English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

US fireworks

Published

on

The GBU-43/B, also known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, detonates during a test at Elgin Air Force Base, Florida, US, on November 21, 2003, in this handout photo provided on April 13, 2017, Reuters/UNI

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Awaiting details from Afghanistan, a look at the Syrian outrage

By Saeed Naqvi

President Trump has furnished proof that the leader of the Free World, which dropped the first nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, remains true to form: it has dropped an even bigger Mother Of All Bombs (non-nuclear, we are being persistently reminded) on Nangahar province in east Afghanistan on what are being described as IS tunnels. Since details are not known, let us first sort out the Syrian outrage.

The alleged sarin gas attack on Khan Shaykhun, a small town in Idlib province where the Jabhat al-Nusra’s militant offshoots are now fighting with their backs to the wall, invited a massive US retaliation: 59 cruise missiles were fired on the nearby Shurayat air strip to teach Bashar al-Assad a lesson.

Analysts under pressure to meet deadlines, hurriedly suggested the strikes made Trump look virile in his meeting with Xi Jinping in Florida, that Rex Tillerson looked strong in his meeting with Sergei Lavrov and that the North Koreans will think twice before their next menacing launch. All of this is fanciful because the big players know the truth. Yes, the opposition to the Syrian army, mostly Al-Nusra and IS wearing other labels, and their regional sponsors, now know that the Trump, browbeaten at home, can be dragged into the Syrian fight. The civil war can be prolonged.

To make sense of the air strikes, it would be useful to visit a similar incident in August 2013. Then, too, a sarin gas attack was allegedly mounted on an even bigger scale on Ghouta township, on the outskirts of Damascus. Two US missiles took off from a US base in Spain—in retaliation, of course. On this occasion, the Russian anti-missile paraphernalia at their base in Tartus, brought down the missiles in Mediterranean Sea. Apparently, a sizeable number of missiles fell in the sea this time, too. So the Russian S400 and S300 are indeed operational.

President Obama would have met President Vladimir Putin at the September 2013 G20 summit in St Petersburg from what the US “Deep State” had designed to be a position of strength once the two missiles have been launched. Instead his face was in the lower mould during his bilateral aside with the Russian leader. If the Russian intercepts had caused a loss of face, subsequent face saving for the Obama administration in 2013 was also provided by the Russians. They suggested that Syria sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and surrender its chemical weapons.

A Palestinian demonstrator holds a placard with a poster depicting Syria's President Bashar al-Assad during a protest against American airstrikes in Syria, in the West Bank city of Nablus, Reuters/UNI

A Palestinian demonstrator holds a placard with a poster depicting Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad during a protest against American airstrikes in Syria, in the West Bank city of Nablus, Reuters/UNI

On September 11, 2013, Putin wrote in The New York Times: “No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with fundamentalists.”

Putin then points to something even more sinister. “Reports that militants are preparing another attack, this time against Israel, cannot be ignored.”

In other words, the opposition was checked in their tracks by timely Russian intervention. Air attacks in retaliation for the false flag at Ghouta were prevented. The desperate opposition was now about to play its trump card: launch a poison gas attack on Israel.

In his weekly address to the nation, Obama said: “Until recently, the Assad regime would not admit that it possessed chemical weapons. Today Syria has signaled a willingness to join with 189 other nations, representing 98 percent of humanity, in abiding by an international agreement that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.” There was fulsome praise for Russia. “Russia has staked its own credibility in supporting this outcome,” Obama said.

It was clear even then that this Washington-Moscow entente over Syria would set the cat among the pigeons in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. All their huge investments in arms, money, mercenaries and years of planning was liable to be wasted in Obama’s second term when John Kerry because his Secretary of State.

On the issue of Russia and Syria, the Deep State, with the media as amplifier, was not going to give up. No wonder it pitched its tent behind Hillary Clinton’s platform for the 2016 Presidential elections. The spider in the Deep State web, weaving the Syrian yarn is one Robert Stephen Ford, US ambassador to Damascus in 2011 when the “insurgency” was first initiated.

The most accurate narrative of Ford, in cahoots with this French counterpart, Eric Chevallier, and how they stoked the fires in Syria should be available with New Delhi’s ministry of external affairs. Of the entire diplomatic corps in the Syrian capital that this reporter met, the sharpest eye was that of Ambassador V.P. Haran.

The grinding of the US, Israeli, Saudi propaganda machine in Syria never stopped.

Every now and then the White Helmets in Syria would produce a heartwrenching story of “Assad’s brutality”. The photograph of a four-year-old Syrian boy, his face burnt by “Assad’s” attack on civilians in Aleppo, found its way to the final Trump-Clinton debate in Las Vegas on October 19, 2016. Clinton simulated a lump in her throat describing the child with burns as evidence of indiscriminate Russian (not just Syrian) bombing of civilians.

Exactly on cue, Christiane Amanpour of the CNN, in her high profile interview with Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, produced the very same picture for Lavrov to see. “This is a crime against humanity,” Amanpour thundered. Lavrov looked at the photograph. “Very tragic,” he said. He then made a bold assertion: the US was probably supporting the Jabhat al-Nusra.

Meanwhile, NGOs in the field furnished video recordings of the “burnt boy” being diligently filmed to be presented to the world media—propaganda of the macabre genre.

If the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is to be believed, the West is itself implicated in the sarin gas scandal. His outstanding piece in the London Review of Books after Ghouta, quite incontrovertibly establishes that “the sarin that was used didn’t come from Assad’s stockpiles”. He quotes British Intelligence for this detail. He adds:

“A secret agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama administration and the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad.”

Sarin gas has been in the news earlier when Bill Clinton’s Defence Secretary William Cohen caused journalists as senior at Peter Arnett and Bernard Shaw to be sacked for having pointed to US stockpiles or nerve gas which was used on a village in Laos to hunt down US army defectors. It became notorious as Operation Tailwind. The official version then was that the gas was not dropped on Americans. That which was dropped, on whoever, was not sarin but “but garden variety CS tear gas.” The reporters stuck to their guns.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Latest world news

Pakistan faces domestic backlash after India secures lower tariffs in US trade deal

India’s US trade agreement has sparked criticism in Pakistan after Islamabad ended up with higher tariffs despite sustained outreach to Washington.

Published

on

PM Shehbaz Sharif

India’s recently concluded trade agreement with the United States has triggered strong domestic criticism in Pakistan, where opposition leaders, journalists and commentators are questioning Islamabad’s diplomatic strategy after the country ended up with higher tariffs than India.

Under the agreement announced on February 2, US tariffs on Indian exports have been set at 18 per cent, while Pakistani goods will face a 19 per cent rate. The outcome has drawn sharp reactions in Pakistan, especially given what critics describe as sustained efforts by its leadership to engage Washington in recent months.

New Delhi, by contrast, is widely seen as having resisted pressure from US President Donald Trump and negotiated from a position of economic leverage rather than personal diplomacy.

Social media reactions highlight public anger

Following the announcement, Trump shared images related to India, including India Gate and a magazine cover featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside himself, before confirming the revised tariff rate for Indian goods. The optics did not go unnoticed in Pakistan, where social media users questioned why India secured better terms without overt displays of political deference.

One widely circulated post by Pakistan-based X user Umar Ali used sharp language and imagery to criticise Pakistan’s approach, reflecting growing frustration among sections of the public over what they see as an unequal outcome despite extensive outreach efforts.

Opposition leaders question foreign policy approach

Former Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf minister Hammad Azhar described the outcome as a failure of strategy rather than circumstance. He argued that modern foreign policy depends on economic strength, market access and tariffs, not symbolic gestures or personal relationships, pointing to India’s recent trade agreements with both the US and the European Union as examples.

Other opposition figures echoed similar views, saying India negotiated with “strategic autonomy” while Pakistan relied too heavily on personal engagement with US leadership.

Journalists warn of economic consequences

Journalists in Pakistan also weighed in, warning that the tariff decision could deepen the country’s existing economic challenges. Concerns were raised about declining exports, falling foreign investment and reduced bargaining power on the global stage.

Commentator Imran Riaz Khan criticised what he termed a failed lobbying strategy, arguing that symbolic gestures cannot replace economic leverage in international negotiations. Digital creator Wajahat Khan similarly framed the outcome as a reflection of unequal negotiating positions, stating that India approached the talks as a partner, while Pakistan did not.

India’s trade deals expected to boost exports

India’s back-to-back trade agreements with the European Union and the United States are expected to provide a significant boost to exports. Estimates suggest these deals could add up to $150 billion in exports over the next decade, strengthening India’s economic standing and reinforcing its negotiating position in future global trade talks.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

New Delhi free to buy oil from any source, Russia says amid US deal claims

Russia has said India is free to purchase oil from any country, dismissing claims that New Delhi has agreed to stop buying Russian crude under a US trade deal.

Published

on

New Delhi free to buy oil from any source, Russia says amid US deal claims

Russia has said that India is free to purchase crude oil from any country, responding to claims by US President Donald Trump that New Delhi has agreed to stop buying Russian oil as part of a recent trade deal with Washington.

The Kremlin said Russia is not India’s only energy supplier and noted that India has long sourced crude oil from multiple countries. It added that there is nothing new in India’s efforts to diversify its oil imports.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that energy experts are well aware that India purchases oil and petroleum products from various global suppliers. He added that Moscow does not see any change in India’s approach to sourcing crude.

No official word from India on halting imports

A day earlier, Peskov said Russia has not received any official statement from India regarding the cessation of Russian oil purchases. Russia’s Foreign Ministry echoed the view, saying the hydrocarbon trade between the two countries remains mutually beneficial.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said India’s purchase of Russian hydrocarbons contributes to stability in the global energy market and that Moscow remains ready to continue close cooperation with New Delhi in the energy sector.

Russian media also noted that, unlike the US president, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not made any public statement indicating an agreement to stop Russian oil imports.

India’s oil imports from Russia

India has continued to import Russian crude even after the US imposed tariffs on Indian goods. According to global trade data provider Kpler, India has been importing around 1.5 million barrels of Russian crude per day, making it the second-largest buyer of Russian oil and accounting for more than one-third of India’s total crude imports.

India buys about 88 per cent of its crude oil needs from overseas, with roughly one-third sourced from Russia. At its peak, imports from Russia crossed 2 million barrels per day, before falling to around 1.3 million barrels per day in December. The volume is expected to remain broadly stable in the near term.

However, imports declined further to about 1.1 million barrels per day in the first three weeks of January following higher tariffs imposed by the US, including levies linked to purchases of Russian energy.

Complete switch unlikely, experts say

Energy experts believe Indian refiners cannot fully replace Russian crude with American oil. Igor Yushkov of the National Energy Security Fund said US shale oil is lighter in grade, while Russian Urals crude is heavier and contains more sulphur.

He explained that replacing Russian oil would require blending different grades, increasing costs for refiners. He added that the US is unlikely to be able to supply the volume currently exported by Russia to India.

Yushkov also recalled that when Russia redirected its oil exports from Western markets to India in 2022, it reduced production by about one million barrels per day, contributing to a sharp rise in global oil prices and record fuel prices in the US.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Moscow says no word from India on stopping Russian oil purchases

Russia says it has received no confirmation from India on stopping Russian oil purchases, despite Donald Trump’s claim that the move was part of a new India-US trade deal.

Published

on

Vladimir Putin

The Kremlin on Tuesday said it has not received any official communication from India regarding a halt in Russian oil purchases, following claims by US President Donald Trump that New Delhi had agreed to stop buying Russian crude as part of a trade agreement with Washington.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Moscow had not heard any confirmation from Indian authorities on the matter.

“So far, we haven’t heard any statements from New Delhi on this matter,” Peskov said, responding to Trump’s remarks linking reduced US tariffs on Indian goods to an alleged commitment by India to end Russian oil imports.

Russia stresses importance of ties with India

Peskov said Russia respects bilateral relations between India and the United States but underlined the strategic importance of ties between Moscow and New Delhi.

“We respect bilateral US-Indian relations,” he said, adding that Russia places equal importance on its strategic partnership with India.
“This is the most important thing for us, and we intend to further develop our bilateral relations with Delhi.”

What Trump claimed

Trump announced the India-US trade deal on Monday, stating that tariffs on Indian goods had been reduced from 50 per cent to 18 per cent. He claimed the reduction was linked to India agreeing to stop purchasing Russian oil.

According to Trump, India would instead buy more oil from the United States and potentially from Venezuela. He also suggested that the move would help bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

“He agreed to stop buying Russian oil and to buy much more from the United States and, potentially, Venezuela,” Trump said, referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

India’s reliance on Russian crude

India has emerged as one of the largest buyers of Russian crude since the start of the Ukraine conflict. It currently imports around 1.5 million barrels of Russian oil per day, accounting for more than one-third of its total oil imports, according to global trade data.

India is the second-largest purchaser of Russian crude globally. Even after earlier US tariff measures on Indian goods, New Delhi continued its Russian oil imports, citing energy security concerns.

The Indian government has consistently maintained that securing affordable energy supplies is critical, given the country’s heavy dependence on oil imports.

Shift in energy ties after Ukraine war

Historically, India’s relationship with Russia was centred more on defence cooperation than energy trade, with Russia supplying a majority of India’s military equipment while contributing only a small share of its oil imports.

After the invasion of Ukraine, India significantly increased purchases of discounted Russian oil. The move helped India boost energy supplies while providing Russia with much-needed revenue amid Western sanctions.

As recently as December 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a visit to New Delhi that Moscow was ready to ensure uninterrupted fuel supplies to India despite pressure from the United States.

Earlier US push for Indian energy imports

Trump had earlier said, following a meeting with Prime Minister Modi in February last year, that India would begin buying more American oil and natural gas. However, those discussions did not lead to a major shift in India’s energy sourcing.

Subsequent US tariff measures also failed to significantly alter India’s stance on Russian oil imports.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com