14. Hindistan başbakanı (2014–görevde)
US 250th Independence Day: Merz, Modi extend congratulations
The US is celebrating 250 years of independence with a massive fireworks display and military flyovers in the capital. Leaders from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to India's PM Narendra Modi sent their well-wishes.
Outrage in India after ‘experiment’ remark on ethanol-mixed fuel
NEW DELHI: The Indian government sought to contain a growing backlash on Friday against its mandatory use of 20 per cent ethanol-blended petrol, as consumers unhappy about lower fuel efficiency and vehicle performance planned a protest against the policy. The mandate to use the blend, called E20, came into force last year, but is now one of the biggest political flashpoints for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and motorists in the world’s third-biggest car market. The controversy intensified this week after Attorney General R. Venkataramani told a court hearing that E20 was an “experiment” whose results would only come out next year. The government denied the remark was ever made, but video of the court hearing showing Venkataramani saying the words has since gone viral on social media. Venkataramani said he used the term “experiment” in the context of the volume of ethanol supplies, not the ethanol petrol policy itself. This has done little to quell public anger, with opponents of the policy accusing the government of rushing its rollout. The government’s press office dismissed the criticism as “wild claims” on Friday, asking people to not “fall for the rage bait”. Seeking to reassure motorists, Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri on Thursday compared ethanol fuel to its use in motor racing. “They use it in racing cars also, the acceleration increases. Mileage, yes, it may drop a little,” Puri said. Protest planned Tehseen Poonawalla, a New Delhi-based socialite and Congress party supporter, said he was planning a protest against the E20 policy in New Delhi on Sunday, and had received interest from thousands of people wanting to join in. Many motorists are frustrated that they no longer have a choice at fuel stations and have seized on the attorney general’s comment to vent their anger on social media. Priyank Kharge, a state minister in India’s opposition Congress party, said on X that the E20 policy rollout lacked consultation and that the government “cannot challenge citizens to prove damage when your own data is still pending”. Hundreds of motorists have posted complaints on X alleging reduced fuel efficiency and increased wear and tear of car parts from E20. In one video on X viewed over 500,000 times, an agitated motorist who identified himself as Manish Kashyap stands in a workshop with his car saying in the post it needed repairs after being damaged by E20 fuel. “I have spent a lot of money on this car and paid taxes only to find that after two months my car is not working,” he said. The government says E20 helps to reduce carbon emissions, cuts crude imports which saves foreign exchange, and supports farm incomes by increasing demand for agricultural feedstocks used in ethanol production. Published in Dawn, July 4th, 2026
New Zealand to host Indian Prime Minister
Indian Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi will make his first official visit to New Zealand next week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has announced. “Prime Minister Modi’s visit is historic, with this being the first to New Zealand by an Indian Prime Minister in 40 years,” Mr Luxon says. “India is one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies, and a country of enormous importance to New Zealand’s prosperity. “We are taking the two countries’ relationship to the next level with our New Zealand-India Free Trade Agreement, signed in April, which will deliver more jobs, higher exports and stronger economic growth for New Zealand. “It will reduce or eliminate tariffs on 95 per cent of New Zealand’s exports to India once fully implemented. From day one, 57 per cent of our exports will be tariff-free. “This will unlock new opportunities to grow our goods and services exports into a market of 1.4 billion people and contribute to achieving the Government’s goal of building the future by doubling the value of exports by 2034.” The visit reflects the growing momentum in the New Zealand-India relationship. Discussions between the leaders will include trade and investment, maritime security, education, technology, tourism, sport, and global issues. “We will also be celebrating the people-to-people connections between our two countries, with Kiwi-Indians comprising around 6 percent of New Zealand’s population and making a significant contribution to our country. They are highly engaged across the workforce, with strong representation in business, technology, health, science and many other important sectors. “This visit is about celebrating a winning partnership between New Zealand and India - one that delivers for our people and supports greater prosperity and security for both our countries. I look forward to welcoming Prime Minister Modi to New Zealand.” The Indian Prime Minister will arrive in Auckland on Friday 10 July and depart on Saturday 11 July.
Blood, iron and water: India's riparian hypocrisy
South Asia teeters precariously upon a powder keg of existential volatility, ironically fuelled by water itself. This dangerous moment has been propelled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s flagitious and untenable proclamation that the waters of the Indus basin belong exclusively to India. One reaches this sombre conclusion after reading the incisive column by Ahmar Bilal Soofi, titled “Dams on Chenab — a target?”. A leading jurist, Soofi has consistently advocated rigorous legal remedies against Modi’s malevolent suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 — an act tantamount to de facto abrogation, devoid of legitimacy under the principle of pacta sunt servanda. This assertion by New Delhi not only repudiates solemn treaty obligations but weaponises a vital shared resource, imperilling the agrarian lifelines of downstream Pakistan. India’s hypocrisy Indian policy discourse seeks to cloak accelerated projects on the Chenab, including the colossal Sawalkote endeavour, under the guise of legitimate upper-riparian rights and energy needs. While claiming adherence to run-of-the-river constraints, such literature conveniently ignores the foreseeable consequences: diminished flows, ecological devastation, and an existential threat to food sovereignty for over 250 million people dependent on the Indus irrigation system. The hypocrisy stands glaringly exposed when juxtaposed against India’s vehement remonstrations as a lower riparian state in regards to river Brahmaputra on its north-eastern border. As a lower riparian, New Delhi invokes principles of equitable utilisation and the duty to cause no significant harm — yet behaves with unrestrained imperiousness when occupying the upper riparian position. Pakistan’s position rests on firm juridical foundations. The IWT’s annexures strictly limit Indian activities on the western rivers to preserve perennial flows. By explicitly linking dam construction to punitive objectives, as evidenced by ministerial declarations that not a single drop will reach Pakistan, India has converted ostensibly civilian infrastructure into instruments of strategic coercion. This is no longer a technical infraction or legal nicety; it constitutes a brazen act of war — a deliberate assault upon the sovereign lifeblood of a nation. Under jus ad bellum, Pakistan holds the inherent right of anticipatory self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter when facing existential threats to its agriculture and societal survival. Under jus in bello, Article 56 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) offers conditional protection to dams and installations containing dangerous forces. This protection lapses where such works are used for other than their normal functions in regular, significant and direct support of military operations, and where attack is the only feasible way to terminate that support (Article 56(2)). Likewise, Article 52 designates as military objectives those structures whose purpose or use makes an effective contribution to hostile action. When a nation’s survival hangs by a thread, history delivers its thunderous verdict. Lessons from history In 1943, as Nazi war machine ravaged Europe, the Allies executed Operation Chastise — the legendary Dam Busters raid. In a breathtaking feat of courage, 617 Squadron of the Royal Air Force breached the Möhne and Eder dams using revolutionary bouncing bombs. They acted not from vengeance but necessity, to cripple the industrial heart powering a campaign of annihilation. Those dams, civilian in appearance, had become instruments of totalitarian aggression. It is precisely for such moments of existential peril that the drafters of Additional Protocol I inserted the critical exception in Article 56(2). When a dam or dyke is transformed into a weapon of war — deployed to slowly suffocate an entire population — its legal protection is extinguished. Water is not a mere commodity; it is the sacred essence of life, explicitly recognised as a fundamental human right under the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and international covenants. When every peaceful remedy is exhausted and a downstream nation confronts deliberate hydrological warfare aimed at engineering famine and national collapse, Article 56(2) stands as the international community’s solemn acknowledgment: in the final extremity, a sovereign people possess both the moral right and legal justification to destroy the structure that threatens their very existence. Geostrategic realities further amplify Pakistan’s options. Several of these Indian projects on the Chenab lie at distances of mere tens of kilometres from the Line of Control. Nestled in precipitous, sediment-choked Himalayan gorges, they offer limited fortification and dangerously short reaction windows. India’s air defence system, despite augmentation, faces inherent topographic and temporal constraints against low-level or standoff threats. These vulnerabilities render calibrated interdiction both feasible and potentially decisive. The way ahead for Pakistan Pakistan has and must pursue a robust legal encirclement. This includes invoking IWT Article IX for arbitration, seeking provisional measures at the International Court of Justice under Statute Article 41, approaching the International Criminal Court over starvation tactics prohibited by Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(xxv), and engaging the UN Human Rights Council on rights to water, food, and life. These steps reaffirm the primacy of rules-based order over unilateral fiat. As a country, we must endevour for a peaceful resoltion. The IWT survived past conflicts through mutual forbearance, not inherent strength. Its current crisis arises from politicised hydrology rather than actual scarcity. PM Modi’s selective riparian ethic — imperious upstream, plaintive downstream — gravely weakens India’s moral and legal standing. For Pakistan, confronting hydrologically induced existential coercion, the full panoply of lawful measures persists: diplomatic, adjudicatory, and, where thresholds of imperative necessity are traversed, proportionate defensive action to safeguard the corpus of national survival. International law, far from enjoining supine acquiescence, equips sovereign nations with doctrinal instruments to repel existential duress. The Indian ignition of the Indus basin, emblematic of intertwined geography, law, and power, now tests whether precept or predation shall govern transboundary waters in an era of climatic flux. While Pakistan must continue to navigate this crucible with juridical precision and strategic clarity, extending every reasonable opportunity for peace, the belligerent designs of India may ultimately compel the rights of Pakistan over the Indus basin to be determined not by treaties alone, but by the cold Bismarckian logic of Eisen und Blut — iron and blood.
Kan, Demir ve Su: Hindistan'ın Kıyıdaş İkiyüzlülüğüIndian opposition demands defence minister's resignation for 'lying' about soldiers' deaths in 2025 conflict with Pakistan
India’s opposition party Congress has demanded the resignation of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and stepped up criticism against him for “lying” in parliament about the deaths of Indian soldiers during the May 2025 conflict with Pakistan, according to Indian media. The criticism comes days after the Indian government on June 26 disclosed the names of six armed forces personnel who died during the military conflict, dubbed “Operation Sindoor” by New Delhi. The names were included in the Roll of Honour on the National War Memorial website, marking the first official disclosure of military casualties from the period, The Hindu noted. Subsequently, on Monday, chairperson of the Congress’s Ex-servicemen Department Col. (retd) Rohit Chaudhry and Wing Commander (retd) Anuma Acharya slammed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government for concealing the deaths of the six personnel, The Hindu reported. In a press conference, Chaudhry accused Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of using “soldiers as props” while seeking votes in the name of the armed forces, the outlet added. The Congress demanded an apology from the prime minister. “The foundation of the Modi government is built on lies. They have no right to remain in power,” he said, questioning why it had taken the government 13 months to make their names public. In another move against the defence minister, India Today reported that parliament member K.C. Venugopal on Tuesday sought privilege proceedings against Singh for allegedly misleading the Lok Sabha about the six Indian soldiers — five from the army and one from the air force, The outlet noted that an Indian parliament member may seek a privilege motion when alleging that another member or a minister has breached parliamentary privilege. “This amounts to completely misleading Parliament. That is why I have moved a privilege motion against Rajnath Singh ji before the Speaker of the House,” Congress quoted Venugopal as saying on Wednesday. In a post on Tuesday, Venugopal said he had written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla as it was a “well-established norm that if a minister misleads the House or [withholds] information, it constitutes a breach of privilege, amounting to contempt of the House”. On its part, the Indian government has rejected the opposition’s stance, maintaining that the nation had paid tribute to the fallen personnel at the “earliest opportunity”, The Hindu said. India Today also noted that the defence ministry rejected what it called “misleading social media claims” that Singh had said no Indian soldier was killed during the conflict. The outlet quoted the ministry as contending that Singh’s remarks were “specifically meant to counter a widely circulated false narrative at the time that Indian Air Force pilots had been killed during Operation Sindoor”. In late May 2025, India’s Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan had admitted that his country’s fighter jets were shot down by Pakistan during the four-day military escalation. Modi’s government had faced scathing criticism from opposition parties for its lack of “political will to fight” during the May clashes and “failures” to prevent the Pahalgam attack. The May conflict was sparked by New Delhi’s allegations against Islamabad about the April 22 deadly attack in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam, which claimed the lives of 26 people, mostly tourists. The allegations were without evidence and were strongly refuted by Pakistan. Just two days later, India took a series of aggressive measures against Pakistan, including unilaterally suspending the critical Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Islamabad retaliated by suspending all kinds of trade, closing its airspace for Indian flights and shutting down the Wagah border. On the night of May 6, New Delhi launched deadly overnight air strikes on Pakistan. In retaliation, Pakistan Air Force downed five Indian jets, later raising the tally to seven. After tit-for-tat strikes on each other’s airbases, it took American intervention on May 10 for both sides to finally reach a ceasefire.
Hint muhalefeti, Pakistan'la çatışmada ölen askerler için savunma bakanının istifasını talep ettiSouth Asian leaders urged to choose ‘talks over hostility’
ISLAMABAD: Over one hundred civil society representatives from Pakistan and India have jointly appealed to the two prime ministers to take “meaningful and sustained” steps to restore peace, dialogue and cooperation in South Asia. The appeal was coordinated by O. P. Shah, who heads the New Delhi-based think tank, Centre for Peace and Progress. The signatories said unrelenting hostility was depriving millions of young people of “opportunities, prosperity and a secure future”. “India and Pakistan combined are home to nearly one-fifth of humanity. The people of both countries deserve a future defined by peace, development, connectivity and cooperation, rather than perpetual mistrust and confrontation,” they said in their appeals to Prime Ministers Shehbaz Sharif and Narendra Modi on Tuesday. In joint appeal, over 100 civil society representatives say Pakistan-India acrimony is robbing both nations of ‘a secure future’ The Pakistani signatories include former foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, former ambassador to New Delhi Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, academic Pervez Hoodbhoy, former senator Farhatullah Babar, and civil society figures Beena Sarwar, Salima Hashmi, Mohammad Mehdi and educationist A.H. Nayyar, among others. Among the signatories on the Indian side are Dr Farooq Abdullah, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Mehbooba Mufti, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Prof Manoj Jha, former RAW chief A.S. Dulat, Jawhar Sircar, Prof Saifuddin Soz and Prof Apoorvanand, among others. The 116 signatories urged both governments to consider confidence-building measures across diplomatic, economic, cultural and people-to-people tracks. They called for restoring full diplomatic relations, reinstating the High Commissioners in Islamabad and New Delhi, and resumption of visa services. The civil society representatives suggested the two governments reopen bilateral talks on all outstanding issues, including the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, and consider measures for demilitarisation and de-escalation. The framework for dialogue agreed upon between 2004 and 2007 could serve as a starting point, they said. Trade and travel The signatories sought the reopening of the Wagah-Attari land border, resumption of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and Lahore-Delhi bus services, and restarting of the Samjhauta Express and Thar Express trains. They said people from the two countries be also allowed to travel on the Kargil–Skardu route. The appeal sought reopening of the two countries’ airspace to commercial airlines. It urged reopening of commercial channels, reinstating the Most Favoured Nation status and promoting regional economic integration. The signatories observed that since people-to-people contacts were essential for defusing tensions and removing misgivings, travel restrictions should be eased. The two governments should consider promoting pilgrimage tourism and visits to heritage sites, the appeal said, suggesting reopening of the Kartarpur Sahib corridor and Neelum Valley’s Sharada Peeth as the first steps. The signatories further called for lifting restrictions on media outlets and digital platforms, allowing journalists to travel and work freely, and promoting exchanges of delegations to counter disinformation. “We respectfully request you to listen to the aspirations of common people and choose engagement over isolation, dialogue over hostility and cooperation over confrontation,” the appeal concluded. Published in Dawn, July 1st, 2026
Güney Asya’da barış için sivil toplumdan ‘düşmanlığa son’ çağrısıIndia's Cockroach party seeking education minister's ouster awaits cabinet reshuffle
Leaders of India’s youth Cockroach Janta Party neared two weeks of sit-in protests on Tuesday, backed by a well-known activist who has started a hunger strike in support of their demand for the resignation of the education minister. The protests in the capital Delhi, come as sources say the government is weighing significant cabinet changes, with Indian media reporting Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan could be moved from his portfolio. Supporters of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) during a sit-in protest called by CJP demanding the resignation of Indian Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, India, June 30, — Reuters The CJP, which gained 22 million followers on Instagram within a few days of being set up last month, is demanding his resignation for the leak of question papers for a national medical college entrance examination. Pradhan, his ministry and the government’s chief spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment. About 100 supporters of the CJP have been gathering daily at the protest site in central Delhi. “With each passing day, more people are coming here from different parts of India,” said 30-year-old party founder Abhijeet Dipke as he and social activist Sonam Wangchuk sat on a makeshift stage beneath a banner calling for Pradhan’s removal. Supporters of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) sleep on a carpet during a sit-in protest called by CJP demanding the resignation of Indian Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, India, June 30. — Reuters “We are waiting to see what the government decides because there are reports of a cabinet reshuffle. Once that announcement comes, we will decide the next course of action.” Wangchuk is a prominent critic of the government who was arrested last year after violent protests demanding statehood for his native Himalayan federal territory of Ladakh. ‘Six weeks of hunger strike or death’ Wangchuk said he would undertake a fast that would last six weeks unless he died first. “But hopefully, we don’t have to go that far,” he said, lying on a mattress. “A sensitive government in a democracy listens to the pains of the people, and I hope they will take action.” Sonam Wangchuk, an Indian education reformer, who has been on a hunger strike, sits on the stage during a sit-in protest called by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), demanding the resignation of Indian Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, India, June 30. — Reuters CJP describes itself as representing “the lazy, the unemployed, and the chronically correct”. Its rapid online rise reflects frustrations among young Indians, who are estimated to make up more than half the country’s 1.42 billion population. India’s unemployment rate was 3.1 per cent in 2025 for people aged 15 and above, government data showed, but nearly 10pc among those aged 15 to 29, rising to 13.6pc in urban areas. Young people have also been angered by the question paper leaks, which led to the cancellation of the medical college examination taken by 2.3m aspirants. It was held for a second time this month after the government deployed military aircraft to transport exam papers and temporarily blocked the Telegram online messaging platform, where it said the leak was spread. The CJP has drawn criticism from Modi’s BJP, with party president Nitin Nabin saying this week that “these virus and cockroach parties can hollow out the country”. “Such people are part of an anti-India gang and only BJP workers can teach them a lesson,” he said in a speech.
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Visit Norway
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit Norway on an official visit, 18–19 May. There will also be a Nordic-Indian Summit during the visit.
Norway and India to strengthen cooperation
Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had a meeting in Oslo to discuss ways of strengthening cooperation between Norway and India in the areas of trade, the green transition, technology and international security.
Nordic countries and India agree to strengthen cooperation
Leaders of the Nordic countries and Indian Prime Minister Modi met in Oslo for the 3rd India-Nordic Summit. At the Summit, the leaders agreed to strengthen their cooperation.
Hindistan'da 'Hamamböceği Partisi'nin popülaritesi artıyor
Hindistan'da tıp fakültesi giriş sınavı sorularının sızdırılması üzerine başlayan protestolar, Yeni Delhi'de ikinci haftasını geride bırakırken eylemciler Eğitim Bakanı Dharmendra Pradhan'ın istifasını talep ediyor. Hindistan'da gençlik hareketi olarak ortaya çıkan Hamamböceği Halk Partisi (CJP) liderleri, Eğitim Bakanı Dharmendra Pradhan'ın istifası talebiyle Yeni Delhi'de başlattıkları oturma eyleminde ikinci haftaya yaklaştı. Göstericilere, açlık grevine başlayan tanınmış aktivist Sonam Wangchuk da destek veriyor. Başkent Delhi'deki protestolar, hükümetin önemli kabine değişikliklerini değerlendirdiği döneme denk geldi. Konuya vakıf kaynaklar ve Hindistan medyasında yer alan haberler, Eğitim Bakanı Pradhan'ın görevinden alınabileceğine işaret ediyor. Geçtiğimiz ay kurulan ve kısa sürede Instagram'da 22 milyon takipçiye ulaşan CJP, ulusal tıp fakültesi giriş sınavı (NEET) sorularının sızdırılması nedeniyle Pradhan'ın görevden ayrılmasını istiyor. Delhi'nin merkezindeki eylem alanında her gün yaklaşık 100 parti destekçisi bir araya geliyor. Üzerinde Pradhan'ın görevden alınması çağrısı yazan pankartın altında, aktivist Sonam Wangchuk ile geçici platformda oturan 30 yaşındaki parti kurucusu Abhijeet Dipke, Reuters'a yaptığı açıklamada "Geçen her günle birlikte, Hindistan'ın farklı bölgelerinden daha fazla insan buraya geliyor" dedi ve şöyle devam etti: "Kabine değişikliği haberleri nedeniyle hükümetin ne karar vereceğini bekliyoruz. Bu açıklama yapıldığında sonraki adımımızı belirleyeceğiz." Hükümete yönelik muhalif tavrıyla bilinen Wangchuk, geçtiğimiz yıl memleketi olan Himalayalar'daki Ladakh federal bölgesine eyalet statüsü verilmesi talebiyle düzenlenen gösterilerin ardından tutuklanmıştı. WANGCUK ALTI HAFTALIK AÇLIK GREVİNE BAŞLADI Yatağın üzerinde uzanarak açıklama yapan Wangchuk, talepleri karşılanmadığı takdirde yaşamını yitirene kadar sürebilecek altı haftalık açlık grevine başladığını duyurdu. Wangchuk "Ancak umarım işler o noktaya varmaz" ifadelerini kullandı ve şöyle devam etti: "Demokrasilerde duyarlı bir hükümet halkın acılarına kulak verir; onların da harekete geçeceğini umuyorum." Kendisini "tembellerin, işsizlerin ve her zaman haklı olanların" temsilcisi olarak tanımlayan CJP'nin sosyal medyadaki hızlı yükselişi, 1,42 milyarlık ülke nüfusunun yarısından fazlasını oluşturan gençlerin duyduğu hoşnutsuzluğu yansıtıyor. Resmi verilere göre Hindistan'da 15 yaş ve üzeri nüfusta işsizlik oranı 2025 yılında yüzde 3,1 olarak kaydedilirken, bu oran 15-29 yaş grubundaki gençlerde yüzde 10'a ulaştı. Kentlerdeki genç işsizliği ise yüzde 13,6'yı buldu. Gençlerin öfkesini artıran diğer unsur ise 2,3 milyon adayın girdiği tıp fakültesi sınavının iptal edilmesine yol açan soru sızıntısı oldu. Sızıntının Telegram üzerinden yayıldığının açıklanmasının ardından hükümet, bu ay yenilenen sınav sorularını taşımak için askeri uçakları görevlendirmiş ve mesajlaşma platformuna erişimi geçici olarak engellemişti. CJP'nin faaliyetleri, Başbakan Narendra Modi'nin liderliğindeki Hindistan Halk Partisi'nin (BJP) tepkisini çekiyor. BJP Genel Başkanı Nitin Nabin yaptığı konuşmada, bu tür yapıları "virüs ve hamamböceği partileri" olarak nitelendirerek ülkeyi içeriden çökertebileceklerini söyledi. Nabin, "Bu insanlar Hindistan karşıtı bir şebekenin parçasıdır ve onlara yalnızca BJP çalışanları haddini bildirebilir" dedi PROTESTOLAR SOSYAL MEDYADAN SOKAKLARA TAŞINDI Haziran ayının başında başkentin ünlü protesto alanı Jantar Mantar'da bir araya gelen yüzlerce genç, yüzlerinde hamamböceği maskeleri ve ellerinde sayfaları kıvrılmış sınav hazırlık kitaplarıyla internetteki mizah dalgasını gerçek dünyada güce dönüştürmeye çalışmıştı. Kendilerini Hamamböceği Halk Partisi olarak adlandıran grup, Hindistan Yüksek Mahkemesi Başkanı'nın hükümet muhalifleri ile işsiz gençleri "hamamböceklerine" ve "parazitlere" benzettiği yönündeki iddiaların ardından kuruldu. Başlangıçta parodi hesabı ve internet memi üretim merkezi olarak faaliyete geçen yapı, zamanla sınavlara, istihdama ve zayıflayan ekonomik umutlara duyulan öfkenin kanalına dönüştü. Sınav iptalleri ve genç işsizliği nedeniyle duyulan öfkenin sözcülüğünü üstlenen partinin kurucusu Abhijeet Dipke, Boston Üniversitesi'nden mezun bir siyasi stratejist. Gösterileri yönetmek için ABD'den gelen Dipke "Hamamböcekleri asla korkmaz" dedi Tıp fakültesi sınavındaki usulsüzlükler ve bununla bağlantılı öğrenci intiharları, gençlerin mevcut sisteme olan güvenini sarsan en büyük etkenler arasında yer alıyor. Çevrimiçi ortamda birçok geleneksel partiden daha fazla takipçiye ulaşan CJP'nin sokak eylemleri, sosyal medyadaki mizahi dilin kalıcı bir siyasi harekete dönüşüp dönüşemeyeceğini test ediyor.
Temple heist and Hindutva
EVERY religion has its moral code. Hinduism, better still Brahminism, has a clutch of dos and don’ts enshrined in its classical scriptures. Does Hindutva, distinct from Hinduism, subscribe to the moral code? There’s a political critique of the fascist movement, which requires it to be fortified and addressed urgently, but increasingly there’s an equal need for a moral probe of Hindutva. Stealing gold and priceless treasures from a temple was explicitly categorised as one of five deadly sins — mahapatakas — in classical Hindu scripture. The ancient caution remains a compelling pointer to the reality that temples were regularly targeted in old India by robbers whether from within the precincts or without. Some Hindu kings in southern India plundered temples for treasure, others sacked the ones of rival kings and took home the deities as trophies. Kashmir, too, records a similar experience of plunder by an ancient king. In the mediaeval era, Mahmood Ghaznavi joined the raids and his sacking of the temple of Somnath is all too well recorded. A Persian chronicler is cited as asserting that Mahmood had a religious purpose in the raids even if Sanskrit sources of the region at the time do not express any such trauma that matches the Persian boast. Somnath, a name for Lord Shiva, according to the Persian chronicler was conflated with Manat, one of several idols expelled from Makkah as Islam advanced belief in a single invisible God. The scriptural censure in ancient texts is not the only evidence of stealing the riches offered to the temples by devotees. Other historical evidence also points to a possibly routine malaise. Gambling, while condemned as a severe moral vice in the Vedic texts, didn’t qualify as a deadly sin though drinking was. Drinking was listed among the serious mahapatakas. Gandhiji, a pious Hindu, condemned drinking but slammed tribal peasants in Gujarat for violently opposing Hindu and Parsi vendors for selling alcohol to their communities. Today, BJP-ruled Gujarat and Bihar formally observe prohibition to express cursory respect for Gandhi. The ban has created a thriving parallel market for liquor. The moment you drive out of Gujarat and into Rajasthan, a bevy of liquor shops lure clients by announcing their brands and prices in Gujarati. Someone seems to badly need the plundered wealth amid deliberate opaqueness. The other three unforgivable mahapatakas, listed in Chandogya Upanishad and Manu Smriti, were killing a Brahmin and committing adultery with the wife of the guru. The fifth commandment, to borrow a phrase from the Old Testament, forbade keeping the company of those that participated in the committing of the first four sins. One of the most prevalent sins today is described in the Rigveda in the famous ‘Dice Hymn’, where a gambler laments losing his family, wealth and respect, warning others to “play no longer with dice, but till thy tillage”. The central conflict of the epic Mahabharata occurs because King Yudhishthira succumbs to a gambling addiction, losing his kingdom, brothers and wife in a rigged game of dice. Gambling, the scriptures warn, breeds dishonesty, greed and chaos. Texts like the Bhagavata Purana define gambling as one of the major pillars of ‘adharma’ (unrighteousness) because it destroys truthfulness. Gambling under Hindutva rule, though not exclusively because of it, has become a serious scourge with families succumbing to the addiction of their own loved one to online gambling. Sports have not been spared the merciless guile of the bookies. A lore among the children in our predominantly Hindu neighbourhood in Lucknow was that houses needed to be more carefully watched after Diwali since it had become an occasion for serious gambling, evidently with contrived religious sanction. The losing parties were accused of often pillaging private homes to make up for their losses. In the larger world of agrarian India, the Marxian class struggle stalks the peasantry dressed as a friend or a facilitator of monetary support at times of distress. Indira Gandhi was wary of Sukhi Lala, the uncouth and wily moneylender featured in the movie Mother India. She had barred the weather bureau from sharing monsoon forecasts with the press. The role of satellites in monitoring the climate patterns would arrive in India later. In Mrs Gandhi’s calculation, the baniya exploited his insights into the pattern of the arriving rains to manipulate the helpless peasantry. David Hardiman in his amazing book on usury in colonial western India — Feeding the Baniya — records instances where the moneylender prays for drought, using tantric help to drive away rain. He maximises his profits from a peasantry in crisis. Gambling is a tradition. Will it rain? Will it not? The baniya wagers on his insight. The monsoon rains this year are said to be worryingly low, creating a loaded political possibility. Mrs Gandhi lost her grip on power after two successive failures of monsoons in the mid-1970s undermining her victory in the 1971 war. The recent theft of large quantities of gold and ornaments from the heavily guarded Ram temple at Ayodhya is of a piece with the ancient Indian phenomenon. Someone seems to badly need the plundered wealth amid deliberate opaqueness. Reports allege that senior officials of the temple trust decreed by the supreme court and appointed by the Modi government are being spared the probe while some junior staff were arrested. There are reports also of someone linked with high officials of the trust often leaving the temple with a loaded sack. He preferred to travel by train instead of flying out of Ayodhya. Elections are due in Uttar Pradesh next year, which represents the most politically influential state accounting for 80 MPs. The temple heist may or may not become an electoral issue. The rural distress caused by a failed monsoon and the Iran war, however, offers a likelier chance to drub the BJP government in its stronghold state. The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi. jawednaqvi@gmail.com Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2026
PM meeting with Prime Minister Modi of India: 16 June 2026
The Prime Minister met the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, at the G7 this afternoon.
GB CM’s swearing-in postponed due to party chief’s unavailability
• Ceremony to be rescheduled as Bilawal due to attend Khamenei’s funeral this week • CM-elect seeks additional federal funds to tackle climate crisis • Urges provisional provincial status for GB to reinforce Kashmir stance GILGIT: The swearing-in ceremony of newly elected Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Minister Advocate Amjad Hussain, originally scheduled for July 1, has been postponed due to the unavailability of PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari. The PPP chief is expected to attend the funeral rites of former Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the coming days, according to the party. Elected unopposed as the Leader of the House on June 22, Advocate Amjad Hussain was scheduled to take the oath of office on July 1. According to an official statement issued by the PPP’s local chapter on Sunday, the decision to postpone the ceremony was taken in view of the PPP chairman’s engagements. A new date and time for the oath-taking ceremony will be announced later, the statement added. Speaking about the challenges ahead, CM-elect Hussain told Dawn on Sunday that the region was facing the devastating impacts of climate change amid the current financial crisis. He said the GB government would seek additional funds from the federal government to tackle the issue. He said the GB government would ensure the effective utilisation of public funds for the welfare of the local people. His government would set its priorities and begin work after the oath-taking ceremony, he added. Replying to a question, the newly elected chief minister said the delay in passing the budget for the current fiscal year in June would not be an issue. CM-elect Hussain, who is also the PPP’s GB chapter president, said his government would be people-friendly and would leave no stone unturned for the betterment of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. He said the PPP had contested the GB elections on three slogans: Right to Rule, Right to Land Ownership, and Right to Employment. “These slogans countered the narratives of religious and nationalist parties,” he remarked. He said the PPP had proposed provisional provincial status for GB in response to the Modi government’s decision to revoke the special status of India-held Kashmir in 2019. Granting GB provisional provincial status, he said, would counter India’s move. According to him, granting provisional provincial status to GB and providing representation to its people in the Senate and National Assembly until a plebiscite is held in Kashmir would safeguard Pakistan’s stance on the Kashmir issue. He recalled that the PPP chairman’s recent speech in the National Assembly on the rights of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan had highlighted this aspect. The CM-elect said the PTI government had sabotaged the proposed 26th Constitutional Amendment in 2022, which sought to declare GB a provisional province of Pakistan. He said it was high time for the federal government to respond to the Modi government’s move in India-held Kashmir, adding that declaring GB a provisional province was the appropriate response. Published in Dawn, June 29th, 2026
No Reset at G7: Trump Was Trump, Modi Was Not Modi
The Modi-Trump meeting revealed the limits of India’s willingness to speak with moral clarity when confronted with American power.
Indian authorities arrest staff accused of theft from temple built on site of razed Babri mosque
Indian police have arrested eight people over allegations of theft and misappropriation of offerings at a temple that has been at the centre of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu-first politics, authorities said. The Ram Mandir temple in northern Uttar Pradesh state, built on grounds where a mosque stood for centuries before being torn down by Hindu zealots, was inaugurated in 2024 with great fanfare by Modi himself. Allegations regarding irregularities in the handling of donations led to a criminal case being registered on Thursday, with police arresting eight people, including temple employees, according to a government statement issued late on Thursday. Most of them were involved in counting or handling cash and valuables donated by devotees, including gold and silver, media reports said. The government has not disclosed the scale of the alleged embezzlement. Opposition parties and media reports say it could amount to more than $20 million. “It is so shameful that a shrine of such supreme importance is being discussed for all the wrong reasons,” said Viti Saxena, a 44-year-old homemaker who had donated to the temple. “I now wonder if that actually went into the temple coffers or not. It is a matter of global shame now,” Saxena told AFP. “The faith of countless Hindu believers is shaken.” The eight arrested face charges of criminal breach of trust, theft, criminal conspiracy and corruption, the government statement said. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, whose state government had established the special investigation team looking into the case, was quoted in the statement as having vowed that “no guilty person will be spared”. The construction of the temple cost an estimated $240m, all of which was sourced entirely from public donations, according to the trust managing the site. Devout Hindus believe that deity Ram was born in the town of Ayodhya — home to the temple — more than 7,000 years ago, but that the Babri mosque was built over his birthplace by a 16th-century Muslim emperor. India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — then in the opposition — played an instrumental role in public campaigning that eventually led to the mosque’s demolition in 1992. It helped propel Modi’s BJP as an unstoppable electoral juggernaut, eventually displacing the secularist Congress party that had governed India almost without interruption since independence from Britain.
Dams on Chenab — a target?
INDIA is fast-tracking at least four major hydro projects on the upper stretches of the Chenab, including Pakal Dul, Kiru, Kwar, Ratle and the massive Sawalkote project. Tenders have been issued. Several private consultants and contracting companies have entered the process, such as Afcon Infrastructure, Bharat Heavy Electricals, Andritz Hydro, Patel Engineering and others. A legal question often asked by our think tanks is: can Pakistan carry out a strike against any dam, pondage or water tunnel that India says it will construct on the Chenab? The question is raised in the context of the very specific protection accorded to dams, dykes and similar sites during armed conflict under Article 56 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The reply is simple: such a structure, though civilian property, loses its protection rights when it is itself being used as a tool to achieve the military objective of subjugating a lower riparian. In this case, civilian infrastructure under construction, like a dam, is no longer protected because it is being built for military purposes. India’s openly owned narrative will help Pakistan argue successfully that the dams on the Chenab are being made with stated belligerent intent. For instance, India’s own minister for water resources, C.R. Patil, recently said “It is certain, not a single drop of water will go [to Pakistan] in the coming years”. This statement reflects the Indian government’s policy position. Neither recalled nor corrected by India’s foreign ministry or the Prime Minister’s Office, these remarks leave no doubt about India’s belligerent intent and hostile action, accompanied by its position that Operation Sindoor is not over. According to its version, holding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance is one of several belligerent actions it can take during this ongoing self-declared war. Thus, an armed conflict situation continues between Pakistan and India. India is not holding back its belligerent actions and is continuing to wagewar through multiple means on Pakistan, including through its proxies launched from Afghanistan. This was the backdrop to the water minister’s statement, which is in line with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to divert water and prevent it from flowing to the lower riparian. It is an outright threat to Pakistan that forceful means will be employed to deny Pakistanis their right to agriculture and subsistence. That’s how measures to prevent the construction of dams or diversion tunnels by India are justified under the well-known right of anticipatory self-defence. Pakistan will thus be justified if it chooses to act within the parameters of international law, or jus ad bellum, to take all necessary measures to stop, delay or fully prevent any such construction. By holding the IWT in abeyance, India itself has withdrawn the traditional protection accorded to dams and dykes. However, let’s also see whether under jus in bello the dam can enjoy traditional protection during an armed conflict launched and continued by India. Article 56(1) of Additional Protocol I states that “works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attacks cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population”. A careful reading shows that while the protection is in general terms, there is an exception where the protected dam itself is likely to function or is actually functioning to achieve the enemy’s military objective. That is exactly the case for Pakistan. This is further clarified in the same article where Para 56(2) intimates us that the special protection “shall cease (a) for a dam or dyke only if it is used for other than its normal functions in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate support”. Article 52 of Additional Protocol 1 likely underpinned the position of Pakistan’s defence minister when he stated that the construction of a dam would be considered an act of war and that Pakistan would respond. Its description of military objectives would certainly include any hydro project “which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage”. As mentioned, India links the dam’s construction to the military objective of punishing Pakistan. Had it planned to build any dam pursuant to the IWT, then Pakistan could not have objected to its purpose. Ironically, by holding the treaty in abeyance, India itself has withdrawn the traditional protection accorded to dams and dykes in the law of war since it has declared that its construction is linked to achieving a military objective against Pakistan. In preventing the construction of these controversial dams and other hydro projects, Pakistan seeks a military advantage that would reduce and degrade the capacity of the Indian army and Indian government to break the will of the people of Pakistan. Briefly then, what international law indicates is that even if India does not undertake a ground attack, the retention or delayed release of water to inflict damage on Pakistan’s agriculture, in fact, its entire food chain is reason enough to prevent such weaponised construction. Dams are protected sites in any armed conflict on the basis of the principle that, in case they are hit, they release dangerous forces that destroy civilians and civilian property. If Article 56 is construed in light of the literal principle of interpretation, then a pondage or dam that is yet to be filled with water is not governed by the protection, as there is no dangerous force that may be unleashed if an empty dam or dam under construction is destroyed. From the point of commencing construction till its pondage is filled with water, the under-construction dam does not acquire protection under Additional Protocol 1 — a fact that is not likely to be lost on this country’s military planners. The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court and a former caretaker law minister. Published in Dawn, June 26th, 2026
Hindistan Çenab Üzerindeki Baraj Projelerini Hızlandırdı, Hukuki Soru İşaretleri ArtıyorAmazon pledges additional $13bn in India AI investment
E-commerce giant Amazon announced on Thursday an additional $13 billion investment by 2030 to expand its artificial intelligence footprint in India, months after declaring plans to invest more than $35bn. The announcement was made following a meeting between company CEO Andy Jassy and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The $13bn will target AI and cloud infrastructure in Mumbai and Hyderabad, the company said in a statement. “Amazon’s cumulative investments in India from 2010-2030 stand at over $88bn,” the company said. Jassy said he was “excited” about the future. “Still early days for what we can build,” he said in a post on X. “By 2030, we plan to support 3.8 million jobs, enable $80bn in ecomm exports, and bring benefits of AI to 15m small businesses and 4m government school students,” he added. Modi welcomed the investment, adding that it would increase opportunities for the country’s youth. “It shows the growing interest across the world to invest in India!” he said on X. Several global corporations have announced large investments in the world’s most populous nation, which has more than a billion internet users. There has been a string of billion-dollar data centre announcements from tech giants like Google, as well as domestic firms such as Reliance Industries.
Why Modi’s strategy to isolate Pakistan backfired
Speaking from the negotiation room at a Swiss resort, US Vice President JD Vance reflected on the complex realities of South Asian diplomacy. Referring to his Indian wife and Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, he remarked: “I have joked that I have two very, very important people in my life — an Indian and a Pakistani. The Indian is my wife, and the Pakistani is Field Marshal Munir.” Field Marshal Munir’s engagement with senior international figures, including his role alongside Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in welcoming foreign delegations to Islamabad, has become a visible feature of Pakistan’s expanding diplomatic role, from South Asia to the Middle East. This trajectory runs counter to India’s efforts to isolate Pakistan following the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam attack. New Delhi reportedly sent 59 politicians to 32 countries to shore up international support, yet Pakistan came out of the four-day war with its regional and international standing intact, and according to some assessments, even stronger. Pakistan’s geographic position, diplomatic networks and security relationships have ensured that Islamabad remains part of critical global conversations despite sustained pressure. New Delhi’s attempts not only failed diplomatically but also in the information battle as its spun narrative failed to gain traction. During the 2025 standoff, international reporting, and even an Indian naval officer, confirmed that India lost multiple aircraft. Pakistan used the outcome to reinforce its image as a capable actor, able to absorb pressure and impose costs on a larger adversary. To be sure, the information battle surrounding the crisis became almost as important as the military confrontation. Indian television and social media relentlessly peddled false claims. Karachi Port was supposedly destroyed, Lahore captured and Islamabad was collapsing with Pakistani leaders arrested or hiding. These claims were widely challenged and created the impression of a narrative campaign driven more by domestic political messaging than by verified information. India attempted to convince the world that the problem lay entirely in Islamabad, but in today’s multipolar environment, most states would not be inclined to choose sides in a South Asian rivalry unless their own interests are at stake. Geopolitical shifts China remained Pakistan’s strongest external anchor. Through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Beijing invested massively in Pakistan’s infrastructure and connectivity. The United States, especially under President Donald Trump, has lauded the positive role played by Field Marshal Munir and Prime Minister Sharif. This backing has given Islamabad additional room to manoeuvre when New Delhi tried to mobilise diplomatic pressure. South Asia is often treated as though India alone defines the region’s political temperature. But India failed to produce a regional front. The 2024 political shift in Bangladesh signalled Pakistan was expanding its regional options. The reopening of diplomatic channels between Islamabad and Dhaka is an indication that India does not influence the foreign policy choices of neighbouring states. The Bangladesh opening showed that smaller South Asian states, such as Nepal, Sri Lanka and Maldives, stayed cautious and neutral, balancing their interests and external ties with India and China. Pakistan’s position in the Muslim world remained another source of strength. It maintained solid ties with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Gulf Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran. These relationships provided Islamabad with diplomatic depth at a time when India was seeking to build international pressure. Pakistan’s leverage rests on diplomacy, labour ties, energy links, security cooperation and historical associations India cannot easily replicate. Pakistan’s reported Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement with Saudi Arabia in September 2025 added another layer to its value, expanding its Middle East profile. Security cooperation with Ankara bolstered Islamabad’s strategic depth and widened its footing in Europe’s broader neighbourhood, the Black Sea region and Central Asia, areas where India cannot easily compete. From the Western lens The United States and Europe refused to fully align with India’s position. Rather than accepting a binary India-versus-Pakistan framing, Western capitals continued to assess Pakistan through the lens of their own priorities. US-Pakistan trade remained significant in 2025. Goods trade totalled $8.7 billion, US exports to Pakistan at $3.3 billion, imports from Pakistan at $5.4 billion. Washington remained unwilling to discard Pakistan’s utility on Afghanistan, Iran and counter-terrorism for India’s viewpoint. Similarly, Pakistan and Russia deepened ties and high-level diplomacy, with bilateral trade crossing about $1 billion. In 2026, Moscow reaffirmed cooperation on counter-terrorism, regional stability and economic connectivity. Financial support from the IMF further buffered against Indian pressure. Economic stabilisation also reduced the possibility that financial vulnerability could be used as a tool of diplomatic isolation. The $7 billion Extended Fund Facility approved in September 2024, followed by successive disbursements in 2025 and 2026, kept Pakistan connected to the global financial system. By May 2026, the IMF Board approved about $1.32 billion in fresh tranches. Remittances reached about $3.59-$3.6 billion in December 2025. Pakistan’s exit from the FATF grey list reduced the possibility of sustained international banking isolation. India’s efforts backfiring Despite efforts to frame Pakistan as an international security concern, New Delhi was unable to translate political pressure into broad multilateral action at the UN Security Council. Pakistan’s seat on the UNSC Counter-Terrorism Committee underlined it had not been pushed out of the international system. Crucially, the Pahalgam crisis revived the Kashmir question, exactly what India wanted to avoid. By attempting to internationalise concerns about Pakistan, India also created renewed international attention around the dispute it has long sought to frame as a purely domestic matter. New Delhi is losing its grip on this dialogue as the world listens to Pakistan. The diplomatic space around Kashmir has therefore become more contested, with references appearing in statements by major international actors despite India’s objections. In response to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s remarks describing growing US-Pakistan cooperation as a “true friendship,” India stated that it expects its partners to press Pakistan to reject cross-border terrorism. The June 2, 2026, EU-Pakistan joint statement mentioned Kashmir, showing that major powers are willing to acknowledge Pakistan’s stance. India called it “unwarranted,” a reflection perhaps of frustration that it is losing control over the international framing of the issue. Earlier, the China-Pakistan joint statement on Kashmir was issued on May 26. India objected to both the political references and joint projects in the region, but these objections are being increasingly ignored globally. However, the most striking reversal of India’s isolation strategy has been Pakistan’s emergence as a diplomatic interlocutor. Analysts and regional reporting now describe Islamabad as a “diplomatic darling” courted by the US, China and Middle Eastern players. That is not language Pakistan would have heard from those quarters during a successful isolation drive. India’s attempt to brand Pakistan a “terrorist state” did not gain traction either. Pakistan has credibly pushed back by pointing out its enormous sacrifices against terrorism since 2001, and the Global Terrorism Index reinforced that Pakistan itself suffered massively from terrorism. The key takeaway from the post-Pahalgam period is that isolation strategies are difficult to sustain in a fragmented international order. States with strategic geography, security relevance, economic connections and multiple diplomatic partnerships cannot easily be pushed aside. India sought to narrow Pakistan’s options, but instead, the campaign revealed why Pakistan remains too strategically important to be sidelined.
ABD Başkan Yardımcısı Vance'in sözleri Modi'nin Pakistan'ı izole stratejisini sarstı'Outrageous': Indian tech hub names road for Trump, drawing criticism from Modi's party
A key road named after US President Donald Trump in India’s opposition-ruled tech hub of Hyderabad has drawn criticism from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling party, which dismissed the move as “hypocrisy”. US-India ties have deteriorated during Trump’s second term, with Washington imposing high tariffs on Indian goods, punishing New Delhi for purchasing Russian oil, and engaging closely with India’s arch-rival Pakistan. The road in the capital of the southern state of Telangana, ruled by the main opposition Congress party, adjoins the US consulate and is near the offices of major American tech companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. The road received its new name, Donald Trump Avenue, on Tuesday, at a time when Congress has been accusing Modi of being “compromised” by not taking on Trump on issues from the tariffs to US attacks on Indian-crewed tankers during the Iran war. “Rahul Gandhi says President Trump [is] hurting Indian interests,” Shehzad Poonawalla, a spokesperson of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, said on X on Wednesday, referring to the top Congress leader. “Then why is his government in Telangana giving the ultimate tribute to him by renaming a road after him?” The move drew criticism from other political parties when unveiled this month, with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) calling it “outrageous” and demanding its withdrawal. Congress says the renaming gesture demonstrates Hyderabad’s “growing role” in the partnership of the two countries. Trump has not visited Hyderabad during his two terms in office, although predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both did. Trump and Modi met on the sidelines of last week’s G7 summit in France and agreed to push forward a trade deal they have been negotiating.
'Temu version': World's largest Messi statue mocked online
PRESS REVIEW – Tuesday, June 23: This Tuesday marks 10 years since millions of British people voted for Brexit. The milestone comes one day after Prime Minister Keir Starmer's tearful resignation. Also, the internet goes crazy for "hot podium guy", a handsome sound engineer who sets up the lectern in front of 10 Downing Street for each big announcement. Indian leader Narendra Modi inaugurates three new Indian-made naval vessels in a move seeking to counter China's growing influence. Finally, a new statue in honour of Lionel Messi is ridiculed as a "Temu" of Messi statues!
Emergency left and right
HER Emergency rule was two months old when Indira Gandhi was poring over a traditional speech she would deliver at the Mughal-era Red Fort. It was Aug 15, India’s Independence Day, an occasion to make everything seem normal while left-wing and right-wing opponents languished in her prisons. Just then she was handed the message of Mujibur Rahman’s assassination by Bangladesh military officers two hours ago. She remained calm at the turn of events and decided to strictly withhold the information in her nationwide broadcast. To revisit the 21-month-long Emergency with the hindsight of 12 years of Narendra Modi’s rule, let’s loiter a little in the manner of today’s drones to reconnoitre the hotspots of the time. What we are likely to see is that the geopolitics of that decade was indeed notably fluid. The East-West chessboard was in flourish. In 1973, Salvador Allende was murdered in a CIA-sponsored military coup in Chile. The USSR got a leg up with the Arab oil embargo the same year targeting sympathisers of Israel and the US. In India, 1973 set off the start of a Maidan movement of sorts. In Gujarat, RSS-backed students went on a rampage known as the ‘Navnirman Andolan’. It would be joined soon by students in Bihar who included Lalu Yadav and Nitish Kumar. They formed a largely north India-based campaign under the stewardship of Jaiprakash Narayan, seen by many as a Gandhian pretender. He called on the military and police to disobey all “illegal orders” by Mrs Gandhi. This didn’t surprise her as it was happening two short years after she riled Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon over her 1971 stand-off with Pakistan. Firmly in the Soviet camp now, and increasingly reviled in Western media, Mrs Gandhi was experiencing the unfolding of an all-too-familiar script. Matters came to a head when on June 12, 1975, a high court judge ordered her removal from power over a hitherto unheard of charge against a sitting prime minister — that she had used the services of the public works department of her government to erect a podium for an election rally four years ago. The bizarre court order arrived in the same year when Mujib would be murdered with his family. Also, on April 30, 1975, Vietnam inflicted one of America’s worst humiliations abroad as Americans flocked to the roof of the US embassy in Saigon in a melee to catch the last helicopter flying out from there. America’s humiliation in Saigon was not going to be taken lying down. The chessboard was fraught. Even as Mrs Gandhi ended the Emergency and lost the April 1977 election she hoped to win, Gen Ziaul Haq was going to stage a coup across the border on July 5, 1977 against an Indira Gandhi-like populist leader to take charge of Pakistan. Indian rulers that succeeded Mrs Gandhi, including some RSS-groomed ministers, steadfastly refused to ask Zia to spare Z.A. Bhutto’s life. For that favour and more, Zia anointed Indian prime minister Morarji Desai with Pakistan’s highest civilian award. It’s increasingly normal to hear of comparisons these days between Indira Gandhi’s Emergency and Narendra Modi’s 12 years in power. It’s increasingly normal to hear of comparisons these days between Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, which marks its 51st anniversary on Thursday, and Narendra Modi’s 12 years in power he celebrated on June 9. A growing view sees the Modi era of “an undeclared emergency” as manifestly more stifling than the short-lived curbs on civil liberties Mrs Gandhi had imposed. Many leaders from the left to the right were jailed, while at least one right-wing party, the Shiv Sena, and one leftist group, the pro-Soviet Communist Party of India, supported the prime minister’s reasons for the measure she broadcast to the nation a day after suspending civil liberties and arresting many of her opponents. Modi, on the other hand, sees no need to explain anything to anyone. Without getting into a ‘two legs bad, four legs good’ comparison of George Orwell’s animals, suffice it to say that Mrs Gandhi stood against the very forces that are in power today, including powerful businesses shoring up the Hindu revivalist government. Her ideological point of departure was born way before any judge sought to unseat her, however, and at least two years before her 1971 stand-off with Pakistan. The split in the Indian National Congress in 1969 was witness to the left-right divide that continues to stalk India today. Her 10-point programme was in fact unveiled at a Congress summit in May 1967. That programme bears recall since the older, right-wing Congress leaders fiercely opposed her radical moves. The 10 points that catalysed the split were: social control of banks — bringing banking institutions under strict government regulation; nationalisation of general insurance thereby transferring the control of a key social asset to the state; nationalisation of export and import trade, implying state regulation and takeover of foreign trade; curbs on monopolies thereby limiting the concentration of economic power and business monopolies; limits on urban income and property, which set a ceiling on urban wealth to reduce economic disparities; public distribution of food grains to ensure the availability of basic food to the needy at reasonable prices; better implementation of land reforms to usher radical changes to agricultural land distribution; provision of house-sites to the rural poor, thus guaranteeing land for housing to marginalised rural communities; abolition of privy purses to end the special financial privileges and titles of former princely rulers; and removal of unearned increments in urban land values to prevent profiteering from urban real estate speculation. These socialist policies earned her the support of an influential section of communists led by S.A. Dange, Mohan Kumara Mangalam and Mohit Sen. But another section of the left, at key moments of history, preferred to support Hindu nationalists as conduits against the Congress. Mrs Gandhi jailed the erring comrades for 21 months. Modi has uprooted them altogether, leaving them to tilt at the windmills, to see allies against fascism as foes. The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi. jawednaqvi@gmail.com Published in Dawn, June 23rd, 2026
India likely won't export sugar for years as El Niño, ethanol squeeze supply
India, once the world’s second-largest sugar exporter, is expected to have little surplus for export for at least three more seasons as El Niño weather conditions threaten cane production and rising ethanol demand squeezes supply. The twin pressures are poised to keep millions of tonnes of sugar off the world market, tightening supplies for importers across Asia, Africa and the Middle East and supporting benchmark prices in London and New York. A prolonged absence by India from export markets would remove a key balancing supplier as weather risks and biofuel policies reshape global sugar trade flows. Interviews with over a dozen trade and industry executives, government sources and farmers show that lower cane availability and rising ethanol demand will leave little for exports for several years, prompting dealers at global houses to warn head offices of shrinking opportunities in India, trade sources said. Government expected to curb imports season by season Sugar is politically sensitive in global top consumer India, where sweets are highly popular and many poorer households rely on it as a cheap source of calories. “Supplies are already tight in India, and now El Niño is emerging as a major risk,” said Rahil Shaikh, managing director of MEIR Commodities India, a Mumbai-based trader. “If rains disappoint as forecast, cane planting will suffer and this will keep India out of the sugar export market for at least three years, while Brazil and Thailand could also see their crops affected by El Niño.” Top exporter Brazil is also diverting more cane for ethanol. Thailand, another major exporter, could also have its output hit by El Niño-curtailed rains. India exported 6.8 million metric tonnes of sugar annually on average in the five seasons through 2022-23 — about 10 per cent of global shipments. This year, after exporting around 800,000 tonnes, India banned shipments until September 30, the end of the season. Mills need government approval to export sugar, and New Delhi is likely to withhold export permissions each season rather than announce a multiyear ban, government and industry sources with knowledge of the matter said. Last month, a top minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government told mills to prioritise domestic availability and not lobby for exports, the sources said on condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential. India’s Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs did not respond to a request for comment on the prospects for exports or its restrictions on exports. El Niño cloud canes outlook El Niño conditions are forecast to weaken India’s monsoon rains this year to their lowest in 11 years. Below-average rains, coupled with June precipitation running more than 40pc below average, have prompted farmers to delay planting. “I had planned to plant long-duration cane varieties in June, but since everyone is talking about lower rains, I decided to put that plan on hold,” said Sambhaji Patil, who decided to grow soybeans instead on 2 acres (0.8 hectares) in Sangli district of the western state of Maharashtra. Nursery owner Suraj Chavan said demand for cane seedlings had fallen sharply in recent weeks. Farmers are likely to switch to less water-intensive crops, which could drag down cane acreage and availability in the 2027-28 season, said Prakash Naiknavare, managing director of the National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories. Local authorities have started promoting alternative crops such as soybeans, pigeon peas and other pulse varieties in most sugar-growing regions and have restricted water supplies for irrigation. India was expected to produce 30.95m tonnes of sugar this season, but output is now forecast at 27.9m tonnes, below annual consumption of about 28.5m tonnes, according to industry estimates. As a result, inventories with mills at the start of the season on October 1 are likely to fall to about 3.5m tonnes, the lowest in more than three decades, said MEIR’s Shaikh. At the same time, India is pushing for higher ethanol blending with petrol and wider adoption of flex-fuel vehicles to cut dependence on expensive imported crude. Ethanol demand could more than double to some 30bn litres (8bn gallons) by 2039-40 from the current 12bn to 13bn litres as higher ethanol blending in petrol and adoption of flex-fuel vehicles gather pace, industry estimates suggest. Sugar imports possible for first time in decade “The trajectory for ethanol demand is incredibly strong,” said Samir Somaiya, chairman and managing director of Godavari Biorefineries. “The next phase of demand evolution will be driven by the commercial rollout of flex-fuel vehicles.” Top Indian carmaker Maruti Suzuki this month launched the nation’s first flex-fuel passenger vehicle, while Hero MotoCorp launched a flex-fuel motorcycle. India this month eliminated the production tax on petrol blended with higher levels of ethanol and launched fuel with up to 85pc ethanol to support the adoption of flex-fuel vehicles. Future government policies will likely support ethanol production over sugar exports, said BB Thombare, managing director of Natural Sugar in Maharashtra state. India could eventually be forced to import sugar if El Niño-related weather disruptions sharply cut cane cultivation area and output, the government sources and industry officials said, with traders warning that supplies could tighten further in the 2027-28 season. India last imported sugar in 2016-17 and 2017-18 after an El Niño-induced drought in 2015 cut cane planting. In 2009 and 2010, India’s heavy purchases helped push global prices to nearly three times their previous levels. “Because of a severe El Niño and rising demand for ethanol, not only would exports from India be wiped out, but imports into India in the coming years could also become necessary,” said Mohan Narang, director of KS Commodities, a trading house in New Delhi.
12 students killed in building fire in India
Rescue operations underway after incident in Uttar Pradesh state, says Prime Minister Narendra Modi
İngiltere Başbakanı Starmer üzerindeki istifa baskısı artıyor
İngiltere Çalışma ve Ticaret Bakanı Peter Kyle, parti içi rakibi Andy Burnham'ın parlamentoya seçilmesinin ardından Başbakan Keir Starmer'ın siyasi gerçekleri değerlendirdiğini açıkladı. İngiltere Çalışma ve Ticaret Bakanı Peter Kyle, Greater Manchester Belediye Başkanı Andy Burnham'ın parlamentoya seçilerek olası bir liderlik yarışının önünü açmasının ardından, Başbakan Keir Starmer'ın önündeki siyasi gerçekleri ve zorlukları değerlendirdiğini açıkladı. Bugün televizyon kanallarına açıklamalarda bulunan Kyle, Starmer'ın pazartesi günü istifa edeceğine inanmasını gerektirecek bir durum olmadığını belirtmekle birlikte, Başbakan'ın konumunun tehdit altında olmadığını düşünmenin gerçek dışı olacağını ifade etti. Sky News'e verdiği demeçte Kyle, "Bugün, Keir'i tanıdığım diğer tüm günlerde olduğu gibi, kendisi dışarıda sıkı bir şekilde çalışıyor. Aynı zamanda, önümüzdeki siyasi gerçekler, zorluklar ve fırsatlar üzerinde düşünebileceği bir alan yaratmaya çalışıyor" dedi. Kyle, Başbakanlık Ofisi Downing Street'in son dönemde yinelediği "Starmer'ın her türlü liderlik meydan okumasına karşı mücadele edeceği" yönündeki söylemi ise tekrarlamadı. ANDY BURNHAM LİDERLİK YARIŞINA HAZIRLANIYOR Starmer'ın parti içindeki konumuna yönelik aylardır süren baskı, cuma günü Greater Manchester Belediye Başkanı Andy Burnham'ın ara seçimlerde parlamentodan koltuk kazanmasıyla yeni bir boyut kazandı. Bu gelişme, Burnham'a resmi bir liderlik mücadelesi başlatma hakkı tanıyor. İşçi Partisi'nin mayıs ayında yapılan yerel seçimlerde uğradığı ağır kayıplar Starmer'a yönelik desteğin azaldığını ortaya koymuştu. Parti üyeleri arasında yapılan anketler de olası bir liderlik yarışını Burnham'ın kazanacağına işaret ediyor. The Observer ve The Telegraph gazetelerinde yer alan haberlerde, Starmer'ın geleceğini resmi kır konutu Chequers'ta eşiyle birlikte değerlendirdiği ve nihai kararını vermeye hazırlandığı öne sürüldü. Reuters'a konuşan kıdemli İşçi Partisi kaynakları, en erken pazartesi günü net bir açıklama yapılabileceğini belirtti. Gazetelere konuşan ve Starmer'ın yakın çevresinde yer alan bir kaynak ise, Başbakan'ın mevcut durumu gördüğünü, görevde kalarak kaosu durdurmanın artık mümkün olmadığını düşündüğünü ve ayrılmayı bir görev olarak kabul ettiğini iddia etti. Bir diğer üst düzey yetkili ise Starmer'ın desteğini kaybetmesi nedeniyle zor bir dönemden geçtiğini ve "oyunun bittiğini" kabul ederek siyasi mirasını nasıl koruyacağını düşündüğünü öne sürdü. Hükümet kaynakları ise iddialara karşı çıkarak Başbakan'ın yönetim görevine odaklanmaya devam ettiğini bildirdi. Çalışma Bakanı Kyle, Starmer ile cuma günü uzun ve samimi bir görüşme gerçekleştirdiğini, bu görüşmede Başbakan'ın bir kez bile kişisel çıkarlarını sormadığını, her zaman ülkenin menfaatlerini ön planda tuttuğunu dile getirdi. Kyle ayrıca, Starmer'ın G7 Zirvesi marjında Hindistan Başbakanı Narendra Modi ile yaptığı görüşmeler sayesinde iki ülke arasında zorlu bir ticaret anlaşmasının hayata geçirildiğini hatırlatarak, uluslararası saygınlığı olmayan bir liderin bu tür başarılar elde edemeyeceğini vurguladı. Ancak Kyle, gelecekte yapılacak bir parti içi liderlik seçiminde Starmer'ı destekleyip desteklemeyeceğine yönelik soruları yanıtlamaktan kaçındı. STARMER KABİNESİNDE PEŞ PEŞE İSTİFALAR Hükümetteki kriz, Savunma Bakanı John Healey'nin istifasıyla şiddetlenmişti. Healey, Başbakan'a yazdığı mektupta, önerilen bütçenin savunma yatırımlarını karşılamaya yetmediğini ve askeri harcamaları 2035 yılına kadar gayrisafi yurtiçi hasılanın yüzde 3,5'ine çıkarma taahhüdünü yerine getiremeyeceğini belirterek görevinden ayrılmıştı. Healey'nin ardından Silahlı Kuvvetler Bakanı Al Carns da istifa etmişti. Savunma yönetimindeki bu iki kritik istifa, G7 ve NATO zirveleri öncesinde kabinedeki gerilimi artırdı. Muhalefet de hükümete yönelik eleştirilerini yoğunlaştırdı. Muhafazakar Parti Lideri Kemi Badenoch, kabinenin serbest düşüşte olduğunu belirterek Starmer'ı siyasi nüfuzunu yitirmiş liderler için kullanılan "topal ördek" ifadesiyle nitelendirdi. Reform UK partisi temsilcileri ise Starmer için "zombi başbakan" nitelemesinde bulundu. İşçi Partisi içindeki diğer potansiyel lider adaylarından Sağlık Bakanı Wes Streeting'i destekleyen eski bakan Jess Phillips de BBC'ye yaptığı açıklamada, "Yolun sonuna gelinmiş gibi hissettiriyor" diyerek Starmer'ın görevden ayrılışının mümkün olduğunca onurlu olması gerektiğini ifade etti. Daha önce yapılan açıklamalarda Starmer, liderlik koltuğu için resmi bir meydan okuma yapılması halinde yarışa katılacağını belirtmişti. İşçi Partisi kurallarına göre, resmi bir liderlik yarışı başlatabilmek için parlamentodaki İşçi Partisi milletvekillerinin beşte birine denk gelen 81 üyenin desteğinin toplanması gerekiyor. Starmer, 12 Haziran'da yaptığı son açıklamada ise ülkeyi yeni bir liderlik seçimi kaosuna sürüklemek istemediğini ve görevine devam edeceğini bildirmişti.
Starmer'a istifa baskısı: Burnham'ın parlamentoya dönüşü liderlik yarışını alevlendirdiTrump says Pakistan 'really helped us' with Iran deal
United States President Donald Trump has said that Pakistan “really helped” Washington with the memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran. He made the remarks during an interview with American news outlet Axios. During the interview, the US president was asked about which global leaders he “liked”. In addition to Chinese President Xi Jinping, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump talked about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, before mentioning Pakistan’s leadership. “In Pakistan, you have the field marshal, who is great. Munir, he’s great. And you have the prime minister, and they just get along great … He totally respects the prime minister. It’s a beautiful thing to see,” he said, talking about Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Defence Forces and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir. “But they really helped us with this deal. They knew the Iranians, they knew the people and they were good,” he said. During the interview, Trump was also asked about the lessons he had learned about the “limits” on his power. “There are no limits,” he said. “I haven’t learned that lesson yet. I know there are, but there are no limits. We defeated them totally militarily. I was asked by Pakistan because they’re close to please not do anymore. I said, I like them a lot,” he said. Talking about last year’s military conflict with India, he said, “You know, I stopped Pakistan from fighting India, two nuclear nations, and the prime minister of Pakistan said, ‘President Trump saved 50 million lives’. They were going to use nuclear weapons. “Eleven planes were shot down. They were at it. And I was hearing about it, then I saw some really terrible pictures. They were going at it, Pakistan and India. They have gone at it in the past, but this was, and they’re both nuclear-armed, heavily, and they were going to use those nuclear weapons. And the prime minister of Pakistan said, ‘Donald Trump saved 50 million lives’. But it’s not 50. I think it was much more than that. Fifty is nothing when you look at 1.5 billion people just in India alone. So I think that there are no limits,” he said. “We have the most powerful military in the world by far. Who else could have done a blockade like that? I did a naval blockade where not one ship was able to get through. Some tried. They didn’t, you know, it didn’t last very long,” he said. It is worth mentioning that the US president has repeatedly commented on the brief military conflict between Pakistan and India in May 2025. He has also praised PM Shehbaz and CDF Munir on several occasions, specifically calling the latter a “highly respected general”, a “great fighter” and “my favourite”. Thursday proved to be a red-letter day for Pakistan, as the country awoke to news of a long-awaited peace deal finally being signed between the US and Iran, heralding an end to the bitter animosity that has afflicted the Middle East and plunged the world into crisis for months. The honour of announcing that the ‘Islamabad MoU’ had been ‘electronically’ signed by all parties, fittingly fell to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who put his signature to the historic document after US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, bringing it into effect two days earlier than previously expected. Earlier in the day, Trump signed the document during a reception at the Palace of Versailles — also the venue for the landmark treaty that ended World War I — with French President Emmanuel Macron looking over his shoulder. Meanwhile, Iranian media released photos of Dr Pezeshkian signing the deal in his office.
ABD-İran Müzakereleri Petrolü Düşürdü, Nükleer Düğüm ÇözülemediIndia probes graft charges at temple built on Babri mosque
NEW DELHI: Indian police are investigating allegations of embezzlement at a temple in the country’s north that has been a focal point of Prime Minster Narendra Modi’s Hindu-first politics, a top state official said on Friday. The Ram Mandir temple in Uttar Pradesh state, built on grounds where a mosque stood for centuries before being torn down by Hindu zealots, was inaugurated in 2024 with great fanfare by Modi himself. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said that a Special Investigations Team (SIT) had been set up to look into alleged syphoning of cash offerings made by devotees. “We have set up an SIT inquiry on the recommendation of the trust that administers the temple,” said Adityanath, a firebrand Hindu monk, at a public function. “If anyone has any documentary proof, please provide it to the SIT,” he added. The scale of the alleged embezzlement is unclear but opposition parties and local media reports say it could amount to more than $20 million. The construction of the temple cost an estimated $240 million, all of which was sourced entirely from public donations, according to the project’s backers. According to The Indian Express newspaper, daily offerings from devotees average around $10,000, going up to $60,000 on auspicious days. Devout Hindus claim that the god Ram was born in the town of Ayodhya — home to the temple — more than 7,000 years ago, but that the Babri mosque was built over his birthplace by Mughal emperor Babar. India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party — then in the opposition — played an instrumental role in public campaigning that eventually led to the mosque’s demolition in 1992. The destruction helped propel the party, and eventually Mr Modi, as unstoppable electoral juggernauts, displacing the secularist Congress party that had governed India almost without interruption since independence from Britain. Published in Dawn, June 20th, 2026
ABD-İsrail gerilimi büyüyor mu? Trump bir kez daha Netanyahu'yu işaret etti: Ben olmasam yok olurlardı
ABD Başkanı Donald Trump, Axios Show programında İran ve İsrail Başbakanı Netanyahu hakkında dikkat çeken ifadeler kullandı. ‘GÜCÜMÜN BİR SINIRI YOK’ Trump, İran’a yönelik savaşın ardından ‘gücünde hiçbir sınır olmadığını’ fark ettiğini söyledi. Yakında yayımlanacak bir kitaba atıfla, Trump’ın kendisini tarihteki en güçlü liderler arasında konumlandıran daha iddialı bir güç anlayışı geliştirdiği ifade edildi. ‘G7 LİDERLERİ BENİ ‘PATRON’ OLARAK GÖRÜYOR Axios’un aktardığına göre Trump, G7 liderlerinin kendisini ‘patron’ olarak gördüğünü, İsrail’in ise kendisine ‘büyük saygı duyduğunu’ ve yönlendirmelerine uyduğunu belirtti. Habere göre, The New York Times muhabirleri Maggie Haberman ve Jonathan Swan’ın yakında yayımlanacak ‘Regime Change’ adlı kitabında, Trump’ın Attila, Cengiz Han, Napolyon, Stalin, Mao ve Hitler gibi tarihsel figürlerle kıyaslandığı bir belgeyi incelediği ve bu figürlerin ‘kendi başkanlık gücünün gerisinde kaldığını’ savunduğu iddia edildi. Axios’un haberinde, Trump’ın Büyük İskender, Sezar ve William the Conqueror gibi tarihsel liderleri değerlendirirken ‘uçak ve modern ulaşım imkanlarının olmamasının’ onların gücünü sınırladığını söylediği aktarıldı. ÇİN VE HİNDİSTAN LİDERLERİNE ÖVGÜ Habere göre Trump, Çin Devlet Başkanı Xi Jinping ve Hindistan Başbakanı Modi’yi en çok saygı duyduğu liderler arasında sayarken, Xi’yi ‘tam bir iş insanı’, Modi’yi ise ‘çok sert biri’ olarak tanımladı. Axios, Trump’ın Rusya Devlet Başkanı Putin’in G7’den dışlanmasını eleştirdiğini ve Fransa Cumhurbaşkanı Macron’un Versailles’da kendisine verdiği yemeği ‘imparatorluk sahnesi’ olarak nitelendirdiğini bildirdi. Haberde ayrıca Trump’ın İsrail ile ilgili olarak, ‘İsrail’in varlığının kendi politikaları sayesinde sürdüğünü’ öne sürdüğü ve İsrail Başbakanı Netanyahu ile ilişkisini ‘iyi ancak kontrollü’ olarak tanımladığı ifade edildi. ‘BEN OLMASAYDIM İSRAİL BUGÜN YOK OLURDU’ Trump, “Ben olmasaydın, İsrail bugün yok olurdu. Netanyahu’yu dengede tutmamız gerekiyor” ifadelerini kullandı. Axios’a göre Trump, İran’la ilgili sürecin ekonomik etkilerine dikkat çekerek savaşın genişlemesinin küresel bir ekonomik krize yol açabileceğini, petrol fiyatlarındaki düşüş ve borsa yükselişini ise aldığı kararların doğruluğuna işaret olarak sundu. Haberde, Trump’ın ABD ekonomisinin sınırlayıcı bir unsur olduğunu kabul ettiği ve ‘büyük buhranla özdeşleşmek istemediğini’ söylediği de yer aldı. GREAT MAN BELGESİ ‘SAHTE TARİHÇİ’YE AİT ÇIKTI Axios’un aktardığına göre Trump, Truth Social’da paylaştığı ve ‘Great Man’ olarak adlandırılan belgede, tarih boyunca birçok lideri geride bıraktığını savunan bir değerlendirmeye yer verdi. Belgenin yazarının ise resmi bir tarihçi değil, golfçü Gary Player’ın uzun süredir yakın çevresinde bulunan bir isim olduğu öne sürüldü. Belgenin sonuç bölümünde, Trump’ın küresel ölçekte güç kullanma kapasitesinin onu ‘dünya tarihinde yaşamış en güçlü insan’ yaptığı iddia edildi. NE OLMUŞTU? The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) gazetesinin konuya yakın kaynaklara dayandırdığı haberinde, Trump ile Netanyahu'nun sık sık yaptığı görüşmelerin artık dostane olmadığı ve Trump'ın ABD ekonomisini zorlayan ABD-İsrail/İran Savaşı'na son vermeye çalışırken kendisini bu savaşa iten Netanyahu'ya sert sözler sarf ettiği öne sürüldü. Trump'ın Lübnan konusunda son zamanlarda yaptığı bir telefon görüşmesinde, Netanyahu'ya "Neden binaları havaya uçuruyorsunuz? Binaları havaya uçurmayı bırakın." dediği aktarılan haberde, bir başka görüşmede ise Trump'ın savaşın tetiklediği küresel ekonomik gerilemenin kendisini 1930'lardaki Büyük Buhran ve Herbert Hoover ile ilişkilendirebileceğinden şikayet ettiği belirtildi. Haberde açıklamalarına yer verilen bir kaynak, mutabakat öncesi nükleer silahlarla ilgili hükümler hakkında yapılan bir görüşmede Netanyahu'nun Trump'a "Donald, bunu nasıl doğrulayacaksın?" sorusunu sorduğunu ve diğer görüşmelerde de geçmişteki olaylara dayanarak İranlılara güvenilmemesi gerektiğini söylediğini iddia etti. Üst düzey bir yönetim yetkilisi de görüşmelerde Netanyahu'nun daha fazla askeri harekat yapılması yönünde ısrarcı olduğunu ve Trump'ın ise bu durumdan bıktığını belirterek "Bibi (Netanyahu), başkana neden bir şeyi havaya uçurması gerektiğini, İsrail istihbaratının bunu nasıl ve ne zaman yapacağını bildiğini anlatıyor. Başkan da dinliyor. Görüşmeler genellikle aynı şekilde geçiyor." dedi. Söz konusu iddialara ilişkin görüşleri sorulan İsrail Başbakanlık Ofisi, yorum taleplerini yanıtsız bıraktı. Bir Beyaz Saray yetkilisi ise "Trump'ın Netanyahu ve İsrail ile harika bir ortaklığı olduğunu" ancak "hiçbir ülke ya da liderin Başkan Trump'a bir şey yapması için baskı uygulayamayacağını" söyledi. TRUMP, SAVAŞ İLERLEDİKÇE NETANYAHU'NUN İDDİALARINA ŞÜPHEYLE YAKLAŞMAYA BAŞLADI Durumu yakından takip eden kaynaklar, Trump'ın İran ile savaşa girmeye, danışmanlarının çoğundan ve İsraillilerin tahmin ettiğinden daha fazla istekli olduğunu belirterek Netanyahu'nun İran'a yönelik ayrıntılı saldırı planları hazırladığını ve bunları başkana sunduğunu ifade etti. Başlangıçta Trump'ın Netanyahu ile birlikte saldırıların hedefleri isabetli vurması, kaç İranlı liderin etkisiz hale getirildiği ve bir sonraki bombalamanın nereye yapılacağı konusunda heyecan duyduğunu aktaran kaynaklar, savaş ilerledikçe Trump'ın Netanyahu'nun bazı iddialarına şüpheyle yaklaştığını ve İran hükümetini devirmek için Iraklı silahlı Kürt grupların İran'a girmesi planını reddettiğini belirtti. Kaynaklar, ateşkes olmasına rağmen İsrail'in Lübnan'ı bombalamaya devam etmesinin Trump'ı en çok sinirlendiren şey olduğunu ve Trump'ın bir ara İsrailli ve Lübnanlı yetkilileri Oval Ofis'e çağırarak anlaşmayı bizzat arabuluculuk yoluyla sağlamaya çalıştığını aktardı. İki fay hattı aynı anda kırılabilir! ABD'yi bekleyen korkunç deprem senaryosu Dünyanın en çok balistik füzeye sahip 10 ülkesi belli oldu! Türkiye kaçıncı sırada?
Trump: 'Ben Olmasam İsrail Yok Olurdu', Gücüm SınırsızThe startup betting on a European-made smartphone
With France's Emmanuel Macron and India's Narendra Modi championing the idea of tech sovereignty, French startup BeeAlp is trying to build a circular smartphone designed and manufactured in Europe. CEO Olivier Dufour joins FRANCE 24 to discuss the company's subscription model, Europe's industrial ambitions and the challenges of competing with global smartphone leaders.
What the US-Iran deal means for West Asian security and Pakistan
The US and Iran have agreed to a basic framework. Whether this formal consensus translates into a concrete agreement is an open question. While Iran has officially declared the end of the war, Israel insists “our struggle has not yet ended”. Between these two statements lies all the space the spoilers need. The ceasefire was made possible by pragmatists. It will be threatened by apocalypticists. In Washington and Jerusalem, there are people at the helm of affairs who do not read this war as a security crisis to be resolved but a scheduled event — one that a ceasefire can delay but not, in their theology, prevent. For them, a deal is not a solution. It is an obstacle. And obstacles, in the eschatological imagination, are not negotiated around. They are removed. A changed world Whether the framework holds or collapses, one thing is clear: the West Asian security structure that existed on the morning of Feb 28, 2026, has ceased to exist. Firstly, South Asian and West Asian security complexes are no longer analytically separable, as once theorised by British political scientist Barry Buzan. Secondly, the war subjected regional alliances and client-patron relations to a stress test, and, to the surprise of many capitals, the old security arrangements proved to be holding nothing at all. Many in the Gulf relied on American security guarantees. And it was not for the first time that the American security umbrella failed to protect them against Israeli belligerence and Iranian retaliation. This shared sense of being treated as collateral rather than partners will continue to haunt the GCC-US relations for years to come. The GCC, meanwhile, did not respond to the recent war in unison. Instead, the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran deepened some older fault-lines among the Arab states of the Gulf region. In the Pakistani imagination, Saudi-UAE relations are often assumed to be a tight axis. This is no longer the case. These countries have experienced rifts and complete ruptures in the recent past, and the war has only consolidated them. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are proposing two distinct security mechanisms that carry significant implications for Pakistan. Where does Pakistan fit in? Saudi Arabia desires to see an extended role for Pakistan and Turkey while normalising its relations with Iran. The starting point was the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement Saudi Arabia signed with Pakistan on September 17, 2025 — just days after the Israeli strike on Doha. That particular act of aggression by Israel clearly demonstrated that Qatar’s status as a major non-NATO ally and host of the largest US base in the region could not shield it from external aggression. It has also nudged Doha to diversify its security arrangements, bringing it closer to the Saudi-Pakistan framework. There was also subsequent talk of widening this framework — reports suggested Pakistan signalled Turkey and Qatar may join the Saudi defence pact, which would essentially formalise a Riyadh-Ankara-Islamabad-Doha (RAID) mechanism. Abu Dhabi chooses a different route Abu Dhabi took the worst of Iran’s retaliation and answered with what American analysts termed a “defiant and forceful posture”, welcoming Israeli military assistance. Abu Dhabi’s response during the war has clearly illustrated that it is keen to integrate Israel and India into the Gulf security structure. There are apprehensions that Emirati-Israeli-Indian intelligence and security cooperation could facilitate covert activities elsewhere in the Gulf, with destabilising consequences for the GCC as a whole. A case in point is the arrest of eight former Indian naval officers caught spying for Israel in Qatar in 2022. All of the accused were sentenced to death in late 2023. It was only after personal intervention by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that the Qatari government released seven of the eight men in February 2024. At a time when the Gulf’s two most consequential powers are pulling regional security in opposite directions, the question of where Pakistan plants its flag is not an academic one. Millions of Pakistani livelihoods, billions in remittances, energy imports on deferred payments and the credibility of Islamabad’s emerging mediatory role all ride on the answer. What next for Pakistan? Recent history offers the clearest insights. Pakistan has avoided camp politics. The recalibration of its relationship with the United States and China over the past decade is the most instructive example: Islamabad has learned to navigate the US-China rivalry without taking sides. Pakistan’s insistence on strategic autonomy has been acknowledged at the highest level as something real, not rhetorical. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently dismissed the claim that Pakistan is a Chinese colony. In response to an Indian journalist, he emphasised that Pakistan is an independent, sovereign nation that maintains multi-faceted and diverse diplomatic ties across the globe rather than being solely aligned with or controlled by Beijing. Pakistan then walked the tightrope between Iran and the Gulf states during the most serious regional war in a generation — maintaining open channels to Tehran while standing publicly with Riyadh, mediating where others were merely spectating. The Saudi-UAE divergence over regional security presents a similar test. Pakistan’s historic ties with both countries run very deep — not merely at the level of diplomacy, but at the human level, where ties are hardest to sever. Nearly three million Pakistanis live and work across the two countries, sending home remittances that form a major pillar for Pakistan’s fragile economy. Pakistan will not choose between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi — not because it lacks the courage to choose, but because it has learned, at some cost, that preserving both relationships is itself the strategy. This is exactly why Pakistan has prevented a public outcry over the UAE’s demand to return a USD3.5 billion loan, terming it a routine transaction with a brotherly nation. The no-camps policy has doctrinal backing. Pakistan’s National Security Policy 2022-26, the first ever publicly released by any Pakistani government, is explicit on this point — articulating a vision of “geo-economics over geopolitics,” of engagement with all major powers without subordination to any. In the fractured Gulf of 2026, that may be the most sophisticated position available. The old Gulf, predictable and broadly aligned, is not coming back. However, Islamabad has learned the hard way: choosing sides among friends is not a strategy.
Burgenstock'ta ABD-İran Barışı İçin 60 Günlük Yol HaritasıModi reports US-India trade progress after Trump meeting
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said there had been “significant progress” in long-running talks with Washington for a trade deal, according to a statement issued on Thursday after his meeting with United States President Donald Trump. The leaders met on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Evian in France on Wednesday, their first face-to-face talks since February 2025 in Washington. “The leaders noted with particular satisfaction the significant progress made in negotiations towards an interim bilateral trade agreement”, a readout of the meeting from India’s foreign ministry read. Asked if the US and India are close to a trade deal, Trump told reporters in Evian that they were “very close”. “He’s a very tough negotiator, one of the toughest, actually. So you look at this man, I’ll give you a lesson,” said the US president. “He’s the most beautiful looking man. He looks so nice. He’s like an angel, but actually he’s a killer.” The Indian statement said the leaders had ordered officials to work towards striking a “commercially meaningful agreement at the earliest”. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will visit India next week for the latest round of talks. Washington and New Delhi have set a target of boosting bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030, holding multiple rounds of negotiations in a bid to resolve market access and tariff disputes. The two countries reached an initial understanding for the trade deal in February, but negotiations slowed after Trump’s sweeping tariff measures were struck down by the US Supreme Court. After the court order, the Trump administration launched investigations into unfair trade practices against several countries, including India, while imposing a blanket 10 per cent tariff. India’s Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said in early June that the countries were “about 99pc” done with the first tranche of a trade deal. Modi also urged Trump to ensure the safety of Indian seafarers as part of the implementation of an Iran-US deal aimed at ending the Middle East war, after three Indian sailors were killed in a US strike on a commercial vessel off Oman on June 10. The South Asian nation has been hard hit by the Middle East conflict, as energy supplies were throttled by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for oil and gas transport. Modi on Wednesday warned that the impact of the war would take time to resolve. “The disruptions in fuel, fertiliser and food supply chains caused by the crisis … will continue to impact the Global South for a considerable period,” he said, according to a statement.
Modi: Trump ile G7 görüşmesinde ticaret anlaşmasında önemli ilerlemeHow an Israeli soldier accused of war crimes in Gaza was tracked down in India
However, given close ties between Modi and Netanyahu there is little likelihood of action being taken against such Israeli soldiers in India.
PM Modi Pushes Human-Centric AI At G7 Summit, Flags Deepfake Risks
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday urged world leaders to place human values at the centre of Artificial Intelligence (AI) development, calling for global cooperation to ensure the technology is deployed safely.
Trump shows no regret over three Indian sailors’ deaths in meeting with Modi
US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday attempted to defuse escalating tensions over the recent killing of three Indian sailors by American naval forces off the coast of Oman. Speaking to the media after their first bilateral meeting in 16 months, Trump said both Washington and New Delhi continue to “work together” on the issue, calling commercial vessel operations “a rough profession”. “I heard about that,” Trump added, without offering any condolences or...
‘Has been happening throughout time’: Trump on deaths of three Indian seafarers
The United States ‘will help India if it was attacked’, the US president told Modi during the first bilateral meeting in 16 months.
"Calm, Cool And A Total Killer": Trump's Big Praise For PM Modi At G7 Meet
"Unlike PM Modi, who's calm, cool and a total killer, I am not. Look at him," Trump said as the two leaders prepare for talks on the sidelines of the G7 Summit.
Trump says he had good meeting with India's Modi, working on trade deals
By Steve Holland and Bo Erickson EVIAN, France, June 17 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday told reporters at the G7 meeting in France that he had a "very good" conversation with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, adding the two countries are working on trade deals. Trump called Modi a "tough negotiator," and said he will be going to India "sometime in the future." India has been pressing the United States for months for a Trump trip, potentially as part of a meeting including Japan and Australia.
Lack of respect for international law 'biggest' hurdle to building solidarity: Indian premier
Narendra Modi addresses outreach session at G7 summit in Evian, France
India Adopts China’s Strict Gaokao Playbook to Avert Exam Leak
India is emulating China’s stringent playbook ahead of the national medical exam retest as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government seeks to rebuild trust after a paper leak imperiled the future of more than two million students.
At G7 summit, Modi calls for safe maritime routes, protection for seafarers
‘The safety of seafarers, who connect all nations through global maritime trade, is our responsibility,’ the prime minister.
SOS messages from Mideast seas plunge India-US ties into choppy waters
The US military killed three Indian soldiers last week when it fired on a vessel while enforcing a US naval blockade, the latest in a series of setbacks for US-India ties. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit this week, the two leaders will seek to reset bilateral relations. But for Modi, it might be too little, too late.
Orta Doğu'da ABD ablukası: Hint askerleri öldü, bağlar sarsıldı"Donor-Recepient" Ties Must End: PM Modi Backs Trust-Driven Relations At G7
PM Modi said energy, food, health, cyber and economic security have become so interconnected that building partnerships across nations is no longer optional but a necessity for global progress and prosperity.
Modi’s Moment With Trump at the G7 Is Worth the Risk
The Indian leader’s meeting with the US president may help an economy battered by the Iran war.
A year on, stalemate persists
A YEAR after the May 2025 conflict, the India-Pakistan relationship remains volatile. Diplomacy is frozen. Neither side has sought to break the deadlock. A war of words erupts every so often. Last week, it was over the water dispute. Then it was on the Kashmir dispute at the UN. Bilateral relations are at one of the lowest points in their tortured history. Last month saw speculation about the revival of dialogue. It was triggered by voices from India calling for talks. RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale urged engagement. A former army chief and ex-head of RAW agreed. Leaders from occupied Kashmir chimed in. Pakistan’s foreign ministry spokesman responded quickly but cautiously. Describing this as a “positive development” he said it was the official Indian line that mattered. Speculation grew that Delhi may be testing the waters with its no-talks posture coming under increasing questioning at home. But it quickly died. There was no official Indian statement. The opposition Congress party attacked the government for “softening” on Pakistan. India-Pakistan relations snapped back to their default mode of a tense stand-off. In fact, even track two engagement between former officials over the past year has seen no movement. Just reiterations of familiar positions. Suggestions by the Pakistani side for backchannel communication found no traction from the Indians. The Modi government, they said, was averse to any formal or informal dialogue. India and Pakistan can’t afford another crisis and need a backchannel to prevent one. Meanwhile, water has emerged as the new arena of India-Pakistan confrontation. Delhi had suspended the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in April 2025, in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist incident in Pahalgam in occupied Kashmir. After the four-day India-Pakistan military clash, Indian officials repeatedly declared Pakistan would not get a single drop from ‘India’s rivers’. Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed to make Pakistan “feel the heat” on the issue. For over six decades, the 1960 treaty had survived wars, confrontations and tensions to provide a framework for water-sharing between the two neighbours. Now its fate hung in the balance. India’s weaponisation of water held serious long-term implications for Pakistan, posing an existential threat to its agricultural economy and water security. Its immediate impact was, however, limited. This was because India lacked the infrastructure or enough dams to halt the flow of water or significantly divert it. Over the past year, Pakistan repeatedly protested against India’s use of water as an instrument of coercion and warned any diversion of Indus river flows would be deemed an “act of war”. It also sought to draw international attention to the issue. Islamabad pointed out that India’s decision to put the treaty into “abeyance” had no legal basis. The treaty does not allow either party to unilaterally suspend or abrogate it. But Delhi rejected Islamabad’s protests and said the treaty would remain suspended “until Pakistan ends its support for cross-border terrorism”. More significantly, the Indian government now says it is “actively working” on Prime Minister Modi’s directive to halt water flows to Pakistan. Last week, India’s minister of water, C.R. Patil declared that it was being ensured that “not a single drop of water will go [to Pakistan] in coming years”. This involves restoring and expanding the capacity of existing reservoirs and creation of new ones. Delhi announced projects to build canals that will divert water from Pakistan’s Chenab river system into the Beas basin. Islamabad called this interference in downstream flows a violation of both the IWT and broader principles of international water law. The Indian government also unveiled plans for silt flushing from the Salal Dam reservoir on the Chenab river in occupied Kashmir. Islamabad has also objected to this plan which will enable India to increase effective storage and regulate flows in ways that could exceed the IWT’s limits. This is not permissible under either the treaty or the 1978 Salal Agreement. Putting the treaty in abeyance doesn’t legally allow India to undertake these two river projects that can threaten irrigation supplies critical for Pakistan’s agricultural heartland. But that hasn’t stopped Delhi. The two countries also continue to clash over the IWT’s dispute settlement mechanism. For years, they have disagreed with India rejecting and boycotting the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague and ignoring its rulings. It called, instead, for a neutral expert. The IWT provides for both. But Delhi now rejects these mechanisms and has disassociated itself from both. This means there is no avenue or forum to resolve water disputes. It is not just India’s aims to weaponise water that concern Islamabad. Its post-May 2025 moves to rearm itself and upgrade its military capabilities are also consequential for Pakistan. The Modi government raised India’s defence budget to a record $85billion this year. It has ordered over a 100 more Rafale fighter jets from France. It also plans to buy an unprecedented number of armed drones and additional S-400 air and missile defence systems. Missile development and purchases have accelerated. More alarmingly, India is now mating nuclear warheads to missiles and deploying a small number with operational forces in peacetime, according to SIPRI’s latest 2026 handbook. This is a dangerous departure from the posture of recessed deterrence adopted by both India and Pakistan, by which they have kept warheads and launchers de-mated. The current phase of ‘no war, no peace’ is expected to continue. The Modi government is not interested in resuming any dialogue. In fact, its post-2019 approach to Pakistan is characterised by three key features. One, that Kashmir is off the negotiating table. Two, the relationship will be seen through the narrow lens of terrorism with Delhi grading Pakistan’s ‘good behaviour’. And three, diplomatic engagement is a concession Pakistan will have to ‘earn’. For Pakistan, these terms are unacceptable. This makes for dim prospects for resumption of formal dialogue anytime soon. India and Pakistan can’t afford another crisis. They have had five in the past 25 years, each one more dangerous than the last. They have to find a way — and mechanism — to prevent the next crisis and manage one if it breaks out. This urges the need to revive the backchannel between the two countries. It worked between 2019 and 2024. This kept the line of communication open. Today, it is needed even more not just to manage crisis but also explore how old and new disputes can be resolved. The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN. Published in Dawn, June 15th, 2026
Bir Yılın Ardından: Hindistan-Pakistan Arasında Diplomasi Buz TuttuRahul Gandhi says PM Modi listening to US ‘like an obedient servant’ after Indian sailors killed
The Congress leader’s remarks came after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told S Jaishankar that vessels in the Strait of Hormuz must obey America’s orders.
PM Modi arrives in France for first leg of two-nation visit
In his departure statement ahead of his week-long visit to France and Slovakia, during which he will attend the summit, Mr. Modi said India’s presence at the G7 reflects the trust its partners place in the country and its rising global profile
Indian PM Modi in France to attend G7 summit
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to hold bilateral talks with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit. What will be on the agenda? We spoke with Amalendu Misra, Professor of International Politics at Lancaster University.
Trump İran Nükleer Anlaşması İçin Nihai Kararını VeriyorIndian Prime Minister Modi begins official visit to France, Slovakia
Visit will reinforce India’s ‘deepening engagement with both Europe and the G7,’ says Prime Minister Narendra Modi
Meeting with heads of international news agencies
Vladimir Putin’s meeting with heads of the world’s leading news agencies took place in the Constantine Palace. Director General of TASS News Agency, moderator of the meeting Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, guests, Allow me to begin by expressing my deepest gratitude for upholding the steadfast tradition whereby the leaders of the world’s news agencies gather here, in the Northern capital, during the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, for an open dialogue with you. TASS has the honour of inviting our colleagues to this meeting. I would note that some of our guests have forewarned us that they have come prepared with some rather incisive questions. In turn, we have cautioned them that you too may have a few questions for certain journalists from various countries. President of Russia Vladimir Putin: No, I will not be asking questions. I am not a journalist. It is you who will be asking questions; I will be providing the answers. Andrei Kondrashov: In any event, let us strive to make our meeting today open, candid, and dynamic. The purpose of such gatherings is, as in previous years, that the discussions here will be rapidly disseminated in hundreds of news flashes across the globe for those present here today and the agencies they represent are responsible for generating more than three-quarters of the global information flow. Therefore, today, we will not follow any alphabetical order, but we will maintain one tradition. Let us begin our discussion with a representative of the fairer half of journalism – Ms Raushan Kazhibayeva, Director General of the Television and Radio Complex of the President of Kazakhstan. Please, Ms Kazhibayeva, you have the floor for the first question. Director of the Television and Radio Complex of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Raushan Kazhibayeva: Thank you very much. Mr President, I have two questions for you. Your recent state visit to Kazakhstan was a great success and undoubtedly one of the most significant events on our bilateral agenda this year. During the visit, you and our President, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, adopted a joint document on the seven foundations of friendship and good-neighbourly relations between the peoples of Kazakhstan and Russia. My first question: what, in your view, is the significance of this document? My second question relates to one of the most talked-about moments of the visit – the Amur tigers that Russia gifted to Kazakhstan. President Tokayev called this gift the highlight of the visit. Could you tell us whether this is not just an environmental project, but rather a symbol – a vivid symbol of trust between our countries? Thank you. Vladimir Putin: Our relations with Kazakhstan are advancing steadily; they are on the rise. That said, I should point out straight away that our Kazakhstani friends and partners are not easy partners. We always have very heated debates on almost every issue – whether it is financial relations, industrial cooperation, investment conditions, or major joint projects. But on both sides, there is a desire to find a compromise that doesn’t just satisfy both parties but also helps us achieve shared goals. And our shared goal is clear: development and prosperity for the citizens of Kazakhstan and Russia. We fully understand – we know that we are bound by centuries of shared history, no exaggeration here, and we have certain advantages inherited from the time we were part of a single state. What are those advantages? Cooperation, and particularly unified transport links. You asked your question in Russian, and I am grateful for that. That too is an important factor – one that, to some extent, and in many cases, takes on a purely economic dimension. Everything is clear: we understand each other, and we speak the same language. There is also enormous interest in continuing the benefits of education – both the evolving education system in Kazakhstan and the developments and new trends emerging in the Russian Federation. As you may recall, the President of Kazakhstan and I attended the launch of the Sirius system, which has proven successful in developing effective methods for identifying and supporting gifted children. Of course, Kazakhstan has many gifted children – they just need to be found – and this area of our cooperation will focus on this. Energy, as you know, industrial production, space, as well as our latest major project – the construction of a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan. I want to note that Kazakhstan is a country with abundant resources that are in high demand by the rest of the world. These resources include fuel for power plants and NPPs. We cooperate successfully with Kazakhstan in this area. I am confident that, by relying on its own resource base and developing our joint potential, Kazakhstan will achieve great success and tackle many tasks in energy, diversifying its energy resources. I believe Kazakhstan will obtain up to 20 percent of its electrical energy from the nuclear power plant. We produce uranium together, as I said, and will continue this production. But the most important thing is not the fact that NPP units will be built in Kazakhstan. Most importantly, a new industry will emerge. This new industry will provide for professional training, research and production activities. We will work on this together. It is an extremely important sector for both us and Kazakhstan. We will continue our cooperation in space, machine engineering, and many other industries. I have already talked about humanitarian links. Education plays an enormous role. A great number of Kazakhstani are enrolled to study in Russian universities, and we are very grateful to the President of Kazakhstan for launching an international body to support the Russian language. I believe it is a forward-looking initiative that will help preserve our relations and promote their development across all fields, including humanitarian cooperation. So, as concerns tigers, it is quite a natural thing. We are simply focused on the restoration of nature, the environment, flora and fauna. We also receive help – for example, Tajikistan has transferred snow leopards to us, for which we are immensely grateful to our Tajikistani friends. We have done a great deal to preserve the population of Amur tigers. By the way, they are the largest tigers in the world, second to none. Amur tigers are the largest. There were similar tigers in Kazakhstan in the past. If we can help our friends in Kazakhstan in any way, we will certainly do so. I have seen this picture, and it is impressive. By the way, we held an event called a tiger summit here. So many countries are concerned about preserving the population of these beautiful animals. I think our cooperation on this and other environmental projects is very important. This has to do with a very pragmatic matter of trans-border river resource utilisation. There is much to discuss in this area. Our work here is quite extensive. I am certain all the goals will be achieved. Thank you. Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, to your left is Mr Fu Hua, representing the Xinhua News Agency from China. Just two weeks ago, if you recall, he helped organise an exhibition for you and President of China Xi Jinping, together with the TASS news agency. And now, two weeks later, he is here with us to ask his question. Please, go ahead, Comrade Fu Hua. President of Xinhua News Agency (PRC) Fu Hua (retranslated): Mr President, It was a real pleasure to have you visit us in China. A remarkable visit – and a highly successful one. This year, we held a very important exhibition marking the anniversary of our news agencies. Thank you for your special attention to it. May I take this opportunity to ask you a couple of questions? In May, you made your 25th visit to China, where you discussed major issues concerning our international relations with President Xi Jinping. We have counted: over the past 14 years, you have met more than 50 times. This is truly an extraordinary, unprecedented achievement. Our relationship is good-neighbourly, friendly, and truly at its peak. I believe this visit left a real mark. This close engagement at such a senior level – how did we achieve it? How did we reach this unprecedented level? That is my first question. My second question: We have jointly issued a new, comprehensive joint statement. We, of course, remain committed to the UN Charter, upholding its principles and purposes in full, and we defend the international order. We were the victors in World War II. What should we do to protect historical truth? How do we pass it on to future generations, without allowing anyone to distort or destroy it? Those are my two questions. Thank you. Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to thank you for the warm welcome during my visit to Beijing, and for the exhibition you organised together with your colleague, Mr Kondrashov. It was a fascinating and substantive exhibition. Thank you very much. As for the results of our cooperation, here is what I would say. In recent years, especially since the events still unfolding in Ukraine, people have increasingly said: “Russia has pivoted towards Asia. It has changed its policy.” But Russia has not changed anything, and it has not made any pivot. The agreement that underpins our cooperation – and is the foundation for our current results, which are impressive (according to various figures, our mutual trade is somewhere around $250 billion, and diversification is progressing strongly) – that agreement was signed back in 2001. We are natural allies and partners. Indeed, we are neighbours, sharing an extensive common border. One cannot choose one’s neighbours – that is a fact of life. Such is the course of history. Over the centuries, throughout our interactions, a particular system of principles governing our relations has emerged. Not yesterday, not today, and not five years ago – but over centuries, these principles have taken shape. China is progressing rapidly and dynamically, assuming an increasingly significant role in the global economy, world politics, and international affairs as a whole. Naturally, we have been observing this closely – and not merely observing; we have been engaging in close collaboration and cooperation. Twenty five years ago, we signed the foundational Treaty, which established favourable preconditions and a robust foundation for the development of bilateral cooperation in all areas. Such is the result. In recent years, as both the Chinese and Russian economies have expanded and diversified, new opportunities have emerged for us – encompassing a vast array of fields. I will refrain from enumerating everything I deem significant and important. The most crucial aspect is that in recent years, we have increasingly focused on matters relating to the new economy, which is rooted in artificial intelligence, information technology, advancements in biology, genetics, and so forth. We have always cooperated – not just in the last five years, but consistently – in the military sphere, and our interaction continues unabated. There is nothing new in this regard; it is simply a tradition of our relations, both military and military-technical cooperation. We are jointly considering certain developments in this domain. I reiterate, this is not connected to current events that are capturing global attention, including those in Ukraine or even in the Middle East. We simply cooperate and maintain friendship with China – not directed against anyone, as I have stated, but rather in each other’s interests. That is all. Here, particularly in the pursuit of advancements in the realms of artificial intelligence and high technology, lies the future of our collaboration. This is a subject we invariably discuss during our meetings with President Xi Jinping. Incidentally, we have truly trust-based relations. He addresses me as “my old friend,” and I reciprocate. This is neither an exaggeration nor a figure of speech. We have cultivated a relationship of trust. Naturally, we are guided first and foremost by the national interests of our countries, yet these interests often align, and personal relationships provide a solid foundation for reaching ever-new horizons. That is why I believe we have established favourable preconditions for enhancing our interaction with China. I am confident that all the tasks we have set during my visit will be accomplished, and all the objectives will be achieved. President Xi Jinping and I have outlined our schedule of bilateral contacts for this year – and this applies not only to us: the governments, ministries, and agencies, along with our leading companies, are meeting and collaborating, including in the energy sector, where, I am sure, we will soon delight the global energy market with new agreements between Russia and China. Andrei Kondrashov: Colleagues, who would like to speak next? Vijay Joshi, CEO and Editor-in-Chief of the Press Trust of India. CEO and Editor-in-Chief at The Press Trust of India (India) Vijay Joshi: Mr President, first of all, thank you for this opportunity and for your hospitality. Mr President, as you are preparing to travel to India for the BRICS summit in September and the global community is watching the evolving dynamics between Moscow and New Delhi very closely. While this special and privileged strategic partnership remains the cornerstone for both nations, some observers say that India’s alignment with Washington creates structural frictions with Russia. From your perspective, how will you seek to inject fresh momentum into the bilateral relationship? What steps can be taken to ensure that Russia-India ties remain resilient against external geopolitical pressures? And how would you describe Russia-India relations in this redrawn geopolitical landscape in your words? Thank you. Vladimir Putin: You have described these relations yourself, and you characterised them accurately. As you noted, this is a special and privileged strategic partnership. Such a relationship was not built overnight, or over the course of a few years. It is the result of decades of cooperation. The Soviet Union established diplomatic relations with India in 1947 and consistently supported the development of the young state. We are happy to see that, thanks to the tireless work, talent, and determination of the Indian people, India has achieved remarkable success and made tremendous progress in its development. Everyone present here knows that India is currently demonstrating the highest economic growth rates among the world’s major economies. This doesn’t fall out of the sky; it is the result of consistent and purposeful efforts, above all by the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The country’s strong economic performance reflects the successful implementation of the policies and development strategies pursued under his leadership. We still have a lot of work to do together, but we are confident that bilateral trade will reach $100 billion in the coming years. At present, trade turnover stands at approximately $58 – $60 billion. However, all the necessary conditions are in place to intensify our joint efforts and achieve even more ambitious goals. Our cooperation extends far beyond the energy sector, including nuclear power. The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant is already operating and continues to expand, and we expect decisions on additional sites in the future. We will also continue to deepen cooperation in the hydrocarbon sector. Russia remains one of the largest foreign investors in the Indian economy, and we intend to further strengthen investment cooperation on a reciprocal basis. Everybody knows that we also maintain close cooperation in the pharmaceutical industry, where Russian companies are ready to offer a wide range of products and solutions. I will not go into details, but we have outlined a number of highly promising, long-term initiatives that are of mutual interest to both India and Russia. However, I find your question somewhat surprising. You suggested that India’s cooperation with the United States is creating difficulties in its relations with Russia. We do not see it that way at all. Where did you get that from? We are glad that India is developing relations with all countries. India is a major global power with a population of 1.5 billion people, a rapidly growing economy, and one of the world’s largest democracies. It is entirely natural for India to develop relations with a wide range of countries in accordance with its national interests. It is another thing that the United States is trying to pressure India on certain issues, particularly on certain issues of cooperation with Russia. But I think everyone has long since realised that pressuring Prime Minister Modi, who leads a country with a population of 1.5 billion, is futile. Moreover, it harms international relations and bilateral relations, no matter from which side this pressure comes. We do not see any negative consequences arising from the current situation. We believe that mutually acceptable solutions can be found with all parties involved. To date, we have not observed any serious adverse effects. Russia and India continue to strengthen their partnership, and we regard India as a reliable partner. Andrei Kondrashov: And here’s the United States. James Jordan is one of those who came from The Associated Press to ask tough questions. Please. Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, play hard ball. News Director for Europe & Africa at the Associated Press James Jordan: Thank you, Mr Kondrashov, for the organisation of this gathering. It is always fascinating to hear President Putin’s views on many global matters. I have been here for three years now and it is always an interesting experience, so thank you. President Putin, yesterday hundreds of drones were launched into Russia from Ukraine. Some struck a naval base nearby, some struck an oil depot nearby, causing a plume of smoke over St Petersburg, your home city. Flights were also disrupted into the airport here. More broadly, the Russian economy has dipped recently; your personal approval ratings have also dipped; and the US says the invasion has become a strategic disaster – those are the words of Marco Rubio. He also added that Russia won’t achieve its war aims by military means alone. Given this, is it still logical to pursue your war aim of controlling the hold of the Donbass region or are you ready to make a deal? Thank you. Vladimir Putin: First of all, one does not exclude the other. Controlling the entire Donbass region and making a deal are not mutually exclusive. Why do you think they are in conflict? You mentioned Mr Rubio’s statement. He is a serious partner; we are in contact with him. He recently spoke in the Senate or Congress. It is clear that the domestic political situation in the United States is complex – some support him, some attack him. What the Secretary of State says on a specific issue inside his home country is certainly of interest to us, but ultimately, we are more interested in the real situation. And if you are talking about the conflict in Ukraine right now, we are interested in the actual situation on the ground. What does that situation look like? It is as follows. First of all, and this needs to be emphasised, Russian troops are advancing along the entire line of contact. There is not a single place where Russian troops are not advancing. The biggest problem facing the Ukrainian Armed Forces today is a disastrous shortage of personnel. Recently, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been reduced by 100,000 personnel. Monthly losses are around 40,000. As a result of forced mobilisation – people, as you know, are being snatched off the streets, like stray dogs, and forced into the army. I will tell you about the consequences now. Monthly losses are approximately 40,000. Forced mobilisation brings in around 15,000–16,000 per month, and about 14,000 return from hospitals after being wounded. So each month, there is a net loss of roughly 10,000 personnel. On top of that, around 20,000 desert each month. At the start of this year, the number of deserters was around 60,000. People are being forcibly taken – there is no motivation, no one wants to fight. The almost official figure is that 200,000 criminal cases have been opened for desertions. That is one of the problems, but the most significant one. It leads to the loss of territory and towns. Just recently – I will not give the exact number of communities now, in case I am mistaken – the Russian army has brought approximately 2,440 square kilometres under its control. The offensive, as I said, is ongoing daily. Since you mentioned Donbass, the Russian army is currently in full control of the Lugansk People’s Republic – 100 percent. Over 85 percent of the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic is under our control. Only recently, Ukraine controlled some 25 percent of the territory, and now it’s down to less than 15 percent. We also control 80 percent of the Zaporozhye Region. This process continues on a daily basis. True, Western sponsors supply a great number of drones for Ukraine – different categories, including long-range UAVs. Unfortunately, some of them do break through. But Russia has its own air defence system. We must sure refine it. Yes, we must reinforce it, and we will by all means do it. Ukraine has no such system whatsoever. They have some of its elements but no system. They have Patriots and other types of weapons but the shortage is catastrophic. But the system as such does not exist. Similarly, Ukraine has no strike systems like those the Russian Federation has. By that I mean hypersonic missiles, cruise missiles – sea-, air- and ground-launched. We also have something vital – the Russian people’s patriotism and strong will that guarantee that we will achieve all the goals and objectives of the special military operation. While listing essential issues, I should mention one more circumstance. We have our own production, resource, research and workforce base to address all the objectives concerning the provisions of the Russian Armed Forces. This base is gaining strength with every passing month and, certainly, serves as the foundation for all the achievements and advances that I have just mentioned. To summarise, I would like to add the following: Without doubt, we are ready and willing to reach an agreement with Ukraine by peaceful means – and based on what we have discussed at the meeting with President Trump in Anchorage. At that meeting, certain questions were put before Russia so that we could agree on certain compromises. Russia agrees to the compromises discussed in Anchorage. It is necessary that Ukraine also agrees to make them. Then, the conflict will be resolved naturally and quickly. Andrei Kondrashov: Have you received answers to all your questions, Mr Jordan? Should time permit, you may pose additional queries, but for the moment, allow me, Mr President, to put my question to you. The retaliatory strikes we are carrying out today in response to the incessant terrorist assaults from Ukraine – targeting infrastructure used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) and military-industrial complex facilities – are, before our very eyes, taking on a systemic character. Indeed, one of our recent retaliatory strikes raises the question – was the Oreshnik used in that instance? Furthermore, what, broadly speaking, does the use of such weaponry afford us? Vladimir Putin: As for our new systems, they are being developed – this includes the Oreshnik. However, they differ somewhat from what we used to do prior to the conflict in Ukraine. What do I mean by this? You see, we tested such systems at proving grounds, but the Oreshnik was not tested in this way, and this did not constitute a combat use. Across the territory of Ukraine, there has essentially been no full combat use of the Oreshnik, and as for the latest instance – it is not quite that … To be perfectly candid, I will share a major state military secret with you: we simply struck locations where it was possible to observe the results. This applies to Belaya Tserkov and, even more so, to the DPR area within the main fortified zone. Afterwards, our drones flew into the structure we hit, and we meticulously observed how the separating warheads were dispersed, calculating everything to the millimetre. This is crucial for us to make future decisions on the full-scale employment of the Oreshnik against designated targets, including urban areas. Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you. Colleagues, who is next? Martin Romanczyk, Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), Germany. But, you know, I would first like to put a question to Martin myself, if I may. You represent Germany’s largest and leading news agency. As a journalist, do you get the impression that your country is preparing for war? Is this really the case, or does it merely appear so to us? And is it truly gearing up to engage in conflict with Russia? Vladimir Putin: I object. There is no need for you to respond. You are not here to be interrogated – you are here as an investigator; interrogate others. Andrei Kondrashov: Then we will speak separately after this meeting. Please, go ahead. Head of the News Service of the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA) (Germany) Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): I would like to respond to your question. No, I do not think so. Mr President, thank you very much for the invitation. I would also like to address the topic of Ukraine and return to a question that has already been asked here. You spoke about peace. Germany and many European countries wish to take part in these peace negotiations currently being mediated by the United States, despite the conflict in Iran. What role can Germany play, and what role can the Federal Chancellor assume? And, if I may, I would like to add to this question. You mentioned Gerhard Schröder as a negotiator on behalf of the Europeans. Apart from Gerhard Schröder, whom else can you envisage in this role – who could undertake these mediation functions on behalf of Germany? Thank you. Vladimir Putin: You raised two points that I would like to pay attention to. First, you said that Europe would like to participate in the negotiations. Right? Second, you asked who, apart from Mr Schroeder, could serve as a mediator. One thing is to participate in the negotiations, and another thing is to be a mediator. How can the European Union or separate countries of the European Union be a mediator if they directly abet the efforts of the country which we have an armed conflict with? What kind of mediators can they be? If you want to be a mediator, you have to be neutral.That is my first point. And secondly, I was surprised by the reaction to my mention of Mr Schroeder as a possible mediator. An immediate outcry followed: “No, Schroeder cannot be involved because he is Putin’s friend.” He is not Putin’s friend. He is a German statesman, and one of the best, in my view, because he has his own position and the courage to defend it. Unfortunately, there are not many politicians in Europe today who possess those qualities. Europe is currently facing significant energy challenges. However, it was Gerhard Schroeder who championed infrastructure projects such as Nord Stream, designed to provide the German economy with reliable and affordable energy supplies from Russia. Moreover, these projects were not only about securing deliveries; they also created a framework of mutual commitments and obligations between the parties involved. What matters is not that we have a good relationship with him. What matters is that, while pursuing his country’s national interests, he has demonstrated that he is a person whose word can be trusted. That is the essence of the matter. Any individual seeking to act as a mediator must be trusted by both sides. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how Russia could trust people who, for years, have been saying about the need to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. That is precisely the issue, Martin, das ist das Problem. Nevertheless, we are not refusing to talk. We have never refused contacts with representatives of the European Union in any format. As for the EU acting as a mediator in negotiations with Ukraine, there are obvious difficulties, as I have already mentioned, and I think that is difficult to dispute. But we are not rejecting contacts. If they want to talk, they know how to reach us. They can pick up the phone and call. If they want to come, they are welcome to do so. It is not Russia that is refusing engagement. I was also surprised to hear claims that the evil Russia had stopped supplying energy to Europe. We did not stop. Europe chose to stop buying, hoping that this would cause our economy to collapse. Well, they have seen that nothing has collapsed, that it’s time to stop, to realize that it was a wrong approach and perhaps make some adjustments. But instead we continue to hear the same rhetoric. They have made so many public statements and political commitments that it is difficult to change their position now. I’m not going to comment. I just want to say that we never rejected a dialogue. I want to reaffirm it. If anybody considers it reasonable to resume dialogue with Russia – go ahead. Who will be the negotiator from Europe? I don’t know. We are not imposing anything. I’ve heard this hubbub about Russia wanting to impose something, suggest some negotiators. We are not imposing anything or anyone. Naturally, we want to know who this could be. Let me repeat: It must be some people we could trust. It is just a working matter that could be discussed quietly and calmly, say, at the level of foreign ministers or intelligence services. The contacts between our intelligence agencies continue, by the way. Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): Mr President, you spoke about Nord Stream. Members of the Alternative for Germany party are present at this economic forum. They are supporting the resumption of Russia’s gas supplies via Nord Stream. What do you think of this party? We are holding regional and federal elections soon. What are your expectations of this party? What is your general attitude towards the Alternative for Germany party? Thank you. Vladimir Putin: I believe it would be improper for me to give assessments of the political forces of the Federal Republic. We know – and I know – that, if this corresponds to reality, or as far as I was informed, Alternative for Germany is currently ranked at the top among the political parties of the Federal Republic. It is ahead of CDU/CSU – in fact, quite significantly. It is also ahead of the Social Democratic Party of Germany by miles. I don’t want to comment, but I will say one thing. In my opinion, it is happening because this party’s leaders can formulate the interests of the German people and the German economy clearly and precisely. They are not afraid to declare them and they are willing to fight for them. Hence their rating and results. I don’t know and I don’t want to speculate about further developments on the political stage of the Federal Republic. As for opinions, we welcome any German political forces that are willing to restore and develop relations with Russia, be it Alternative for Germany or any other party. We will work with everybody who wants to work with us. Andrei Kondrashov: If there is a country that definitely wants to work with us, it is Belarus. I would like to give the floor to BelTA, the Belarusian news agency. Andrei Mokhor, go ahead, please. Director General of the Belarusian Telegraph Agency (BetTA) Andrei Mokhor: Good evening, Mr President. First, thank you for the opportunity to have this genuinely open discussion on topics that have been a matter of concern far beyond the circle of people sitting around this table. It has already been said on multiple occasions that the relations between Belarus and Russia can be regarded as a benchmark of sorts in terms of interstate relations and striking a balance between integration and the unconditional commitment to preserving sovereignty. Even the EAEU has yet to achieve this level of interaction. I would like to ask your opinion about ways of overcoming the emerging crisis of trust between long-standing partners, our partners, whose actions sometimes de facto amount to severing ties. Vladimir Putin: A crisis of trust with our partners? Andrei Mokhor: Yes. A crisis of trust with our partners within the post-Soviet space. In particular, I am referring to the developments concerning Armenia. Vladimir Putin: You know, there is nothing extraordinary about this. The political forces behind the current Prime Minister have been talking about this for quite some time now. They have no qualms and are open about it. In fact, there is nothing wrong with striving to follow Western standards, the European standards. I believe that any sovereign country, and Armenia is of course one of them – every sovereign country has the right to set what it views as priority standards which can benefit the country and reinforce its independence, sovereignty and, most importantly, its economy, as well as to choose its partners accordingly. What has raised our concerns? It was the fact that Armenia has adopted a law on launching the process to join the European Union – this is how it is titled, by the way, and it was Mr Lukashenko who drew our attention to this fact, while I even forgot about this, but he pointed out the actual title of the law. Business as usual, nothing extraordinary about this, if not for the fact that Armenia, as I have already said, and we discussed this in Kazakhstan too when we had a meeting with our colleagues – Armenia operates within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. There are different standards, technical regulations in agriculture, transport, and logistics – there are so many divergences. I would very much like to see, at some point in the historical perspective, technical standards, logistics and all the other numerous factors involved – many of which may seem a mere formality at first glance but are in fact crucial to economic development – become aligned between the European Union and the EAEU. This would make us a truly vast economic space “from Lisbon to the Urals,” as De Gaulle said, though it would be even better if it extended all the way to Vladivostok. However, this is currently impossible for technological reasons, as the EAEU and EU free trade zones are incompatible. Of course, this is a concern for us. If a relevant law is adopted, this goes beyond mere talk – it is the law, and we would like to ask our Armenian colleagues to decide on their development path as soon as possible. The market organisation and the legal framework within the EAEU depend on this, because we debate every issue just as it is done in the EU. Without wishing to overstate this, our colleagues sometimes become quite animated in these discussions. Every comma is sometimes important. But it is also important for us to know how this interaction will be structured. This not only concerns energy, although this is important because the common energy market is one of the few issues that has not been coordinated in terms of our policy as a whole. As you can see, even our colleagues in Germany are concerned about Nord Stream. This [energy] is a crucial element today, and it is especially important in the post-Soviet space, that is, within the EAEU. Moreover, Prime Minister Pashinyan has said just recently that he considers it important to hold a referendum on this issue. Our only request is that this is clarified as quickly as possible. Nothing more. We have no objections. We will maintain good relations with Armenia no matter what development path it chooses to follow. As for other countries, as I said, we manage to come to terms, we always do, despite all the challenges of negotiations. I am confident that we will be able to do this in the future as well. As for Armenia, Russia advocated, at Armenia’s request, for its accession to the EAEU. I mean that, in terms of a number of economic indicators, Armenia did not fully fit the overall framework at the time. However, it has now decided that it should explore a different direction. We have no objection to that – it is entirely their choice. Our only request is that a decision be made as quickly as possible and that we proceed openly and transparently. That’s all. So I do not see any major political problem here. There are, of course, economic and technical issues to address, but I hope we will be able to resolve those as well. By the way, regarding Nord Stream. As you know, the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up, correct? But one string of Nord Stream 2 remains intact and undamaged. Through it, Russian gas could be pumped to the Federal Republic of Germany starting as early as tomorrow. You just need — and I am not joking — simply to press a button, and the gas will start flowing. But that requires a decision by the Government of the Federal Republic. We have an existing contract between Gazprom and its partner in the Federal Republic, and contacts with Gazprom are ongoing; they remain in communication. Gazprom has never refused supplies and is ready to deliver tomorrow. Its partners also want this. All that is needed is a decision by the Government of the Federal Republic. And here we come to the key issue – a political question, a question of sovereignty. Because this system was not only blown up – I consider it an act of state terrorism, and I think you would agree – but even though one line remains intact and operational, it is still subject to US sanctions. If the German government reaches agreement with its partners, the sanctions will be lifted, we will press the button, and gas will start flowing – tomorrow, if necessary. This is a matter of sovereignty: whether they agree or do not agree, or whether, without agreeing with anyone, they simply say no, or explain to their partners in Washington that they need this because they are going through a very difficult period. High energy prices are undermining the competitiveness of the German economy and harming the European Union as a whole, because Germany remains the locomotive of the European economy. This system needs to be put back into operation. They could reach an agreement peacefully, explaining the seriousness of the situation. That is all. With increased capacity, up to 25, and potentially 28 billion cubic metres per year could be supplied – starting tomorrow. But what Gazprom needs from its German partners is a clear answer: will they take the gas or not? Otherwise, we will redirect it to other markets and sell it to other partners. The contract remains in force. And it is not Gazprom that is failing to meet its obligations – Gazprom is ready. The German partner is not taking the gas, because there are instructions from Brussels and Berlin not to take it. That is all. Let’s continue. Andrei Kondrashov: Middle East News Agency MENA, Egypt. Shohrat Aref, please go ahead. Managing Editor for European and Middle Eastern countries at the Middle East News Agency (MENA) (Egypt) Shohrat Aref (retranslated): Thank you, Mr President, for inviting me to take part in this dialogue. I have the following question: What are your thoughts about President el-Sisi’s role in promoting stability in the Middle East? What role could Egypt and Russia play in reducing tension in the Middle East? Vladimir Putin: President el-Sisi is a good friend, and I have a very good relationship with him. I also hope this helps us expand our bilateral ties. Trade between our two countries has been stable and is enjoying positive momentum, and there are good prospects for undertaking major projects. For many years now, we have been discussing the project to create a Russian technology valley in Egypt’s Nile Valley. Today, we are working hard on the project to build a nuclear power plant in Egypt. I hope its first block becomes operational in 2028. There is significant, effective momentum in our relations. We have engaged quite a few local specialists to perform construction work, which means that this is a very impactful project. We are also working in other sectors. We have developed a relationship of trust in our political cooperation on the international stage. Russia appreciates President el-Sisi’s efforts to bring about a settlement in the Middle East. The Palestine tragedy has been somewhat relegated to the background considering the developments in and around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, but the Palestine issue has not disappeared. It remains acute. In this regard, the President of Egypt has made and continues to make a meaningful contribution to achieving a settlement, which means arriving at a fair resolution regarding all Palestine-related matters. Of course, I would like to stress again that in the opinion of the Russian Federation, the creation of a viable Palestinian state is the only fundamental approach to resolving this issue. I know that the President of Egypt has been working hard on the agenda dealing with settling the Iranian crisis. He has been in touch with all parties to this process at all times, and we have also maintained contact. We seek each other’s advice, listen to each other, hear each other, and take our respective positions into account. I would like to thank President el-Sisi for attaching so much importance to strengthening Russia-Egypt ties. This is instrumental. Egypt is one of our priority partners in the region. Andrei Kondrashov: Spain has been a country that has protested conflicts in the Middle East. We have José Manuel Sanz Mingote, Editor-in-Chief of Agencia EFE, with us. You have the floor. Editor-in-Chief and Director of International Information at the Spanish news agency EFE José Manuel Sanz Mingote (retranslated): Thank you. I would like to thank our friends at the TASS News Agency for their hospitality. Mr President, my question concerns Ukraine. What is preventing the achievement of a durable peace in Ukraine, one that would allow all of Russia’s legitimate concerns related to the conflict to be discussed? We can see that some progress has been made, and you have told us about this. But it is taking too long to achieve these goals, especially in Donbass. We have seen numerous exchanges of strikes between the sides. Is now the right time for a ceasefire, for sitting down at the negotiation table to discuss all issues? Even if the EU and European countries cannot mediate the process, they could help look for a solution. Thank you very much. Vladimir Putin: I believe that the EU could indeed help look for a solution. In my opinion, a solution should be reached within the framework of the arrangements made in Anchorage, and the Ukrainian side is fully aware of this. I would like to reiterate that the question raised before the meeting in Anchorage was whether Russia was ready to make certain compromises. I said during my visit to Anchorage and my meeting with the US President that we were ready, and I specified the agreements and compromises we would be prepared to make. The issue is for the Ukrainian side to accept these compromises. However, judging by all indications, primarily the internal political situation, Kiev is not ready for this. The reason is that if peace is achieved, internal political strife and the struggle for power in Kiev will intensify dramatically, and the economic situation will further deteriorate against this backdrop. It seems to me that the ruling authorities [in Kiev] are not interested in stopping the hostilities because in this situation they are unlikely to have any good prospects – let’s put this tactfully – for retaining power. Furthermore, they will have to address economic matters. European experts know how much it will cost to rebuild the Ukrainian economy – hundreds of billions of euros – and how long this will take. I am aware of the German Chancellor’s proposals for making Ukraine an associated member, and so on. That is none of our business. We are not against this – go ahead. But we are against turning the EU into a military bloc. This is a matter of concern to us. But we are not against economic integration. Go right ahead. European experts know how much this will cost, and European farmers know what will happen if European markets open to Ukraine’s agricultural products. I could speak about this for a long time, but this is how I will reply to your question: Yes, the EU could potentially play a positive role, though not by supplying weapons but by trying to convince Kiev to accept the compromises we discussed in Anchorage. That is all. Andrei Kondrashov: Please, Chairman of the Board of AZERTAC news agency Vugar Aliyev, Azerbaijan. Please, go ahead. Chairman of the Board of the Azerbaijan State News Agency (AZERTAC) Vugar Aliyev: Good evening, Mr President. Thank you very much for taking the time to meet with us journalists. My question relates to relations between our countries. May I ask how you assess the prospects for developing relations between Azerbaijan and Russia? Vladimir Putin: I would rate them as highly favourable. Our relations with Azerbaijan have always been, and continue to be, very positive. This extends to both the economic and political spheres. We signed a Declaration on Allied Interaction a couple of years ago, and relations are developing accordingly. President Aliyev is making significant efforts to infuse this treaty with tangible substance. This is evident in the specific areas of our cooperation. I believe that accumulated Russian investment in the Azerbaijani economy exceeds 10 billion rubles. Numerous enterprises operate with Russian capital. We also have close cooperation on cultural and educational matters. A substantial number of Azerbaijanis, as is well known, work in the Russian Federation. They send money to support their families. We are striving to organise this in a proper, civilised manner. We have numerous areas of mutual interest in logistics, in particular, the North-South corridor providing access to Iran. At present, of course, this has been somewhat hampered due to the events surrounding Iran, yet it remains an area of significant mutual interest. We are deeply grateful to President Aliyev for assisting us in the delivery of humanitarian aid to Iran. It should be noted that the Azerbaijani side has been diligent and effective in this regard, responding promptly to our requests. This is crucial for alleviating the situation in that region as well. Trade turnover is on the rise, and it should be noted that additional opportunities for the mutual supply of goods are emerging. We are engaged in negotiations on a wide range of specific areas. At this stage, I deem it premature to elaborate on this, but it pertains primarily to the energy sector. We will meet with President Aliyev and will certainly discuss all matters in due course. On the whole, I believe that relations between the two countries are evolving – and evolving very positively. Andrei Kondrashov: Colleagues, the next question, please. Who is next? The Kyrgyz agency Kabar. Director Mederbek Shermetaliyev, please. Director of the Kyrgyz National News Agency Kabar Mederbek Shermetaliyev: Thank you, Mr Kondrashov. Good afternoon, Mr President. Thank you for this opportunity to take part in today’s meeting with you alongside the heads of news agencies. Allow me to ask two questions. Mr President, President Sadyr Japarov has repeatedly underscored that Central Asia should become a region of peace, neighbourliness, and shared development. Against this backdrop, Kyrgyzstan’s election to the UN Security Council was an important event not only for our country but also for the entire region. What role, in your opinion, can Central Asia play in strengthening international security in the coming years? That is my first question. My second question concerns the fact that this year, Bishkek is hosting the SCO summit. Against the backdrop of growing global challenges and instability, what joint initiatives within the SCO does Russia consider a priority for strengthening regional security, and what key proposals does the Russian side plan to put forward for discussion during the summit? Thank you. Vladimir Putin: As for what we intend to put forward at the summit, we will, first and foremost, be guided by the proposals of the Kyrgyz side as the host country of this event. We know that both the President of Kyrgyzstan and all our colleagues are giving this their close attention and working on it. Our respective government bodies are in constant contact, both through the foreign ministries and through the relevant economic agencies, coordinating their efforts. I am confident that this will lead to the necessary compromises being reached where required. More broadly, it will result not merely in formulations but in the definition of objectives for the further development of the association as a whole. What I would like to draw attention to is the following. It was initially established as a mechanism for resolving border issues between the People’s Republic of China and those republics of the former Soviet Union that share a border with China. Today, how many member states are there – 27 countries? It is, indeed, a major organisation. Few outside observers take note, but substantive work on economic integration is underway, and this is becoming a prominent factor in regional affairs, at the very least. And given that there are, after all, 27 countries involved, this is a significant undertaking. What is important is that Central Asia – with the resources of the Central Asian countries, its vast territory, and its growing population – is attracting ever-greater attention from the entire international community, primarily, of course, on the basis of the region’s economic potential. Everything that is being done within the framework of the organisation itself will undoubtedly be of interest both to Russia and to all our partners. Therefore, we certainly wish our Kyrgyz friends every success and will do everything we can to ensure that this significant event, in my view, proves a success. Andrei Kondrashov: We have not had questions from France or Great Britain yet. Let’s start with France. A major agency, Agence France-Presse – Pierre Ausseill, Regional Director for Africa and Europe, please. AFP Regional Director for Africa and Europe Pierre Ausseill (retranslated): Good evening, Mr President. I have a short question on Ukraine, covering the economy and Mr Zelensky. Russian military spending has risen considerably due to the special military operation, and the economy is showing signs of strain. Can the Russian economy withstand this? My second question concerns Mr Zelensky. If you were to sit down at the negotiating table with him to sign a peace treaty, what would you say to him? And do you consider him the legitimate representative of Ukraine? Vladimir Putin: On the question of his legitimacy, that is a matter for lawyers, for legal analysis. Of course, if we reach the point of signing any documents – and that is not a whim on our part; any country in our position would want to sign documents of this kind, which would be truly historic for both Russia and Ukraine – then we would want to sign them with someone who is legitimate under the other country’s constitution, the fundamental law of Ukraine. This requires careful legal analysis. I will not go into the details now – I have spoken on this before, and anyone can look up what I have said. Here is the core issue. Two years ago, in May 2024, President Zelensky’s term expired. At the end of last year and the start of this year, there was much talk of elections in Ukraine. Where is that talk now? Will there be elections or not? I suggest that you ask them these questions as well. That matters. Yet no one is asking these questions now. If elections are held, when? And of course, the outcome would be crucial. Under the Ukrainian Constitution, a president is limited to serving two five-year consecutive terms. If we accept the view of those who say that President Zelensky has legally extended his powers, two years [of his second term] are completed. Will he run for another five-year term? This is contrary to the Constitution, which only stipulates two five-year consecutive terms, 10 years altogether. What about the two years he has been in power now? There are many questions, but if we ever reach the stage of signing documents, I believe that if there is a desire to end this military conflict peacefully – and Russia would like to do this, we will find those who should sign the relevant document. When there is a will, there is a way. This is extremely important, but we must remember that it is a legal issue. As for what we could tell each other if we reach the end of the conflict, at the very least, we could and should say, Thank God it’s all over. However, the legal side of the matter should be analysed at the level of good experts. I believe this is obvious. I would like to reiterate that we can only sign such documents with those who are fully legitimate to do so. There are many options, such as the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, and possibly even Zelensky himself. We need to analyse the documents and what legal consequences their signing would have. Once again, there must be the will to do it. As for the procedure, there are ways to coordinate it. Pierre Ausseill: I also asked about the economy, if you recall. Vladimir Putin: Regarding the [Russian] economy, as Mark Twain said – I think it was he who said it, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” That is how he joked about it once. The same here. There were forecasts of our defeat on the battlefield, and it was even said – I think it was the former US President who said it, that the Russian economy was in tatters. Don’t engage in wishful thinking. Make your assessments based on real figures, real trends and the real situation, in this case the real situation in our economy. How much has the EU’s economy grown over the past three years? Don’t wrack your brains – it has grown by about 3 percent. And how has the Russian economy grown? It has grown by 10 percent, three times more than the EU’s economy. Germany, the leading economy of the eurozone, has grown by less than 1 percent, while the Russian economy has grown by 1 percent last year, even if this is a modest figure, and it continues to grow. It is true that there are issues in terms of the overall macroeconomic landscape, primarily the rising inflation. It is for this reason that the Central Bank and the financial bloc have taken several decisions – and these decisions were quite harsh – to suppress inflation and improve macroeconomic indicators. The decision to raise the key interest rate was one of them. However, these measures have been effective and yielded results. As of April, the economy has not fully recovered to where it was a year before that, but we are making steady progress towards reaching the planned, or to be more exact target indicator of 5.4 percent. This is a positive development in itself. At the same time, industrial output has continued to grow, and so did real household incomes. In fact, real household incomes increased by over 28 percent which is largely due to higher salaries, and I am talking about real, not nominal, wages. There was an increase of over 25 percent. We have been fulfilling all the social commitments we have to the people of Russia, including by adjusting for inflation pensions, benefits, minimum wages, and entitlements to support families with children, and so on and so forth. We had a plan to reduce the number of people living below the poverty line to seven percent by 2030. In 2025, we achieved this objective ahead of schedule and went even further by reaching a level of 6.7 percent. I want to go back to Mark Twain’s quote. Let me reiterate that our economic and financial agencies have been effective in their actions and delivering results. It goes without saying that we intentionally went down this road, of course, when the Central Bank decided to significantly increase the key interest rate. It has already cut the interest rate several times and brought it down to 14.5 percent. Many believe that this is too little, and that we need more cuts. I will not make any comments in this regard right now, since this can turn into a lengthy debate. I have been following these discussions between the Government’s economic bloc and the Central Bank, etc. But the results are there. We did this on purpose while understanding that this would lead to a decrease in capital investment. How could it be otherwise? Of course, investment was expected to shrink with the Central Bank’s key interest rate at this level. Our decision to cool down the economy was intentional. Some may argue that there was too much cooling, or that more needs to be done in this regard. Still, we did this on purpose. We do not want hyperinflation of up to 30, 60, or 70 percent, as it happened in some countries. We are fighting for the overall health of the Russian economy. I would like to draw your attention to another important indicator. Our public debt is equal to 15.6 percent. How big is it in France? It exceeds 100 percent, probably. I think it is 112 percent, approximately. But we have 15.6 percent. All this gives us reasons to believe that we are headed in the right direction and can feel confident. Andrei Kondrashov: Reuters, UK, Mark Bendeich, please. Global Managing Editor, World News, at Reuters news agency (Great Britain) Mark Bendeich: Thank you, Mr President. I’ve got two questions. The first is on Ukraine. How do you rate President Trump’s performance in trying to end the conflict in Ukraine? Whether he has become distracted by the Iran war and indeed whether he miscalculated there, perhaps at the cost of pushing forward talks over Ukraine? My second question is about your own political future, Mr President. You have been running the country now, been in power for 26 years, and whether you plan to stay in office until 2036, I think under the Constitution. And if you don’t mind me saying so, you look quite fit, whether you feel you have the stamina and the health to go the distance to 2036? Thank you. Vladimir Putin: Only God knows whether any of us – you, me, everyone in this room – stay healthy enough to survive until tomorrow or the day after, let alone to solve the problems we face and reach the goals we have set. That is for starters. As for my own plans: yes, the Constitution allows me to run for re-election in 2030. But frankly, it is far too early to talk about that. I am not even thinking about it right now – I tell you completely honestly. The country faces many large, far-reaching, and urgent issues. The way to address them is not to think about that, it is to think about Russia’s future. That’s the first point. Now, on Ukraine and what the US President has done to try to resolve the conflict. I have said this before, and I do not mind repeating it. I believe President Trump is genuinely committed to resolving the Ukraine crisis. He has already said publicly that he did not expect it to be so difficult. And yes – from the outside, some things may look straightforward, but once you dig in, you realise there are many unknown factors, and they matter. Now, settling another crisis, the one concerning Iran is indeed urgent. We see that the US administration is distracted and forced to focus primarily on that issue. But here is the difference: the Ukraine crisis is primarily local, though I regret that European countries are trying to give it a global dimension. The crisis around Iran, by contrast, is clearly global. Just look at the impact the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has on the world economy. So of course, the administration is giving it serious attention. That said, President Trump’s proposals, as I have already mentioned, could very well form the basis of a peace agreement. So to answer your question of whether the administration was on the right track – yes. Those proposals require compromise – for both countries. For Russia, too. And we have broadly agreed to those compromises. We just need to convince the Ukrainian side. That’s all. Overall, I believe these proposals could serve as the foundation for an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, and could end the conflict. Global Managing Editor, World News, at Reuters news agency (Great Britain) Mark Bendeich: Sorry, just one follow-up question on Iran. Do you think Russia could play a role in terms of settling that dispute in particular in relation to the highly enriched uranium? Vladimir Putin: I believe so. We harbour no desire to impose our assistance; however, our proposal is well known to the US administration, as well as to our Iranian friends and partners. In 2015, Russia played an entirely positive role by facilitating the removal of enriched uranium from Iran to the Russian Federation, thereby establishing the foundation for the JCPOA– effectively resolving the crisis. This endeavour was supported by the American administration of the time, implemented successfully, and led to a de-escalation of the situation. What is the current state of affairs? The uranium is present on Iranian territory, a fact currently undisputed by any party. The question that therefore arises is: what follows? The uranium would immediately come under the control of the IAEA, and consequently, the entire international community – including the United States and Israel – would become engaged in the process of eliminating highly enriched uranium. This is because everything would be under their purview – effectively, under IAEA control – while all parties contribute to the IAEA’s efforts, and there is universal trust in the IAEA. Immediately, the uranium is accounted for in terms of volume and quantity, control is established, and the process of de-enrichment and dilution commences. We possess the capability to undertake this now as well – if you will. However, I reiterate, this decision rests with all parties seeking a resolution to the crisis. We have successfully implemented this before and stand ready to do so again. Our relations with Iran are good and based on trust; Iran is a friendly country. It is no secret that we are implementing a project there to construct the Bushehr nuclear power plant. We have completed one unit, which is now operational, and are continuing with further construction. I believe that the Iranian leadership and the Iranian people repose complete trust in us. Incidentally, this uranium could, in the future, be diluted and utilised for peaceful nuclear programmes within Iran under the oversight of the international community and the IAEA. I think that this constitutes a viable option. In this regard, I believe that Iran would find such a resolution acceptable, and all other parties involved – who may harbour certain suspicions – should also find it satisfactory. The uranium would be declared, removed, and placed under control. Wherein lies the problem? I see none. I may be mistaken in some respects, yet I struggle to see what could be objectionable to anyone in this scenario. Furthermore, initially – since we have broached the topic, I will elaborate – initially, and admittedly not this year – there was unanimous agreement. Subsequently, positions hardened on all sides. We said: “Very well. If not, then not. Please, resolve this among yourselves.” The proposals remain on the table – please, we are prepared to proceed as we did in 2015. If that is not the case, we hope that the parties involved in this conflict will find an alternative solution. Should another solution emerge, we would be most pleased. And if our assistance is required, we would gladly support any solution of this nature that leads to a de-escalation of the situation. Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, we have already been speaking for an hour and a half. Would you allow us another 20 minutes? Vladimir Putin: We can do a couple of questions. The President of Uzbekistan is due to arrive shortly, and we have an event scheduled – the launch of a nuclear power plant construction project in Uzbekistan. Andrei Kondrashov: I have already caught the eye of three colleagues – Martin Romanczyk, Vijay Joshi, and Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote. Vladimir Putin: Well, by all means. Andrei Kondrashov: Three more questions, colleagues, and then we’ll conclude. Vladimir Putin: Please. Andrei Kondrashov: Martin, go ahead please. Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): Mr President, two years ago, when asked whether Russia was planning to attack NATO, you said that such claims were nonsense. At least, that is how your remarks were reported. Yet today, amid US plans not to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Germany and new details concerning the redeployment of American troops from Europe to Asia, there is still speculation that Russia could attack NATO territory in the foreseeable future. How do you assess such claims? Vladimir Putin: You know, anyone who seriously considers such claims should ask themselves a simple question: What for? Why would Russia need that? It’s clear – the conflict in Ukraine. At the heart of the conflict are the coup d’état and the subsequent suppression of everything associated with Russia as well as of a significant portion of the country’s population who refused to accept the outcome of that coup. Ukraine is, after all, a largely Russian-speaking country. Even those so-called nationalists speak Russian at home. But that is not really the point. The point is that the coup was followed by a series of developments inside Ukraine itself. In the end – and I will not go into all the details of how this unfolded, including the Minsk agreements and everything that followed – we found ourselves in a situation where it was necessary to support those people living in the territories that did not recognise the outcome of the coup. At the same time, there were ongoing efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO. Just think about it. We were simply deceived – openly deceived. You know that perfectly well. Since 1991, we were repeatedly told that NATO would not move one inch to the east. This was stated at the time by NATO Secretary General, a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany – I must admit I cannot recall his surname at the moment. That was the assurance we were given. But what does Europe have to do with this? Why would Russia attack Europe or go to war with NATO? What would be the purpose? As I have said before, these claims are not merely nonsense. In my view, they are a deliberate provocation designed to create the impression of a threat that does not actually exist. The objective is to persuade their populations to increase defence spending and, as a first step, to pay for the regime that seized power in Kiev. That, I believe, is the real explanation. It is not simply nonsense; it is a provocation. What surprises me, however, is that some people in European countries appear to believe it. I find that astonishing. The whole notion is simply absurd. It would be amusing if it were not so sad. We have consistently stated that one of the objectives of our special military operation is the denazification of Ukraine. Yet, from various quarters, we have been asked: “What do you mean by denazification? What is this “denazification” you refer to? You are speaking irrationally. (And they say we are speaking irrationally.) Why denazify Ukraine?” Colleagues, let me be clear. This has been plain to see for all, yet scarcely anyone addresses it – the reburial of Nazis and nationalists who, during the Second World War, exterminated Jews, Poles, and Russians in Ukraine. How many, you ask? In my view, a million Jews were exterminated in Ukraine. A million innocent souls. And now, in Ukraine, their [Nazis’ and nationalists’] remains have been reburied with military honours and a gun salute, hailed as heroes of Ukraine. Only Poland reacted, albeit feebly; Israel – even more feebly. Everyone seeks not to notice, shamefully ignoring the truth. And who is responsible for this? The current head of the Kiev regime, ethnically Jewish. His grandfather, who fought against Nazism, must be turning in his grave. There exists an organisation of Ukrainian nationalists known as the UPA [Ukrainian Insurgent Army] – an entirely pro-Nazi entity. Its name is currently being bestowed upon active units within the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Observe: to the best of my knowledge, it has been enshrined in legislation, or is on the brink of being enshrined, that Nazi propaganda is forbidden. However, the Ukrainian authorities should be reminded that enshrining it into law is insufficient – the law must be implemented effectively. Listen, I understand that the so-called collective West does not want Russia to grow stronger. The collective West wants to use Ukraine so that Russia does not defend its national interests so vigorously, that it should know its place, and so forth. But you must understand what a threat the revival of Nazism poses to everyone. Not only is weaponry spreading from the territory of Ukraine across the world – that is already a matter of record. Not only is corruption flourishing there, it has taken over everything, it has sunk such deep roots. But Nazism is being revived. What then is to be done about that? Colleagues say that Ukraine should be part of the European Union, or an associated member, or in some other capacity. Very well, so be it. But one ought at least to reflect upon this. These are facts; this happened just recently. A few days ago, one of the Nazis was reburied. It was by his hands that Jews, Poles, Russians, and Roma people were exterminated – a million people. Yet he was reburied with military honours, with a gun salute, and – silence. I understand that some countries want to use everything in their fight against Russia. But this is a threat to everyone. One ought to think about this. Therefore, as regards the notion of Russia attacking Europe – this is, of course, nonsense, but not only that. It is also a provocation and misinformation aimed at deceiving their own populations in order to secure funding for the fight against Russia and for the militarisation of their own economies. CEO and Editor-in-Chief at The Press Trust of India (India) Vijay Joshi: Mr President, earlier in this interaction you spoke about Russia’s relations with China. You said it was not born yesterday; it has grown over and been fostered over centuries. India has a similar relationship with China, but probably of a different nature. It is a difficult relationship. At the same time, India has a difficult relationship on its western border with Pakistan. I think you see where I am going with this. Pakistan today is helped by China in military terms. About 80 percent of Pakistan’s military hardware is of Chinese origin. China is also supplying technology, advanced technology to Pakistan, intelligence, and military hardware. So, this is causing some concern in India. You have very good relations with both China and Pakistan. Is there anything you would like to do at all in ensuring that India’s security interests are not compromised? And a related question to that is that I just heard today that the S-400’s latest battalion has been delivered to India. A fifth one remains. What is the advanced technology that the fifth battalion will include? And if you can give maybe a definitive timeline on the joint development of the Su-57 stealth fighter and the delivery of the Akula-class nuclear submarine? Thank you. Vladimir Putin: Of course, we are well aware of all the potential issues and challenges, even if not all of them, but the main challenges dealing with the situation along the border and in terms of Pakistan – India relations – we know them. You said that China has Pakistan under its total control, but I do not think so. First, Pakistan is quite a big country, and Pakistan has multifaceted ties. Of course, matters dealing with Pakistan’s cooperation with the People’s Republic of China have a lot of importance for the country. But everyone seeks to expand relations with China. This is one of the world’s largest economies and it is second to none around the world in terms of purchasing power parity. It is the number one economy by this indicator. India is third, and Russia is fourth in terms of purchasing power parity. By the way, this also answers the question from your French colleague about the state of the Russian economy. China, the United States, India and Russia are the world’s top four countries in terms of purchasing power parity. By the way, we have surpassed all European countries, as well as Japan. What an ingrate thing it would be to interfere in these sensitive and multifaceted relations between two countries, India and China. That said, we maintain contacts with our friends in both India and China. What I would like to point out in this context without going into much detail, since it would be inappropriate for me, is that I can assure you that both Prime Minister Modi and President of the PRC Xi Jinping are both committed to addressing all matters of mutual interest, including in terms of border relations. I have no doubt about this whatsoever. Russia has special relations with both China and India, as you have said. This is not a problem for anyone, trust me. It took decades to forge these ties, decade after decade of work. It all came together quite naturally. Relations between Russia and India do not cause any trouble to China, and the same goes for Russia’s relations with China not causing any trouble to India, while everyone stands to benefit from the three countries working together. We are talking about BRICS. Do you know where BRICS was born? It was here, in St Petersburg. It was here that I suggested having a meeting between the Chinese leader, the head of the Indian Government and yours truly. And all three of us had a meeting here. This is how the RIC – Russia, India, China – format was born. It goes without saying that we found topics on which we could agree, and agree we did. Brazil joined us later by asking to become part of this trilateral format. This is how we got the BRIC group. After that South Africa followed, and we got BRICS. And the group continued expanding. This goes to say that when we come together and talk to each other, we are able to reach agreements. Let me reiterate that no one questions Russia’s cooperation with China or Russia’s cooperation with India. Everyone knows the multi-pronged ties we have in terms of military technical cooperation. It is true that we are working with India, including on developing the latest weapons systems. Everyone knows the BrahMos intermediate-range missiles. They now exist in sea-based and ground-based declinations. And the list goes on, and we are expanding it. As for the Su-57, there was a time when we offered our friends from India to work together on developing this plane. This is a fifth-generation plane, and I think that it is currently the best in the world. Our Indian friends told us to go ahead and do it on our own, while they would wait and see. This plane could have been our joint manufacturing venture, but we developed it on our own. Of course, we are ready to work with India by supplying these planes and developing them. The sky is the limit in this regard, and we are free from any restrictions. The same goes for air defence systems. Having specific hardware may be important, but creating an air defence system has even greater importance. What does this mean? This means being able to engage various types of targets at various altitudes, including low-altitude, slow-flying and high-altitude targets. It is instrumental that all these elements are part of a single information system working in real time. This is a formidable, tech-intensive task. Russia is now working on perfecting this system. There are still pending questions, but this is a unique experience. No one else has any experience of this kind. We have it, and we are ready to share it with both our Chinese and Indian friends. And share we do. There is work in progress on all these fronts, and we will continue working with India too. Andrei Kondrashov: Colleagues, one final question, please. Keep it brief. José Manuel Sanz Mingote of EFE news agency. José Manuel Sanz Mingote (retranslated): Thank you very much. I would like to ask a brief question to clarify whether I understood your answer correctly. Are you ruling out a suspension of military action for starting negotiations? My second question concerns Latin America. Over the past few months, have you had any contacts with the United States regarding Cuban issue? And regarding what happened in Venezuela. Have you mentioned the capture of President Nicolás Maduro? What will Russia’s response be? Vladimir Putin: As regards contacts on the Cuban issue, I will answer your question directly. You asked whether we have had contacts with the US administration regarding the Cuban issue. Yes, we had, but I do not wish to comment further. As you know, we recently delivered a tanker carrying oil products to Cuba. Cuba is our friendly nation; we have maintained longstanding relations with it for decades. The US administration is aware of this, and our contacts with Cuba continue. As for the suspension of hostilities in order to begin negotiations, such a suspension is not necessary for starting negotiations. Negotiations can take place while military actions continue. We have already had such a situation: negotiations took place while the military operations continued. So where is the issue? Speaking candidly, I have already outlined the key factors that shape the course of the conflict when answering the question posed by an American colleague. There are many factors at play. Russian forces are advancing every day, and anyone following developments closely can see that new settlements are coming under the control of the Russian Armed Forces on a daily basis. Recently, I repeat, nearly 2,500 square kilometres – specifically, 2,440 square kilometres – have come under Russian control. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that the Ukrainian side would prefer Russian troops to halt their advance. Our forces continue to make advances daily in the Zaporozhye Region by kilometres – say, by 1,200, 1,300 or 800 metres along the front and in depth. Obviously, there is a desire to stop this advance. However, rather than merely halting military actions, it would be better to end the war altogether by reaching the compromises that were discussed in Anchorage. Please go ahead. News Director for Europe & Africa at The Associated Press (USA) James Jordan: Thank you, Mr President. One more question about Russia’s relationships with its European neighbours. Associated Press reporting has tracked 191 incidents of malign or illegal activity across Europe since 2022. Western officials attribute these to Russia and its proxies, and they include…. Vladimir Putin: Do you mean Russia’s activity on the territory of European countries? James Jordan: Correct, Russia and its proxies. These actions include sabotage, attempted assassination, cyberattacks and influence operations. Western officials say this is just the tip of the iceberg, and these are the ones that have been tracked or proven. Does this mean that Russia is already waging a war against the West and does it not risk escalation? Vladimir Putin: This means only one thing: an attempt by certain political figures in Western European countries to push ahead with their aggressive plans against the Russian Federation. You mentioned cyberattacks and other attempts, and you pointed out that you are only talking about proven, verified facts. What does this prove? Name even one proven fact. How did one prime minister put it? She said: “highly likely.” Andrei Kondrashov: “Highly likely.” Vladimir Putin: “Highly likely.” Everything you have described is highly likely. Where is even one fact? There is not a single one. That means there is no desire to engage with Russia as an equal partner. But that will have to happen – we are in no hurry. As the saying goes, even if you put nine pregnant women together, the baby still will not be born in a month. The situation needs time to mature. I believe that is where we are heading. And it seems to me that it is gradually maturing. We, I repeat, are ready. We need to stop these mutual accusations. And if the Europeans want to work with us, then they should drop their colonial attitude, talk to Russia as an equal partner, and look for solutions together. Even with highly complex issues – issues that need to be resolved in the interests of both Russia and our European partners – we are ready for that. Please. Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you very much, Mr President. Vladimir Putin: You should’t treat women like that or end this meeting like that. Proceed, please. Shohrat Aref (retranslated): Thank you. I would like to hear your views on the energy crisis caused by the crisis around Iran and its outlook. Vladimir Putin: If you addressed this question to members of the US administration, they would probably not answer it because I have a feeling that they have not found the solution yet. However, it is obvious that the Iranian people have demonstrated that their interests must be also taken into consideration in the resolution of such crises. The Iranian people have demonstrated cohesion and determination to fight. This factor must certainly be taken into consideration in the final resolution of these problems. Of course, the situation is not simple for us from the political perspective, in part because we have developed very good and friendly relations with Arab countries, including Persian Gulf states, over the past decades. We always emphasise this in our contacts with our Iranian friends. I can tell you frankly that since the start of the conflict, especially since it began during the month of Ramadan, we have been urging our Iranian friends to refrain from military actions against other Islamic countries, especially in the holy month of Ramadan. But the logic and dynamics of events took a different turn. We hope that the efforts of the US administration and President Trump, and the consistent stance of Iran’s spiritual leader to protect the interests of his country and look for a compromise – we see that both sides are doing this – we hope that these efforts will succeed and an end will be put to the conflict. If anything depends on Russia, we are always ready to lend a hand. If not, we will celebrate together with everyone else when this crisis ends. It is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation that Russia is well-nigh the sole beneficiary of this conflict because of growing energy prices. It is true that prices are growing, which we can see, and we understand that our companies will benefit from this, to a certain extent. But such benefits are temporary and short-lived, whereas we would like to develop long-term relations with all our partners on the solid basis of mutual interest. In this case, we are interested in the conflict to end as soon as possible. It is gratifying that the ceasefire regime is being maintained, even if despite certain problems. We are doing everything we can to help this bring out an overall settlement. We maintain contacts with all our friends and, as I have said, we will do everything we can if our assistance is needed to end the conflict. This will be all. Thank you very much. Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, thank you very much for this frank conversation. All the best.
Putin, St. Petersburg'da uluslararası haber ajansı liderleriyle görüştüAny attempt to block water will have 'far-reaching consequences', warns FO after Indian minister's remarks
The Foreign Office on Thursday warned that any deliberate attempt to block water essential to Pakistan’s survival and development would have “far-reaching consequences”. “Any such act would be treated with utmost seriousness and could possibly amount to an act of war under Article 51 of the UN Charter,” said FO spokesperson Tahir Andrabi during a weekly media briefing while responding to a question about recent remarks by Indian water minister. A day ago, Indian Minister of Water CR Patil told India’s ANI news agency that “not a single drop of water will go (to Pakistan) in the coming years”. Patil said that India was “actively working on it” after “directives” from Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Taking note of the remarks, Andrabi said that “any attempt to block or substantially curtail water that is vital to the livelihood, agriculture and well-being of over 25o million Pakistanis would be a deeply irresponsible act”. He added it would violate established international obligations “concerning transboundary rivers and indeed India’s own bilateral agreement with Pakistan”. “Pakistan firmly rejects any notion that water can be treated as a political tool or instrument of coercion or a weapon,” he said, emphasising that such an action would be a threat to the regional peace and security. He maintained that the responsibility of such a threat “to international peace and security would fall squarely on India’s shoulders”. More to follow.