India accuses EU, US of double standard over Russian trade
NEW DELHI (Reuters) -India has sharply criticised the United States and the European Union, saying it is being unfairly singled out by them over its Russian oil purchases when they both trade extensively with Moscow despite the war in Ukraine.
India's criticism followed a renewed threat by U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday to raise tariffs on goods from India over its Russian oil purchases, deepening the trade rift between the two countries.
In a rare show of unity, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the main opposition Congress on Tuesday condemned Trump's repeated criticism of New Delhi.
India's Foreign Ministry said in a statement issued late on Monday that "it is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia".
"It is unjustified to single out India," the ministry said. It said the EU conducted 67.5 billion euros ($78.02 billion) in trade with Russia in 2024, including record imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) reaching 16.5 million metric tons.
The United States, the statement said, continues to import Russian uranium hexafluoride for use in its nuclear power industry, palladium, fertilisers and chemicals. It did not give a source for the export information.
The U.S. embassy and the EU's delegation in New Delhi did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Both the United States and EU have sharply scaled back their trade ties with Russia since it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
In 2021, Russia was the EU's fifth-largest trading partner, with goods exchange worth 258 billion euros, according to the EU executive European Commission.
SUDDEN RIFT
The sudden rift between India and the U.S. has been deepening since July 31, when Trump announced a 25% tariff on Indian goods being shipped to the U.S. and for the first time threatened unspecified penalties for buying Russian oil.
India is one of the biggest buyers of crude from Russia, importing about 1.75 million barrels per day from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago.
Indian refiner Nayara Energy, a major buyer of Russian oil which is majority owned by Russian entities including oil major Rosneft, was subjected to European Union sanctions targeting Russia's oil and energy industry in July.
India has said it does not support "unilateral sanctions" by the EU.
Trade experts say Trump's tariff could badly hurt India's economy.
Ajay Srivastava of the New Delhi-based Global Trade Research Initiative said he expected Indian goods exports to the U.S. to fall 30% in the current fiscal year ending March 31, to $60.6 billion from $86.5 billion in the 2025 fiscal year.
India's equity benchmarks fell after Trump's renewed threat of harsh tariffs on goods from India.
Manish Tewari, a member of parliament and Congress leader, said Trump's "disparaging remarks hurt the dignity and self-respect of Indians".
"The time has come to call out this constant bullying and hectoring," he added.
BJP Vice President Baijayant Jay Panda quoted Henry Kissinger - the most powerful U.S. diplomat of the Cold War era - in a post on X: "To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal."
(Reporting by Aftab Ahmed and Nidhi Verma;Editing by Helen Popper)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malaysia Sun
26 minutes ago
- Malaysia Sun
Lavrov to the EU: Learn respect or be left behind
On the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords, theres little to celebrate for those who wanted a harmonious coexistence Like him, hate him, Otto von Bismarck - Prussian aristocrat, arch conservative, user of German nationalism, maker of wars, and then keeper of the peace - was no dummy. And his ego was Reich-sized. Yet even Bismarck had a grain of humility left. Smart politics, he once remarked, consists of listening for "God's step" as He walks through "world history," and then to grab the hem of His mantle. In other words, stay attuned to the needs and especially the opportunities of the moment. Tragically, Bismarck's single greatest skill was to seize -and, if need be, help along- opportunities for war. But sometimes peace, too, gets its chance. Fifty years ago, all European countries - minus only Albania, initially - plus the US and Canada, signed theHelsinki Final Act (or Helsinki Accords). A complex document addressing four areas (called 'baskets') of international relations and follow-up implementation, the Helsinki Final Act was a breakthrough for Detente in Europe. Detente was a global attempt, driven by Brezhnev and Gromyko's Moscow and Nixon and Kissinger's Washington to, if not wind down, then at least manage the Cold War better. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was not the only reason for this policy of restraint and reason. Comingextremely close to all-out nuclear warDr.-Strangelove-style helped concentrate minds. Add the US fiasco in Vietnam, and by the late 1960s, the desire to de-escalate was strong enough even in Washington to quickly override the Soviet suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring. In the first half of the 1970s, a flurry of high-level international diplomacy and treaties marked the peak of Detente. By 1975, the Helsinki Accords were the peak of that peak. Stemming from Soviet and Warsaw Pact initiatives and resonating with a Western Europe - and even post-Harmel ReportNATO (those were the days!) - that genuinely wanted to combine due diligence in defense policy with real diplomacy and give-and-take negotiations, the Helsinki Accords also fed on the preceding French, that is, De Gaulle's, "politique à l'Est," as well as Willy Brandt of Germany's "Ostpolitik." The latter is much maligned now in a Germany where disgracefully incompetent elites have gone wild with Russophobia and a new militarism. In reality, both De Gaulle and Brandt - as well as Brandt's key foreign policy adviser, Egon Bahr, made historic contributions to mitigating the worst risks of the Cold War and, in Germany's case, also to preparing the ground for national re-unification. Yet, after 1975, things started to go downhill, and they've never really stopped. That is one of the key points recently made in along article by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Since Western mainstream media excel at not reporting what Russian politicians are trying to tell us, it is likely that few will notice outside of Russia. That's a shame because Lavrov has more than one message we should pay attention to. Under the understated title "Half a Century of the Helsinki Act: Expectations, Realities, and Perspectives," Lavrov delivers a harsh and - even if you disagree with some of the details - fundamentally valid and just criticism of the disappointing failure following the promising beginnings at Helsinki. That failure has a name - the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Incidentally, the OSCE is the successor of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), which actually produced the Helsinki Accords between 1972 and 1975. Before the leaders of the time, both great and small, could meet in Helsinki to sign them, at what Cold War historian Jussi Hanhimäki called a "largely ceremonial affair," there had been years of painstaking, meticulous negotiations. There's a lesson here for the impatient Trumps and Zelenskys of today: serious results take serious preparation, not a day or two of grandstanding. What happened to the OSCE next is not complicated: with 57 member states, making it the largest security organization in the world today, it has massively under performed. At least if we measure it by its aims, as originally set out at Helsinki in the heyday of Detente. The OSCE could have been an indispensable international forum, bridging the front lines of geopolitics and ideologies (or, as we now say, "values"). After the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, it could even have become the core of new security architecture, which included everyone from Lisbon to Vladivostok. But for that to happen, it would have had to stick to the Helsinki Accord's core principles and rules: strict respect for sovereignty, equality, and non-interference, all maintained by a heavy emphasis on consensus. Yet, instead, the OSCE turned, first, into a Cold War and, then, a post-Cold War tool of Western influence, bias, and - behind the facade of multilateralism - hardball realpolitik. Like the EU, the OSCE should have been fundamentally different from, and even antagonistic towards NATO. But like the EU, it ended up becoming a mere junior partner in America's imperial vassal system. Much of Lavrov's article is dedicated to detailing this failure in various countries, regions, issues, and conflicts, including Chechnya, Kosovo, Moldova, and Ukraine, to name just a few. That's important because it serves as a corrective to silly and complacentWestern mainstream tales, which put the blame for Helsinki's and the OSCE's failure on - drum roll - Russia and Russia alone. Not to speak of the demented attempts by Ukraine's delusional, corrupt, and increasingly isolated Vladimir Zelensky to use the Helsinki anniversary to once again call for "regime change" in Russia. Yet what is even more important is Lavrov's candid message about the future, as Russia sees it. First, it is polycentric or multipolar and, in this part of the world, Eurasian and emphatically not transatlantic. In that respect, it is almost as if we are back in the mid-1950s. Back then, long before the Helsinki Act became reality, Moscow - then the capital of the Soviet Union - suggested building comprehensive security architecture. The West refused because Moscow was not willing to include the US. By the 1970s, the Soviet leadership had changed its position, affirming that it was possible to include the US, which, in turn, made Helsinki possible. So much for fairy tales of Russian "intransigence." That inclusion was an irony of history, as Washington initially showed only distrust and disdain. As Hanhimäki has shown, Henry Kissinger considered Europe a sideshow, though not the Soviet Union: the US has always respected its opponents much more than its vassals. He suspected that if Moscow and Western Europe got to cozy it could end up threatening Washington's control over the latter. He once told his team with more than a tinge of nasty racism that the Helsinki agreements might as well be written in Swahili. Now, Moscow is back to standing firm against trans-atlanticism. Lavrov writes, "Euro-atlantic" conceptions of security and cooperation have "discredited themselves and are exhausted." Europe, he warns, can have a place in future Eurasian systems, but it "definitely" won't be allowed to "call the tune." If its countries wish to be part of the "process, they will have to learn good manners, renounce [their habit of] diktat and colonial instincts, get used to equal rights, [and] working in a team." You may think that this is very far from the Europe we are seeing now: one that is submissive to the US to the point of self-destruction (as theTurnberry Trade and Tariff Fiasco has just revealed again), blinded by hubris in its "garden-in-the-jungle," and fanatically invested in not even talking to Russia and confronting China. And yet, none of the above can last forever. Indeed, given how self-damaging these policies are, it may not last much longer. The news from Moscow is that, though Russia has not closed the door on Europe entirely, if or when the Europeans recover their sanity, they will find that Russia won't allow them to return to having it both ways: being America's vassals and enjoying a decent relationship with Russia at the same time. (
Malaysia Sun
26 minutes ago
- Malaysia Sun
Zelensky rating slumps poll
A 7% drop came after the Ukrainian leaders failed attempt to crack down on anti-graft agencies Public trust in Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has dropped by 7% in about a month, according to a nationwide poll released on Wednesday. The apparent slump in popularity came after his controversial botched crackdown on the country's key anti-corruption agencies. The survey by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), conducted from July 23 to August 4, suggests that trust in Zelensky stands at 58%, down from 65% in June. The poll says 35% of Ukrainians now say they do not trust Zelensky - an increase from 30% in early June. The drop in support was especially steep among respondents under 30, where trust fell by 15% - from 74% at the start of summer to 59% by early August, according to the poll. The KIIS partially attributed the decline to Zelensky's attempt to strip the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) of independence, citing Russian influence. Critics of the move accused Zelensky of having authoritarian tendencies, sparking protests at home and discontent in the West, given that many supporters of Kiev have for years demanded that it intensify the fight against corruption. Following the backlash, Zelensky was forced to roll back the reforms. KIIS stressed that although the controversy undoubtedly damaged Zelensky's image, other factors are at play. Of those who distrust him, only 6% cited the controversy as the reason, compared to 21% who pointed to overall corruption and 20% who say Zelensky is an inefficient leader during a time of conflict. The KIIS poll was based on phone interviews with 1,022 respondents across Ukraine. Last month, Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) stated that US and UK officials had secretly met with their key Ukrainian counterparts to discuss ousting Zelensky and replacing him with former military chief Valery Zaluzhny. According to the SVR, the recent NABU and SAPO controversy was in large part engineered by Zelensky's own officials to provide justification for the Western partners to seek his removal. (
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Tennis-U.S. Open announces record $90 million prize money
NEW YORK (Reuters) -The U.S. Open announced $90 million in prize money will be on offer at this year's final major, marking the largest purse in tennis history, up 20% from 2024. Top players in the ATP and WTA called for more equitable distribution of revenue at the four Grand Slams this year, as those at the top of the game are able to benefit from increased prize money while players at the lower levels often struggle. The U.S. Open prize pool is up from $75 million in 2024, the previous highest-ever purse. Men's and women's singles winners will earn $5 million each, up from $3.6 million last year. The tournament will also see double-digit percentage increases across all rounds in all events, after "years of a strategic focus on redistribution to the early rounds and qualifying tournament," organisers said. Singles action at the U.S. Open has been expanded to 15 days, amid booming attendance, and will take place from August 24 to September 7. A new format in the mixed doubles is being introduced this year, with the event featuring many big-name singles players as it will be taking place over two days in the week before the main competition kicks off at Flushing Meadows. U.S. Open attendance topped one million fans for the first time in 2024. (Reporting by Amy Tennery in New York, editing by Pritha Sarkar)
