Oil prices stabilise ahead of expected meeting of Trumpwith Putin
New Delhi
Oil prices held steady on Thursday, trimming earlier gains after the Kremlin revealed that Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to meet with US President Donald Trump in the coming days, fueling hopes for a potential diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine conflict.
Brent crude futures decreased by $0.49 or 0.73 percent, to $67.38 per barrel.
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures fall by $0.46, or 0.71 percent, to $64.81 per barrel.
Oil prices steadied on Thursday after sliding around 1 percent the previous day, hitting an eight-week low following remarks by US President Donald Trump suggesting progress in negotiations withMoscow.
Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov confirmed that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are expected to meet in the coming days, marking the first summit between the two leaders since 2021.
A White House official had earlier indicated that the meeting could take place as early as next week, although the US is still preparing secondary sanctions, potentially targeting China, to increase pressure on Russia to end the conflictin Ukraine.
According to UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo, oil prices saw modest gains supported by a drop in US crude inventories, stronger Saudi pricing for Asia, and solid crude imports from China in July. However, the news of the possible Trump-Putin summit limitedthose gains.
Russia remains the world's second-largest oil producer after the United States.
The Energy Information Administration reported on Wednesday that US crude inventories fell by 3 million barrels to 423.7m barrels in the week ending August 1, significantly more than the 591,000-barrel decline forecast by analysts in aReuters poll.
China's crude oil imports in July declined by 5.4 percent compared to June but rose 11.5 percent from a year earlier, with analysts anticipating steady refining activity in the short term.
Saudi Arabia, the top global oil exporter, raised its official selling prices for crude to Asia for September its second consecutive monthly increase citing limited supply and strong demand.
Nevertheless, broader economic uncertainty weighed on oil prices after the US imposed new tariffs on Indian products. On Wednesday, Trump informed an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods due to the country's ongoing purchases of Russian oil, with the measure set to take effect on August 28.
Trump also signaled the possibility of further tariffs on Chinese imports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Who counts in America? Trump wants to decide
Do undocumented immigrants count as people?Anyone watching as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents increasingly bypass due process to detain and deport unauthorised immigrants might assume the Trump administration's answer is a resounding 'no'. Now, regardless of deportation policies, the approximately 11 million unauthorised immigrants in the United States could soon disappear, statistically at least, if Republicans have their way. President Trump recently instructed the US Department of Commerce to prepare for a new census that excludes undocumented immigrants. This marks the latest and boldest attempt by Trump and his congressional allies to alter how the census accounts for unauthorised immigrants. Although not explicitly stated, Trump may be trying to push this off-cycle census through ahead of the 2028 presidential election or even before next year's midterms, which he appears intent on influencing. Assuming Trump was being literal in his social media declaration that 'People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS,' millions could effectively vanish from the official population count. If this incomplete census were used for congressional apportionment, it would reduce representation in Congress and the Electoral College for states with large numbers of unauthorised immigrants. The immediate partisan impact is unclear. According to the Pew Research Center, if non-citizens had been excluded before the 2020 election, California, Florida and Texas would each have lost one congressional seat and Electoral College vote, while Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio would each have gained one. Political gerrymandering would likely shape who benefits from redistricting. Republicans are already aggressively redrawing maps in states like Texas, with possible retaliatory moves in California and other Democrat-led states. Beyond electoral shifts, the broader goal appears to be marginalising undocumented people and punishing 'sanctuary' jurisdictions. This reinforces the Republican narrative that Democrats deliberately tolerate illegal immigration for political gain. Legally, how to count unauthorised immigrants depends on interpreting the Constitution, the framers' intent and the scope of executive authority in conducting the census. Non-citizens have historically been included in the count, and the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on excluding them. However, with a conservative supermajority on the court, there is a real chance the justices could allow it – either by reinterpreting the Constitution's language or deferring to the executive branch. Even if Trump fails to push through a new census, his administration could still suppress the count by other means. During his first term, he tried to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The Census Bureau stopped collecting this data from all respondents in 1950 and removed the question entirely by 2000, instead gathering it through separate surveys such as the American Community Survey. Many feared its return would deter participation from undocumented, and even legal, immigrants, leading to an undercount. The Supreme Court blocked the effort in 2019, citing insufficient justification. But it left the door open to future attempts with more credible rationales. Socially, the question of how to count non-citizens recalls earlier and sometimes shameful practices in the United States. For much of its early history, significant groups were denied full recognition in the political system despite living in the country. The Constitution's original enumeration formula stated that state populations would be calculated 'by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.' Slave and free states struck the infamous 'three-fifths' compromise, counting enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for congressional and Electoral College apportionment. Meanwhile, 'Indians not taxed' were excluded altogether, as most Native Americans were not considered US citizens despite residing within the country's borders. They were instead seen as members of sovereign nations – such as the Cherokee, Creek or Iroquois – even as their land, rights and dignity were stripped away. Only with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 were Native Americans granted birthright citizenship and formally included in the population count. These examples show two marginalised non-citizen groups, enslaved Black people and Indigenous Americans, treated in opposite ways: one partially counted, the other excluded. With history offering no clear precedent, today's debate raises valid questions about how non-citizens, including the undocumented, should be represented. One view holds that because only citizens vote, non-citizens should not affect apportionment. The opposing view argues that excluding undocumented immigrants worsens their vulnerability and denies their very existence, even as government policies directly affect their lives. Unauthorised immigrants both use and support public systems. While they are barred from most federal benefits such as Social Security and Medicare, they still access emergency healthcare, school meal programmes and limited housing support. They also factor into education and policing budgets in the communities where they live. At the federal level, immigration policy disproportionately affects states where undocumented residents make up a larger share of the population. At the state level, policies must be shaped with their presence in mind. For example, California now offers food assistance to all elderly residents regardless of immigration status. Undocumented immigrants also contribute to public finances, paying nearly $100bn annually in federal, state and local taxes. This includes more than $30bn for programmes they largely cannot use, such as Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. In 40 of 50 states, they pay higher state and local tax rates than the wealthiest 1 percent. States' economic contributions to the federal budget are directly influenced by these residents. It makes sense, therefore, to acknowledge them through accurate enumeration. The Trump administration is instead enforcing a skewed, incomplete and politically motivated interpretation of its constitutional duties regarding census-taking and apportionment. This approach could also affect other debates with far-reaching implications. The Department of Justice is urging the Supreme Court to fast-track a ruling on Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship. This is another area where the Constitution appears clear. The 14th Amendment affirms that anyone born in the US is a citizen, with few exceptions, such as the children of diplomats. Trump is also seeking to expand the grounds for revoking naturalised citizenship, a penalty currently applied only in rare cases that usually involve fraud. A narrower definition of who 'counts' in the census could fuel arguments for a narrower definition of who counts as a citizen. Similarly, a policy of excluding non-citizens could encourage efforts to strip citizenship from naturalised or US-born residents in order to exclude them as well. The presence of millions of undocumented immigrants reflects an immigration system that has failed under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Until meaningful reform is enacted, pretending these individuals do not exist is a misguided, politicised and harmful response to the reality of their lives within US borders, regardless of how they arrived. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump to host Azerbaijan, Armenia leaders to sign US-brokered deal
United States President Donald Trump has confirmed that he will host the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia for a 'historic peace summit'. Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, and Nikol Pashinyan, the prime minister of Armenia, will meet with Trump at the White House on Friday for an official 'peace signing ceremony,' the president wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'These two Nations have been at War for many years, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. Many Leaders have tried to end the War, with no success, until now, thanks to 'TRUMP,'' he wrote. News of the talks in Washington was reported earlier this week when Pashinyan's government announced the meeting in a statement on Telegram. The two countries, former Soviet republics, have faced off over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh since the late 1980s, when Nagorno-Karabakh broke away from Azerbaijan with support from Armenia. The region, which was claimed by both Azerbaijan and Armenia after the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917, had a mostly ethnic Armenian population at the time. The two sides fought a bloody war that lasted into the early 1990s, and the region has remained a major flashpoint ever since. The conflict resumed in 2020 when Azerbaijan tried to retake Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia. Azerbaijan recaptured Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023, prompting almost all of the territory's 100,000 Armenians to flee to Armenia. The leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, for peace talks last month, but no breakthrough in the decades-old conflict was announced. The Trump administration intensified its efforts to seek a resolution in March when the president dispatched his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to the region. The prospective agreement could potentially put an end to decades of conflict and set the stage for a reopening of key transportation corridors across the South Caucasus that have been shut since the early 1990s. US officials told The Associated Press news agency that the agreements included a major breakthrough establishing a key transit corridor across the region, which had been an obstacle in peace talks. The agreement, according to the officials, would give the US leasing rights to develop the corridor and name it the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. It would link Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan region, which is separated from the rest of the country by a 32-kilometre (20-mile) patch of Armenia's territory. The transit corridor is expected to eventually include a rail line, oil and gas lines, and fibre optic lines, allowing for the movement of goods and eventually people.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US pauses most visa applications from Zimbabwe
The United States has announced a pause on all routine visa applications for citizens of Zimbabwe. The State Department said in a statement on Thursday that the US embassy in Zimbabwe would pause all routine visa services starting from Friday 'while we address concerns with the Government of Zimbabwe'. The embassy described the measure as temporary and part of the Trump administration's efforts to 'prevent visa overstay and misuse'. Most diplomatic and official visas would be exempt from the pause, the US said. The US has enforced new travel restrictions on citizens from several African countries under President Donald Trump's broader immigration enforcement policies. In June, the US put in place travel bans on citizens from 12 countries, seven of them in Africa. It increased restrictions on seven other nations, three of them African. The US has also demanded that 36 countries, the majority of them in Africa, improve their vetting of travellers or face a ban on their citizens visiting the United States. Zimbabwe, Malawi and Zambia were all on that list of 36 countries asked to improve their citizens' travel documentation and take steps to address the status of their nationals who are in the US illegally. 'The Trump Administration is protecting our nation and our citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process,' the US State Department said on Thursday. The announcement came days after the US unveiled a pilot project requiring citizens of two other African countries, Malawi and Zambia, to pay a bond of up to $15,000 for tourist or business visas. The bond will be forfeited if the applicant stays in the US after their visa expires. The new bond policy announced on Tuesday requires Malawians and Zambians to pay bonds of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 as part of their application for a tourist or business visa to the US. Under the programme, citizens of those countries must also arrive and depart at one of three airports: Boston's Logan International Airport, New York's John F Kennedy International Airport or Dulles International Airport near Washington, DC. The visa bond pilot programme will start on August 20, the State Department said.
