Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

India, Russia set $100bn trade target despite US pushback

The Indian external affairs minister is in Moscow for three days of talks focusing on economic cooperation

The Cradle | August 21, 2025

India and Russia plan to increase their annual trade to $100 billion over the next five years – an increase of 50 percent – despite US opposition to the growing cooperation between New Delhi and Moscow, a top Indian minister announced on 21 August.

During the first day of a three-day visit to Moscow on Wednesday, Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar emphasized the need for India and Russia to broaden their trade ties, foster additional joint ventures between their companies, and hold more frequent meetings to resolve issues such as payment systems.

Russia ranks as India’s fourth-largest trade partner, while India holds the position of Russia’s second-largest.

“We are all acutely aware that we are meeting in the backdrop of a complex geopolitical situation. Our leaders remain closely and regularly engaged,” he said while speaking at the India–Russia Business Forum in the Russian capital.

Jaishankar added that rising global uncertainty puts the emphasis back on “dependable and steady partners.”

Economic uncertainty has come from recent actions taken by US President Donald Trump to punish India for its ongoing purchases of Russian oil.

New Delhi’s purchases of Russian crude skyrocketed after the start of the war with Ukraine in 2022. After its oil exports to Europe collapsed in the wake of the war, Russia turned to India, offering steep discounts.

In response, Trump has imposed a 25 percent tariff on Indian goods, saying the oil purchases help fund Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “war machine.” Trump has threatened to raise tariffs on India further, to 50 percent, a rate high enough to ensure Indian exports to the US will not be competitive.

In response, India has said it has the right to buy oil from the cheapest source, calling the tariffs “unreasonable.”

Following Trump’s threats, India’s state refiners began last week to buy large volumes of non-Russian crude. Indian Oil Corp. and Bharat Petroleum Corp. have purchased oil from multiple alternate suppliers in recent weeks, including suppliers in the US, Brazil, and Gulf states, for October delivery.

Private Indian refiners are expected to continue purchasing Russian oil per the long-term contracts they have previously signed.

Earlier this month, India halted plans to purchase US weapons and military aircraft in response to President Trump’s tariffs on New Delhi’s exports.

“India had been planning to send Defense Minister Rajnath Singh to Washington in the coming weeks for an announcement on some of the purchases, but that trip has been cancelled,” two sources speaking with Reuters said.

In February this year, Trump and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced plans for the procurement and joint production of Stryker combat vehicles made by General Dynamics Land Systems and Javelin anti-tank missiles made by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

The sources told Reuters that India’s defense minister was also planning to announce the purchase of six Boeing P-8I reconnaissance aircraft and support systems for the Indian Navy during the trip to Washington, which has now been canceled.

August 21, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

India Cancels Offshore Wind Tender–Due To Lack Of Interest

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | August 13, 2025

Now India is losing interest in offshore wind.

Renewablesnow report:

The Indian government has cancelled the process to allocate sea-bed lease rights for a total of 4,500 MW of offshore wind projects, it was announced on Tuesday.

While SECI itself did not state a reason for the decision in its announcement, The Economic Times quoted two sources as saying that there was a lack of interest among project developers. …

This follows Trump’s US move away from offshore wind and the lack of bidders at Germany’s offshore auction last week.

Meanwhile Orsted have had to launch a massive $9.4 billion Share Rights Issue, largely because of huge losses on offshore wind projects.

It seems that it is only the UK where anybody wants to build wind farms at sea, but only because of the obscene subsidies on offer.

August 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , , | Leave a comment

The geopolitics of India-US ‘trade war’

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – August 10, 2025

By slapping tariffs on India and linking them to its ties with Russia, the Trump administration exposed its willingness to strong-arm New Delhi into submission.

Unless India pulls off a dramatic reset with China—and thus reduce its dependence on the US for military support—it will remain caught between appeasing Washington and defending its strategic autonomy.

When the US President announced sweeping 25% tariffs on Indian goods in late July, his tone marked a jarring departure from the warmth once displayed toward New Delhi. Only months earlier, he had welcomed Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the Oval Office, hailing him as a “great friend” and celebrating the US-India relationship as a partnership destined for global leadership. Now, with the stroke of a Truth Social post, India is recast not as an ally, but as an economic adversary.

This abrupt reversal speaks volumes. The President’s social media declarations—accusing India of being a “dead economy”—ignored not only diplomatic decorum but economic reality. India is the world’s most populous nation and the fifth-largest economy, a critical player in global markets and geopolitics alike. To dismiss it so flippantly is to misunderstand the arc of global power.

But beyond the bluster lies a deeper provocation. Washington’s veiled threat—imposing additional, unspecified penalties on India over its continued oil trade with Russia—underscores a troubling shift in US foreign policy: coercion in place of collaboration. The implicit bargain offered to New Delhi is clear—cut ties with Moscow, and the US may relent on tariffs and even entertain a trade deal. Refuse and face economic punishment.

Why Trump Wants India to Submit

When Donald Trump referenced oil in the context of US-India relations, it wasn’t his only focus. A quieter, yet strategically significant, concern involved India’s long-standing defense ties with Russia. For decades, New Delhi has been one of Moscow’s most reliable customers in the global arms market. While India’s reliance on Russian military hardware has declined—from 55% of total imports in 2016 to an estimated 36% in 2025—Russia remains India’s top defense supplier.

To the Trump administration, however, this decline is an opening that must be exploited for American gains. A shrinking Russian share in India’s defense market presents the perfect opportunity to push more US-made military systems as replacements. In doing so, Washington hopes to edge out Moscow and deepen strategic ties with New Delhi in the process.

Signs suggest India may already be leaning toward such a transition. According to Indian defense media reports, the Indian Air Force (IAF) recently advised the government to prioritize acquiring US-made F-35 fighter jets instead of the fifth-generation aircraft offered by Russia earlier this year. Until now, India had remained undecided, caught between its historical ties with Russia and its evolving strategic calculus. However, should New Delhi proceed with the F-35 acquisition, it would mark a significant shift—not just symbolically, but financially and strategically. The Indian government reportedly plans to induct over 100 F-35s by 2035, an investment expected to run into billions of dollars, directly boosting the US defense sector. More importantly, such an investment will lock India as a firm US ally. As far as the Trump administration is concerned, this would also lend substance to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda by channeling substantial foreign capital into the American economy.

As far as New Delhi is concerned, inducting F-35s could help bolster its regional standing vis-à-vis China and the latter’s continuous injection of its state-of-the-art defence technology into Pakistan, including its air-force. Indian defence analysts claim that this induction will allow India to avoid any more loses in aerial battles like the ones it suffered in its war with Pakistan in May.

What India Can Do

Yet, New Delhi’s strategic choices are far more complex than they might initially appear. Even if India opts to procure the F-35 fighter jets, it is far from certain that the US would permit their use in an offensive capacity against Pakistan—especially considering Washington’s increasingly cooperative ties with Islamabad. For context, Pakistan itself is restricted from employing its US-supplied F-16s for offensive operations against India. This raises a critical question for Indian policymakers: will a deepening defense relationship with the US genuinely enhance India’s air power posture vis-à-vis Pakistan, its principal adversary in South Asia?

The timing of New Delhi’s public disclosure of the Indian Air Force’s interest in F-35s—just days before a crucial deadline—was no accident. It seemed designed to sway the Trump administration’s position on trade tariffs. But the gambit failed to yield any concrete concessions. The episode underscores a deeper and more troubling question: should India continue to allow the US to exert disproportionate influence over its defense procurement and broader foreign policy?

This incident should prompt serious introspection among Indian policymakers. Rather than leaving its strategic vulnerabilities open to manipulation, India could take steps to insulate its foreign policy from external pressure. One pragmatic approach would be to normalize and even strengthen ties with regional competitors like China—an idea already gaining quiet traction. New Delhi has recently revived visa services with Beijing, and bilateral trade talks are beginning to show signs of momentum.

Interestingly, President Donald Trump’s remarks about “not doing much business with India” were widely interpreted as a thinly veiled reference to India’s growing economic engagement with China. In essence, Washington seeks to mold India’s foreign policy—particularly its relationships with China and Russia—to align more closely with American strategic interests. Should India capitulate to that pressure, it risks downgrading its role from an emerging regional power to a junior partner dependent on Washington for strategic direction.

India’s foreign policy establishment is now at a pivotal juncture. The choices made in the coming years will not just determine the shape of the country’s defense acquisitions or trade policies—they will define India’s role on the world stage for decades to come. If New Delhi is to maintain its claim to strategic autonomy, it must resist the temptation to shape its policies in reaction to US expectations.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

August 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

New Delhi between sanctions and sovereignty

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 8, 2025

In a world where the international order is increasingly shaped by the struggle between a declining unipolarity and an emerging multipolarity, sanctions have become the main weapon of a superpower that can no longer dictate the course of global affairs by consensus. What was once an exception — economic punishment against states clearly involved in illegal activities or blatant violations of international norms — has become a systemic, arbitrary, and politically motivated practice. And India is now the latest target of this coercive apparatus that defines the foreign policy of the United States.

The repeated use of sanctions by Washington reveals, above all, the exhaustion of its diplomatic capacity. Instead of building bridges with strategic partners, the U.S. chooses to punish, isolate, and sabotage any country that dares to follow an autonomous path.

Sanctions policy as a mechanism of domination

U.S. unilateral sanctions — almost always imposed outside the UN Security Council and in defiance of international law — have become a systematic policy of intimidation. Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, and China have been the most well-known targets. But the list keeps growing. And India, previously seen as a potential Western ally in the Indo-Pacific, is now beginning to feel the weight of this punitive system.

The logic is simple: the U.S. identifies an “unacceptable” behavior — such as India’s refusal to join the sanctions against Russia — and from there constructs a narrative to justify pressure measures. It could be the defense of “human rights,” the “fight against terrorism,” or, as is now being done with India, the “war on drugs.” The content of the narrative is secondary; what matters is the effect: to break the sovereignty of the targeted country and force it to align with Washington’s foreign policy.

India: the new frontier of coercion

In recent days, Donald Trump has announced sanction packages of up to 50% against India, citing the “need” to punish trade partners of the Russian Federation. These coercive measures came after months of open threats toward India — some directly referencing the Indo-Russian partnership, others hiding behind the mask of the “fight against fentanyl.”

Although the recently announced sanctions are explicitly directed at Indo-Russian energy trade, there’s no guarantee that the U.S. will abandon the fentanyl rhetoric altogether. The “drug control” excuse may easily be revived at any moment to impose further sanctions on New Delhi, especially considering that this was Washington’s initial justification before Trump finally admitted the real motive: punishing India for its ties with Russia.

It must be emphasized that what brought India into Washington’s sanction crosshairs was not any real connection to fentanyl trafficking, but rather its strategic resilience in the face of Western efforts to isolate Russia. Since 2022, India has maintained firm energy and military cooperation with Moscow, refusing to take part in the U.S. and EU-led anti-Russian crusade. This pragmatic position — based on Indian national interests rather than ideological dogma — deeply irritated the Washington establishment.

In response, the U.S. began floating the idea that chemical exports from India could be diverted for fentanyl production — a claim made without solid evidence, but politically convenient. In a classic move, they attempt to turn a country with no proven role in fentanyl trafficking into part of the “drug problem,” paving the way for tariffs and trade restrictions.

This is Washington’s new modus operandi: transform internal crises — in this case, the collapse of the U.S. healthcare system and the opioid epidemic — into diplomatic weapons to force other nations to serve its strategic interests.

Rapprochement with Russia and China: India’s geopolitical response

In the face of this escalation, India appears to have understood the game — and is beginning to react astutely. Not only has it maintained and expanded its agreements with Russia, but it has also signaled a renewed openness to dialogue with China, having Prime Minister Modi announced a visit to Beijing.

This is a geopolitically significant move. India and China have long had a tense relationship, especially concerning the Himalayan border. But in the face of a common enemy — the global regime of unilateral sanctions that threatens the sovereignty of both — realism is starting to prevail. India already plays an active role in forums such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the G20, but now signals a willingness to deepen its coordination with both Beijing and Moscow.

This marks the emergence of a “new” strategic triangle in the Global South — not based on ideological affinity, but on a shared need to resist the economic coercion promoted by the West. India is not becoming an automatic ally of China, but rather a situational partner in building a multipolar order, where the right to chart one’s own path is no longer subject to Washington’s approval.

Fragmentation of the global system and alternatives to the dollar

This strategic reconfiguration is happening in parallel with the fragmentation of the global financial system. As more countries begin operating outside the SWIFT system, pursue bilateral trade agreements in local currencies, and strengthen alternative development banks, the power of unilateral sanctions is beginning to erode. India has already signed agreements with Russia, Iran, and the UAE to trade in rupees, bypassing the U.S. dollar. BRICS+, with the potential creation of a common currency, is moving in the same direction.

By abusing sanctions as a tool, Washington is accelerating this process. In its attempt to maintain control, it ends up stimulating the formation of new centers of economic and diplomatic power — exactly the opposite of its intended outcome.

The end of the American consensus

The attempt to punish India over a crisis that is, above all, the result of domestic failure in the U.S., is not only an act of hypocrisy but also a major strategic miscalculation. Instead of isolating India, the U.S. is driving it deeper into multilateral frameworks that challenge Western hegemony.

New Delhi has made it clear it will not be turned into a geopolitical vassal. India is a civilizational power with its own interests and will not hesitate to forge partnerships — even with historical rivals — if it means securing strategic autonomy.

Sanctions, once presented as instruments of international justice, have become the primary mechanism for imposing a failed global order — one that seeks to preserve historical privileges at the expense of national sovereignty. The economic attacks on India over its strategic ties with Russia are just one example of this broader reality.

But a new world is taking shape. A world where countries like India, Russia, and China are building bridges over ruins — converging not out of ideological alignment, but from the urgent need to resist the systemic coercion of a declining empire. National sovereignty, more and more, will be asserted not through submission, but through coordinated resistance to the language of sanctions.

India understands this. And by responding with dignity and pragmatism, it shows that the path to strategic independence necessarily involves rejecting the arbitrary use of sanctions as a weapon of economic warfare. The multipolar world is under construction — and there is no room in it for domination disguised as moralism.

August 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump hits India with additional tariffs as Modi prepares to visit China for first time in seven years

The Cradle | August 6, 2025

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on India over its purchase of Russian energy, the White House said on 6 August.

The additional tariffs will stack on top of 25 percent country-specific tariffs due to take effect overnight, and will come into force within 21 days, according to the executive order signed by Trump.

“They’re fueling the war machine. And if they’re going to do that, then I’m not going to be happy,” Trump said Tuesday in an interview with CNBC.

Despite a warm public reception during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s White House visit in February, Indian diplomats were “stunned” by what one journalist briefed on the meeting described as a “lack of respect” shown to the prime minister behind closed doors.

Amid these economic tensions, Prime Minister Modi is scheduled to travel to China on 31 August to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin.

The visit will mark his first to China since the 2020 Galwan Valley clash, and is being widely seen by Indian media as a step toward repairing ties with Beijing amid growing economic strain from the US.

Modi’s last visit to China was in June 2018, also for a summit of SCO leaders in Qingdao.

That was followed by Chinese President Xi Jinping traveling to India in October 2019, just months before the Chinese army’s incursions in eastern Ladakh.

Indian officials have linked the Tianjin summit to earlier visits by India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Defense Minister Rajnath Singh, describing them as part of a slow move to reset ties with Beijing.

Separately, the Times of India reported that Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval is expected in Moscow this week for talks on defense cooperation, including a possible expansion of India’s S-400 missile system deal.

Doval’s trip, while previously planned, has reportedly gained renewed importance in light of US pressure over India’s energy relationship with Moscow.

August 6, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

India scraps F-35 deal with US as Trump slaps tariffs

Al Mayadeen | August 1, 2025

The Indian government is assessing its next move following US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose a 25% tariff on Indian goods, a move that reportedly caught policymakers in New Delhi by surprise. The tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 1.

According to Bloomberg, Indian officials were “shocked and disappointed” by the sudden announcement. However, the government has ruled out immediate retaliation. Instead, it is considering trade adjustments to preserve relations with the United States, India’s largest trading partner.

The Economic Times (ET) reported on Friday that Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal addressed Parliament, stating, “The implications of the recent developments are being examined.” He emphasized that the government is working with industry stakeholders and exporters to assess the impact and affirmed that India will take “all necessary steps to secure and advance our national interest.”

According to the report, India is exploring ways to reduce its trade surplus with the US by increasing imports of US goods, such as natural gas, communication equipment, and gold. However, officials made it clear that new defense purchases are not being considered.

Despite US pressure to sell its advanced F-35 fighter jets, India has rejected the offer. During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington in February, Trump personally pushed for the deal, but Indian officials ultimately declined, according to the report.

New Delhi conveyed that it is not interested in off-the-shelf military acquisitions and remains committed to the Make in India initiative, which emphasizes co-development and domestic production of defense equipment. However, Bloomberg reported that the Modi government is unlikely to approve any significant new defense deals with the US in the near term.

Trump attacks India over trade, Russia links

Trump launched a sharp criticism of India’s trade policies and its longstanding ties with Russia. In a series of posts on Truth Social, he stated: “India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the world, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any country.”

The report mentions that he also condemned India’s defense and energy ties with Moscow, saying, “They have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia’s largest buyer of energy, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to stop the killing in Ukraine, all things not good!”

In a later post, Trump added, “I don’t care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.”

Despite the rhetoric, ET argues, India is opting for strategic patience. US officials have expressed frustration over India’s negotiating posture, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC that the administration is “frustrated” by the lack of progress and criticized India’s foreign policy as too aligned with Russia.

Nevertheless, diplomatic engagement continues. India is preparing to host the next Quad summit, along with the US, Japan, and Australia. Former Commerce Secretary Ajay Dua told Bloomberg TV that India must be “a little more accommodating” in trade talks, while also noting that large-scale commitments in energy or defense are unlikely in the current climate.

Defense shift and regional implications

Moreover, India’s rejection of the F-35 highlights broader challenges in its defense planning. The Tejas program, aimed at producing an indigenous fourth-generation fighter, has struggled, with only 38 aircraft delivered, 17 of which are prototypes. Limited combat capability has restricted export potential and delayed production.

While no immediate alternatives for a fifth-generation fighter exist, India is turning to France, aiming to begin domestic production of Rafale jet components by 2028. Experts also point to Russia’s Su-57 as a more likely short-term option, given India’s extensive existing military infrastructure tied to Russian systems.

As per the report, even though India has ruled out immediate retaliation, sources indicate that the government may challenge the new US tariffs, particularly on steel and automobiles, at the World Trade Organisation, depending on timing and strategic interest.

For now, New Delhi appears focused on maintaining stability while avoiding escalation. It is unwilling to enter a trade war, but also unwilling to be pressured into one-sided defense arrangements.

India’s broader objective remains clear: uphold national sovereignty while pursuing long-term economic and strategic autonomy, even amid external pressures.

August 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Kicking the peace can down the road

In discussion with Glenn Diesen
Ian Proud | July 28, 2025

Nice to catch up with Glenn Diesen to discuss recent developments, including my article on Trump’s 50-day ultimatum to Putin, which has now been reduced to 10-12 days, whatever that means. I continue to judge that the threat of secondary sanctions against Russia’s trading partners will have a greater impact on the US than on China, India or any other country that does business with Russia.

Meanwhile, Zelensky’s short-lived attempt to shut down anti-corruption organisations closing in on his cronies has been a big wake up call, not just for European political leaders and journalists, but more importantly, citizens.

Faced with admitting defeat in Ukraine and throwing Zelensky under the bus and continuing with an ineffective foreign policy towards Russia, I judge that Starmer, VdL and others will keep kicking the peace can down the road.

Yet every day the war continues, Ukraine loses more ground and more lives on the battlefield, and slides further towards the status of a failed state. My optimism remains low that the war will end in 2025.

July 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Decarbonization myth frays as hydrocarbon use grows

By Vijay Jayaraj | BizPacReview | June 20, 2025

One cannot peruse the morning headlines or scroll through the digital ether without being assailed by the global media’s solemn decree: Society is gracefully, unequivocally and inexorably decoupling from the deathly embrace of fossil fuels.

Many in the “enlightened” professional classes, forgoing independent scrutiny of the issue, regurgitate the declaration with the vigorous conviction of newly converted acolytes. What we have today is a digital amphitheater flooded with hashtags and half-truths, where perception cosplays as accomplishment and misinformation marches under the banner of inevitability.

Take China for example: Online posts about the country’s undeniable dependence on coal is glossed over or misrepresented. Popular reporting has Beijing showing great interest in “net zero” as evidenced by the installation of record amounts of solar and wind energy generators. Cherry-picked are the ebbs and flows of fossil fuel use and investments in “renewable” technology to argue that Chinese hydrocarbon use is waning.

However, the energy sector in China cares little about these fantasies. Beijing began building 94.5 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-powered capacity in 2024, in addition to resuming 3.3 GW of suspended projects. This is the highest level of construction in the past 10 years!

As recently as May, China deployed the world’s largest fleet of driverless mining trucks to fast-track efficient operations, partially to overcome the challenging conditions of harsh winter weather at the Yimin coal mine in northeastern Inner Mongolia.

Indeed, both China and India are pouring colossal sums into wind turbines and solar panels. Yet, let us not, for a moment, confuse this fervent activity with the zealous repudiation of fossil fuels seen in some European countries. The Asian nations are not renouncing fossil fuels but rather grabbing every energy source as would hoarders before an expected crisis.

Speaking at the Heartland International Conference in 2023, I dubbed this the “twin strategy” – a clever diplomatic pas de deux – where Beijing and Delhi strike photogenic “green” poses for the Western press while quietly constructing new coal-fired plants and excavating and importing ever more fuel for them.

The result? Applause from climate summiteers and megawatts from smokestacks – a brilliant balancing act of virtue signaling and strategic realism. The West calls it hypocrisy; China and India call it another day at the office.

Climate doomsayers must advance a narrative of Asian complicity in the increasingly fraying “green” agenda to help keep alive the myth of a decarbonizing world, which for most sensible people has become about as believable as the Easter Bunny.

India’s target for achieving net zero is set for a distant 2070 – 100 years after the first Earth Day, whose observance by then will be about as relevant as tossing virgins into volcanoes. More lasting will be the country’s commitment to economic growth through the use of coal, oil and natural gas – a path to having the highest rate of increase in energy demand going forward.

The case is similar in dozens of other countries across Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, where new discoveries of energy reserves and an appetite for economic progress have the oil and gas industries booming.

Approximately 120 oil and gas discoveries were made globally in 2024, with significant drilling expected in Suriname, Cyprus, Libya and South Africa. About 85% of these discoveries occurred in offshore regions, the bigger ones being in Kuwait and Namibia.

Rystad Energy predicts deepwater drilling to hit a 12-year high in 2026. Once the poster child of climate repentance, the British multinational oil and gas company BP is abandoning plans to reduce production in favor of drilling deeper in the Gulf of Mexico. Norway’s Equinor announced early this year that “renewables” would take a back seat, as the country’s offshore oil fields roar back to life.

The climate commentariat, already breathless from their creative contortions to recast reality, now finds itself rattled by President Trump’s funding cuts that turned off the tap to the climate-industrial complex.

Meanwhile, the digital battleground remains an arena for the ongoing tug-of-war between the realities of economics and physics and fanciful rhetoric about an energy transition. The growth in consumption of fossil fuels continues apace, nonetheless.

Vijay Jayaraj is a research associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.He resides in Bengaluru, India.

Copyright © 2025. All Rights Reserved. BizPacReview

June 28, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , , , , | Leave a comment

India Spurns Carbon Tax Threat, Promotes Trade and Fossil Fuels

By Vijay Jayaraj | RealClear World | May 24, 2025

Like many developing economies, India faces coercion from the United Nations and Europe to conform to climate policies, especially through the imposition of carbon taxes on imports into their countries. But Delhi is not about to bend to such tactics.

“If they [EU and U.K.] put in a carbon tax, we’ll retaliate,” said India’s Union Minister Piyush Goya at the Columbia India Energy Dialogue in New York City. “I think it will be very silly, particularly to put a tax on friendly countries like India.”

That isn’t a bluff. It’s a moral, strategic, and scientific imperative grounded in realpolitik and economic logic.

India and the U.K. have inked a trade deal that promises to boost bilateral trade by more than $33 billion and increase U.K. gross domestic product and wages by many billions.

On paper, this deal is a triumph for both nations, removing duties on 99% of Indian goods entering the U.K. For India, this means greater market access for textiles, agriculture and manufactured goods – sectors that employ millions and drive economic growth.

Yet, the U.K.’s pending Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) remains in place with no exemptions for Indian steel, cement and aluminum, despite the trade agreement.

Starting January 2027, the U.K. is to impose a levy on these “carbon-intensive” imports, supposedly to compensate for the difference between the U.K.’s domestic carbon tax and India’s lower assessment at home. The tax on imports is to prevent “carbon leakage” — the idea that emissions are “outsourced” to countries with fewer regulations.

This hocus-pocus is nothing more than repugnant virtue signaling that penalizes manufacturers in developing countries for using the very fossil fuels that powered the West’s rise in the 19th and 20th centuries.

India’s export of these products to the EU and U.K. are a critical part of its economic engine. In 2022 alone, 27% of India’s iron, steel and aluminum exports went to the EU.

Yet, the EU’s CBAM, set to take effect in 2026 prior to the U.K. tax, would slap tariffs of 20-35% on these goods.

For Indian exporters, this translates to a steep cost increase. India’s predominantly coal-based blast furnaces have higher carbon intensity of around 2.5-2.6 metric tons of CO₂ emissions per metric ton of steel produced in comparison to the global average of 1.85 metric tons of CO2 . This means a higher CBAM assessment for India.

Profit margins for steel exports could shrink, while aluminum exporters might face a sudden surcharge once indirect emissions from coal power are factored in. Take the case of Tata Steel, which employs over 75,000 people and produces 30 million tons of steel annually. A 20-35% carbon tax under the EU’s CBAM would erode profit margins, forcing layoffs or price hikes that could cost it market share.

India’s dismissal of the climate war on fossil fuels is grounded in necessity and science. Economically, the nation aims to become a $5 trillion economy by 2027, a goal that demands rapid industrialization and infrastructure growth.

Steel, cement, and aluminum are the building blocks of this ambition, used in everything from bridges to skyscrapers, and an important source of export revenue. Fossil fuels, particularly coal, are the lifeblood of these industries, providing the energy needed to keep production costs low and globally competitive.

Coal generates more than 70% of India’s electricity. It powers the factories that make steel and cement. It keeps the lights on in rural hospitals and schools. And it fuels the economic engine that has lifted 415 million people out of poverty in the past two decades.

The modern crusade against fossil fuels is based on the false premise of a disintegrating global environment. But that is not the case. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin. It is a colorless, odorless gas essential to life on Earth.

Even the term “carbon emissions” is a sleight of hand. The emissions are carbon dioxide but calling them “carbon” conjures images of potentially harmful soot and smoke. Fear perpetrated by lies have made people less resistant to destructive policies like CBAM.

However, India won’t bow to carbon taxes, and it won’t join an unscientific climate war that sacrifices its future. The U.K. and EU would do well to listen, lest they find themselves on the losing end of an Asian-dominated trade battle over manufactured goods.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

June 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

BJP-led team returns from West Asia

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | June 4, 2025 

The multi-party delegation led by the BJP Vice-President and spokesman Bijayant Panda which toured four countries in the Gulf region — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Algeria — to rally support for the government’s war on terror against Pakistan has returned. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar “lauded their efforts,” per media reports. 

This was the most consequential delegation out of the five delegations that the government mounted to mobilise international opinion. The tidings from the Gulf have great ‘grassroots resonance’ in India’s domestic politics.

A member of Panda’s team said, “We briefed the EAM … that India’s growing economic might and position in the world order, secured by PM Narendra Modi’s diplomatic push during his tenure and visits to several nations, are key when it comes to the world’s decision to stand with us as partners both in international trade as well as on the issue of zero tolerance against terrorism.”       

West Asia is India’s ‘extended neighbourhood.’ And India’s West Asian diplomacy does carry the imprimatur of Modi. For that reason, an ex-Foreign Secretary was included in Panda’s team to navigate the tricky mission. What comes to mind is Panda’s challenge was similar to Nikita Khrushchev’s as the Commissar of the Red Army at the Stalingrad Front in World War II.

Khrushchev shouted at the commanders of the 62nd Army and the 64th Army on the Stalingrad Front, ‘Comrades, this is no ordinary city. This is Stalingrad. It carries the name of the Boss.” The generals got the message and went on to crush the crack Nazi Panzer Divisions and turn the tide of the Battle of Stalingrad, which is still remembered as the bloodiest and fiercest battle of the entirety of World War II — and, arguably, in all of human history. 

But Panda didn’t have such an option. His delegation received a warm reception. But the profoundly worrisome reality still continues, namely, the Gulf regimes are taking a  ‘proforma’ attitude, voicing hackneyed words on terrorism but also echoing the burgeoning world opinion that India and Pakistan ought to find a solution to their issues through dialogue and negotiations.  

The Gulf states have neatly sidestepped Pakistan’s alleged role in Pahalgam. They ask for ‘proof’! The top diplomat of a friendly country apparently remarked a few days ago in a private conversation as an aside that the Pahalgam terrorists physically checking out the religion of their victims first is nothing new in the subcontinent, and cited Khushwant Singh’s Train to Pakistan for reference. 

What has Panda’s delegation  brought home? Does it make a success story? A member of the delegation later told media in the mother of all quotes, “Every country we visited had already issued statements condemning the Pahalgam terror incident — these were reiterated by them in person to us.” But this is like reinventing the wheel. 

Some profoundly troubling question arise here, especially as countdown has begun for the Shashi Tharoor moment in Washington. Tharoor also has a challenging mission. After all those decades in the UN where he handled public relations work, this must be a novel experience — to actually negotiate as a flag carrier.

Not a single senior US official is willing to name Pakistan so far — certainly, not Trump. They will wonder how this flashy neocon liberal from Delhi and an eloquent exponent of globalism in American publications all these years has shrunk and become a pale shadow of himself.   

Who’s afraid of terrorism in 21st century? We are in an era where terrorism is becoming the preferred weapon to fight hybrid wars. Trump recently shook hands with the notoriously cruel ex-al Qaeda terrorist leader Ahmad al-Sharaa who committed unspeakable crimes against humanity, underscoring that yesterday’s terrorist can be tomorrow’s key ally. 

That al-Qaeda was actually a creation of the Americans is known to everybody but Trump proclaimed himself openly as an admirer of al-Sharaa, telling Gulf sheikhs at a GCC conclave in Riyadh on May 14 after shaking hands with the tall six-footer Syrian that “he’s a “young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.” Trump added, “He’s got a real shot at holding it [Syria]  together. He’s a real leader. He led a charge, and he’s pretty amazing.” 

Trump had better be right in his optimism because his entire gambit of betting on an ex-al Qaeda ally to reshape West Asia is a risky venture funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar who’d see in all this by the time Trump becomes history a pathway to sow the germane seeds of a third Wahhabi state modelled after them in the cradle of Islamic civilisation. 

In Ukraine too, terrorism is the preferred weapon for the Western powers to bleed Russia in their proxy war when in military technology and defence manufacturing industry they cannot match Russia’s, and they are no longer capable of fighting a continental war either. The stark message  coming out of the attacks on Russian military assets two days ago with technical support from NATO satellites — and possibly Elon Musk’s Starlink — is that terrorism can be a game changer in geopolitics. 

Therefore, all this global campaign by our government against Pakistan may have a good optic domestically as our media hypes it up dutifully, but what is the net gain for diplomacy? Even if the whole world were to now bracket Pakistan with the US, UK, Saudi Arabia or Qatar as yet another state sponsoring terrorism, so what? Who cares? 

Today’s papers have reported that according to a list of chairs of the subsidiary bodies of the UN that monitor international terrorism, Pakistan holds responsible positions as co-chair of the Taliban Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council for 2025 and the Counter-terrorism Committee. Pakistan will also be the co-chair of the informal working groups on documentation and other procedural questions as well as the general UN Security Council sanctions issues. 

How could the alleged epicentre of international terrorism be possibly a watchdog and decision-maker on counter-terrorism and sanctions in a world body? Clearly, international opinion ignores India’s diatribes against Pakistan, which is also currently an elected non-permanent member of the Security Council.

On the other hand, thanks to the Biden administration and Five Eyes, an impression gained ground in recent years that the Indian government is sponsoring assassination of political opponents abroad as a matter of statecraft. Not only have we suffered some ‘reputational damage,’ but the Pakistani claim that it too is a victim of terrorism gained traction. Countries seem to hyphenate India with Pakistan. It has become necessary for Delhi to disown responsibility when a train derails in Baluchistan or an improvised explosive device blows up a Pakistani army convoy or some notorious jihadi fellow meets with unnatural death on the streets of Lahore and Karachi. 

This is becoming a vicious cycle which only helps to call attention to the unresolved Kashmir problem as posing threat to regional and international security. Put differently, ‘terrorism’ in the India-Pakistan context has become the objective co-relative of the Kashmir problem and Hindu-Muslim strife. Trump’s caustic remark about the millennial war speaks for itself. 

It is high time that the ‘war on terror’ is removed from our diplomatic toolbox. Certainly, our parliamentarians have no role in it. As for the optics domestically, resort to some other means. By all means, meet terrorism with coercion — if that indeed helps. Deploy what Joseph Nye called ‘smart power’. But neither expect external support, nor canvass for it.  

June 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Senators Push Trump to Endorse Major Sanctions Bill

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | June 3, 2025

A bipartisan coalition of Senators is lobbying President Donald Trump to endorse legislation that will add new sanctions on Russia. The bill has sweeping bipartisan support in the Upper Chamber with over 80 co-sponsors.

According to The Hill, Senators are prepared to pass the legislation that would place a 500% tariff on countries that import Russian energy. Republicans in the Upper Chamber are waiting for Trump’s endorsement before moving forward with the bill.

Trump has used the bill as a threat to ramp up the economic war on Russia if the Kremlin does not reach an agreement with Ukraine to end the war. However, Trump has not explicitly given his support for the legislation.

The Guardian reports that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has played a key role in prodding Trump to take a more aggressive stance towards Russia in private meetings. “Senator Graham deserves a lot of credit for making the case for tougher pressure on the Kremlin,” said John Hardie, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish think tank. “Carrots clearly haven’t worked, so it’s time to start using some sticks, including by going after Russia’s oil revenue. This economic pressure should be paired with sustained military assistance for Ukraine.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said the bill could receive a vote this month. “[The White House is] still hopeful they’ll be able to strike some sort of a deal, but … there’s a high level of interest here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle in moving on it,” he said. “I think a genuine interest in doing something to make clear to Russia that they need to come to the table … I think that would have a big impact.”

The White House is considering instructing Republican Senators to vote according to their conscience on the legislation. Such a move would give the GOP lawmakers the ability to vote for the bill without Trump giving an explicit endorsement.

On the other side of the aisle, Democratic leadership is demanding immediate action on the bill. “The single best thing President Trump can do to strengthen Ukraine’s hand right now is to show that the U.S. stands firmly behind them and squarely against Russia. But so far, Trump has not done that,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said.

The legislation also has support in the House. Republican Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday, “There’s many members of Congress that want us to sanction Russia as strongly as we can. And I’m an advocate of that.”

If passed into law, the legislation would represent a significant escalation in the US economic war with Russia, and a break from Trump’s campaign pledge to end the war in Ukraine and improve ties with Moscow.

Graham has described it as “the most draconian bill I’ve ever seen in my life in the Senate.”

The bill would also spike tensions with China and India, as the two Asian giants would be slapped with 500% tariffs for importing Russian oil. The Senators hope that the threat of tariffs would lead Delhi and Beijing to end imports from Moscow and bankrupt the Russian war machine.

“I have coordinated with the White House on the Russia sanctions bill since its inception. The bill would put Russia on a trade island, slapping 500% tariffs on any country that buys Moscow’s energy products. The consequences of its barbaric invasion must be made real to those that prop it up.” Graham wrote last week, “If China or India stopped buying cheap oil, Mr Putin’s war machine would grind to a halt.”

The European Union believes its members will avoid the tariffs even as some of its members still import Russian gas and nuclear fuel. The bill has the endorsement of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Following the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, President Joe Biden claimed a western economic war would cripple the Russian economy and prevent Moscow from waging war. However, the Kremlin has weathered a number of Western economic measures, including having its assets frozen, sanctions, and price caps, while increasing the size of its military.

June 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

India, Pakistan and a bit of infowarfare

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 27, 2025

The recent events involving India and Pakistan, in a short-lived, conventional and timely conflict, prompt us to reflect carefully on the use and management of media coverage of the conflict.

It is important to remember that the domination of information has to do with the domination of the mind; therefore, the way in which an event is narrated largely defines the perception that the masses will have of it. Controlling the narrative means controlling the majority element of the cognitive-perceptual dimension.

So, let’s look at the facts. A few hours after the massacre of 26 civilians in Pahalgam on 22 April, the main Indian media had already passed judgement. No investigation had yet been launched, no credible claim had been made, nor had any attempt been made to identify specific responsibilities, yet in a very short time the dominant narrative had been established: Pakistan was to blame.

What happened next represents a new critical point in the information war that now accompanies every moment of tension between India and Pakistan. In the days that followed, the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi suffered expulsions of staff, Pakistani citizens were ordered to leave India by 30 April, and a decisive digital offensive was launched. Significantly, the Indian authorities blocked Pakistani YouTube channels, froze social media profiles and targeted narratives coming from across the border.

From Islamabad’s point of view, this was not simply a response to terrorism through the media, but rather a form of information terrorism, an occupation of the narrative. This is a key turning point.

The conflict between the two countries has always been marked by propaganda, disinformation and narratives inflamed by the media on both sides and also abroad, where there is a constant attempt to identify with one faction or the other (as is to be expected); but in 2025, the information landscape is not only a subject of contention, it has become colonised territory.

Pakistan, increasingly marginalised in the large international digital spaces, finds itself fighting a narrative war at a disadvantage. The way in which the Indian media reported the Pahalgam attack follows a well-established script: vague intelligence sources, information presented as established facts, inflammatory talk shows launched well before any concrete evidence emerged. Even after Pakistan’s firm denial and request for a joint investigation, the Indian press continued its campaign. Outlets such as Times Now and Republic TV immediately ran alarmist headlines: ‘Pakistan-sponsored terrorism is back’, ‘It’s time for a military response’. Terms such as ‘atrocious’, ‘state-sponsored’ and ‘surgical strike’ dominated the broadcasts, while scientific investigations were still in their early stages.

No independent verification – note this detail – has been made public. The few Pakistani voices invited onto television programmes were promptly attacked. There was no editorial caution, no balance.

It is fair to acknowledge that Pakistan also has a complicated past with press freedom and control of narratives by the authorities, but what emerges today is not a symmetrical conflict, but rather an unbalanced silence.

On 25 April, the Indian Ministry of Information banned 16 YouTube channels, 94 social media accounts and six news sites linked to Pakistan. The official reason? ‘Protection of national security and sovereignty’. The concrete result: the blocking of almost any alternative or critical viewpoint, especially on issues such as Kashmir, the attack on Pahalgam or bilateral relations. Among the platforms affected were independent media outlets such as Naya Daur, channels run by Pakistani scholars abroad and cultural content with no political affiliation. At the same time, official fact-checking units launched a campaign to expose what they called ‘Pakistani disinformation,’ but the content removed also included material based on authoritative international sources, archive articles that were still valid, and statements taken out of context. The result was a sharp restriction of freedom of expression and access to certain local sources. Even diplomatic communications were not spared. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry saw many of its official posts on X (formerly Twitter) blocked, including statements calling for calm. On 29 April, the hashtag #FalseFlagPahalgam, widely shared in Pakistan, was virtually invisible on platforms accessible from Indian territory.

Tensions reached a new peak on 7 May 2025, when India struck civilian and military targets in Punjab and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, sparking fears of a serious escalation. Islamabad called the operation ‘a blatant act of war’ and announced that it had shot down five Indian military jets, three of which were also confirmed by international media. India has not yet officially responded to this claim, but anonymous government sources have said that three fighter jets crashed in Indian-controlled Kashmir, without confirming whether they actually belonged to India or Pakistan.

Geopolitical asymmetries

It is precisely in this disproportion that the real asymmetry can be perceived. India, thanks to its technological resources, its links with major global platforms and its ability to influence algorithms, controls the digital narrative. Pakistan, on the other hand, is often its victim. The result is a one-sided war of narratives, in which Delhi sets the terms of the debate and Islamabad is relegated to the role of designated culprit.

The internal consequences are no less serious: increased Islamophobia, similarities between Kashmiri identity and jihadism, and some localised tensions. Hashtags such as #PunishPakistan and #MuslimTerror have spread widely without control, while Pakistani responses denouncing violence or discrimination have been labelled as disinformation and deleted.

This double standard only fuels radicalism on both sides. It pushes young Pakistanis towards closed and polarised environments and makes it increasingly difficult to build peaceful bridges between the two peoples. What was once a space for cultural diplomacy is now a digital minefield. The silence of big tech and Western media in the face of India’s censorship is significant: when an authoritarian regime represses dissent, it is called tyranny; when India does so in the name of ‘national security’, it is praised as moderate. Pakistan has asked for the opportunity to defend itself in the information arena and has been effectively denied, leaving it at an international disadvantage.

The absence of real journalistic scrutiny signals a deeper evil: narrative has replaced facts. The struggle for dominance is now being fought with tweets, headlines and talk shows.

At this level of conflict, the gap between what is true and what is plausible becomes very difficult to discern. Do you understand how powerful this tool is? The frame within which the narrative is placed is what determines how the ‘truth’ of that event will be constructed.

The example of India and Pakistan teaches us that there is no need to fire guns, even in a historical conflict such as theirs. Words work much better. Because even when the guns have fired, there will still be ‘good guns’ and ‘bad guns’, and that value judgement will be made by the way people perceive what happened, not by an objective or rationally agreeable truth.

In all this, the great media victory is that a narrative front has been opened up that can easily be used by other global powers and could be employed by some of them to drag other adversarial countries into an information conflict. Russia, China, the UK and the US have interests at stake and could become part of this expanded infowar front. Because in the world of information, war does not have the space and time limitations of conventional warfare: everything is fast, fluid, constantly expanding and contracting, and knows no night or day.

Information warfare may save more lives, but it claims more victims. Lives are saved because direct killing can be avoided; victims are claimed because everyone involved will inevitably be hit by the weapon of information.

May 27, 2025 Posted by | Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Islamophobia, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »