Amid intensifying U.S.–China strategic competition, Russia’s growing role, and North Korea’s advancing nuclear and missile capabilities accompanied by repeated military signaling, crisis-management channels in Northeast Asia are weakening and mutual trust is eroding rapidly. In this low-trust environment, should stakeholders continue to revolve around a “grand bargain” debate over complete denuclearization, or pivot toward near-term, negotiable nuclear risk-reduction measures? If the latter, which measures are realistically feasible—and can P3+3 (a parliamentarian-driven track advancing a “3+3” concept) make a practical contribution to nuclear risk reduction and tension management? Finally, what minimum conditions would make a 3+3 approach credible, and what policy and institutional leverage can parliaments provide to sustain momentum and translate dialogue into action?