&w=3840&q=100)
'It's personal': Analyst says Modi's pushback on Op Sindoor ceasefire claim sparked Trump's tariff fury
US President Donald Trump looks on as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaks during a 'Howdy, Modi' rally at NRG Stadium in Houston, Texas, US September 22, 2019. (Photo: Reuters)
The recent decision by US President Donald Trump to impose additional tariffs on India, citing the purchase of Russian oil, has sparked debate about the motivations behind this move.
Michael Kugelman, a prominent South Asia analyst and Director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington DC, argues that the tariffs are less about economic strategy and more about personal resentment. In an interview with news agency ANI, Kugelman described the situation as the 'worst crisis' in US-India relations in the past two decades, suggesting that Trump's actions stem from taking India's independent stance as a personal slight.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Kugelman pointed out a perceived double standard in Trump's approach, particularly when compared to his treatment of China.
When asked why Trump was targeting India but not China, Kugelman explained: '…China has not stood out there and refused to let President Trump take credit for his role in the ceasefire. China has not had its leader have a long conversation with Trump on the phone and essentially dictate to him what's right and what's wrong. These are things that happened with India. So, I think that's why perhaps President Trump would reserve some of his greatest ire on the trade and tariff front for India and for the Indian government. Indeed, it's a double standard. It's hypocritical, whatever you want to say…'
The analyst was referring to India's firm rejection of Trump's claims that he played a pivotal role in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan following Operation Sindoor. Trump has repeatedly attributed the halt in hostilities to trade incentives offered by the US, a narrative that India has consistently debunked.
Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar has previously dismissed any suggestion of external mediation, but it was Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement in Parliament that drove the point home.
'We had said from day one that our action was non-escalatory. No leader in the world asked us to stop Operation Sindoor,' Modi declared from the Parliament, directly challenging Trump's version of events.
However, Kugelman's analysis has drawn criticism from some quarters in India. Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal questioned why Modi has refrained from directly confronting Trump's misleading claims.
In a post on X, Sibal expressed frustration: 'Why play the charade of giving false credit for a ceasefire based on trade threats and one announced over the head of India's leader, creating thereby impression India was pressured to agree? Trump can keep assailing India as a tariff king, threaten tariffs, talk of his interest in mediating the Kashmir issue but Modi dare not tell him what's right and what's wrong? India has sovereign interests which it has to defend.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Sibal also highlighted what he sees as Trump's inconsistent approach toward China. He noted, 'Chinese spokespersons day in and day out speak disparagingly of the US, talk down at it, express defiance. Yet, Trump is delaying imposing tariffs on China.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
11 minutes ago
- Mint
Ukraine Strikes ‘Industrial' Facility in Russia's Saratov Region
Ukrainian drones struck an 'industrial enterprise' in the Saratov region of southwest Russia overnight, the local governor said, causing temporary flight delays and killing at least one person on the vicinity. The target was the large Saratov oil refinery according to Ukrainian media and Russian Telegram channels, in what would be the latest strike on a major Russian refining enterprise. Videos posted on Russian social media showed fires and clouds of black smoke in the area of what was said to be the Rosneft PJSC-operated refinery. The incident can't be independently verified, and Ukrainian officials haven't commented. Rosneft didn't immediately reply to a request for comment on Sunday sent via WhatsApp. Governor Roman Busargin, in a Telegram post, confirmed damage to an unspecified 'industrial enterprise' near the Volga River, and said emergency services were on site. Flight restrictions were imposed and later lifted at Saratov airport, Interfax reported, citing the Russian Federal Air Transport Agency. The Saratov refinery, about 530 miles southeast of Moscow, has a design processing capacity of about 140,000 barrels of crude a day. With the Kremlin's war against Ukraine almost halfway through its fourth year, Kyiv's forces have recently stepped up hits on Russia's energy infrastructure in a move to curtail Moscow's ability to send fuel to the front line and derive revenue from oil sales. A week ago, Ukraine said it hit the the Ryazan refinery, with a processing capacity of about 340,000 barrels of crude a day, and the Novokuibyshevsk plant in the Samara region, which has a design processing capacity of over 177,000 barrels a day. The Ryazan facility, one of the country's largest, has significantly reduced oil intake since Aug. 2, when Ukrainian drones attacked the plant, Bloomberg reported. Russia's defense ministry reported intercepting 121 Ukrainian drones overnight. Ukraine said it shot down 80 of some 100 Russian drones. Two people were killed in Russian attack in Kherson region, Ukraine said. The exchange of fire comes days ahead of a planned meeting in Alaska between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed at brokering an agreement to end the war in Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Saturday that Ukraine won't cede territory to Russia to end the war, and was backed by European leaders pledging continued support for Ukraine's sovereignty. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
11 minutes ago
- Time of India
Indian refiners can do without Russian oil, but with trade-offs
Indian refiners, the world's biggest user of Russian oil, can operate without supplies from Moscow from a technical standpoint, but the shift would involve major economic and strategic trade-offs, analysts said. Russian crude supports high distillate yields - the share of crude converted into fuels like petrol, diesel, and jet fuel through distillation. Replacing Russian crude, which accounts for up to 38 per cent of India's refinery intake, with alternatives will shift yields, resulting in lower middle distillates (diesel and jet fuel) and higher residue outputs, according to global real-time data and analytics provider Kpler. US President Donald Trump last week announced an additional 25 per cent tariff on US imports from India -- raising the overall duty to 50 per cent -- as a penalty for the country's continued imports of Russian oil. Since the steep tariffs are likely to hit the USD 27 billion of non-exempt exports that India does to the US, there has been chatter around stopping or curtailing oil imports from Russia. "Indian refiners can operate without Russian crude from a technical standpoint, but the shift would involve major economic and strategic trade-offs," Kpler said in a report, 'US Tariffs on Indian Imports: Implications for Energy Markets & Trade Flows'. India turned to purchasing Russian oil sold at a discount after Western countries imposed sanctions on Moscow and shunned its supplies over its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Consequently, from a mere 1.7 per cent share in total oil imports in 2019-20 (FY20), Russia's share increased to 35.1 per cent in FY25, and it is now the biggest oil supplier to India. In terms of volume, India imported 88 million tonnes from Russia in FY25, out of the total shipment of 245 million tonnes. In July, India received 1.6 million barrels per day of crude from Russia, ahead of China's nearly 1 million bpd and Turkey's around 5,00,000 bpd. Kpler said deep discounts and strong compatibility with India's refining systems led to a surge in imports of Russian Ural crude oil. "Russian crude supports high distillate yields (diesel and jet fuel) and is ideally suited to India's advanced refining infrastructure. It has enabled both state-owned and private refiners to operate above nameplate capacity while maintaining strong margins. "A reversal of this will result in a mild yield shift (lower middle distillate yields, higher residue yields) and probably a small reduction in primary throughput rates, as margins will no longer command a sizeable premium against regional benchmarks, considering existing discounts on Russian oil," Kpler said. The Indian government has issued diplomatic but firm responses to the US tariffs, emphasising the importance of maintaining energy security. "Should Russian oil become inaccessible, India could face an additional USD 3-5 billion in annual import costs (based on a USD 5 per barrel premium on 1.8 million bpd). If global prices rise further (a scenario in which Russian crude exports are being curtailed, in the absence of sufficient buying interest from India), the financial burden could increase significantly," the report said. This may prompt the government to cap retail fuel prices, which could strain fiscal balances. A spike in the import bill could even lead to a reduction in overall crude purchases. India's limited storage capacity further constrains its ability to manage such disruptions. While Russian flows to India continue under a 'business-as-usual' stance, the escalating US rhetoric has reopened conversations about supply diversification, with some Indian refiners reportedly booking increased volumes of Middle Eastern crude. According to Kpler, replacing 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian crude would require a multi-regional approach. The Middle East remains the most viable option operationally, grades such as WTI Midland from the US could contribute 2,00,000-4,00,000 bpd. These (US crude) are lighter and yield less diesel, a disadvantage for India's distillate-heavy demand. Long-haul freight and cost considerations will also restrict scalability, it said. West Africa and Latin America (LatAm) crudes offer moderate potential. "A balanced replacement strategy may involve 60-70 per cent of substitute volumes from the Middle East, with US and African/LatAm crudes serving as tactical fillers. Nevertheless, none match Russian barrels in cost, quality, or reliability (some of the Russia-to-India barrels have already been contracted under term agreements)," it noted. According to Kpler, Indian refiners can technically adapt to the loss of Russian barrels, but with significant economic consequences. "Replacing 1.7-2.0 million bpd of discounted, medium-sour crude would erode refining margins and misalign product yields. Lighter substitutes like WTI or West African grades produce more gasoline and naphtha, reducing diesel output and hurting both domestic and export economics." Even Middle Eastern grades, while closer in quality, are priced tightly to official selling prices (OSP), leaving limited arbitrage opportunities. "In addition to higher feedstock costs, Indian refiners would face elevated freight and credit charges," it said. "The transition is commercially painful, even if technically feasible."
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The ‘Turnberry system' – what the US' new global economic order looks like
Last week, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Sanjay Malhotra touted India's 'bright prospects in the changing world order' in the medium term, adding that 'opportunities are there for the taking'. But will India be able to get its hands on any of these opportunities? Turnberry, of course, is a Trump-owned hotel and resort on the western coast of Scotland where in late July the US President and his European Commission counterpart, Ursula von der Leyen, announced their bilateral trade agreement. As part of the deal, goods from the European Union (EU) will face a tariff of 15 per cent when entering the US. However, it did not end there: by 2028, the EU will buy $750 billion of American energy products and invest $600 billion in the US. The deal has been called a 'capitulation' and humiliating for the EU. According to Julian Hinz, head of Research Center Trade Policy at Berlin-based Kiel Institute for the World Economy, it was an 'appeasement' and abandoned the World Trade Organization's (WTO) principles. 'Under WTO rules, member countries must apply the same tariffs to all other members. Deviations are only permitted under free trade agreements in which both sides reduce their tariffs to zero. The current deal clearly violates these principles and sets a dangerous precedent,' Hinz warned on July 28, adding that Trump's strategy of 'pitting other economies against each other' had only been strengthened. Greer's New York Times column, however, made no bones about abandoning the WTO and its doctrines. According to Greer, the legacy of the Bretton Woods system lived on in the form of an arrangement dominated by the WTO he said was 'untenable and unsustainable' – while the US lost industrial jobs and economic security, others did not undertake key reforms. China, meanwhile, was the winner. But now, 'reform is at hand', with the US-EU deal 'oriented toward serving concrete national interests rather than vague aspirations of multilateral institutions'. Multilateral institutions such as the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund have been criticised for decades for their policy suggestions, especially when it comes to debt-laden developing nations, as shown by the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and the European debt crisis. Momentum to meaningfully reform them has gathered pace in recent years. Greer, however, has a more US-centric world order in mind. 'It took over 50 years from that first meeting at Bretton Woods until the creation of the WTO. It has been 30 years since. Fewer than 130 days from the beginning of the Trump Round, the Turnberry system is by no means complete, but its construction is well underway,' Greer concluded, calling the current round of global trade negotiations as the 'Trump Round' of discussions – a reference to the several rounds of talks held between countries that led to the formation of the WTO at the Uruguay Round in 1994. But what exactly is the Turnberry system? Going by Greer's column, the Turnberry system involves nations aligning on economic and national security interests and rebalancing trade in a 'more sustainable direction' such that the US' manufacturing sector is back on its feet. This, he said, warrants a 'generational project to re-industrialize America'. The era of the US getting other countries to lower their trade barriers by removing the tariffs that defended its own manufacturing sector is over; in its place, the removal of foreign trade barriers is being done 'while ensuring sufficient tariff protection at home'. This system also intends to enforce these new priorities in a far more telling manner than 'drawn-out dispute settlement process'. Should the US detect non-compliance, there will be swift retribution in the form of higher tariffs – the 'formidable stick' to the 'mighty carrot' that is the opportunity to sell your goods in the 'world's most lucrative consumer market', Greer said. Clearly, the Turnberry system is one which serves only one country. The US gets its pound of flesh in the form of re-industrialisation, while foreign companies get the opportunity to have access to the world's richest consumers. Or at least that's what the US government thinks. Leading academics have repeatedly warned that Trump's tariff war will not solve the country's problems. For instance, Robert Z Lawrence of the Peterson Institute of International Economics and a professor of trade and investment at Harvard University has said it is a 'fool's errand' to make the US economy go through a massive disruption just to create a relatively small number of manufacturing jobs. Moreover, dealing with bilateral deficits individually does not balance overall trade and without policies that cut American expenditure relative to its output, Trump's tariffs will only result in the shifting of its trade deficit from targeted countries to non-targeted ones, Lawrence has argued.
