EAM Jaishankar to meet Russian counterpart Lavrov amid US sanctions threat
Jaishankar travelled to Russia this week to co-chair a meeting of a key bilateral body that oversees trade and economic relations between the two countries amid continuing strains between New Delhi and Washington over trade-related issues and the Trump administration's strident criticism of energy and defence cooperation between India and Russia.
On Wednesday, Jaishankar and Russian deputy prime minister Denis Manturov co-chaired a meeting of the Inter-Governmental Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological and Cultural Cooperation, during which the external affairs minister backed a 'more creative and innovative approach' to tackle challenges posed by a complex geopolitical situation – an apparent reference to the churn caused by the trade and tariff policies of the US administration.
Lavrov and Jaishankar are expected to focus on current and prospective areas of bilateral cooperation, with the focus on 'promoting transportation, logistics, banking and financial chains independent from countries imposing sanctions', the Russian embassy said in a statement.
Also Read: Jaishankar, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov to meet in Moscow on Aug 21
They are also expected to discuss 'expanding the use of national currencies in mutual [trade] settlements', the statement said.
Following Western sanctions on Russia over the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, India and Russia have largely switched over to the use of rupee and ruble for trade settlement. Russian officials said on Wednesday that almost 90% of trade settlements are currently done in national currencies.
In a reference to Putin's planned visit for a summit with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Russian embassy said Jaishankar and Lavrov will also discuss the schedule of upcoming contacts between the two sides. Russian officials confirmed on Wednesday that Putin will travel to India later in the year, though dates for the trip haven't been finalised.
'The foundation of the Russian-Indian special and privileged strategic partnership is mutual trust and respect,' the Russian embassy said. 'Moscow and New Delhi stand for multipolarity as an integral factor in ensuring the balance of the world order that has emerged over the past decades.'
Besides reviewing cooperation in transport, energy, agriculture and scientific and technical matters, the two foreign ministers will discuss global issues and collaboration at the UN, Brics, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and G20. They are also expected to exchange views on the situation in Ukraine and Afghanistan, and the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Jaishankar and Manturov also participated in the India-Russia Business Forum on Wednesday night to discuss trade cooperation with heads of business organisations of the two countries. Jaishankar said growing business and deepening cooperation between India and Russia are 'no longer simple propositions' because of changes in the two economies and the 'uncertainties created by the global environment'.
'That India and Russia have nurtured one of the steadiest relationships between major nations in current times is now widely recognised. However, that did not automatically translate into significant economic cooperation,' he said. 'Our trade basket remains limited and till recently, so did our trade volume. It may have grown in recent years, but then, so too has the trade deficit.'
The diversification and balancing of trade require more strenuous efforts and are essential to reach higher trade targets, he added.
India-Russia trade touched a record of $68.7 billion in 2024-25, though India's exports were worth only $4.88 billion. Russian officials have said Moscow is working to address this trade imbalance by removing trade barriers, pushing alternative logistics corridors and developing payments mechanisms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
21 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Behind Trump's pursuit of ending Ukraine war
The spree of diplomacy initiated by President Donald Trump to try and bring the Russia-Ukraine war to a close has unveiled a complex dynamic wherein structural factors outweigh individual leaders and the personal chemistry among them. It would be wishful thinking that, if only Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin could conjure up some magic through their uncanny mutual admiration, and then draw Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and regional bigwigs into a charmed circle, the worst war in Europe since 1945 might be halted. It must be acknowledged that Trump's heterodox methods do hold potential to break the mould and get out of the present morass. (AFP) The ugly reality is that Russian bombs and missiles are continuing to rain down on Ukraine even as Trump, Putin, Zelensky and European heads of government embarked on an extended exercise of in-person meetings and consultations to find a resolution. The aftermath of the high-profile Trump-Putin summit in Alaska and the subsequent US-Ukraine-Europe gathering in Washington proves that wars reflect competing structural interests and these interests prevent easy and instantaneous fairytale endings. Readers may recall the three unprecedented meetings between Trump and the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un in 2018 and 2019, which eventually yielded no deal on denuclearisation due to dissonance of interests. Both at the Alaska summit, and subsequently the large group meetings in Washington among the US, Ukraine and the Europeans, effusive praise, positive body language and expressions of sincere intent to turn a page could not mask the underlying mismatch in the goals of the principal parties. For Trump, apart from self-glorification and an obsessive claim to the Nobel Peace Prize, the main motivations for a direct one-on-one with Putin and the consensus-building exercises with allies of the US are to reset Russia-US relations after decades of hostility, offload the burden of the US having to primarily aid Ukraine's resistance, and potentially script a 'reverse Nixon' manoeuvre of befriending Russia to counterbalance China. For Putin, the objectives of entering into talks are to dangle economic opportunities and 'pragmatic relations' with the US in return for recognition of Russia's permanent takeover of occupied Ukrainian territory, and to dispel the shadow of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) on Ukraine and other former Soviet spaces. The fact that Trump and Putin used identical language and called for a 'peace agreement' or a 'lasting long-term settlement' rather than just a ceasefire, which Ukraine and the Europeans have been demanding, has been interpreted by critics as American appeasement of Russia as the latter keeps attacking and swallowing more Ukrainian territory. But there are contradictory moves too and the devil lies in the details. The diplomatic pow-wows among the trans-Atlantic allies demonstrated that Trump is not fully deferring to Putin. Despite his personal preference to transfer responsibilities for Ukraine's security to the Europeans, Trump has come around to accept that the US cannot wash its hands off the business of sustaining the independence of Ukraine. His assurance to European counterparts that the US will commit to 'coordination' of security guarantees for Ukraine so that it remains sovereign and free from future Russian expansionism is most consequential. Continued American weapons supplies (Zelensky said it would involve purchases worth a whopping $90 billion), American air power, military intelligence and logistics, and American strategic posturing in parts of Ukraine that remain outside Russian control would imply that Nato's de facto presence and pressure on Russia's doorstep and the further integration of Ukraine into the western camp will intensify in the future. Putin's insistence that the 'root causes' of the war must be addressed and his demands that Ukraine should be politically neutral, collide head-on with the drive to deepen Ukraine's western orientation and nest its security within Nato-like arrangements. Notwithstanding the massive losses Russia has sustained in this war, Putin still seeks a final settlement in which he will be left alone to carve out a Russian sphere of influence in the regions under the former Soviet Union and the Czarist empire. The security guarantees likely to be worked out for Ukraine are the crux of the matter, and they will be of greater consequence for Europe's stability than the nitty-gritty haggling over what specific territories Ukraine will keep and concede to Russia. In spite of the lack of convergence of interests over the ultimate post-war security architecture, it must be acknowledged that Trump's heterodox methods do hold potential to break the mould and get out of the present morass. Since 2022, the US and its European allies tried the combination of sanctioning Russia and arming and financing Ukraine's resistance with the assumption that this would wear down Putin and bring him to heel. But the western military and economic pushback was half-baked and it did not open doors for a ceasefire, not to mention a full peace. Trump overestimates his own deal-making genius, but at least he does not treat Putin with liberal ideological contempt. By throwing the mainstream western liberal foreign policy playbook out of the window and directly engaging with Russia and even persuading the Europeans to soften their hardline positions, Trump is finally giving the respect that Putin craved for. Liberals have slammed Trump for rehabilitating Putin despite the latter's war crimes in Ukraine. But carrying on with the old ways was leading nowhere even as mass casualties and destruction of infrastructure kept mounting. The way forward is to stick to diplomacy and narrow the differences. If all relevant stakeholders, including the Europeans, are roped in to sort out the structural divergences and a grand bargain is struck, everyone will be better off. Trump's quest for a Nobel prize may sound quixotic, but the peace process he has initiated should be given a chance because there is no Plan B whatsoever. Sreeram Chaulia is professor and dean at the Jindal School of International Affairs. The views expressed are personal
Deccan Herald
23 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
China expresses 'surprise' over clarification on Jaishankar's comments on Taiwan
"We are surprised at India's clarification," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a media briefing. She was replying to a question from China's official media on reports of India's clarification over Jaishankar's remarks.
Scroll.in
23 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Why the ban on online games played with money is no solution to gambling, user safety concerns
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, passed by the Rajya Sabha on Thursday, threatens to upend the vibrant, multi-billion-dollar online gaming sector in India. By banning all online money games outright, the government has missed the opportunity to take a calibrated approach to regulating a sector that employs over 200,000 people and contributes significantly to the national exchequer. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the bill cites concerns such as addiction, money laundering and user safety among other concerns to justify the prohibition on online money games. There always has been a plethora of options to regulate the gaming sector, ranging from creating a licensing framework for operators of real money games, imposing deposit and loss limits to protect users to implementing strict know-your-customer measures and anti-money laundering provisions. Similar models have been successfully adopted around the world. Such an approach would have provided the government with the necessary oversight while allowing the industry to grow responsibly. Instead, a rushed and unilateral law has been enacted, one that will now face years of legal challenges. But even a successful legal challenge will come too late for many businesses that would have already been forced to shut down. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 is here to boost innovation & protect citizens! The Bill encourages e-sports & online social games while prohibiting harmful online money gaming services, advertisements & financial transactions related to them.… — Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (@MIB_India) August 20, 2025 The ban is likely to be the death knell for more than 400 Indian companies and threatens to wipe out an industry that was projected to reach a valuation of $9.1 billion by 2029. The loss of revenue from the gaming market could cost the government an estimated Rs 20,000 crore in annual Goods and Services Tax and income tax. The bill not only threatens current jobs but could also stifle talent development. Game developers, graphic designers and engineers – a highly skilled workforce – will be forced to either move to other sectors or leave the country. The gaming sector provides a unique opportunity for India to lead the world in digital regulation. But choosing prohibition over partnership threatens to reverse the course on many laudable steps the government has adopted to create an enabling environment for innovation in India. Furthermore, a prohibitionist approach is a gift to the black market. With the ban on regulated, compliant Indian businesses, the demand for these games is unlikely to vanish. Instead, users may migrate to unregulated, illegal offshore platforms that operate without any safeguards, age verification, or consumer protection. This creates a far more dangerous environment, making users vulnerable to fraud, data theft and financial exploitation. It also starves the government of tax revenue and makes it impossible to monitor illicit financial flows. Gaming is cool. Gambling isn't 🚫 With the new Online Gaming Bill: • Real-money apps out • Betting and gambling banned • No fake monetary-return promises A safe, secure and fun gaming space for India. #OnlineGamingBill2025 @GoI_MeitY @MIB_India — MyGovIndia (@mygovindia) August 20, 2025 The gaming bill could also ward off foreign investors. The gaming industry was viewed as a sunrise sector attracting significant inflows from foreign investors despite the regulatory uncertainty around real money games. However, the move to prohibit online money games and in effect shutter the operations of an entire sector without consultation is likely to dissuade investors from taking risks to invest in sectors that thrive on innovation and push the boundaries of what is permissible. The gaming industry is dynamic, with segments ranging from e-sports and casual social games to much-debated real-money games. Any legislation concerning this sector, therefore, demands a nuanced understanding of its intricacies. Previous conversations about the legislation had explored a measured approach, like getting the sector to establish self-regulatory organisations and making a distinction between games of skill and games of chance. Good governance demands that regulations are proportionate and well-considered. In a complex digital economy, this means working with those who have built the technology and understand the market dynamics. The lack of consultation has led directly to several flaws in the bill itself. Most glaringly, the gaming bill fails to make a clear distinction between games of skill and games of chance. This is not a trivial legal point, but the very foundation upon which the industry has operated for years. Several courts, including the Supreme Court, have upheld the legality of skill-based games such as poker and fantasy sports. By lumping all real-money games into the same category, the gaming bill ignores judicial precedent and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the sector. The implementation of the gaming bill should be put on hold until a more workable solution is found. Good regulation is not about wielding a regulatory hammer but about building a stable and predictable framework that fosters innovation and protects citizens in a way that is smart, effective, and sustainable.
