• Top Stories
  • Interviews
  • Business
  • Finance
  • Banking
  • Technology
  • Investing
  • Trading
  • Videos
  • Awards
  • Magazines
  • Headlines
  • Trends
Close Search
00
GBAF LogoGBAF Logo
  • Top Stories
  • Interviews
  • Business
  • Finance
  • Banking
  • Technology
  • Investing
  • Trading
  • Videos
  • Awards
  • Magazines
  • Headlines
  • Trends
GBAF Logo
  • Top Stories
  • Interviews
  • Business
  • Finance
  • Banking
  • Technology
  • Investing
  • Trading
  • Videos
  • Awards
  • Magazines
  • Headlines
  • Trends

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest news and updates from our team.

Global Banking and Finance Review

Global Banking & Finance Review

Company

    GBAF Logo
    • About Us
    • Profile
    • Wealth
    • Privacy & Cookie Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
    • Advertising
    • Submit Post
    • Latest News
    • Research Reports
    • Press Release

    Global Banking & Finance Review® is a leading financial portal and online magazine offering News, Analysis, Opinion, Reviews, Interviews & Videos from the world of Banking, Finance, Business, Trading, Technology, Investing, Brokerage, Foreign Exchange, Tax & Legal, Islamic Finance, Asset & Wealth Management.
    Copyright © 2010-2025 GBAF Publications Ltd - All Rights Reserved.

    ;
    Editorial & Advertiser disclosure

    Global Banking and Finance Review is an online platform offering news, analysis, and opinion on the latest trends, developments, and innovations in the banking and finance industry worldwide. The platform covers a diverse range of topics, including banking, insurance, investment, wealth management, fintech, and regulatory issues. The website publishes news, press releases, opinion and advertorials on various financial organizations, products and services which are commissioned from various Companies, Organizations, PR agencies, Bloggers etc. These commissioned articles are commercial in nature. This is not to be considered as financial advice and should be considered only for information purposes. It does not reflect the views or opinion of our website and is not to be considered an endorsement or a recommendation. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any information provided with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek Professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. We link to various third-party websites, affiliate sales networks, and to our advertising partners websites. When you view or click on certain links available on our articles, our partners may compensate us for displaying the content to you or make a purchase or fill a form. This will not incur any additional charges to you. To make things simpler for you to identity or distinguish advertised or sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a commercial article placement. We will not be responsible for any loss you may suffer as a result of any omission or inaccuracy on the website.

    Headlines

    Posted By Global Banking and Finance Review

    Posted on February 15, 2025

    Featured image for article about Headlines

    By Simon Lewis and Steve Holland

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - This was a disorienting week for those anxious over how the new Trump administration will fulfill Donald Trump's vow to end the Ukraine war.

    As the U.S. president took his first steps toward diplomacy over the nearly three-year conflict, comments from his top officials left many unsure what he has planned for the biggest security crisis to face Europe in decades.

    Trump spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy by phone on Wednesday and tasked officials with kickstarting negotiations, adding that a summit with Putin in Saudi Arabia was likely.

    The calls blindsided European allies already wondering what to make of comments from Trump's defense secretary, Pete Hegseth.

    Hegseth told NATO allies earlier on Wednesday that it was unrealistic for Ukraine to join the alliance as part of a negotiated settlement with Russia, that Kyiv's hopes of restoring its 2014 borders were an "illusionary goal," and that the United States would not send troops as part of a security force in Ukraine.

    He appeared to backtrack on his own remarks the next day, telling a press conference that "everything is on the table" for Ukraine war negotiations.

    On Friday, Vice President JD Vance sowed more confusion, suggesting in a Wall Street Journal interview that the U.S. would reserve options for pressuring Moscow, including sending U.S. troops to Ukraine, which would be a major shift from former President Joe Biden's policy of keeping American forces off the battlefield there.

    Vance later said on X the Journal had twisted his words, saying "American troops should never be put into harm's way where it doesn't advance American interests and security."

    Ambassador Daniel Fried, a retired U.S. diplomat now with the Atlantic Council think tank, said the administration's messaging had been contradictory but that officials had left themselves room to negotiate an acceptable outcome with Russia.

    "They're all over the map, they have trouble getting a disciplined line, but they haven't ruled anything out. They've covered the position in a cloud of ambiguity and uncertainty," he said.

    CONCESSIONS TO PUTIN?

    The administration's comments left the impression among some European allies that the Trump administration was making concessions to Putin before any negotiations had taken place.

    German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius on Friday called the administration's approach "clumsy" and "a mistake."

    Putin had "not budged an inch" on his negotiating position so it was not in the West's interests to do so, he said at the Munich Security Conference, where defense officials and diplomats gathered this week.

    "It would have been much better to talk about possible NATO membership and territorial changes at the negotiating table," Pistorius said.

    Republican U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate's Armed Services Committee, slammed what he called a "rookie mistake" by Hegseth to apparently cede Ukraine's border before negotiations have begun, adding he was "puzzled" and "disturbed" by Hegseth's comments.

    "Everybody knows ... and people in the administration know you don't say before your first meeting what you will agree to and what you won't agree to," Wicker told Politico on Friday.

    There were also questions over who would carry out Trump's Ukraine policy. He named in a social media post negotiators including Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who flew to Russia on Tuesday to conduct a prisoner swap, but leaving out Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg.

    The White House later clarified that Kellogg was still involved in Ukraine policy.

    Fried said that despite the confused messaging, Trump's priorities on Ukraine were coming into view and could lead to a "good outcome" for Ukraine. Those priorities appeared to be securing a ceasefire quickly, that Ukraine must have security guarantees and that European rather than U.S. troops would be on the ground to secure the peace, Fried said.

    "A good outcome means the war stops, 80% of Ukraine is free, and there are security guarantees for Ukraine sufficient that Russia won't start the war again. That is a strategic victory for Ukraine," Fried said.

    (Reporting by Simon Lewis and Steve Holland; additional reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Don Durfee and Rosalba O'Brien)

    Recommended for you

    • Thumbnail for recommended article

    • Thumbnail for recommended article

    • Thumbnail for recommended article

    Why waste money on news and opinions when you can access them for free?

    Take advantage of our newsletter subscription and stay informed on the go!

    Subscribe