Vladimir Putin gains leverage as Trump shifts US stance on Europe and Ukraine, sparking concerns over exclusion of Europe from negotiations.
In Short
U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that returning Ukraine to pre-2014 borders and NATO membership are unrealistic, suggesting a shift in negotiations that may exclude Ukraine. Meanwhile, former President Trump had a significant call with Putin, indicating a willingness to lead peace talks without European consultation, raising concerns among European leaders about their role in discussions and Ukraine’s future.
Hegseth stated that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders and NATO membership for Ukraine were unrealistic in negotiations.
These remarks suggested that Russia would not need to negotiate over Crimea nor consider NATO military presence a red line.
Shortly after, President Donald Trump revealed he had a “lengthy and highly productive” call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, indicating a willingness to lead peace talks without prior consultation with European leaders or Ukraine.
The announcement caught the international community off guard, sparking fears that Ukraine might be sidelined in future negotiations.
But is this really surprising? It’s evident that President Biden was Zelensky’s ally, and while the Ukrainian president remained hopeful (and had to be) that Trump would follow the same path, he likely anticipated changes once Trump took office.
Appeasement approach
For months, Trump has been promising to end the destabilising Ukraine/Russia conflict. Anyone experienced in negotiation knows you never reveal your next move to your adversary. Trump’s openness about his goals was likely seen as an indication that he understood the only way to contain Putin was to make him feel victorious.
Many are upset by this approach, arguing that ‘appeasement’ sends the wrong message to Putin and other authoritarian leaders. However, reality differs from textbook scenarios—the old saying ‘we won’t negotiate with terrorists’ doesn’t hold up when the terrorist possesses nuclear weapons. M.A.D. was intended to prevent World War III, and it has so far succeeded.
After nearly three years of stalemate and hundreds of thousands of deaths, the only way Ukraine can fully expel Russian soldiers is if the US, UK, and Europe deploy troops. But in which direction does that push the war?
What happens if Russia eliminates an entire UK or US battalion? The situation can escalate rapidly.
Those comparing Trump to Chamberlain in the 1930s are overlooking the fact that Hitler did not have nuclear weapons.
Munich conference
During a major security conference in Munich, JD Vance criticised Europe, questioning its current values. This remark did not sit well with European leaders, who expressed their dissatisfaction and raised concerns about the U.S. commitment to NATO and their involvement in regional security discussions.
For those who completely disregard NATO or Europe’s support for Ukraine over the past three years, consider this: without the defence of Ukraine, how easily might Russian troops have invaded and occupied the country by now?
At least there is still a country to recognise. Perhaps having 80% of something is preferable to having 0% of nothing.
Ahron Young is Ticker’s founder and Managing Editor.
Ahron Young is an award winning journalist who has covered major news events around the world. Ahron is the Managing Editor and Founder of TICKER NEWS.
First, the tariffs from China hit Australian exporters now it’s the Trump tariffs on steel and aluminium – and as we have just learnt there will be no exemption.
How will these measures affect the USA, but also China, Australia and the rest of the global economy?
Like the China COVID tariffs, the Trump tariffs will hurt Australian workers.
After all, 1 in 5 Australian workers depend on exporters and exporters pay 60 per cent higher wages on average than non-exporters in union jobs with EBAs. This will be bad for the steel workers of the Illawarra and the aluminium workers of Portland, and will also be inflationary, and put upward pressure on interest rates. That’s why we have seen the impact of tariff decisions (and tariff uncertainty) hitting the Australian share market and superannuation balances.
As a former Australian Prime Minister, could Ambassador Kevin Rudd got an exemption? I am sure he’s trying. But his pre-election comments disparaging Trump have not helped Australia’s interests not have the recent comments of another former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. But to be fair, both Rudd and Turnbull have also been critical of Beijing.
Of course, Australia is not alone. The USA’s North America closet trading partner, Canada is in the same boat, as is Mexico. Canada has just had a leadership election with former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney (who was also Bank of England Governor) taking over as Prime Minister of Canada from Justin Trudeau. The Canadian Tories led by Pierre Poilievre are going to paint Carney as a Globalist, more comfortable in Switzerland than Saskatoon, but the tariffs on Canada give the new Prime Minister a chance to wrap himself in the Maple Leaf and fight the Trump tariffs. Carney can also paint Poilievre as Trump lite, and improve the Liberals chances in a contest suffering from the unpopularity of Trudeau. When a central banker can replaced a charismatic second-generation politician as Prime Minister and have a better chance we know we are living in interesting times.
With China and the USA unreliable trade partners, what options does Australia have? The Albanese Labor Government, to their credit have improved relations with our North East Asian trading partners like Japan and South Korea, Taiwan, ASEAN (with the special Australia ASEAN summit in Melbourne last year) as well as Europe and the emerging markets of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Latin America.
We could actually get closer to Canada under their new Prime Minister, given our similar economic and political backgrounds (if not geography) and current situation on steel and aluminium tariffs. Canada has also had its issues with Beijing as well as Washington.
So forget the tyranny of distance, and May the Moose be with you.
Professor Tim Harcourt is the Chief Economist of IPPG at University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and host of The Airport Economist on Ticker.
Tim is also former chief economist of the Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE), the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA).
Since the start of the pandemic in 2020, many of Australia’s property markets have experienced some extraordinary price growth.
Many locations, both city-based and regional, achieved unprecedented price increases with median house and unit prices soaring as demand hit new highs. Where once a million-dollar house or unit median was unusual, that recent growth has launched many locations into that club for the first time.
As of January 2025, there were 1,194 suburbs or towns with a median house price or median unit price of $1 million or more – 50 more than in September 2024.
These figures show that although price growth may have eased in some locations in the past six months, the number of million-dollar markets continues to increase throughout Australia.
And there are still plenty of opportunities for investors to find markets that are set to tip over into million-dollar markets in 2025.
The latest Hotspotting and Propertybuyer, National Million Dollar Hotspots report shows there are plenty of markets teetering on the edge of a million-dollar median.
They are the markets where price growth has been steady in recent years and demand remains strong. ith that trajectory set to continue, these markets will soon breach the million-dollar barrier.
They are also strong markets for investors, where rents have been rising, yields are solid and vacancy rates are low.
Residential properties line the Sydney suburb of Birchgrove in Australia.
There is a distinct lure to investing in a suburb with a million-dollar median and it’s not just the prestige of the price tag. The magic of buying in a million-dollar suburb is its capital growth potential.
By reaching a million-dollar median, it’s already proven to be a desirable location where owner-occupiers and investors are prepared to pay top dollar to secure a piece of the action.
There are plenty of inner-city markets throughout Australia which already have million-dollar medians, but successful investors are those who find locations where prices aren’t just rising, but the fundamentals and amenities are in place to ensure ongoing solid price growth and increasing demand for properties in the suburb.
It’s essential when considering a million-dollar location to invest in that it meets a variety of criteria, not just price point. There needs to be ongoing demand for property and significant amenities to meet community needs, such as public transport, shops, schools and recreation spaces, whether that be beaches, parks or lakes.
Infrastructure spending is also important, as is solid population growth and access to good local employment opportunities. These are factors that will keep buyers returning time and again to these suburbs and increased buyer demand is what will keep prices increasing to $1 million and beyond.
Southport on the Gold Coast is a good example of this. Within less than six months, the median house price in Southport, which was a selection in our October 2024 report, has breached the $1 million median mark.
It had a median house price of around $970,000 in September 2024, which hit $1.04 million in February 2025 – that’s a rise of $70,000 in just five months.
The suburb has achieved 15% median house price growth in the 12 months to February 2025 – and is an example of what can be achieved in the Million Dollar Hotspots.
Terry Ryder is the Managing Director of HotSpotting
In a scene that could have been scripted in the Kremlin, the Oval Office clash between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has laid bare a troubling fracture in U.S. foreign policy—one that Russian President Vladimir Putin is all too eager to exploit.
What unfolded last week was not merely a diplomatic misstep but a stark illustration of how domestic bravado and miscalculation can undermine America’s standing on the world stage, tilting the balance of power toward Moscow at a pivotal moment.
The meeting, initially framed as a chance to solidify U.S.-Ukrainian ties through a potential minerals deal, devolved into a public reprimand of Zelensky, orchestrated with alarming precision by Vice President JD Vance and endorsed by Trump.
Vance’s remarks – dismissing Ukraine’s war effort and deriding diplomatic outreach as “propaganda” – set the stage for Trump to send Zelensky packing, empty-handed and humiliated. The fallout is a geopolitical gift to Putin, who now watches as the United States risks squandering its leverage in a conflict that tests the resilience of the Western alliance.
Bruised egos
This episode is more than a tale of bruised egos; it is a warning of the broader unraveling of U.S. – Russia relations at a time when strategic clarity is paramount. For decades, the United States has positioned itself as a bulwark against Russian expansionism, a role that has demanded both resolve and finesse.
Ukraine, locked in a brutal struggle for survival since Russia’s 2022 invasion, has been the frontline of that effort – a democratic nation fighting not just for itself but for the principle that borders cannot be redrawn by force.
Yet, in one ill-fated meeting, the Trump administration signaled a retreat from that commitment, handing Putin a propaganda coup and a tactical advantage.
The implications ripple far beyond Kyiv. Putin’s ambitions have never been confined to Ukraine; they extend to reasserting Russian dominance over its former sphere of influence and weakening NATO’s cohesion. A faltering U.S. commitment to Ukraine emboldens the Kremlin to press its advantage, not only on the battlefield but in the broader contest for global influence.
Staggering losses
With Russia’s incremental gains in eastern Ukraine and its willingness to endure staggering losses, Putin has wagered that time is on his side – a bet that Friday’s debacle only reinforces.
The administration’s defenders might argue that Trump seeks to disentangle the United States from a costly foreign conflict, a sentiment that resonates with a war-weary American public. But the reality of great power rivalry offers no such luxury.
Putin does not view negotiations as a path to compromise but as a tool to consolidate gains. The notion that he can be strong-armed into a settlement overlooks his track record of patience and ruthlessness.
By alienating Ukraine, Trump has not simplified the chessboard – he has ceded key pieces to his adversary.
Ahron Young is Ticker’s Founder and Managing Editor.