Russia Breaches Donetsk in Major Offensive Ahead of Trump-Putin Summit: Ukraine War Escalates
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
a few seconds ago
- Hindustan Times
Could India have handled President Trump better?
The Narendra Modi government converted an economically disastrous idea such as demonetisation into a political win. It dealt with a brutal Covid-19 pandemic that took millions of lives and devastated livelihoods, yet emerged politically unscathed. The Modi government played with fire on land acquisition and farm laws, yet pulled back without getting burnt. And despite its limited success in pulling off a manufacturing revolution to generate jobs on scale, it has remained politically dominant and maintained its multi-class and multi-caste alliance. The Modi government confronted a serious national security crisis with a far more powerful adversary, China, and had to redefine the idea of normalcy for the sake of peace, yet it did not pay a domestic political price. India dealt with a highly polarised West-Russia landscape and a China that was either actively hostile or passively aggressive or absent, yet pulled off a spectacular G20 presidency. It had to secure its interests with diametrically different American administrations with almost opposing priorities, and yet it was able to be friends with the sitting administration while still having enough goodwill with the preceding power constellation. How did a government that has been so adept in dealing with the domestic and international landscape, and overcoming its own missteps and mistakes, fumble in reading the US? How did a government so sharp in reading danger signals not manage friction when there were clear possibilities of trouble with the US from earlier this year, but definitely from May 10 when Donald Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire? How is it that in over 90 days since then, India, with all its equities and power, has failed to shift the conversation or make enough inroads into Trump's world to find a meeting ground while keeping to its redlines? To be sure, it has been difficult to predict the US president's next move, but there are countries that have managed to get their (limited) way. Let there be no doubt about the severity of the crisis. India is worse off among all the regional competitors for investment, and in its own immediate neighbourhood in terms of access to the US market. This has implications way beyond trade, for suddenly, the signal to American capital about India is of uncertainty, despite the charms of its huge market and extensive talent pool. This puts under strain India's broader economic modernisation roadmap that hinges at least partly, if not substantially, on western investment and technology partnerships to boost manufacturing and generate mass employment. India is confronting repeated blows against its core strategic concerns: Trump appears more than willing to make long-term strategic concessions for a deal with China. Pakistan's comeback to the Washington DC theatre, even if it is only in the short-term as some pundits believe, is arguably on a more broad-based diplomatic, economic and strategic footing than even 2001 when it was driven by the narrow counter terror frame in Afghanistan. And, India is paying a price for US-Russia tensions in ways that it hasn't for decades. India is also staring at a crisis in the people-to-people relationship, given the challenges in getting student visas, the backlash against H1Bs in Trump's base and intense spurt in anti-Indian and anti-Hindu racist rhetoric from the White supremacist Right. The biggest crisis, of course, is there are no easy pathways out of it anymore. The more time has passed, the more rhetoric has got meaner, the more demands have escalated and become public, the less political space there is to make compromises. The Indian political and street mood is now, justifiably, furious at how the country has been treated by the US even as everyone realises the importance of that country and the bilateral relationship. There are structural factors at play, for core contradictions on trade openness and relationships with third countries have come to the fore. There are personality-centric issues at play, especially on the American side with a president who revels in sharpening contradictions with his own country's institutions, the international system, and allies and partners in the quest for political or personal or financial wins. And, there are unanticipated variables and events that have affected the chessboard. But none of this can take away from the fact that the government may have missed out on multiple opportunities to manage Trump. This is particularly striking since the political leadership has usually been alert in responding creatively in difficult situations, managing narratives, engaging with all kinds of interlocutors, unleashing diplomatic charm in the external domain or pre-empting rivals by appropriating political issues in the domestic domain, finding wins-wins when possible and framing compromises as wins when necessary. To be sure, as Pratap Bhanu Mehta has eloquently and wisely argued, the Trumpian project is an imperial project and dignity is essential. But avoiding being in the direct firing line of the imperial project was in national interest and the government's core diplomatic duty. And, yes, there may have been ways to do it without compromising on India's historic stance on third-party mediation, or on core interests of small farmers, or on Indian manufacturing potential. And, this was possible because a childishly transparent, vain and corrupt Trump world is always open to a better deal and packaging has always been more central to his politics than substance. To return to the puzzle then, what happened? A detailed empirical account will only emerge once the crisis passes, actors move on from their current roles, and files are declassified. And even a more specific discussion on who got what wrong and when and what could have been done need not detain us here. One school of thought is there was a problem with the personnel chosen to make judgments on the ground and offer advice. Another is that India may have genuinely misread the problem, or been unable to anticipate second or third order consequences of Trumpian rupture. A third suggests that there may have been a problem with the channels selected for execution of goals; India's adversaries and critics have been constantly in Trump's ear while India's perspective has failed to register a mark. It could well be a combination; the problems with personnel, judgment and execution, may have resulted in a problem in decision making. And, to be fair, all of this may have been exacerbated by domestic concerns, not just of the man (and woman) on the street, but the political Opposition. After 11 years, this is the biggest challenge facing Narendra Modi, and he may want to consider a reset. It could start with foreign policy but a full Kamraj-plan style reset across the party and government may not be a bad idea at this time, especially given the ambitious agenda the Prime Minister laid out in his Independence Day speech. This could bring fresh energy and ideas and shatter vested interests to help India prepare for the coming political, economic and strategic storms. For coming they are.
The Wire
a few seconds ago
- The Wire
Explainer: The Trump–Putin Summit and its Immediate Consequences For New Delhi
New Delhi: For India, the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage was more than a geopolitical spectacle in the frozen north. Rather, it carried immediate consequences for New Delhi's economic future. With the US having slapped punitive tariffs on Indian goods for Russian oil purchases, New Delhi watched the meeting closely, weighing whether Trump's diplomacy might ease the pressure or deepen its bind. Here is The Wire's explainer on what unfolded in Alaska on Saturday (August 16), and what it could mean for India. What exactly happened at the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage? The day began with a carefully staged welcome at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. US President Donald Trump's plane landed shortly after 10:20 a.m., and Russian President Vladimir Putin followed about half an hour later. Just after 11 a.m., the two leaders walked out onto a red-carpeted platform marked 'Alaska 2025,' framed by four F-22 fighter jets and a flyover that included a B-2 stealth bomber. After the handshake and photo op, Trump invited Putin into his presidential limousine. The pair spoke privately for a few minutes on the short ride to the venue, a break from protocol that underscored Trump's preference for unscripted encounters. Formal talks began around 11:30 a.m. in a 'three-on-three' format. Trump sat with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff, while Putin was flanked by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and adviser Yuri Ushakov. The discussions ran for nearly three hours before concluding in the mid-afternoon. At about 3 p.m., the two leaders appeared before the press to deliver short statements, but they took no questions and announced no breakthrough. Putin departed soon afterwards, while Trump left Anchorage in the early evening for his return flight to Washington. In total, Putin's first visit to US in ten years, lasted less than six hours. Did Trump manage to secure a ceasefire, or did the talks end without progress? While flying to Anchorage, Trump told a Fox News anchor on Air Force One that he 'won't be happy' if he did not get a ceasefire deal at the summit. That set expectations for the meeting, which ran for nearly three hours behind closed doors. Yet when the two leaders appeared before the press, it was clear no such agreement had been reached. Trump nonetheless struck an upbeat note. 'We really made some great progress today,' he said, stressing that negotiations were ongoing and that more meetings would follow. He did not provide details of what that progress involved. 'There were many, many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there, but we've made some headway. So there's no deal until there is a deal,' he said. Later in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, he said that the onus was now on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to get a cease-fire deal. Putin also kept up the optimistic narrative. 'We held our talks in a constructive and mutually respectful atmosphere, and they have proved substantive and productive.' The Russian President flattered Trump by stating that the Ukraine war would not have started if Trump had been president. He also restated Moscow's demands for a 'long-term and lasting' settlement on Ukraine war – addressing the 'root causes' of the conflict, ensuring 'all of Russia's legitimate concerns' are met, and restoring a 'fair security balance in Europe and the rest of the world.' He signalled, standing next to the US President, that the roadblock lay across the Atlantic. 'We hope that Kiev and the European capitals will take the current developments constructively and will neither try to put up obstacles nor attempt to disrupt the emerging progress with provocative acts or behind-the-scenes plots.' Does the outcome make Putin the real winner of the meeting? For Vladimir Putin, the Alaska summit represented a clear diplomatic victory, one achieved without compromise. Back in Moscow, the tone was jubilant. 'The very fact of the meeting in Alaska, its tone, and its outcome represent a significant and joint success for both presidents, each of whom made a tremendous personal contribution to achieving the best possible result at this time," Konstantin Kosachyov, a chair of the foreign affairs committee of Russia's upper house of parliament, wrote on Telegram, according to Reuters. Others were more blunt. As one senior Russian policymaker told The Guardian, 'Putin gave Trump nothing, but still got everything he wanted.' The absence of new sanctions, Trump's tacit recognition of Moscow's red lines, and the symbolism of being treated as an equal to the US president all fed into the narrative of triumph. Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev also singled out Trump's refusal to escalate pressure on Moscow over Ukraine as one of the most important outcomes. He described the summit as a restoration of top-level dialogue that was 'peaceful, free of ultimatums or threats,' and noted that Putin had 'presented our conditions for ending the conflict in Ukraine … in person and in detail.' In the United States, however, the verdict was also clear that Putin had scored a PR goal. The Washington Post called the summit ' not a disaster, but it was a US defeat.' The New York Times argued that Putin had effectively achieved a major war goal. ' He has gotten out of the box of sanctioned autocrat, and was greeted by the president of the United States as a peacemaker. He has bought time. He has defused all that talk of sanctions on his oil sector. And he gave up nothing'. How did Europe and Ukraine react to the summit? European leaders, led by Germany, France, the UK, Italy and the EU, issued a joint statement reaffirming their unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and insisting that Russia could not dictate Kyiv's future ties with NATO or the EU. They pledged to tighten sanctions and maintain economic pressure on Moscow until what they described as a just and lasting peace is achieved. While leaders such as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron praised Donald Trump's initiative in meeting Vladimir Putin, they stressed that any talks must be coupled with strong security guarantees for Ukraine. Kyiv's response was more guardedly optimistic. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy welcomed Trump's proposal for a trilateral format with Ukraine included, but said European participation was essential to ensure binding guarantees. He confirmed he would travel to Washington on Monday after a 'long and substantive' phone call with Trump, noting 'positive signals' about the United States taking part in future security arrangements. Trump's post-summit remarks on Fox News, however, fuelled unease in Kyiv and in several European capitals. In an interview with Sean Hannity, he contrasted Russia's status with Ukraine's, saying: 'Russia is a very big power, and they're not' and added that Zelenskiy 'gotta make a deal.' For many European officials, this reinforced fears that Trump might pressure Kyiv into concessions without securing reciprocal guarantees from Moscow. How did New Delhi react, and what drives that stance? India welcomed the Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, framing it as a positive step toward dialogue. 'India welcomes the Summit meeting in Alaska between President Trump and President Putin,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi 'consistently advocates dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict.' He noted that India 'appreciates the progress made in the Summit'. 'India welcomes the Summit meeting in Alaska between President Trump and President Putin,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi 'consistently advocates dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict.' He also noted that India 'appreciates the progress made in the Summit.' New Delhi's response can be read as relief that the focus on dialogue creates a potential opening for India, which has been squeezed between its strategic partnership with Washington and its heavy reliance on Russian energy. That pressure intensified earlier this month when the US raised tariffs on Indian goods to 50 percent, following secondary sanctions of 25 percent on Russian oil purchases. India, the second-largest buyer of Russian crude after China, was singled out by the measures. While Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity that he would hold off on penalising China for now, the uncertainty over whether India will face continued tariffs remains. Could India gain some relief on US tariffs as a side-effect of Trump's diplomacy? Donald Trump's latest push to nudge Moscow towards a Ukraine deal has raised questions in New Delhi over whether India might see relief from the steep US tariffs imposed on Russian oil imports. The additional 25 percent duty, announced in late August, coincided with signs of Trump's growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Indian officials viewed the sanctions partly as an extension of that irritation. En route to Alaska, Trump told Fox News that India had been forced to stop buying Russian oil because of the tariffs. Former Indian ambassador to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria described the Alaska meeting as 'reassuring' for India. 'The first good news is that the meeting took place,' he told The Wire, noting there were 'no shock outcomes of trouble' and no sign of 'a complete breakdown in that relationship.' He said Trump appeared to hint at flexibility. 'There was an indication he will either give more time to India for the 25 percent sanctions… or he will reverse them, or he will give that a bigger timeline,' Bisaria said. While there was brewing backlash in Washington that Putin may have gained an upper hand, Trump may still continue to believe that he is on the right path. 'He may be hearing other voices in his ear,' he said, pointing out that while some in Trump's circle are Russia hawks, 'the MAGA base supports him ending the wars. So, there won't be an issue with them.' Bisaria, however, added that conditions in Ukraine could yet derail any opening. 'If there's a major escalation in battlefield violence, that is a danger to the process, because right now it's the most fragile,' he said. In his view, both Trump and Putin are interested in a deal, with Ukraine and Europe seeking at least the optics of being consulted.
Time of India
a few seconds ago
- Time of India
India Reacts To Trump-Putin Alaska Summit As Tariff Threat Looms Over Russian Oil And Exports
India has welcomed the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska, praising the pursuit of diplomacy, but strongly opposed Washington's new tariff threats. The Modi government faces a 25% duty on exports starting August 27, a move explicitly linked to India's Russian oil imports. While Trump claimed Moscow had already lost India as a client, New Delhi dismissed the assertion, highlighting its reliance on discounted crude to ensure energy security. India condemned the tariffs as 'unfair and unjustified,' warning of severe impact on textiles, marine, and leather exports. With China and India as Moscow's top oil buyers, global energy geopolitics now collides with trade war risks. As India awaits clarity on the summit's next steps, New Delhi is preparing to defend its economic interests while continuing to call for dialogue and peace in Ukraine. Read More
