Turbulence in the Tata group

For some reason I have not been able to fathom, some of the best reporting on the Indian economy and Indian corporates happens in the foreign media.

The Indian media has flagged the board-level disputes in the group and the fact that the government has stepped in to arrange a resolution. But it hasn't quite spelt out what the issues are. FT's report yesterday does that.

i. Operational issues: The Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad last year was bad publicity. Then came the cyber attacks on JLR in the UK and the involvement of TCS, which manages JLR's technology backbone. TCS also was at the cetnre of the cyber attack on Marks and Spencer as it happens to be the service provider. Then, the job layoffs- estimated at 12,000- have spelt controversy. 

Analysts are asking whether top management has a grip over the sprawling empire.

ii. In-fighting in the board of Tata Trusts which ultimately controls the group: Noel Tata, chairman, could not succeed in getting an extension for Tata Trusts member Vijay Singh, former defence secretary. It appears Noel Tata has also not been successful in engineering an exit for the Shaporji Pallonji group at Tata Sons in which Pallonji owns 18 per cent.

iii. Listing of Tata Sons: The RBI thinks Tata Sons is an NBFC and wanted it to list by September. Tata Sons is resisting the move apparently because it doesn't want greater scrutiny of itself and also doesn't want to cede control. 

We do not know what the government has conveyed to the group. 

How Trump shook up NATO in his first term as President

Jens Stoltenberg was Nato  secretary-general during Trump 1. The Guardian carries an excerpt from his forthcoming account of his time as Nato chief. It's a terrific read. It brings alive Trump's interactions with European leaders during his first term and how he read the riot act to them on stepping up their contributions to Nato- I didn't know the US contributed 80-90 per cent of Nato's budget!

In May 2017, Trump visited the Nato headquarters. It was a new building that he was to inaugurate. He didn't approve of the expenditure at all:

“Do you really need such a big headquarters?” he asked. “What do you need all these people for?”

I replied that while the organisation itself isn’t that large, member states’ delegations also use the building – it makes it easy to meet with security measures in place, and everyone uses the same cafeteria. I told Trump who had designed the headquarters: architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, who also designed the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago.

“I know those people. They’re extremely expensive,” Trump exclaimed. “I don’t understand why you chose those expensive architects. Extremely expensive!”

Later in 2018, Stoltenberg spoke over the phone. Again, Trump did some plain speaking:

Trump had recently met with Merkel, too, and told her things simply couldn’t carry on the way they were. “I said, ‘Angela, you have to cough up. You need to spend 2%.’ She said, ‘Maybe in 2030’ – and she laughed as she said it … She laughed!”

He said the United States was spending 4% of GDP on defence, and covered 80-90% of Nato’s expenses. “And we’re not doing it any more. We’re gonna pay what Germany pays.”

By the end of the call there was no mistaking Trump’s warning: “Look, if we leave, we leave. You need Nato, desperately. We don’t need Nato.”

Trump doesn't believe the US needs Nato; it is the Europeans who need it. And if they need it badly, they had better pay for it. Well, Trump has had the last laugh. Many Nato allies have met the 2 per cent target and the fresh target that Trump has set is 5 per cent.

Fed news: Economists back Waller, oppose Trump petition for Cook removal

Eight two per cent of economists polled by an agency want Christopher Waller to replace Jerome Powell. Only 20 per cent think it will happen.

Thirty nine per cent think Kevin Hassett, Director of National Economic Council, most likely to take over. 

Meanwhile, the who's who of economic policy have filed an amicus brief before the US Supreme Court opposing President Trump's move to remove her from office while her petition challenging her removal is pending before the Court. In other words, they want a stay on her removal untl her case is disposed of. 

The list of signatories includes for Fed chiefs Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen,  former Treasury Secretaries Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Robert Rubin, Jack Lew and Hank Paulson and former members of the President's Council of Economic Advisers Jason Furman, Gregory Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard. 

U-turn on Ukraine?

President Trump stunned everybody with his remarks on Truth Social following his meeting with Ukrainian president Zelenskyy.

Trump wrote: 

“Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form…With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option. Why not?”.

Trump also called Russia a "paper tiger".

These remarks seem to mark a U-turn from his position after the Alaska Summit with President Putin last month. Trump had said at the time that Ukraine would have to accept loss of territory to Russia as part of any peace settlement.

Trump also said Nato was free to shoot down Russian planes that introduced into Nato airspace.

So, what's cooking?

Well, the key point is that Trump refuses to commit any American support for Ukraine's war with Russia. The Europeans are free to purchase arms from the US and give these to Ukraine- no more freebies from the US. The US will not be directly involved in the conflict. Moreoever, Trump refused to commit any support to Nato if it shot down Russia aircraft- any American intervention would depend on the circumstances.

We need to connect these positions with Trump's earlier exhortation to Europe to impose tariffs of 50 to 100 per cent on Chinese exports to the EU and to stop purchasing Russian oil and gas altogether. There's no way the Europeans can do that- their economies would be wrecked. Similarly, there's no way the Nato allies can wage war on Russia on their own. 

The Europeans have been urging Trump to get tough with Russia, impose more sanctions and to step up support for Ukraine. Trump is now telling them: if you think you can this war, go right ahead and fight the Russians, I'm not going to join you.

Trump's remarks amount to a dare and a taunt to Europe. As he made clear in his address to the UN earlier this week, he has very little regard for Europeans- he knows they will chicken out of a confronation with Russia sans American involvement. 

America's economy defies gloom- Economist

I have reproduced the headline of the Economist's piece- and the Economist is no fan of Trump's.

Some eight months into Trump's administration, the US economy is far from plunging into the abyss as his detractors had forecast (and continue to forecast).

The Economist spells out the positives in the US economy:

Growth has certainly slowed. But dig deeper in the data and you do not have to be an uber-bull to see reasons for hope. The slump has been modest and no longer seems to be worsening. America’s 1.4% annualised GDP growth in the first half of the year would be a happy surprise for many Europeans. And the 2% growth America has managed over the past year is better yet in comparison

The jobs situation is not bad because demand for jobs has been reined by the crackdown on immigaation:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has revised down its estimate for net migration in 2025 from 2m to 400,000. Researchers at the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, two think-tanks, peg the figure at between -500,000 and 100,000. Customs and Border Protection reported just 8,000 “encounters” with illegal migrants on the southern border in July, against 100,000 in the same month last year and nearly 200,000 the year before.

Slower population growth lowers the “breakeven” rate of job creation (that needed to keep the employment rate stable), meaning even weak employment figures could be consistent with a healthy economy......For his part, on September 17th Jerome Powell, the Fed’s chair, guessed the breakeven rate was “between zero and 50,000”.

Then, there is greater clarity on tariffs:

Now the outlines of the import-tax regime look more certain. Tariff revenues, after rising sharply, seem to have stabilised in the past few months. Uncertainty measures have fallen, even if not all the way back to the levels of last year.

The Economist thinks Trump's campaign against the Fed could give rise to problems. It is likely to be proved wrong- as it has been proved wrong so far. 

Stephen Miran makes his presence felt on the Fed

Stephen Miran, who has joined the Fed board on leave as Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, made his presence felt at his first FOMC meeting. He voted for a 50 bp cut in the policy rate while the others voted for a cut of 25 bp. 

Seven members of the FOMC indicate they do no expect any rate cut for the rest of the year. Another two expect  just one cut. Miran projects a drop of another 1.25 bp by the end of the year. Trump's two appointees, Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller, voted for 25 bp cut. Waller did so despite being in contention for the Chairman's post when it falls vacant next year.

Trump's bid to get the Fed to make a steeper cut in the rate has not succeeded. Looks as though the Fed will not change tack as long as Powell is at the helm. 

What would be Trump's next move?

Brits grit their teeth over Trump's state visit

The UK laid out the red carpet for Donald Trump on his second state visit to the UK, the first one being in his first term.

It is a clear attempt by UK PM Keith Starmer to ensure the 'special relationship' endures, however much the UK may be uncomfortable with Trump's policies. The Guardian's columnist sums up the sentiments of many Brits:

No, it is not ideal. The era of shared values is ebbing fast. Keir Starmer did not need to play the state visit card so soon or so generously. He should have made Trump wait for the invitation, extracting a higher price for it, and offering hints that it might be offered in return for the right deal. But Starmer is not alone in struggling to read a president who is both unserious and utterly serious at the same time. All nations are still trying to work out how to respond.

What does UK want out of Trump now? Here goes:

Three things will matter in particular when Trump meets Starmer on Thursday for the political half of the visit: trade, the Middle East and Ukraine......On the Middle East, meanwhile, the immediate goal must be to prevent Trump exploding when Britain and others recognise Palestine next week.

So raison d’état says that pressure on Trump over Ukraine needs to come first. Russia’s threat to Europe is existential. Long term, the solution to that is in Europe’s own hands. The idea that the US should continue to be primarily responsible for Europe’s security 80 years after the second world war is now barely credible. But Starmer still needs to do whatever he can to press Trump to arm Ukraine more now.

Well, what better can you expect of a vassal state?

Trump fires Fed Governor Lisa Cook.... but markets are hardly rattled

President Trump has fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook in what is a first for an American president, the removal of a serving member of the Fed.

Analysts see Trump's move as an assault on the independence of the Fed. They say- and they have been saying this for several months now- that Trump's remarks and actions carry the risk of seriously upsetting the financial markets. 

The stock market and the bond market, they say, will not take kindly to a move that undermines the ability of the Fed to effectively battle inflation.

Well, that is the theory. 

The outcome so far is turning out to be very different. 

The markets seem quite unfazed by Trump's latest move or his earlier broadsides against Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. The media notes that the stock market reaction is "muted". The Financial Times seems seriously disappointed that the markets have not fallen off the cliff. It comments:

some analysts are concerned that investors aren’t taking Trump’s cumulative threats on the Fed’s independence seriously enough. Although bond yields jumped on Tuesday, they eased back somewhat over the course of the day.....investors also have shown signs of being lulled into a false sense of complacency.. Ultimately, more severe market ructions might be what is needed to force Trump to pull back from causing greater damage to the central bank and the US economy at large

Well, the "greater damage" just ain't happening. 

Could it be that the markets think that Trump is right? That the economy will benefit from cuts in the interest rate? That the fear of inflation getting out of control is exaggerated?

India's purchase of oil Russia: Peter Navarro clarifies what the gripe is

President Trump's decision to impose punitive additional tariffs of 25 per cent on Indian exports to the US has sparked outrage as well as disbelief in India. The Indian position is as follows:

• India's imports of oil from Russia (88 million tonnes) are less than those of China (109 million tonnes)
• India was encouraged by the Biden administration to buy oil from Russia so that prices in the oil market (sans Russia) did not go up 
• India is not violating any sanctions in importing oil from Russia. There is no US or NATO ban on countries importing oil from Russia, only a price cap (which was $60). 
• India has every right to procure oil from the cheapest source as that benefits the Indian economy

India has articulated these points repeatedly in recent weeks. Trump's trade advisor Peter Navarro thought it necessary to counter the Indian position through an article in FT:

Importantly, before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Russian oil made up less than 1 per cent of India’s crude imports. Since then, daily imports have soared to more than 1.5mn barrels — more than 30 per cent of India’s total.  To be clear, this surge has not been driven by domestic oil consumption needs. Rather, what really drives this trade is profiteering by India’s Big Oil lobby. Refining companies have turned India into a massive refining hub for discounted Russian crude.  The refiners buy oil at a steep discount, process it, and then export refined fuels to Europe, Africa, and Asia — all the while shielding India from sanctions scrutiny under the pretence of neutrality. 

So, the objection is that India is not using cheaper Russian oil for the benefit of Indian consumers. Instead, oil companies (mostly one private company) are using cheap Russia oil to sell refined oil in the international market at huge margins and have reaped massive profits. India's oil imports from Russia are not about benefiting the Indian economy but about enriching India's oil refiners. 

Scott Bessent has reinforced the point made by Navarro by saying that China had increased Russia's share in its oil imports from 13 per cent to just 16 per cent whereas India had increased it from 1 per cent to 42 per cent. 

This is what I would call the Indian arbitrage – buying cheap Russian oil, reselling it as product.....They’ve made $16bn in excess profits – some of the richest families in India. 

Perhaps the controversy would not have arisen if India had used cheap Russian oil to lower the price for Indian consumers through lower duties. 

Italians and the 'evil eye'

In India, we call it 'nazar'. In the west, it's the 'evil eye', envy at one's success or good fortune in life. The superstition is rife in India and, it appears, in Italy as well, going by this story.

In India, people make offerings in the temple to mitigate the effects of the 'evil eye'. In Italy, it appears they hire witches to do the job: 

While many modern Italians shrug off the idea as superstition, a number of people in both rural and suburban areas — including the town where I grew up — still call on witches to perform removals (a service also available by phone). Victims of an evil eye are supposed to feel heavy-headed and restless, as though they’ve been beset by ill fortune. They have migraines and can’t sleep. They may forget a pot on the stove or have a car accident. Babies who cry inconsolably are believed to have caught the evil eye. The most beautiful infants and their mothers are thought to be especially vulnerable. 

Nor are Indians or Italians the only ones susceptible to the belief:

Eleni, from Greece, says she had the evil eye removed “multiple times a day” by her grandmother when she was growing up. Now an astrophysicist, she admits to having maintained a belief about the ritual into her mid-twenties — long after she knew that the behaviour of oil in water depends far more on the temperature and metallicity of fluids than spells. Sina, from Tehran, tells me his mother hides money around the house if a visitor gives her family a compliment — a superstition designed to ward off the evil eye. Rasha, from Beirut, has adorned her baby’s pram with evil eye talismans. Megha tells me that her father still paints a mole on her neck or cheek if she looks nice before leaving the house — a version of the ritual in which Indian babies’ faces are smudged with henna to protect them from “nazar” or the evil eye. 

Trump- Putin Alaska meet triggers fury amongst Trump's critics

There was no deal, no announcement of ceasefire, no mention of any follow-up talks between the US and Russia. Yet President Trump gave the meeting a rating of 10 on 10 and expressed optimism about what would follow.

Why? Because the meeting helped reaffirm the long-standing personal relationshp between Trump and Putin. 

Trump stood at the mid-point of a red carpet and clapped his hands at Putin walked towards him after alighting from his plane. Trump received Putin with a warm handshake and then escorted him past a guard of honour to a podium. It was roses all the way

The equation between the two Presidents has long been a source of annoyance to neocons in the US and Europe. And, seeing the way the two got along, the neocons and Trump's critics in general are furious.

The Guardian's correspondent caught the mood very well in a priceless piece of reporting, never mind that the report oozes bile:

That was the moment he knew it was true love.

Donald Trump turned to gaze at Vladimir Putin as the Russian president publicly endorsed his view that, had Trump been president instead of Joe Biden, the war in Ukraine would never have happened.

“Today President Trump was saying that if he was president back then, there would be no war, and I’m quite sure that it would indeed be so,” Putin said. “I can confirm that.”

Vladimir, you complete me, Trump might have replied. To hell with all those Democrats, democrats, wokesters, fake news reporters and factcheckers. Here is a man who speaks my authoritarian alternative facts language.

......Trump, 79, purportedly the most powerful man in the world, literally rolled out the red carpet for a Russian dictator indicted for alleged war crimes over the abduction and transfer of thousands of Ukrainian children. Putin’s troops have also been accused of indiscriminate murder, rape and torture on an appalling scale.

In more than 100 countries, the 72-year-old would have been arrested the moment he set foot on the tarmac. In America, he was treated to a spontaneous burst of applause from the waiting Trump, who gave him a long, lingering handshake and a ride in “the Beast”, the presidential limousine.

Putin could be seen cackling on the back seat, looking like the cat who got the cream. As a former KGB man, did he leave behind a bug or two?

The reaction in the US has been hostile. FT reports:

Donald Trump returned to a political backlash in Washington over his handling of Vladimir Putin after failing to follow through on his threat of “severe consequences” if the Russian president refused to agree a ceasefire in Ukraine...

Europe continues to be in denial. The European Council has released a statement that says:

Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We welcome President Trump’s statement that the US is prepared to give security guarantees. The coalition of the willing is ready to play an active role. No limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine’s pathway to EU and Nato.

The latest news is that Zelenskyy will meet Trump on Monday at the White House. If all goes well, Trump, Zelenskyy and Putin will meet. 

Trump-Putin Alaska summit: the remarks the media did not hear

The UK's Sun has a terrific scoop on  the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska. 

The Sun got a forensic lip reader to transcribe what Trump and Putin were telling each other at a couple of places. There was no microphone to catch these remarks for the benefit of the media. Here is the Sun's account:

Putin looked relaxed as he walked down a red carpet towards Trump - giving the US leader a thumbs-up before greeting him with a warm handshake.

Trump begins clapping as Putin approaches and the American says: “Finally,” according to Hickling (the lip reader).

Hickling then said that as the pair shook hands Trump added: “You made it, fantastic to see you and appreciated."

The pair then appear to begin talking about Ukraine and the bringing the fighting to an end with a ceasefire.

Putin responds in English, saying: “Thank you — and you."

He also makes a pledge to Trump: "I am here to help you.”

Trump replies: “I’ll help you.”

Pointing towards Trump, Putin says: “All they need is to ask.”

Trump answers simply: “Okay.”

Putin continues: “I will bring it to a rest.”

Trump responds: “I hope it does.”

Turning towards the vehicle, Hickling said Trump smiles and says: “Come on, let’s get straight into the vehicle. We need to move forward, both giving it attention. I know this is serious, it’s quite long. What a journey it is.”

Trump salutes and says: “Thank you.”

On the podium, Trump says: “Thank you. Let’s shake hands — it gives a good impression.”

Putin nods in agreement, shakes his hand, and says: “Thank you.”

The pair then shared a moment alone in Trump’s presidential limo - known as The Beast - which drove them to the summit venue.

 They were then next seen when they posed for photos in front of the press to record the historic moment.

But the photocall descended into chaos when the journalists started shouting at Trump and the tyrant - who doesn't face that sort of opposition in Russia.

Hickling said that Trump noticed Putin wasn't happy with a question or remark made.

The American leans in to his aide, according to the lipreader, and whispers: “I'm uncomfortable, we need to move them quickly.”

Putin then makes a face after being on the receiving end of the aggressive questioning.

Hickling said the Russian tells a reporter: “You is ignorant.” 

Then, as he cups his hands to his mouth to shout above the chaos, he says again: “You are ignorant.”

The chemistry, as anybody can see, was pretty good. No wonder Trump gave the meeting at 10 on 10.

Why is Alaska the venue for the Trump-Putin Summit this week?

Putin has an ICC arrest warrant against himself. That obliges signatories to the ICC to arrest Putin if he is in their jurisdiction. Alaska is the US territory but the US is not a signatory to the ICC (nor is Russia). So the US is not under any legal obligation to arrest Putin although nothing prevents it from doing so.

But that can't be the whole explanation for the choice of Alaska. Putin does not attend the UNGA meetings in New York, presumably for fear of arrest. One reason given for the choce of Alaska is that it is within easy reach of Russia. At the narrowest point, it is a mere two miles away from Russian territory. At the likely venue for the summit, the distance is 88 kms. Russian subs with special forces will be prowling in the vicinity, ready to swing into action if required. In other words, Alaska is fairly safe for Putin.

The Guardian has a story that suggests mutual inconvenience is a factor in the choice of Alaska. The flying time for Putin is nine hours, for Trump it is eight hours. It is also a considerable distance away from Ukraine and its European allies. Further, Putin can fly directly from Russia into Alaska without having to overfly countries that are members of the ICC. 

Some suggest there is a symbolic significance to Putin's wanting to meet up in Alaska. Alaska was sold by Russia to the US for around $7 million in 1867. Which means that territories can jolly well exchange hands. And that would apply to Ukrainian territory currently under Russian control. 

How Pakistan upstaged India in forging ties with Trump

India's foreign policy establishment is in shock. In a matter of months, Indo-US ties have soured and Pak- US ties have soared. It is not clear how this has happened. 

First, the deterioration in Indo-US ties.

For Mr Trump, the aggravations from India's side are many. India is not willing to make certain concessions on trade, such as allowing entry of American agricultural and dairy products, so a trade deal has proved elusive over several months. India has refused to accept Mr Trump's line that it was he who mediated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after the skirmish last May. Mr Trump, we are told, is deeply miffed on that account. 

Then there is the business of oil purchases from Russia. Mr Trump and his colleagues say India along with China is financing the Russian war machine. But the point is that the sanctions on Russian oil apply only to the US and the EU. Other nations are not barred from buying Russian oil, they are subject to the price cap of $60. Very recently,  a new formula has been applied which causes the cap to fall to around $47. The US was okay with India's purchase of oil from Russia because it kept global oil prices from shooting up. Mr Trump's turnaround is extraordinary, to say the least.

The Economist notes:

This (a tariff of 50 per cent on Indian exports to the US) marks a striking change from Mr Trump’s first term, when the American president and Indian prime minister filled stadiums from Texas to Gujarat in celebration of a blossoming bond between the two countries. India clinched deals for defence equipment and tech usually reserved for NATO allies and some exemptions from sanctions on its dealings with Russia. A mutual disquiet about China’s rise lent the relationship urgency. As a result, India welcomed Mr Trump’s comeback. According to a poll in 2024 by the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank, 84% of Indians believed Mr Trump was good news for their own country—the highest among all 24 countries polled.

But despite Mr Modi’s outwardly friendly reception at the White House in February, one journalist briefed on the visit describes Indian diplomats as “stunned” by the “lack of respect” America’s president showed India’s prime minister behind closed doors.

Now for the improvement in Pak-US ties. FT has a detailed story on how it turned its relationship with the US around:

The newfound US admiration for Pakistan is partly the fruit of a charm offensive concocted by Pakistan’s senior generals, leveraging counterterrorism co-operation, outreach to business people close to Trump and deals covering energy, critical minerals and cryptocurrencies — all accompanied by a cascade of flattery for the White House.

 ....Pakistan’s turnaround was helped early on by what the US saw as an important arrest. In March Asim Malik, the head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency, delivered a high-value Isis-K operative who the US said was behind a 2021 bombing in Kabul that killed more than 180 people, including 13 US soldiers. His capture earned Pakistan Trump’s praise in his March State of the Union address, when the US president also lambasted India over high tariffs.

......World Liberty Financial, a Trump-backed cryptocurrency venture, signed a letter of intent with Pakistan’s crypto council in April, when its co-founders visited Pakistan. Zach Witkoff, the son of US special envoy Steve Witkoff, said during the trip that Pakistan had “trillions of dollars” of mineral wealth ripe for tokenisation.

....Islamabad also gave credit to Trump for brokering the truce with New Delhi — to the point of nominating the US president for the Nobel Peace Prize. Trading his khakis for a suit and tie this weekend, Munir again heaped praise on the US president when speaking to a group of Pakistani-Americans in Tampa.

Pakistan's stars are clearly on the ascendant.  At least in the immediate future, India has its task cut out in dealing with Mr Trump and the US.

Trump-Putin meet in Alaska: quote of the day

 FT columnist Gideon Rachman has a terrific line on the likely fate of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy at Alaska in his article today:

If you are not at the table, you're on the menu

What Europeans and Ukraine would like is an immediate cease-fire followed by negotiations on territory and other matters. That' a no-no for Putin. Russia has the upper hand in the conflict at the moment although gains in territory are slow in coming. Putin rightly views a cease-fire as an opportunity for Ukraine to recoup and renew the war at its convenience.

Putin has time and again made clear what his expectations are:

• Ukraine to recognise the four areas in the Donbas region over which Russia has substantial control today
• Ukraine to give up aspirations to join NATO 
• "De-nazification" and "de-militarisation" of Ukraine, which seems to mean regime change and a limited size of the military

Reflecting the current thinking in parts of the European establishment, Rachman contends that Ukraine would most likely have to  have make territorial concessions and eschew its goal of becoming a member of NATO:

Kyiv’s position that no territory can be ceded is principled — but also unrealistic as things currently stand. The critical distinction is between de facto and de jure concessions of territory. A legal recognition of Russia’s forcible annexation of Ukrainian territory is rightly unacceptable to Ukraine, the EU and the UK. But a de facto recognition of Russian occupation of some territory as a brutal reality — in the context of a broader peace deal — may be necessary. The Soviet Union’s annexation of the Baltic states after 1940 was never legally recognised by the US and most European countries. But it was a fact of life, until, eventually, the Baltic states regained their independence.

......Ukraine clearly cannot accept any military limits that might damage the country’s ability to defend itself. But if Kyiv is allowed to push on with its drive for EU membership then the question of Nato might be taken off the table for a while — particularly given that the political reality is that Nato membership for Ukraine seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future.

So, Ukraine gives up two out of the four territories claimed by Russia and stays out of NATO. Will that be enough for Putin? Putin has to give Trump a win and Trump would count a cessation of hostilities as one. What about US sanctions on Russia and NATO's push eastwards? Those are important goals for Putin. 

The meeting is happening because Russia found the proposals conveyed by Steve Witkoff acceptable. It is possible to optimistic about the outcome at Alaska. 

What experts don't want you to know: Trump is winning on tariffs

President Donald Trump's actions have truly stumped the pundits. He assumed office last January on a platform of imposing tariffs on goods imports into the US as a means of reducing America's chronic and ever-growing trade deficits. The experts denounced his plans saying it would take the US economy as well as the world economy into an abyss.

Mr Trump has been as good as his word. He first imposed "reciprocal tariffs" and then used these as a negotiating tool with leading trade partners who account for about 60 per cent of America's trade. The EU, UK, Japan and South Korea are among those who have been bludgeoned into submission. Those holding out have been hit with tariffs of up to 50 per cent. China faces a tariff of 30 per cent with a 90-day pause coming to an end in the next few days.

The astonishing thing is that the dire forecasts of experts have simply not come true. So far, Mr Trump has had his way without the world economy or the US economy going into a tailspin. Experts have now gone into overdrive to come up with reasons for why their forecasts have not come true. They are being dishonest. They must simply accept that they have been proved wrong.

More in my BS column, Trump is winning the tariff war hands down. 

FINGER ON THE PULSE
TT RAM MOHAN

Trump is winning the tariff war hands down

India is smarting under the tariff announced by United States President Donald Trump recently. It now faces a tariff of 25 per cent, plus an additional 25 per cent penalty for importing oil from Russia. Coming soon: Punitive tariffs on all pharmaceutical exports to the US, something that will bite Indian pharma companies. 

 Nearly 70 countries have been hit by tariffs on top of the universal 10 per cent levy. The tariffs are not just about reducing America’s current account deficit. Mr Trump has weaponised them to make a political point --- or even a personal one.

After announcing the 25 tariff on India, Mr Trump added insult to injury by calling India a dead economy. He flaunted the deal to explore oil reserves in Pakistan and hinted at Pakistan selling oil to India down the road, clearly a poke in the eye for New Delhi.

   India is not alone in being penalised and humiliated by Mr Trump for reasons other than trade. Canada faces a tariff of 35 per cent for not curbing the flow of fentanyl and other drugs. Mr Trump made it plain that Canada’s plan to recognise Palestine as a state is an aggravation. 

Switzerland has been hit with a tariff of 39 per cent, the highest for any European country. Mr Trump is irritated by the high prices Swiss pharmaceutical companies charge for their drug exports to the US. South African exports face a tariff of 30 per cent for “genocide” against whites. Brazil’s takes the cake. Its exports will be charged a tariff of 50 per cent  the highest for any nation (the same as India’s) because Mr Trump believes that his friend, the former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, is being falsely prosecuted for political reasons. 

People everywhere are outraged by Mr Trump’s whimsical ways. Commentators fulminate against his actions. But here’s the bad news for Mr Trump’s detractors: Mr Trump is winning the tariff war hands down.

When Mr Trump announced “reciprocal” tariffs on April 2, pundits forecast a trade war in which other nations would retaliate by imposing tariffs on US exports to them. Everybody would be worse off as happened with the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the US of 1930, which led on to the Great Depression.

Nothing of the sort has happened. The United Kingdom, Japan, Vietnam, South Korean, Indonesia and the Philippines have all caved in meekly to Mr Trump’s dictates and signed one-sided trade deals. The European Union (EU), the second-largest economy in the world in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), too capitulated--and how. 

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen, flew to Mr Trump’s golf course in Scotland to work out a trade deal. Mr Trump kept her waiting until he and his son had finished their second round of golf. Thereafter, he took her on a tour of his mansion where he bragged about the magnificence of his ballroom. Ms Leyen sought to flatter the American President. “You’re known as a tough negotiator and dealmaker”, she said. “But fair,” said the US President. “But fair”, the EU head dutifully echoed. 

There followed the announcement of a US-EU trade deal. EU exports to the US would be subject to a 15 per cent tariff while the EU would remove all tariffs on US industrial goods. The tariff of 50 per cent on the EU’s exports of steel, aluminium and copper would stay. Further, the EU has committed to buy $750 billion of US energy over the next three years and to invest $600 billion in the US over President Trump’s term. In the phraseology of the Second World War, it was “unconditional surrender”. 

Mr Trump’s detractors had warned of the dire effects of his brand of protectionism. The US would face higher inflation and lower growth. Equity and bond markets would tumble. The global economy would come crashing down. 

None of these forecasts has come true.  In its July 2025 update for the world economy, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) raised its forecast for 2025 by 0.2 percentage points to 3 per cent, relative to its April 2025 forecast. That’s the rate at which the world economy has grown since 2011. As for the US economy, the IMF has revised its forecast for the US upwards to 1.9 per cent, from 1.5 per cent in its April forecast. That doesn’t look at all as if the US economy is hurting from Mr Trump’s policies.

The American equity market is close to its record levels of the past five years. Yields on government bonds are below those in January 2025 when Mr Trump took over, and broadly in line with bond yields in 2023 and 2024. Inflation rose to 2.7 per cent in June, hardly the terrifying level it was projected to reach.

Analysts are now trying to tell us why things have panned out very differently. Inflation staying low? American importers stockpiled goods in anticipation of higher tariffs, so the tariff increases are yet to translate into higher inflation. That may be true of current inflation, but why have forward-looking bond yields not moved up?    Mr Trump’s critics conveniently ignore the role of oil prices in containing inflation. Brent crude oil prices are at least $8 below those a year ago- and Mr Trump is keen to drive them down even further. 

Financial markets not rattled? That’s because markets had expected much higher levels of tariffs and are relieved at the levels at which these have settled. Well, the present level of tariffs is seven times the level before Mr Trump took office!  Stock prices are sky-high? That’s because of the Artificial Intelligence (AI)  frenzy. But the AI frenzy was known when commentators were warning us that Mr Trump’s tariffs would cause a meltdown in equity prices.

The Economist has been at the forefront of those castigating Mr Trump for his wayward ways and warning of the terrible consequences that will follow. It has now come up with an explanation for why apocalypse hasn’t happened yet. 

The world economy, it contends, has a better capacity to absorb shocks today for a variety of reasons. Supply chains have become more efficient and resilient; changes in oil prices are less unsettling because a more diverse supply of energy is available; firms have become more adept at dealing with shocks; the services economy is less susceptible to shocks than an industrial economy; and governments are quick to take measures to cushion the economy from shocks. Capitalism has produced a “teflon economy”. The analysis begs the question: If the global economy is so resilient, why   has The Economist got  worked up about the disruptive effect of Mr Trump at all? 

As far as Mr Trump is concerned, his tariffs are bringing him higher revenues while protecting American industry and getting foreign firms to invest and manufacture in the US. All this without destabilising the financial markets. It’s no surprise that the torrent of criticism Mr Trump faces has left him unfazed. Mr Trump sees himself as a winner, not a whiner-- and that’s not a minor difference.