Russia asks the Georgian government to respond to 'Russophobic incidents' against fencers
The Russian Interests Section at the Swiss Embassy in Georgia published a statement on Facebook saying they had 'taken note of Russophobic incidents' against Russian athletes participating in the ongoing Fencing World Championship in Tbilisi and expect the Georgian authorities to 'take necessary measures.'
What happened
On July 22, the Fencing World Championship opened in Tbilisi, with Russian athletes holding military ranks also participating. It was also reported that among them are two athletes who served as authorized representatives of Russian President Vladimir Putin during elections.
A group of Georgian activists staged a protest outside the hotel where the Russian athletes are staying, setting off firecrackers and displaying a banner reading:
'Russian pigs, you are not welcome here! Today it's fireworks, tomorrow it will be Grads.'
A protest also took place in front of the Sports Palace where the competitions are being held – activists burned a Russian flag there.
News in Georgia
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
14 minutes ago
- Spectator
Was the car finance judgment fair?
I must modestly doubt that the Supreme Court justices took account of my 12 July column in their ruling on the issue of hidden car finance commissions. But the effect, limiting compensation claims to the more egregious cases of overcharging, is to do exactly what I hoped: namely to head off 'a tsunami of claims that could cripple lenders and provoke a mini banking crisis'. Chancellor Rachel Reeves evidently hoped so too; given that up to 90 per cent of new UK car sales are financed by loans offered through car dealerships, a collapse of that market would have put another ding in an already battered economy. The total claims bill is now estimated by the Financial Conduct Authority at between £9 billion and £18 billion – vs a possible £44 billion if the court had ruled in favour of all claimants. The relief to lenders was evident in Lloyds' decision not to add to the £1.15 billion already set aside for compensation, while shares in Close Brothers, a smaller specialist in the field, shot up by a quarter. The losers are the ambulance-chasing 'claims advisers' who were looking forward to another bonanza akin to the payment protection insurance scandal which cost banks £50 billion. But we should also ask: was the judgment fair? In particular, what of the unsophisticated car buyer who thought the dealer had a duty to offer the best finance deal, rather than to seek richer rewards for himself? On this point, the justices were magisterial. 'Each party… (customer, dealer and lender) was engaged at arm's length from the other participants in the pursuit of separate objectives. Neither the parties themselves nor any onlooker could reasonably think that any participant was doing anything other than considering their own interest.' In short and as always, caveat emptor. Who'da thought? Here's a potpourri of items at the intersection of market swings, consumer whims and 'black swans' – the latter phrase, coined by the author Nassim Nicholas Taleb, meaning unforeseen events with extreme consequences, of which Donald Trump's global tariff attack is surely one. Who would have imagined, for example, that Swiss watchmakers – whose recession-proof sector has long been a staple source of advertising revenues that underpin publications like this one – could be thrown into crisis by a 39 per cent tariff on Swiss exports to the US? Likewise, did anyone predict that the share price of the Danish pharma group Novo Nordisk would fall by two-thirds this year as its bestselling slimming drugs Wegovy and Ozempic were overtaken by the even more in-demand Mounjaro – whose maker Eli Lilly is the share tipsters' new favourite? Next, let's look at food fads. Sliced bread is in retreat in the face of 'carb-conscious health trends as well as baguettes and sourdough', says the Financial Times, reporting rumours of a defensive alliance between the owners of Hovis and Kingsmill. But ice cream is the dish of the day and not just because we're in high summer: Unilever is about to spin out its Magnum arm, the world's largest producer, while Goldman Sachs makes a multi-billion investment in the second-largest, Froneri. And Dishoom, the brasserie chain founded by two cousins in 2010 that has London curry-lovers queuing round the block, has attracted investment from a fund linked to the luxury goods giant LVMH, which values it at a chilli-hot £300 million. But here's a downbeat, rain-stopped-play kind of postscript: who'd have thought concrete could ever go out of fashion? Despite Angela Rayner's rhetoric, the level of housebuilding and infrastructure works in the UK is so quiet that sales of this most basic building material have fallen to their lowest level since 1963. A rather random holiday-season round-up, you may be thinking: what's my point? In fact I've spent most of this week reading a huge pile of entries for The Spectator's Economic Innovator awards to high-growth smaller companies – and marvelling, as ever, at the resilience and optimism they embody. Whatever happens next in this mad, mad world, be thankful for the boldness of entrepreneurs. Animal spirits Whenever I eat at La Récréation in Les Arques – which I apologise for mentioning again, but it really is worth the detour – I think of From Here, You Can't See Paris (2002), Michael Sanders's charming account of a year spent working in the restaurant and observing the seasonal rhythms of south-west France. From my own summer idyll nearby, I really can't see Paris, never mind London or Washington, but I can at least offer some parables and parallels of economic life. The first point of comparison is simply that the manifold uncertainties illustrated by my previous item leave businesses everywhere struggling to meet forecasts and deliver chosen strategies.'C'est la douche froide,' begins Le Figaro's results round-up from the CAC 40 list of leading French companies, collectively reporting a 30 per cent drop in first-half profits attributed to Trump's tariffs and geopolitical turmoil as well as limp EU growth. But at least French inflation, at barely 1 per cent – Andrew Bailey and Rachel Reeves please note – is a fraction of ours (3.6 per cent in June), thanks to low energy costs and the strong euro I observed last week. And at the micro level, in the Dordogne village of St Pompon where I've shared a house for 25 years, the Sud Ouest newspaper reports the opening of a new butchers shop by an enterprising young couple, Elodie and Max, as 'un nouveau chapitre de dynamisme pour cette petite commune'. We've also got a new pub-cum-karaoke joint, Oscar's – and on the drawing board, my own quixotic scheme to create a mini arts centre in a converted barn. I wrote last month about the 'animal spirits' that drive revival against the odds: I'd say they're alive and kicking in this lost corner of la France profonde.
Spectator
14 minutes ago
- Spectator
Hiroshima and the continuing urgency of the atomic age
In August 1945, Group Captain Leonard Cheshire was stationed on the Pacific island of Tinian as an official British observer of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Two decades later, he wrote for The Spectator about his experience. For him, the attack on the two cities represented 'the 'destruction of the impotent by the invincible'. Nevertheless, he argued that the Allies had been 'undeniably' right to carry out the bombings since the attack ended 'the most terrible war' and prevented an extremely bloody invasion of Japan. By 1965, the emphasis in public discussion had shifted from 'the suffering that the world was spared' to the dead – the 120,000 estimated to have been killed instantly by the blasts, and the many more who died later from burns, radiation sickness and starvation. Although Hiroshima had been a substantial military base, around nine in ten of those killed were civilians. The debate remains intractable. Supporters suggest the bombings ended the war as swiftly as possible against a Japan prepared to fight to the last man; opponents argue that Emperor Hirohito was already considering surrender and that the bombings were uniquely grotesque acts of revenge. Reflecting later, Cheshire argued that the bomb should have been dropped offshore first, as a warning. Not doing so left the 'honour and the justice of our cause… degraded in the eyes of the world'. The bombings remain the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict. Despite the proliferation of other existential threats, the 80th anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki this week should not only serve as an opportunity to relitigate historical debates, but also as a reminder of the continuing urgency of the atomic age. A third of a century on from the Cold War's end, nuclear weapons remain a live issue. Last week, Donald Trump sent two nuclear submarines towards Russia in response to the former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev grandstanding about his country's lethal capabilities. In June, the US struck three facilities in Iran to hobble Tehran's nuclear programme. The same month, Keir Starmer announced the purchase of F-35 planes capable of delivering nuclear weapons, ending a quarter of a century of reliance on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Britain is not alone in looking to adapt and expand its nuclear arsenal. Poland, Germany and Japan have all recently toyed with acquiring or hosting nuclear weapons, as the dependability of the US nuclear shield has come into doubt. Fiona Hill, a foreign affairs scholar and former deputy assistant to the president of the United States, recently predicted that the number of nuclear powers could double in the next 20 years. For disciples of deterrence theory, this unprecedented rate of proliferation highlights the enduring relevance of nuclear weapons as a tool of peace. It was the threat of mutually assured destruction that kept the Cold War from turning hot. A similar fear helped nuclear-armed India and Pakistan step back from war over the recent terror attacks in Kashmir. The political scientist John Mearsheimer has argued that Russia would have been deterred from invading Ukraine if Ukraine had not surrendered its nuclear weapons in 1994. The abstractions of international relations tend to obscure the fact that diplomacy and war are practised by irrational, quarrelsome and bigoted human beings. Undoubtedly, nuclear weapons have raised the stakes for any country considering an attack on a fellow nuclear power. But the human appetite for destruction has not been nullified. Even if the Cold War avoided a direct US-Soviet exchange, tens of thousands still perished in proxy wars from Korea to Angola. It was only thanks to the restraint of shrewd statesmen that crises over Cuba and the Middle East did not escalate past the point of no return. Today's leaders may not possess the same perspicacity. The shadow cast by Hiroshima and Nagasaki has prevented the use of nuclear weapons for eight decades. There is no guarantee that it will continue to do so. The US pursuit of the nuclear bomb was expedited by the fear of what would happen if the Nazis acquired such a weapon first. The desire to stall Iran's nuclear programme today stems from a conviction that the ayatollahs are fanatical enough to carry out their threats against Israel. As Cheshire put it, the 'evil is not so much in the bomb itself' but 'in the hearts of men'. The further proliferation of nuclear weapons would mean an increase in the potential for devastation far beyond what the world witnessed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Disarmament may be an unlikely prospect amid a new age of great power competition. But today's statesmen should heed the words inscribed on the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, erected in what was once the city's busiest commercial and residential district: 'Let all the souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the error.'
Times
33 minutes ago
- Times
Trump's tariffs ‘risk pushing India towards Beijing'
For President Trump it was a risk. Further tariffs on India could nudge the world's most populous nation closer towards China and even push up the price of gas for the average American. But as his frustration grows over a failure to achieve a meaningful peace deal in Ukraine, it was a risk he thought was worth taking. On Wednesday Trump announced sweeping new tariffs against India. In addition to the 25 per cent levy due from Thursday, Trump announced a further 25 per cent that would take effect in 21 days — a punishment for India's refusal to stop importing Russian oil and gas. • Why India may grow old before it becomes rich In India, analysts and politicians are reeling. 'This is the first time in independent India's history that a US president is asking for a public display of subordination', said Sidharth Raimedhi, a fellow at the Council for Strategic Defence Research (CSDR) in Delhi. India's foreign ministry branded the move 'unfair, unjustified and unreasonable'. It said in a statement: 'It's extremely unfortunate that the US should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their national interest.' Shashi Tharoor, an opposition MP, said Trump's additional 25 per cent tariffs showed a 'double standard'. This has 'not been a particularly friendly gesture', he told local media. 'They have given the Chinese a 90-day break — but the Chinese are importing far more Russian oil than we are.' For India, Trump's threat is galling. Until recently it had been encouraged to keep buying Russian oil to help keep the price of Brent crude stable. Janet Yellen, the US Treasury secretary under Joe Biden, said in November 2022 that the United States was 'happy' for India to continue buying as much Russian oil as it wanted. Geoffrey Pyatt, the assistant secretary of state, said in February last year: 'India has played a key role in efforts to stabilise global energy markets through its purchases of Russian crude.' The perceived hypocrisy is worsened by the fact that the US continues to import Russian uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its electric car industry, and various fertilisers and chemicals. India and the US — whose bilateral trade is worth more than $190 billion — have historically irreconcilable differences which hinders them at the negotiating table. 'India is unable to shed protectionism beyond a point,' said Ankit Tiwari, a research associate at the CSDR. Key issues which derail talks include India's resistance to opening up agricultural markets — the so-called 'third rail' of Indian politics. Closed-door trade talks in June are said to have broken down after five rounds despite technical agreements on most issues. Officials on both sides blamed mixed signals, bitterness and political misjudgment. India-US relations have been under greater strain since Trump claimed credit for mediation during the country's recent clashes with Pakistan. India tacitly refused to give Trump credit, while Pakistan publicly thanked Trump. India's position was that it negotiated directly with Pakistan. How Narendra Modi, the prime minister, responds now will be critical at home and abroad. The approach of Indian politicians is usually to appease Trump — an attitude that yields mixed results. 'India has been adopting a policy of appeasing the Trump team even before he took office,' said Raimedhi. 'There was a sense that India needed to get on the right side of Trump, and the only way to do that was to offer a trade deal. We did put all our eggs in that basket. 'India was conceding on things in an unprecedented manner — agreeing to import more American cars, for instance. So there's nothing to blame India for on that front. It appears it's more political. It's a psychological thing. 'If you show eagerness and weakness, Trump will try and take everything he can get.' Yet over the past few days the winds appear to have changed. Members of Modi's party, the BJP, came out openly criticising Trump, who has been increasingly ridiculed on Indian right-wing social media platforms. In terms of next moves, the Indian government 'will be split', said Raimedhi. Tiwari added: 'The Indian government's response will depend on whether it assesses the trade deal as a failure of appeasement and decides on a course correction, meaning giving more optical wins to Trump, or decides Trump's demands are unreasonable and adopts a harder negotiation posture in the next round of talks.' Monish Tourangbam, senior research consultant at the Chintan Research Foundation in Delhi, said the negotiations 'will play out on two levels'. For one, there is the 'usual bureaucratic business of negotiation'. Further trade talks are scheduled for August 25. But negotiations will also have a public face. 'The bilateralness of it, and the public, acerbic comments — these are something India will have to deal with on a domestic level. We might just have to wait out the Trump storm, like any other country.' In the case that negotiations failed, the risk is that the world's largest democracy might nudge closer towards Russia and China. 'I don't know if it's likely, but its definitely a possibility,' said Raimedhi. Talks have already begun between the usually hostile neighbours. Modi is expected to visit China this month for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit, his first trip to the country since the Galwan clash in 2020. He will be joined by Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, among others. The summit is set to begin on August 31. Nonetheless, much of this may be Delhi posturing. 'There is going to be a lot of sound and fury about shifts in geopolitical orientations — the West being unreliable; India moving towards the Global South. But the broader structural reasons India moved towards the West, if you look at all the institutional linkages — the political circus playing out is not enough to shift the structural changes we've seen over the last decades,' said Tourangbam. 'There may be a lot of bargaining chips, but I don't see a substantial shifting on the ground.' He described a substantial shift towards China as 'far-fetched'. The Indian government is said to have asked ministers to see what more may be offered to the US before negotiations at the end of the month. Analysts say that Indian oil refineries may have already started to reduce Russian oil purchases. Meanwhile, India could also commit itself to more defence purchases from the US as hope remains for a diplomatic resolution.
