NEWS

These are the key events on day 1,156 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Here is where things stand on Friday, April 25:

Fighting

• Russian missiles and drones killed 12 people in Kyiv, in the biggest attack so far this year on the Ukrainian capital. The attack involved 145 drones and 70 missiles, including 11 ballistic missiles, according to Ukrainian forces.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russia is using its air strikes on Ukraine’s cities to cover advances by its ground forces, citing military leaders.
• President Zelenskyy said via social media that one of the ballistic missiles fired at Kyiv was made in North Korea. Earlier reports from the Reuters news agency identified it as a North Korea KN-23 (KN-23A) ballistic missile.
• Russia’s military said that its strikes were directed against the Ukrainian military-industrial complex and not targeted at civilians.
• Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs says seven regions remain under attack from Russia, in addition to Kyiv.

Politics and diplomacy

• United States President Donald Trump issued a rare rebuke to Russian leader Vladimir Putin following the attack on Kyiv.
• “I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Let’s get the Peace Deal DONE!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

• NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that reaching a deal to end the Ukraine war is now up to Moscow.
• “There is something on the table now, I think, where the Ukrainians are really playing ball. And I think the balls are clearly in the Russian court now,” Rutte told reporters.
• Ukraine said that a forensic medical investigation revealed that Russian forces tortured Viktoria Roshchyna, a 27-year-old Ukrainian reporter, who died last September after months in detention.

Economy

• Ukrainian Finance Minister Sergii Marchenko told the Reuters news agency that Ukraine is going “as fast as we can” on a critical minerals deal with the Trump administration, which would give the US greater access to Ukraine’s natural resources in exchange for military aid.
• Trump had said earlier that he expected to sign the minerals deal this week, but it still seems unlikely.

Ceasefire

• Trump said a ceasefire deal for Ukraine is in the works, and he was continuing to put pressure on Ukraine and Russia.
• The US president said the Kremlin had made the “pretty big concession” that it was open to “stopping the war, stopping taking the whole country”.
• Trump also suggested that Ukraine might be unable to recover Crimea.
• Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the US CBS programme, Face the Nation, that negotiations were “moving in the right direction,” but specific points needed to be “fine-tuned”.

The expectation is that whoever holds the role would be the frontrunner to succeed President Mahmoud Abbas, 89.

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) has announced the creation of a vice presidency under 89-year-old leader Mahmoud Abbas, who has not specified a successor.

After a two-day meeting, the body’s central council voted on Thursday to create the role of vice chairman of the PLO Executive Committee. This position would also be referred to as the vice president of the State of Palestine, which the Palestinians hope will one day receive full international recognition.

The expectation is that whoever holds that role would be the frontrunner to succeed Abbas, though it’s unclear when or exactly how it would be filled. Abbas is to choose his vice president from among the other 15 members of the PLO’s executive committee.

The PLO is the internationally recognised representative of the Palestinian people and oversees the Western-backed Palestinian Authority (PA), which exercises limited autonomy in some areas of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Abbas has led both entities for 20 years.

Hamas, which won the last national elections in 2006, is not in the PLO. Hamas seized control of Gaza from PA security forces in 2007, and reconciliation attempts between the rivals have repeatedly failed.

Polls in recent years have shown plummeting support for him and his Fatah party.

Western and Arab donor countries have demanded reforms in the PA for it to play a role in post-war Gaza. The authority is deeply unpopular and faces longstanding allegations of corruption and poor governance. Appointing an heir apparent could be aimed at appeasing his critics.

Hamas slammed Abbas on Thursday for comments he made a day earlier, where he described the group as “sons of dogs” and urged it to release Israeli captives and lay down arms.

“Abbas repeatedly and suspiciously lays the blame for the crimes of the occupation and its ongoing aggression on our people,” Senior Hamas official Basem Naim said.

Since Israel’s war on Gaza resumed on March 18, at least 1,928 people have been killed there, bringing the total death toll since the war erupted in October 2023 to at least 51,305, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

Abbas has been seeking greater relevance and a role in post-war planning for the Gaza Strip after having been largely sidelined.

Talks on a new ceasefire appear to have made little progress, and a Hamas delegation is in Cairo for renewed negotiations with key Egyptian and Qatari mediators.

The US president incorrectly said that prices of petrol and eggs had dropped while home sales were good.

US President Donald Trump said that housing, petrol, and grocery prices are declining. However, current data do not fully support any of these claims.

In the Oval Office on Thursday, the president, when asked about home sales and if it was an economic indicator that concerns him, said there were very good numbers on housing.

However, according to a report from the National Association of Realtors (NAR), which the reporter who asked the question was alluding to, sales of existing homes are moving at their slowest pace since 2009, and were down 5.9 percent in March from a month earlier.

“Residential housing mobility, currently at historical lows, signals the troublesome possibility of less economic mobility for society,”  NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun said in a public statement.

Trump mentioned that energy prices have dropped to $1.98 in some states. While he did not specify the type of energy, his comments closely mirrored remarks he made last week. At that time, he cited petrol prices specifically.

According to AAA, which monitors national petrol prices, the lowest recorded average was $2.70 per gallon ($0.71 per litre) last week in Mississippi. This week, Mississippi reported the lowest average petrol price again, but this time at $2.68 ($0.70 per litre). Data from GasBuddy, which tracks prices at individual petrol stations, found the lowest individual station prices to be $2.33 per gallon (0.62 per litre) — still above the figure mentioned by the president.

The national average petrol price currently stands at $3.17 per gallon ($0.84 per litre). While that reflects a five-cent increase from last month, it is a decrease from $3.60 ($0.95 per litre) at this time last year. The president correctly noted that petrol prices are trending downward, though not to the extent he suggested.

According to the latest report from the Department of Labor, overall energy prices declined by 2.4 percent over the past month, largely due to falling petrol prices. This decline helped offset increases in natural gas and electricity costs. Oil prices have also generally declined since Trump took office, predominantly on the back of economic uncertainties caused by Trump’s tariff threats.

In his comments, Trump also stated that grocery prices are decreasing. Recent data does not support this claim. According to the Department of Labor, food prices rose 0.4 percent from last month and are up 2.4 percent compared with a year ago. Price increases were observed in four out of six major grocery categories.

Eggs, which the president said had dropped in price, actually saw a 5.9 percent increase last month. Year-over-year, egg prices are up more than 60 percent. The beef index rose by 1.2 percent, and dairy prices increased by 4 percent. However, prices for fruits and vegetables did decline slightly, dropping by 0.5 percent.

The chancellor says she “understands what President [Donald] Trump wants to address” with his tariffs, ahead of talks with her US counterpart in Washington on Friday.

Rachel Reeves said there were similarities with the way both the US and UK governments had come to power off the back of voter frustration with the economy.

Speaking to BBC Economics Editor Faisal Islam ahead of her meeting with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant on Friday, Reeves said the government was working “flat out” to secure a trade deal with the US.

Earlier this week, she signaled the UK could lower tariffs on US car imports from their current 10% to 2.5% as part of a wider deal.

“We’re all grappling with this issue of tariffs but I think that there is an understanding why President Trump wants to address some of the global imbalances there are in the system,” she said.

Trump has already imposed tariffs of 25% on all car imports to the US including from the UK.

The UK also faces a broader tariff rate of 10% and is looking to negotiate an agreement with the US administration, along with dozens of other countries hit with even higher levies – most of which are currently on pause until July.

Some US officials have been positive about the prospects of a deal. Last week US Vice-President JD Vance said there was a “good chance” a trade deal could be reached with the UK.

Reeves said she had also been working closely with European and Canadian counterparts to remove trade barriers, and that conversations around the table at G20 meetings this week had been difficult:

“Obviously there are strains. We are all following what’s happening in our domestic bond markets, in our equity markets, and we all know that that uncertainty is bad for investment in the UK economy.”

Reeves went on say there would not be any celebrations if the UK got a deal as other countries were still affected.

Despite the chancellor’s focus on talks with the US, she suggested that moving closer to the EU on trade was a bigger priority. The UK is preparing for a summit with the EU in May in an attempt to “reset” the relationship between the two.

“I understand why there’s so much focus on our trading relationship with the US but actually our trading relationship with Europe is arguably even more important, because they’re our nearest neighbours and trading partners,” she said.

“Obviously I’ve been meeting Scott Bessent this week whilst I’m in Washington, but I’ve also this week met the French, the German, the Spanish, the Polish, the Swedish, the Finnish finance ministers, because it is so important that we rebuild those trading relationships with our nearest neighbours in Europe, and we’re going to do that in a way that is good for British jobs and British consumers.”

The cryptocurrency market offers tremendous opportunities, but its volatility challenges even experienced traders. Cycle trading—a strategy that capitalizes on recurring price movements within defined ranges—has emerged as a promising approach for steady profits. However, executing this strategy manually requires superhuman discipline and attention.

Automated trading solutions address these limitations by eliminating emotional decisions and providing round-the-clock precision. In this article, we’ll take a look at LOOP Bot by Bitsgap and how it helps traders avoid common mistakes while potentially increasing their income through optimized cycle trading—making this sophisticated strategy accessible to investors at all experience levels.

What Is LOOP Bot?

LOOP Bot is Bitsgap’s advanced position trading tool designed specifically for cryptocurrency cycle trading. Unlike traditional trading bots, LOOP Bot specializes in maximizing profits from natural price oscillations within defined ranges, making it ideal for sideways markets and long-term strategies.

How Does the Cycle Trading Algorithm Work?

LOOP Bot’s cycle trading algorithm operates on a simple yet powerful principle: it places strategic buy and sell orders within a predefined price corridor. When prices fall, the crypto bot purchases the base cryptocurrency; when prices rise, it sells. What makes LOOP Bot special is its intelligent approach to these cycles:

• It operates within a fixed trading corridor you define
• It can use up to 40 trading levels with customizable spacing
• When the price crosses a level, the bot automatically executes orders
• All profits are automatically reinvested, compounding your potential returns
• The bot employs intelligent order correction to avoid unfavorable price entries

This cycle repeats continuously as prices move up and down, generating consistent profits from market volatility that might otherwise seem unproductive.

How Is LOOP Bot Different from GRID Bot and Other Bots

While both LOOP Bot and GRID Bot capitalize on price fluctuations, they differ significantly in approach and functionality:

Profit Management:

• LOOP Bot automatically reinvests all profits into new transactions, accelerating capital growth
• GRID Bot fixes profit on your balance but doesn’t automatically use it for new trades

Currency Earnings:

• LOOP Bot earns in both currencies simultaneously: base currency (e.g., BTC) when prices are below entry and quote currency (e.g., USDT) when prices are above
• GRID Bot earns profit only in the quote currency

Trading Structure:

• LOOP Bot uses fewer levels (up to 40) with wider spacing for potentially higher profit per triggered level
• GRID Bot supports up to 180 levels with tighter spacing for more frequent but smaller profits

Order Management:

• LOOP Bot features intelligent order correction to avoid unfavorable price entries
• GRID Bot places orders at fixed intervals regardless of market conditions

Long-term Focus:

• LOOP Bot is designed as a positional bot for sustainable capital growth
• GRID Bot is optimized for consistent small profits in highly volatile conditions

Why Is LOOP Bot Particularly Effective in a Sideways Market?

Sideways markets—where prices fluctuate within a range rather than trending strongly up or down—present perfect conditions for LOOP Bot to thrive:

• The fixed trading corridor captures profit from every price oscillation within the range
• Dual-currency profitability ensures you’re accumulating value whether prices edge higher or lower
• Automatic profit reinvestment compounds your returns with each completed cycle
• Fewer but more profitable level crossings maximize efficiency in low-volatility periods

In trending markets, traders often struggle to time entries and exits correctly. LOOP Bot eliminates this challenge by systematically profiting from natural price movements within your defined range, turning sideways market conditions—often considered unproductive—into consistent profit opportunities.

How Does LOOP Bot Work?

LOOP Bot automates the cycle trading process by intelligently placing orders within a predetermined price range, removing emotional decision-making while maximizing profit potential in both rising and falling markets. This hands-off approach transforms market volatility into a consistent income stream.

Automatic Order Placement and Operation in a Set Price Range

LOOP Bot’s operation centers around a fixed trading corridor you define during setup:

1. You set high and low price boundaries that become your bot’s “hunting ground”
2. The bot automatically distributes buy and sell orders throughout this range (10-40 levels)
3. When price drops, the bot executes buy orders at predetermined levels
4. When price rises, it sells at higher levels, securing profits
5. Unlike manual trading, these orders remain active 24/7, capturing opportunities at any hour

What makes LOOP Bot particularly efficient is its reinvestment mechanism. Rather than accumulating profits separately (as with GRID Bot), LOOP Bot automatically reinvests gains into new positions, increasing your overall trading capital and compound growth potential. This snowball effect means your bot gradually increases its trading power over time.

Optimizing Trades in High Volatility

Cryptocurrency markets are notorious for their volatility, but LOOP Bot turns this challenge into an advantage:

• Dual-currency profit mechanism: When prices are above your entry point, you earn in quote currency (e.g., USDT); when below, you accumulate base currency (e.g., BTC)
• Intelligent order correction: The bot places levels strategically to avoid purchases at unfavorable prices, reducing the impact of sharp fluctuations
• Customizable level spacing: You can adjust the distance between orders (typically 1-3%) to balance trade frequency against profit per trade
• Optional trailing up feature: For upward-trending markets, this feature allows the bot to adjust its entry price upward, following the trend while maintaining your defined range

The bot’s most effective setup in volatile conditions is typically 20 levels (10 up and 10 down) with approximately 1% spacing between levels. This configuration provides enough density to capture frequent price movements while ensuring each triggered level generates meaningful profit.

How Does the Bot Help Avoid Human Errors?

Trading cryptocurrency manually exposes investors to several common pitfalls that LOOP Bot effectively eliminates:

• Emotional decision-making: Fear and greed often lead to poor timing—buying high and selling low. LOOP Bot follows its algorithm regardless of market sentiment.
• Analysis paralysis: Traders often overthink entries and exits, missing opportunities. The bot executes instantly when price conditions are met.
• Fatigue and missed opportunities: Markets operate 24/7, but humans need sleep. LOOP Bot never rests, capturing profitable moments at any hour.
• Inconsistent execution: Many traders abandon their strategies during volatility. LOOP Bot maintains disciplined execution regardless of market conditions.
• Over-trading or under-trading: The bot’s predetermined level spacing ensures optimal trade frequency without excessive transactions.

By removing these human errors from the equation, LOOP Bot maintains strict adherence to your trading parameters, executing the cycle trading strategy with precision and consistency that no manual trader could match. This disciplined approach is particularly valuable in sideways markets, where emotional traders often make costly mistakes due to impatience or boredom.

Benefits of Using LOOP Bot for Automated Cryptocurrency Trading

LOOP Bot offers cryptocurrency traders a powerful combination of automation, intelligence, and adaptability that transforms how they approach market volatility. By removing the emotional and time-intensive aspects of trading, it provides several distinct advantages that appeal to both beginners and experienced traders alike.

Stable Profitability Even in a Sideways Trend

While most trading strategies struggle during sideways markets, LOOP Bot excels in these conditions:

• Continuous profit cycles: The bot capitalizes on natural price oscillations within your defined range, turning seemingly “boring” markets into profit opportunities
• Dual-currency accumulation: Unlike traditional bots that profit in a single direction, LOOP Bot accumulates value in both currencies—base currency (e.g., BTC) when prices fall and quote currency (e.g., USDT) when prices rise
• Compound growth: Automatic profit reinvestment means each successful trade increases your overall trading capital, accelerating returns over time
• Reduced drawdown: The fixed corridor approach limits exposure to major market swings while still generating consistent returns from minor price movements

This stable profitability creates a psychological advantage as well. While manual traders might feel frustrated during extended sideways periods, LOOP Bot users continue seeing transaction activity and growth in their portfolios, eliminating the urge to make risky trades out of impatience.

Time Saving—Trades Without Constant Monitoring

Perhaps the most immediate benefit of LOOP Bot is the freedom it provides from constant market watching:

• 24/7 operation: The bot never sleeps, executing trades at optimal moments regardless of your availability
• Precision execution: Orders trigger instantly when price conditions are met, eliminating delays common in manual trading
• Automated reinvestment: Unlike other bots that require manual rebalancing, LOOP Bot automatically reinvests profits for continued growth
• Set-and-forget convenience: Once configured, the bot operates independently until you choose to modify settings or take profits
• Simple performance tracking: The intuitive dashboard allows quick assessment of bot performance whenever convenient, without requiring constant attention

This time-saving aspect is particularly valuable for traders with other commitments or those in different time zones from their preferred markets. By delegating the execution to LOOP Bot, traders can maintain active positions without sacrificing their work-life balance.

Flexibility of Settings—Suitable for Different Markets and Strategies

LOOP Bot accommodates a wide range of trading preferences and market conditions:

• Customizable price ranges: Set your own high and low boundaries based on your market analysis and risk tolerance
• Adjustable level count: Choose between 10-40 levels to optimize for your preferred balance between trade frequency and profit per trade
• Variable spacing options: Tighten or widen the percentage between orders (typically 1-3%) to match market volatility
• Optional trailing features: Enable trailing up to adapt to rising markets while maintaining your overall strategy
• Take-profit settings: Set automatic profit targets by price or percentage to secure gains at your preferred thresholds
• Preset configurations: For beginners, pre-optimized short-term, mid-term, and long-term setups provide ready-to-use strategies

This flexibility means LOOP Bot can adapt to different cryptocurrency pairs, market conditions, and investment goals. Whether you’re looking for frequent small gains in highly volatile assets or larger but less frequent profits in more stable pairs, LOOP Bot’s customizable parameters allow you to tailor your approach accordingly.

The combination of stable profitability, time efficiency, and flexible customization makes LOOP Bot an exceptional tool for traders seeking consistent returns without the stress and time commitment of manual trading—particularly during sideways market conditions that challenge most other strategies.

How to Set Up LOOP Bot on Bitsgap?: Bitsgap Trading Bot Setup Guide

Setting up LOOP Bot is designed to be straightforward while still offering customization for traders of all experience levels. The best crypto trading platform Bitsgap provides both preset configurations for beginners and advanced options for experienced traders. This guide will walk you through the complete setup process to have your automated cycle trading strategy up and running in minutes.

Step-by-Step Instructions:

1. Start a New Bot

• Log into your Bitsgap account
• Click the [Start new bot] button in the dashboard
• From the bot selection menu, choose [LOOP Bot]

2. Choose Configuration Method

Once you’ve selected LOOP Bot, a setup panel will appear on the right side of your screen with two main options:

• Preconfigured setup: Choose from profitable backtested strategies
• Custom setup: Create your own configuration from scratch

3. Select Exchange and Trading Pair

If you’re creating a custom setup:

• Select your preferred cryptocurrency exchange
• Choose the trading pair you want to trade (e.g., BTC/USDT)

4. Set Investment Amount

Decide how much capital to allocate to your bot:

• Enter a specific amount directly
• Or use the slider to allocate a percentage of your available balance

5. Choose Time Horizon (Quick Setup)

For a hassle-free configuration, select one of the preset options based on your intended trading timeline:

• Short-term: Uses tighter 1% spread between orders for frequent trades
• Mid-term: Balanced approach with moderate order spacing
• Long-term: Uses wider 3% spreads for fewer but potentially more profitable trades

6. Fine-Tune Settings (Manual Adjustment)

For more control, click [Manual adjustment] to customize:

• Price range: Define your high and low boundaries (your bot’s “hunting ground”)
• Order distance: Set the percentage spacing between orders (1-3% recommended)
• Order count: Choose between 10-40 levels based on your strategy

The platform’s recommendation for long-term strategies is 20 levels (10 up and 10 down) with 1% spacing between each, creating an optimal balance between trade frequency and profit potential.

7. Enable Optional Features

Consider these additional settings for your strategy:

• Trailing Up: Toggle this feature to allow your Entry Price to move upward in trending markets
• Take Profit: Set an automatic exit point by entering either a specific price or percentage of total PNL

8. Review and Launch

Once your configuration is complete:

• Click [Continue] to review your setup details
• Double-check all parameters and ensure they align with your strategy
• Click [Start Bot] to activate your LOOP Bot

9. Monitor Performance

After your bot is running:

• Click on the bot anytime to open the Performance window
• Toggle between currencies to view stats in either base or quote currency
• Track key metrics including total PNL, asset allocation, runtime, and completed trades

10. Manage Your Bot

You can make adjustments to your active bot:

• Modify settings: Go to [Bot actions] → [Modify Bot] to change parameters like Trailing Up or Take Profit
• View detailed activity: Select [Bot actions] → [View details] to see complete transaction history and open orders
• Stop the bot: Click the three dots → [Stop Bot], then choose how to handle remaining funds (convert to base currency, quote currency, or keep both)

By following these steps, you’ll have your LOOP Bot up and running, automatically capturing profits from price oscillations while you focus on other aspects of your trading strategy or simply enjoy your free time. The bot’s intelligent position management and automatic profit reinvestment will continue working 24/7 to build your portfolio in both currencies.

Profitability & Risk Management of Bot LOOP

Understanding how LOOP Bot generates profits and manages risks is essential for traders looking to maximize returns while protecting their capital. While automation offers significant advantages, it’s important to approach any trading strategy with awareness of both potential rewards and risks.

How Is LOOP Bot’s Profit Calculated?

LOOP Bot’s profit calculation differs fundamentally from other trading bots due to its unique dual-currency approach and automatic reinvestment mechanism:

• No separate “Bot Profit” metric: Unlike GRID Bot which tracks profits separately, LOOP Bot automatically reinvests all earnings into further trades
• PNL tracking: Your overall performance is measured through total Profit and Loss (PNL), which represents the combined growth across both currencies
• Dual-currency earning: Profits accumulate differently depending on price movements:

• When price is above your entry point, profits are earned in quote currency (e.g., USDT)

• When price is below your entry point, profits are earned in base currency (e.g., BTC)

This dual-currency system means your profitability isn’t solely dependent on price direction. In traditional trading, declining prices typically mean losses, but with LOOP Bot, you’re accumulating more of the base cryptocurrency when prices fall—which can be advantageous when prices eventually recover.

The compounding effect of automatic reinvestment amplifies your potential returns over time. Each completed cycle increases your trading capital slightly, allowing subsequent cycles to generate incrementally larger profits. This snowball effect becomes particularly powerful in long-term deployments where hundreds or thousands of cycles can occur.

What Are the Risks of Automated Crypto Trading?

While LOOP Bot minimizes many common trading risks, automated trading still carries certain inherent risks that traders should understand:

• Range-bound limitations: If price breaks permanently beyond your defined corridor (either up or down), the bot may not perform optimally
• Opportunity cost: In strongly trending markets, a fixed-range strategy might underperform compared to simple buy-and-hold approaches
• Technical risks: Exchange connectivity issues, API limitations, or platform maintenance can temporarily affect bot performance
• Market liquidity risk: In less liquid trading pairs, price slippage might reduce profitability on individual trades
• Black swan events: Extreme market events or regulatory changes can impact performance beyond normal volatility expectations

Unlike manual trading, automated strategies can’t adapt immediately to fundamental market shifts or unexpected news. The bot will continue executing its programmed strategy regardless of external factors until modified by the user.

How to Minimize Losses During High Volatility?

LOOP Bot includes several features specifically designed to manage risk during volatile market conditions:

• Intelligent order correction: The bot places levels strategically to avoid purchases at unfavorable prices during sharp fluctuations
• Customizable price corridors: Setting appropriate high and low boundaries helps contain risk exposure to acceptable levels
• Take-profit settings: Implementing automatic take-profit levels ensures gains are secured when targets are reached
• Optimal level spacing: The recommended 20-level setup with 1% spacing provides balanced risk-reward for most market conditions
• Trailing features: For upward-trending markets, the trailing up feature allows adaptation while maintaining risk parameters

Additional risk management practices for LOOP Bot users:

1. Start with smaller allocations: Begin with a conservative portion of your portfolio until you’re comfortable with the bot’s performance
2. Monitor wider market trends: Regularly review whether current market conditions still suit your bot’s parameters
3. Use wider corridors for volatile assets: Expanding your price range accommodates larger price swings common in highly volatile cryptocurrencies
4. Diversify across multiple pairs: Running several LOOP Bots across different trading pairs helps spread risk
5. Regular performance reviews: Check your bot’s performance periodically and adjust settings if market conditions change significantly

By combining LOOP Bot’s built-in risk management features with prudent trading practices, you can significantly reduce potential losses while maintaining the bot’s ability to generate consistent returns—even during periods of increased market volatility.

The long-term, position-based nature of LOOP Bot actually turns volatility into an advantage when properly configured, as more price oscillations within your defined range create more profit opportunities through cycle completion.

Conclusion on LOOP Bot Bitsgap: Best Crypto Trading Bot

The cryptocurrency market, with its inherent volatility and 24/7 operation, presents both challenges and opportunities for traders. LOOP Bot stands out as a exceptional solution particularly tailored for cyclical trading by transforming these market characteristics into consistent profit engines.

What sets LOOP Bot apart from other automated trading solutions is its innovative approach to market cycles. Unlike traditional bots that profit only from price increases or require constant monitoring and adjustment, LOOP Bot’s dual-currency earnings system and automatic reinvestment mechanism create a self-sustaining strategy that thrives in conditions where other approaches struggle.

The bot’s ability to earn in both base and quote currencies simultaneously means it can extract value from market movements in either direction—turning what might otherwise be considered “noise” into meaningful returns. This cycle-capturing approach is perfectly aligned with cryptocurrency’s natural tendency toward oscillation within ranges, even during broader market trends.

For traders seeking a “set and forget” solution that doesn’t require technical analysis expertise or constant market watching, LOOP Bot offers the ideal balance of simplicity and sophistication. Its intelligent order placement, customizable parameters, and profit compounding create a powerful automated partner that works tirelessly to grow your portfolio while you focus on other priorities.

When combined with Bitsgap’s intuitive interface, detailed performance tracking, and reliable infrastructure, LOOP Bot delivers a complete automated trading solution that stands among the most effective tools available for cryptocurrency investors seeking consistent, long-term results without the stress and time commitment of manual trading.

Bitsgap offers flexible subscription options and a user-friendly interface that makes getting started with LOOP Bot simple, even for those new to automated trading. The platform’s detailed analytics allow you to monitor performance and make adjustments as needed, while the bot handles the moment-to-moment execution with precision and consistency.

Whether you’re looking to:

• Generate passive income from cryptocurrency volatility
• Accumulate more of your favorite cryptocurrencies automatically
• Reduce the emotional stress of market timing
• Free up time while maintaining active trading positions

LOOP Bot offers a sophisticated yet accessible solution designed specifically for these goals. Join the growing community of traders who have discovered how automated cycle trading can transform their cryptocurrency investment experience.

Start your LOOP Bot journey today and let market volatility work for you, not against you. Your personal 24/7 trading assistant is just a few clicks away.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and the market can be unpredictable. Always perform thorough research before making any cryptocurrency-related decisions.

Russia’s biggest attack on Kyiv in months, after a day of chaotic diplomacy ended with the US president accusing Ukraine of prolonging the war.

Kyiv has rejected Washington’s proposal that it concede Crimea and other occupied territory to Moscow.

So, what’s next?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests:

Peter Zalmayev – Executive director of the Eurasia Democracy Initiative

Pavel Felgenhauer – Russian foreign policy analyst

Steven Erlanger – Chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe for The New York Times

Yale University has become the latest top institution in the United States to ban a pro-Palestine group, this time for protests against a visit by far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Ben-Gvir’s stop near the university in New Haven, Connecticut, on Wednesday sparked outrage as protesters criticised the minister’s support for surging attacks on Gaza, and most recently, his calls to bomb “food and aid depots” in the Palestinian territory.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Raed Jarrar, the advocacy director at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), described the university’s silence about Ben-Gvir, who has “openly called for genocide”, and its subsequent crackdown on protesters “not just a moral contradiction – it’s a moral and legal failure”.

The demonstrations began on Tuesday night when protesters gathered on campus and began setting up tents at a short-lived encampment. While lasting just a few hours, the scene was similar to encampment protests that swept across US universities last year, often prompting crackdowns and policy changes from administrators.

The next day, Yale said in a statement that the encampment had violated its policies related to the use of outdoor spaces and students who had been warned or punished in previous incidents would face “immediate disciplinary action”.

It added that the university was investigating “concerns … about disturbing anti-Semitic conduct at the gathering” without providing any details.

The administration also said the student organisation Yalies4Palestine would lose its official status for sending “out calls over social media for others to join the event” and for later taking credit for the event.

In a statement to the student newspaper, the Yale Daily News, a group of pro-Palestine protesters denied the event was affiliated with or planned by any group.

The protests then continued on Wednesday night when Ben-Gvir arrived for a speech at the Shabtai, a private Jewish society that describes itself as “based at Yale University” although it is not formally affiliated with or located at a property owned by the university.

Ben-Gvir briefly taunted the protesters with what his office told CNN was a “victory sign” gesture as he was met with chants of “shame on you”, according to video of the event.

His office later said a water bottle had been thrown at him from the crowd, which included students and nonstudents, and he was unharmed.

‘Attacking students … won’t save Yale’

Yale’s latest punishment for pro-Palestine protesters comes during a wider pressure campaign on top universities by the administration of President Donald Trump.

While former President Joe Biden was seen as endorsing crackdowns on pro-Palestine protests, which he broadly described in April last year as “anti-Semitic”, the Trump administration has escalated the response.

Using claims of “anti-Semitism”, the Trump administration has sought to deport noncitizen pro-Palestine university protesters and has frozen or threatened to freeze federal funding for several top institutions, including Columbia University in New York and Harvard University in Massachusetts, if they do not agree to a series of policy changes.

Throughout the protest movement, organisers have repeatedly challenged the notion that such demonstrations are anti-Semitic, noting the regular involvement of Jewish students and disavowing rare instances of anti-Jewish statements made at often publicly open demonstrations.

In their statement carried by the student newspaper, pro-Palestine protesters at Yale accused administrators of coming down particularly harshly to avoid recourse from the Trump administration.

“Attacking students and alienating community members didn’t save Harvard or Columbia. It won’t save Yale,” they said.

Yale did not reply to Al Jazeera’s request for comment on whether concerns about a Trump administration response informed its disciplinary actions or if it had any response to Ben-Gvir’s visit.

For her part, Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, responded to a video on X showing protesters refusing to break a human chain to allow a student to pass through their ranks on campus.

The post claimed: “Jewish students aren’t allowed to walk through Yale’s campus anymore!”

Dhillon wrote that her office is “tracking the concerning activities at Yale, and is in touch with affected students”.

While critics said heavy-handed responses to pro-Palestine protesters have become commonplace in the US, some observers said the dissonance on display at Yale has been particularly striking.

Ben-Gvir was convicted in 2008 by an Israeli court of inciting racism and supporting a “terrorist” organisation, the founded Kach group, which supported the annexation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian territories.

He has called for a no-holds-barred military operation in Gaza, where UN experts already say Israel is committing “genocidal acts”.

He has appealed for Israel to commit what would constitute war crimes under international law in Gaza. Most recently, he posted on X that he told “senior Republican officials” at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that Israel should bomb “food and aid depots”.

‘Deepest contradiction’

Eman Abdelhadi, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, said Yale’s silence regarding Ben-Gvir speaking at an organisation that claims to be based at the university “exposes the deepest contradictions in our society and in these institutions that are supposed to be dedicated towards truth seeking and critical thought”.

“[Ben-Gvir] faces no red line,” she said. “But the people protesting can face severe consequences.”

“This is a moment where universities are fighting for their lives and trying to argue to the American public that they are worth saving in the face of Trump’s onslaught,” she said. “And yet they show no moral courage.”

Constance Marten has told the jury at her retrial that she “absolutely” loved her baby daughter and she and Mark Gordon did everything they could to protect her.

She also said that her four other children had been “stolen by the state”, and described her family, which she did not want to be part of, as “bigoted”.

Marten, 37, and Mark Gordon, 50, deny gross negligence manslaughter and causing or allowing the death of a child.

They are facing a retrial at the Old Bailey. Marten had been due to start giving evidence on Tuesday but complained of a toothache and headache.

In their first trial, they were found guilty of concealing the birth of a child and perverting the course of justice by not reporting the death of their baby.

The couple’s baby Victoria, their fifth child, was found dead in a shed on a Brighton allotment, in a shopping bag covered in rubbish in March 2023. Her body was so badly decomposed that pathologists could not ascertain the cause of death.

Their four other children had previously been taken into care.

Giving evidence for the first time on Thursday, Marten was asked by her barrister Mr FitzGibbon KC if she loved her daughter.

“Absolutely”, Marten replied.

“Did you do anything to cause her harm?”, Mr FitzGibbon KC asked.

“Absolutely not. We did everything we could to protect her”, Marten said.

She was then asked how she felt now about her daughter’s death.

Marten said: “I don’t think this process has really allowed me to grieve properly. I still feel angry, upset. Still an element of shock”.

Asked about the couple’s four other children Marten said she “loved them extremely.”

“Not being with them is very, very hard”.

When Mr FitzGibbon KC asked if she agreed with the decisions made about taking the children away, Marten said “absolutely not… it’s an absolute outrage”, adding that her children were “stolen by the state”.

Marten told the jury that since she was little she always wanted to have a big family, adding “at least seven children would be my dream”. She said she would have liked to live on a farm.

She said she met Mark Gordon about 10 years ago in a shop in East London. “I sort of see it as fate,” she said.

Asked how she feels about him, she said: “I love him very much”, adding that he was “very dear” to her.

When asked about whether she would describe her background as privileged, Marten said “financially yes, emotionally not all”.

She said she tried to introduce Gordon to members of her family, but she found them to be “very cold” towards him.

“I have always had a frosty relationship with my family.

“They can be quite bigoted. I don’t really want to be part of it”, she said.

“I didn’t really grow up with them,” she said. “I went to boarding school when I was about eight.”

She said that when she got pregnant with Victoria, she and Gordon had at first planned to move abroad but her family intervened.

As a result, they left their home in London and lived in a series of hotels and bed and breakfasts, she explained, adding that in the week before Christmas 2022, they rented a cottage in Northumberland.

On Christmas Eve they went shopping for baby equipment at Primark in Carlisle where she started feeling that the baby was coming.

“I started having birth pangs pretty much as we started leaving Carlisle,” she said.

She drove back to the cottage and said she gave birth leaning against the bed upstairs without medical assistance. “It was a very quick birth actually, Very easy,” she said.

Two days later the family moved on again.

“Obviously it would have been nicer to have been somewhere stable and to have been able to properly relax… but we weren’t in that position”, she told the jury.

The couple travelled to Harwich in Essex, arriving in the early hours of 6 January 2023. When they checked into a hotel Constance Marten gave a made-up surname.

She said she did it because she did not want to be found by either the authorities or her family and “wanted to stay incognito”.

She said the couple wanted to be near a port where they could rent a place with cash while trying to find out how they could get abroad illegally. She said she thought there were travel restrictions against her.

Her barrister asked if she was thinking clearly at the time.

“We were in a set of circumstances that we couldn’t have planned for… our clarity came from a place of love and wanting to stay with our daughter”.

Asked if she would do the same thing if it happened again, Marten said: “If I had a crystal ball and could see into the future what could happen to Victoria because of my exhaustion of course I would have preferred to have made different choices, but we did what we could in the moment to keep her with her parents and protect her.”

Earlier in the trial Gordon declined to give evidence in his defence.

Opening the defence for his client John Femi-Ola KC said: “I do not propose to call Mr Gordon.”

The trial continues.

The HumAngle Foundation’s workshop, “Advancing Peace and Security Through Journalism” has entered its second day with an in-depth session on conflict/trauma-sensitive reporting, risk assessment, stress management, and accountability reporting for peacebuilding. 

The sessions were aimed at equipping participants with the tools to navigate the complexities of reporting in conflict zones while promoting peace and accountability.

The workshop, supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), has brought together 15 journalists from across Nigeria to explore innovative approaches to peacebuilding and security reporting, while bridging the gap in conflict reporting.

Today’s session emphasised the importance of human-centred storytelling and the ethical considerations required when reporting on sensitive issues. One of the facilitators, Aliyu Dahiru, the Head of the Radicalism and Extremism Desk of HumAngle Media, emphasised the need for participants to adopt a nuanced approach when reporting on conflict-sensitive issues.

“It’s not just about the events but understanding the underlying factors and the human stories behind them. Journalists have a responsibility to avoid sensationalism and instead focus on fostering dialogue and understanding,” he said.

During her sessions, Hauwa Shaffii Nuhu, Managing Editor of HumAngle Media, said that while it is important for journalists to engage in risk assessment before travelling to conflict-affected communities, media organisations must have risk assessment policies aimed at protecting their team members covering hostile environments.

She also highlighted the importance of trauma reporting in a bid to build professional and healthy relationships with sources who choose to tell their stories with elements of trauma, distress or grief.

“Risk assessment ensures that precautionary measures are taken before and during field trips. Doing this will help ensure the safety of journalists, especially those covering conflict-affected areas. Also, newsrooms should have a mental health support system for their team members to help address trauma.”

On the area of accountability journalism for peacebuilding, Ibrahim Adeyemi, Acting Investigations Editor at HumAngle, underscored its pivotal role in peacebuilding efforts. He further emphasised the need for journalists to approach their work with integrity and diligence by utilising the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) in holding power to account. 

“Accountability journalism is about holding power to account and ensuring transparency in governance and conflict resolution processes. By exposing corruption, human rights abuses, and systemic failures, journalists can drive meaningful change and foster trust within communities.”

“Peace-building requires a foundation of trust, and accountability journalism plays a critical role in building that trust. By shedding light on injustices and amplifying marginalised voices, journalists can contribute to creating a more equitable and peaceful society,” he added.

HumAngle’s Lead Psychologist, Chioma Onyemaobi, advised the participants to take their mental health seriously, especially when covering conflict. She revealed that stress management is crucial not only for their well-being but also for maintaining objectivity and clarity in their reporting. 

“Simple practices like mindfulness, taking regular breaks, and seeking professional support when needed can make a significant difference,” the psychologist advised.

Participants engaged in interactive discussions and practical exercises, exploring strategies for peacebuilding, mitigating risks, and fostering understanding in affected communities.

Armenia’s exploring an associated-state model with India, Russia, and Iran — akin to Andorra’s relationship with Spain and France or Palau’s Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the United States (US)—would be a transformative opportunity.

If executed, such a move would reflect growing concerns over security, economic sustainability, and the shifting dynamics of great-power competition in the South Caucasus. Such an arrangement could formalize Armenia’s partnerships to counterbalance regional pressures from Azerbaijan and Turkey; the divergent interests of India, Russia, and Iran—coupled with the complexities of post-Soviet geopolitics—make this proposition far more challenging than the relatively stable arrangements seen in Andorra or Palau.

Strategic Benefits for Armenia

In the domain of security guarantees, Armenia has increasingly turned to India for arms procurement, with defense deals exceeding USD 800 million since 2022. The defense partnership becoming a formalized alliance could solidify this defense relationship, enabling Armenia to better counter perceived threats from Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Russia, despite its diminished credibility in the region following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, retains significant influence in the South Caucasus even as the region reorients towards Middle Eastern stakeholders.

Russia can still provide residual security support. Meanwhile, due to being perceived by Iran as a buffer state against Russian influence, Iran can serve as a logistical buffer for Armenia to mitigate potential blockades or corridor encroachments by Turkey and Azerbaijan.

There is also the factor of economic corridor access. Armenia’s strategic location at the crossroads of the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC) positions it as a critical link between India, Iran, Russia, and Europe. India’s defense backing of Armenia and investments in the Iran–Armenia railway, as well as related infrastructure projects, could help Armenia bypass routes dominated by Azerbaijan.

By leveraging its geographic position, Armenia can generate substantial leverage. Such development also enhances its role as a vital gateway for Eurasian trade, connecting South Asia and the Middle East with European markets through a potential EU membership.

There is also the matter of mitigating the risk of sanctions and diversifying trade. Closer ties with Russia and Iran could provide Armenia access to alternative markets and energy supplies, particularly valuable amid Western sanctions that disrupt global value chains.

Simultaneously, India’s robust ties with the US and the European Union (EU) offer Armenia a counterbalance, helping it avoid over-reliance on any single geopolitical bloc. This will allow it to position itself as an economic connector between various geo-economic blocs.

A lesson to draw from is the case of Singapore. Its strategic position as a conduit for commercial interests among major powers is being challenged by the intensifying US-China rivalry.

As Washington and Beijing transition to prioritizing relative gains over absolute gains, Singapore’s ability to maintain good relations with both powers is becoming increasingly difficult.

The city-state must adapt to these new circumstances, but policy inertia and adjustment costs may hinder its ability to do so. This dilemma may also affect other smaller states that previously benefited from more stable major power relationships.

Potential Advantages for India, Russia, and Iran

There are many advantages to India, Russia, and Iran exploring the tie-up to be sponsors of an Armenian-associated state. It could provide impetus for realizing the currently problematic development of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a proposed 7,200-kilometer transport route connecting Russia to India via Iran, offering a shorter and more economical alternative to the Suez Canal route.

Despite its potential, the project has seen little progress due to a lack of investment from interested parties. However, Russian aggression towards Ukraine has created a new sense of urgency for Russia to secure alternative markets and transport routes, and Iran has committed significant funds, around $13 billion, to develop the necessary infrastructure, including upgrading ports and improving access to the Volga-Don Canal.

For India, it secures trade and transport corridors into Central Asia, Russia, and Europe via Armenia, bolstering the INSTC. It also serves to counter Turkish-Pakistani influence in the region — as well as provide a beachhead to counter Chinese influence — and throughout the Turkic belt that stretches across Central Asia. This is coupled with expanding its lucrative defense exports and strengthening its diplomatic footprint.

For Russia, such an arrangement ties it up with a friendly strategic partner with growing heft (i.e., India) and also permits it to retain a strategic foothold in the South Caucasus, even as Armenia explores closer ties with the West. There are also benefits from Armenia’s role as a conduit for sanctioned trade with Iran, particularly amid tensions with the West.

Finally, Iran can strengthen cross-border trade routes with Armenia, bypassing Azerbaijan and facilitating trade with India and Europe. This reinforces its regional influence following setbacks in Syria and elsewhere and also offers a hedge against Turkish influence — and through them Western and NATO ambitions — in Central Asia.

Infrastructure plays a crucial role in shaping global relationships, fostering interdependence and cooperation among nations. Examples include the Greater Mekong subregion’s power grid, which synchronizes economies, and the Trans-Asian Railway, which connects China, Laos, and Europe.

Water has also become a key aspect of diplomacy, as seen in the Indus Waters Treaty, where technical negotiations and engineering details have helped resolve disputes and promote cooperation between India and Pakistan. Such agreements rely on a combination of political will and technical infrastructure, including dams, grids, and other systems, to facilitate stability and cooperation.

Cooperating together to build a vital segment of the INSTC through Armenia is a means for Iran, Russia, and India to align their strategic and geo-economic interests and build diplomatic capital with each other.

Stability is often achieved through engineered solutions rather than just diplomatic efforts. The success of international agreements relies on a combination of political will and technical infrastructure — dams, grids, servers, and satellites — the technical infrastructure that makes cooperation possible and entrenches economic ties. 

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) exemplifies this approach, with projects like the Jakarta-Bandung rail and Laos-China railway demonstrating successful partnerships that go beyond construction to establish long-term economic ties. Through the BRI, China is transforming trade routes into economic strongholds, showcasing how infrastructure can anchor both strategic presence and partnership.

In Armenia, financing and developing INSTC infrastructure forges long-term economic ties through maintenance agreements, operational protocols, and financial dependencies. This infrastructure is anchoring both strategic presence and partnership for all countries involved, solidifying relationships and fostering cooperation in the region.

Core Challenges and Risks

But this theory comes with significant challenges. Firstly, Russia and Iran often adopt an anti-Western stance, while India maintains strong partnerships with the US and Europe despite being a strategic partner of Russia.

Reconciling these divergent diplomatic positions within a formal arrangement would be a significant challenge. Additionally, Armenia’s aspiration for a “multi-vector” foreign policy—balancing ties with the EU and the US—could be jeopardized by a deal perceived as overly aligned with Moscow and Tehran.

Escalating tensions between the US, Russia, the EU, and other European nations have created an uncertain environment where countries can no longer rely on each other. Amidst this complexity, dynamic economies in Asia are driving growth and helping to pull the global economy out of recession. China and India are at the forefront, emerging as epicenters for policymakers and world leaders.

According to Nicolas Aguzin, CEO of HKEX, “The shift in economic and geopolitical power is moving East.” An IMF report supports this trend, predicting that Asia’s economy will grow by 50% in the next five years and surpass the G-7’s GDP by 2030.”

Similarly, Armenia’s desire for EU membership is complicated by substantial economic dependencies on Russia, as well as its own de facto alliance with Armenia, India, France, and Greece following the Karabakh war. Additionally, the economic center of gravity is moving towards Asia, and Asian powers are now shaping Europe in a historical reversal. 

These countries played a significant role in supporting Armenia after the war. Notably, France supplied Armenia with armored vehicles, which were transported through Georgia, despite the latter’s reluctance to be involved in arms shipments. Iran allegedly facilitated the transfer of weapons from India to Armenia, and Iranian military experts were reportedly present in the country, providing further assistance.

Iran perceives Armenia as a crucial proxy and buffer zone in the region and has consistently opposed efforts to normalize relations between Armenia and its neighbors, Azerbaijan and Turkey. From Tehran’s perspective, normalization undermines its influence and limits its ability to exploit regional contradictions to achieve its strategic objectives.

For instance, by voicing opposition to the Zangezur corridor project, which aims to connect Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave and Turkey, Iran effectively pushes Armenia towards regional isolation. Conversely, if Armenia were to facilitate communication links through its territory, it would gain significant geo-economic and geopolitical leverage, enhancing its own position in the region.”

There is also the risk of creating over-dependence on sanctioned partners. With a GDP of approximately USD 20–25 billion, Armenia risks collateral economic damage by developing a dependency on states under Western sanctions, such as Russia and Iran.

India’s complex relationship with China — the 2024 border deal a momentary rapprochement and a case for military build-up rather than a strategic shift — and China’s further complicate Armenia’s foreign policy calculus, at least when it comes to its involvement with China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) and its geographic distance from Armenia.

This is coupled with how this may shape geopolitical frictions. Azerbaijan — backed by Turkey and Pakistan — may respond with increased aggression if Armenia’s alliances threaten vital trade corridors like the Zangezur corridor. Ongoing territorial disputes and unresolved border issues heighten the risk of escalation.

And when comparing smaller states like Andorra and Palau — which maintain stable associated-state relationships in relatively stable environments— Armenia’s geopolitical environment is far less conducive. Territorial disputes, Russia’s declining reliability, and Iran’s sanctions challenges make a straightforward “associated state” framework highly complex.

Governance in Armenia

Any discussion of reshaping Armenia’s status must consider its internal power dynamics. In Armenia, the prime minister holds the most authority, serving as head of government and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The prime minister sets policies, oversees the cabinet, and is typically appointed by the parliamentary majority.

In contrast, the president is largely a ceremonial figure, responsible for appointing ministers on the prime minister’s recommendation and ensuring constitutional protocols are followed. Consequently, any negotiation regarding a potential associated-state arrangement would be led by the prime minister’s office.

Creating a structure in Armenia akin to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Office of the High Representative (OHR), which enforces the Dayton Accords and wields broad powers to override local decisions threatening stability. However, key differences and hurdles make this proposal challenging:

·        Legal Mandate: The OHR’s authority stems from a UN-endorsed peace agreement (the Dayton Accords). Armenia lacks a comparable international framework, necessitating a new multilateral pact acceptable to all stakeholders.

·        Funding and Sanctions Exposure: OHR activities are funded by multiple donors, including the EU and the U.S. In Armenia’s case, sanctions on Russia and Iran complicate funding for a shared governance body, while India would be wary of entanglements that strain its Western partnerships.

·        Sovereignty Concerns: The OHR can override Bosnian laws and remove officials. Armenia’s government and public, particularly since the 2018 Velvet Revolution, are unlikely to accept such external interference.

·        Competing Interests: Russia, Iran, and India have divergent regional objectives. Establishing a powerful external office could exacerbate rivalries rather than resolve them.

Theoretically, an Armenian OHR could follow the model of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The group consists of three members, each representing a different country: India, Iran, and Russia. Together, they serve a six-year term, with the option to serve up to two consecutive terms. Notably, there is no overall limit to the number of terms they can serve.

As a collective body representing the interests of Armenia’s sponsors, the group shares leadership. However, one member is chosen as chairperson, a role that rotates every eight months among the three members or, alternatively, every two years. The member with the most overall votes becomes the first chairperson, setting the rotation in motion for the six-year term.

This OHR can then advise and coordinate with Armenia’s president and prime minister to share their views and provide a central forum for discussing and advising on infrastructure projects and foreign policy.

Another approach is to form and lead an INTSC Forum, a collaborative platform for public sector organizations, private enterprise players, banks, and other stakeholders from India, Russia, and Iran to establish protocols and technical standards, as well as coordinate on the development of INTSC projects in Armenia.

The forum will comprise plenary sessions, technical committees, and working groups to develop and implement specific projects, with key activities including protocol development, technical standardization, project coordination, capacity building, and investment promotion.

By harmonizing standards, increasing efficiency, and enhancing cooperation, the forum aims to contribute to economic growth and development in Armenia and the region, with participating organizations including public sector entities, private companies, banks, and international organizations.

Other alternative approaches that Armenia can take are 

·        Focused Bilateral Agreements: Armenia could deepen separate defense, trade, or infrastructure deals with each partner, mitigating risks. For instance, it could strengthen defense ties with India, maintain practical relations with Russia through the Eurasian Economic Union, and pursue energy or transport projects with Iran without creating a joint oversight body.

·        Informal Coordination Platforms: Instead of a supranational entity, Armenia could form issue-specific working groups for security, transit, or sanctions mitigation, retaining policy flexibility.

Conclusion

Pursuing an associated-state model with India, Russia, and Iran offers Armenia the potential for enhanced security, expanded trade corridors, and a diplomatic hedge against regional rivals. Or even an arrangement that positions them as sponsors of Armenia due to a convergence of strategic interests. However, the disparities among these nations’ geopolitical interests, coupled with concerns about sanctions and sovereignty, pose significant challenges.

A key lesson from smaller associated states like Andorra and Palau is that enduring partnerships require relatively stable environments with fewer major-power rivalries. Armenia’s context—marked by territorial disputes, shifting alliances, and broader East-West tensions—is far more complex.

In the near term, Armenia may benefit more from a strategy of selective engagement:

1.     Maintain Strategic Autonomy: Continue engaging with Western entities to balance Russian and Iranian pressures.

2.    Focus on Bilateral Projects: Prioritize distinct, carefully structured deals with India, Russia, and Iran rather than an overarching tripartite treaty.

3.     Avoid Overreach: While a Bosnia-style OHR might offer coordination, it is unlikely to gain traction without international mandates and broad domestic acceptance.

Armenia must balance its options while avoiding entanglement in Great Power rivalries, prioritizing its sovereignty and economic stability in a geopolitically complex region. To do so, it needs to develop the capacity to shape its own rules and destiny, rather than simply following the rules set by larger powers.

Made in America investigates the devastating impact of air attacks in Lebanon during Israel’s war last year. Israel claimed it was targeting Hezbollah fighters and infrastructure, but more than 4,000 Lebanese people, including women and children, were killed, many inside their homes and residential buildings.

On September 23 alone, 558 people were killed — the deadliest day since Lebanon’s civil war — after Israel carried out one of the most intensive air attacks in modern warfare. Among them were a woman and her daughter, killed when their home in southern Lebanon was destroyed — one of several cases the film looks into.

With extensive access to victims’ families and collaboration with forensic experts, Fault Lines uncovers evidence of unlawful killings and reveals the central role of US-made weapons in the attacks. The investigation extends to Washington, DC, in pursuit of answers and accountability.

In tit-for-tat moves this week, India and Pakistan have entered a strategic standoff following Tuesday’s attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, which resulted in the deaths of at least 26 people.

On Wednesday, India downgraded ties with Pakistan, announcing a series of steps, the most important of which is a decision to suspend its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), which could seriously restrict Pakistan’s water supplies.

India has also closed its main land border with Pakistan and given some Pakistani nationals currently in India a deadline to leave the country.

On Thursday, Pakistan retaliated with similar steps against India, and also threatened to suspend its participation in all bilateral agreements between the two, including the 1972 Simla Agreement, a peace accord drawn up following their war the previous year that led to the creation of Bangladesh.

Pakistan is particularly angered by the threat to the IWT and has warned India that any disruption to its water supply would be considered “an act of war”, adding that it was prepared to respond, “with full force across the complete spectrum of national power”.

The IWT, a transboundary water agreement that allows the two countries to share water flowing from the Indus basin, has survived armed conflicts and near-constant tensions between India and Pakistan over the past 65 years. While India came close to suspending the treaty in 2019, it did not go through with it.

Why has India taken action against Pakistan?

An armed group called The Resistance Front (TRF), which demands independence for Kashmir, has claimed responsibility for Tuesday’s attack in Pahalgam, one of Indian-administered Kashmir’s most popular tourist destinations. Indian authorities have previously claimed that TRF is an offshoot of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, an armed group based in Pakistan.

India has long held that Pakistan backs the armed rebellion in Kashmir, a charge Islamabad denies. On Wednesday, India claimed that the Pahalgam attack had “cross-border” linkages, blaming its western neighbour.

During a special briefing by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs on Wednesday, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said that the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) had been called to discuss the attack in which men armed with rifles killed 25 Indian tourists and one Nepalese tourist, all men.

“In the briefing to the CCS, the cross-border linkages of the terrorist attack were brought out,” Misri said.

Misri added: “The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.” For a treaty to be in abeyance means that it is temporarily suspended or on hold.

Earlier on Thursday, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that India would identify, track and punish every “terrorist” and their backers.

What is the Indus Waters Treaty?

Signed in 1960, the origins of the IWT trace back to August 1947, when British colonial rule over the Indian subcontinent ended and India and Pakistan became two separate sovereign states. India is the upper riparian (located upstream) while Pakistan is the lower riparian, which means India has control over how the river flows.

Because both countries rely on the water from the Indus basin’s six rivers for irrigation and agriculture, they signed an agreement called the Standstill Agreement to continue allowing the flow of water across the border. When the Standstill Agreement expired in 1948, India stopped the water flow towards Pakistan from its canals, prompting an urgent need for negotiations on water sharing.

Following nine years of negotiations mediated by the World Bank, former Pakistani President Ayub Khan and former Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru signed the IWT [PDF] in September 1960. The treaty gives India access to the waters of the three eastern rivers: the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej.

Pakistan, in turn, gets the waters of the three western rivers: the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.

India can use the western rivers to generate hydroelectric power and for some limited agriculture, but cannot build infrastructure that restricts the flow of water from those rivers into Pakistan or redirects that water.

What would the suspension of this treaty mean for Pakistan?

It represents a threat from India that it could, if and when it chooses to, restrict the flow of water from the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab into Pakistan.

It does not mean that India plans to limit that flow immediately.

Even if it wanted to, it is unlikely that India could immediately stop the flow of water even though it has suspended its participation from the treaty.

This is because India has upstream reservoirs constructed on the western rivers, but their storage capacity cannot hold enough volumes of water to hold back water entirely from Pakistan. It is also high-flow season when ice from glaciers melts between May and September, keeping water levels high.

“The western rivers allocated to Pakistan carry very high flows, especially between May and September. India does not currently have the infrastructure in place to store or divert those flows at scale,” Hassaan F Khan, assistant professor of urban and environmental policy and environmental studies at Tufts University in the United States, told Al Jazeera.

However, if India were to try to stop – or cut – the water flow, Pakistan might feel the effects in seasons when water levels are lower. Pakistan relies heavily on the water from the western rivers for its agriculture and energy. Pakistan does not have alternative sources of water.

Pakistan has a largely agrarian economy, with agriculture contributing 24 percent to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and 37.4 percent to employment, according to Pakistan’s most recent economic survey published in 2024. The country’s statistics bureau says that the majority of the population is directly or indirectly dependent on the agriculture sector. According to the World Bank, the country’s current population is about 247.5 million.

Does India have the power to suspend this treaty?

While India has declared abeyance from the treaty, legal experts say that it cannot unilaterally suspend the treaty.

“India has used the word abeyance and there is no such provision to ‘hold it in abeyance’ in the treaty,” Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a Pakistani lawyer, told Al Jazeera. The treaty can only be modified by mutual agreement between the parties.

“It also violates customary international laws relating to upper and lower riparian where the upper riparian cannot stop the water promise for lower riparian,” Soofi said.

Anuttama Banerji, a political analyst based in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera that the treaty might continue, but not in its present form. “Instead, it will be up for ‘revision’, ‘review’ and ‘modification’ – all three meaning different things – considering newer challenges such as groundwater depletion and climate change were not catered for in the original treaty,” Banerji said.

“In principle, a unilateral suspension of a bilateral treaty can be challenged as a breach of international law,” Khan, the Tufts University assistant professor, told Al Jazeera.

However, the enforcement of this is complicated, Khan added. “The Indus Waters Treaty is a bilateral agreement without a designated enforcement body. While the World Bank has a role in appointing neutral experts and arbitrators, it is not an enforcement authority.”

Khan explained that if Pakistan wanted to pursue legal recourse, it would likely be through international forums such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ). “In practice, the main costs for India would be reputational and strategic: undermining its image as a rules-based actor, especially given its own status as a downstream riparian on other transboundary rivers.”

Khan said that the broader strategic goal of the IWT suspension seems to be a renegotiation of the treaty. “India has been signalling its desire to revise or renegotiate the treaty for some time,” he said, explaining that India had asked to renegotiate the treaty in January 2023 and again in September 2024, citing climate change and implementation challenges. Pakistan has so far refused.

“The recent announcement appears to be an attempt to apply pressure and force a renegotiation on terms more favourable to India. Whether this strategy succeeds remains to be seen, but it marks a significant departure from six decades of treaty stability.”

What other steps is India taking in response to the attack in Kashmir?

Besides the abeyance of the IWT, Mirsi announced other steps, including:

• The main land border crossing between the two countries, the Integrated Check Post Attari, or the Attari-Wagah crossing, will be closed with immediate effect and those who have crossed over with “valid endorsements” have to return through the route before May 1.
• Any SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) visas granted to Pakistanis have been cancelled and any Pakistani currently visiting India on the SVES visa has to leave within 48 hours of the statement issued on Wednesday.
• The military, naval and air advisers in the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi are considered personae non gratae and have a week to leave India, while Indian military, naval and air advisers will be pulled back from the Indian High Commission in Islamabad. To be persona non grata in a country means to be unwelcome.
• Five support staff members will also be pulled from each High Commission.
• The staffing for each High Commission will be reduced from 55 members to 30 through further reductions by May 1.

How has Pakistan responded to India’s measures?

On Thursday, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called a high-level meeting of the National Security Committee (NSC).

A statement released by Sharif’s office on Thursday said: “the Committee reviewed the Indian measures announced on 23 April 2025 and termed them unilateral, unjust, politically motivated, extremely irresponsible and devoid of legal merit”.

The statement adds: “Pakistan vehemently rejects the Indian announcement to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance … Any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan as per the Indus Waters Treaty … will be considered as an Act of War and responded with full force.

“Pakistan shall exercise the right to hold all bilateral agreements with India, including but not limited to Simla Agreement in abeyance, till India desists from its manifested behaviour of fomenting terrorism inside Pakistan; trans-national killings; and non-adherence to international law and UN Resolutions on Kashmir.”

The Simla Agreement was a peace treaty signed between Pakistan and India in 1972, which emphasised resolving conflict between the two countries peacefully and through bilateral negotiations.

On the same day, Pakistan also announced the closure of the Wagah border, suspended all visas under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) issued to Indian nationals and declared Indian army and navy advisers in Islamabad personae non gratae.

Pakistan has also closed its airspace “with immediate effect” for all Indian owned or Indian operated airlines. It has also suspended all trade with India “including to and from any third country through Pakistan” – in effect saying that it won’t allow India to export to Afghanistan through its territory.

In the past, Pakistani officials have warned that India’s interference in water flow to Pakistan would be deemed an act of war, prompting retaliation.

In 2016, the then-chairman of Pakistan’s Senate, Raza Rabbani, said: “Interference with Pakistan’s water supply will be tantamount to an act of aggression and aggression will be met by aggression.”

Does this spell a major escalation in tensions between the two countries?

The suspension of the IWT is significant. While India has threatened to suspend it before, it has never actually gone through with its threat.

In 2016, suspected rebel fighters killed 17 Indian soldiers in the Uri area in Indian-administered Kashmir. Four suspected rebels were also killed by the Indian army during this attack. In the aftermath of the Uri attack, Modi said: “blood and water can’t flow together” when discussing the IWT with government officials. However, the IWT was not suspended after this.

In 2019, a suicide bomber killed 40 paramilitary police in Indian-administered Kashmir’s Pulwama. This attack was claimed by Jaish-e-Muhammad, an armed group based in Pakistan. In the aftermath, Indian Water Resources Minister Nitin Gadkari threatened to suspend the flow of water to Pakistan. However, this threat did not materialise.

Hence, India’s recent suspension of the treaty is the biggest escalation of its kind in the hydropolitics of the Indus basin.

Sanctions on 12 Syrian entities removed, including the defence and interior ministries.

The United Kingdom has removed its sanctions on 12 Syrian government entities, including the Ministries of Defence and Interior and the General Intelligence Directorate.

The move on Thursday was made four months after the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) armed group led opposition groups in ousting President Bashar al-Assad following more than 13 years of war.

The entities removed from the sanctions list will no longer be subject to asset freezes, read the notice posted by the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in London.

Those targeted by the sanctions were “involved in repressing the civilian population in Syria” or had been “involved in supporting or benefitting from the Syrian regime” of al-Assad, according to the notice, which did not give an explanation for the delisting.

In March, the British government unfroze the assets of the Central Bank of Syria and 23 other entities, including banks and oil companies. However, it has stressed that sanctions on members of the al-Assad regime would remain in place.

The new HTS-led Syrian government is trying to persuade Western capitals that crippling international sanctions should be lifted.

Speaking at a televised event with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani said at the beginning of this year: “We inherited a lot of problems from the Assad regime, … but removing economic sanctions is key for the stability of Syria.”

Some countries, including the United States, have said they will wait to see how the new authorities exercise their power and ensure human rights before lifting sanctions, opting instead for targeted and temporary exemptions.

Last week, a visiting United Nations official called on Syria’s authorities to begin the process of economic recovery without waiting for Western sanctions to be lifted.

“Waiting for sanctions to be lifted leads nowhere,” Abdallah Al Dardari, the regional chief for Arab states at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), told the AFP news agency in an interview in Damascus.

Decades needed to recover

A February UNDP report estimated that at current growth rates, Syria would need more than 50 years to return to the economic level it had before the war, and it called for massive investment to accelerate the process.

The UN study said nine out of 10 Syrians now live in poverty, one-quarter are jobless and Syria’s GDP “has shrunk to less than half of its value” in 2011, the year the war began.

Syria’s Human Development Index score, which factors in life expectancy, education and standard of living, has fallen to its worst level since it was first included in the index in 1990, meaning the war erased decades of development.

The UNDP report estimated Syria’s “lost GDP” during the 2011-2024 war to be about $800bn.

One student has been killed and at least three people were injured in stabbing at a school in western France, French media say.

The attack took place at Notre-Dame-de-Toutes-Aides high school in Nantes on Thursday, according to reports.

The attacker is said to have been arrested at the scene after being restrained by a teacher.

Police and emergency services were sent to the school, which was evacuated.

Eye-witness accounts in local media described students running through the site, with some confined to classrooms after an alarm was sounded.

France’s Education Minister and Interior Minister are due to visit the school on Thursday afternoon.

Élisabeth Borne wrote on social media that she would “express my solidarity with the victims”.

According to the information provided by TSMC’s Corporate Presentation Committee, only the China facility is generating significant profits, while operations in Japan, the United States, and Germany are currently incurring losses.

The Arizona factory in the U.S. began construction in 2021 and entered mass production by late 2024, accumulating losses of NT$39.4 billion (approximately $1.2 billion) over four years. The Kumamoto factory in Japan started construction in 2022 and began mass production by late 2024, with losses of NT$7.933 billion (about $248 million) over three years. The Dresden factory in Germany broke ground in 2024, with mass production expected in 2027, and has so far incurred losses of NT$500 million (around $15.6 million).

The Nanjing factory in China began construction in 2016, started mass production in 2018, and became profitable from 2020, generating a total profit of NT$68.2 billion (approximately $2.131 billion) over the past three years. Loss figures prior to 2020 are not publicly disclosed.

Losses during the construction and early production phases of chip factories are normal due to significant capital investments in building facilities and purchasing equipment. Profitability typically requires achieving economies of scale post-mass production. The Nanjing plant took 2 years to build and 2 years to realize mass production before it started to make a profit.

However, TSMC’s other overseas factories have not met the “profitability timeline” set by the Nanjing plant. The U.S. factory took three years to reach mass production, one year longer than the Japan factory, indicating high construction costs in the U.S. and less developed infrastructure in Arizona compared to Kumamoto. In contrast, TSMC’s factories in Taiwan can achieve mass production within just one year.

For chip manufacturers, the most crucial factor is order expectations. Before building a factory, they must ensure that the order volume exceeds the mass production scale; otherwise, they are unlikely to invest in construction. Another Taiwanese chipmaker partnering with India’s Tata Group is only providing technology licensing—neither building the factory nor securing orders. This indicates that India’s chip demand is unstable, and chip manufacturers are concerned about long-term losses.

The U.S., China, Europe, and Japan offer relatively stable order sources, which is the primary reason TSMC is willing to establish factories in these regions. Government subsidies help reduce initial capital expenditures and expedite mass production. The Nanjing factory’s success is largely due to China being the world’s largest chip consumption market, with no language or labor culture barriers and relatively straightforward regulations, enabling significant cost reductions.

The U.S. factory faces the largest losses due to high costs across the board, including inadequate infrastructure, complex government regulations, low administrative efficiency, a shortage of construction workers, raw material scarcity, and significant labor culture differences compared to East Asia. Consequently, building the U.S. factory costs four times more than a Taiwan factory. Even with government subsidies, the U.S. has failed to deliver fully—out of the $6.6 billion promised during the Biden administration, TSMC received only $1.1 billion, and the Trump administration has no intention of settling the remaining $5.5 billion.

Japan’s construction challenges fall between those of China and the U.S., with communication being the primary issue due to language barriers. Chip manufacturing requires extensive technical communication, both internally and with clients, making talent critical. This is why TSMC sends Taiwanese employees to overseas sites during the initial stages. Although the labor cost of the chip factory accounts for less than 10%, the labor cost can not only calculate the salary; the training of local talents and the labor culture of grinding are the main costs.

The Japan factory’s experience can be applied to the Germany factory. It is reasonable to expect mass production in 2027 without issues, with operations likely smoother than in Japan. Germany, particularly Saxony, already has a semiconductor industry foundation and a more complete supply chain than Japan, facilitating efficient operational planning and execution.

To avoid the negative experience of the U.S. factory, Europe must simplify administrative processes and regulations. If TSMC’s Germany operations run smoothly, advanced process factories could be established in Europe more quickly.

From a broader perspective, the U.S. government has difficulty overcoming the cost problem, and rebuilding manufacturing comes at a steep price. Forcing TSMC to set up factories while imposing tariff barriers only increases chip procurement costs for U.S. companies and restricts their market access. Moreover, TSMC is currently overly reliant on the booming AI industry, which remains on the brink of a bubble collapse.

TSMC’s CEO estimates that 30% of future advanced processes will come from U.S. factories, but I believe this is overly optimistic. Given the Trump administration’s ambitions, at least 50% of TSMC’s advanced process chips will likely be produced in Arizona, with Taiwan’s supply chain relocated to the U.S. Only then can the U.S. ensure leadership in chips over China and Europe.

In the AI industry, the key players are the U.S., China, and Europe. Washington does not want TSMC to have the capacity to supply its competitors. China, meanwhile, is aggressively bypassing the current logic chip track, preparing alternatives from design to manufacturing, such as advancements in photonic chips.

It is reasonable to predict that within five years, China will achieve mass production and profitability in cutting-edge logic chips, with photonic chip technology reshaping the chip supply chain. The U.S., during this period, will struggle with high costs and shrinking markets.

The chip industry may split into “two systems,” presenting an opportunity for Europe. By maintaining a foothold in the current chip race and collaborating with Chinese technology to share markets, Europe can secure autonomy.

Given the high energy consumption of the chip industry and downstream sectors, Europe-China technical cooperation should also include new energy. Chip factories and AI data center operators must invest in power generation infrastructure, so supporting the chip industry and applied technologies can also promote energy independence. Over the next five years, U.S. new energy development will likely be constrained, creating opportunities for China-Europe collaboration in this field.

Due to expanding losses, TSMC’s U.S. factory is reportedly set to raise 4nm foundry prices by over 30%. Meanwhile, Huawei’s Ascend 910C chip, amid U.S. export restrictions on NVIDIA, is becoming the only option for Chinese AI data centers. In other words, TSMC’s price hikes exacerbate challenges for U.S. companies already strained by tariff wars while providing Chinese competitors with more breathing room and development opportunities.

The profitability of TSMC’s Nanjing factory demonstrates China’s ability to create a high-quality industrial development environment, offering a benchmark for Europe.

Positioned between China and the U.S., Europe can learn from many experiences and avoid detours in cutting-edge technology. The foundation of technological innovation lies in corporate profitability, and the future performance of TSMC’s Germany factory will indicate Europe’s prospects in new technology development.

Taipei, Taiwan – As United States President Donald Trump plays up the prospects of a trade deal with China, experts say Beijing is unlikely to make the first move and may even demand preconditions before coming to the negotiating table.

Trump has said he expects to see his 145 percent tariff on China “come down substantially” but that a lower rate would depend on Beijing’s next steps.

“We’re going to have a fair deal with China,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday in his latest remarks, stirring hopes of a de-escalation in tensions between the sides.

But given the high stakes in its standoff with the US, China “can’t afford to be the side that makes the first move because it can’t be viewed as capitulating to the Trump administration’s pressure campaign”, William Yang, a senior analyst on Northeast Asia at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera.

“As a result, China will firmly uphold its current position until it sees the US government make some credible concessions that can allow Beijing to consider coming to the negotiating table and claim victory.”

Beijing may even see Trump’s more optimistic rhetoric as a sign that “digging in its heels” is working, Yang said.

US and Chinese officials have not formally announced the start of trade negotiations, though Trump said on Wednesday that his administration was “actively” negotiating with the Chinese side, without elaborating.

On Thursday, China’s Ministry of Commerce rebuffed Trump’s remarks, saying there were no talks on trade taking place between the sides.

“Any claims about the progress of China-US economic and trade negotiations are groundless and have no factual basis,” ministry spokesman He Yadong told a news conference.

China has said the door is “wide open” to talks but insisted it will not shirk from a fight with the US if necessary.

In contrast to Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks and vacillating statements on the possibility of relief from his tariffs, Beijing’s messaging, which has been largely communicated through the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has been tightly controlled and consistent.

“I would say that, at least on the surface, China has the upper hand,” Zhiwu Chen, a professor of finance at the University of Hong Kong’s Business School, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s more in control, whereas President Trump and Secretary Bessent have been signalling and doing things that further help to weaken their hand,” Chen said, referring to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

“I think the statement really shows he is anxious and panicking, whereas China has been pretty quiet and muted,” Chen added, referring to Trump’s comments that he intends to lower his tariffs at some point.

China has slapped US exports with a 125 percent tariff in response to Trump’s trade salvoes, as well as announcing various other “countermeasures”, including restrictions on rare earth exports and limits on the number of Hollywood film releases in China.

If tensions continue to escalate, Beijing could potentially halt cooperation on issues like controlling fentanyl exports.

In theory, it could also inflict pain on the US economy by dumping its more than $760bn in US government debt – a move that economists view as unlikely given that it would have serious ramifications for the Chinese economy as well.

Unlike Trump, who prefers to negotiate face-to-face with world leaders, Beijing will want to engage in preliminary meetings before any meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and the US president, said Tom Nunlist, an associate director of tech and data policy at Trivium China.

“They will be looking to have secured a deal before the top leaders meet to confirm it. To reach out to Trump directly may look like Xi is caving to US pressure, and it also risks failure,” Nunlist told Al Jazeera.

“Generally speaking, the US is the aggressor here, and China has calibrated its response to be forceful but avoid escalation,” Nunlist said.

It is likely that discussions would address a wider array of concerns than just tariffs, according to analysts, especially now that Trump appears to have blinked first in the standoff.

Potential areas for concessions include “tech export controls and Taiwan”, according to Dingli Shen, a Shanghai-based international relations scholar.

“Longstanding grievances about how China is treated within the global system” could be on the table, according to Marina Zhang, an associate professor at the University of Technology Sydney’s Australia-China Relations Institute.

“In practice, it means no public humiliation, no unilateral ultimatums, and no compromises on four key ‘red lines’: Issues related to Taiwan, democracy and human rights, China’s political system, and its right to development,” Zhang told Al Jazeera.

Zhang said US export controls on critical technology could be on the agenda, as well as the blacklisting of Chinese tech companies such as Huawei and Chinese chipmaker SMIC.

“China may also push for the relaxation of investment screening rules, particularly in sensitive sectors like semiconductors, clean energy, and advanced manufacturing. Another likely ask is a degree of de-escalation over Taiwan,” she said.

“While Beijing does not expect full concessions, it would welcome less overt political signalling from Washington – such as limits on high-level official visits and arms sales.”

For Beijing, the wait could be worthwhile if it means achieving some of its longer-term goals, said the International Crisis Group’s Yang.

“This is more than a pure trade negotiation for China at this point. It views the trajectory of this tariff standoff as a precursor to how bilateral relations with the US will develop over the next four years,” he said.

“Beijing will want to see the Trump administration make the first move to reduce the tariffs imposed on imported Chinese products. The level of potential tariff reduction could potentially determine the Chinese government’s willingness to start high-level trade negotiation with the Trump administration.”

Pasijah, a 55-year-old housewife in Indonesia’s Central Java province, wakes up every morning to the sound of the sea. If that sounds idyllic, it is anything but.

Her home is the only one remaining in this part of Rejosari Senik, a small village on Java’s northern coast that was once on dry land but is now submerged in water.

Over the past few years, Pasijah’s neighbours have abandoned their homes, vegetable plots and rice fields to the advancing sea, but she and her family have no plans to leave.

“I do have every intention to stay here and my feelings for this house remain,” she said.

Water laps around the walls of Pasijah’s house, where she has lived for 35 years, soaking her feet when she steps outside.

The nearest land is two kilometres (1.24 miles) away, and the closest city, Demak, is further still at 19 kilometres (11.8 miles). The only way to get there is by boat.

Indonesia, an archipelago of thousands of islands, has about 81,000 kilometres of coastline, making it particularly vulnerable to rising seas and erosion.

Sea levels on the country’s coasts rose an average of 4.25 millimetres (0.16 inches) annually from 1992 to 2024, but the rate has accelerated in recent years, according to Kadarsah, a climate change official at Indonesia’s Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysical Agency.

“One of the signs of climate change is the rising sea levels,” he said, adding that some small islands had disappeared.

Kadarsah also pointed to the increased pumping of groundwater that has exacerbated land subsidence along Java’s northern coast. The problem is particularly bad in Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, which is home to some 10 million people.

Megaprojects

Indonesian authorities have turned to megaprojects for a solution, including a 700-kilometre (434-mile) sea wall that would run along the northern coast between Banten and East Java provinces.

Pasijah and her family, meanwhile, have turned to nature.

She has planted about 15,000 mangrove trees a year over the past 20 years.

Every day, she paddles out in a boat made from a blue plastic barrel to tend to the bushes and plant new saplings, lowering herself into the blue-grey water, which can be as high as her chest.

“The floodwaters come in waves, gradually, not all at once,” Pasijah said. “I realised that after the waters began rising, I needed to plant mangrove trees so that they could spread and protect the house from the wind and the waves.”

She and her family survive by selling the fish caught by her sons in the nearest market. They say they will stay as long as they can hold back the tides.

“I’m no longer concerned about how I feel about the isolation here since I decided to stay, so we’ll take it one hurdle at a time,” Pasijah said.

The United States buys $235.6bn more in goods than it sells to the 27 countries that make up the European Union (EU).

That $236bn gap, known as the trade deficit, is something US President Donald Trump wants to reduce.

In an effort to close the gap, on April 2 the US imposed a 20 percent tariff on goods imported from the EU, aimed at reducing European exports to the US and encouraging domestic production.

In addition, the EU faces a 25 percent US tariff on steel, aluminium and cars.

In response, the EU decided to impose retaliatory tariffs on $23.8bn worth of US goods, with EU officials describing the US tariffs as “unjustified and damaging”.

What does the US sell to the EU?

In 2024, trade between the US and EU reached nearly $1 trillion, making the EU the biggest trading partner bloc for the US.

The US mainly exports fuels, pharmaceutical products, machinery and aircraft to the EU, according to the US International Trade Commission.

In 2024, the US sold $370.2bn worth of goods to the EU. The main exports include:

• Mineral fuels ($78.9bn) accounting for 21.3 percent of total exports.
• Pharmaceutical products ($39.4bn) accounting for 10.6 percent of exports.
• Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and mechanical appliances ($36.6bn) accounting for 9.9 percent of exports.
• Aircraft, spacecraft and parts ($35.1bn) accounting for 9.5 percent of exports.
• Optical, photographic and cinematographic equipment ($30.8bn) accounting for 8.3 percent of total exports.

What does the US buy from the EU?

The US mainly buys pharmaceutical products from the EU, as well as mechanical appliances, cars and other non-railway vehicles.

In 2024, the US bought $605.8bn worth of goods from the EU. The main imports include:

• Pharmaceutical products ($127.8bn) accounting for 21 percent of total imports.
• Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and mechanical appliances ($89.8bn) accounting for 14.8 percent of imports.
• Cars and other non-railway vehicles ($60.3bn) accounting for 10 percent of imports.
• Electrical equipment ($39.3bn) accounting for 6.5 percent of imports.
• Optical, photographic and cinematographic equipment ($36.9bn) accounting for 6.1 percent of total imports.

Which US states import and export the most to the EU?

According to the US International Trade Administration, the midwestern state of Indiana buys the most of any other state from the EU. It bought $49.3bn worth of goods in 2024.

New Jersey imported the second-most goods from the EU, valued at $40.9bn, followed by North Carolina, which bought $39.6bn.

Texas leads the US in exports to the EU, selling $81.5bn worth of goods in 2024. California ranks second, with $28bn in sales, followed by Louisiana at $20.8bn.

Explore the table below to see which states import and export the most to and from the EU.

What does each US state sell most to the EU?

Aerospace products and parts are the top exports from the US to the EU, with 15 states reporting this category as their primary export. These states include Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Washington.

Aerospace products consist of complete aircraft and aircraft parts, with the US specifically exporting Boeing commercial aircraft and Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets to the EU.

What does each US state buy most from the EU?

Pharmaceuticals and medicines are the leading import for 11 US states, including Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

Motor vehicles and vehicle parts rank second, being the top import for eight states: Alabama, California, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas.

According to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), the US is the second-largest market for new EU vehicle exports after the UK, where the US accounted for 22 percent of the EU’s vehicle export market in 2024.

The Center for Automotive Research found that the Detroit Three automakers – General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis (formerly Chrysler) – will see an average cost of the tariff per vehicle for imported vehicle parts of $4,911, higher than the overall industry’s average of $4,239 per vehicle.

Social media platforms and websites will be legally required to protect children from accessing harmful content online or risk facing fines, the communications watchdog has said.

Sites must adhere to Ofcom’s new regulations – known as the Children’s Codes – by 25 July and will be required to instate age verification checks and change algorithm recommendations to continue operating in the UK.

Any site which hosts pornography, or content which encourages self-harm, suicide or eating disorders must have robust age checks in place to protect children from accessing that content.

Ofcom boss Dame Melanie Dawes said it was a “gamechanger” but critics say the restrictions do not go far enough and were “a bitter pill to swallow”.

Ian Russell, chairman of the Molly Rose Foundation, which was set up in honour of his daughter who took her own life aged 14, said he was “dismayed by the lack of ambition” in the codes.

But Dame Melanie told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that age checks were a first step as “unless you know where children are, you can’t give them a different experience to adults.

“There is never anything on the internet or in real life that is fool proof… [but] this represents a gamechanger.”

She admitted that while she was “under no illusions” that some companies “simply either don’t get it or don’t want to”, the Codes were UK law.

“If they want to serve the British public and if they want the privilege in particular in offering their services to under 18s, then they are going to need to change the way those services operate.”

Prof Victoria Baines, a former safety officer at Facebook told the BBC it is “a step in the right direction”.

Talking to the Today Programme, she said: “Big tech companies are really getting to grips with it , so they are putting money behind it, and more importantly they’re putting people behind it.”

Under the Codes, algorithms must also be configured to filter out harmful content from children’s feeds and recommendations.

As well as the age checks, there will also be more streamlined reporting and complaints systems, and platforms will be required to take faster action in assessing and tackling harmful content when they are made aware if it.

All platforms must also have a “named person accountable for children’s safety”, and the management of risk to children should be reviewed annually by a senior body.

If companies fail to abide by the regulations put to them by 24 July, Ofcom said it has “the power to impose fines and – in very serious cases – apply for a court order to prevent the site or app from being available in the UK.”