Record Foreign Outflows of 42 Trillion VND in August Raise Structural Concerns Despite Market Rally

Economic

Summary:

In August 2025, foreign investors sold a record 42.2 trillion VND worth of Vietnamese equities, bringing year-to-date net outflows to nearly 73.4 trillion VND, or over 2.8 billion USD...

Market Surges Amid Historic Foreign Selling

Vietnam’s stock market delivered an impressive performance throughout August 2025, with the VN-Index closing the month at 1,682.21 points, a 12% increase from July and nearly 33% higher than at the beginning of the year. The VN30 outperformed even further, gaining 15.49% to reach 1,865.38 points. Liquidity reached an all-time high, with trading volume on HOSE exceeding 35 billion shares an average of 1.7 billion shares per session.

Sectoral performance was broadly positive. Securities stocks led the gains due to increased trading activity, while bank stocks rose on strong credit growth and attractive valuations. Other sectors such as real estate, retail, steel, insurance, and port operations also saw encouraging momentum.

However, these domestic advances were overshadowed by a record-breaking net foreign outflow of 42.2 trillion VND in August alone equivalent to over 1.6 billion USD. This brings the total net foreign selling to 73.4 trillion VND since the start of 2025, indicating persistent capital flight from Vietnam’s equity market.

Large-Cap Stocks Lead Foreign Sell-Off

The most heavily sold stock by foreign investors in August was HPG (Hoa Phat Group), which saw outflows of 5.7 trillion VND well above any other ticker. FPT followed with 3.1 trillion VND in net selling. The banking sector was not spared, with VPB, VHM, MBB, SSI, CTG, and STB all registering significant net outflows ranging from 976 billion VND to over 2 trillion VND. The relationship here is causal: foreign institutional repositioning away from large-cap, liquid names signals a retreat from short-term exposure and confidence, likely driven by global uncertainties and a strengthening US dollar.

In contrast, a few stocks attracted net buying from foreign investors. GMD led with 649 billion VND in inflows, followed by SHS (400 billion), VND (300 billion), CMG (155 billion), and others like DIG, HDG, PDR, and DCM. These picks likely reflect niche strategic allocations rather than a reversal in broader sentiment.

External Forces Drive Capital Flight

The sharp acceleration in foreign selling comes at a time when Vietnam’s domestic fundamentals remain stable. Strong corporate earnings, rising liquidity, and positive sectoral data suggest healthy underlying conditions. However, exogenous factors have distorted capital flows.

One key influence is global macroeconomic uncertainty. Volatility in international markets, coupled with the Federal Reserve’s policy stance and a stronger USD, has led many institutional funds to rebalance portfolios away from emerging and frontier markets, including Vietnam. Additionally, the lack of quality supply few new listings, weak auction activity, and a limited number of compelling large-cap entrants narrows investment options for large funds, thereby amplifying capital outflows.

The relationship here is not purely reactive but structurally correlated: the Vietnamese market’s low breadth in terms of investable, high-quality stocks makes it particularly vulnerable during global rotations.

Valuation and Upgrade Narrative Sustain Optimism

Despite foreign divestment, domestic investor confidence remains strong. Vietnam’s stock market valuation, with a P/E ratio around 15x according to FiinPro and 15.4x per Bloomberg, remains near its 10-year average and significantly below its long-term upper bound. This implies room for further price appreciation if earnings growth continues.

VNDirect projects that the VN-Index could reach the 1,850–1,900 range within 9–12 months, driven by the prospect of market reclassification, supportive monetary policy, and consistent corporate earnings. In particular, the expected upgrade by FTSE to Secondary Emerging Market status in September, and a potential MSCI upgrade by mid-2027, are seen as transformative events that could structurally raise investor access and capital inflows.

Maybank Investment Bank echoed this positive outlook, raising its year-end VN-Index target by 20% to 1,800 points and forecasting 18.5% earnings growth in 2025. If the FTSE and MSCI upgrades proceed as anticipated, Vietnam could attract up to 1 billion USD from passive funds and an additional 4–5 billion USD from active institutional investors.

Vietnam’s stock market stands at a pivotal crossroads. On one hand, robust domestic growth, strong liquidity, and favorable valuation metrics support continued upside. On the other hand, historic levels of foreign capital flight reveal deeper structural limitations, such as insufficient quality listings and sensitivity to global fund rotations. Whether the market can sustain its rally will depend on internal resilience and external validation especially through a successful market reclassification and sustained earnings performance.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

De Minimis Termination Sparks Global Shockwaves

On August 29, President Donald Trump officially revoked the “de minimis” tax exemption, a policy that had allowed shipments valued under $800 to enter the United States tariff-free for nearly a decade. Initially slated to expire in 2027, the exemption’s abrupt removal has caught many businesses, customs officials, and logistics services off guard. Trump labeled the policy a “catastrophic loophole” that facilitated tax evasion and the influx of unsafe or underpriced foreign goods into the U.S. market.

The sudden enforcement left limited time for systemic adjustment. Postal services in several countries, including Thailand, temporarily halted outbound shipments to the U.S. as they awaited customs system updates, while retailers and manufacturers scrambled to recalculate costs and reconfigure fulfillment operations. The immediate causal link between policy removal and logistical paralysis illustrates the heavy dependency of global e-commerce on this exemption framework.

Financial and Operational Fallout for Businesses

According to CNBC, both large corporations and small online sellers had relied on the de minimis exemption to minimize overhead in cross-border e-commerce. The policy shift now raises baseline costs, prompting fears of price hikes. Lynlee Brown from EY’s global trade team emphasized that such a broad-scope change could cause both financial and operational dislocation, particularly for companies with lean margins.

Red Stag Fulfillment reported that de minimis-eligible goods previously made up 92% of total inbound U.S. shipments, averaging up to 4 million packages per day. The end of this provision could increase overall expenses for American small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by as much as $71 billion. This is a direct economic consequence: the absence of tax-free treatment compresses profit margins, limits pricing flexibility, and raises final costs for consumers.

Notably, 73% of de minimis shipments previously originated from China, although this share has dropped by one-third since May 2025, when Trump first signaled policy changes targeting Chinese imports. Following China are suppliers from Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and emerging players such as India, South Korea, and Thailand.

Rising Consumer Prices and Domestic Retail Pressures

Domestic retailers have long contested the de minimis exemption, arguing it unfairly benefits foreign e-commerce platforms. With the exemption removed, traditional U.S. retail chains like Walmart and Target now face elevated import costs, which are translating into higher prices for consumers. The causal relationship here is direct: increased tariffs on foreign shipments lead to cost inflation that is passed along the supply chain, ultimately affecting retail pricing and consumer behavior.

Coinciding with the implementation of this policy change, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump had exceeded his constitutional authority by declaring a national emergency to justify wide-ranging tariff hikes. The decision upheld a previous May ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade but refrained from immediately overturning the contested tariffs, granting time for potential appeal to the Supreme Court.

The ruling challenges a central element of Trump’s trade strategy applying sweeping tariffs under emergency powers. Specifically, the April tariffs targeting most of America’s trading partners, alongside earlier levies on China, Mexico, and Canada, are now under legal scrutiny. Although tariffs on steel, aluminum, and imported automobiles remain untouched by the decision, the ruling narrows the scope through which the president can act unilaterally in trade matters.

According to judicial interpretation, Trump could still impose trade penalties under the 1974 Trade Act but would be limited to a maximum 15% rate over a 150-day period, applicable only to countries with significant trade deficits. Other instruments, such as Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, require formal investigation by the Department of Commerce and do not grant immediate executive discretion.

Implications for Trade Policy and Supply Chains

The dual shock of policy reversal and legal curtailment exposes both economic and legal vulnerabilities in the Trump administration’s trade strategy. The removal of de minimis is not only a tactical policy maneuver but also a symbolic assertion of protectionist doctrine, reinforcing Trump’s effort to curtail what he views as an imbalanced trade environment.

However, this approach also risks undermining the very infrastructure that has supported the global boom in e-commerce and affordable goods. The ripple effects supply chain freezes, business model disruption, inflationary pressures, and legal uncertainty highlight the deep interdependence between customs policies and global economic stability.

The sudden termination of the de minimis exemption represents a pivotal shift in U.S. trade policy under President Trump, intensifying costs for businesses and consumers alike while triggering operational chaos across international supply chains. Coupled with legal resistance to the administration’s expansive tariff authority, the move sets a contentious precedent that may define the next phase of U.S. trade relations, with significant implications for both economic efficiency and legal governance.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Forecasts Reflect Global Weakening

Fitch Ratings has revised its outlook for the world economy, forecasting global GDP growth to decline to just 2.2% in both 2025 and 2026, substantially below the 2.9% recorded in 2024. This projection not only falls short of the historical average of 2.7%, but also sharply contrasts with the more optimistic forecasts made in late 2024, which were based on the surprisingly strong US recovery and moderate improvements in the Eurozone. The shift in expectations primarily stems from the severe impact of escalating tariffs initiated by the United States an economic shock of a magnitude not witnessed since the Great Depression era.

Despite recent trade tensions between the US and China showing signs of easing, with certain tariff rates being reduced from their April peaks, the effective tariff rate (ETR) imposed by the US now stands between 15% and 20%. This marks a steep rise from the 2.5% level in 2024. Such an increase disrupts global trade flows and heightens input costs, pushing the global economy into an unprecedented adjustment period.

According to Fitch, the shock will reduce global GDP by approximately 1% over the 2025–2026 period equivalent to a loss of $1 trillion. The relationship here is causal: the widespread application of tariffs raises prices, weakens consumption, slows investment, and causes ripple effects across interconnected economies. This downturn is not driven by cyclical fluctuations, but by policy-driven trade barriers that alter production and consumption dynamics globally.

United States: Consumption Wanes, Investment Stalls

The US economy, which expanded by 2.8% in 2024, is expected to slow to 1.5% in 2025. A key factor is the lagging effect of tariffs on consumer prices, which are anticipated to rise notably in the second half of the year. This price inflation is already eroding real wage growth and household income, directly weighing on consumer spending, which has declined noticeably in the first five months of 2025.

The surge in imports during Q1 2025, ahead of expected tariff implementation, led to a spike in inventory accumulation. However, this front-loaded demand was not sustained, and domestic demand excluding trade and inventories also weakened. The revenue from tariffs may support the economy through tax cuts in 2026, but the delayed fiscal stimulus will not compensate for the immediate drag in 2025. The causal connection is direct: the tariffs have already dampened purchasing power and are reducing investment as businesses react to heightened policy uncertainty and slowing consumer demand.

China: Growth Resilience Amid Trade Retaliation

China remains a primary target of US tariffs, with its ETR on exports to the US rising from 11% in 2024 to 41% by mid-2025. Although this rate has fallen from a brief peak of 125%, it still presents a substantial burden. The share of Chinese exports destined for the US previously around 15% of total exports fell 16% year-on-year in June 2025, highlighting the impact.

However, China has sustained overall export volumes thanks to a relatively stable renminbi and redirected shipments to other global markets. The government has responded with expansive fiscal and monetary easing, helping to propel Q2 GDP growth to 5.2%, surpassing expectations. Despite this headline growth, internal imbalances persist. Consumer spending remains subdued, real estate transactions are declining, and fixed investment is slowing. Nominal GDP growth fell to 3.9% in Q2, down from 4.6% in Q1, indicating deflationary pressure. This suggests a correlation between external trade shocks and suppressed domestic demand, although internal structural issues also contribute to the economic fragility.

Eurozone: Struggling to Regain Momentum

The Eurozone, still reeling from the 2022 natural gas crisis and the post-pandemic inflationary surge, is encountering renewed challenges as the US imposes a 15% ETR on exports from the bloc. The US is the EU's top non-EU export destination, accounting for 21% of outbound goods, making this tariff particularly damaging. Growth in the Eurozone barely reached 1% in 2024 and is expected to decline further to 0.8% in 2025.

Germany, the region’s largest economy, has seen some relief through a modest revival in domestic demand. Real wages have rebounded as inflation and household saving rates decline. Private consumption rose 1.1% in Q1 2025 compared to a year earlier, a correlation that reflects the supportive role of improving household liquidity conditions. Moreover, the European Central Bank’s 200-basis-point rate cut since June 2024 has revived household lending and residential construction.

A significant shift in fiscal policy is also underway. Germany's new government has announced plans to borrow an additional €850 billion (equivalent to $991 billion or 18% of GDP) over the next five years to bolster infrastructure and defense spending. This policy move indicates a strategic attempt to compensate for weakened exports by stimulating domestic demand and investment.

Fitch forecasts Germany’s GDP growth to rebound to 1% in 2026 after three years of stagnation, though downside risks remain, especially if global trade fragmentation continues to deepen.

The synchronized global deceleration projected for 2025 and 2026 underscores the systemic repercussions of US-led tariff policy and weakening trade interdependence. While countries like China and Germany are deploying fiscal and monetary buffers to soften the blow, the absence of coordinated international action suggests prolonged adjustment pains. The scale and scope of the tariff shock mark a turning point, where geopolitical choices increasingly override economic pragmatism, reshaping global growth trajectories in the process.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Executive Action and Fiscal Strategy

In a calculated end-of-fiscal-year maneuver, President Donald Trump formally notified Congress of his plan to cancel nearly $5 billion in foreign aid expenditures, despite the fact that these funds had already received congressional approval. The decision leverages a legal window that allows the executive to delay or cancel spending if Congress does not intervene before the financial year closes on September 30.

This move is not merely administrative but strategic, reflecting the President's broader intent to reshape U.S. fiscal priorities and reduce international spending. By issuing this directive at a time when lawmakers are pressed to finalize budget allocations, Trump positions himself to shift spending outcomes without full congressional consent.

Breakdown of Proposed Cuts

According to an unnamed senior U.S. official, the proposed rescissions target several major diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives. Specifically, $3.2 billion would be withdrawn from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)’s development programs. An additional $322 million would be removed from the Democracy Fund, which is jointly administered by the State Department and USAID. Contributions to international organizations face a $521 million cut, while peacekeeping-related expenses see a combined reduction of $838 million—split between $393 million for general peacekeeping support and $445 million from a separately budgeted peacekeeping assistance program.

These proposed reductions reveal a pattern of deprioritizing multilateral engagement and long-term development partnerships. The relationship here is primarily causal: Trump’s emphasis on domestic priorities and skepticism toward global institutions directly informs the targeting of these international aid mechanisms.

Political Repercussions and Legislative Response

Trump’s invocation of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act reopens long-standing constitutional debates about the separation of fiscal powers between the executive and legislative branches. The Act permits the President to place a temporary hold on funds while awaiting congressional reconsideration. However, Democrats argue that persistent or strategic use of this authority undermines congressional intent and creates a de facto line-item veto—a power the President does not legally hold.

In the current political climate, where tensions over government shutdowns and budget ceilings already run high, this act of unilateral budget control may provoke stronger opposition. Democratic lawmakers are expected to demand that Trump release the funds as previously appropriated, particularly in exchange for votes to prevent a government shutdown. The relationship here is reciprocal: Trump's fiscal maneuvering influences congressional willingness to cooperate on broader budget matters, while the legislature’s reactions may constrain or counterbalance executive overreach.

Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy and Global Engagement

The proposed cuts send a clear signal about the Trump administration's evolving foreign policy direction. Reducing development and peacekeeping contributions reflects a prioritization of sovereignty and bilateral dealings over multilateral frameworks. The correlation between these financial rescissions and America’s retreat from global leadership roles may not be immediate in material impact, but it suggests a deeper shift in diplomatic posture.

Internationally, such a move could weaken U.S. credibility among allies and global organizations that depend on American funding and leadership. While not all funding withdrawals will directly collapse programs, the trend reinforces perceptions that U.S. foreign aid is increasingly subject to unpredictable political winds rather than stable bipartisan commitments.

President Trump’s decision to freeze nearly $5 billion in foreign aid underscores a broader confrontation over fiscal authority and reflects a continued effort to reshape U.S. international spending in line with his administration’s priorities. The maneuver not only escalates tensions with Congress but also risks long-term consequences for America’s global influence and diplomatic consistency. As the fiscal year-end approaches, how lawmakers respond may determine whether this tactic becomes precedent or political flashpoint.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

The depth of division in the EU

At the Copenhagen meeting on August 30, EU foreign ministers failed to reach consensus on adopting stronger actions against Israel, particularly in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas acknowledged the lack of unity, stressing that without a coherent position, the EU risks losing credibility on the global stage. The divide itself reflects more than mere political hesitation; it underscores how internal disagreements within the bloc reduce its capacity to act as a cohesive power in international conflicts.

Countries such as Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands urged the suspension of the EU-Israel free trade agreement. Their stance is grounded in the correlation between Israel’s restrictive measures on humanitarian aid and the worsening civilian toll, suggesting that economic pressure could influence Israel’s policy decisions. By contrast, Germany, Hungary, and the Czech Republic opposed such measures, arguing that limiting trade or research cooperation would not directly alter Israel’s military strategy and might undermine diplomatic channels. Germany’s stance, in particular, shows a clear cause-and-effect relationship: while Berlin suspended certain arms deliveries, it resisted curbing research ties, suggesting that it perceives weapons transfers as more directly linked to conflict escalation than academic cooperation.

Trade and research disputes

The European Commission put forward a softer proposal to restrict Israel’s access to EU-funded research programs. This option was strategically chosen because it requires only qualified majority approval, not unanimity. Support from at least 15 member states representing 65% of the EU population would be enough for adoption. Here the relationship is primarily symbolic rather than causal: denying access to research funds would not directly influence Israel’s conduct of war but would act as a political signal of disapproval.

The EU remains Israel’s largest trading partner, with bilateral goods trade valued at 42.6 billion euros (49.9 billion USD) in 2024. Any disruption in this relationship would carry tangible economic consequences. Ireland’s foreign minister Simon Harris explicitly linked the urgency of sanctions to the humanitarian situation in Gaza, stating that inaction enables continued suffering as children face starvation. The connection here is causal: sustained EU economic engagement without restrictions strengthens Israel’s resilience against external pressure, while sanctions could weaken its economic flexibility.

The humanitarian backdrop further intensified debate. On August 22, the United Nations officially declared a famine in Gaza, citing systematic obstruction of aid by Israel. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification initiative, over 500,000 people currently face catastrophic conditions, with projections of 614,000 by the end of September. The correlation between Israel’s restrictions and famine levels was highlighted by the UN as a systemic factor worsening the crisis.

Israel’s response and EU credibility

Israel dismissed the criticism, maintaining that its military actions are necessary to defeat Hamas. This defensive stance complicates the EU’s efforts to present itself as a neutral but principled actor. The inability of EU member states to agree on a common line reflects not only their divergent foreign policy traditions but also the tension between moral imperatives and strategic alliances. The causal chain here is clear: divisions within the EU weaken its leverage, which in turn limits its capacity to affect Israeli policy or to shape international negotiations.

The EU’s internal split over economic pressure on Israel illustrates both the limits of its collective power and the growing gap between humanitarian concerns and political pragmatism. While some states see sanctions as a necessary tool to address civilian suffering, others argue that such steps risk damaging long-standing partnerships without producing meaningful change. The debate reveals that the EU’s credibility on the global stage is not only a matter of policy but also of its ability to act with unity when faced with complex international crises.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Fitch Cuts Global Growth Outlook to 2.2%: Warning Signs from Tariffs and Investment Slump

The global economy is facing its steepest downturn in years, with Fitch Ratings slashing its GDP growth forecast for 2025 and 2026 to just 2.2%, down from 2.9% in 2024. This figure is notably lower than the historical average of 2.7%, reflecting the lingering impact of the most severe global trade war since the 1930s, according to the agency.

The primary driver of this shift is a surge in U.S. tariffs, particularly against China and the European Union, with effective tariff rates (ETRs) now reaching 15–20%, a sharp rise from just 2.5% in 2024. Such a sudden increase is historically rare and difficult to model, but preliminary estimates from Oxford Economics indicate a global GDP loss of around $1 trillion over the next two years.

U.S. Economy Slows Sharply as Tariff Effects Ripple

America's growth, which hit 2.8% in 2024, is expected to fall to 1.5% in 2025. Although U.S. consumers front-loaded import purchases to avoid incoming tariffs in Q1 2025 leading to a temporary surge in inventories both consumer demand and wage growth have now weakened due to higher inflation from tariff-induced price rises. Household income growth is slowing, and fiscal uncertainty is dampening investment. Real GDP excluding trade and inventory factors is decelerating, and housing remains in a slump.

While the U.S. plans to redirect tariff revenues into tax cuts to stimulate demand, the impact won’t be felt until at least 2026, reducing near-term economic momentum.

China Absorbs Shock with Stimulus, But Structural Weakness Remains

China’s export sector is also bearing the brunt of the trade war. U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports surged to 41% in 2025, a slight retreat from the 125% peak in April but still highly punitive. Chinese exports to the U.S. dropped 16% YoY by June, though sales to other markets remained stable thanks to a relatively stable USD/CNY exchange rate.

Despite aggressive fiscal and monetary stimulus, including credit easing and infrastructure spending, China’s domestic consumption remains soft, investment is slowing, and the real estate sector is under renewed pressure. Although real GDP grew 5.2% in Q2, nominal GDP has slipped to just 3.9%, signaling rising deflationary pressure.

China’s annual growth is projected to fall below 5%, with serious implications for East Asia’s smaller, export-dependent economies that are deeply integrated into China's supply chains.

Eurozone Falters, But Germany Eyes Recovery through Spending Surge

The Eurozone economy, long plagued by post-COVID inertia, energy shocks, and weak exports, is now being hit by new U.S. tariffs averaging 15% on EU goods impacting its largest export destination, which accounts for 21% of non-EU trade.

While overall Eurozone growth could fall to just 0.8% this year, Germany is showing signs of resilience. Real wages have started to recover, household savings rates are declining, and consumption rose by 1.1% YoY in Q1 2025.

Importantly, the European Central Bank’s rate cuts totaling 200 basis points since June 2024 have stimulated household lending and construction. Adding to the momentum, Germany’s new government has announced an €850 billion investment plan (18% of GDP) over five years for defense and infrastructure. As a result, Germany’s growth is forecast to rebound to 1% in 2026, ending a three-year stagnation cycle.

A Fragile Global Outlook Hinges on Policy Moves

Despite some localized fiscal support and easing, the global economy remains vulnerable to demand shocks, geopolitical risk, and protectionist policies. Tariff escalation especially from the U.S. has already triggered structural slowdowns in trade and investment, with limited offset from monetary or fiscal tools in the near term.

With major economies like the U.S., China, and the Eurozone all showing signs of deceleration, the risk of a broader global stagnation or even synchronized recession is rising, unless there is a meaningful de-escalation in trade tensions and a coordinated push for investment and consumer recovery.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

U.S. Steps Up Pressure on Russia with Economic Sanction Threats

As the Russia-Ukraine war stretches on, the United States has escalated diplomatic pressure by signaling it may impose additional economic sanctions on Moscow should the conflict continue unresolved. Speaking at a UN Security Council session on August 29, acting U.S. representative John Kelly expressed grave concern over the ongoing attacks in Ukraine and warned that "it is time for Russia to choose peace." He called for a direct bilateral meeting between Russian and Ukrainian leaders.

The message comes amid President Donald Trump’s increasingly active diplomatic role. According to White House sources, Trump is pushing for a Russia–Ukraine peace summit, which could later evolve into a trilateral meeting involving the U.S. He has held a series of shuttle diplomacy meetings with President Putin, President Zelensky, and various NATO and EU leaders to facilitate progress.

Russia and Ukraine Respond with Conditions

Russia's Deputy UN Ambassador Dmitry Polyanskiy signaled conditional openness to a summit with Kyiv but insisted that proper preparation and meaningful content are essential. He also stated that the U.S. must address the root causes of the conflict, implicitly pointing to NATO expansion and regional security concerns.

Ukraine’s response was also cautious. Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko reiterated Kyiv’s commitment to a peaceful resolution, emphasizing that a ceasefire must be established first as a prerequisite for any successful negotiation. Kyiv also demands credible security guarantees, indicating skepticism about Moscow’s intentions.

Summit Prospects Remain Unclear

While both sides publicly express willingness to meet, preconditions on both ends have delayed the feasibility of a direct summit. Trump’s administration continues backchannel consultations with both governments, but progress is limited by deep-seated distrust and divergent views on what constitutes a fair resolution.

In response to recent mixed messages from Moscow, President Trump warned of "serious consequences" if no summit is convened soon. Although economic sanctions are not new in the U.S.–Russia standoff, Washington appears poised to intensify financial restrictions as leverage to compel Russia toward the negotiating table.

This moment reflects a critical diplomatic juncture, as the Biden-era approach of multilateral pressure gives way to Trump’s preference for deal-making summits and direct engagement. Whether this yields concrete results, however, remains to be seen amid the entrenched dynamics of war and diplomacy.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites