Macron suggests Geneva hosts Putin-Zelenskyy summit as European leaders meet Trump
Speaking after he and other European leaders joined the Ukrainian president for high-stakes meetings at the White House on Monday (August 18, 2025), Mr. Macron said the announced Zelenskyy-Putin summit would be held in Europe.
'It will be (hosted by) a neutral country, maybe Switzerland — I'm pushing for Geneva — or another country,' Mr. Macron said in an interview aired Tuesday on French news channel LCI.
'The last time there were bilateral talks, they were held in Istanbul,' he added, referring to the three rounds of lower-level negotiations between Russia and Ukraine held in Turkey between May and July.
Mr. Macron said France and Britain would hold a meeting on Tuesday with other Ukrainian allies to 'keep them up to date on what was decided' in Washington on providing security guarantees for Ukraine, a key talking point in the meetings with MR. Trump.
'Right after that, we'll start concrete work with the Americans. So as of tomorrow (Tuesday), our diplomatic advisers, ministers, chiefs of staff begin work on seeing who's ready to do what,' he said.
Addressing whether Mr. Zelenskyy would be forced to give up territory to Russia, Mr. Macron said it was 'up to Ukraine'.
'Ukraine will make the concessions it deems just and right,' he said.
But 'let's be very careful when we talk about legal recognition', he added. 'If countries... can say, 'we can take territory by force', (that) opens a Pandora's box.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Europeans Panicking': Big Declaration From Russia On Trump-Zelensky DC Meeting
/ Aug 19, 2025, 07:54PM IST As Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky prepare for their high-stakes Oval Office showdown, Moscow-based veteran journalist Fred Weir joins TOI to decode how this could play out. Why are Europeans 'panicking'? What does Russia really want from this deal? And is Ukraine staring at only two grim options - collapse on the battlefield or cede territory at the table? Weir, who has reported from Moscow for decades, gives us the Russian perspective on Trump's flip from 'ceasefire first' to 'peace deal now,' Putin's long-term war goals, and why many in Moscow believe Ukraine is a lost cause. Watch this sharp, no-nonsense conversation for a glimpse of how the Kremlin, Russian media, and ordinary Russians are reading the Trump–Zelensky–Putin triangle.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Who is Trump's trade guru giving gyan to India?
Reuters Peter Navarro, Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing for U.S. President Donald Trump Peter Navarro, US President Donald Trump's trade adviser who is considered the brain behind Trump tariffs, has written an article in the Financial Times, lashing out at India for buying Russian oil, calling it "opportunistic and deeply corrosive of global efforts to isolate Putin's war economy". He warned that if India "wants to be treated as a strategic partner of the US, it needs to start acting like one". Navarro alleged that India was "now cosying up to both Russia and China" and argued that New Delhi's Russian crude purchases must stop as they were financing Moscow's war in Ukraine. Navarro, however, made no mention of the fact that China, the biggest buyer of Russian oil, has not been punished by the US for that while India has been singled out. Trump has already imposed a 50% tariff on Indian goods, including a 25% penal levy for continued purchases of Russian oil, despite the external affairs ministry's assertion that India is being unfairly singled out while the US and EU continue to source energy from Moscow. Navarro, the architect of Trump's trade war and the hawkish face of US protectionism, is a colourful character who has faced disgrace for quoting a fictitious China expert in his books, was jailed for four months and is known for his public feuds. He stands as one of the most controversial and polarizing figures in recent American economic policymaking. A former professor-turned-economic nationalist, Navarro rose from relative academic obscurity to become a central architect of Trump's hawkish trade agenda. From academic to China hawk Navarro's journey into the policy spotlight began in academia. He holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University, but his academic record has been called dubious by critics due to the polemical nature of much of his later work. He taught economics and public policy at the University of California, Irvine, and while academically trained, Navarro rarely published in top-tier peer-reviewed economic journals. Instead, he found his niche in public-facing writing and media. Navarro's animosity toward China developed gradually and came to dominate his economic thinking. It crystallised in his 2011 book 'Death by China', co-authored with Greg Autry. The book accused China of illegal export subsidies, currency manipulation and other forms of economic aggression that, according to Navarro, decimated American manufacturing. The book also argued that China's economic rise posed a fundamental threat to the US, not just economically, but also geopolitically. In 2012, Navarro directed and produced a documentary version of 'Death by China', further cementing his role as one of the most strident China critics in US public discourse. His sharp rhetoric and alarmist tone earned him praise from nationalists but raised eyebrows in the academic and policy communities. His views would remain on the fringe until 2016, when Donald Trump's rise transformed Navarro from an academic ideologue to a powerful was brought into Trump's orbit after Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, came across 'Death by China' on Amazon. Intrigued by its thesis, Kushner contacted Navarro, eventually inviting him to join the Trump campaign. In the first Trump administration, he was made a trade advisor when he drafted aggressive trade policies designed to combat China's growing economic power. How Navarro shaped Trump's tariff policiesDuring Trump's first term, Navarro served as Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. His influence was immense and often underestimated. He aligned early with populist figures like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and was instrumental in crafting Trump's 'America First' trade policy. Navarro played a central role in initiating the China–US trade war, lobbying for sweeping tariffs on Chinese goods, and advising the President on ways to reduce trade was a firm supporter of the United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act, which would have given the President broad powers to impose tariffs on foreign nations. Though the bill failed in Congress, Navarro's advocacy signaled a deeper shift in US economic policy, from free trade consensus to aggressive bilateralism. He was also behind proposals to restrict Chinese students from studying in the US, claiming it was a matter of national tenure was marked by internal conflict. He frequently clashed with more moderate officials, especially Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The most dramatic instance came in May 2018, when Navarro and Mnuchin reportedly engaged in a heated shouting match on the lawn of a Chinese government building during trade negotiations. Navarro believed he was being sidelined and blamed Mnuchin for soft-pedaling the US stance. Navarro's rhetoric reached a diplomatic low point in June 2018, when he said there was 'a special place in hell' for Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after Canada vowed retaliatory tariffs against the US. 'There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad-faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door," he said. Though he later apologised, the incident exemplified Navarro's inflammatory approach to international diplomacy. During Trump's second term, Navarro returned to the White House in a more powerful role as Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing. On Day One, he helped draft a sweeping trade policy memo that included reimposing 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports and instituting 'reciprocal tariffs' on imports from countries that impose tariffs on US goods. Navarro also succeeded in closing the de minimis duty exemption for imports from China, ending duty-free imports for packages under $800, a significant blow to Chinese e-commerce exporters. Navarro's hardline policies drew sharp criticism from both domestic and international actors, especially as they began to impact US corporations. His influence over Trump's increasingly isolationist trade strategy remains strong. When Navarro fabricated an expert in his booksNavarro's career has been marred by a series of controversies, both personal and political. Perhaps the most bizarre of Navarro's controversies was the revelation that he had invented a fictitious expert, 'Ron Vara,' whom he quoted extensively in at least six of his books. Ron Vara was described as a Harvard-educated economist and a fierce China critic, an apparent mouthpiece for Navarro's most extreme anti-China views. In reality, Ron Vara was an anagram of Navarro's own last hoax was exposed by the 'Chronicle of Higher Education', which found no record of any such person. Navarro admitted to fabricating the character, referring to him as a humorous 'literary device,' but critics saw it as deceptive and unethical. China's Foreign Ministry used the incident to dismiss Navarro's credibility, accusing him of 'smearing China with lies'.In April, Navarro had a public feud with Elon musk, by then a close Trump advisor. Navarro on CNBC dismissed a push by Musk for zero tariffs between the US and Europe, calling him a "car assembler" reliant on imported parts, and said he wanted the parts to be manufactured locally in the US. "Navarro is truly a moron. What he says here is demonstrably false," Musk said in a post on X in a response to a video clip of Navarro's interview. "Tesla has the most American-made cars. Navarro is dumber than a sack of bricks." Musk also ridiculed Navarro's use of Ron Vara as an expert source. The feud highlighted growing divisions within the Trump administration between pro-business technocrats like Musk and economic nationalists like also became embroiled in the fallout of the 2020 election. A vocal supporter of Trump's efforts to overturn the results, Navarro refused to comply with two congressional subpoenas in 2022 regarding his involvement. As a result, he was indicted by a grand jury on two counts of contempt of Congress. Convicted and sentenced to four months in prison, Navarro served time before reentering public life during Trump's return to his supporters, Navarro is a patriot who stood up to China and reshaped American trade policy in a way that protected US industries. To his critics, he is an ideologue who brought fringe economics into the mainstream, weakened alliances, and damaged the global trade system. Despite his controversies, Navarro has continued to shape American policy under Trump's second term. Navarro is not merely a policy advisor. He is a symbol of a broader ideological shift within American politics: away from globalism and toward protectionism, populism, and economic confrontation.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
India can't fight Trump tariffs with emotion. Smart talks, sector relief, reforms are key
These sectors not only anchor the merchandise exports to the US but also directly affect employment generation and the livelihoods of millions of workers and farmers. The T&A sector, faces a tariff disadvantage of over 30 percentage points compared with competitors like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Vietnam, threatening its competitive position in a key export market. Gems and jewellery exports, worth USD 11.9 billion, face similar challenge against suppliers such as Turkey, Vietnam, and Thailand. Auto parts, which constitute 3% of India's exports to the US, are also vulnerable. While this represents just 1.56% of GDP and 7.38% of total exports, far from a catastrophe for a USD 3.9 trillion economy, the impact is heavily concentrated in labour-intensive and high-value sectors such as textiles and apparel, gems and jewellery, auto parts and agricultural products, notably shrimp. The recent escalation of tariffs by the United States against Indian exports has significantly altered the landscape of India-US trade relations. Announced by US President Donald Trump on July 31st and August 6th, 2025, the measures impose a 25% tariff plus a 25% penalty tariff respectively on exports from countries importing Russian oil (in the form of secondary sanctions). India's purchase of Russian oil remains fully compliant with international norms and is guided by cost competitiveness and energy security imperatives. Our analysis shows that USD 60.85 billion around 70% of India's goods exports to the US are now exposed to the 50% tariff. In agriculture, shrimp exports will be worst hit with 50% tariffs higher than those applied to competitors like Ecuador, Indonesia, and Vietnam, in addition to the existing anti-dumping (1.8- 3.0%) and countervailing duties (5.7%) India faces. These are sectors where buyers can switch sourcing relatively quickly, which gives US importers bargaining power and weakens India's negotiating position. The policy brief recommends a three-pronged strategic response. Smart negotiations with strategy, not emotion The US remains too large and too important to write off, especially as India advances trade deals with the UK and EU (DGFT, 2025). Instead, India must work to re-engage US with smart, tactical negotiation, next rounds of which are scheduled this month end. The key sticking point has always been agriculture. US demands on GM products should be addressed on the basis of science rather than ideology. The Vajpayee government had allowed GM cotton, and emphasised the power of science in transforming agriculture, as he quoted 'Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan, Jai Vigyan'. India imposes restrictions on import of soybean and corn from US giving the GM context. However, it is ironic that cotton seed and its oil is already in our food chain, as 95% of our cotton is now GM (Gulati and Juneja, 2022). India can ensure that imported GM corn can be used for ethanol blending or as poultry feed. Similar is the case of soya, where India restricts imports of GM soya but imports it in the form of soya oil. India must also question its own tariff structure. In 2024, India's average agricultural tariff stood at 36.7%, nearly seven times higher than the US average of 5%; while the trade-weighted average was an even steeper 64.3%, compared to just 4.2% for the US (WTO Tariff Profiles, 2025). Yet, in certain cases, these high barriers are selectively relaxed; For example, India imported USD 17.09 billion worth of edible oils covering about 57% of its consumption at tariffs below 30% (DFPD, 2025). The argument is simple- if edible oils and pulses can enter at less than 30% duty, there is no logic in maintaining tariffs of 120% on walnuts, 100% on chicken legs, 70% on rice (despite India being the world's largest exporter), 60% on SMP, 45% on soyabean, 50% on corn, apples and 30% on cranberries. Edible oil tariffs are reduced during global price spikes, effectively shielding one sector while leaving others exposed. For non-sensitive goods without strong domestic production capacity such as walnuts (120%), berries like cranberries and blueberries (30%), and breakfast cereals (30%) tariffs could be rationalised. On dairy, India could explore a certification system-similar to halal-that assures buyers the cattle are non-meat fed or pasture-grazed. In dairy, protecting smallholder farmers is the concern, India could adopt a tariff rate quota (TRQ), keeping prohibitive tariffs (similar to what Japan or Korea does) only beyond a certain volume threshold, such as 2 MMT. Annex 4 lists commodities on which India currently levies tariffs exceeding 50% on US imports (WTO, 2025). This inconsistency weakens India's credibility in trade talks. The reality is that high protectionist tariffs breed inefficiency. India should take this as an opportunity to reform like the 1991 moment. The fact is that India needs major reforms in rationalizing its import duties, irrespective of Trump's pressures. Rather than shielding agriculture with blanket protections, India should invest in R&D, improve supply chain efficiency and modernise infrastructure reforms on the scale of the 1991 liberalisation. This adversity should be converted to an opportunity through domestic reforms and India must focus on innovations, high productivity and R&D to enhance our export competitive strength, globally. Above all, India must cool the temperature in negotiations and engage with the US with logic, not emotion. India should not protect one sector risking huge loss to other sectors. Warn you, if service sector is hit, it would be huge impact on India's skilled youth and the economy as a whole. To help balance the trade deficit, India could consider sourcing 15-20% of its crude oil imports from the US. India must set its tariffs rationally. Smart negotiation, combined with flexibility and internal reforms, will be the key to sustaining India's export competitiveness in an increasingly volatile global trade order. Immediate sector specific targeted relief structure A second urgent measure is targeted relief to highly affected sectors, through temporary subsidies, rebates or incentives, should be rolled out within weeks for sectors such as T&A, gems & jewellery, and shrimp. T&A sector which face a 50% tariff compared to 19-20% for competitors like Pakistan and Vietnam, this price gap is too wide to absorb without major job losses in an industry that employs over 45 million people (Gulati et al., 2025). A temporary subsidy or support scheme, to the tune of 25-30% of export value, could neutralise the tariff differential. Preserving the sector's viability is critical not only for export earnings but for preventing mass layoffs in labour-intensive clusters across India. Likewise, the gems & jewellery sector, anchored by Surat's globally renowned diamond-cutting and polishing hubs, employing lakhs of people, needs immediate fiscal cushioning to prevent erosion of its market share to competitors in Turkey, Vietnam, Thailand etc. Similarly, shrimp exports require urgent support. The states of Andhra, West Bengal and Odisha depend heavily on aquaculture for rural employment and livelihoods (MPEDA, 2025). The new tariffs threaten both livelihoods and political stability, as key state and national leaders will face mounting pressure from affected communities (Reuters, 2025b). Finally, a nationalist consumption drive could help 9 absorb some of the excess supply domestically (especially with the upcoming festival seasons), with campaigns to promote Brand Bharat as part of a broader movement of nationalist fervour, especially from the ramparts of the Red Fort by PM Narendra Modi in his Independence Day speech. Also read: Indian foreign policy is in free fall. Can we balance national pride with new power reality? High-priority diversification of export markets Overdependence on the US must be reduced by actively cultivating alternative markets. India must conclude the FTA with the EU, advance the UK deal, and seriously explore joining the CPTPP, an open, rules-based trade bloc that includes Japan, Korea and Australia (Ahluwalia, 2025). Beyond these, the most promising avenues for expansion lie in Africa, ASEAN, the Middle East and Brazil. In Brazil, where India's agricultural exports stood at USD 130.5 million in CY2024 compared with imports of USD 2.91 billion, there is clear scope to bridge the USD 2.78 billion trade gap by targeting high-demand imports such as malt extracts, milk products (including SMP), basmati rice, frozen French fries, fresh apples, and garlic (ITC Trade Map, CY 2024). Africa, with an USD 80 billion agri-import market where India's share is only 8%, offers significant potential under AfCFTA, COMESA, and SACU frameworks to redirect surplus capacity from the US into staples and value-added products ranging from rice (USD 4.2 billion), sugar (USD 1.5 billion), and meat (USD 800 million) to pulses, oilseeds, spices etc (Rath et al., 2025). In ASEAN, India's 2024 exports included meat (USD 1.5 billion), marine products (USD 285.4 million), sugar (USD 167.4 million), groundnuts (USD 620 million), and rice (USD 500 million), with further potential in spices, fresh and processed produce, tea, coffee, oilseeds, dairy, and animal feed. India has a spectacular diplomatic relation with middle east, and the region has annual agri-import demand exceeding USD 100 billion and several GCC members reliant on imports for over 80% of their food needs. This is another key destination already taking rice (USD 5.05 billion), sugar (USD 242.04 million), meat (USD 1.7 billion), and tea (USD 345 million) from India, while also offering strong opportunities in dairy, pulses, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, packaged foods, etc supported by cold-chain investments and long-term supply contracts (Rath et al., 2025). Conclusion In navigating the Trump's Tariff Blow, India must hold firm to the principle that sovereignty cannot be compromised, especially when external pressures seek to dictate its fair economic choices. India is a rising power and no one can halt its momentum. The path forward lies in smart negotiations that defend national interests which unlock opportunities for growth. This is not a personal battle between leaders, but a matter of national interest especially protecting jobs, securing market access and safeguarding strategic autonomy. India's response must blend tactical flexibility with structural reforms that enhance competitiveness across sectors. India needs to negotiate smartly, provide immediate, targeted relief to highly-hit sectors, and diversify export markets on high priority to navigate the tariff blow. The success of our leaders will be ensuring that short-term disruptions give way to long-term gains, reinforcing India's position as a trusted and indispensable player in the global economy. This is an abstract from a policy brief by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER). Ashok Gulati is a Distinguished Professor at ICRIER. Sulakshana Rao is a Senior fellow at ICRIER. Tanay Suntwal is a Research Assistant with the Agriculture Policy, Sustainability, and Innovation Team at ICRIER.
