Investigating a possible ceasefire frame in Ukraine is the main issue at Friday’s meeting (15.8.2025) in Alaska, among the leaders USA and Russia.
At the table is not only the territorial “bazaar” but also a series of financial in question, which relate to the interests of both the US and Russia, and the European Union (EU), which has requested a meeting with President Donald Trump, before Washington and Moscow.
In the financial strand there are five large and open fronts: the sanctions and the ceiling in Russian oil, the fate of frozen Russian assets, the energy of natural gas to Europe, the maritime flows of trade and cereals with the insurance and the security of the insurance. These are the financial “keys” that will decide whether a political agreement can stand and last.
For the US, the basic lever and powerful ‘ace in the sleeve’ is The penalties in the energy. The shape of the G7 Price Cap acts as a pressure tool to Russia, with a stricter imposition on shipping, insurance and funding of Russian crude cargoes. The goal is to limit the Kremlin Revenue without jumping international prices and enhance the negotiating power over Moscow.
The same context is the control of the so -called “shadow fleet” tankers and coordination with large buyers to comply with restrictions on transport and insurance services.
Second in question is ‘frozen’ Russian funds. The G7 formula to fund Ukraine from revenue and interest in the reserved assets has begun to be applied (the first $ 20 billion disbursements were made at the end of 2024) and the prospect is to extend time.
Washington is seeking a legally resistant solution and properly distributing weights to Europe, where most of the capital is located, 206 billion euros, with clear clauses to continue flows regardless of electoral circles.
Third Front for the US is The flows of cereals and, more broadly, navigation to and from Ukrainian ports. Reduce the cost of war risk insurance and securing safe marine corridors push international food prices lower and stabilize markets that directly affect US inflation. That is why Washington supports regulations of guarantees and insurance coverage to keep the flows open and without turmoil.
For Russia, the priorities are corresponding, as it seeks to relax the individual sanctions on energy, shipping and payments, facilities to exports of agri -food goods and fertilizers, as well as preventing the definitive “loss” of its frozen assets. Moscow is attempting to link concessions to other fields with partial utilization of the relevant revenue, conditional that will be presented as mutual beneficial, without accepting complete confiscation.
It should be noted that Natural gas is a separate chapter. The transport of Russian gas through Ukraine has stopped, closing a historic flow that has generated revenue to both Moscow and Kiev. For Russia, a “technical” return, albeit temporary, or an alternative route to Central Europe, would offer revenue and influence on the European market. Ukraine, vice versa, wants to avoid any solution that will consolidate European dependence on Russian gas, while the US is preferring to replace US LNG and other non -Russian sources to limit Russia’s influence.
In the European Union, the stakes are double, as on the one hand, the EU is steadily reducing exposure to Russian hydrocarbons, and on the other, it must guarantee that funding flows to Ukraine – especially from the extraordinary revenue of frozen Russian assets – Legal disputes and political change, at the same time that the “unpredictable” attitude of the US president does not offer any guarantees that the EU will not be surprised by Ukraine’s support alone.
In terms of food supply chains, the EU is trying to balance open maritime corridors for Ukraine by protecting its own markets. This translates into “automatic valves” mechanisms when imports exceed pre -war levels, along with European insurance and guarantees solutions to limit transport costs and not re -inflation in food, while the stability of the Black Sea flows remains critical for prices and prices.
Of particular importance is the “after” war. The updated Ukraine reconstruction estimates amount to more than half a trillion. dollars in decade horizon. The distribution of this account is crucial, as the US is pursuing a mechanism with clear compliance clauses and automatic reversal in the event of a breach, while the EU does not want to find itself exposed legally or financially, as it hosts most of its frozen funds and will raise significant information.
Finally, there is and The ‘hidden envelope’ of nuclear fuel. The US has already launched a Russian -enriched celestial detachment with transitional clauses by 2028, and, as Reuters said at the beginning of summer, in Europe the adjustment is slower due to technical dependencies to some reactors that make the transition to it, much slower and slower.