Despite a flurry of meetings on Russia's war in Ukraine, major obstacles to peace remain
To agree to a peace deal with Russia, Ukraine wants assurances that it can deter any future attacks by the Kremlin's forces.
That means, Zelenskyy says, a strong Ukrainian army that is provided with weapons and training by Western partners.
It could potentially also mean securing a guarantee resembling NATO's collective defense mandate, which sees an attack on one member of the alliance as an attack on all. How that would work is not clear.
Additionally, Kyiv's European allies are looking to set up a force that could backstop any peace agreement in Ukraine.
A coalition of 30 countries, including European nations, Japan and Australia, have signed up to support the initiative, although the role that the US might play in such a force is unclear.
European leaders, fearing Moscow's territorial ambitions won't stop in Ukraine, are keen to lock America's military might into the plan.
On Tuesday, Trump told Fox News' 'Fox & Friends' that US troops would not be sent to help defend Ukraine against Russia.
Russia has repeatedly said that it would not accept NATO troops in Ukraine.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron co-chaired an online meeting Tuesday of the coalition countries.
Agreeing on a ceasefire
Ukraine and its European supporters have repeatedly called for a ceasefire while peace talks are held.
Putin has balked at that prospect. With his forces inching forward in Ukraine, he has little incentive to freeze their movement.
Ahead of his meeting with the Russian leader last week, Trump threatened Russia with 'severe consequences' if it didn't accept a ceasefire. Afterward, he dropped that demand and said it was best to focus on a comprehensive peace deal — an approach that Putin has pushed for.
Trump said in Monday's Oval Office meeting with Zelenskyy that a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine was 'unnecessary.' But after his closed-door meeting with European leaders and Zelenskyy, Trump told reporters that 'all of us would obviously prefer the immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace.'
Where Trump ultimately falls on that issue is important because it could affect how much Ukrainian land Russia has seized by the time the two sides get around to hammering out how much it could keep.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
9 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
U.S. Allies Still Waiting for Tariff Relief on Autos and Steel
TOKYO—In return for billions of dollars of investment pledges and promises to buy more American goods, U.S. allies in Asia and Europe say President Trump agreed to lower tariffs on key exports such as cars and steel. Weeks later, they are still waiting. Earlier this year, Trump threatened many of the U.S.'s trading partners with lofty import duties. Then, in a rapid series of deals culminating this month, he lowered them in pacts that, in some cases, included pledges by those countries to invest in the U.S. The administration, however, has so far left in place a series of tariffs levied for national-security reasons on sensitive products such as cars, steel and aluminum. The delays in addressing those tariffs—as well as discrepancies over investment and other issues—have created uncertainty for businesses and policymakers over future U.S. trade policy. Japan and South Korea said agreements they struck with the U.S. included reducing to 15% a 25% tariff on imported automobiles—but for now that levy is still being collected, adding to mounting losses at some of the world's biggest carmakers. Toyota Motor estimates tariffs will cost it around $9.5 billion in lost operating profit in the fiscal year ending in March, an estimate that had assumed tariffs on U.S. car imports would be reduced this month. Even the U.K., which was the first country to agree to a new trade pact with Trump back in May, is still waiting for a reduction in steep tariffs on steel. The two sides are thrashing out final terms on exactly which U.K. steel exports will qualify. A U.S. administration official said the U.S. agreed to discuss and possibly adjust these so-called Section 232 tariffs but said the administration didn't make a firm commitment to change them as part of these initial agreements. Such teething problems illustrate the challenge of putting Trump's rapid-fire trade pacts into practice. Traditional trade agreements run to hundreds of pages and seek to define clear rules for cross-border commerce to encourage companies to take the risky step of engaging in international trade. Trade lawyers painstakingly haggle over tariffs and regulatory barriers to broaden market access. In his second term, Trump prefers bold pledges and handshake agreements to detailed legal texts with binding commitments. His trade policy is less about expanding international trade than it is about narrowing chronic U.S. trade deficits and recouping what he believes are billions of dollars lost to foreign countries under the existing global system. Trading partners, too, have shied away from formal agreements that would impose specific legal obligations on their side. That partly reflects a desire to avoid bureaucratic entanglements and move swiftly, according to analysts and government officials, as well as a wariness of Trump's commitment to agreements he does make. Trump in his first term signed new trade accords with Japan, South Korea, Canada and Mexico, among others, all of which he has effectively repudiated by unilaterally raising tariffs. President Trump in his second term prefers bold pledges and handshake agreements. Answering critics in Japan's Parliament who wanted to see a written version of Tokyo's trade pact with Trump, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told lawmakers a formal treaty would mean even greater delays in implementation—without a guarantee that Trump would stick with it. The EU is pushing for a written statement—but has said it won't be legally binding. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in an interview on CNBC on Tuesday that documents with deal terms for countries including Japan and South Korea are 'weeks away,' but that investors shouldn't expect '250-page trading agreements.' Unlike the stability and confidence-building brought by traditional trade deals, this new, looser approach to trade policy means delays, disputes and misunderstandings are the new normal for trade relations with the U.S., said Simon Evenett, a professor at IMD Business School in Switzerland who runs Global Trade Alert, which monitors trade policy. 'The upshot is we inject uncertainty rather than remove it,' Evenett said. 'It's the price you have to pay with Washington these days.' An administration official said the documents being prepared 'will more precisely lay out deal terms and put to bed any lingering uncertainty.' The official added that the president reserves the right to adjust tariff rates if he judges the other side has reneged on its commitments. As well as Japan, South Korea and the European Union, the U.S. has also reached preliminary agreements with smaller but significant trade players such as Vietnam. A deal with China has proved tougher, but Trump this month extended a deadline for higher tariffs on China to come into effect to allow further talks and a possible meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The typical format for a Trump deal includes a pledge by the U.S. trading partner to invest big sums in the U.S., promises to buy more American exports, and a lower tariff rate in return. Almost as soon as some of these pacts were announced, cracks in what exactly they entailed started to show. Following a deal with Seoul, the White House announced that South Korea would provide 'historic market access to American goods like autos and rice.' Yet Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol, one of South Korea's top trade negotiators, told reporters when he returned home that he didn't discuss rice with the U.S. team at all. An administration official said White House announcements have laid out what trading partners have agreed to and 'we expect them to abide by these commitments.' Investment pledges have proved especially controversial, with U.S. allies pushing back on Trump's insistence that he will have considerable discretion over how those funds are invested. For instance, a $350 billion investment fund that was the cornerstone of the pact with South Korea, of which $150 billion is earmarked for cooperation in shipbuilding, would be 'owned and controlled by the United States, and selected by myself, as president,' Trump said. Kim Yong-beom, South Korea's presidential chief of staff for policy, said that the fund 'is not a structure where the U.S. unilaterally decides,' and that South Korea will also require the investment projects proposed by the U.S. to be 'commercially meaningful.' Japan's top tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, flew back to Washington only days after striking Japan's trade deal. In meetings with Trump officials, he protested that a July 31 White House executive order seemed to 'stack' a new levy of 15% on top of any pre-existing tariffs on U.S. imports from Japan. He had told Japanese lawmakers the 15% wouldn't be piled on top. He ultimately returned with a commitment from U.S. officials, he said, to revise the order. The U.S. has agreed not to stack the new tariffs for Japan, an administration official said, though the official added that this wasn't part of the deal Japan had initially negotiated. The EU is also waiting for relief on auto tariffs and is negotiating improved terms for steel producers. Asked about the vehicle tariffs recently, an EU spokesman said, 'The U.S. has made political commitments to us in this respect and we look forward to them being implemented.' Write to Jason Douglas at
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What both the US and Russia don't understand about today's India
By Manoj Sinha and Ramanand Sharma Prime Minister Modi's absence in Alaska a few days ago signaled the end of a temporal fantasy once hyped at rallies and whispered in think tanks: The Trump-Putin-Modi triangle. For a moment, it seemed alluring. The idea had flair. But illusions do not bend history. The triangle collapsed not with a dramatic explosion, but with the slow grind of reality. Trump always approached international politics the way he did real estate deals: As transactions. Nations were customers or competitors, never equals. NATO allies were free riders, Russia and India were dead economies, and trade deficits were personal insults. Tariffs soon became his weapon of choice. At Houston's 'Howdy Modi' rally, he had basked in camaraderie, hugging Modi before a roaring crowd. Yet the knife was always under the table. By 2019, India's duty-free trade privileges were scrapped. Last month, Trump slapped 50 per cent tariffs on Indian goods, punishing Delhi for refusing to abandon Russian oil. He accused India of 'financing Putin's war machine,' even as tariffs threatened $87 billion in exports. For Washington, it was moral posturing, but for India, it was survival. Russian crude at $20–30 cheaper than Brent was oxygen for a nation of 1.4 billion. Trump assumed coercion would bring Delhi to heel. Instead, India reminded Washington it was not Mexico, Japan, or Canada. Trump's bullying only confirmed what Delhi has long known: America's friendship often comes with a cost. Since 1947, India has refused to mortgage sovereignty to any bloc, be it Washington, Moscow, or Beijing. That explains what looks like a contradiction to the West. India drills with the US Navy while buying Russian S-400s. Modi beams alongside Trump, then lands in Moscow the next week. To Washington, this feels like betrayal. To Delhi, it is sovereignty in action. If Trump misread India, Putin did too. Isolated and sanctioned, he wooed Modi with oil discounts, defence offers, and a 'privileged partnership.' Trade surged to $65 billion, but Putin wanted more: An ideological ally, a BRICS crusader against the West. But PM Modi never abandoned the US Dollar and never let BRICS become anti-American. For Delhi, Moscow was a supplier, a hedge, a lever against China, nothing more. Putin mistook invoices for loyalty. The triangle cracked when Trump claimed he had 'stopped a war', boasting of mediating between India and Pakistan and later invited Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff to the White House. For Delhi, this was sacrilege. Kashmir is bilateral for India, never a playground for American theatrics. Meanwhile, Europe scolds India for buying Russian oil, accusing it of funding Putin. But the hypocrisy is glaring. Europe gorged on Russian gas for decades before discovering a moral conscience. It was Europe, not India, that bankrolled Putin's war chest. India merely seized an opportunity. Even as refiners sold re-exported fuel back to Europe, Brussels sermonised. When India asked for alternatives, there was no answer. No subsidies, no discounts, just lectures. India's choice was clear: It could not allow its economy to be crippled to soothe Europe's guilt. Tariffs cannot manufacture trust. Mediation cannot overwrite sovereignty. India will keep buying Russian oil because it must. It will deepen defence ties with Washington because it should. It will trade with Europe, balance China, and shape BRICS, all on its own terms. The tragedy is that the West still refuses to accept India as an independent pole in a multipolar world. History will not remember the hugs or handshakes. Strongmen may command applause, but national interest will dictate the fate of nations. Sinha is Principal, Aryabhatta College, University of Delhi. Sharma is an Assistant Professor, Aryabhatta College, University of Delhi
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
Russia says it will keep selling oil to India despite US tariffs
Russia expects India to continue buying its oil, a senior official said, even as the South Asian nation faces higher US tariffs and harsh criticism from Trump administration officials for the trade. India's imports of Russian crude are likely to stay at current levels, Evgeny Griva, the deputy trade representative of Russia in India, told reporters in New Delhi on Wednesday. The remarks come amid rising tariff tensions between the US and India. President Donald Trump has imposed a 25% tariff on Indian goods and threatened to double it to 50% on Aug. 27 — a rate that would make India's $85 billion in annual US exports uncompetitive. Half of that penalty is for New Delhi's purchases of Russian oil, which the US sees as helping fund Russian President Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. India has defended its right to buy from the cheapest source, calling the tariffs 'unreasonable.' Russia sells oil to India at about a 5% discount, leaving Asia's third-largest economy with few alternatives, Griva said. He projected bilateral trade to grow by about 10% a year. For India, the advantage of Russian oil is that it can trade at a lower cost, making it a key tool for keeping domestic inflation in check. India has edged away from the US in the face of tariff threats. Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed Putin as a 'friend' after a call with the Russian leader this week and New Delhi has moved to bolster relations with China. Modi is set to visit China in late August — his first trip to the country in seven years — to meet President Xi Jinping. India's External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar is on a three-day visit to Russia to co-chair bilateral talks on trade, science and other issues. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday repeated Washington's threat to raise import duties on Indian goods, saying it was 'secondary tariffs for buying the sanctioned Russian oil.' He said India was 'profiteering' from the oil purchases, and 'some of the richest families in India' were benefiting. India historically relied more on the Middle East for oil, importing little from Russia. That changed in 2022, after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and a $60-per-barrel price cap imposed by the Group of Seven nations that aimed to limit the Kremlin's oil revenues while keeping supplies flowing globally. India's imports from Russia amounted to about 1.7 million barrels a day, or nearly 37% of the nation's overseas purchases, in mid-2025. After a brief pause earlier this month, India's state-run refiners have returned to buying Russian oil, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday. The US is India's top trading partner, while Russia ranks fourth. Roman Babushkin, a senior Russian diplomat in India, said Moscow is ready to take more of India's tariff-hit goods and help India manufacture jet engines domestically.
