Category World News

New Delhi, India – Russian President Vladimir Putin is visiting India starting Thursday for the first time since Moscow’s war on Ukraine broke out more than four years ago, even as a renewed push by the United States to end the conflict appears to have stalled.

Putin’s 30-hour speed trip also coincides with a tense turn in relations between Washington and New Delhi, with the US also punishing India with tariffs and a sanctions threat for its strong historic ties with Russia and a surge in its purchase of Russian crude during the Ukraine war.

That tension has, in turn, made India’s longstanding balancing act between Russia and the West an even more delicate tightrope walk.

Since gaining independence from Britain in 1947, India has tried to avoid getting locked into formal alliances with any superpower, leading the non-aligned movement during the Cold War, even though in reality it drifted closer to the Soviet Union from the 1960s. Since the end of the Cold War, it has deepened strategic and military ties with the US while trying to keep its friendship with Russia afloat.

Yet, Russia’s war on Ukraine has challenged that balance – and Putin’s visit could offer signs of how Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi plans to juggle New Delhi’s competing relationships without sacrificing any of them.

What’s scheduled for Putin?

Putin is expected to land on Thursday evening and head for a private dinner with Modi at the prime minister’s residence in the heart of the Indian capital, New Delhi.

On the morning of Friday, December 5, Putin is scheduled to visit Rashtrapati Bhavan, the presidential palace, for a guard of honour and a meeting with India’s ceremonial head of state, Droupadi Murmu. He will then, like all visiting leaders, travel to Raj Ghat, the memorial to Mahatma Gandhi.

Then, Putin and Modi will meet at Hyderabad House, a complex that hosts most leadership summits for the latest chapter of an annual India-Russia summit. After that, they are scheduled to meet business leaders, before attending a banquet thrown in Putin’s honour by Murmu, the Indian president.

Earlier, the Kremlin said in a statement that Putin’s visit to India was “of great importance, providing an opportunity to comprehensively discuss the extensive agenda of Russian-Indian relations as a particularly privileged strategic partnership”.

Putin will be joined by Andrei Belousov, his defence minister, and a wide-ranging delegation from business and industry, including top executives of Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport, and reportedly the heads of sanctioned oil firms Rosneft and Gazprom Neft.

Why is the timing of the visit significant?

The visit comes as India and Russia mark 25 years of a strategic partnership that began in Putin’s first year in office as his country’s head of state.

But even though India and Russia like to portray their relationship as an example of a friendship that has remained steady amid shifting geopolitical currents, their ties haven’t been immune to pressures from other nations.

Since 2000, New Delhi and Moscow have had in place a system of annual summits: The Indian prime minister would visit Russia one year, and the Russian president would pay a return visit to India the following year.

That tradition, however, was broken in 2022, the year of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Modi was supposed to visit Russia for the summit, but the conclave was put off.

In 2023, Putin skipped a visit to India for the G20 summit in New Delhi. At the time, Putin was rarely travelling abroad, largely because of an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant against him related to the Ukraine war. India is not a member of the ICC – and so it would have been safe for Putin to attend, but Western members of the G20 made it clear that their leaders would be uncomfortable sharing the room with the Russian president.

Finally, in 2024, the annual summit resumed, with Modi visiting Russia. And now, Putin will land in New Delhi after four years.

What’s on the agenda?

Trade analysts and political experts expect Putin to push for India to buy more Russian missile systems and fighter jets, in a bid to boost defence ties and explore more areas to expand trade, including pharmaceuticals, machinery and agricultural products.

The summit “offers an opportunity for both sides to reaffirm their special relationship amidst intense pressure on India from [US] President [Donald] Trump with punitive tariffs,” Praveen Donthi, a senior analyst for India at Crisis Group, a US-based think tank, told Al Jazeera.

Putin, analysts said, will be seeking optical dividends from the summit.

“President Putin can send a very strong message to his own people, and also to the international community, that Russia is not isolated in the world,” said Rajan Kumar, a professor of international studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.

“Russia is being welcomed by a democracy when Putin faces pressure for the war in Ukraine,” Kumar told Al Jazeera.

But visuals aside, a key driver of the India-Russia relationship – oil trade – is now at risk. And that, along with the shadow of the man responsible for the disruption, will be hovering over talks, said experts.

Is Trump an overshadowing factor in the summit?

India became the second-largest buyer of Russian crude after Moscow invaded Ukraine in 2022 – an increase of a staggering 2,250 percent in imports, as Russia’s share in its imports went from 1 percent to 40 percent.

The US at the time quietly encouraged India to buy more Russian oil, New Delhi says. The West was stopping purchases of Russian crude, and a complete global ban on that oil would have shrunk global supplies, raising prices. India, by increasing its uptake of Russian oil, helped stabilise the global market.

But as Trump, in his second term, has looked for levers to use to pressure Moscow and Kyiv to end the war, he has targeted India for buying Russian oil. After initially imposing 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods, Trump doubled that to 50 percent as a penalty for Russian crude purchases.

For months after that, India continued importing Russian oil and defended what it called its “strategic autonomy”.

However, in October, Trump imposed sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil firms – Rosneft and Lukoil – and threatened sanctions against firms of other countries that trade with them.

Reliance, India’s largest private oil refiner – and the biggest buyer of Russian oil in India – has since said that it will no longer export petroleum products that use Russian crude.

Indian imports of Russian crude are expected to fall to a three-year low now. Meanwhile, India recently signed a deal to dramatically ramp up its import of gas from the US.

In the defence sector too, the US has been pressuring India to buy more from it and less from Russia.

“New Delhi is wary of upsetting Washington regarding its defence deals with Moscow, but that’s not going to deter it from making important deals,” said Donthi, the analyst at Crisis Group. “India hopes to blunt US criticism by making similar deals with it, some of which are already under way.”

But Trump’s pressure risks hurting goodwill for the US in India.

Kanwal Sibal, former Indian foreign secretary and an ex-ambassador to Russia, said Trump and the US were employing “double standards”.

“Trump can roll out a red carpet for Putin in Alaska. Why should India not build on its ties with Russia then?” he added, referring to the Trump-Putin summit in August.

In which sector are India-Russia ties strong?

While the bilateral energy ties between India and Russia face several barriers, their defence ties are steadier.

Russia remains India’s largest defence supplier, accounting for roughly 36 percent of arms imports, and more than 60 percent of India’s existing arsenal.

Import numbers have come down from 72 percent in 2010, as India attempts to boost domestic production and also buy more from the US and European nations. But experts say that Russia’s position as India’s pre-eminent defence partner will likely remain unchallenged for several years.

The Russian S-400 missile defence system was central to India’s air defences during its four-day air war with Pakistan in May. India’s air force chief, Marshal AP Singh, said that “the S-400 was a game changer” for India.

New Delhi is now looking to buy additional S-400 air defence systems. Russia, meanwhile, wants to also sell India its Su-57 fifth-generation stealth fighter jets. “The SU-57 is the best plane in the world,” said Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, ahead of the summit. “And it will be on the agenda.”

What are India-Russia trade prospects?

India-Russia trade has undergone a major shift since 2022, ballooning from a modest $10bn to a record nearly $69bn this year, primarily fuelled by New Delhi’s appetite for discounted Russian crude oil.

However, these numbers remain lopsided: Indian exports, largely pharmaceuticals and machinery, stand at roughly $5bn, resulting in a widening $64bn trade deficit. And Russia’s exports to India have been dominated by oil over the past three years. With trade now expected to fall, so will overall numbers, caution experts. The India-Russia goal of reaching $100bn in trade by 2030 appears distant.

Instead, analysts told Al Jazeera, the two countries now appear to be betting on labour migration as a driver of people-to-people and economic ties.

According to the estimates of the Russian Ministry of Labour, by 2030, the country is expected to see a shortfall of 3.1 million workers. Indian workers could fill that gap.

“Russia is opening up its labour market for India and looking to change its traditional supplier of labour from Central Asian countries to India,” said Kumar, the professor of international studies. “This kind of migration can have a positive impact on India-Russia relations.”

That won’t change the fundamental tension that undergirds India’s ties with Russia: New Delhi’s keenness to not damage relations with the US in the process.

As India simultaneously negotiates trade deals with the US, the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union, an economic bloc led by Russia at the moment, New Delhi is walking a fine line “where it risks antagonising either of them, who are all important economic trade partners,” said Kumar.

Donald Trump, president of the United States, has announced his intention to appoint a new chair of the Federal Reserve.

One name is the clear favorite, Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council, despite Trump’s unwillingness to confirm his nominee.

On Wednesday, Kalshi’s prediction market predicted that Hassett would have received an 86 percent of the vote, up from 6 percent for Kevin Warsh and 4 percent for Michelle Bowman, a re-elected Fed governor.

Who is in charge of the Federal Reserve’s leadership?

The Fed is arguably the most significant financial institution on earth because it is the central bank of the world’s largest economy.

The Fed serves as a lender of last resort and plays a number of important roles in the US economy, including setting monetary policy, supervising and regulating banks, and promoting financial stability.

The Fed manages monetary policy, which is primarily controlled by setting interest rates, closely monitoring these processes.

The Fed’s policymaking committee convenes eight times annually to determine the federal funds rate, target interest rate, and short-term lending rates for commercial banks.

The committee’s final meeting for 2025 is scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, when it is anticipated to come to a consensus on a 0.25 percent cut to the benchmark rate, which is currently set at 3.75 percent to 4.25 percent.

Because banks’ borrowing costs affect the interest rates they charge clients for mortgages, car loans, and other types of credit, the benchmark rate has far-reaching implications for the entire economy.

Interest rates are typically raised when the economy is struggling and raised when prices are rising too quickly by the Fed, who has the dual duty of encouraging employment and maintaining price stability.

Cheaper borrowing spurs economic growth and encourages business investment.

In contrast, higher borrowing costs help to slow down inflation and prevent economic activity.

What is the background of Hassett?

Hassett is one of the many names that has been considered for the top Fed position, but he stands out for how long he has been close to Trump.

After serving in his first administration as the head of the Council of Economic Advisers, an older, more research-oriented body than the National Economic Council, Hassett was appointed as Trump’s top coordinator on economic policy.

Hassett&nbsp briefly re-enter the White House as an advisor on the COVID-19 pandemic after departing the first Trump administration in 2019.

Importantly, Hasset has indicated that he favors lowering interest rates more frequently, something that Trump has vehemently demanded from Jerome Powell, the current Fed chairman, with mixed results.

Trump has argued that the possibility of his tariffs causing a return to high inflation is exaggerated, suggesting that the benchmark rate should be set at 1%.

Hassett claimed in an interview with Fox News last month that if he were Powell’s person, he would be “cutting rates right now.”

Hassett, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said he would likely push for faster rate cuts, though likely not at the preferred speed.

Gagnon told Al Jazeera, “I believe Hassett will try to lower the Fed’s policy interest rates, but probably not to the 1 percent level that President Trump has demanded.”

He would likely contend that the government’s deregulation plan and the rise in AI-related inflation give the country more room to grow.

Before and in between his stints as a Trump White House official, Hasset was a conservative think tank’s economist who wrote in-depth articles on tax and trade policy.

Hassett also advised Mitt Romney’s, George W. Bush’s, and John McCain’s presidential campaigns on economic issues.

The economist worked for the Fed’s research and statistics division and Columbia Business School before getting involved in politics.

Why is there so much controversy surrounding Hassett’s potential nomination?

Hassett’s standing as a Trump supporter has sparked some concerns about the Fed’s independence.

The US economy is largely viewed as having the ability to make its decisions without the influence of any political figures.

However, Trump’s repeated verbal attacks on Powell, who will serve until May, and his efforts to remove Lisa Cook, one of the Fed’s six other governors, over unproven allegations of mortgage fraud have already raised that expectation.

Anastassia Fedyk, an assistant professor of finance at the University of California Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, told Al Jazeera that her concerns about the Fed’s independence are “very real and valid.”

“It’s not just about Kevin Hassett being more in tune with President Trump than other Fed chairs were with their nominees.” The firing of Lisa Cook, the early attempts to end Jerome Powell’s term, and Kevin Hassett’s own declaration of support for those efforts also have contextual bearing.

However, if Hassett were to be chosen and then confirmed by the US Senate, he wouldn’t be able to run the Fed.

The policy committee of the central bank, which includes four members of Joe Biden’s former Democratic presidential candidate, makes its decisions by majority vote. It has 12 members.

Who will lead the Fed next will have the same challenging job of promoting jobs without causing higher inflation, according to David Wilcox, an economist with Bloomberg Economics and the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“On the one hand, the jobs market appears to be deteriorating, but only gradually. On the other hand, inflation is still too high, notably above the Fed’s goal of 2 percent, according to Wilcox.

No one should pretend the choice is obvious, Wilcox added, “but there is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree about how these competing considerations should best be balanced against one another.”

A leak from the inspector general of the Pentagon reportedly points to Pete Hegseth’s use of the messaging app Signal, which was used to communicate sensitive information, putting in danger a military operation.

A preview of the inspector general’s report, which was made available on Wednesday, was provided by media reports that were scheduled to be released in full on Thursday.

According to anonymous sources close to the document, Hegseth’s use of a personal device to transmit sensitive information was deemed to be against Pentagon policy.

The editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, wrote an article describing an extraordinary series of events that dominated the inspector general’s report.

According to Goldberg, he described how, on March 11, he was allegedly invited by then-national security adviser Mike Waltz to a Signal chat.

Despite not knowing whether the message was a hoax, Goldberg accepted the invitation. He claimed that he was caught in the middle of a conversation with some of the most senior officials in the administration two days later.

Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and State Secretary Marco Rubio were just two of the participants.

Trump defends Signal conversation.

Hegseth reportedly provided information in advance about a Yemeni Houthi rebel attack on March 15. In the Signal chat, it was reported that he had already disclosed details. The F-18 planes would launch at what precise time, when the drones would arrive, and when both parties would launch airstrikes, were given.

The Trump administration, particularly Waltz and Hegseth, were outraged by Goldberg’s reporting on the conversation.

Some critics criticized the dangers that the messages to US military installations abroad posed, with some expressing concern that if the Signal chat had been intercepted, it might have endedanger service members’ lives.

In order to ensure compliance with operational security standards, this week’s inspector general report recommends more training.

However, it is left to wonder whether the information Hegseth transmitted over Signal was actually classified at the time.

Instead, the inspector general makes the case that Hegseth, the secretary of defense, has the authority to set the classification level of military intelligence and could have declassified it if he so desired.

Hegseth’s office’s spokesperson, Sean Parnell, described the finding as a victory for the troubled defence secretary, who has long denied that “war plans” were shared over the messaging app.

No classified information was shared, Parnell wrote in a statement, arguing that the Inspector General review is “a TOTAL exoneration of Secretary Hegseth and proves what we knew all along.”

The case is now complete and the issue has been resolved.

Parnell also criticized the media for highlighting the dangers the information posed to US military personnel.

“This conclusion is supported by no evidence,” the statement continues. In response to a New York Times article that highlighted the potential risks, Parnell wrote, “No”.

Parnell argued that no troops were in harm’s way because of Operation Rough Rider’s “flawless execution &, success” (the name of the Yemen bombing campaign).

President Trump has previously referred to the aftermath of the scandal as a “witch-hunt” and questioned whether Signal itself was “defective.”

The scandal, known as Signalgate, has been referred to as “case closed” by administration officials on numerous occasions. In contrast, Hegseth hasn’t been subjected to any public reprimands for his participation in the conversation.

A “breach in protocol”

However, Chuck Schumer, the head of the Senate Democratic Party, has criticized the conversation as one of the “most stunning breaches of military intelligence” in recent memory.

Some claimed that the Signal messages had been intercepted by foreign intelligence agents. Some people claimed Signal’s auto-delete feature violated government transparency guidelines, which call for secure storage of documentation.

Democrats and some Republicans pressed for Hegseth’s actions to be investigated. Gerald Connolly, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee at the time, echoed that request in a letter from March 26.

He wrote, “I request that you launch an investigation into this grave lapse in protocol and national trust.”

“The use of Signal to communicate this information embarrassed our adversaries by exposing the careless behavior of our nation’s senior leaders.” “The use of Signal jeopardized the lives of men and women in the military.

The Pentagon’s acting inspector general, Steven Stebbins, responded to the outcry on April 3. He explained that the Senate Armed Services Committee’s leadership had prompted him to launch a probe.

In a brief, one-page memo, Stebbins wrote, “The purpose of this evaluation is to find out how closely the Secretary of Defense and other DoD [Department of Defense] personnel adhered to DoD policies and procedures for the use of a commercial messaging application for official business.”

Additionally, we will examine whether the classification and records retention requirements are met.

In January, Stebbins took over the position of acting inspector general under Trump’s leadership of a government watchdog purge.

More than a dozen inspectors general, the nonpartisan officials tasked with overseeing various executive agencies, were fired on January 24 just before the start of his second term.

The last surviving Native American World War II D-Day veteran, Charles Shay, passed away on Wednesday at his French residence. He patched up US soldiers in Normandy’s beaches in 1944 while serving as an army medic. He was given three Bronze Stars and three Silver Stars. He was 101.