Putin and Trump to discuss ‘huge' economic possibilities as well as Ukraine war, Kremlin says
Ushakov told reporters that the summit would start at 1930 GMT, with the two leaders meeting one-on-one, accompanied only by translators.
He said delegations from the two countries would then meet, and the presidents would give a joint news conference.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
8 minutes ago
- Time of India
Déjà vu in Delhi! India knows the sting of tariffs
US President Donald Trump's decision to impose punishing tariffs on India might seem unprecedented — until you flip the calendar back 36 years. In 1989, Washington tried to pry open the Indian economy by threatening tariffs, leading to a 12-month bitter stand-off between the two nations. Eventually the US backed down, but the conflict left a scar on the bilateral relationship. A look back at the Super 301 episode can help us better understand the dynamics at play today. In the late 1980s, the US was engaged in an intense trade war with Japan, its primary economic rival at the time. Washington developed an arsenal of diplomatic and economic weapons for its war including Super 301, a legal mechanism upgraded in 1988. It authorised the US President to identify countries with 'unfair' trade practices and punish them with retaliatory tariffs. Once the statute came into force, President George HW Bush did not limit its use to Japan. His administration sought to address America's rising trade deficit by using the threat of Super 301 to strong-arm several countries, including American allies like Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Parallels with the current administration are evident. In his first term, Trump used tariffs to battle China; now he uses them on friends and foes alike. Once Washington develops a policy tool to coerce one country, it becomes all too tempting to use that tool indiscriminately and sometimes unthinkingly. It is an important facet of US hegemony, regardless of who occupies the White House. Many countries tried to avoid Super 301 by hastily cutting deals with Washington to open their markets or voluntarily restricting their exports. In June 1989, the Bush administration declared that it would target three countries — Japan, Brazil and India. New Delhi was taken by complete surprise. Its relations with Washington had been improving in the previous few years. Its trade surplus with the US was relatively paltry. Washington's two central demands, that India allow American investments and foreign insurance companies, seemed arbitrary. Unlike Japan and Brazil, India refused to even enter into negotiations with the US. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said he wouldn't let the US dictate how to run the country. American heavy-handedness sparked intense outrage in the Parliament, further tying the govt's hands politically. At the same time, the American threat of tariffs posed serious risks for the Indian economy. US share in India's exports at the time was about one-fifth, the same as it is today. India was much less dependent on foreign trade in 1989 than it is today, but it was also a much smaller and more vulnerable economy. India failed to enlist world opinion to its side. Western countries, including even Japan, agreed with Washington that India was too restrictive of foreign investments. Today, Indian diplomats looking for international solidarity against US tariff assault may discover a similar situation. Many countries may deplore Trump's ham-fisted tactics, while endorsing his goals of lowering Indian protectionism and weaning it away from Russian oil. PM VP Singh, elected in December 1989, tried to placate Washington through a tightrope act. While India continued to refuse negotiations on the two demands under Super 301, it offered concessions on other economic fronts. Americans were not satisfied with Indian offerings. In April 1990, Japan and Brazil were dropped from the Super 301 list, leaving India as the sole target. Washington issued a two-month ultimatum to New Delhi. American 'bullying' was loudly condemned by Indian media and politicians. In the end, the showdown never arrived. At the expiration of the ultimatum deadline, the Bush administration determined that following through with its threats was not worth it. It declared that while India was an 'unfair trader', it was not in American interest to take retaliatory actions. The Super 301 process against India was discontinued. The Bush administration backed down without much loss of face because Washington's trade campaign was global and India was only a small piece of it. Same remains true today. Although the tariffs are a major issue for New Delhi, they are just one battle among dozens that Trump is fighting on multiple fronts. The Indo-US relationship quickly bounced back, buoyed by alignment of certain economic and geopolitical interests. However, the Super 301 episode left a bad taste in the Indian mouth. It was yet another reminder that American power can unexpectedly become capricious and overbearing. In the last few years, many commentators have expressed befuddlement at why New Delhi resists moving closer to Washington despite its persistent conflict with Beijing. Its reticence partly stems from its fear that greater dependence on the US will leave it more vulnerable to Washington's volatile high-handedness that manifests from time to time. Trump's tariff assault has again affirmed the wisdom behind India's caution. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
India.com
8 minutes ago
- India.com
Reliance Industries Gross Debt Rises 7 pc At Rs 3.47 Lakh Crore In FY25, Net Debt Hits Rs 1.17 Lakh Crore
New Delhi: Reliance Industries Limited's (RIL) gross debt and net debt for the financial year 2024-25 stood at Rs 3.47 lakh crore (USD 40.7 billion) and Rs 1.17 lakh crore (USD 13.7 billion) respectively, according to the company's integrated Annual Report 2024-25. The company had registered Rs 3.24 lakh crore in gross debt in FY24. Despite a strong internal cash flow generation, India's biggest private sector conglomerate's leverage remains noteworthy, underscoring the capital-intensive nature of its operations. "Robust internal cashflow generation supported investments in growth opportunities across business, while maintaining a conservative balance sheet and investment grade credit ratings," the company said in its Annual Report. Meanwhile, the Mukesh Ambani-led company reported capital expenditure for the financial year at Rs 1,31,107 crore ($15.3 billion). In FY 2023-24, capex stood at Rs 1,31,769 crore. According to the company's annual report, in FY25, investments were largely directed towards new O2C projects, Retail store expansion, augmenting Digital Services infrastructure and building manufacturing assets in New Energy. Meanwhile, RIL's standalone revenue was at Rs 5,57,163 crore ($65.2 billion), lower by 3.1 per cent as compared to Rs 5,74,956 crore in FY24. EBITDA for the standalone entity fell 14.2 per cent to Rs 74,163 crore ($8.7 billion) from Rs 86,393 crore for the year-ago period, the company said. Despite strong coverage from leading brokerages after the Indian conglomerate reported better-than-expected earnings in the first quarter of the current fiscal year (Q1 FY26), RIL shares fell more than 7% over the past 30 days. According to market analysts, the stock is currently in a corrective phase because the Mukesh Ambani-led company has suffered a significant setback as a result of US President Donald Trump's crackdown on India's imports of Russian oil. In order to process the cheap crude at its massive oil refinery in Jamnagar, Gujarat, RIL was a major importer. However, the shares may start attracting investors from next week as the US hinted at not imposing additional 25 per cent tariffs on the import of Russian oil. Brokerages like Morgan Stanley, Motilal Oswal, Novuma, and Macquarie have either maintained or increased their rating for RIL's stock after the company reported a strong 78 per cent year-over-year increase in its net profit at Rs 26,994 crore in Q1.
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
H-1B hiring: Tech companies accused of bending rules with newspaper job listings
A report claims tech companies are bending rules to hire H-1Bs. Amid mass layoffs from major tech companies, the companies have now been accused of bending hiring rules in the local newspaper advertisements that they are mandated to advertise before hiring. While the rules say these roles are to be advertised for US-born workers, a Newsweek report claimed that the companies are clearly targeting immigrants as the candidates are asked to send resumes to immigration or "global mobility" departments. 'Companies are routinely discriminating against Americans' a website seeking out H-1B roles to share them with Americans, told Newsweek that Americans are not even aware that major tech companies are routinely discriminating against them. "At a time when unemployment for college graduates is shifting sharply upward, it is important to call out hiring discrimination that could keep Americans unemployed," they said. also said that recruitment for these roles is done separately from the companies standard recruitment process. "These unusual application methods are likely to drive fewer applications than normal processes like posting ads on the company job board or on mainstream career sites like LinkedIn," they said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like He is our only child, we cannot see him suffer. Help us! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo The Newsweek report cited a San Francisco Chronicle advertisement given by OpenAI. It said it was hiring a software engineer but the resumes were to be sent to the "global mobilty team". Another tech company, Instacard, offered multiple positions, with a similar department taking applications, while Udemy, an online learning platform, wanted a director of marketing analytics and data science, with resumes to be sent to "immigration@ the Newsweek report said. H-1B is at the center of a major row going on in the US job market, with the MAGA activists blaming the visa program for the unemployment of the American youth. H-1B allows US companies to hire foreign talent, but companies hire H-1Bs even for entry-level positions too, so that they have to pay lower wages to the foreigners than the American standard. The Trump administration is planning a major H-1B overhaul in favor of US graduates.
