Trump Calls For 30-day Cease-Fire In Russia-Ukraine War

Political

Summary:

The president also said that he would “stay committed” to ending the war in Ukraine...

President Donald Trump on May 8 urged Russia and Ukraine to enter into a 30-day unconditional cease-fire while U.S.-led peace negotiations are ongoing.

Trump stated that the temporary cease-fire must “ultimately build toward a peace agreement” between the two nations and warned that the United States would impose sanctions if the cease-fire wasn’t respected.

“Talks with Russia/Ukraine continue,” he stated in a Truth Social post.

“Hopefully, an acceptable ceasefire will be observed, and both countries will be held accountable for respecting the sanctity of these direct negotiations.”

Trump also said that he would “stay committed” to ending the war in Ukraine, despite his administration officials having previously indicated that the United States may abandon mediation efforts if there are no clear signs of progress toward a peace agreement.

“It can all be done very quickly, and I will be available on a moment’s notice if my services are needed,” the president stated.

“Thousands of young soldiers are dying on a weekly basis, and everybody should want it to STOP. I do, and the United States of America does, also.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Trump during a May 8 phone call that Ukraine is ready to enter into a temporary cease-fire with Russia and is willing to “engage in talks in any format.”

However, Zelenskyy said that Russia must first demonstrate its readiness to end the war, “starting with a full, unconditional ceasefire.” This would involve ending missile and drone strikes and halting offensive assaults along the front lines.

“Ukraine is ready for a full ceasefire starting right now, from this very moment—a 30-day silence. But it must be real,” he said in a video address.

“Thirty days that could become the beginning of years of peace.”

On April 30, the Kremlin said that Russian President Vladimir Putin remains open to a cease-fire and eventual peaceful settlement to the conflict, but there are still issues need to be resolved.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has previously warned that the U.S. government may abandon efforts to mediate an end to the three-year-long war if Russia and Ukraine fail to make a peace agreement.

“I think they’re closer in general than they’ve been any time in the last three years but it’s still not there,” Rubio said in an interview with NBC News on April 27.

Rubio said that the United States may opt to take measures against those resisting efforts to end the war, but emphasized that it would “prefer not to get to that stage yet because we think it closes the door to diplomacy.”

The war in Ukraine has been ongoing since Putin sent thousands of troops for a full invasion in February 2022. Putin declared an “Easter truce” with Ukraine on April 19, directing his forces to halt all military operations until midnight of April 20.

Both sides later accused each other of violating the truce. The Russian military eventually resumed the “special military operation” after the truce ended.

On April 28, Putin unilaterally declared a three-day ceasefire from May 8–May 10 to mark the 80th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. Zelenskyy later dismissed the move as yet “another attempt at manipulation” by Russia.

“The cease-fire should not be just for a few days, only to return to killing afterward,” Zelenskyy said in an April 28 address.

“It must be immediate, full, and unconditional, for at least 30 days, to ensure it is secure and guaranteed. This is the foundation that could lead to real diplomacy.”

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha alleged that Russia violated the three-day cease-fire 734 times between midnight and midday on May 8, including 464 attacks involving heavy weapons and 176 drone strikes.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that Ukraine, in turn, had carried out 488 attacks on Russian targets and twice tried to break through the border in the Kursk region.

Source: Zero Hedge

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Symbolic Breakthrough Amid Global Trade Tensions

On May 8, 2025, President Trump announced what he described as a “landmark trade agreement” with the United Kingdom, emphasizing expanded U.S. access to British markets for agricultural products like beef and ethanol. Framed as the first major deal since the April 2 global tariff hike—dubbed "Liberation Day"—the pact is being positioned as a diplomatic success that aligns with the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer also welcomed the deal, calling it "historic" and highlighting its potential to protect thousands of British jobs. However, despite the celebratory tone, the agreement’s long-term economic and strategic weight remains open to debate.

Tariff Adjustments and Limited Concessions

While the U.K. avoided the sweeping retaliatory tariffs imposed on other partners, it still faces a 10% base tariff and selective 25% tariffs on cars, aluminum, and steel. Under the new agreement, the 25% automotive tariff will be reduced to 10% for the first 100,000 British-made vehicles annually—a provision Trump described as a rare exception meant for luxury brands like Rolls-Royce and Bentley.

In return, the U.K. agreed to lower non-tariff barriers and open its markets to an estimated $5 billion worth of U.S. goods, including beef, ethanol, and machinery. British airline plans to purchase $10 billion in Boeing aircraft were also cited as evidence of deepening trade ties.

Still, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick clarified that the 10% base tariff remains the new floor for future negotiations, implying that other countries may face higher rates unless exceptional circumstances apply.

Economic Impact: Symbolic Win, Modest Reality

Despite the diplomatic triumph, economists and political analysts are more reserved in their assessments. The U.K. ranks only ninth among U.S. trade partners, accounting for around 3% of bilateral trade volume. As economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan told CNN, “This isn’t a big trade deal,” noting that the headline numbers don’t reflect transformative economic changes.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed this skepticism, warning that the agreement could be “built on shifting sands.” He expressed concern that Trump’s erratic approach to tariffs undermines the credibility and durability of any deal.

Moreover, the absence of full transparency regarding the agreement’s provisions has prompted further scrutiny. Investors and trade observers worry that without a clear framework, the deal could be easily reversed or revised under shifting political winds.

Strategic Timing and Political Messaging

Trump’s announcement comes amid mounting pressure to stabilize global trade, especially as the blanket 10% tariff and retaliatory hikes have begun to rattle markets. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent revealed that similar deals with up to 18 other trade partners are under negotiation, with more announcements expected within days.

Talks with China remain the most consequential, and they have only recently been scheduled. Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer arrived in Switzerland on May 8 to meet with top Chinese economic officials—underscoring the urgency of re-engagement with Beijing.

The U.S.–U.K. trade agreement represents a politically useful signal amid growing global uncertainty, but its real-world impact remains limited. While it may offer temporary relief to select sectors, the underlying fragility of Trump's tariff-driven trade strategy raises serious doubts about long-term consistency and economic gains. Without a more comprehensive and reciprocal framework, the deal risks being more symbolic than structural in the broader context of U.S. trade policy realignment.

Source: CBC

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

China–U.S. Trade War

Economic

Strong April Export Growth Masks U.S. Trade Collapse

According to data released by China’s General Administration of Customs, Chinese exports in April rose 8.1% year-on-year in U.S. dollar terms—well above Reuters’ forecast of 1.9%. The rebound came even as trade with the United States deteriorated sharply under the weight of newly imposed tariffs. Exports to the U.S. plunged over 21% while imports declined nearly 14%, a stark reversal from March’s 9.1% export increase that had been fueled by exporters front-loading shipments ahead of tariff hikes.

The overall trade performance defied expectations due to resilience in other markets, particularly ASEAN and the European Union, which have begun to offset China’s growing disconnect with the U.S. market.

ASEAN Emerges as China’s Export Lifeline

China’s exports to ASEAN countries surged 20.8% in April, accelerating from 11.6% growth in March. Malaysia remained a key destination, while exports to Indonesia and Thailand soared 37% and 28%, respectively. This regional shift reflects not just increased demand but also potential re-routing of goods through third-party countries, a phenomenon identified by economist Zhang Zhiwei of Pinpoint Asset Management.

Zhang pointed out that part of the export growth may stem from pre-existing contracts and indirect re-exports intended to bypass tariff boundaries. However, he warned that China’s overall trade momentum may weaken in the coming months, especially as global demand cools and trade friction persists.

EU Trade Strengthens While Imports Fall

In April, China’s exports to the European Union rose by 8.3%, although imports from the bloc dropped 16.5%. This pattern is consistent with March’s figures, signaling Europe’s continued role as a stabilizing trade partner, albeit with reduced reciprocal trade volumes. The import contraction may reflect weakened European industrial demand or pricing shifts due to currency fluctuations and broader inflationary trends.

The trade collapse with the U.S. follows President Donald Trump’s sweeping imposition of 145% tariffs on Chinese imports in April, which Beijing responded to with 125% counter-tariffs. Despite these measures, both sides are reportedly seeking ways to mitigate economic damage, including selective exemptions on critical goods.

Nonetheless, the economic toll in China is mounting. Factory activity has slowed dramatically, with April’s manufacturing index falling to a 16-month low and export orders hitting their weakest level since December 2022. The job market is also under stress, with Goldman Sachs estimating potential job losses of up to 16 million—roughly 2% of the workforce—linked to export-oriented sectors serving the U.S.

Recent PMI data confirm widespread job cuts, as manufacturers suspend production and place workers on paid leave. In response, Beijing has ramped up stimulus, easing monetary policy and encouraging local governments and businesses to redirect unsold exports to the domestic market. However, such moves may further intensify domestic deflationary pressures.

Trade Talks in Switzerland: Glimmers of Hope, Layers of Uncertainty

All eyes are now on the high-level U.S.-China trade talks set to take place in Switzerland over the weekend—the first since tensions escalated in April. While a comprehensive agreement remains elusive, incremental tariff rollbacks are viewed as plausible, according to analysts.

Morgan Stanley strategist Laura Wang suggested that any move toward tariff reduction could significantly boost Chinese equities. However, she also emphasized the complexity of the negotiation process, which is expected to be drawn-out and riddled with obstacles. The investment bank projects that U.S. effective tariffs on Chinese goods could ease from the current average of 145% to around 45% by year-end, though a durable settlement remains uncertain.

China’s export spike in April, fueled by a strategic pivot toward ASEAN and European markets, demonstrates the country’s adaptability amid global trade turbulence. However, this performance obscures deeper vulnerabilities. The collapse in U.S. trade, factory slowdowns, labor market strain, and rising deflationary risk all highlight the fragile foundation of this rebound. As trade negotiations resume, markets remain cautiously optimistic—but the durability of China’s export momentum will depend heavily on the trajectory of geopolitical relations and tariff policy recalibrations in the months ahead.

Source: CNBC

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Debt Burden Reaches Unprecedented Levels

According to Japan’s Ministry of Finance, the country's public debt reached an all-time high at the end of fiscal year 2024, marking the ninth consecutive year of increase. The debt total includes government bonds, short-term securities, and various government loans, and represents an increase of ¥26.55 trillion over the previous year.

This relentless upward trajectory reflects structural imbalances in government spending, particularly in defense and social welfare—both of which have grown sharply in recent years. Rising inflation and the need to subsidize household fuel and electricity bills have only exacerbated fiscal strain.

Defense Spending Surges as Strategic Posture Shifts

A major contributor to the rising debt is Japan’s increasingly aggressive defense outlay. In 2024, the defense budget soared to nearly ¥7.95 trillion ($54.8 billion), up 17% year-on-year. This marks the third consecutive year of double-digit increases.

Under the previous administration led by Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, Japan had already announced plans to increase defense expenditure more than fivefold by 2028. The current government under Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru is reportedly considering an even higher defense allocation—reflecting Japan’s strategic response to evolving regional threats and alliance obligations, particularly with the U.S.

This trajectory signals a broader realignment of Japan’s pacifist security doctrine toward a more assertive posture, but the fiscal consequences are proving substantial.

Social Spending and Energy Subsidies Compound the Fiscal Load

Simultaneously, Japan’s aging population continues to exert upward pressure on social security expenditures. Healthcare, pensions, and elder care form a growing portion of the national budget, with no immediate prospects for structural reform.

Inflationary pressures have also forced the government to extend subsidies for electricity and fuel to shield households from cost-of-living shocks. These short-term relief measures, while politically popular, are fiscally unsustainable and add to the structural deficit.

As a result, Japan’s basic national budget for FY2025 has already surpassed ¥115 trillion ($809 billion USD) within the first 40 days of the fiscal year. To meet this rising expenditure, the government plans to issue additional bonds worth ¥28 trillion ($197 billion USD), further deepening the country’s debt pile.

Debt Sustainability and Long-Term Risks

Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio—already the highest among developed nations—is set to climb further. While the government has long benefited from ultra-low interest rates and strong domestic demand for its debt, the long-term sustainability of such borrowing is increasingly under scrutiny, especially amid signs of monetary policy normalization.

The Bank of Japan’s cautious moves toward tapering its yield curve control program could lead to higher borrowing costs, amplifying the fiscal burden. If interest payments begin to consume a larger share of the national budget, Japan may face difficult trade-offs between debt servicing and investment in growth-supportive policies.

Japan's record-breaking national debt reflects a convergence of demographic, geopolitical, and macroeconomic challenges. While increased defense spending and welfare support may be politically and strategically necessary, they raise urgent questions about fiscal discipline and long-term economic sustainability. Without structural reforms in social services, greater revenue mobilization, or targeted investment to boost productivity, Japan risks being trapped in a cycle of rising debt with limited economic payoff.

Source: WSJ

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Justin

Economic

Thursday’s announcement of their trade framework in the Oval Office shows Trump is willing to keen progress even without a final accord and that can buy political credit with the White House. There’s also evidence that American levies can be talked down, but that may not be much more of a template, according to analysts.

“If you thought you were going to have to have a real deal done in 90 days, you’ve now at least seen from the UK that that need not be true,” said Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore. “You can have a sketch of an idea of a plan.”

The framework Trump greeted as a “breakthrough” will, he says, fast-track US items through UK customs and reduce barriers on “billions of dollars” of other exports. The British government meanwhile says tariffs on UK cars will drop to 10% and those on metals to zero. Final details need to be negotiated over coming weeks.

That extended cliffhanger requires caution on making conclusions. Trump’s insistence on preserving some proposed levies, his assent to specific carveouts, and the lack of any requirements regarding China are among highlights analysts point to.

But the US surplus with the UK, as well as their longstanding ties may mean this skirmish in the president’s trade war isn’t much of a guide for exporters such as Japan or the European Union engaging in negotiations of their own.

“You can’t be optimistic just because of the US-UK announcement,” said Hiroshi Namioka, chief strategist at T&D Asset Management in Tokyo. “The US doesn’t have a trade deficit with UK, so reaching a deal was easier.”

Asian countries such as Japan, Vietnam and South Korea that have large trade surpluses with the US have moved quickly to initiate talks, with few signs of progress.

Speaking shortly after the deal announcement, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said negotiations with South Korea and Japan are taking “an enormous amount of time.” He added that India could be among the next countries to reach an agreement, while cautioning that work still needs to be done.

The EU is also making limited headway in its own engagement with the administration. That’s partly because of its sheer size, according to Sam Lowe, partner and head of international trade practice at Flint Global in London.

“Whereas the option of retaliation was not really available to the UK due to its much smaller economy, the EU can inflict some damage on the US via tariffs and other measures,” he said. “This potentially gives it more leverage, but also means any deal will probably take longer.”

One component of the UK accord that will be analyzed closely in auto-making hubs was the cut in tariffs on British cars to 10% from 27.5% for 100,000 vehicles per year.

Auto exports from Japan and South Korea to the US are each more than 10 times larger than those from the UK, and account for around one-third of their sales to America.

While the deal offers some encouragement that 25% levies on Japanese and Korean cars could be lowered, Tokyo insists on a complete removal.

“We’ll continue to seek a rethink of the string of tariff measures from the US,” Japan’s chief trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, said on Friday.

Similarly, the UK agreement is unlikely to serve as a viable template in South Korea’s talks because of the importance of cars there too, said Hyosung Kwon of Bloomberg Economics.

“To secure lower US tariffs on autos, South Korea may need to make concessions such as increasing imports of US liquefied natural gas and easing non-tariff barriers on US agricultural products,” he said.

One way of looking at the US-UK agreement is that the 10% baseline levy applied to all countries by the US is largely fixed, some trade analysts said. The UK said it will keep trying to negotiate over that so-called “reciprocal tariff.”

For other countries including Australia and Singapore, it may be the case that there’s no real point in discussing going below the 10% level right now, said Elms at the Hinrich Foundation.

In one exception, the UK was able to get US tariffs on steel and aluminum lowered to zero from 25% as part of what the US called “a new trading union.” It was not immediately clear how this agreement might affect US tariffs on the metals imposed on other countries.

The framework didn’t offer much insight into non-tariff barriers to trade including regulations and subsidies that US officials have highlighted. The UK said it wouldn’t loosen safety checks on food imports despite removing levies on beef and other agricultural products.

Some analysts also noted the lack of any reference to China in the US-UK framework despite indications given by US officials that they want help in efforts to pressure Beijing.

US and Chinese officials are set to meet in Switzerland this weekend for their first round of negotiations.

Source: Bloomberg Europe

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

China–U.S. Trade War

Economic

India Rises Amid Escalating U.S.-China Trade War

With the United States imposing tariffs as high as 145% on Chinese goods, global supply chains are undergoing forced diversification. India, long seen as a sleeping giant in global manufacturing, now stands at a critical juncture. Analysts at the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) note that India is well-positioned to benefit in key sectors such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, textiles, footwear, and electronics assembly.

Multinational firms, led by Apple, are responding. Apple has increased its iPhone production in India to $22 billion for the 12 months ending March 2025—a 60% year-on-year surge. By 2026, Apple aims to manufacture the majority of iPhones sold in the U.S. in India, signaling a shift in global supply chain gravity. Similar momentum is building in other sectors where India holds natural or cost advantages.

Export Realignment: Sectoral Strengths and Market Gains

India’s chemical industry, especially in active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), offers a viable alternative to China’s dominance. Although China still supplies over 70% of U.S. chemical imports in key categories, India’s established cost-efficient ecosystem is increasingly attractive to U.S. buyers seeking non-Chinese sources.

The textile and footwear sectors present similar opportunities. In 2024, the U.S. imported $16.6 billion worth of textiles—15.3% of which came from China. Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi manufacturers are well-placed to capture this share, particularly in yarn and dyed fabric segments. In footwear, with China previously supplying 21.9% of $14.9 billion in U.S. imports, India and Vietnam are positioned as regional leaders with strong industrial clusters.

Trade Diplomacy: A Potential Breakthrough with the U.S.

India may gain an even greater advantage if it becomes the first country to negotiate a bilateral trade deal with the U.S. that avoids retaliatory tariffs. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently noted that India is relatively easier to negotiate with due to fewer non-tariff barriers and currency stability. This could allow India to formalize its trade preferences and protect its exporters from the tariff drag affecting China and others.

However, such an agreement would require New Delhi to liberalize sensitive sectors such as agriculture and e-commerce—an ask that may test the political resolve of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration as it balances national interests with strategic economic gains.

Structural Barriers Cloud India’s Ambitions

Despite its strategic opportunity, India faces entrenched challenges that hinder its manufacturing potential. Skill shortages, reliance on imported components (often from China), and limited access to cutting-edge technology constrain scalability. The lithium battery firm LiKraft, for example, struggles with delayed imports and workforce gaps, underscoring systemic issues.

Even Apple, while increasing assembly in India, still sources critical components from China, highlighting India’s continued dependency in high-tech segments. As Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities cautioned, transitioning core production out of China will take several more years.

India’s broader industrial weakness is also reflected in macroeconomic indicators. Despite a decade of "Make in India" policies, manufacturing’s share of GDP has declined from 15% to under 13%, while export-driven output still comprises only 12% of GDP—compared to China’s 25%. Without robust industrial clustering and vertical integration, India remains a partial rather than full replacement for China in global supply chains.

Long-Term Growth Hinges on Deep Reform and Real Investment

For India to capitalize on its current opportunity, experts argue it must double down on infrastructure, skill development, and regulatory clarity. Establishing high-tech industrial zones, increasing local value addition, and modernizing supply chains to meet U.S. standards are crucial steps. Transparent and traceable sourcing will be especially important as geopolitical and ESG pressures tighten compliance requirements.

Prime Minister Modi’s long-held vision of positioning India as the "factory of the world" could inch closer to reality—if policy momentum aligns with private-sector execution. The U.S.-China decoupling, while disruptive, offers a rare strategic opening for India to redefine its economic trajectory.

The reconfiguration of global trade amid U.S.-China frictions has created a timely, yet fleeting, opportunity for India. With favorable policy winds and investor attention shifting away from China, India must address its domestic bottlenecks to emerge not just as an assembler, but as a competitive, full-spectrum manufacturer. If it succeeds, India could permanently reshape its position in the global economy.

Source: ICFS

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

China–U.S. Trade War

China Shifts Gears as U.S. Trade Relationship Fractures

Facing a staggering 145% tariff on exports to the U.S., China is leading the global pivot toward trade diversification. The sharp deterioration in trade ties has already manifested in economic data—manufacturing activity in April 2025 dropped to a 16-month low, and new export orders fell to levels unseen since 2022. According to Capital Economics, China could see up to an 80% reduction in exports to the U.S. over two years, with a corresponding 1.5 percentage point drag on GDP.

Goldman Sachs has already revised China’s growth forecast down to 4% for 2025 and 3.5% for 2026. With as many as 16 million jobs linked to U.S.-bound exports at risk, Beijing is now pursuing a broader realignment strategy, including enhancing domestic demand and deepening ties with ASEAN, Japan, South Korea, and the EU. President Xi Jinping’s recent outreach emphasizes “comprehensive cooperation” and a call for collective resistance to unilateral U.S. trade pressure.

ASEAN: From Peripheral Markets to Strategic Pillars

China is not alone in its regional refocus. ASEAN has become a crucial export destination for Chinese goods and a testing ground for strategic trade expansion. Chinese trade with ASEAN reached $872 billion in 2023 and is expected to rise further as U.S. market access shrinks. Analysts like Deborah Elms from Hinrich Foundation highlight how Southeast Asian markets—previously considered secondary—are now drawing significant Chinese commercial interest.

For ASEAN countries, the U.S.-China tariff conflict presents both challenges and opportunities. While stronger regional currencies and trade disruptions weigh on export competitiveness, the shifting supply chain dynamics allow member states to reposition themselves as key intermediaries in new trade flows—especially under agreements like RCEP and CPTPP, which notably exclude the U.S.

European Union Eyes Indo-Pacific and South-South Routes

While the EU temporarily suspended its retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., it is simultaneously moving to reduce trade exposure. EU officials have emphasized outreach to the Indo-Pacific and Global South as part of a long-term resilience strategy. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that the EU intends to deepen partnerships with countries accounting for 87% of global trade, while also strengthening the internal single market.

In practical terms, this includes exploratory talks between the EU and the CPTPP bloc, which could create a framework covering nearly one-third of global GDP. However, hurdles remain—particularly internal resistance from member states like France, which opposes opening the EU’s agricultural markets to countries such as Brazil and Argentina under the long-delayed Mercosur agreement.

Despite these obstacles, some EU countries are taking independent steps. Spain, during a recent visit to Vietnam, reaffirmed its commitment to deeper trade ties with Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, EU-China relations, strained in recent years, may find renewed momentum through revived dialogue on electric vehicle policies and broader trade normalization efforts.

India and ASEAN Reinforce Strategic Autonomy

India, amid its own tensions with U.S. trade policy, is revitalizing long-stalled negotiations for FTAs with the U.K., EU, and New Zealand. These moves align with its broader goal of safeguarding economic stability against rising U.S. protectionism. ASEAN nations are also enhancing their trade portfolios, pursuing bilateral agreements with non-traditional partners.

For instance, Malaysia and Indonesia have finalized FTAs with the UAE, Thailand is nearing its own deal, and Indonesia is engaging with the Eurasian Economic Union. Singapore, meanwhile, has signed agreements with both Turkey and Mercosur. Experts like Maria Monica Wihardja and Ambassador Chan Heng Chee suggest that ASEAN’s ability to leverage its diversified trade architecture—particularly through CPTPP and RCEP—will be central to maintaining economic resilience.

Structural Shifts and Strategic Implications

The U.S.’s increasingly transactional trade posture is accelerating a global decoupling process. Rather than fostering a unified rules-based system, it is encouraging parallel frameworks and regionalism. Institutions such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warn that U.S. tariffs on China may unintentionally redirect Chinese exports to Europe, intensifying competition and provoking protectionist backlash within the EU.

Jörg Wuttke, former BASF China chief, also raised concerns about a “tsunami of overcapacity” shifting toward European markets. This pressure could trigger a defensive pivot in Brussels, further fragmenting global trade governance.

The ripple effects of U.S. tariff escalation are catalyzing the most significant realignment in global trade since the early 2000s. China is diversifying rapidly, ASEAN is rising as a central trade hub, and the EU is recalibrating its global economic outreach. While decoupling from the U.S. remains difficult, especially for Europe, the broader trend is clear: global trade is entering a multipolar era—one defined less by Washington’s leadership and more by a fluid, decentralized network of regional pacts and pragmatic economic diplomacy.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites