German Chancellor Says Putin, Zelensky To Meet Within Next 2 Weeks Russia Ukraine News18
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
10-day countdown: Zelenskyy expects Ukraine's security plan to be formalised soon
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy said security guarantees for Kyiv may be finalized within 10 days, with key details expected to be formalized by partner nations. After meeting with US President Trump, Zelenskyy confirmed that the US will help coordinate and participate in those guarantees. Calling it a major step forward, Zelenskyy also said Ukraine is open to talks with Russia in any format, though no date has been set for a meeting with Putin. Show more Show less
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
12 minutes ago
- First Post
President Trump's gain is America's loss: The high cost of Trumpian diplomacy
President Donald Trump seems to have gained a lot from his way of conducting American foreign policy from the very inception of his second term in office in January 2025. But has the US gained anything out of the Trumpian method of conducting diplomacy? What are Trump's private gains then? First of all, Trump's self-image and his belief that he can run the country's policy towards the rest of the world like an emperor towards his subjects are yet to rupture. No major power in the world appears equipped to confront him directly. Any country that has attempted to do so has remained ineffective. Many powerful countries rather have tried to massage his ego in very many ways. For example, President Vladimir Putin, despite his diplomatic victory in the Alaska summit, went to the extent of admitting that if Trump had been in power, there would not have been the Ukraine War! It was music to Trump's ears and made Trump forget his resolve to make Russia face 'severe consequences' if Putin did not sign on to a ceasefire agreement. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Second, despite Trump's now-on-then-off tariff policy that has not been based on sound economics but on flimsy grounds, countries around the world are struggling hard to somehow negotiate with him and conclude 'deals'. He imposed high tariffs on Mexico because that country did not do enough to stop illegal immigrants from entering US territory and failed to prevent fentanyl imports into the US. Similar was the argument on high tariffs on imports from Canada. He announced 50 per cent tariffs on Brazilian goods imported into the US, because he did not like the trial of former President Bolsonaro, accused of attempting a coup to stay in power! Trump threatened 25 per cent secondary sanctions on Indian goods because India bought oil from Russia. He did not extend secondary sanctions to European countries who also purchased Russian energy resources, though less in amount in comparison to Indian purchases. He refrained from imposing the same sanctions on China, which buys more Russian oil than India. Worse, he has not imposed any sanctions on Russia, accused of slow-peddling his efforts for a ceasefire agreement. Trump imposed high tariffs on Nato members of Europe, most of them also being members of the European Union, because these countries did not spend enough on defence and contributed more towards the alliance's budget. Similar was the logic to subject Japan and South Korea to high tariffs. He perceived the allies to be getting American protection at a cheaper rate while ripping off the US through trade. Do any of those reasons cited by President Trump for imposing high tariffs make sound economic sense? It is all politics. Third, Trump has so far triumphed, as he seems to be trying to garner as much revenue as possible to offset the budget deficit that will surely and greatly swell due to his pro-rich taxation policy. He hardly cares about its impact on middle-class consumers who supported him during the last election but cannot politically punish him anymore as he is no longer going to contest any election. Trump's tariff policy will sooner or later affect American companies that do import businesses. It will also adversely affect the countries that export goods to the US. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In all these, President Trump may benefit, while others lose. When myriad countries are sending their officials and leaders to Washington to strike trade deals, President Trump looks royal, and his king-size appearance satisfies his ego as well. He is also lucky, as forecast by many economists about the dire consequences of his tariff policy on inflation and employment have not yet been demonstrated on the ground. While the current state of the US economy may deteriorate once the high import tariffs begin to bite more severely, Trump appears more focused on the present. His policies may backfire later, but he will have the authority to change course. The unfortunate aspect of Trump's policies is that the victims of his haphazard tariff announcements will not be compensated. And Trump may not lose much financially or otherwise. Fourth, besides his erratic tariff policy, President Trump has given a body blow to foreign assistance schemes to numerous countries by cutting off assistance completely or reducing it substantially. Foreign aid has been a flagship foreign policy tool of the United States for decades. US foreign aid on the surface looks like Santa Claus doling out freebies to various countries, but in reality, it buys the United States immediate strategic benefits and financial gains in the long run. It also consolidates American influence over decision-making in the recipient countries. President Trump may once again gain by saving money that may be of use to deal with the budget deficit and manage his pro-business taxation policy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The political and economic gain for the Trump presidency, however, has negative consequences for the United States. Some of the negative consequences are already discernible. One, the mistrust between the US and the NATO allies has widened a great deal. He succeeded in forcing the NATO allies to contribute more to the alliance by spending more on defence, but has failed to reinforce mutual trust among the allies. The same can be said about US-Japan and US-South Korean bilateral strategic alliances. Two, the Trump Administration spends much less on foreign assistance, but its consequences in terms of reduction of its soft power as well as political influence in numerous aid recipient countries will surely cost the United States very dearly. Three, the durability and intensity of the strategic partnership that the US has built in the last two decades with countries such as India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and many other countries has come under question. Future administrations will need to invest far more in renewing confidence with strategic partners, and yet there is no guarantee of success. Four, most American allies and strategic partners will almost certainly try to recalibrate their policies and de-risk their closer ties with the United States. It will take time, but their intention and the process have already begun. Trump's gain appears to be America's loss. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The author is founding chairperson, Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies, and editor, India Quarterly. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Economic Times
16 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Short-term bets on oil risky amid geopolitical uncertainty: Vandana Hari
"If we take a step back, something has changed fundamentally compared to how the oil markets viewed the situation before last Friday's summit between Trump and Putin. The summit and subsequent events, including Trump involving Zelenskyy, have altered the outlook. Until last Friday, the focus was on a potential ceasefire, which I viewed as a quick solution—a resolution, yes, bringing peace—but leaving the fundamental reasons behind the conflict unresolved," says Vandana Hari, Vanda Insights. ADVERTISEMENT Just trying to second-guess where oil markets are headed. Nothing significant emerged from all the meetings that took place yesterday. It doesn't seem like there's a clear truce between Russia and Ukraine so far. But where do you think crude is headed? Vandana Hari: Crude is likely to remain in a holding pattern. As you pointed out, there isn't much for oil markets to go on when it comes to assessing what will happen with the war in Ukraine, and consequently, how Western sanctions and embargoes against Russian oil might evolve. This, in turn, affects expectations regarding Russian oil flows—whether there will be future disruptions or if they will continue as they are now. So, there are a lot of dots to connect for the oil markets. If we take a step back, something has changed fundamentally compared to how the oil markets viewed the situation before last Friday's summit between Trump and Putin. The summit and subsequent events, including Trump involving Zelenskyy, have altered the outlook. Until last Friday, the focus was on a potential ceasefire, which I viewed as a quick solution—a resolution, yes, bringing peace—but leaving the fundamental reasons behind the conflict unresolved. What has changed now is that the ceasefire seems off the table, and attention is shifting to resolving the much bigger issues: the territorial dispute between the two countries and Ukraine's security guarantees. For oil market participants, this means adopting a wait-and-watch approach. Moving from a potential ceasefire to a full resolution will clearly take much longer. It's going to be a longer, more winding, and more difficult path. So, there isn't much point in making bets on whether to go long or short on oil right now. It's just a wait-and-watch scenario. At the same time, Trump is proposing a trilateral gathering going forward. If a peace deal is signed and the supply of Russian oil increases, do you think there will be a change in direction, especially since Trump currently claims to be a peacemaker? Vandana Hari: Even while we're in a holding pattern, it's worth considering what could happen in the next two weeks. The timelines I've seen suggest two weeks, according to Trump and some European leaders; one European leader mentioned it could take up to three weeks. It could drag on longer. ADVERTISEMENT In the meantime, there is a chance things could deteriorate. The next step is a bilateral meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, based on what Trump said after his meetings. These two leaders haven't met since the war began. There's a possibility it could revert to a stalemate or even worsen. At that point, Trump might consider imposing secondary tariffs on countries like China, Turkey, or Brazil, but that remains speculative. Unlock 500+ Stock Recos on App My base case is that this process could drag on beyond two to three weeks. I don't see a high likelihood of Trump imposing secondary tariffs on China or Brazil, given existing trade tensions, which means the picture for Russian oil supply and related market concerns wouldn't change much in the near term. ADVERTISEMENT
