B. Wafa is a Jadetimes news reporter covering technology
Image Credit: Microsoft’s Project Natick
As the world's demand for data keeps growing, tech firms are plunging into uncharted waters — or rather, underwater. Underwater data centers are on the horizon as a potential answer to increased demand while ensuring environmental sustainability.
These data centres are closed buildings positioned under the surface of the ocean, utilizing the natural cooling qualities of seawater. Cooling is one of the largest energy costs for conventional land-based data centres, which use enormous amounts of power to prevent servers from overheating. Operating underwater, firms can significantly minimize energy consumption and lower operational expenses.
One of the frontrunners in this direction is Microsoft, which announced its "Project Natick" project to discover the feasibility of underwater data centers. In 2020, following a two-year test on the Scottish island chain Orkney, Microsoft successfully pulled back its submerged data center with a robust outcome: the servers performed eight times more reliably than comparable servers onshore.
The advantages go beyond energy efficiency. Underwater data centres are modular and can be installed nearer coastal population hubs, lowering latency — the time it takes for data to travel. They are also expandable, with more modules being added as demand increases.
In addition, underwater data centres avoid some of the onshore issues like space constraints, increasing real estate prices, and public opposition to big data centre projects.
As world data consumption is projected to keep rising sharply, particularly with the speedy growth of artificial intelligence and cloud services, organizations are already looking to underwater deployment as a key part of their long-term plans.
While not yet at full maturity, underwater data technology is a groundbreaking move toward providing data infrastructure with a more sustainable and flexible approach in a more digitalized world.
H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Asia
Image Source: Getty Images
Tensions flared anew between Japan and China over the weekend as both nations accused each other of airspace violations near the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, a region where sovereignty claims have long fueled diplomatic friction.
Japan’s Foreign Ministry said Sunday it had lodged a “very severe protest” with Beijing following what it described as a violation of its territorial airspace by a Chinese helicopter. The aircraft reportedly took off from one of four Chinese coast guard vessels that entered Japan’s territorial waters and remained in the airspace around the islands which Japan controls for approximately 15 minutes on Saturday.
“This intrusion into Japan’s territorial airspace is absolutely unacceptable,” the ministry said, urging the Chinese government to take immediate preventative measures to avoid future incidents.
In response, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces scrambled fighter jets to intercept the Chinese aircraft, according to Japan’s Defense Ministry.
Beijing, however, issued its own protest, accusing Tokyo of violating Chinese airspace. A statement released by the Chinese Embassy in Japan said that a Japanese civilian aircraft had entered what China considers its airspace over the Diaoyu Islands Beijing’s name for the Senkakus on the same day.
“China expresses strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition to Japan’s serious infringement on Chinese sovereignty,” the embassy stated, adding that the China Coast Guard took “necessary control measures” and deployed a ship-borne helicopter to issue warnings and drive the Japanese aircraft away.
Japanese authorities are investigating whether there was a connection between the appearance of the Chinese coast guard helicopter and the Japanese civilian aircraft in the same area.
Though Japan maintains administrative control over the uninhabited islets, China regularly sends patrol vessels and aircraft into surrounding waters and airspace to assert its claim. These operations frequently provoke rapid deployments by Japan’s air force and navy, with Saturday’s incident marking the first recorded airspace violation by a Chinese aircraft since August, when a reconnaissance plane entered Japanese airspace near Nagasaki.
This weekend's confrontation underscores the enduring volatility in the region, despite recent signs of warming bilateral ties amid broader economic pressures, including trade challenges stemming from the U.S.-China tariff standoff.
The East China Sea dispute remains a sensitive flashpoint in Asia-Pacific geopolitics, with analysts warning that even minor incidents have the potential to spiral into broader conflict if not carefully managed through diplomatic channels.
C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter and sub-editor covering science and geopolitics.
The April 30, 2025, agreement between the United States and Ukraine, presented as a framework for postwar reconstruction, is argued to be a deeper entrenchment of U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict rather than a step toward peace.
Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury secretary, and Yulia Svyrydenko, the Ukrainian economy minister, signing the minerals deal. Credit: U.S. Department of the Treasury
On April 30, the off again-on again “minerals deal” pushed by President Trump to be imposed on Ukraine, was finally signed, but not with drama by President Trump, and the man who claims to be president of Ukraine, Zelensky, but by two functionaries, Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary, for the USA, and for Kiev, Yulia Svyrydenko, Economics Minister, under the vague title of the, “Agreement between the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America on the Establishment of a United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund.”
If one just reads the title, the impression is that the deal is purely a creation of an investment fund for the reconstruction of Ukraine and, indeed, large sections are concerned with the structure of the Investment Fund.
Is the Agreement a Mechanism For Peace or War?
Some commentators have the opinion that this is deal is a mechanism for Trump to withdraw the USA from the war, because it gives Trump something he can give his supporters, that he can say to them, if he was honest, “OK, we lost the war, so we’re getting out, but at least we got something for our effort.” The “something” is supposed to be, according to this line of thought, access to and the right to exploit Ukraine’s rare earth minerals and other resources. But taking in the entire document, the meaning becomes clearer, that this is a document that will result in the USA expanding the war against Russia.
If we examine the document closely we begin with a set of lies about the war, contained in a series of “whereas” clauses, which set up the document, the first being the statement that the USA has only provided Ukraine with assistance since the date of the commencement of the Special Military Operation in February 2022 when the world knows that the USA has been assisting right-wing forces in Ukraine since the 90s, and, since their coup d’état of 2014 in which the USA arranged and organised the overthrow of the elected government and replaced it with Nazi oriented puppets and has provided it with vast amounts of military assistance of all kinds since then, including during Trump’s first presidency, all with the objective of engaging in a war with Russia.
The Reason for the reference to Nuclear Weapons in the Agreement
The next “whereas” clauses state that the USA desires with Ukraine to invest in a “free and sovereign Ukraine” and secure a lasting “peace”, then applauds Ukraine for abandoning nuclear weapons. Why this was thrown in the mix is unclear. It states,
“WHEREAS, the United States of America and Ukraine recognize the contribution that Ukraine has made to strengthening international peace and security by voluntarily relinquishing the world’s third-largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.”
But it does not state that Ukraine delivered the nuclear arsenal located on its territory on the dissolution of the USSR, to which the weapons belonged, to Russia, on American demand, since the Americans viewed them as a roadblock to relations with Ukraine, perhaps because they understood that Ukraine could be more easily controlled if disarmed. Ukraine was compensated in various ways by the USA and Russia for delivering them to Russia to be dismantled, as was agreed in the Trilateral Agreement made between them in 1994.
The question arises, why is this history mentioned in the document? By the use of the word “voluntarily” the Americans try to make it seem that they had nothing to do with it when in fact it was their demand. This clause troubles me and should anyone reading it because it implies that if Ukraine voluntarily gave them up, they can “voluntarily” reacquire them. If one thinks of what this might mean, it becomes troubling.
Russia and its allies excluded from the reconstruction of Ukraine
This strange clause is immediately followed by a clause, which, in effect states, that Russia can have no role, no benefit, in the reconstruction of Ukraine when the war ends. But the geographic extent of this is not set out, that is, which regions it applies to, and ignores the fact that a Ukrainian defeat by Russia would mean de facto control of Ukraine by Russia until a government acceptable to Russia is established in what remains of Ukraine.
The following clauses state the agreement allows investment by European Countries and entities and others who have supported Ukraine in the war and acknowledges that Ukraine will do nothing to impede its obligations related to accession to the European Union.
What is the status of the Bilateral Security Agreement of June 13, 2024, with the signing of the April 30, 2025, Agreement?
There is no reference at all to the Bilateral Security Agreement made between the USA and Ukraine and signed, with much fanfare, by President Biden and Zelensky on June 13, 2024, which has a ten-year duration and in which the USA promises to strengthen Ukraine’s defensive capabilities and to hold Russia to “account for its aggression” and which also affirms the USA will assist Ukraine to join the EU, as well as NATO.
That Agreement also includes provisions for public and private investment in Ukraine, as well the statement the USA would continue to hold seized Russian assets and continue sanctions against Russia. That Agreement is still in effect, since it must be terminated by notice given by either party, six months in advance. There is no indication I can find that Trump has issued such a withdrawal notice. So another question arises, which Treaty or Agreement applies now to the situation, the first one, the new one, or both, and how?
If President Trump has not sent a notice of withdrawal from the June 2024 Agreement, then we have to assume it still applies and that the American objectives have not changed fundamentally and that the new Agreement is in reality an addendum to the earlier one and relates to the setting up of an investment mechanism related to the investments referred to in the earlier Agreement.
Meaning of the New Agreement-A deeper commitment to the war on the part of the USA.
So that this new Agreement does not signal a withdrawal from the Ukraine conflict by the USA but a deeper commitment to it because it affirms the earlier Agreement and is a further step towards establishing the ways and means of exploiting the US and EU “investments” in Ukraine.
The Limited Partnership Mechanism
And what is this mechanism? The USA and Ukraine agree to use two government agencies to form a Limited Partnership, which in turn will create an “Investment Fund.” The two countries will contribute to the Fund-but it is not specified how Ukraine will do that, though it appears that revenues earned from certain investments and licenses granted for exploitation of resources will be paid into the Limited Partnership and then shared between the Parties to the Agreement, but it is vague on what revenues are included or how they are valued.
Strategic Alignments and Security Guarantees
While there is no specific security guarantee in the Agreement, it does reaffirm a “strategic alignment.” Article III (4) states,
“The Parties further affirm that this Agreement is an expression of a broader, long-term strategic alignment between their peoples and governments, and a tangible demonstration of the United States of America’s support for Ukraine’s security, prosperity, reconstruction, and integration into global economic frameworks.”
The article that ensures more war.
Article VI (5) regarding Contributions to the Partnership, states,
“If, after the Effective Date, the Government of the United States of America delivers new military assistance to the Government of Ukraine in any form (including the donation of weapons systems, ammunition, technology or training), the capital contribution of the U.S. Partner will be deemed to be increased by the assessed value of such military assistance, in accordance with the LP Agreement.”
So that, in effect, with this clause, US military assistance to Ukraine will be considered a contribution to the Partnership requiring the Partner offering the military assistance, the USA, to receive more revenue from the Investment Fund than Ukraine, the receiver of the military assistance. So that the Agreement encourages the USA to provide more military assistance to Ukraine in order to receive a greater benefit from the Fund. In other words, the Agreement does not encourage the USA to seek peace but instead encourages it to seek more war since its profits increase the more military assistance is provided, the longer and more intense the war becomes.
In this light, Trump’s claims to be seeking a secure and lasting peace, as Russia seeks, ring hollow, and his insistence on a 30 or 90 day ceasefire to set the stage for further negotiations, appear to be smoke in Russia’s eyes and an attempt to buy time for the Kiev regime and its forces, which will use the time to reequip and rebuild their armed forces to continue the war.
In a note regarding the Agreement on the White House website, President Trump states,
“Importantly, this partnership sends a strong message to Russia – the United States has skin in the game and is committed to Ukraine’s long-term success.”
Indeed, the USA has “skin in the game,” meaning that they are not about to give up the riches they envision gaining from the Agreement, which means that the USA will attempt to prevent a Russian victory over Ukraine by which their “investments’ will certainly be lost.
So, instead of this Agreement being a mechanism permitting Trump to walk away from the war in Ukraine that the USA started, it commits him and the USA to a deeper involvement in the war, and so the only way Russian can achieve a lasting and secure peace is on the battlefield by imposing its will on the Kiev regime and on the United States of America.
Our Hopes
This scenario leads to dangerous consequences, and so we must hope, despite this Agreement and the Agreement of June 2024 and the ramifications of them, which are interconnected, that the ongoing attempts at diplomacy between Russia and the USA are not a game for the Americans and that they can develop in a more positive direction to prevent direct confrontation, or we are all going to be in deep trouble.
