India vows to defend interests after Trump threatens tariff hike over Russian oil
New Delhi quickly pushed back, saying the move was unjustified and vowing to protect its interests.
Trump's heightened pressure on India comes after he signaled fresh sanctions on Moscow if it did not make progress by Friday towards a peace deal with Kyiv, more than three years since Russia's invasion.
Moscow is anticipating talks this week with the US leader's special envoy Steve Witkoff, who is expected to meet President Vladimir Putin.
Yesterday, Trump said in a post to his Truth Social platform that India was 'buying massive amounts of Russian Oil' and selling it for 'big profits.'
'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine,' Trump added.
'Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA.'
He did not provide details on what tariff level he had in mind.
Even before the threat, an existing 10 per cent US tariff on Indian products is expected to rise to 25 per cent this week.
'The targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable,' India Foreign Ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal said in a statement, after Trump's announcement.
'Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security.'
India has become a major buyer of Russian oil, providing a much-needed export market for Moscow after it was cut off from traditional buyers in Europe because of the war.
That has drastically reshaped energy ties, with India saving itself billions of dollars while bolstering Moscow's coffers.
But India argued it 'began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict.'
The world's most populous country is not an export powerhouse, but the United States is its largest trading partner. — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
Brexit's parallels with Trump tariffs tell a tale
In figuring out why the United States tariff shock hasn't sent the economy or financial world into a tailspin, Britain's exit from the European Union trade bloc provides something of a playbook — and without a particularly happy ending. Aside from vast differences in economic scale and global reach, the two episodes bear some comparison in how they upended years of deeply integrated free trade and possibly in how business, the economy at large and financial markets reacted. The 2016 Brexit referendum and Trump's tariffs this year were each widely billed as economic shocks that would send the financial world into paroxysms. They didn't, at least not at the outset. To be sure, both were followed by dramatic downward lurches in the two countries' currencies. But, to some extent, the steep drop in sterling after the referendum vote and the dollar's plunge on President Donald Trump's tariff plan this year helped offset some of the wider impact, at least on stock markets that are loaded with global firms with outsized foreign revenue. More broadly, however, the difficulty in isolating their immediate net impact means no "big bang" economic crisis unfolds to prove critics right, even if their enduring legacy turns out to be a slow burn of economic potential and lost output, often obscured by multiple other crosswinds. In Britain's case, the seismic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic distorted any attempt to easily assess Brexit when it actually happened. Tortuous negotiations with the EU meant the UK's departure eventually occurred on the eve of the health crisis in 2020 and the new trade rules did not come into force until a year later. But in the four years between the referendum surprise and the pandemic, the UK economy never entered a recession nor recorded a negative quarterly GDP print — confounding pro-EU supporters at the time and bolstering the Brexit lobby. Emerging from the twin hits, however, the economy has almost flatlined since. What's more, it's taken more than eight years for the pound's effective exchange rate to recover its pre-referendum levels. Few mainstream economists now doubt that Brexit has taken a serious toll on the UK economy. One academic study by a number of Bank of England economists earlier this year concluded that uncertainty following the referendum resulted in little change in goods exports and imports before the exit was finalised. But after the new rules hit, UK imports fell three per cent and overall exports fell 6.4 per cent, largely because of the 13 per cent hit in exports to the EU. While this slump seems relatively modest compared with the official forecasts of the longer-term hit, the pain has been borne disproportionately by small businesses. And the cumulative damage to London and the service sector over the next 10 years continues to worry the City. The US tariff story is of a completely different order, of course, as it will reverberate across the world economy. But there are some parallels, not least in certain aspects of the market reactions and the initial resilience. Economists estimate that the tariffs could lop anywhere from 0.5 per cent to one per cent off US gross domestic product over time. That's a US$150 billion to US$300 billion hit, which, though painful, would not be an instant crisis for an economy that's growing at a roughly two per cent annualised rate, where imported goods represent just 11 per cent of GDP and where tech and AI trends are generating considerable tailwinds. But as former White House economic adviser Jason Furman said in a New York Times essay last week, the tariff damage is likely not a one-off hit. The loss of 0.5 per cent of GDP, he argued, is "the equivalent of every household in America taking around US$1,000 and lighting it on fire, then doing it again every year. Forever." In the end, the main point of the British comparison is to show how extreme partisan arguments on the pros or cons of such giant economic policy changes don't necessarily get resolved cleanly in adaptive, hardy and hyper-complex economies. The latest YouGov opinion poll shows 56 per cent of Britons now think it was wrong to leave the EU, some nine years after their narrow vote to leave. The jury on Trump's tariffs is still out.
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Zelenskiy says he discussed Russia sanctions, drone deal with Trump
U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 28, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Russia hints at deploying mid-range missiles after ending INF moratorium
MOSCOW: Russia on Tuesday suggested it could deploy intermediate-range missiles after ending a self-imposed moratorium on producing or deploying the weapons, which were banned for decades under a Cold War treaty with the United States. Washington and Moscow had prohibited missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometres (300-3,400 miles) under the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. But US President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal during his first term in 2019, accusing Russia of failing to comply. The Kremlin said at the time it would continue to abide by a moratorium if the United States did not deploy missiles within striking distance of Russia. Russia's foreign ministry said Monday it was ending the self-imposed restrictions, with the Kremlin hinting on Tuesday that Moscow could soon deploy the previously-banned missiles. 'There are no longer any restrictions in Russia in this regard. Russia no longer considers itself limited in any way,' President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters. Moscow was 'entitled, if necessary, to take appropriate measures' on the deployment of the missiles, he said, adding that there would be no public announcement if Russia decided to station the missiles. Putin said last year Russia should start producing mid-range missiles -- capable of carrying nuclear warheads -- after the United States sent some launch systems to Denmark for training exercises. Russia has also accused the United States of sending the systems to the Philippines and Australia for drills. 'The United States and its allies have not only openly outlined plans to deploy American land-based INF missiles in various regions, but have also already made significant progress in the practical implementation of their intentions,' Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement. The move comes after Trump announced the deployment of two nuclear submarines 'in the region' amid an online row with Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president. Medvedev on Monday said Russia's foes should be on standby. 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps,' he said in his first social media post since the row with Trump erupted. - AFP
