Tag: Economic scenarios

Japan, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has resigned. Sanae Takaichi has been nominated in his place. The issue deserves a focus. Why?

Japan, at this moment, deserves a deeper look. Here we will deal with a new figure in Japanese politics, Sanae Takaichi, a possible future Prime Minister, especially due to her ideas on economic policy. Let us not forget, in fact, that Japan is the fourth-largest economy in the world, with significant weight globally.

Japan: Let’s Quickly Give Some Context

In early September, Japan experienced a delicate moment regarding national politics: Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), resigned.

The LDP members chose Sanae Takaichi in his place, who could be the first woman in Japan to hold the role of Prime Minister. First, however, the LDP must find one or more partners with whom to form the coalition that will govern the country. This is because Komeito, literally the “Clean Government Party”, which for more than twenty years was a government ally with the LDP, declared it wanted to break the agreement. All this will make Takaichi’s nomination as Prime Minister slightly more complex.

Let us now see, in more detail, who Sanae Takaichi is and why these political dynamics should interest us.

Who is Sanae Takaichi?

The daughter of an office worker and a policewoman, Sanae Takaichi was born in Nara Prefecture in 1961. Before entering politics, Takaichi was a heavy metal drummer, an expert diver, and a television presenter.

She developed an interest in politics around the 1980s and entered the political game in 1992, when she tried to run for parliament as an independent. The attempt failed, but she did not give up: four years later she ran again with the LDP and was elected. From that moment she is considered one of the most conservative figures of the Liberal Democratic Party.

Moving on to her positions on economic policy, Takaichi is an absolute fan of Margaret Thatcher. Her goal, as she herself has declared, is to become the Iron Lady – the nickname given to Thatcher when she governed – of Japan. Furthermore, she was a protégé of former Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe, a very influential figure in her formation.

This last point is very important: Shinzo Abe, in fact, was the author and strong supporter of an economic policy based on a strong injection of money through fiscal stimuli and increased public spending. The aim was to revitalise the Japanese economy, at that moment in a deep crisis caused also by the shock of the 2008 financial crisis.

Specifically, Abenomics – a portmanteau of Abe and Economics – was founded on three arrows: expansive monetary policy to increase inflation (Japan was in a state of chronic deflation) and depreciate the Japanese Yen, favouring national exports; negative interest rates to incentivise money circulation in the economy; and structural reforms to increase Japan’s competitiveness. Sanae Takaichi has promised to relaunch her vision of Abenomics.

Let us therefore come to the central core of the article.

With Sanae Takaichi, Japan Could Join the Fiscal Stimulus Club

The Japanese Iron Lady seems to have clear ideas: “I have never denied the need for fiscal consolidation, which is naturally important. But the most important thing is growth. I will make Japan a vigorous land of the Rising Sun again”. In other words, economic growth comes before balancing public accounts.

Sanae Takaichi, indeed, has promised huge public funding for government-led initiatives in sectors such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and batteries. She then declared she wants to increase defence spending and announced new tax credits – i.e., fiscal bonuses – to increase workers’ net income, deductions for domestic services, and other tax breaks for companies offering internal childcare services. Finally, her programme envisages strong public investments in infrastructure.

Financial markets, naturally, like all this very much: fiscal stimuli and expansive policy are manna from heaven for businesses, which can access credit more easily, invest, innovate and, ultimately, increase profits, with more than positive consequences for share values. And the effects have already been felt.

Market Reactions: The “Takaichi Trade”

The Nikkei, the main Japanese stock index, proved particularly sensitive to developments regarding Takaichi’s nomination as Prime Minister. Retracing the sequence of events, it is patently obvious how the Japan 225 – another name for the Nikkei – strongly desires the Iron Lady governing the Land of the Rising Sun.

For example, Sanae Takaichi was chosen by the LDP as heir to the resigning Prime Minister Ishiba on the weekend of October 4th and 5th, with stock exchanges closed. On Monday the 6th, the Nikkei gained more than 5.5% in a single session – reaching up to 8% if we also count Friday the 3rd, when rumours were already starting to circulate. The “Takaichi trade”, in this sense, led the main Japanese index to touch new highs.

Equally but conversely, when Komeito broke away from the coalition, undermining Takaichi’s nomination, the market reacted very negatively: on October 10th, the Nikkei lost more than 5.6% on the stock exchange.

Since Komeito’s renunciation, Sanae Takaichi has moved to look for other parties that could support the government alliance, obtaining good results. As favourable news came out, the Nikkei reacted consistently: +5.4% in the week between Monday the 13th and Friday the 17th of October.

Finally, on Monday, October 20th, the leader of the right-wing party Nippon Ishin – the Innovation Party – announced that he will make official the agreement to support Takaichi’s choice as Prime Minister. Once again, the Japanese index shows its appreciation: +2% in one session and an updated All Time High.

What is the Moral of the Story?

So, even the fourth economy in the world could start spending, and heavily. With the new leader, Japan could switch to a regime of great public spending, large deficits, and expansive monetary policy, enormously increasing public debt. The goal: to ensure that economic growth exceeds debt growth.

We are in a historical moment where the top three world economies, with the fourth trailing, have launched fiscal stimulus policies founded on a massive increase in public debt.

The moral, therefore, is singular and very simple: if the main thought is “spend”, the method to realise it is printing money. The necessary consequence is the devaluation of money – or, in other words, inflation. In similar scenarios, the main protection instruments, the so-called debasement hedges, have historically represented a valid exit route for capital preservation.

And when one speaks of debasement hedges, the mind immediately runs towards two assets: gold and Bitcoin. All this is even more valid if we rethink the very recent statements of Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, released during an interview with the broadcaster CBS: “Markets teach you that you must always question your convictions. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have a role, just like gold: they represent an alternative”.

What awaits us in the near future? If you don’t know how to answer, don’t worry, nobody knows. However, to not miss updates, you could subscribe to our Telegram channel and Young Platform, given that we deal often and very willingly with these themes.The information reported above is for exclusively informative and divulgative purposes. It does not in any way constitute financial advice, investment solicitation, or personalised recommendation pursuant to current legislation. Before making any investment decision or asset allocation, it is advisable to contact a qualified consultant.

Sign up to Young Platform

Start now

Is gold reversing course? 21 October marks the worst decline in recent years and surprises investors. What happened and why?

On Tuesday, 21 October, the price of gold fell to levels not seen in about 12 years. The event left investors around the world speechless: added to the extent of the loss was the shock caused by the fact that the value of the precious metal had been rising steadily for months. So? It’s time to analyse the facts. 

The price of gold plummets: what happened?

In just over 24 hours, gold recorded its worst performance since 2013, losing almost 8.3% to reach $4,000, before rebounding and settling at a compound of writshock– in the range between $4,050 and $4,150. 

An incredible figure that testifies to the magnitude of the event is related to the loss, in terms of market cap, of the most noble of metals: this -8.3% corresponds, give or take a million, to approximately $2.2 trillion or, to put it another way, the entire market capitalisation of Bitcoin. 

The collapse of gold has also affected companies linked to the mining sector – some may notice interesting similarities. The two largest mining companies in the world, Newmont Corporation and Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, have in fact recorded sharp declines: from the opening of the stock markets on Tuesday 21st to the time of writing, the two companies are losing more than 10%.

Gold is not the only precious metal in trouble: silver is currently down 8.6%, while platinum, which is actually doing a little better, is down 7.2%.

The causes

If the price of gold is plummeting, as many analysts claim, the causes are mainly technical. In a nutshell, the sell-off could be a necessary consequence of the rally that, since January 2025, has seen the yellow metal gain more than 50%: quite simply, if an asset grows for a long time, it is likely that sooner or later someone will decide to take profits. 

To this argument, which certainly carries weight given the rise in gold prices, two variables of a more political and economic nature could be added. 

The first is related to the relationship between the United States and China, which appears to be easing: after the clashes on 10 and 12 October, which eventually triggered the worst sell-off in the history of cryptocurrencies, US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to meet in Seoul on 31 October. The conditional tense is a must because The Donald has repeatedly shown that he changes his mind at the drop of a minute. 

Here is an example. On Tuesday 21st, the POTUS confirmed his intention to reach an agreement with the supreme leader: “I have a very good relationship with President Xi. I expect to be able to reach a good agreement with him,” but then added that the meeting “may not happen, things can happen, for example someone might say ‘I don’t want to meet, it’s too unpleasant. But in reality, it’s not unpleasant. It’s just business.” Pure unpredictability. 

The second, on the other hand, could be understood in part as a consequence of the first: the strengthening of the US dollar. The DXY, which measures the value of the dollar against a basket of the six most important foreign currencies, has gained 1.3% since mid-September. 

Is this a reversal of the trend or a temporary retracement?

Has the upward trend in gold come to an end, or are we witnessing a mere temporary halt? This is the question of questions, to which, of course, no one can answer.

What we can say, however, is that a change of course could be excellent news for Bitcoin. An interesting precedent can be found in 2020: when gold reached its market peak in August at £2,080, Bitcoin hit bottom at £12,250 – what times. 

From that moment on, gold moved sideways for about three years before beginning an upward trend that saw it double in value, while Bitcoin embarked on the epic bull run of 2020-2021: from £10,000 in September 2020 to £65,000 in April 2021. A veritable rotation of capital in favour of the King of Crypto. 

Citigroup assigns a strong ‘Buy’ rating to Strategy

In the event of a trend reversal, will the gold-BTC pattern repeat itself in 2025? Again, there is no way of knowing. However, banking investment giant Citigroup has officially started following Strategy (MSTR), Michael Saylor’s company that holds 640,418 BTC: its first recommendation to investors was ‘Buy’, forecasting a target price for the stock of £485. 

The interesting thing is that Strategy’s share price – at the time of writing – is around £280: if Citi sets a target price of £485, it means that it expects the stock to grow by around 70%. Citi analyst Peter Christiansen, who is monitoring MSTR, said that such a price increase “is with its base case forecast over the next 12 months, set at £181,000, a potential upside of 65% from current levels“.

Gold and itcoin, neck and neck?

We’ll have to wait and see what happens in the coming weeks. The data tells us that, over the last three years, more and more financial institutions – central banks in particular – have started to stockpile physical gold, partly to protect themselves from the devaluation of the dollar, accentuated by the Trump administration’s management.

On the other hand, we are witnessing an almost daily increase in showbero entities, both public and private, that are deciding to include Bitcoin in their treasuries and that, generally, no longer see the asset as an alternative, but as a choice.  

Finally, as always, we remind you that the information contained in this article is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, legal or tax advice, nor is it a solicitation or offer to the public of investment instruments or services, pursuant to Legislative Decree 58/1998 (TUF). Investing in crypto-assets involves a high risk of loss – even total loss – of the capital invested. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Users are invited to make their own informed assessments before making any financial and/or investment decisions.

Sign up to Young Platform

Start now

The Fed changes face: in May, Chairman Jerome Powell will end his second term, and Donald Trump will have to choose his successor. Who will it be?

After eight years, the Fed, the US central bank, will be led by a new chair: Jerome Powell, who currently holds the top job, will have to make way for a new figure. It will be up to the US President to choose his successor. Let’s take a look at the most likely candidates.  

The Fed prepares for a new Chairman.n

In May 2026, the Fed will undergo a significant structural change: the current Chairman, Jerome Powell, will step down after eight years and be replaced. The person who will head the US central bank will be chosen directly by Donald Trump: after the nomination, however, the Fed Chairman candidate will also have to be approved by the US Senate. 

As we shall see, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has released a list of five names, at least three of whom are potentially very close to being nominated. The only spoiler we can give is that Jerome Powell is not on Bessent’s list. Why? For at least two reasons. 

No chance for Jerome Powell: dura lex, sed lex

The first is legal in nature: although the law in force in the US – the Federal Reserve Act – does not set a term limit for the Fed Chair, Powell will leave the central bank due to a rather curious coincidence of events. 

Jerome Powell took office as Governor in May 2012 to complete Frederic Mishkin’s unexpired term – much like the very Trumpian Stephen Miran, who was appointed Governor last July following the resignation of Governor Adriana Kugler.

Two years later, in June 2014, Powell was officially appointed Governor for a full 14-year term, expiring on 31 January 2028. In 2018, Donald Trump, during his first term, promoted Powell to the role of Chair (i.e., President) of the Federal Reserve. Four years later, at the legal end of his term, he was confirmed by Joe Biden, who was President of the United States at the time. This brings us to the present day: in 2026, it will be four years since Biden’s confirmation and, as a result, the word ‘End’ will appear. 

But then, if the law does not set a maximum term limit for the Fed Chair, why can’t Jerome Powell be re-elected to that role? Because the Federal Reserve Act has a fundamental rule: the Fed Chair must also be a member of the Board of Governors, i.e. the central bank’s governors. 

This rule cannot be applied in Powell’s case: even if he were re-elected to the top position at the Fed until 2030, his status as Governor would lapse in 2028, as he would have reached 14 years of service since 2014. At that point, he would automatically be removed from the Chair role.  

The Trump administration’s dislike of Powell is well known

Even if this rule did not exist, the situation would not change: the chances of Powell being included in Bessent’s list would be close to zero. And here we come to the second reason, which is more ‘relational’ in nature: Trump and company do not like the current Chair, to put it mildly. 

As we have reported on several occasions, the President of the United States has often used harsh tones towards Jerome Powell, especially during the summer FOMC meetings, when the much-coveted rate cut was slow in coming. Because of this ‘slowness’, Donald Trump began to nickname him Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell and threatened to fire him on several occasions. 

With Powell now out of the running, let’s take a look at the names chosen by the US Treasury Secretary.

The most likely candidates

On Sunday, 26 October, while travelling on Air Force One to Tokyo, Scott Bessent told reporters that he had narrowed down the number of candidates to five following the first round of interviews, which is expected to be followed by a second round. 

The list includes Trump adviser Kevin Hassett, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, current Fed Governor Christopher Waller, Fed Vice Chair Michelle Bowman, and BlackRock executive Rick Rieder. Let’s take a look at them one by one.

Kevin Hassett

He is a loyal supporter of Donald Trump: he served alongside the US President during his first term as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors and still holds a position in the administration as Director of the National Economic Council. In addition, between the two terms, he worked for the investment fund of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. 

Given this background, it would be reasonable to assume that Hassett could be Trump’s first choice, as he is a politician who places great importance on loyalty. However, there are a couple of strategic considerations. 

Firstly, the markets’ reaction to his appointment could be particularly harmful, as a Fed led by Hassett would be perceived as firmly subordinate to the will of the POTUS (President of the United States). 

Secondly, if the Federal Reserve were to make decisions that Trump did not like, with equally unwelcome macroeconomic consequences, the latter would find it much more difficult to blame one of his loyalists: the rhetoric he is using against Powell would have less effect. 

Kevin Warsh

A former Fed governor, he was a member of the Board of Governors during the 2008 financial crisis, before resigning in 2011 following the US central bank’s shift towards quantitative easing (QE) – i.e. a more expansionary monetary policy. He has been an executive director and vice president at Morgan Stanley and is currently a visiting fellow at Stanford University.

His impressive CV rightly makes him a potential successor to Powell. Added to this are his connections with the American conservative establishment: like Hassett, he also worked for the White House as an economic adviser to George W. Bush (also known as Bush Jr.), who later appointed him Governor of the Fed. Furthermore, the family of his wife, billionaire Jane Lauder, granddaughter of Estée Lauder, founder of the cosmetics company of the same name, with a market cap of £32 billion, is on excellent terms with the Trump family. 

However, here too, there are a couple of strategic considerations, starting with his views on monetary policy. Warsh is considered a ‘hawk‘ because, according to reports, he is fixated on controlling inflation, which was the main reason for his resignation as Governor in 2011. A Fed led by Warsh would therefore be more inclined to implement a more restrictive, or at least less expansionary, economic policy. 

In short, a very different attitude from that of the POTUS, who has been imploring Powell to cut rates for months. 

Christopher Waller 

Currently serving as Governor of the Fed, appointed by Trump in 2020, Waller has spent his life between university classrooms and the corridors of the US central bank. 

He has taught as a professor at various universities in the United States – Indiana, Washington and Kentucky – and in Germany – Bonn University. In 2009, he joined the Fed’s St. Louis office as Vice President and Research Director, where he helped create FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data), a massive free database of economic and financial data managed by the Fed. 

Waller is a crypto-enthusiast and views the cryptocurrency sector in a positive light: on 21 October, at the Fed in Washington, he chaired the Payments Innovations Conference, a meeting which, in his own words, aimed to “bring together ideas on how to improve the security and efficiency of payments, listening to those who are shaping the future of payment systems“. The conference was attended by, among others, Sergey Nazarov, Co-Founder & CEO of Chainlink; Heath Tarbert, President of Circle; and Cathie Wood, CEO of Ark Invest. 

There is one problem with all this: Christopher Waller’s long experience within the Federal Reserve circles. The future Chair chosen by Donald Trump will also have to be a new figure, capable of reforming the Fed’s structure and making it less decisive in terms of economic management. Waller, on the contrary, may have internalised the very dynamics that Trump intends to dismantle, thus making him unsuitable for the role. 

Michelle Bowman

Michelle ‘Miki’ Bowman is the first of the two outsiders, i.e., those with a background different from the three candidates just examined. However, like Waller, Bowman is also a sitting governor appointed by Trump in 2018. Trump himself promoted her to Vice Chair of the Fed in January 2025, a role that places her just one step below Jerome Powell.

Why is she an outsider? Because, while Hassett, Warsh and Waller have a purely economic or high-finance background, Bowman has a degree in Advertising and Journalism and a master’s degree in Law. 

Before moving on to the last candidate, a note about Michelle Bowman: she is known for being someone who fights tenaciously to advance her agenda and achieve her goals, despite political pressure. For example, she has repeatedly expressed dissent towards many of the Biden administration’s measures. In September 2024, hers was the first dissenting vote by a Fed governor after two decades of unanimous voting on monetary policy. She is a strong-willed woman who would undoubtedly appeal to The Donald.  

Rick Rieder

Rieder is an outsider not so much because of his academic background, but because he is not a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors. He is, in fact, a senior manager at BlackRock with a deep understanding of the bond market, which is his speciality. 

Rieder is therefore not entirely unfamiliar with the workings of the central bank and the political subplots in Washington. Still, he is very familiar with high finance and the bureaucracy that surrounds it. In this sense, he could be considered the antithesis of Waller. 

Finally, Rieder is known for his gruelling work schedule: he is said to get out of bed every day at 3:30 a.m. to get a few hours’ head start on his competitors.     

What are the odds for each of the candidates?

Well, we have examined Jerome Powell’s potential successors; now it’s time to take a look at the bookmakers, namely Polymarket. 

At the time of writing, the odds for each name are: 

• Kevin Warsh: 15%
• Kevin Hassett: 15%
• Chris Waller: 14%
• Scott Bessent: 5%
• Rick Rieder: not even listed
• No announcement before December: 53%

Why is Scott Bessent even on the list? Because Donald Trump, on his trip to Tokyo at the end of October, told reporters that he was considering him as Fed Chair, but that Bessent himself would refuse because ‘he likes working at the Treasury‘. A few minutes later, he backtracked, saying, ‘We’re not actually considering him. ‘ 

So, who will win the race for Fed chair? Or, to quote the article’s headline: who wants to be the new chair?

Sign up to Young Platform

Start now

After 25 years of negotiations, Mercosur and the European Union are closer than ever to finalising a strategic partnership. So, what does this actually mean?

Mercosur and the European Union may be on the verge of signing a trade agreement that the European Commission itself has called “the biggest free trade deal ever signed”. The EU-Mercosur agreement involves countries that account for approximately $20 trillion in GDP and 700 million consumers.

What Exactly Is Mercosur?

The Mercosur—or Mercado Común del Sur (Common Market of the South)—is an organisation established in 1991 by the Treaty of Asunción. Its purpose is to “promote a common space that generates business and investment opportunities through the competitive integration of national economies into the international market”. The full members are Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Venezuela was also a full member but was suspended in 2016 due to anti-democratic practices. Bolivia is currently in the process of joining as the fifth full member.

Additionally, there are several associate members, who enjoy privileged status but are not part of the main bloc. These include Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.

Mercosur is a common market with the goal of increasing the exchange of goods and services, as well as the free movement of people. This applies both regionally among South American countries and internationally through agreements with other blocs, such as the one with the European Union. To achieve this, member countries are working to mutually reduce customs barriers, thereby promoting economic integration.

In 2023, the Mercosur bloc generated $447 billion in exports and $357 billion in imports, which is equivalent to 10.9% of international trade. These figures include both internal trade among members and external trade with other countries.

What Does the EU-Mercosur Agreement Entail?

Negotiations between the EU and Mercosur have been ongoing for approximately 25 years, marked by periods of tension and détente. A breakthrough finally occurred on 6 December 2024 in Montevideo, Uruguay, when EU leaders reached an understanding with the South American bloc countries. This past Wednesday, the European Commission presented the treaties that will define the commercial agreement, representing another significant step towards its officialisation.

The agreement is a result of a shared desire to remove trade barriers, ensure a responsible and eco-friendly supply of raw materials—with a particular focus on addressing Amazon deforestation—and send a clear message in favour of regulated international trade and against all forms of protectionism.

Specifically, the agreement is based on a principle of reciprocity. European industries, primarily those in automotives, machinery, and spirits, will gain greater access to the Mercosur market. In return, Mercosur will be able to more easily export its agri-food products to Europe, including meat, sugar, coffee, and soy.

This latter point, in particular, has caused some concern among agri-food companies in France, Poland, and, to a certain extent, Italy. The primary fear is related to unfair competition. South American countries have less restrictive environmental and food regulations than the EU, allowing the use of antibiotics, pesticides, and hormones that are banned in Europe.

In any case, the agreement provides for a gradual easing of customs tariffs on 90% of goods traded between the two blocs. It also establishes preferential channels for both European and South American companies, giving them greater access to public tenders and investment opportunities.

According to the European Commission, the final result will be a 39% increase in EU exports to Mercosur and an estimated 440,000 new jobs created across Europe.

The Road Ahead

As anticipated, the EU-Mercosur agreement is not yet official. However, it represents a crucial phase in bringing the two blocs closer, especially as they seek protection from costly Trump-era tariffs.

This is an interim trade agreement, meaning it is provisional. As such, it does not require the approval of all 27 member states, but rather only the ratification of the qualified majority of the EU Council. This means at least 15 out of 27 countries (55%) that represent at least 65% of the population must vote in favour.

Sign up to Young Platform

Start now

It was a busy weekend for Donald Trump, who met with Putin, Zelensky, European leaders, and NATO representatives. What happened – and how did markets react?

It was an eventful and politically charged weekend: over the course of four days, a bold and unpredictable Donald Trump hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, six European heads of state, including Giorgia Meloni, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the United States. The aim? To seek a potential solution to a war that has now entered its fourth year, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Here’s a brief recap of what took place – and a final look at how the markets responded.

Trump and Putin: meeting in Alaska – 15 August

On 15 August, at a US military base near Anchorage, Alaska, US President Donald Trump met face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the ongoing war in Ukraine. The lead-up to the meeting attracted global attention, mainly due to Trump’s surprisingly warm demeanour towards Putin: red carpets, handshakes, pats on the back, and broad smiles.

But one detail, in particular, made headlines: the US President spontaneously offered his Russian counterpart a ride in the iconic, armoured presidential limousine – known as “The Beast” – away from cameras and microphones. What was said during that ten-minute ride remains unknown. What is certain, however, is that the two men were seen laughing and chatting amicably, like old friends.

As for the press conference that followed – the quotation marks are deliberate – very little of substance was shared. The two leaders answered virtually no questions, instead offering vague and formulaic statements.

Putin opened with praise for the atmosphere of “mutual respect”, going so far as to remind attendees that Alaska was once a Russian territory. He then shifted to the main topic: the war in Ukraine. Once again, the Russian leader insisted that peace talks could only begin if certain preconditions were met – namely, international recognition of Russia’s claims over disputed regions, Ukraine’s demilitarisation and neutrality, a ban on foreign military presence, and new Ukrainian elections.

Then it was Trump’s turn. Notably restrained, the US President – usually known for his long-winded statements – kept things brief. “There were many points on which we agreed”, “great progress”, and “an extremely productive meeting” were among the few phrases he offered. In essence, a lot of diplomatic smoke and mirrors, followed by the admission that no concrete agreement had been reached – but that “we have a very good chance of getting there”.

Trump, Zelensky, Europe and NATO meet in Washington, D.C.

Between Sunday and Monday, Donald Trump held talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, before extending invitations to six European leaders – France’s Macron, Germany’s Mertz, Italy’s Meloni, Britain’s Starmer, Finland’s Stubb, and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – as well as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

The main topic on the agenda was clear: the security and territorial integrity of Ukraine. For months, Zelensky, alongside European and NATO officials, has been urging President Trump to provide firm guarantees that any peace deal must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, and that future agreements must act as a deterrent against further Russian aggression. The proposal? To allow Kyiv to build a modern, specialised and well-equipped army that would discourage any future invasions.

The problem? As we saw earlier, Vladimir Putin is wholly opposed to this and has made very different demands.

What’s Next?

It’s difficult to predict, given Putin’s elusive nature and Trump’s unpredictability. That said, on August 19, Trump confirmed that Putin had agreed to a direct meeting with Zelensky, which would be followed by a trilateral summit involving the US, Russia, and Ukraine.

In a post on his Truth Social account, Trump wrote:
“At the end of the meetings, I called President Putin and began organising a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelensky. After this meeting takes place, we will have a trilateral meeting, which will include the two presidents and Mme”

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Mertz also confirmed this announcement.

How did the markets react? 

The reaction from traditional financial markets was largely positive. The three major US indices – the Nasdaq, Dow Jones, and S&P 500 – initially rallied on news of the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska, before easing back slightly. Analysts suggest investors were hoping for more concrete results, rather than vague diplomatic gestures.

A similar trend was observed across European markets, particularly in Paris, Frankfurt, and London, which have all been performing strongly since early August.

The crypto market, however, told a slightly different story.

Between August 13 and 14, Bitcoin surged to a new all-time high of $124,000, before pulling back to around $115,600 after again failing to break through the resistance zone between $121,000 and $123,000.

Ethereum also came close to surpassing its own all-time high, missing it by just $100. It’s currently trading at around £4,300, with a renewed breakout attempt looking likely – especially now that the previous resistance at £4,100 seems to have become support.

As for the Total Market Cap, since the announcement on Thursday, 7 August, it has risen from $3.7 trillion to approximately $3.85 trillion – a gain of around 3.8% (roughly $150 billion).

Lastly, Bitcoin dominance continues to slide. Over the past 12 days, BTC’s market share has decreased by more than three percentage points, currently standing at 59.7% at the time of writing.

Is there a glimmer of hope?

So, can Donald Trump really bring Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky to the same negotiating table? Are we genuinely moving towards peace, or is this just political theatre?

And what role will Europe play in the outcome?

Subscribe to our Telegram channel or sign up directly to the Young Platform below to stay up to date with all the latest developments.

Sign up to Young Platform

Start now