Were The Brits Behind Bloomberg’s Russian-US Leaks?

Political

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Summary:

Bloomberg shared what it claimed to be the transcripts of calls between Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Putin’s top foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov as well as between Ushakov and Putin’s other advisor Kirill Dmitriev about the Ukrainian peace process. The gist of the Witkoff-Ushakov call was Witkoff’s proposal to have Putin suggest a Gaza-like 20-point peace deal for Ukraine during an upcoming call with Trump while the Ushakov-Dmitriev one implied that the leaked draft was Russian-influenced.

Ushakov declined to comment on his talks with Witkoff but said that “Somebody tapped, somebody leaked, but not us” whereas Dmitriev flat-out described his purported call with Ushakov as “fake”. For his part, Trump defended Witkoff’s alleged “coaching” of Ushakov on how Putin should deal with him by reminding everyone “That’s what a dealmaker does. You got to say, ‘Look, they want this – you got to convince them with this.’ That’s a very standard form of negotiations.”

As regards the possibility that the draft framework was Russian-influenced, the notion of which has been pushed by the legacy media to discredit the proposed mutual compromises therein, that was already debunked. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as National Security Advisor, said that “The peace proposal was authored by the U.S. It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”

Therefore, neither transcript is scandalous even if their contents were accurately reported, yet the question arises of who might have tapped and leaked these calls. Intriguingly, earlier the same day that Bloomberg later published their report, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service warned that the UK “aims to undermine Trump's efforts to resolve the conflict by discrediting him.” Readers will recall the UK’s role in Russiagate, which they conspired with the CIA, FBI, and the Clinton camp to cook up to against him.

Seeing as how they can no longer collude in this way with their three prior conspirators, the UK might therefore have resorted to leaking those two calls with Ushakov that they might have tapped (possibly among many others) as a last-ditch attempt to discredit the latest unprecedented progress towards peace. This provocation might also have been meant to make Trump panic and fire Witkoff out of fear of another Russiagate 2.0 investigation if this scandal helps the Democrats flip Congress next year.

Firing Witkoff, who’s been central to the recent progress towards peace, could ruin the process right at its most pivotal moment as Zelensky is reportedly considering meeting with Trump very soon to finalize the details of the US-mediated peace framework with Russia. By holding firm, Trump is therefore obstructing efforts to ruin everything that he’s achieved thus far on a Russian-Ukrainian peace deal and consequently revive the Russiagate hoax for helping the Democrats during next year’s midterms.

Accordingly, Bloomberg’ Russian-US leaks can be considered a British intelligence operation for derailing the peace process and perpetuating the conflict from which the UK profits, not to mention meddling in the midterms by giving a fake news-driven boost to the Democrats. Trump revealed that Witkoff will meet with Putin on Monday and might even be joined by his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who helped negotiate the Gaza deal, so more British provocations are expected out of desperation to ruin their talks.

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

Ottawa Escalates Steel Tariffs Amid Strained U.S. Relations and Chinese Oversupply

Prime Minister Mark Carney has unveiled sweeping trade measures aimed at fortifying Canada’s steel and softwood lumber industries in response to intensifying U.S. trade tensions and the continuing influx of cheap Chinese metal. At the heart of the strategy is a new 25% tariff on a range of imported steel derivative products valued at approximately C$10 billion annually including wind towers, prefabricated buildings, wires, and fasteners. About 40% of these products are typically imported from the United States.

The move marks Carney’s most assertive shift in trade policy since September, when Canada dropped most retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. While a broad 25% tariff on U.S. steel and aluminum remains in place, Canada has so far resisted matching U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive 50% duties on those base metals. This latest announcement appears to recalibrate that stance, albeit with cautious language.

Strategic Protection or Political Retaliation?

Carney was quick to reject the notion that the new tariffs were a retaliatory move against Washington, stating at a press conference, “It’s not targeted at the U.S. It’s a global approach.” Nonetheless, the timing and composition of the measures suggest otherwise. Trump abruptly terminated bilateral trade negotiations on October 23 following a controversial Ontario anti-tariff ad, and there has been little sign of movement since. The Canadian government maintains that it remains open to re-engaging in talks.

While Carney’s public tone is conciliatory, his government has taken steps that exert quiet pressure on the U.S. trade position. In addition to the new tariffs, Ottawa will also lower the quota threshold for triggering tariffs on steel from countries without free trade agreements. Tariffs will now apply once imports exceed 20% of 2024 volumes, down from 50%. Even for countries with trade pacts excluding the U.S. and Mexico the tariff trigger will drop to 75% of prior levels.

These changes increase the likelihood that steel exporters to Canada will hit tariff limits sooner, reinforcing the message that Canada is moving to aggressively shelter its domestic production.

Domestic Industry Support Expands Amid Competitive Squeeze

To offset global pressures and stimulate internal demand, Ottawa announced a series of domestic subsidies and financing facilities. An additional C$500 million will be allocated to the Business Development Bank of Canada to support softwood lumber businesses, alongside another C$500 million under the Large Enterprise Tariff Loan facility.

Transportation incentives are also being introduced, with Canadian National Railway Co. and Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. receiving federal support to offer 50% discounts on domestic steel and lumber shipments. These measures aim to facilitate internal market absorption of Canadian-made goods amid export restrictions.

For workers affected by trade turbulence and reduced industrial activity, more than C$100 million will be added over two years to a program supporting reduced work hours, potentially benefiting up to 26,000 employees across various sectors.

The government also recommitted to its "Buy Canada" policy, set to launch later this year. All defense and construction contracts worth more than C$25 million will be required to prioritize domestic steel and lumber inputs. This mandate extends across federal grants and procurement channels and is expected to channel billions into local manufacturing.

Market Reactions and Policy Implications

Industry groups have largely welcomed the tariffs and subsidies. Keanin Loomis, CEO of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, applauded the measures, saying they represent a more confident and informed approach by the government. Carney’s handling of the steel file has shifted from reactive to proactive, Loomis suggested, aligning government policy more closely with domestic producers’ demands.

Despite the broad support, the stakes remain high. Canadian exporters such as Algoma Steel Group, already grappling with Trump's 50% steel tariffs, remain exposed to U.S. protectionism. The Ontario government has extended emergency financial support, but longer-term viability may depend on whether U.S. trade policies soften in the near future a prospect that remains uncertain.

Meanwhile, the Canadian government is walking a delicate line between deterring foreign dumping and maintaining trade stability. Officials emphasize that the latest tariffs aim to create a fair playing field rather than provoke further trade conflict.

Policy at a Crossroads

Carney is scheduled to attend the 2026 World Cup draw in Washington on December 5, which could offer a chance for a diplomatic thaw. However, no formal trade meetings with President Trump are on the agenda, and a recent phone conversation between the two leaders was described as “not newsworthy.”

Whether or not these new tariffs provoke further escalation or open the door to renewed negotiations remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that Canada is taking more aggressive steps to insulate its industries from external shocks both geopolitical and economic while signaling to Washington that its patience may be wearing thin.

In sum, Canada’s evolving trade posture reflects a broader recalibration. With global oversupply threatening domestic margins and political risks rising across borders, Ottawa is preparing for a longer game one in which self-reliance and strategic protection may increasingly outweigh the pursuit of short-term diplomacy.

Source: Bloomberg

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

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Commodity

Economic

Crude Market Dips as Geopolitics and Supply Outlook Weigh Heavily

Oil prices declined sharply on Thursday, reflecting heightened investor sensitivity to geopolitical developments and structural supply dynamics. Brent crude approached $62 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate settled near $58 both reversing Wednesday’s modest gains. This marked the fourth consecutive monthly decline for crude, a trend not seen since 2023, underscoring a sustained downtrend linked to both real and speculative pressures.

The shift in sentiment this week has been largely driven by expectations surrounding renewed peace talks between the United States and Russia. U.S. presidential envoy Steve Witkoff is scheduled to lead a delegation to Moscow next week, prompting speculation over the potential normalization of crude exports from Russia. However, while this diplomatic activity introduces an element of optimism, traders remain skeptical about its immediate impact on oil supply flows.

This skepticism stems from the understanding that peace agreements, especially in conflict zones such as Ukraine, do not automatically translate into physical market changes. As Haris Khurshid of Karobaar Capital LP aptly noted, symbolic political agreements lack material effect unless they are accompanied by logistical capacity such as restored pipelines, renewed shipping contracts, and operational infrastructure. Therefore, the relationship between peace negotiations and oil prices remains correlational rather than immediately causal.

OPEC+ Meeting Looms with Output Policy in Focus

Simultaneously, all eyes are on the upcoming OPEC+ meeting scheduled for November 30. The alliance, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, has been cautiously managing its production policy. Earlier this month, eight member nations chose to halt any new supply increases in early 2026 following an aggressive ramp-up through much of 2025. This pause reflects a strategic pivot in response to weaker-than-anticipated global demand growth.

Nevertheless, the current downtrend in oil prices suggests that the market views this output freeze as insufficient to rebalance supply-demand fundamentals. Concerns about a potential surplus remain prevalent, particularly as inventories build and refining margins contract in some regions. This disconnection between supply controls and market pricing points to a potential misalignment in policy timing or market expectations.

Structural Headwinds and Market Sentiment Alignment

Underlying these short-term factors are broader structural headwinds that continue to pressure the oil market. Demand growth has lagged behind supply expansion throughout the second half of 2025, driven in part by weakening global manufacturing activity and a gradual transition towards alternative energy sources in key economies. As a result, even geopolitical instability a traditionally bullish driver has been insufficient to offset bearish macroeconomic forces.

Importantly, this week’s market behavior reflects a broader shift in sentiment where geopolitical events are no longer producing automatic price spikes unless accompanied by clear supply-side disruptions. This evolving dynamic indicates that oil markets are increasingly pricing in medium-term fundamentals over short-term headlines.

Muted Trading Expected Amid U.S. Holiday

With the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S., trading volumes are expected to remain light, potentially exaggerating price movements in thin liquidity conditions. However, barring any immediate supply shocks or unexpected policy moves from OPEC+, oil prices are likely to remain under pressure in the near term.

In conclusion, the current downturn in crude oil prices is the result of a complex interplay between diplomacy, supply management, and macroeconomic sentiment. While peace negotiations in Ukraine and OPEC+ policy shifts offer potential triggers for future price corrections, the market’s immediate focus remains on the tangible balance between barrels produced and barrels consumed. Until that equation shifts, oil is likely to remain in a subdued pricing environment.

Source: Bloomberg

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

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

October’s Profit Drop Signals Renewed Strain on China’s Industrial Sector

The latest data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics reveals a 5.5% year-over-year decline in industrial profits for October 2025, the steepest contraction in five months. This downturn reverses the double-digit gains recorded in August and September, suggesting mounting economic vulnerabilities as the year closes. Notably, cumulative profits for the first ten months rose by only 1.9%, decelerating from the 3.2% year-on-year gain posted from January to September. This shift marks a visible slowdown in industrial momentum despite previous signs of recovery.

One contributing factor to the October dip was the renewed trade tension between the United States and China. With former U.S. President Donald Trump threatening 100% tariffs on Chinese imports earlier in the month, uncertainty surged, before a limited agreement was reached in South Korea. This sequence of events correlates closely with the timing of the profit slump, implying a likely causal relationship between escalating geopolitical frictions and deteriorating business sentiment.

Moreover, while some sectors such as utilities and manufacturing posted modest profit gains of 9.5% and 7.7% respectively, mining saw a deep 27.8% contraction in profits from January to October. This disparity reflects sector-specific resilience patterns but also illustrates how resource-related industries are more vulnerable to demand shocks and pricing instability.

Sectoral Performance Reflects Diverging Fortunes

Among key sectors, the automotive industry showed relative stability, with profits rising 4.4% in the first ten months slightly up from 3.4% in the first nine indicating marginal improvement likely supported by policy incentives or export performance. In contrast, state-owned enterprises recorded no growth, while firms with foreign investment achieved a 3.5% increase. Private enterprises grew profits by 1.9%, slightly below the average, which may reflect limited market power or exposure to weaker consumer sentiment.

The manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) also underscored October’s weakening momentum, falling to 49.0 a six-month low. Since readings below 50 denote contraction, this metric aligns with the observed earnings deterioration and further suggests ongoing softness in business activity.

Muted Domestic Demand Undermines Recovery Prospects

Despite the temporary relief from trade negotiations, China's domestic demand remained lackluster. While consumer prices rose 0.2% in October, core inflation hit 1.2% the highest since February 2024. However, Nomura’s chief China economist Ting Lu warns that a significant portion of this rise stemmed from external factors like rising gold prices, not genuine consumption strength. Additionally, understated rental declines may have distorted headline inflation, casting doubt on whether consumption is truly recovering.

This nuanced view suggests that the relationship between inflation data and domestic consumption is more correlative than causal i.e., core inflation is rising not due to improved demand but rather due to asset-related factors. Consequently, the claim that China is gradually exiting deflation may be premature.

Growth Stalls as Key Indicators Disappoint

October’s macroeconomic indicators painted a grim picture. Retail sales slowed to 2.9%, marking the fifth consecutive monthly decline and the weakest growth in over a year. Industrial output grew by just 4.9%, below expectations, while fixed-asset investment contracted by 1.7% a scenario not seen since the pandemic year of 2020. The urban unemployment rate remained elevated at 5.1%, reinforcing concerns about labor market fragility.

Collectively, these indicators point to a stagnating recovery where neither external nor internal engines of growth are functioning robustly. While Beijing has signaled a strategic pivot toward boosting consumption over the medium term, it has yet to implement meaningful fiscal or monetary stimulus. This cautious approach may be due to the government’s desire to neither undershoot nor overshoot its “around 5%” annual growth target.

Balancing Growth with Stability

Larry Hu from Macquarie Group expects China’s economy to maintain a 5% growth trajectory into 2026, primarily supported by exports. However, such reliance on external demand comes with risks particularly if trade frictions reemerge or global demand weakens. Additionally, Hu anticipates persistent deflationary pressures that could reduce the urgency for domestic stimulus, but at the cost of deeper structural stagnation.

In this context, the correlation between policy conservatism and muted growth becomes critical. While policymakers may achieve their headline targets, the underlying economic fragility remains unresolved. Without more targeted support for private consumption and investment, China’s industrial sector may continue to face earnings pressure in the quarters 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

Background and Legislative Momentum

On the final parliamentary sitting day of 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that his government had secured critical Senate support from the Greens to pass a sweeping amendment to the EPBC Act of 1991. While Labor holds a majority in the lower house, it required cross-party negotiation to move the bill through the Senate. The collaboration with the Greens highlights the urgency of reconciling economic expansion with environmental stewardship.

The new bill introduces two major changes. First, it establishes a nationwide Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) with powers to enforce stronger nature protections and oversee major development proposals. Second, it mandates emission disclosure for large-scale projects and aims to eliminate bureaucratic gridlock by accelerating decision timelines for strategic sectors such as critical minerals and renewable energy.

Strategic and Economic Implications

The legislation targets a dual objective: ecological resilience and investment certainty. Given Australia’s status as the world’s driest inhabited continent and a leading exporter of coal, iron ore, and LNG, this reform seeks to balance resource exploitation with biodiversity conservation. Albanese emphasized that these reforms will not only enhance environmental outcomes but also reduce delays that hamper business competitiveness and renewable energy deployment.

This overhaul stems from the findings of the Samuel Review, which warned that the outdated EPBC framework was ineffective in both protecting nature and supporting economic efficiency. A prior iteration of reform the “Nature Positive” program was shelved earlier in 2025 due to political friction before the Labor government’s electoral landslide in May.

If enacted, the law will improve the nation’s ability to meet international climate goals by unlocking stalled renewable infrastructure projects and phasing out aging coal assets. It also signals a shift toward a regulatory model that rewards compliance and long-term sustainability, while addressing one of the key structural impediments to green energy growth: sluggish environmental assessments.

This bill marks a pivotal moment in Australian environmental policy. It reflects a pragmatic approach that aligns ecological priorities with economic imperatives. As global scrutiny increases over environmental governance, Australia’s reform could serve as a case study in how developed nations can modernize regulatory frameworks to meet the challenges of a warming planet and a competitive global economy.

Source: Reuters

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

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Glendon

Forex

Economic

The Bank of Japan's dovish board member Asahi Noguchi refrained from adding fuel to growing market speculation over a December rate hike by broadly taking a neutral stance, stressing the importance of acting at the right time.

"It is necessary for the bank, as a central bank, to carefully examine how various economic channels ultimately affect economic activity and prices and to use the policy interest rate as a tool to adjust the degree of monetary accommodation as appropriate," he said Thursday in a speech to local business leaders in Oita, southwestern Japan.

The remarks suggest a softening of his recent more hawkish tone after his speech in September surprised traders by pointing to how the need to adjust rates is rising "more than ever." Following a string of hawkish signals from some of his fellow board members in recent weeks, Noguchi's comments Thursday likely help the bank avoid being locked into a December move.

The most realistic approach for policy is to set a certain benchmark as the range for where the neutral rate is thought to lie, and then raise rates incrementally over time while monitoring the impact on the economy and prices, said Noguchi.

"This is what I consider to be the measured, step-by-step approach to policy adjustments that the bank should pursue," the former economics professor said.

Last week, board members Junko Koeda and Kazuyuki Masu helped encourage market speculation over a hike approaching next month. Koeda said the bank should normalize policy further without hinting if the next move should come in December. Meanwhile Masu said that the timing of a hike is approaching in an interview with the Nikkei.

That indicated at least four of the central bank's nine board members are now ready to support a rate hike, after two members already dissented against keeping rates on hold in September and October.

Those developments brought closer market attention to Noguchi's view after his speech in September came as a surprise, especially after he voted against the rate hikes in March and July last year.

Traders see about a 53% chance for the BOJ to increase its policy rate from 0.5% when it delivers its next decision on Dec. 19. The probability goes up to roughly 86% by January, according to the overnight swaps index.

The BOJ currently expects its price goal to be achieved in the second half of its three-year projection period that runs through March 2028. If that outlook is realized, the bank should adjust rates at an appropriate pace to align with that time line, Noguchi said.

"Problems are likely to arise if the pace of policy adjustment is either too fast or too slow," he said.

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

Economic

US-South Africa Relations Hit New Low

In a provocative social media post, President Trump declared he would exclude South Africa from the upcoming G-20 summit, stating the country “is not worthy of membership anywhere.” He also announced the immediate termination of all US payments and subsidies to South Africa. The decision marks a dramatic downturn in relations between Washington and Pretoria, already strained by months of accusations and diplomatic snubs.

Trump’s repeated allegations that South Africa is committing genocide against White Afrikaners and seizing land without compensation have been widely criticized as unfounded. These claims were amplified during South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s visit to Washington in May, where Trump reportedly played a video montage to press his point a move seen as diplomatically confrontational.

Pretoria Responds with Defiance

The South African presidency called Trump’s comments “regrettable” and “insulting,” rejecting what it described as misinformation and distortion. Ramaphosa’s office emphasized that South Africa remains a committed and constructive G-20 member and urged the international community to uphold multilateralism and equal participation.

It is unclear whether Trump can unilaterally block South Africa’s participation in the G-20 summit. Traditionally, all members must agree on changes to the group’s composition. South African officials have expressed concern that the US may attempt to expel the country altogether, though such a move would require consensus from other member states.

Summit Fallout and Diplomatic Tensions

Tensions peaked during the recent G-20 summit hosted by South Africa, which the US boycotted. The South African government also refused to allow a lower-ranking US diplomat to receive the ceremonial G-20 handover, opting for a quiet exchange between diplomats instead. The rift suggests a broader erosion of US-Africa relations under Trump’s leadership.

Trump’s unilateral approach to multilateral institutions may undermine the G-20’s foundational principle of consensus and equal participation. If South Africa is excluded, it could spark broader debate among member states about the politicization of international platforms. With no clear enforcement mechanism and other nations likely to oppose the move, Trump’s declaration may face both legal and diplomatic pushback.

The US-South Africa diplomatic row reflects growing global tensions over sovereignty, misinformation, and leadership in international forums. As South Africa vows to maintain its G-20 role, the world watches whether Trump’s threats will fracture one of the globe’s key economic platforms or galvanize resistance among its members.