PM Modi-President Putin to meet in New Delhi by year end, confirms Russian embassy
Updated 20 Aug 2025, 12:00 PM IST Mint Image
Russian President Vladimir Putin and India's Narendra Modi will meet in New Delhi by the end of year, but no dates have been finalised yet, a Russian embassy official in India said on Wednesday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
24 minutes ago
- India Today
Why Modi govt drew the line with online gaming bill
On August 19, when the Union cabinet cleared the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, the sense of urgency was unmistakable. Within 24 hours, the draft was tabled in Parliament, underscoring how swiftly the Narendra Modi government wanted to push through one of the most ambitious regulatory overhauls in India's digital the language of consumer protection and youth welfare lies a story of political calculation, social pressure and economic disruption that could reverberate across industries far removed from consider this to be step down from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Independence Day announcement last year, wherein he aspired for India to become the leader in the global gaming market. Modi had then said that India must leverage its rich ancient legacy and literature to come up with Made in India gaming products. He added that Indian professionals must lead the global gaming market, not just in playing but also in producing the red line has been drawn to keep real-money games out of the ambit, argue those in the government. For months, the government had been under pressure to respond to a surge of distress stories linked to real-money gaming. Parents complained of teenagers running up debts on borrowed digital wallets; young professionals saw their salaries wiped out in a few nights of high-stakes play; and across small towns, reports of suicides tied to online gambling losses began to appear with disturbing regularity. The public perception that gaming platforms were becoming a social menace—akin to alcohol or narcotics in their addictive pull—was gaining ground. State governments, particularly in the South, had tried to legislate bans, only to have them struck down by courts. The Centre's reluctance to intervene had begun to look like vacuum was filled by the Sangh Parivar's affiliates, who brought ideological pressure to bear on the government. The Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), in particular, made online gaming a moral economy issue, portraying it as a threat to household savings and traditional argument resonated within the BJP ecosystem: speculative play was not creating productive capital but draining families, and worse, it was ensnaring India's youth. In closed-door consultations, Sangh functionaries invoked parallels with colonial-era opium and liquor trades, which they said had weakened communities from within. By the time the Cabinet note circulated, the push from the ideological right had become impossible to bill itself is sweeping. It bans real-money games outright and criminalises their endorsement by celebrities, athletes and social media influencers. It arms regulators with extraordinary powers, including warrantless search and seizure, allowing officials to enter premises, seize servers and freeze accounts without prior judicial oversight. Penalties run into crores, with provisions for jail time for repeat offenders. For a sector that had operated in regulatory grey zones for years, the shift is nothing short of impact on India's celebrity economy is immediate. Over the past three years, endorsements for gaming platforms had become a major source of income for cricketers, Bollywood stars and digital influencers. That revenue stream vanishes overnight, leaving talent agencies scrambling. For venture-backed firms, many with global capital riding on India as one of the largest growth markets, the bill is potentially built around fantasy sports, poker, rummy and other real-money formats face outright extinction. Investors had poured billions into the sector, confident that India's courts would protect skill-based gaming from outright bans. That bet has now in one of those paradoxes that define India's markets, several listed tech and gaming-related stocks rallied after the Cabinet decision. Investors seemed to calculate that the elimination of grey-zone competition would consolidate opportunity in segments the government deems permissible—casual, skill-based or educational gaming. Some even speculated that global studios, wary of the unpredictability, would step back, leaving domestic firms to dominate what remains of the field. In that sense, capital was already reorienting to profit from the regulation even as hundreds of start-ups faced an existential the Modi government, the calculus is clear: the political dividend outweighs the economic cost. Positioning itself as a guardian of family welfare against predatory industries has appeal across caste, class and geography. In semi-urban and rural constituencies, stories of young men pawning jewellery or defaulting on loans after online gaming binges have spread the southern states, where courts had overturned state-level bans, the Centre's decisive intervention allows the BJP to claim ownership of a cause that regional parties had fumbled. By centralising regulation, the government not only resolves a messy federal dispute but also asserts Delhi's primacy over a digital sector once seen as beyond traditional symbolism goes further. Around the world, governments are moving against online gaming excesses. China has imposed strict limits on youth play, Europe is tightening gambling-related regulations, and the US has seen state-level crackdowns. India's permissive stance had begun to look tabling the bill, the government aligned itself with this global wave, signalling that its digital economy is not a laissez-faire frontier but one subject to moral and political oversight. As one economist who has tracked the sector for years put it, 'This is a blunt instrument, but perhaps a necessary one. When markets fail to self-regulate and the social costs pile up, the state asserts itself.'advertisementStill, the long-term consequences remain uncertain. India's digital economy has thrived on global investor confidence, and sudden, sweeping prohibitions risk undermining that perception of predictability. Venture capital funds have already begun reassessing their appetite for Indian start-ups, worried that other high-growth sectors could face similar crackdowns. Even firms in permissible categories will find themselves grappling with compliance costs and the chilling effect of regulators armed with warrantless powers. For entrepreneurs, the bill is a reminder that in India's political economy, social stability can trump for the ruling BJP, the political upside is too attractive to ignore. The legislation dovetails neatly with the party's broader narrative of moral guardianship: protecting the young, safeguarding families and curbing what it portrays as corrosive modern temptations. In campaign rallies, expect to hear references to the bill as proof that the Modi government will not allow 'digital addiction' to destroy households. The fact that it was tabled in Parliament so swiftly after Cabinet approval underscores its role as a political project, not just a regulatory the clash between capital and culture, the government has chosen culture. In the tug of war between states and courts, it has reasserted central authority. In the balance between innovation and morality, it has sided firmly with morality. Whether the online gaming bill becomes a model for future digital regulation or a cautionary tale of overreach will depend on its implementation. For now, what it represents is unmistakable: the assertion of the state's right to police not just the economy but the moral fabric of Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill is, therefore, more than a piece of legislation. It is a statement of intent from a government that thrives on decisive gestures. The message to investors is blunt: profits cannot come at the cost of social order. The message to voters is sharper still: the state will intervene, aggressively if necessary, to protect families from what it sees as corrosive forces. In a season of high political stakes, the bill has become both policy and politics, an emblem of how the Modi government views the trade-offs between growth, morality and to India Today Magazine- Ends
Economic Times
24 minutes ago
- Economic Times
NATO chiefs to discuss Ukraine security guarantees
Synopsis NATO military chiefs discussed Ukraine's security guarantees. US and European military leaders talked about peace deal options. Donald Trump met Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders after meeting Vladimir Putin. Russia claimed advances in Donetsk. Russian strikes killed civilians in Kharkiv. Attacks hit Kostiantynivka and Okhtyrka, wounding many. Zelensky stressed the need to pressure Moscow through sanctions. AP President Donald Trump, center, walks in the Cross Hall with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, followed by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, at the White House, Monday, Aug. 18, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) NATO military chiefs were set Wednesday to discuss the details of eventual security guarantees for Ukraine, pushing ahead the flurry of global diplomacy aiming to broker an end to Russia's even as diplomatic efforts continued Wednesday, Russian forces claimed fresh advances on the ground and Ukrainian officials reported more deaths from Moscow's details have leaked on the virtual meeting of military chiefs from NATO's 32 member countries, which is due to start at 2:30 pm (1230 GMT). But on Tuesday evening top US officer Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held talks with European military chiefs on the "best options for a potential Ukraine peace deal," a US defence official told AFP. US President Donald Trump brought Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders to the White House Monday, three days after his landmark encounter with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Trump, long a fierce critic of the billions of dollars in US support to Ukraine since Russia invaded in 2022, earlier said European nations were "willing to put people on the ground" to secure any settlement. He ruled out sending US troops but suggested it would provide air support while Trump said Putin had agreed to meet Zelensky and accept some Western security guarantees for Ukraine, Kyiv and Western capitals have responded cautiously, as many of the details remain vague.- Fresh Russian strikes -Russia's defence ministry said on Telegram Wednesday that its troops had captured the villages of Sukhetske and Pankivka in the embattled Donetsk are near a section of the front where the Russian army broke through Ukrainian defences last week, between the logistics hub of Pokrovsk and the eastern Kharkiv region, the prosecutor's office said a Russian drone strike on a civilian vehicle had killed two people, aged 70 and glide bombs hit housing in the eastern Ukrainian town of Kostiantynivka overnight, trapping as many as four people under rubble, said the town's military administration chief Sergiy Russia aerial attacks on the northeastern town of Okhtyrka in the Sumy region wounded at least 14 people, including three children, according to regional governor Oleg said these latest strikes showed "the need to put pressure on Moscow", including through sanctions.
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Putin Calls Zelensky the West's Illegitimate Puppet. Can He Talk Peace With Him?
If Russian President Vladimir Putin agrees to meet his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, as urged by President Trump, he will come face-to-face with a man he has spent 3½ years excoriating as an illegitimate leader and puppet. Negotiating directly with Zelensky would run sharply counter to the narrative Putin has carefully constructed and sold to Russians in an effort to justify his 2022 invasion of Ukraine: that the war is part of a broader conflict with the West in which Zelensky and his country are mere pawns. Trump's call for a meeting puts Putin in a bind. If he declines, he risks angering the U.S. president, who has already threatened him with more sanctions. But sitting down with Zelensky could damage him politically with the Russian elite and the broader public. Trump said Tuesday that he was working to bring the two leaders together as the next phase in his efforts to forge a lasting peace in Ukraine, but he nodded to the challenge at hand. 'They haven't been exactly best friends,' he said in an interview with Fox News, adding that Putin and Zelensky will have to iron out details of a possible meeting if they agree to one. The question of Putin's willingness to meet his Ukrainian counterpart has taken center stage following a Trump-Putin summit in Alaska and discussions Monday at the White House between Trump, Zelensky and European leaders. On Tuesday, Russian officials gave little indication they were working toward such a meeting. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said plans for any contacts between officials should be laid out 'with the utmost care.' Other Russian officials ridiculed Zelensky as an unserious politician. Agreement from Putin to meet Zelensky won't likely come quickly—or easily. He has dismissed the Ukrainian leader repeatedly as a servant of the West, and has insisted that various complex issues be solved before the two leaders sit down. He has also questioned Zelensky's legitimacy after he extended his mandate beyond the usual five-year term, citing the problems with holding an election during a war. Putin has questioned his authority to sign any peace agreement. Ukrainian servicemen installing antidrone nets in the eastern Donetsk region words 'For Russia' on a wall in Mariupol, which Russian forces captured from Ukraine in 2022. Putin has said a meeting between the two leaders should come at the end of a peace process—and more as a formality to sign the necessary documents. 'I'm ready to meet, but if it's some kind of final stage, so we don't sit there endlessly dividing things up, but bring this to an end,' he said in June. 'But we will need the signature of the legitimate authorities.' The issues also go far beyond Zelensky. Putin sees the war as part of a broader Russian push to relitigate grievances the country has felt since the end of the Cold War, analysts say. Putin's engagement with the Trump administration is part of an effort to secure an agreement that goes far beyond territorial concessions in Ukraine and concerns the very makeup of Europe's security architecture. 'For Putin, this is a much wider confrontation with the West. And Ukraine is a battlefield between Russia and the West,' said Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'In Putin's eyes, Zelensky is not a player,' she added. 'The fact Ukrainians are fighting at all is because of Western support.' Most important, a meeting with Zelensky could end the delicate dance Putin has performed around Trump's peace efforts. To avoid more punishing sanctions, the Kremlin leader has professed his desire for peace while escalating offensives have won Russian troops important gains in the country's east. A summit with Zelensky could bring an unwelcome moment of truth. 'A meeting could indicate that he's really willing to negotiate the end of this war, and I don't think he's ready,' said Samuel Charap, veteran Russia watcher and senior political analyst at Rand Corporation. The first and only time Putin met Zelensky was in 2019 at a very different moment in Russian-Ukrainian relations. At the time, Putin appeared to have high hopes for a relationship with his newly elected counterpart who had made peace with Russia a main campaign priority. The meeting between Putin and Zelensky was hailed as a step toward peace after Russia had seized Crimea and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine with soldiers and money. But far from being the start of a working relationship, disagreements erupted over the details of a peace deal, including disengagement across the front line. Ties quickly deteriorated thereafter and the two haven't met since. Since the start of the war, Zelensky has believed that he could make headway in his relationship with Putin if he could sit down face-to-face with the Kremlin leader, but he has also drawn the ire of Moscow by issuing a vaguely worded decree that calls talks with the Kremlin leader impossible. To satisfy Trump and Zelensky's own desire to meet, Putin has said he isn't opposed to talking face-to-face, but that various conditions would need to be met, including signals from Kyiv that it is ready to make serious concessions. Zelensky, for his part, has shown openness to meet without preconditions, most recently abandoning an earlier demand for a cease-fire to facilitate talks. 'If Ukraine begins setting various preconditions for a meeting—including justified ones regarding a cease-fire—then the Russians will present 100 of their own,' he said after his meeting with Trump and European leaders in Washington on Monday. 'I think we should meet without conditions and explore what further progress there can be on this path to ending the war.' Zelensky has successfully used the Kremlin leader's resistance against him. In May, Trump had expressed his desire for Putin to come to Turkey where he could meet face-to-face with Zelensky. When Putin passed up the chance, Zelensky flew into Turkey and bemoaned how the Kremlin was 'too afraid' to meet. This time, however, the political stakes are higher, adding pressure on the Kremlin leader. With rising demands from Trump and European leaders, Moscow has hinted it will double down on its refusal and continue to paint Zelensky as a dilettante that Putin shouldn't stoop to meet. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova went on the offensive on Tuesday to level accusations against the Ukrainian leader to justify Putin's own refusal to meet. Ultimately, analysts say, Putin is likely to pour cold water on the idea of a meeting without actually refusing one outright—a strategy he has previously deployed in response to calls for a cease-fire. Agreement over maximalist peace terms that Russia handed to Ukraine in Istanbul, according to Stanovaya, is likely to serve as Moscow's precondition for a meeting. Those terms include Ukraine's disarmament, political neutrality, and abandonment of its aspiration to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 'What Putin will say now is 'let's do it,' but first we need to talk about common documents we can finalize in such a meeting,' she said. 'And we'll find ourselves in the same situation as before the Alaska summit.' Write to Thomas Grove at and Matthew Luxmoore at Putin Calls Zelensky the West's Illegitimate Puppet. Can He Talk Peace With Him?
