What’s on Trump’s mind as US adjusts to multipolarity
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | December 12, 2025
The world order’s transformation to multipolarity is a work in progress with the variables at work, but its outcome will be largely determined by the alignment of the three big powers — the United States, Russia and China. Historically, the ‘triangle’ appeared as the lid came off the Sino-Soviet schism in the 1960s and a ferocious public acrimony erupted between Moscow and Beijing, which prompted the Nixon administration to moot Henry Kissinger’s secret mission to Beijing to meet up face to face with Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou En-lai and, hopefully, work out a modus vivendii to jointly counter Russia.
Revisiting the Sino-Soviet schism, it is well understood by now that the US-Soviet – China triangle never really ran the course that Kissinger had envisaged. Kissinger’s failure to consolidate the opening of relations with China was partly due to his loss of power by January 1977 and, in a systemic sense, inevitably so, given the complexity of the boiling cauldron of Sino-Soviet schism where ideology mixed with politics and geopolitics — and realpolitik.
While the western mythology was that the US built up the foundations of China’s rise, historiography points in another direction, namely, that Beijing always had in mind the dialectics at work and even as a degree of compatibility of Chinese and American interests in checking the expansion of Soviet power existed, Beijing was determined to avoid military conflict with the Soviet Union and concentrated its attention on improving its tactical position within the US-Chinese-Soviet triangle.
On its part, the Soviet Union also consistently promoted increased exchanges with China despite the bitter acrimony and even military clashes with a view to undercut perceived advantages the US derived from the Sino-Soviet split — and even sought to persuade China to accept the military and territorial status quo in Asia.
In fact, to retard Sino-US cooperation against them in the early 1970s, the Soviets offered at one point to modify their territorial claims along their border, to sign non-aggression pacts and / or agreements prohibiting the use of force, to base Sino-Soviet relationship on the five principles of peaceful co-existence, and to restore high-level contacts, including party ties, in the interests of their common opposition to the US.
If China largely ignored these overtures, it was almost entirely due to the great turbulence in its internal politics. Suffice to say, no sooner than Mao, the Soviet Union’s nemesis, died in September 1976 (and the curtain descended on the Cultural Revolution), Moscow followed up quickly with several gestures, including Brezhnev sending a message of condolence (the first CPSU message to China in a decade), followed by another Party message in October congratulating the newly-elected CCP Chairman Hua Guofeng, and shortly thereafter in November sending their chief negotiator for border talks Deputy Foreign Minister Ilichev back to China in an attempt to resume the border talks. But, again, if nothing came of it, that was because of China’s invasion of Vietnam and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan soon thereafter in 1980.
Indeed, looking back, the main legacy of the 1970s viewed through the prism of the US-China-Russia ‘triangle’ was the reorientation of China’s defence policy and its geopolitical realignment with the West. China made no contribution significantly to weaken the Soviet Union or to aggravate the stagnation and brewing crisis in the Soviet political economy.
Meanwhile, the Sino-US differences over Taiwan and other issues had reemerged by 1980-1982, compelling China to reassess its foreign policy strategy, which manifested in Beijing’s announcement in 1982 of its “independent” foreign policy — plainly put, an attempt to rely less explicitly on the US as a strategic counterweight to the Soviet Union — and the move to open “consultative talks” with Moscow, and a growing receptiveness towards the numerous pending Soviet overtures for bilateral exchanges (in sports, cultural and economic areas, etc), the overall direction being to reduce tensions with the Soviets and increase the room for manoeuvre for Beijing within the China-US-Soviet triangle.
Indeed, a broader detente between China and the Soviet Union had to wait till the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan following the Geneva Accords signed in April 1988. Nonetheless, a basic change in the Sino-Soviet relations through the 1980s appeared, which included regular scheduled summit meetings; resumption of cooperative ties between the CCP and the CPSU; Beijing’s acceptance of the pending Soviet proposals for non-aggression / non-use of force; and resumption of Sino-Soviet border questions at vice-foreign minister level.
Washington could sense the shift in Chinese policy directions vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Notably, reviewing the marked shift in the Chinese strategy, a CIA assessment noted:
“More recently, Moscow followed Brezhnev’s call in 1982 for improved relations with China with a halt in most authoritative Soviet statements critical of China. When Sino-Soviet discussions resumed in October 1982, Soviet media cut back sharply on criticism of China. And they have remained restrained on this subject, although occasional polemic exchanges marked Sino-Soviet coverage at the time of Premier Zhao Ziyang’s visit to the United States in January 1984. Moscow has continued to be critical of China through the Soviet-based clandestine radio Ba Yi… China for its part has continued criticism of Soviet foreign policy, although past attention to Soviet “revisionist” internal policies has all but disappeared since China’s own economic policies have been significantly changed after Mao’s death.”
Succinctly put, with CPSU General Secretary Gorbachev consolidating power circa late 1988 by his election to the chairmanship of the presidium of the Supreme Soviet and on a parallel track, Deng had outmaneuvered political rivals and become China’s paramount leader by 1978 — and had launched the Boluan Fanzheng program to restore political stability, rehabilitate those persecuted during the Cultural Revolution, and reduce ideological extremism — the door had opened for the two erstwhile adversaries to enter the rose garden of reconciliation.
Significantly, the timing of Gorbachev’s visit to Beijing to meet up with Deng in 1989 was far from ideal by virtue of the Tiannenmen Square incidents, but neither side proposed to postpone or reschedule the meeting. Such was the intensity of their mutual desire for reconciliation.
Today, the above résumé has become necessary when we assess the future directions of the Trump administration’s China policies. The common perception is that Trump is attempting to create a wedge between Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China with a view to isolate the latter and thwart it from surpassing the US. But there is no shred of evidence available hinting at the potential for decoupling Russia from China.
All the signs are to the contrary in the direction of the steady integration of the two countries. Last week, the Kremlin announced a visa-free regime for Chinese citizens to visit Russia. Interestingly, this was a reciprocal move. FT reported recently that a Chinese businessman has been given equity in Russia’s biggest manufacturer of drones which supplies the military — in the first known collaboration in the area of defence industry.
With the Power of Siberia 2 on the anvil, China’s dependence on Russia for its energy security will increase further. Russia’s foreign trade is undergoing a profound shift, with China replacing the EU as Russia’s main trading partner. Overall, Sino-Russian relations are closer today than they have been in decades.
On the other hand, there is no credible suggestion that the Trump administration is preparing for a war with China. Japan under its new leadership is whistling in the dark.
So, what is on Trump’s mind? In his revolutionary agenda for the remaking of the new world order, Trump aims at a strategic concord between the US on one side and Russia and China on the other. The recent US National Security Strategy strongly points in that direction, too. The implications of this revolutionary thinking for multipolarity are going to be profound — for partners such as India or allies like Japan or Germany alike.
Washington’s ‘Waiver On, Waiver Off’ Game at Chabahar
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – December 9, 2025
In recent months, Washington has swung from revoking to restoring India’s sanctions waiver for operating Iran’s Chabahar port. The ‘waiver on, waiver off’ routine, however, comes with a clear strategic intent.
The move is not just leverage over New Delhi as trade talks loom; it’s also a signal to Central Asian states that their economic futures — including access to Chabahar — depend on aligning their foreign policies with US preferences.
In September 2025, the United States pulled the rug out from under one of India’s most carefully nurtured strategic ventures: the Chabahar Port in Iran. Long viewed by New Delhi as a critical gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, Chabahar suddenly became a high-stakes chess piece in Washington’s policy game. On September 16, the US Department of State announced it would revoke the special exemption granted in 2018 under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA), with the revocation taking effect September 29. Overnight, Indian companies, shippers, insurers, and banks involved in the port’s operations were cast into uncertainty: their assets could be frozen, their access to the US financial system curtailed, and their commercial contracts imperilled.
This move did not occur in isolation. At the same time, New Delhi was itself involved in a high-stakes game with the US over bilateral trade. Specifically, it is resisting US pressure to halt oil imports from Russia. By targeting Chabahar, Washington signaled that it was willing to leverage unrelated strategic projects to enforce compliance elsewhere, effectively turning Indian economic and geopolitical interests into bargaining chips. Yet the situation shifted quickly: reports emerged on October 28 that Indian firms had halted Russian oil imports, and the very next day, the US issued a fresh six-month waiver, allowing Chabahar operations to continue without immediate penalty.
The rapid “waiver on, waiver off” cycle exposes the transactional and unpredictable logic of US sanction policy. A project that represents over $120 million in Indian investment, long-term regional connectivity, and painstaking diplomacy is reduced to a geopolitical pawn, its fate dictated less by commercial or developmental imperatives and more by Washington’s strategic calculus. This particular calculus, however, is not meant for India only. The politics of granting and restricting waivers is also tied very closely to Washington’s relationship with Central Asia.
The Central Asian gamble
Chabahar port is important not only for India but also for the landlocked states of Central Asia, offering a rare direct link to the Indian Ocean and a potential route to India that bypasses Pakistan. Several Central Asian states have expressed interest in using Chabahar Port for this purpose. Tajikistan has emerged as the most active player, signing a formal cooperation agreement with Iran in early 2025 and committing to developing a logistics hub with terminals and storage facilities. Uzbekistan has held discussions about utilising the port for trade and storage. While a lot of this is still far from being fully operational, there is little denying that a major roadblock has been the US sanctions.
In the same vein, the waiver also signals to Afghanistan, where India has recently become very active. The Taliban regime is currently involved in a border standoff with Pakistan. Kabul has suspended its trade with Pakistan, and the reopening of this route remains highly uncertain. At the same time, Washington has been pressuring the Taliban to come to terms with handing over the Bagram airbase to the US military for its potential operations against China. In this context, if Afghanistan wants to continue—and even expand—its trade with Central Asia and other countries beyond the region, i.e., with India itself, as an alternative to Pakistan, its best route goes through the Chabahar Port.
Beyond this, the US decision to grant the waiver—and unless it restricts it again in the future—also puts it in a position where it can influence several other regional trade and connectivity projects, including the Trans‑Caspian and broader International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) projects. By granting or revoking waivers, the US is signalling that it can create opportunities and or introduce uncertainty for companies and governments contemplating investment or trade through corridors that touch Iran.
For example, Central Asian states considering cargo flows via Chabahar—or via the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and beyond—must now weigh the risk that US sanctions could suddenly be applied, making insurance, financing, or banking services problematic and/or unavailable. Even if the Trans‑Caspian route itself does not pass through Iran, the interconnected nature of regional logistics networks means that a disruption at Chabahar could ripple across supply chains, raising costs or forcing alternative routing through Russia, Turkey, or China.
In essence, the waiver policy acts as a geopolitical lever. Its application is meant to put pressure on countries and companies so that they align their foreign and trade policies with US preferences, discouraging full exploitation of alternatives like the Trans‑Caspian corridor that could reduce American influence. The US has, for some time, been trying to expand its geopolitical footprint in Central Asia. Its ability to strangulate or allow Chabahar helps it signal its continued relevance. On the whole, the uncertainty imposed by such sanctions creates a risk premium, slows governmental and private investment, and subtly nudges regional actors toward pathways that the US finds strategically acceptable, even if they are less efficient or commercially less viable.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs
Putin’s India Visit Signals Folly of Western Pressure – Academic
Sputnik – 06.12.2025
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India may have sealed dozens of strategic partnerships, but its core purpose transcends trade: Moscow is using its Soviet-era ally to send a defiant message to the West that it will not be isolated over the conflict in Ukraine, US academic Ramesh Mohan says.
Putin left New Delhi on Friday after witnessing with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi the signing of over a dozen bilateral agreements on technology, agriculture, tourism and defense cooperation. The subject of Ukraine or the increasingly bellicose US and EU sanctions against Russian oil weren’t in any of the signed documents.
Yet, those in the room — or thousands of miles away in any of the Western capitals that had been plotting their next move against the Kremlin — could not have missed the true significance of Putin’s two-day visit, said Mohan.
“The core message here is that Russia still maintains strong global alliances despite the multitude of Western sanctions and attempts to isolate Moscow over the war in Ukraine,” Mohan, an economics professor at Bryant University in Smithfield, Rhode Island, told Sputnik.
Mohan, who also teaches about economics in international politics and regularly leads Bryant University study missions to Asia, said Modi was also sending a message to the world that US pressure will not dictate India’s policy.
“Modi is showing the West that India will not be cowed into abandoning its own national and strategic interests,” said Mohan. “The Russia-India alliance, particularly, is a long-standing, privileged partnership rooted in the Soviet era. I don’t ever see India forsaking that.”
The last time Putin met Modi was in the presence of Chinese President Xi Jinping when they attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in the Chinese port city of Tianjin in September.
The visual display of camaraderie between the three leaders had sent a message to the world even then that the so-called Global South solidarity could not be broken in the face of Western pressure, said Mohan.
Putin reveals new plans with China and India
RT | December 2, 2025
Moscow wants to further develop its economic ties with its key trade partners, China and India, President Vladimir Putin said at the ‘Russia Calling!’ investment forum on Tuesday.
Beijing and New Delhi have refused to join Western sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict and have instead boosted trade with Russia. The Russian leader hailed what he called a “rational and pragmatic” approach to cooperation taken by the two countries.
Putin paid tribute to “many years of friendship and strategic partnership” with both China and India, adding that the volume of trade with each has “significantly grown” over the past three years.
“We are aiming at taking cooperation with the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India to a whole new level, including through enhancing its technological aspect,” Putin stated.
Russia and China nearly doubled their bilateral trade from 2020 to 2024, surpassing $240 billion last year. Last month, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said that the two nations had abandoned Western currencies in mutual settlements, with most payments now conducted in rubles and yuan.
Last month, Moscow and Beijing published a joint roadmap for further developing bilateral ties. They vowed to provide mutual assistance on issues ranging from agriculture, trade, ecology, and investment to AI and space exploration.
India’s exports to Russia are currently worth $5 billion, while imports from Russia amount to $64 billion. The countries are aiming to increase bilateral trade to $100 billion by 2030. Russia is also expanding joint production with India in many areas, both military and civilian.
Earlier on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow is also ready to share its technological knowledge with New Delhi. “Whatever can be shared with India, will be shared,” he said.
Putin is expected to discuss the joint production of Russia’s fifth generation Sukhoi Su-57 fighter jets with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his trip to India later this week.
India’s Tejas fighter crash in Dubai deals major blow to export hopes
Al Mayadeen | November 23, 2025
India’s ambitions to market its home-grown Tejas fighter abroad have suffered a major setback after the jet crashed during a demonstration at the Dubai Airshow, an event attended by military delegations and arms buyers from around the world, Reuters said on Sunday.
The pilot, Wing Commander Namansh Syal, was killed, and the accident immediately raised questions over the future of India’s flagship aerospace program.
The cause of the crash has not yet been determined, but analysts say the optics alone complicate New Delhi’s long-running effort to present Tejas as a viable, export-ready platform. As one expert put it, “The imagery is brutal”, recalling previous high-profile airshow accidents that undermined national showcases. “A crash sends quite the opposite signal: a dramatic failure,” said Douglas A. Birkey of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He noted, however, that despite the negative publicity, the jet is likely to recover its momentum over time because “fighter sales are driven by high order political realities, which supersede a one-off incident.”
Tejas Turbulence
India has spent more than four decades developing Tejas, originally conceived to replace aging Soviet-era MiG-21s. The project survived sanctions after India’s 1998 nuclear tests, engine-development failures, and production delays at state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Although the Indian Air Force has ordered 180 advanced Mk-1A units, deliveries have stalled amid supply-chain problems involving GE Aerospace engines.
A former HAL executive said the Dubai crash effectively freezes near-term export hopes, explaining that “the crash in Dubai rules out exports for now.” HAL had been courting buyers across Asia, Africa, and Latin America and even opened a regional office in Malaysia in 2023. With exports now unlikely, the company is expected to prioritise domestic production. Meanwhile, India’s fighter fleet has dwindled to 29 operational squadrons, far below the authorized 42, as older MiG-29s, Jaguars, and Mirage 2000s approach retirement. An Indian Air Force officer said, “The Tejas was supposed to be their replacement. But it is facing production issues.”
Fleet decisions
To plug immediate gaps, Indian officials are weighing additional off-the-shelf purchases, including more French Rafales, and continue to examine US and Russian proposals for the F-35 and Su-57, an unusual pairing of 5th-generation jets seen together this week in Dubai.
Despite the setback, defense analysts argue, according to Reuters, that Tejas remains central to India’s long-term industrial goals. Walter Ladwig of the Royal United Services Institute noted that the aircraft’s most enduring value will come from the ecosystem it creates, not export sales, stating that its significance lies in the “industrial and technological base it creates for India’s future combat-aircraft programmes.”
Rivalry Renewed
The airshow also became another arena for India-Pakistan rivalry. Pakistan showcased its JF-17 Thunder Block III, jointly produced with China, and announced a provisional contract with a “friendly country” for the aircraft. The jet was displayed alongside Chinese PL-15E missiles, which US and Indian officials claim were used to down at least one Indian Rafale in the fierce aerial clash between the neighbours earlier this year. Pakistan’s aerospace industry promoted the fighter as “battle-tested”, a reference to the recent four-day conflict.
Indian officials, meanwhile, noted that Tejas was not deployed in that fight, nor did it take part in the Republic Day flypast in New Delhi, citing safety considerations associated with single-engine aircraft.
Tata Group’s ties with Israel: How Indian capital fuels occupation and genocide
By Ranjan Solomon | MEMO | November 6, 2025
The mask of modernity
For over a century, the Tata Group has been celebrated as the conscience of Indian capitalism — a family of companies that fused profit with philanthropy, progress with ethics. To millions of Indians, “Tata” evokes trust: a brand woven into the very narrative of modern India. Yet behind this carefully cultivated image of virtue lies a darker reality – one that now links Tata directly to the Israeli war machine devastating Gaza.
A new report released by the U.S.-based South Asian collective Salam, titled “Architects of Occupation: The Tata Group, Indian Capital, and the India–Israel Alliance,” alleges that Tata is “at the heart” of the India–Israel military partnership and is “fundamentally embedded in the architecture of occupation, surveillance, and dispossession.” TRT World’s coverage of the report further details how the conglomerate’s various subsidiaries feed directly into Israel’s military-industrial complex.
The findings: A web of complicity
The report identifies several subsidiaries of the Tata Group as active participants in Israel’s defence and security ecosystem.
Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL), one of India’s largest private defence manufacturers, has long-standing partnerships with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). Together, they manufacture key components for the Barak-8 surface-to-air missile system, which forms the backbone of Israel’s naval defence and is used in strikes on Gaza. TASL also produces aerostructures for F-16 fighter jets and fuselages for Apache attack helicopters, both extensively deployed by the Israeli Air Force.
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), another Tata subsidiary, is alleged to provide the chassis for MDT David light armoured vehicles used by Israeli forces in West Bank patrols and urban crowd-suppression.
Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), the IT giant, is reportedly involved in building digital infrastructure for Israel’s governmental and financial sectors, including participation in Project Nimbus — the controversial cloud-computing contract co-run by Google and Amazon that facilitates Israeli state surveillance.
The Salam report argues that these are not isolated commercial arrangements but part of a systemic integration of Indian capital within Israel’s “occupation economy.”
Tata’s public sponsorship of global events, such as the New York City Marathon, is described as “sports-washing” — a means of masking its participation in war profiteering behind gestures of global modernity and social responsibility. Despite repeated inquiries, Tata Group has not issued a public response to the allegations.
From state to corporation: The India–Israel nexus
Tata’s complicity does not exist in a vacuum. It is the corporate mirror of a larger state transformation in India’s foreign and defence policy.
Since the 1990s, and more assertively under Narendra Modi, India has shifted from quiet engagement with Israel to a full-blown strategic partnership. India is now the largest buyer of Israeli arms, accounting for roughly 40–45 per cent of Israel’s defence exports.
Joint ventures proliferate:
- The Barak-8 missile project, co-developed by DRDO and IAI, is assembled in part at Tata facilities.
- India’s purchase of Heron drones, Phalcon AWACS systems, and Spike anti-tank missiles are products of the same industrial network that sustains Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
- Several of these systems are used by India in Kashmir, linking one occupation to another — and revealing a disturbing symmetry between the surveillance of Palestinians and Kashmiris.
In this geopolitical alignment, Hindutva nationalism and Zionism converge on the ideological front. Both justify domination through a rhetoric of “security” and “counter-terrorism.” Both normalise militarism as a form of patriotism. And both have turned their societies into laboratories of digital surveillance and ethno-religious control.
Thus, the Tata Group’s partnerships are not merely commercial. They are the economic expression of a shared political project — where corporate capital, state power, and ideology intertwine.
Corporate complicity and ethical evasion
Tata is hardly alone. Global corporations have long buttressed the Israeli state’s apparatus of control. Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar, and now Google and Amazon have all been accused of enabling occupation and surveillance. What makes Tata’s case particularly striking is its moral posture.
A company that invokes Gandhi and philanthropy in its advertising now profits from an economy of death. Its own code of conduct commits it to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which prohibit participation in human-rights violations. Yet there is no visible accountability mechanism — no disclosure of its defence revenues, no public audit of ethical compliance, and no internal oversight on the human impact of its contracts.
The Salam report calls this “ethical evasion through corporate nationalism”: the idea that Indian companies can deflect scrutiny by invoking patriotism and “Make in India” rhetoric. This is a convenient cover for profiteering from war.
Silence and complicity in India
Mainstream Indian media have barely reported on the Tata revelations. Nor has the Indian government shown any interest in investigating them. On the contrary, officials continue to trumpet the India–Israel “strategic embrace” as a model of technological progress.
Civil society, too, has grown hesitant. Decades ago, India was a vocal defender of the Palestinian cause. Today, solidarity has been replaced by silence, fear, and a dangerous normalization of genocide. Universities that once hosted discussions on occupation now avoid the subject. Protesters risk arrest under draconian laws.
The corporate capture of conscience mirrors a broader moral collapse in public life.
What accountability looks like
International law is clear: any company knowingly supplying equipment or services that enable war crimes may be complicit in those crimes. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Guiding Principles both outline corporate responsibilities in situations of armed conflict.
Tata’s alleged manufacturing of components for weapons used in Gaza should therefore be subject to independent investigation. Investors, trade unions, and consumers have the right — and duty — to demand transparency.
There are precedents: in the 1980s, global campaigns pressured companies to divest from apartheid South Africa. A similar moral movement must emerge against those profiteering from Israeli apartheid. The boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign is one such call, and Indian civil society should not remain absent from it.
When conscience is outsourced
Tata’s silence in the face of genocide is not just a corporate failure; it reflects the hollowness of India’s moral claim to be the land of Gandhi. What remains of that heritage when its flagship corporation contributes to the machinery of ethnic cleansing?
As Gaza’s children starve and entire families are buried under rubble, the Tata empire continues to sell technology to the state that kills them — while its advertisements preach compassion and “building a better tomorrow.”
No nation can claim moral leadership while its corporations build profit from the blood of the oppressed. The time for polite silence is over. India must confront what it has become — and reclaim the humanity it once pledged to the world.
Trump may not follow through on Russian oil or Tomahawk
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | October 25, 2025
The US President Donald Trump has seemingly shifted gear in the US strategy to stop Russia on its tracks from creating new facts on the ground in Ukraine. Russian forces have the upper hand all along the 1250-km Ukrainian frontline stretching Kiev’s defences and resources, which no amount of western military help can hope to reverse in a foreseeable future. Trump is compelling Russia to seek a military victory in Ukraine.
Trump so far put on the air of a statesman in great anguish over the humanitarian aspects of the conflict. Moscow tolerated the theatrical show to pamper Trump’s egotistic personality — that is, until Putin shattered the myth last week to expose that Trump actually holds the record as the American president who sanctioned Russia the most number of times, exceeding even his predecessor Joe Biden’s tally.
Trump, in the new avatar as war monger has unveiled a strategy of climbing the escalation ladder in the war until Putin capitulates. To that end, he has expanded the sanctions regime to include Russia’s oil industry, and is toying with the idea to supply Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles that can hit deep inside Russian territory.
The US Treasury Departments’ press release announcing the new sanctions against Russia reads as if its is custom made for targeting India. India and China account for some 80% of Russia’s oil exports, but the latter is the number one buyer with 60% of the imports transported through pipelines, whereas India depends on carriers arranged by the Russian side (“shadow fleet”) which are also now under western sanctions.
The press release claims that “The ultimate goal of sanctions is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behaviour.” It is a statement of fact because this is not really about oil, but about geopolitics. Whether Trump will actually press ahead with the oil sanctions remains unclear, since keeping Russian oil out of the world market risks high oil prices which could boomerang on the US economy and be damaging politically for Trump.
Putin’s initial reaction last Thursday was that the oil sanctions are an “unfriendly” act which “will have certain consequences, but they will not significantly affect our economic well-being.” Putin said that Russia’s energy sector feels confident. He added, “This is, of course, an attempt to put pressure on Russia. But no self-respecting country and no self-respecting people ever decides anything under pressure.”
Meanwhile, western hypocrisy broke through the ceiling, as the German chancellor Friedrich Merz who is one of the most enthusiastic proponents of the war is at Trump’s doorstep pleading for a sanctions waiver. Apparently, Germany has been quietly buying Russian oil even while portraying Russia in hostile terms, lest its GDP fell by another 3 percent!
Germany “temporarily” took control of three subsidiaries of the Russian oil company Rosneft (which the US has sanctioned) to secure its energy supply. Interestingly, the UK PM Keir Starmer, the charioteer of the so-called “coalition of the willing” raring to deploy troops in Ukraine to fight Russian forces, is travelling in the same boat as Merz seeking Trump’s waiver!
Such shady behaviour with racial overtones by the Western countries holds lessons for India. Clearly, the effectiveness of the new sanctions against the Russian oil giants will depend on just how zealous the US is in enforcing them through secondary sanctions on entities that deal in Russian oil. If past experience is anything to go by, Washington won’t be able to sustain a full-court press – if for no other reason than that markets will force its hand once oil prices shoot up.
That is to say, thanks to lax enforcement of sanctions, Russian oil will continue to reach the world market. Buyers like India who cut down oil supplies from Russia will end up paying higher prices. By meekly complying with Trump’s diktat, they compromised their interests. The sense of humiliation is such that Delhi shies away from engaging with Trump.
However, as regards long-rage Tomahawk missiles (range: 3000 km) Putin was polite but frank in his reaction, saying, “This is an attempt at escalation. But if such weapons are used to attack Russian territory, the response will be very serious, if not overwhelming. Let them think about it.”
The deputy chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev was even blunt in conveying the Kremlin thinking:
“The US is our enemy, and their talkative ‘peacemaker’ has now fully embarked on the path of war with Russia… this is now his conflict, not the senile Biden’s!… the decisions made are an act of war against Russia. And now Trump has fully sided with the insane Europe.
“But there is also a clear plus in this latest swing of the Trump pendulum: we can strike all the Bandera hideouts with a wide variety of weapons without regard to unnecessary negotiations. And achieve victory precisely where it is only possible: on the ground, not at a desk. Destroying enemies, not concluding meaningless ‘deals’”.
Apparently, the message went home. Trump, before emplaning for Malaysia on his 3-nation Asian tour, made sure that his special envoy to Russia Steve Witkoff extended an invitation to his Russian interlocutor Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of Russian Direct Investment Fund, to go over to Miami for a quiet conversation to talk things over. The two erstwhile businessmen are meeting today.
Meanwhile, Trump has hinted in anticipation of his forthcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday that he may not after all carry out his threatened 100% tariffs on Chinese goods and other trade curbs starting on November 1 in retaliation for China’s vastly expanded export controls on rare earth magnets and minerals. China’s tough stance is paying off.
Similarly, the Kremlin’s blunt threat of retaliation against Tomahawk will be heeded seriously. Putin has many options — Oreshnik capable of Mach 10 speed, for instance, is a hypersonic missile that is also nuclear capable, against which the West has no defence. The weapon has entered into serial production and been supplied to the armed forces.
Again, Russia’s new jet-powered glide bomb gives a significant boost in range and superior resistance to electronic countermeasures. It is capable of hitting Ukraine’s western border. It is also moving to mass production and the West is defenceless against it.
Trump’s Strongman Persona Inevitably Results in Lies and War
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | October 17, 2025
Trump’s claim that Prime Minister Modi had promised to end the purchase of Russian oil was obviously false; in fact, there was apparently no phone call between the two leaders at all. Such fabrications, portraying world leaders as deferential to him and as praising his greatness, constitute a recurring pattern—one that parallels his militaristic approach to peace.
As the president of a declining hegemon, Trump is convinced that the weakness of his predecessors was the source of decline. Trump has therefore concluded that projecting strength can reverse the erosion of American power. In constructing himself as the ultimate strongman—allegedly respected by all—he positions himself as the sole saviour of the US. The image of a powerful, decisive and respected leader capable of restoring US dominance also functions domestically to consolidate political support and project stability during the country’s uneasy transition from a unipolar to a multipolar international order. The American public is seemingly prepared to look the other way or justify the dishonesty and moral disgressions as the price worth paying for a return to greatness.
The central problem with the strongman image is that it sustains unrealistic expectations of reviving US primacy rather than adapting to the realities of a multipolar world. The outcome is a pattern of deception and conflict that ultimately undermines, rather than strengthens, the United States.
When the strongman cannot coerce his counterparts into subservience, the only recourse is retreat into fantasy. In this imagined world, other leaders allegedly regret their decisions of not falling into line, tremble as Trump wags his finger, shower him with compliments, offer tribute to the United States, and in Trump’s own words, line up to “kiss my ass.” Within the Trumpian bubble of superpower cosplay, these scenes of deference are celebrated as signs of a return to greatness, yet in the real world, American credibility declines and decadence deepens. As the gap between fantasy and reality widens, Trump becomes increasingly reckless. Case in point, the threats against India to sever ties with Russia and India backfired spectacularly as Prime Minister Modi instead went to China to cement India’s relations with Russia, China and the SCO.
Great powers and independent states cannot simply fall in line, for doing so would predictably lead to their destruction or subjugation. The ultimate aim of an aspiring hegemon is not to reconcile differences in pursuit of peaceful coexistence, but to defeat rival powers and capture independent states. The objective of the economic confrontation with China is not to renegotiate trade agreements, but to undermine China’s technological capacity and contain it militarily to restore US primacy. The purpose of the proxy war against Russia is not peace in terms of finding a new peaceful status quo, rather it is to use Ukrainians and increasingly Europeans to bleed and weaken Russia until it can no longer sustain great-power status. Similarly, the goal of the confrontation with Iran is not to reach a new nuclear accord—Tehran has already accepted such terms in the past—but to achieve Iran’s capitulation and disarmament by linking the nuclear issue to restrictions on missiles and regional alliances. Any power that concedes even marginally to US pressure ultimately finds itself in a weaker and more vulnerable position—one that the aspiring hegemon will inevitably exploit. Any peace agreements are therefore temporary at best, as an opportunity to regroup.
India presents an intriguing case, as it is not an adversarial power. Its commitment to non-alignment makes strong relations with the United States desirable, yet the very same non-alignment necessitates strategic diversification to reduce excessive reliance on Washington. Should India be persuaded to sever ties with other major powers such as China and Russia, it risks becoming too dependent on the United States and absorbed into a bloc-based geopolitical system. Subordination to a declining empire would be perilous, as the United States would predictably use India as a frontline against China, and simultaneously demand economic tribute and cannibalise Indian industries in pursuit of renewed dominance. In essence, India must avoid becoming another Europe.
The strongman act is most effective with weaker and dependent states—such as those in Europe—that are willing to subordinate themselves entirely in order to preserve American commitment to the continent. European states lack the economic capacity, security autonomy, and political imagination to envision a multipolar world in which the United States wields less influence and holds other priorities than a close partnership with Europe. Consequently, European leaders appear willing to sacrifice core national interests to preserve the unity of the “Political West” for a little while longer. In private, they may express disdain for Trump; in public, they pay tribute to “daddy” and line up diligently in front of his desk to receive praise or ridicule. Yet this subservience is inherently temporary: leaders who disregard fundamental national interests are, in time, swept aside by the very forces they seek to suppress.
The strongman does not create any durable peace the underlying problems are never addressed. The mantra of “peace through strength” can be translated into peace through escalation, with the assumption that the opponent will come to the table and submit to US demands. However, rival great powers that have nowhere to retreat will respond to escalation with reciprocation. The delusions of the strongman in the declining hegemony will therefore inevitably trigger major wars.
London Is Still Bent on Influencing India’s Independent Policy Trajectory
By Anvar Azimov – New Eastern Outlook – October 16, 2025
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited India to promote previously reached trade agreements; however, the negotiations have laid bare the extremely limited reach of London’s influence on New Delhi.
During the latest UK-India summit held on October 8-9 in Mumbai, London once again made an unsuccessful bid to affect New Delhi’s course regarding Russia, to secure its support for the Euro-Atlanticists’ plans for settling the Ukrainian conflict and for continuing anti-Russian sanctions policy.
Nevertheless, the two countries managed to make progress in expanding cooperation in trade, investments, defense, and security.
The official visit of the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to India aimed at cementing the agreements reached during the stay of the head of the Indian government, Narendra Modi, in London this July, and, first and foremost, at signing a far-reaching free trade agreement. The pact would open vast prospects for achieving the ambitious goal set by the parties to increase trade turnover by 2030 from the current $35 billion to $120 billion.
Starmer Urged Modi to Stop Purchasing Russian Oil
Simultaneously, the British guest made another attempt to talk New Delhi into abandoning substantial purchases of Russian energy resources, which currently account for up to 40 percent of India’s oil imports. Furthermore, the trade turnover between India and Russia, taking into account petroleum product supplies, has reached an unprecedented $70 billion, a fact that London and the West as a whole are also seriously apprehensive about. However, despite these British exertions, Prime Minister N. Modi made it clear that this matter is no exception to the rule; hence, here, India would also be guided by its own national and economic interests.
Nor has New Delhi veered from the path of distancing itself from anti-Russian Western sanctions, prioritising, once again, independent national interests. The Ukrainian conflict hasn’t evaded such a fate either, with Starmer failing to pull India completely to his side. While being committed to a peaceful settlement of the situation around Ukraine, India rejects anti-Russian rhetoric on the issue and maintains a measured, balanced stance. Even London’s various assurances of support for New Delhi’s aspirations to gain a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council did not spur India to alter its principled neutral position in the current struggle between the West and Russia.
Success evaded the British leader on this anti-Russian front, but he cancelled out his failure on the track of bilateral relations by means of signing a series of agreements in various fields, including defense, security, technology, trade, and education. Notably, the parties managed to conclude a military deal worth approximately $470 million for the supply of light multipurpose missiles to the Indian army. They also agreed on setting up a regional centre of excellence in maritime security and on developing marine electronic engines for Indian naval ships.
Further progress in trade, economic, and investment areas was also outlined. It is indicative that Starmer was accompanied by a representative delegation from the British business community (over 120 people), including heads of companies such as Rolls-Royce, British Telecom, Diageo, the London Stock Exchange, and British Airways. Within the framework of the joint forum held, the representatives signed commercial contracts.
India Dictates the Terms
All in all, British companies have invested about $40 billion in the Indian economy, and New Delhi traditionally remains one of London’s key trade and investment partners. And what further contributes to such a situation is the signed free trade agreement, which added up to a significant reduction in tariffs on a wide range of goods, and expanded market access for companies and Indian labour migrants.
In a nutshell, the latest meeting of the two countries’ leaders concluded with new agreements on enhancing multifaceted cooperation and increasing trade turnover to $120 billion by 2030. At the same time, Starmer was clearly frustrated that even his attempts to prompt India to weaken its ties with Russia ended up a failure, which once again confirms New Delhi’s determination to stick to its own guns on its foreign policy, providing for the development of partnerships with both the West and the East and drawing on the national interests of this major, now global, power.
Anvar Azimov, diplomat and political scientist, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Senior Research Fellow at Eurasian Studies Institute of MGIMO University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia
UK Digital ID Scheme Faces Backlash Over Surveillance Fears — Is a Similar Plan Coming to the U.S.?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |October 2, 2025
The U.K. plans to introduce a nationwide digital ID scheme that will require citizens and non-citizens to obtain a “BritCard” to work in the U.K., which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Government officials say the plan, to take effect no later than August 2029, will help combat illegal immigration.
But critics like U.K. activist and campaigner Montgomery Toms said the scheme, “far from being a tool for progress,” is instead a “gateway to mass surveillance, control and ultimately the rollout of a centralised social credit system.”
The plan faces broad opposition in the U.K., according to Nigel Utton, a U.K.-based board member of the World Freedom Alliance, who said, “the feeling against the government here is enormous.”
A poll last week found that 47% of respondents opposed digital ID, while 27% supported the ID system and 26% were neutral. The poll was conducted by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now, on behalf of GB News.
A petition on the U.K. Parliament’s website opposing plans to introduce digital ID may force a parliamentary debate. As of today, the petition has over 2.73 million signatures.
According to The Guardian, petitions with 100,000 signatures or more are considered for debate in the U.K. parliament.
As opposition mounts, there are signs the BritCard may not be a done deal. According to the BBC, a three-month consultation will take place, and legislation will likely be introduced to Parliament in early 2026.
However, U.K. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the government may push through its digital ID plans without going through the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
Protesters plan to gather Oct. 18 in central London.
Digital ID will ‘offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,’ U.K. officials say
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the digital ID scheme last week in a speech at the Global Progress Action Summit in London.
“A secure border and controlled migration are reasonable demands, and this government is listening and delivering,” Starmer said. “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the U.K. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.
The plan “will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly,” Starmer said.
According to The Guardian, digital ID eventually may be used for driver’s licenses, welfare benefits, access to tax records, and the provision of childcare and other public services.
Darren Jones, chief secretary to Starmer, suggested it may become “the bedrock of the modern state,” the BBC reported.
Supporters of the plan include the Labour Together think tank, which is closely aligned with the Labour Party and which published a report in June calling for the introduction of the BritCard.
Two days before Starmer’s announcement, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, led by Labour Party member and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, published a report, “Time for Digital ID: A New Consensus for a State That Works.”
Blair tried to introduce digital ID two decades ago as a means of fighting terrorism and fraud, but the plan failed amid public opposition. According to the BBC, Starmer recently claimed the world has “moved on in the last 20 years,” as “we all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did.”
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Blair endorsed a global digital vaccine passport, the Good Health Pass, launched by ID2020 with the support of Facebook, Mastercard and the World Economic Forum.
According to Sky News, French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the BritCard for its ability to help fight illegal immigration into the U.K., much of which originates from France.
Critics: Digital ID marks ‘gateway to mass surveillance’
The BritCard, which would live on people’s phones, will use technology similar to digital wallets. People will not be required to carry their digital ID or be asked to produce it, except for employment purposes, the government said.
According to the BBC, BritCard will likely include a person’s name, photo, date of birth and nationality or residency status.
Digital wallets, which include documents such as driver’s licenses and health certificates, have been introduced in several countries, including the U.S.
Nandy said the U.K. government has “no intention of pursuing a dystopian mess” with its introduction of digital ID.
However, the plan has opened up a “civil liberties row” in the U.K., according to The Guardian, with critics warning it will lead to unprecedented surveillance and control over citizens.
“Digital ID systems are not designed to secure borders,” said Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life” and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute. “They’re designed to expand bureaucratic control of the masses.”
Bruner told The Defender :
“All attempts to roll out digital ID follow a familiar pattern: corporate and political elites wield crises — such as mass migration, crime, or tech disruptions — as a pretext to expand their control … over private citizens’ identities, finances and movements into a suffocating regime.
“Once rolled out, these systems expand quietly, shifting from access tools to enforcement mechanisms. Yesterday it was vaccine passports and lockdowns; tomorrow it is 15-minute cities and the ‘universal basic income’ dependency trap. ‘Voluntary’ today becomes mandatory tomorrow.”
Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, said digital ID is “not about tackling illegal immigration, it has nothing to do with job security and it definitely won’t protect young people online. Digital ID is all about surveillance and control through coercion and force.”
Hinchliffe said:
“Illegal immigration is just one excuse to bring it all online. Be vigilant for other excuses like climate change, cybersecurity, convenience, conflict, refugees, healthcare, war, famine, poverty, welfare benefits. Anything can be used to usher in digital ID.”
Twila Brase, co-founder and president of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, said governments favor digital ID because it allows unprecedented surveillance.
The ID system “notifies the government every time an identity card is used, giving it a bird’s-eye view of where, when and to whom people are showing their identity,” she said.
According to Toms, “A digital ID system gives governments the ability to monitor, restrict, and ultimately punish citizens who do not comply with state directives. It centralises power in a way that is extremely dangerous to liberty.”
Experts disputed claims that digital ID is necessary to improve public services.
“The ‘improved efficiency’ argument is a technocratic fantasy used to seduce a public obsessed with convenience,” said attorney Greg Glaser. “Governments have managed to provide services for centuries without a digital panopticon. This is not about efficiency. It is about creating an immutable, unforgeable link between every individual and the state.”
Digital ID technology may create ‘an enormous hacking target’
London-based author and political analyst Evans Agelissopoulos said major global investment firms, including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, could combine their financial might with the power of digital ID.
“BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are on a mission to buy properties to rent to people. Digital ID could be used against people they deem unfit to rent to,” he said.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the same firms supported digital vaccine passports in major corporations in which they are among the top shareholders. Some experts suggested digital ID may institutionalize a vaccine passport regime and central bank digital currencies.
“Digital identity is the linchpin to every dystopian nightmare under the sun,” Hinchliffe said. “Without it, there can be no programmable digital currencies, there can be no carbon footprint trackers, no social credit system.”
Other experts suggested that a centralized database containing the data of all citizens could be monetized. “By centralizing everything, they will have access to health, criminal, financial records. This data can be sold,” Agelissopoulos said.
According to Brase, those who will benefit from the centralization of this data include:
“Anybody who’s going to be the third-party administrator, academia and companies who are building biometric systems and what they call ‘augmented authentication systems’ that provide the cameras, the back system operations for biometric identification and for digital systems.”
Several major information technology (IT), defense and accounting firms, including Deloitte and BAE Systems, have received U.K. government contracts totaling 100 million British pounds ($134.7 million) for the development and rollout of BritCard.
U.S. tech companies, including Palantir, Nvidia and OpenAI, “have also been circling the UK government,” The Guardian reported.
Digital ID also raises security concerns, with IT experts describing the U.K.’s plan as “an enormous hacking target,” citing recent large-scale breaches involving digital ID databases in some countries, including Estonia.
“Government databases are frequently hacked — from healthcare systems to tax records,” Toms said. “Centralizing sensitive personal data into a single mandatory digital ID is a disaster waiting to happen.”
The public may also directly bear the cost of these systems. Italy’s largest digital ID provider, Poste Italiane, recently floated plans to levy a 5 euro ($5.87) annual fee for users.
Switzerland to roll out digital ID next year, amid controversy
In a referendum held on Sunday, voters in Switzerland narrowly approved the introduction of a voluntary national digital ID in their country.
According to the BBC, 50.4% of voters approved the proposal. Biometric Update noted that the proposal received a majority in only eight of the country’s 26 cantons, though the country’s government campaigned in favor of the proposal.
Digital ID in Switzerland is expected to be rolled out next year.
Swiss health professional George Deliyanidis said he “does not see any benefits for the public” from the plan. Instead, he sees “a loss of personal freedom.”
“There are suspicions of election fraud,” he added.
In a letter sent Tuesday to the Swiss government, a copy of which was reviewed by The Defender, the Mouvement Fédératif Romand cited “significant statistical disparities” in the referendum’s results and called for a recount.
In 2021, Swiss voters rejected a proposal on digital ID under which data would have been held by private providers, the BBC reported. Under the current proposal, data will remain with the state.
According to the Manchester Evening News, countries that have introduced nationwide digital ID include Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, India, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries with similar systems include France, Finland and Norway.
In July, Vietnam introduced digital ID for foreigners living in the country. In August, the Vietnamese government helped neighboring Laos launch digital ID.
The New York Times reported that, in 2024, China added an “internet ID” to its digital ID system, “to track citizens’ online usage.”
Bill Gates has supported the rollout of digital ID in several countries, including India.
The European Union plans to launch its Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026.
“When you see a nearly simultaneous worldwide push, like this digital ID agenda, people in all nations need to expect to be impacted to some extent,” said James F. Holderman III, director of special investigations for Stand for Health Freedom.
Is national digital ID coming to the U.S.?
Although the U.S. does not have a national identification card, the U.K. did not have one either — until digital ID was introduced. The U.K. scrapped national ID in 1952.
In May, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began Real ID enforcement for domestic air travelers in the U.S. In the months before, TSA engaged in a push to encourage U.S. citizens to acquire Real ID-compliant documents, such as driver’s licenses. Full enforcement will begin in 2027.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 established security standards for state-issued ID cards in response to the 9/11 attacks and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the intervening years, its implementation was repeatedly delayed.
Last year, then-President Joe Biden issued an executive order for federal and state governments to speed up the adoption of digital ID.
Brase said Real ID “is really a national ID system for America, currently disguised as a state driver’s license with a star. The American people really have no idea that what’s in their pocket is a national ID and they have no idea that the [Department of Motor Vehicles offices] are planning to digitize them.”
Hinchliffe said 193 countries, including the U.S., accepted digital ID last year when they approved the United Nations’ Pact for the Future.
Earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Safeguarding Personal Information Act of 2025 (S 2769), a bill to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005.
“If digital ID is allowed to spread globally, future generations will never know freedom,” Hinchliffe said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Russian oil keeps flowing despite US pressure – Bloomberg
RT | September 30, 2025
Russia’s seaborne crude exports have remained near a 16-month high over the past four weeks, showing little impact from US President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure global buyers into halting imports from Moscow, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.
According to vessel-tracking data through Saturday compiled by the outlet, average daily shipments held steady at 3.62 million barrels, matching the highest level since May 2024. The continued flow comes despite targeted US efforts to persuade countries to curb imports.
Trump has pressured the EU, India, and China to stop purchasing Russian oil, describing the move as an effort to advance a potential Ukraine peace settlement. Moscow has criticized Washington’s strong-arm tactics, saying that sovereign nations have the right to choose their trade partners.
New Delhi’s continued purchases of Russian oil have in particular drawn the ire of the US. In August, Washington imposed 25% punitive tariffs on India on top of the earlier 25% tariff imposed after the two countries failed to reach a trade deal. India has refused to scale back imports from Russia and described Washington’s policy as economic coercion.
China has taken an even firmer stance, with its Ministry of Commerce reaffirming intentions to deepen energy cooperation with Russia. The ministry says Beijing will defend its interests as the US pushes G7 nations to impose 100% tariffs on Chinese imports.
European buyers are also resisting. Hungary and Slovakia, which are both reliant on pipeline shipments, have cited economic and logistical obstacles to ending Russian oil imports. Turkish imports have remained steady as well, averaging around 300,000 barrels per day.
Meanwhile, the redirection of oil from Russian refineries damaged by Ukrainian drone strikes may be contributing to the continued export volumes, according to Bloomberg. Export terminal capacity, however, could become a limiting factor if strikes intensify, the outlet adds.
In the most recent week, 36 tankers carried 26.75 million barrels of Russian crude, a rise from the previous week’s 23.69 million, Bloomberg data shows. The total value of exports in the week to September 28 rose by $240 million to $1.57 billion.
Featured Video
Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth
By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De…
Aletho News- Sexual Blackmail Makes the World Go ‘Round
- Powerful Israeli Strikes on South Lebanon and Bekaa
- UAE-backed militia in Yemen reaches out to Israel for alliance against ‘common foes’: Report
- The UAE’s reverse trajectory: From riches to rags
- Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention
- Majority of Belgians oppose theft of Russian assets – poll
- Czech–Slovak alignment signals growing dissatisfaction with Brussels’ authoritarianism
- Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet
- Who gets to be a hostage? The language that legitimises Palestinian captivity
- Israel’s all-seeing eye is the stealthiest cruelty of all in Gaza
- If Americans Knew
- Amnesty: ‘Utterly preventable’ Gaza flood tragedy must mobilize global action to end Israel’s genocide
- Israel Propagandists Are Uniformly Spouting The Exact Same Line About The Bondi Beach Shooting
- Ha’aretz: Free the Palestinian Activist Who Dared to Document Israel’s Crimes in the West Bank
- Garbage Is Poisoning Gaza
- Palestinian journalist recounts rape and torture in Israeli prison
- Gaza is crumbling, but its people persevere – Not a Ceasefire Day 69
- Pro-Israel billionaire Miriam Adelson green-lights a Trump 3rd term
- Australians Being Massacred Shouldn’t Bother Us More Than Palestinians Being Massacred
- Garbage, stench, sewage, and rats plague Gaza – Not a Ceasefire Day 68
- The Zionist Billionaire Circle Hiding in Plain Sight
- No Tricks Zone
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
- Greenland Petermann Glacier Has Grown 30 Kilometers Since 2012!
- New Study: Temperature-Driven CO2 Outgassing Explains 83 Percent Of CO2 Rise Since 1959
- Climate Extremists Ordered By Hamburg Court To Pay €400,000 In Damages
- More Evidence NE China Is Not Cooperating With The Alarmist Global Warming Narrative
- Ecological Impacts Of Offshore WindParks Are Worse Than Expewcted, New Study Finds
Aletho News 