Diplomacy
Restrictions on exports from Turkey to Israel: Important, but must be backed up by diplomatic measures
The Turkish Ministry of Trade has decided to impose export restrictions on 54 product groups against Israel, which continues its attacks on Palestine. We spoke to Emir Aşnas, a researcher and writer, about the decision and Israel’s reaction to it.
Turkey’s trade with Israel has long been a subject of debate due to Israel’s operations in Gaza since October. Following criticism from within the country, the Ministry of Trade took action and imposed export restrictions on 54 product groups to Israel.
The first reaction to Ankara’s decision came from Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz. In a statement on the social media platform, Katz used the following statements in his post, in which he referred to President Tayyip Erdoğan:
Israel will ask US to impose sanctions
“Erdogan is once again sacrificing the economic interests of the Turkish people for the sake of his support for the Hamas murderers who are raping, murdering and desecrating the bodies of women, girls and adults in Gaza and burning children alive. Israel will not give in to violence and blackmail, will not tolerate unilateral violations of trade agreements and will take parallel measures against Turkey that will damage its economy. We will ask our friends in the United States to draw up another list of products that Israel will prevent Turkey from exporting, to contact US organisations, to stop investments in Turkey and to prevent the import of products from Turkey. Congress will investigate violations of the boycott laws and impose sanctions on Turkey accordingly”.
‘A total export ban is not possible’
Emir Aşnas, a researcher and writer specialising in international trade and investment, public administration and commercial diplomacy, explained the difference between an export restriction and an export ban: “A restriction can take different forms. For example, a certain product may be allowed to be exported within a certain quota, i.e. up to a certain amount, and the amount above that may not be allowed. In the case of a ban, the export of that good may be prohibited altogether. Again, the restriction can be for a certain period of time; in a prohibition, the export of that good is stopped indefinitely.”
More importantly, Aşnas pointed out that it is not possible to ban exports completely and indefinitely within the framework of GATT-WTO (World Trade Organisation) agreements and rules, reminding that both Turkey and Israel are WTO members.
Aşnas explained that the legislation on the application of the restriction has not yet been published in the Official Gazette and said, “Therefore, we do not yet have a clear idea about the scope, principles, duration and implementation methods of this application. At this stage, it is possible to make some predictions based on the official statement of the Ministry of Trade. In this context, we understand that Turkey has suspended the export to Israel of 54 products and product groups listed in the Ministry of Trade’s statement until further notice”.
‘Technical definition of banned goods should be made’
Aşnas provided the following information on how the restriction decision will be implemented in practice: “The Ministry of Trade will issue the relevant legislation, and the customs tariff statistical items will be determined and announced for the technical description and definition of the products subject to the restriction, along with the principles of implementation. In addition, the customs department of the Ministry of Trade will not approve customs declarations for the export of these goods to Israel, and thus the exports will not take place”.
However, he also pointed out that “it is of course possible for the goods in question to be registered with our customs as being destined for another destination and then shipped to Israel from that destination”.
Aşnas pointed out that in order to have a complete idea of how the restriction decision will affect Turkey’s exports to Israel, the technical definition of the goods whose exports will be restricted and the customs tariff statistical items should be determined, and said, “I think the relevant units of the Ministry of Trade are currently carrying out this work. Otherwise, there cannot be a sound application”.
A blow to Israel’s iron and steel imports
Aşnas gave the following information about the product groups announced to be restricted
“Among the products and product groups listed in the Ministry of Trade’s announcement, a significant portion of iron-steel and ferrous metals and products – and even metalworking machinery and chemicals used in metal processing – will be subject to the restriction. Exports of metals and products account for the largest share (over 20 per cent) of Turkey’s exports to Israel by sector. Moreover, Turkey is Israel’s first and most important supplier, especially in the iron and steel sector.”
“However, it can be seen that automotive products (main and sub-industry), which are the second largest sector of Turkey’s exports to Israel, are not or only partially included in this restriction. The list also includes many products and product groups for the chemical and construction sectors. When this list is analysed, it is expected that Turkey’s exports to Israel will be significantly restricted. However, as I have said before, it would be appropriate to wait for the technical definition of the goods within the scope of the restriction in order to make a clearer and more precise judgement on this issue”.
‘The decision seems to have been taken in haste’
Aşnas said it was clear that the decision on the restriction was taken in reaction and in haste, saying, “Otherwise, legal arrangements should have been made on this issue,” and continued, “The second point is that some products that have a significant share in exports to Israel (especially the automotive industry) are excluded from the list; In other words, it is understood that the metal, chemical and construction materials sectors that can be used ‘for military purposes’, which have attracted the most public reaction in the formation of the list, are to be ‘compulsorily’ included, and otherwise an attempt is being made to be selective according to the situation of the sectors. ”
Aşnas said that the Trade Ministry’s statement, “In fact, our country has not authorised and does not authorise the sale of any products or services that can be used for military purposes to Israel for a long time”, is understood to have been written in a “rush of guilt” and in order to ease the reactions of Turkish public opinion on the issue.
Commenting on the Trade Ministry’s statement that the export restrictions were based on UN resolutions and International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings, Mr Aşnas said: “The UN Security Council resolutions cited, for example, have nothing to do with exports to Israel. They are about allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza, not blocking it. However, one of the resolutions referred to by the Department of Commerce is the injunction issued by the ICJ on 26 January 2024 in the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel. Of course, this raises the legitimate question of why such a decision has been delayed until today. It is also an important question why Turkey, perhaps the most assertive country in the world on the Palestinian issue, has not itself filed a case with the ICJ.
Aşnas gave the following assessment of whether these export restrictions, which will be temporary until a ceasefire is implemented in Gaza, will be sufficient:
“It is understood that although it is important in terms of the products covered, it is insufficient and the arbitrariness will be seen more clearly after the legal and technical regulations on this issue are finalised. It can be said that this export restriction decision, which was announced hastily and without legal and technical arrangements, is aimed at appeasing the increasing reactions of the Turkish public opinion rather than fulfilling the ICJ decision, and that this export restriction decision, which is not supported by diplomatic/political measures, is a tactical and temporary step”.
The product groups for which the Ministry of Trade has decided to restrict exports to Israel are as follows:
1- Aluminium profiles
2- Aluminium wires
3- Paints
4- Copper profiles, rods and wires
5- Concrete mixers6- Steel tubes and fittings
7- Steel wire rod
8- Steel containers and tanks
9- Steel bridge components10 – Steel towers11- Steel profiles
12- Cement
13- Cement, concrete or artificial stone building blocks and slabs14- All iron and steel building materials15- All iron and steel wire
16- Excavators
17- Electrical cables
18- Electrical panels
19- Tiles
20 – Fibre optic cables and electric conductors21 – Forklifts22 – Granite
23 – Ropes and cables24- Hardware products25 – Hydraulic oils
26 – Rebar
27 – Construction machinery
28 – Building insulation
29 – Glass used in construction
30 – Chemical compounds
31 – Chemical fertilisers
32 – Clinker
33 – Buckets, scoops, shovels, clamps and hooks
34 – Sulphur
35 – Mineral oils
36 – Roller chains
37 – Marble
38 – Metalworking machinery
39 – Chemicals used in metalworking
40 – Mineral fertilisers
41 – Motor oils
42 – Pallets
43 – Plastic pipes
44 – Sandwich panels
45 – Ceramics
46 – Solvent paints
47 – Wire drawing machines
48 – Sawing machines
49 – Bricks
50 – Aircraft gasoline and kerosene
51 – Paints
52 – Cranes
53 – Adhesives and glues
54- Flat steel products
Diplomacy
North Korean hackers blamed for record $6.3bn Binance theft
The world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance, has suffered an industry-record cyberattack amounting to $6.3 billion.
According to The Guardian, experts say the likely perpetrator is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).
Binance moved urgently to freeze the affected assets, and approximately $3 billion has been identified so far.
The company has not provided any update regarding the remaining $3.3 billion.
Binance co-founder Yi He said the company would cover “all cyberattack losses.”
Analysts attributed the assault to state-sponsored hackers from the DPRK. According to The Guardian, the DPRK has a history of cryptocurrency theft and, according to the FBI, was behind the theft of approximately $1.5 billion in virtual assets from a Tokyo-based cryptocurrency exchange last year.
That incident had set the record as the largest cryptocurrency theft recorded up to that point.
Crypto analytics firm TRM attributed the attack “with high confidence” to TraderTraitor, North Korea’s elite hacking unit.
Another analytics entity, Chainalysis, also linked the heist to TraderTraitor.
Binance has not explicitly confirmed that funds were stolen. However, TRM and Chainalysis claimed that more than $6 billion had been taken. The company stated that its teams were “working around the clock” to resolve the issue.
According to Binance’s statement, initial investigation findings revealed that the security breach may have begun with a hacked laptop belonging to one of Binance’s engineers, enabling an attacker to gain access to one of the company’s systems and execute unauthorised withdrawals.
Binance, which allows users to buy, sell, and trade digital assets, has 335 million registered users worldwide, and the total value of assets under its custody was approximately $162.8 billion, according to the exchange’s 2025 annual report.
“The bottom line is that your funds are safe and we are covering all losses,” said Richard Teng, one of Binance’s co-chief executives.
In a statement, the company said:
“As a precautionary measure, all deposits and withdrawals have been temporarily suspended while our security teams, with close support from law enforcement and industry partners, conduct checks, secure wallet infrastructure, and track affected assets.”
Markets reacted immediately early in the Asian trading session on Friday, with bitcoin, by far the most popular crypto asset, dropping by more than 3% to a six-week low of $76,368.
Shares of crypto exchange Coinbase Global lost 4.8%, while shares of bitcoin buyer Strategy fell by about 6% in extended trading on US markets.
Binance was founded in 2017 by Changpeng Zhao. Zhao pleaded guilty in the US in 2023 over failures to prevent money laundering on the platform. Donald Trump pardoned him in 2025.
In a post shared on X on Thursday, Zhao said, “User funds are safe!” but added that the incident “looks like a hack on Binance.”
Stating that he no longer manages Binance, Zhao said, “As a shareholder, I expect all user funds to be fully covered.”
According to Chainalysis and other industry experts, if confirmed, this could become the world’s largest cryptocurrency theft.
“This is the biggest hack in history,” said Aravind Srinivasan, head of the systematic OTC business at major crypto market maker GSR.
Analysts noted that beyond the potential loss of assets, the security breach could have broader repercussions across the cryptocurrency market.
Indeed, the cryptocurrency market had already been under pressure recently due to interest rate increases in the US and weakening demand from exchange-traded fund buyers.
Binance operates a secure asset fund for users; as stated on the company’s website, this fund is an emergency reserve held entirely in bitcoin, intended to protect user assets in the event of security breaches.
Stablecoin issuer Tether announced that it had frozen approximately $1.57 billion in assets linked to the incident, while Circle froze more than $800 million.
World Liberty Financial, a crypto firm linked to Trump and his family, said in a statement on Thursday that it was collaborating with cryptocurrency custody provider BitGo to freeze funds stolen in what it described as the Binance attack.
Yi from Binance said $27 million in stablecoins and roughly $2 million worth of World Liberty tokens had been frozen.
This development adds to a successive series of cryptocurrency thefts. According to researchers at TRM Labs, attackers stole $2.9 billion worth of cryptocurrency across roughly 150 attacks last year.
In September, cryptocurrency exchange Bitget announced that about $350 million worth of cryptocurrency had been stolen from its platform, highlighting the industry’s vulnerability to hackers.
Diplomacy
Canada pursues closer EU partnership as summit opens
Canadians are weighing the economic opportunities, regulatory hurdles, and questions of identity that closer cooperation with the EU would bring.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is hosting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa for a two-day summit focused on bolstering trade, security, technology, and people-to-people ties.
The leaders are expected to advance an ambitious new partnership that includes proposals referred to as an “Alliance of the Future” between Canada and the EU, promoted as an “ever closer union”.
So, what do Canadians think about this new agreement?
According to a February 2026 poll by survey firm Abacus Data, reported by Rapporteur, 74% of Canadians support closer cooperation with the EU on foreign policy, defence, and economic priorities. Only 10% oppose it, while 15% remain undecided.
This broad support masks diverging political attitudes. According to the poll, 60% of Liberal voters rank the EU among Canada’s top two partners, compared to 36% who include the US on that list.
Among Conservatives, the figures are reversed: 65% prioritise the US, while the proportion favouring the EU stands at 36%.
According to the Abacus Data survey, 48% of Canadians support EU membership, while 28% oppose it.
In remarks to Rapporteur, the polling firm said:
“The US still occupies a central place in the Canadian mindset, but this situation continues to change. Today it is still seen as the most important partner, but it is no longer in an uncontested position.”
Catherine Fortin LeFaivre, Vice President of Strategic Policy and Global Partnerships at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, is eager to turn towards Europe during the Donald Trump era, yet harbours concerns about EU bureaucratic obstacles:
“Canada’s relationship with the US will always be vital, but the last two years have made the need for diversification impossible to ignore. Europe is a natural place to deepen economic ties. But what we do not want is to open the door to an added layer of regulation.”
Ontario farmer Hannah Hutchings shares this concern.
“The US is still an indispensable business partner,” Hutchings said, arguing that closer ties with the EU could help Canadian agricultural goods reach European consumers, provided they deliver economic benefits to farmers without generating further competition and regulation.
Although the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), applied provisionally since 2017, has reduced trade barriers, it has not opened every market to Canadian exporters.
Michael Harvey, Executive Director of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, said: “Closer relations offer an opportunity to work on trade possibilities with the EU and give us greater leverage in negotiations. For certain agricultural products, non-tariff barriers still block market access because the EU wants to impose its own criteria on the entire world.”
Harvey pointed to EU restrictions on growth hormones and crop protection products:
“In this period of rapprochement, we must work through these issues. Closer ties are received largely positively by the public, but the details will make the difference. This must be a win-win situation for both sides.”
Noting that she also sees opportunities for collaboration in agricultural innovation and sustainability, Hutchings drew attention to shared challenges such as rising costs, labour shortages, climate change, and attracting younger generations into farming.
For Canadian businesses, Europe’s appeal also lies in its predictability.
“Forecasting the cost of doing business with the US has become difficult. Europe is more reliable and makes it possible to conduct business planning, understand market entry costs, and anticipate trading conditions,” Fortin LeFaivre said.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has developed a tool named “Trade Explorer”, which helps businesses identify new export opportunities, particularly in Europe.
Jonathan Audet, co-founder and CEO of Quebec-based ski manufacturer Ferreol, entered the French market in late 2025 and generated 5% of his sales there.
Audet anticipates that his European market share will eventually outstrip Canada:
“The business environment is more favourable than in the US. Forging closer ties with the EU will boost exports and allow us to build commercial partnerships and co-innovation partnerships.”
However, Audet wants administrative procedures simplified, particularly when transporting product samples to trade missions in Europe.
“We are not going to sell them; we are only taking them to display the products, but from a customs perspective, this process is complicated. I have to apply for an ATA Carnet, a kind of passport for goods,” he said, citing delays, fees, and airport customs procedures.
Students see opportunities as well. Alex Simion, a Carleton University student in Ottawa and chair of the student union board of directors, supports easier access to education and employment opportunities in Europe.
“Carleton is a university with a large engineering student body. Students enthusiastically welcome the establishment of closer ties with the EU,” Simion said, calling for simplified visa procedures and improved access to student housing.
Yet uncertainty has not disappeared. “Most of us started high school while the Brexit process was unfolding, so growing up, we saw that something was wrong in the EU,” Simion said.
For him, this debate also raises deeper questions about Canadian identity.
“What does it mean to be Canadian? We are still trying to figure that out,” Simion said, questioning whether EU membership would erode Canada’s distinct identity:
“A closer bond makes it even more important that we find an answer to what being Canadian means before joining the EU.”
Diplomacy
Ukraine economy set to shrink for first time since 2022, bank says
Ukraine’s economy is set to shrink for the first time since 2022, according to a Bloomberg report citing projections from the National Bank of Ukraine.
The central bank forecasts that the country’s gross domestic product will contract by 0.4% by the end of this year.
The National Bank of Ukraine had previously projected that the economy would grow by 1.8%.
The country’s last economic contraction was recorded in 2022, when gross domestic product plunged by more than 30%.
The National Bank of Ukraine attributed the worsening forecast to Russian strikes, which it said led to a “sharp drop in business activity.”
The Russian Defence Ministry has repeatedly stressed that the strikes target only Ukrainian military and energy facilities, as well as infrastructure linked to them.
President Vladimir Putin said that the Russian military’s strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure were effective and timely actions because they helped troops resolve the combat tasks before them.
The National Bank of Ukraine expects the economy to return to a 0.4% growth path next year, driven by rising investment in the defence industry and other projects.
According to Bloomberg, the National Bank of Ukraine raised its policy rate following the deteriorating economic forecasts.
The central bank’s updated assessments point to higher inflation than previously expected.
Government cuts spending and switches to austerity mode
Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergey Koretskiy announced in late September that the country had switched to a maximum austerity regime and postponed all non-urgent spending.
Koretskiy had previously stated that the state of the country’s public finances was nearing a critical level.
Ukraine’s 2026 budget was approved with a deficit of approximately 1.9 trillion hryvnias, or $47.5 billion.
Describing the upcoming 2026 winter as “objectively difficult” for the country, Koretskiy pointed out that the funding gap in Ukraine’s energy sector remained at around 650 million euros ahead of the winter period.
The Ukrainian Finance Ministry estimates that the country will require nearly $146 billion in external financing between 2026 and 2029.
The International Monetary Fund, meanwhile, projects that Ukraine will face a financing gap of up to $54 billion through 2029.
At the beginning of the year, the European Union agreed on a 90 billion euro loan package for Kyiv, allocating 60 billion euros for defence spending and 30 billion euros for budget and economic support.
As of 14 October, Ukraine had received only 19.8 billion euros of the agreed loan, representing just 22% of the total amount.
The Moscow government condemns military support provided to Kyiv.
Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu, assessing the EU loan to Ukraine, claimed that this policy was driving European states toward “the ultimate loss of their sovereignty.”
President Vladimir Putin stated that “the entire West” was helping Ukraine.
Putin said Russia reserves the right to use weapons against the military facilities of countries that allow their delivered weapons to be used in attacks on Russian territory.
-
America2 weeks agoHow Elon Musk fuses private empire with state power, Ben Tarnoff explains
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD leader Weidel calls funding lost Ukraine war a grave mistake
-
Middle East2 weeks agoEgypt delays parliamentary vote on deploying troops to Saudi Arabia
-
America1 week agoUS wealthy demolish multimillion-dollar mansions for land
-
America1 week agoAt least 47 major US data centre projects halted or cancelled
-
Europe1 week agoEU rejects US proposal to resume Russian gas flows through Ukraine
-
Middle East1 week agoNetanyahu unveils security doctrine and regional alliance map
-
Middle East1 week agoNetanyahu trails Eisenkot in Israeli polls despite Trump backing
