Oil falls on easing Russia supply concerns after Trump-Putin meet
Brent crude futures dropped 26 cents, or 0.39%, to $65.59 a barrel by 0028 GMT while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was at $62.62 a barrel, down 18 cents, or 0.29%.
U.S. President Donald Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday and emerged more aligned with Moscow on seeking a peace deal instead of a ceasefire first.
Trump will meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiyy and European leaders on Monday to strike a quick peace deal to end Europe's deadliest war in 80 years.
The U.S. president said on Friday he did not immediately need to consider retaliatory tariffs on countries such as China for buying Russian oil but might have to 'in two or three weeks', cooling concerns about a disruption in Russian supply.
China, the world's biggest oil importer is the largest Russian oil buyer followed by India.
'What was primarily in play were the secondary tariffs targeting the key importers of Russian energy, and President Trump has indeed indicated that he will pause pursuing incremental action on this front, at least for China,' RBC Capital analyst Helima Croft said in a note.
'The status quo remains largely intact for now,' Croft said, adding that Moscow will not walk back on territorial demands while Ukraine and some European leaders will balk at the land-for-peace deal.
Investors are also watching Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell's comments at the Jackson Hole meeting this week to search for clues on the path of interest rate cuts that could boost stocks to more record highs.
'It's likely he will remain non-committal and data-dependent, especially with one more payroll and CPI (Consumer Price Index) report before the September 17th FOMC meeting,' IG market analyst Tony Sycamore said in a note.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
US and India — strategic autonomy or alliance partnership
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam This piece attempts to deconstruct the imperatives of Sino-India bilateralism in the backdrop of US-China competition. In my piece, "War of Humiliation" in the South Asia magazine (November 2020), discussing the Sino-Indian escalation in Ladakh, I had concluded that expecting India to stand up to China as a bulwark, that the US continues to prop it, is too far-fetched. That China and India would never — willingly or unwillingly — walk into a full-blown war, that is in nobody's interest. If anyone expects India to stand upto to China — doing the US bidding — in a resurrected Great Game 2.0; then it is not knowing India of Chanakya Kautilya (375-283 BC). The wizard, also called Vishnugupta or the Indian Machiavelli, said: "Do not reveal what you have thought of doing... keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution." Fast forward to 2025, there is a lot of debate nudging India to be in a 'partnership alliance' with the US to counter China; as most analysts in the US/European camp, think India cannot do it alone. Some emphasise that 'strengthening Quad' (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising Australia, India, Japan and America) would be a good starting point for New Delhi. Realising that India is a 'hedging' middle power, eager to play both if not all sides, the US think-tanks deduce that transfer of more sophisticated and advanced technology to India would depend upon India's overt anti-Beijing credentials. The basic premise of such thinking is that a shooting Sino-Indian war is inevitable, and that militarily embroiling China through India is cost effective and makes strategic sense. This is a faulty presumption, just like encouraging Ukraine, a militarily weaker side, to go on the offensive against a militarily stronger Russia that was on the defensive, in the much-touted Ukrainian counter offensive in 2023, that failed. The recent chasm in the US-India relations emanate from India profiting from the Russian oil imports, debunking sanctions; Indian protectionism in trade against US agricultural products; Modi's refusal to acknowledge President Trump's role in the May 2025 Pakistan-India ceasefire; and the less than expected tenacity by India in the cited conflict. However, these are transient factors originating from the 'Trump Factor', who is in his last presidential term. There are compelling reasons for Washington to keep India in its orbit and repair the damaged relations, even if New Delhi is not very forthcoming. First, in the US strategic construct China, Iran, North Korea and Russia make a substantial 'authoritative scale (mass of alliance power)' presenting a unified challenge, needing a unified response. Moreover, China under President Xi has moved away from its confrontational 'wolf warrior' diplomacy, with emerging profile in the Global South, Africa in particular. Its BRI networks 126 countries through highways, railways, pipelines, power plants, grids, IT, social welfare and poverty-alleviation projects. BRI's staggering investment of over $1.3 trillion will ultimately cover 60% of the world population and 40% of its GDP, providing a viable economic alternative, catapulting the present US-led predatory economic system. Second, America's inability to compete with both China and Russia, requires 'strategic diplomacy', some US analysts emphasise. Its core purpose being 'cultivating favourable balances of power in critical regions' to project power far beyond material means. Strategic diplomacy aims to limit rival's options, without seeking to remove the sources of conflict. The US is moving past the age of 'globalized utopia', of being the single-most powerful hegemon, enjoying comprehensive security enabled by techno-military capabilities. It gravitates towards alliance partnerships and strategic diplomacy. And under its 'pivot to Asia' strategy, building the largest anti-China coalition, India stands out to bridge the gap between Washington's rhetoric and capabilities. US analysts feel Biden Administration was unable to properly cultivate New Delhi against Beijing. They feel Trump should nudge India closer 'as an ally on the level of Japan or NATO partners'. Will India do the US bidding willingly, under coercion or under inducements? The straight answer is no, under any conditions. Way back in a meeting with the US officials, when asked to analyse the US-India potential relationship, my answer was to 'go ahead and find out'. However, much that India will drag its feet on becoming involved in bloc politics, alliance partnership with the US, and ignore its 'strategic autonomy', Washington will persistently deploy the pressure-inducement combo to rope in New Delhi against China. Even if that means making India, as some suggest, a regional policeman and hegemon in South Asia, deferring to its advice and actions concerning other countries like Pakistan. The other touted US 'deputy sheriffs' to include Australia in Pacific Islands, Vietnam in continental Southeast Asia and Nigeria in Africa. Expecting India to go against one of its largest trading partners (despite an otherwise obscure border conflict), is not understanding geo-economics and history. First, Sino-India annual trade is over $100 for the third consecutive year. It was $124 billion for FY2024. Second, India has historically conceded against formidable adversaries, from Afghans to Moghuls to Portuguese to the British. That historic constant has not changed, Modi or no Modi. Third, militarily, Indian discussions concede China's conventional and nuclear advantage. India responds to this "conventional asymmetry" through infrastructural build-up, force modernisation and new raisings, compared to Beijing's better military infrastructure, capabilities, and logistics. The Indian security establishment remains concerned about greater survivability of Indian forces on the battlefield, in an environment of uncontrolled escalation, instead of investing in new weapon platforms especially the nuclear ones. However, paradoxically, the cited asymmetry also serves as a strong catalyst for peaceful co-existence. It is, therefore, no surprise that India gravitates towards better relations with Beijing under its 'Look East Policy', burnished by the recent chasm with Washington. When China's Foreign Minister, Wang Yi on August 18, 2025, during his two-day visit to New Delhi emphasised both nations to view each other as 'partners' and not 'adversaries or threats'; his Indian counterpart Jaishankar acknowledged the Chinese overtures, saying both countries were seeking to 'move ahead from a difficult period in our relations'. Wang met Premier Modi on Tuesday, reaffirming 'positive trend' in the bilateral ties. In sum, India it too smart to fall for the US trap.
Express Tribune
4 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
India test-fires nuclear-capable Agni-5 missile amid US tariff tensions
India on Wednesday test-fired an intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads, a government statement said, in an apparent show of strength ahead of a threatened US tariff increase. The Agni-5 missile was successfully launched in India's eastern Odisha state, with authorities saying it "validated all operational and technical parameters." The test-fire came a week before US tariffs are set to double from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, unless India meets President Donald Trump's demand that it stop buying Russian oil. India last tested the Agni-5 missile in March 2024. Also Read: 78 killed in Afghanistan bus crash Prime Minister Narendra Modi said this month that, in the face of US tariffs, India was seeking self-reliance with energy independence and the development of its own defence systems. New Delhi has deepened defence cooperation with Western countries in recent years, including in the Quad alliance with the United States, Japan and Australia as an apparent counter to rival China. But India's relations with China have warmed recently with several bilateral visits, and Modi is scheduled to visit Tianjin later this month in his first visit to the country since 2018. Agni, meaning "fire" in Sanskrit, is the name given to a series of rockets India developed as part of a guided missile development project launched in 1983. The Agni-5 employs technology that enables it to carry several nuclear warheads, so they can split up and hit different targets.
Express Tribune
4 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
US sanctions four ICC judges, prosecutors over war crimes investigations
The International Criminal Court building is seen in The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: Reuters/ File US President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday imposed sanctions on two judges and two prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, as Washington ramped up its pressure on the war tribunal over its targeting of Israeli leaders and a past decision to investigate US officials. In a statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the court "a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare" against the United States and Israel. The move drew ire from France and the United Nations. Paris urged Washington to withdraw the sanctions, while the ICC said it deplored the designations, calling them "a flagrant attack" against the independence of an impartial judicial institution. Washington designated Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji, Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal, and Kimberly Prost of Canada, according to the US Treasury and State Department. All officials have been involved in cases linked to Israel and the United States. Also Read: Pakistan, China, Afghanistan forge deeper alliance with CPEC extension "United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC's politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach," Rubio said. "I urge countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to resist the claims of this bankrupt institution." The second round of sanctions comes less than three months after the administration took the unprecedented step of slapping sanctions on four separate ICC judges. The escalation will likely impede the functioning of the court and the prosecutor's office as they deal with major cases, including war crime allegations against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defense chief Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. In March 2020, prosecutors opened an investigation in Afghanistan that included looking into possible crimes by US troops, but since 2021, it has deprioritized the role of the US and focused on alleged crimes committed by the Afghan government and the Taliban forces. Read: India test-fires nuclear-capable Agni-5 missile amid US tariff tensions The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states or if a situation is referred by the UN Security Council. Although the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in its 125 member countries, some nations, including the US, China, Russia, and Israel, do not recognise its authority. It has high-profile war crimes investigations under way into the Israel-Hamas conflict, as well as in Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Venezuela. Undermining international justice Both France and the United Nations said the judges' work is crucial for international justice. "Their role is essential in the fight against impunity," a statement from the French Foreign Ministry said. The US sanctions undermine the foundation of international justice, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said, adding: "The (US) decision imposes severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor." Netanyahu's office issued a statement welcoming the US sanctions. The designations freeze any US assets the individuals may have and essentially cut them off from the US financial system. Guillou is an ICC judge who presided over a pre-trial panel that issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Khan and Niang are the court's two deputy prosecutors. Canadian Judge Kimberly Prost served on an ICC appeals chamber that, in March 2020, unanimously authorized the ICC prosecutor to investigate alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan since 2003, including examining the role of US service members. Also Read: Trump rules out US troops for Ukraine The Trump administration's dislike of the court goes back to his first term. In 2020, Washington imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court's work on Afghanistan. Countering Rubio's call to other countries to oppose the ICC, the court urged member states to stand in solidarity. "The Court calls upon States Parties and all those who share the values of humanity and the rule of law to provide firm and consistent support to the Court and its work carried out in the sole interest of victims of international crimes," it said.
