory, and destruction. Any settlement reached through the calculations of distant capitals rather than the will of the Ukrainian people would represent not peace, but power politics dressed in diplomatic language. More concerning still is the possibility that ending the war may not be the primary objective at all.

The three governments involved, despite their profound differences, share a common interest in expanding their influence and securing strategic advantages. Russia seeks validation of its regional ambitions. China continues to challenge the existing international order and expand its economic and military reach. The United States, increasingly focused on competition with Beijing and burdened by mounting global commitments, may be tempted by arrangements that promise short-term stability regardless of their long-term consequences.

The danger is not that these nations will formally unite. Their interests are too divergent for a genuine alliance. The danger is that they may discover enough overlapping interests to create an informal concert of powers, one that sidelines international institutions, weakens the sovereignty of smaller states, and concentrates global decision-making in the hands of a few leaders.

History offers sobering lessons. In the 1930s, Germany, Italy, and Japan forged ties rooted in mutual ambition, nationalism, and contempt for the constraints of the international system. Their cooperation was not born from a shared vision of peace, but from a desire to advance their own interests through force and intimidation. The result was catastrophe. Their aggression culminated in the deadliest conflict humanity has ever known.

History never repeats itself precisely. The United States is not Nazi Germany, nor is modern China equivalent to Imperial Japan. Such simplistic comparisons obscure more than they reveal. Nevertheless, history does remind us that when powerful nations begin viewing the world as a chessboard upon which weaker countries are merely pieces, danger follows.

The international order built after World War II rested on a simple principle: that nations, regardless of size, possess equal sovereignty under international law. That principle has never been perfectly upheld. Yet it remains a vital safeguard against the return of an era when great powers divided the world into spheres of influence and settled disputes through coercion rather than consent.

If a trilateral meeting among Washington, Beijing, and Moscow does occur, the world should watch carefully. Diplomacy is necessary. Dialogue among rivals is essential. Nuclear powers have a responsibility to communicate, particularly during times of heightened tension.

But diplomacy without transparency breeds suspicion. Negotiations conducted above the heads of affected nations breed resentment. And agreements based solely on the interests of the powerful often sow the seeds of future conflict.

The horizon today is dark enough. A war rages in Europe. Tensions mount in the Indo-Pacific. The Middle East is in turmoil. Trust in international institutions continues to erode. An age of aggression is upon us. The world does not need a new axis of power dedicated to carving up influence behind closed doors. It needs leadership committed to strengthening international law, respecting national sovereignty, and pursuing genuine peace rather than merely a temporary balance among competing ambitions.

The lesson of the 20th century is clear. When the powerful convince themselves that stability can be achieved through domination, the result is rarely stability. More often, it is the prelude to a larger storm. The international community would be wise to remember that before the clouds fully gather once again.

David M. Crane is a global leader in international criminal justice and the founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. He has spent decades shaping accountability mechanisms around the world, including serving as a driving architect behind the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. Crane is a distinguished scholar of international law, a former senior US. national security official, and a leading voice on the rule of law, state responsibility, and the legal limits on the use of force.