Trump hits India with 25% tariff, extra ‘penalty' for Russian oil purchases
Trump announced the trade moves – which he said will come into effect on Friday – on his Truth Social account on Wednesday, saying they are necessary to reverse a long-running trade imbalance.
'While India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high,' Trump wrote.
The president also blamed India for buying military equipment and oil from Russia, which he said has enabled the war in Ukraine. As a result, he intends to charge an additional 'penalty' starting on Friday as part of the launch of his administration's revised tariffs on multiple countries.
The aggressive trade policy further complicates ties between Trump and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which were warm during the US president's first term but have since faced challenges over trade and immigration. Modi has also denied Trump's claims that he intervened to resolve a four-day conflict with Pakistan in May, saying India has not and will never 'accept mediation'.
Pakistan, by contrast, has seen its stock rise with the Trump administration before and after the conflict with India. In June, Trump hosted Pakistan's army chief, Asim Munir, for lunch at the White House – the first time a US president has hosted a military chief from Pakistan who isn't also the country's head of state.
The US announcement also follows a slew of negotiated trade frameworks with the European Union, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia – all of which Trump said would open markets for US goods while enabling the US to raise tax rates on imports. Trump views tariff revenues as a way to help offset the budget deficit increases tied to his recent income tax cuts and generate more domestic factory jobs.
While Trump has effectively wielded tariffs as a cudgel to reset the terms of trade, the economic impact is uncertain, as most economists expect a slowdown in US growth and greater inflationary pressures as the costs of the taxes are passed along to domestic businesses and consumers.
The Census Bureau reported that the US ran a $45.8bn trade imbalance in goods with India last year, meaning it imported more than it exported.
With a population exceeding 1.4 billion people, India is the world's largest country and a possible geopolitical counterbalance to China. India and Russia have close relations, and New Delhi has not supported Western sanctions on Moscow over its war in Ukraine.
When Trump in February met with Modi, the US president said that India would start buying US oil and natural gas.
Trump discussed his policies on trade and tariffs with reporters accompanying him on Tuesday on the flight home following a five-day visit to Scotland. He declined to comment when asked about reports that India was bracing for a US tariff rate of at least 25 percent, saying, 'We're going to see.'
Trump also said the outlines of a trade agreement with India had not yet been finalised.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
29 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Who has a deal, who doesn't? The state of play on eve of Trump's tariffs
Global trade markets remained on edge Thursday as the United States prepared to implement reciprocal tariffs, with the deadline for negotiating a trade deal with Washington fast approaching. US President Donald Trump has already announced steep trade tariffs for many of the country's largest trading partners, even as dozens of countries scramble to secure last-minute deals or extensions for negotiations beyond the Friday, August 1 deadline. Friday's deadline comes more than 120 days after President Trump's administration first announced a barrage of tariffs on the world, on the so-called 'Liberation Day'. Despite several delays in imposing tariffs since Trump took office in January this year, his administration looks set to roll out new tariff rates for those countries that fail to clinch a trade deal by the end of today. So, what will happen tomorrow? Which countries already have deals in the bag? And who is hoping to rescue a last-minute deal? What will happen on August 1? As the clock ticks down to August 1, the US's imposition of a significant round of reciprocal tariffs on imports from various countries marks a pivotal moment in global trade dynamics, experts say. Trump is adamant he will not be extending this deadline. 'THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE IS THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE – IT STANDS STRONG, AND WILL NOT BE EXTENDED. A BIG DAY FOR AMERICA!!!' Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Wednesday. At midnight Eastern Time tonight, therefore, US Customs and Border Protection will begin enforcing these new duties, which will range from 15 percent to 50 percent – or even higher in some cases – depending on the trading partner, the nature of the goods being traded and whether the trading partner and the US have specific agreements in place. Additional sectoral tariffs will be applied to certain industries. For example, a 50 percent tariff will be applied to copper, steel and aluminium for most countries, while a 20 percent levy will be applied to pharmaceutical products. The White House confirmed that Trump will sign new executive orders on Thursday, formally imposing all these higher tariffs. Recipients are likely to include some of the US's biggest trading partners, like Mexico, Taiwan and Canada. Many nations facing sweeping new tariffs on all exports to the US are likely to incur immediate economic repercussions along with potential shifts in diplomatic relations. Tariffs may also cost the US economy. The Yale Budget Lab, a non-partisan policy research centre, noted in its most recent analysis that overseas trade tariffs could cost US households on average an extra $2,400 in 2025, because of higher prices of imported goods. Meanwhile, industries reliant on imports, such as electronics, pharmaceuticals and clothing, may have to contend with new supply chain disruptions as companies scramble to absorb costs or pass them on to consumers. Why is Trump launching all these new tariffs? In April, Trump declared a 'national emergency' when he announced his 'Liberation Day' tariff strategy and imposed an across-the-board 10 percent baseline tariff on all imports, followed by higher, country-specific 'reciprocal' tariffs. The US has large trading deficits with many countries, which Trump believes are deeply unfair. The Trump administration, therefore, has justified these new rates as being necessary to redress these trade imbalances in order to boost US manufacturing and jobs, even though economists point out that deficits are not direct evidence of unfair trade practices. Beyond trade, experts note that the Trump administration is leveraging these tariff threats to broader agendas of curbing immigration, combating the opioid and fentanyl crisis, and pressing allies and partners on geopolitical issues, including India's energy ties with Russia or Brazil's legal action against Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro. In the last-minute run-up to the August 1 deadline, Trump's administration has strong-armed trading partners, including Japan, the European Union, Indonesia and the Philippines, into new deals under which they accept higher US tariffs in exchange for continued market access and investment commitments – and in most cases, a promise not to levy counter-tariffs of their own. Who already has deals in the bag with the US? The EU has agreed to a 15 percent tariff on most of its exports to the US, including cars and pharmaceuticals, in exchange for zero tariffs on select US exports and commitments to buy US gas and increase investments. Initially, Trump had threatened a 30 percent rate. Japan has secured a 15 percent reciprocal tariff on its goods exported to the US, reduced from a threatened 25 percent, with Japan promising to invest $550bn in the US economy. The UK agreed to a 10 percent tariff rate on its exports to the US. It also received a 25 percent sectoral tariff on steel and aluminium – half the 50 percent being imposed on other countries. A lower 15 percent tariff will apply to South Korean imports to the US, in return for a $350bn investment pledge and zero tariffs on US exports like cars and agricultural products. Indonesia has negotiated a 19 percent tariff on its exports to the US, down from a threatened 32 percent, by making a commitment to buy US Boeing aircraft and to remove or reduce trade barriers. Vietnam has agreed to a 20 percent tariff on most exports to the US, with an additional 40 percent levy to be applied to 'transshipped' goods – those entering the US via another location – while also agreeing to zero tariffs on US imports like large-engine automobiles. This Philippines has agreed to a 19 percent tariff on its exports to the US, with zero tariffs on US exports to the Philippines, alongside commitments for enhanced military cooperation. Struck a deal to jointly develop oil reserves with the US, but specific tariff rates on goods remain unclear. Which big US partners have no deal yet? None of the US's top three trading partners – Mexico, Canada, and China – have trade deals in place as of Thursday. Tops the list of trade partners of the US, with nearly $840bn in total trade, driven by sectors including vehicles, electronics and agriculture. With no new deal for August 1, existing tariffs of 25 percent on most imports will persist under earlier 2025 trade war measures, with some exemptions under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Ranks second in terms of size with about $700bn, primarily in energy, vehicles, and aerospace products, passing between the two countries. With no deal finalised by the August 1 deadline, Trump has threatened to impose a 35 percent tariff on goods that don't comply with the USMCA. Third among the top US trade partners, Beijing trades about $532bn with the US, focused on electronics, machinery and consumer goods. With no permanent deal in place, a 30 percent combined tariff will be applied, following an agreed pause until August 12. That followed an earlier escalation to a 145 percent tariff on imports. Who is hoping for a last-minute deal? Even a 'very good friendship' with Washington could not save India, the world's most populous nation and fourth-largest global economy, from Trump's reciprocal tariffs. On Wednesday, Trump announced a sweeping 25 percent tariff on all Indian goods exported to the US, plus an unspecified penalty for buying energy from Russia, as trade deal negotiations remain unresolved. Total trade between the US and India was valued at about $130bn in 2024, with US exports to India worth $41.8bn and imports from India at $87.4bn – a trade deficit which Trump will not ignore. 'While India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. Later, in another post, Trump said he did not 'care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. 'We have done very little business with India, their Tariffs are too high, among the highest in the World. Likewise, Russia and the USA do almost no business together,' he wrote. 'Let's keep it that way.' In a statement, the Indian government said it was studying the implications of these new tariffs and added: 'India and the US have been engaged in negotiations on concluding a fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement over the last few months.' The statement further noted that 'we remain committed to that objective.' New Delhi signalled what it believes to be potential barriers to the deal by noting that the government 'attaches the utmost importance to protecting and promoting the welfare of our farmers, entrepreneurs, and MSMEs'. India's neighbouring rival, Pakistan, has seen its stock rise with the Trump administration before and after the military conflict with New Delhi earlier this year. Trump revealed that the US had concluded a deal with Pakistan, where they will work together on developing oil reserves, but did not announce tariffs. 'Who knows, maybe they'll be selling Oil to India some day!' Taiwan is also facing a high-stakes deadline, with proposed tariffs set at 32 percent, excluding semiconductors, if no deal is struck by August 1. Taiwanese officials have engaged in intense negotiations in Washington, spanning four high-level rounds led by Vice Premier Cheng Li‑chun and US counterparts, addressing not only tariff technicalities but also non‑tariff trade barriers, investments and market access. These talks are reportedly pending US approval. Who has little hope of reaching a deal with the US? The country faces the most punishing tariffs among major US trading partners, with President Trump formally issuing a 50 percent reciprocal tariff on Brazilian imports. The US actually runs a trade surplus with Brazil of nearly $7.4bn; however, Trump has been unhappy about the prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for allegedly attempting a coup to overturn his 2022 election loss. Trump has publicly called the trial a 'witch-hunt' and an 'international disgrace', tying his imposition of a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian imports, announced on July 10, directly to this issue. Brazil's government responded with alarm. President Lula decried Trump's measures as 'economic blackmail' and negotiations have stalled. Speaking at a news conference in Washington this week, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF's chief economist, called for an end to the trade war. 'Restoring stability in trade policy is essential to reduce policy uncertainty. We urge all parties to settle trade disputes and agree on clear and predictable frameworks. Collective efforts should be made to restore and improve the global trading system,' Gourinchas said, indirectly referring to the Trump administration.
Al Jazeera
31 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Tariff wars: Has Donald Trump killed the WTO?
Earlier this year, world leaders gathered in Geneva, Switzerland, to mark the 30th anniversary of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the international body established in 1995 to reduce global trade barriers and promote sustainable development. Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala spoke at the event, underscoring the WTO's role as a foundation of predictability amid the current turmoil surrounding global trade. 'Uncertainty around global trade has reminded many members why they value the WTO as a bedrock of predictability in the global economy – and as a platform for dialogue and cooperation on trade,' she said. The 'uncertainty', of course, was a reference to President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs of 10 percent on all US imports in addition to country-specific 'reciprocal tariffs'. The WTO has long been beset by critics – from US and European workers angry over lost jobs, to developing nations hamstrung by rules favouring the West. Now, Trump's aggressive tariffs and attacks have brought these long-simmering dilemmas to a head, threatening the very foundations of the organisation. Trump's trade tensions Earlier this year, Trump's tariffs signalled the US's most protectionist stance since the 1930s. While he later paused his reciprocal tariffs – to be reinstated again on August 1, with exceptions for bilateral deals – the uncertainty caused by the moves has led to increased costs for US consumers and businesses, disrupted global supply chains, and triggered retaliatory tariffs from key trade partners. Tariff measures have sparked WTO disputes and increased the effective US tariff rate to its highest level in over a century, according to The Budget Lab at Yale, a nonpartisan policy research centre. The role of the WTO – to boost global trade and arbitrate disputes – has been called into question. Trump's moves threaten to turn an already creaking trade system, the WTO's 'rules-based' order, into a complex web of bilateral deals. Trump's complaints 'The most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff,' Trump told hundreds of business executives at an Economic Club of Chicago event weeks before the 2024 election. For decades, the club had championed globalisation, but last year, its guests rallied behind Trump's protectionist promises. After winning the election, he announced his 'Liberation Day' plan. 'Tariffs are a legitimate policy tool,' says Ian Fletcher, economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, noting they can lead to reshoring production. Trump has criticised the WTO for prioritising low prices over protecting homegrown jobs and wages. 'When someone like Trump says 'I'm against all this stuff' that's caused [the demise of labour-intensive manufacturing], how do you expect people to behave?' Fletcher asked. Trump believes the US has lost out economically to China. China's 2001 WTO entry allowed cheap goods into a market in which US manufacturing was already struggling. From 1974 to 2024, US trade deficits totalled $20 trillion, while China's trade surpluses hit nearly $7 trillion. Trump has argued that this is a national emergency. Though Beijing claims to follow WTO rules, it has been accused of distorting trade with import quotas, subsidies, and tax breaks. Trump argues the WTO lets China undermine US workers. He has also objected to China's 'special and differential treatment' as a developing country, giving it favourable terms. In September 2020, Trump promised to 'do something about the WTO' because it has 'let China get away with murder'. But Trump is not the first to criticise the WTO. In fact, it has faced scrutiny since it was founded. The WTO's troubles in wealthy countries first became visible in 1999. Battle in Seattle In late 1999, 50,000 people gathered in the streets of Seattle, Washington, to express their grievances with the WTO, which was hosting its ministerial meeting in the city. The throngs of protesters in Seattle were diverse – from trade unionists and farmers to church groups and NGOs – but most people were united by a common cause: railing against the interests of large corporations. The Seattle protestors also argued that the WTO's ability to override domestic labour, health and environmental protections threatened standards they had long fought for at home. Many felt that the economic system was rigged against them in favour of multinational companies, such as Microsoft, Nike and Ford. Indeed, inflation-adjusted earnings for most US workers fell between 1969 and 1999. Over the same period, the real (inflation-adjusted) return of the S&P 500 increased by several hundred percent, reflecting a substantial increase in investors' purchasing power. Demonstrators felt left behind and wanted to push back. Protests also broke out in other cities. The New York Times reported that demonstrators in New York smashed windows at downtown stores, such as Nordstrom, Starbucks and Gap, carrying signs that read 'End Corporate Rule' and 'We Want Fair Wages'. Mounted police, armoured cars and even torrential rain did not stop the Seattle protesters from postponing the WTO meetings. Eventually, after four days of standoffs, the talks were abandoned, and the demonstrators went home feeling vindicated. While US companies had been outsourcing jobs long before the creation of the WTO, its rules were seen as locking in such practices. Over time, that whipped up a nostalgia for an era when blue-collar workers could earn middle-class wages. By 2016, that nostalgia had reached a fever pitch, fuelling populist politics like Trump's. Meanwhile, far from the spotlight, developing countries were growing increasingly frustrated with WTO rules that limited their development ambitions. Developing country dissent The WTO sets the global ground rules for trade, negotiating agreements, enforcing policies, and arbitrating disputes when countries believe rules have been broken. It replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and serves as the only forum where trade conflicts can be settled through binding decisions. Without the WTO, countries could raise tariffs, subsidise industries, or otherwise break rules – ushering in a new era of trade uncertainty. To understand Seattle and disillusionment with the WTO, it's important to look at the historical context. Ten years before the protests, in 1989, the Berlin Wall had come down. The Cold War ended, and the contest between Soviet communism and Western capitalism had been roundly decided in the US's favour. Free markets and limited government intervention – together presented as necessary conditions for sustained growth – became gospel. Along with the World Bank and the IMF, the WTO became an expression of the globalisation era, promoting policies in developing countries that emphasised privatisation, balanced budgets and the liberalisation of trade. It was dubbed the 'Washington Consensus'. But even in the 1990s, the Washington Consensus had its critics. Many analysts expressed frustration at the WTO's treatment of poor countries. For Jayati Ghosh, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, 'trade agreements at the WTO have always been heavily loaded in favour of developed country industries. TRIPS is a classic example.' In 1995, the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (or TRIPS) was adopted, and for the first time, intellectual property rights (IPRs) became enforceable under international law with the WTO as referee. Several Global North industries benefitted enormously, including, most controversially, pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile, technology transfers – which are important for developing countries trying to move up the economic value chain – became blocked behind legal barriers. TRIPS first received widespread attention in the late 1990s, when South Africa was in the grip of an HIV/AIDS epidemic. Some of the world's most powerful pharma companies controlled the distribution of life-saving drugs and simply refused to drop their IPRs. As a result, South Africa was unable to procure cheap generic drugs, and hundreds of thousands of people died. So it passed a law allowing for the import and manufacturing of cheaper generic medicines. In response, in 2001, 39 pharmaceutical companies, including giants GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Merck, took the South African government to court over alleged IPR violations. The pharma groups quickly dropped the case amid public outcry from NGOs and public health advocates. But a similar case unfolded again following the outbreak of COVID-19, in which patent protections for vaccines were upheld by a small group of rich countries. 'Pharma companies [such as Moderna and Pfizer] didn't even create a lot of the intellectual property that went into the COVID vaccines,' Ghosh told Al Jazeera. 'They simply bought the patents and limited the supply, creating an artificial supply and raising the price.' 'So many unnecessary deaths occurred in developing countries because of TRIPS,' Ghosh said. 'And looking ahead, inhibitive knowledge sharing will limit governments' ability to cope with the effects of climate change and the green energy transition.' Developing countries also decry the trade body for blocking 'infant' industry protections – like import quotas, subsidies and tax breaks – in favour of free trade practices. At the same time, many rich countries continue to provide huge subsidies to certain sectors. Oxfam reported that European agricultural subsidies – known as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – inflict 'enormous damage' on farmers in poor countries. The practice of overproducing sugar and dairy products in Europe and then 'dumping' it abroad, the UK charity says (PDF), is particularly harmful to agricultural workers in Mozambique, India and Jamaica. In 2024, European farmers received 53.8 billion euros ($61.7bn) through CAP. 'Subsidies in wealthy nations disadvantage companies in developing countries, who struggle to compete,' said Ghosh, noting that this has been especially true of the textile and agriculture industries. Empirical evidence does not indicate a strong relationship between trade barriers and growth. If anything, most of today's rich countries climbed the development ladder while pursuing protectionist trade policies. As such, many developing countries have been frustrated by the WTO for limiting their pursuit of long-term industrial development in favour of free trade. The message from wealthy nations has been clear for roughly 30 years: Do as I say, not as I do. That message has grown louder under Trump. Internal WTO wobbles The longstanding inability to resolve North-South struggles left the WTO vulnerable. Now, with the US both flouting rules and paralysing the dispute mechanism, the institution is facing an existential moment. The WTO has 166 member states and is consensus-based, meaning that all formal objections have to be resolved before a trade decision is finalised. This can cause gridlock and delays, but 'that suited America and the big industrial powers when the WTO was created in the mid-'90s,' says Rob Davies, South Africa's former minister of trade and industry. 'At the time,' he adds, 'small government and free markets were the only game in town. So, the first set of rules established by the WTO was largely determined by wealthy nations, with the US at the forefront.' In turn, power asymmetries between rich and poor countries were amplified through WTO agreements. But as China emerged as the world's dominant manufacturing hub, wealthy nations' grip on the WTO, as well as international markets, loosened. China's economy was still growing rapidly in 2016, when Trump was first elected president. Davies says the US's 'non-observance of WTO rules started then', when Trump banned federal agencies from buying equipment from telecoms giant Huawei in August 2019. Trump also neutralised the WTO by blocking the appointment of members to the Appellate Body, where disputes were resolved. The standoff persisted under President Joe Biden, and the Appellate Body has remained nonoperational, providing no enforceable path to resolving trade conflicts. In 2022, for instance, the WTO ruled that (then) former President Trump had violated its rules four years earlier when he invoked national security concerns to justify tariffs on steel and aluminium imports. The Biden administration, however, strongly condemned the decision and refused to remove the duties that Trump had imposed. The backlog of unresolved appeals has now made it easier for countries to break WTO rules without facing penalties, including Trump's 2025 'reciprocal' tariffs. Looking ahead, Davies thinks that the WTO will 'limp along … until we arrive at a more stable multipolar world.' He noted that while the WTO was a 'major driver of neoliberal structural reform, we're a far cry from that now'. If the WTO fails, there would be no neutral forum for countries to resolve disputes, and global trade could slide into bilateral fights and tariff wars, raising prices, threatening jobs, and upending the global economy with uncertainty. Some hope reforms can create rules better tailored to today's realities and more fair to both North and South. But with deep distrust and no clear US leadership, the odds remain uncertain. At the WTO's recent birthday celebrations, Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala stressed that 'I remain convinced – I am ever the optimist – that a bright future awaits global trade, and the WTO, if we do the right thing.' To many, though, the bright glare could be an oncoming train.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Russia kills six in drone, missile strikes on Ukraine's Kyiv: Zelenskyy
A Russian drone and missile attack on Ukraine's capital has killed at least six people, including a six-year-old boy, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other officials. The overnight attack wounded at least 52 people and caused damage at 27 locations across four districts of Kyiv, city military administrator Tymur Tkachenko said on Thursday as casualty numbers are expected to rise. Rescue teams were at the scene to search for people trapped under the rubble. Russia's latest deadly attack on Ukraine came after United States President Donald Trump on Monday issued a 10- or 12-day ultimatum to Moscow to halt its invasion of Ukraine, now in its fourth year, or face sanctions. Zelenskyy said on Thursday that Russia had used more than 300 drones and eight missiles in the attack as he posted a video of burning ruins on social media. 'Today, the world once again saw Russia's response to our desire for peace, shared with America and Europe,' Zelenskyy wrote. 'That is why peace without strength is impossible. But forcing Moscow to make peace, compelling them to come to a real negotiating table – all the tools needed for this are in the hands of our partners.' Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said it was a 'horrible morning in Kyiv'. 'The brutal Russian strikes destroyed entire residential buildings and damaged schools and hospitals,' Sybiha said. 'This is unequivocally one of the largest attacks that we've seen in recent weeks and the majority focusing on Kyiv,' Al Jazeera's Charles Stratford said, reporting from Kyiv. A 'large residential area … with box flats all around' was hit, he said, adding, 'The majority of the windows in those flats have been blown out.' 'According to the minister of the interior [Ihor Klymenko], … the power of this attack was so strong that people were literally hurled out of their apartment buildings.' Yana Zhabborova, a resident of one of the damaged buildings, woke up to the sound of the explosions, which blew off the doors and windows of her home. 'It is just stress and shock that there is nothing left,' said Zhabborova, a 35-year-old mother of a five-month-old and five-year-old. Russia's Defence Ministry said the attack had targeted and hit Ukrainian air fields and ammunition depots as well as businesses linked to what it called Kyiv's military-industrial complex. The Ukrainian air force later said its air defences intercepted and jammed 288 of the 309 drones involved in the attack and three of the eight missiles. Ukrainian drones later struck an electronics plant in the western Russian city of Penza, according to Governor Oleg Melnichenko and an official from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). The official said the plant, which produces combat control systems for the Russian military, caught fire. Melnichenko confirmed that it caught fire. Drone wreckage also halted some trains in the Volgograd region, state rail operator Russian Railways said. Russia's Ministry of Defence said on Thursday that it had shot down 32 Ukrainian drones overnight. Ukraine calls on international community to pressure Russia Meanwhile, Russia said it had captured the town of Chasiv Yar, which had been a strategically important military hub for Ukrainian forces in the east. The town in the Donetsk region 'was liberated by Russian forces', Russia's Defence Ministry said in a statement. Ukraine has not commented on the reported retreat. If confirmed, the capture of the town, which had been the site of battles for months, would be the latest locality to fall to Russia's incremental but steady territorial gains. The fall of the hilltop town now paves the way for Russian forces to advance on the remaining civilian strongholds in Donetsk, like the garrison city of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, important logistical bases for the Ukrainian military and home to many civilians, who have up to now not fled the fighting. The Kremlin has made the capture of the Donetsk region its military priority and claimed as far back as late 2022 that the industrial territory was part of Russia. Kyiv has been trying to repel Russia's summer offensive, which has made advances into areas on the eastern front line largely spared since the start of its invasion. Thursday's attacks came on the heels of a Russian strike on a military training camp, which killed at least three Ukrainian soldiers on Tuesday. After Thursday's strikes, Sybiha called on the international community to apply utmost pressure on Moscow to end the war it launched in February 2022. 'President Trump has been very generous and very patient with Putin, trying to find a solution,' Sybiha wrote. But Russian President Vladimir Putin 'does not care about any attempts to put an end to the killing', Sybiha charged. 'He only seeks to destroy and kill. Because the entire existence of this war criminal is based on this senseless war, which he cannot win but refuses to end.' 'It's time to make him feel the pain and consequences of his choices. It's time to put maximum pressure on Moscow,' Sybiha wrote.
