National Handloom Day 2026: From Alia Bhatt to Samantha Ruth Prabhu; Actresses who celebrated India's textile heritage as brides

The Royals enter the Doctor Who universe: King Charles and Queen Camilla beam into Commonwealth Games in TARDIS

Unitree Robotics targets $9 billion valuation in landmark IPO backed by DeepSeek and Tencent

India names 27 sites in Arunachal Pradesh

Bharat Bhhagya Viddhaata OTT: When will Kangana Ranaut's film stream online?

How many soldiers operate one S-400 battery?

Shakib Al Hasan ready to return to Bangladesh—under one condition

‘Fake news’: MEA rejects report claiming India sought defence pact with Israel after Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey deal

Rockstar to unveil GTA 6 extended look ahead of November launch

Russia forms Ukrainian Volunteer Spetsnaz Brigade to fight Ukraine

Drug-resistant fungus that hides in hair and enters bloodstream reported in 23 US states

Technology transfer deal boosts India's defence manufacturing ambitions

Border row erupts in Europe after Ceuta crossings, Spain imposes border controls on Italy

Morale plummets on USS Abraham Lincoln: Are US sailors reaching a breaking point? | GRAVITAS

'Security can't be bought with Pakistan, Turkey deal': Iran tells Saudi Arabia

Baba Vanga's 2026 prophecy: 2 predictions 'already came true', 3 terrifying ones remain. Details inside

Colombia’s new president Abelardo de la Espriella vows to ‘defeat narco-terrorists’, signals hardline shift

New Friday OTT releases (August 7, 2026): Operation Safed Sagar, Vadhandhi, Main Vaapis Aaunga- 6 movies and TV shows on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Squadron Leader Bhawana Kanth scripts history as Indian Air Force gets its first woman ‘Top Gun’ pilot

RSS says Gen Z protests reflect genuine distress

Trump says Iranian school bombing photos could be AI-generated - 'I don’t think...'

IAF officer held for sharing sensitive information in 'honey trap' case, booked under Official Secrets Act

Stray Kids under scrutiny? Fans react to Grammy submission silence after BTS boycott

Why the Su-30MKI doesn't need external fuel tanks to fly vast distances

Jugal Hansraj reunites with Shekhar Kapur after 40 years for Masoom: The Next Generation

New speed limits, automatic challans: Big traffic change coming to Delhi-Meerut Expressway. All you need to know

India officially names 27 places in Arunachal to counter China's renaming claims

Trump calls White House ballroom ruling a 'national disgrace' as court says Congress approval needed

US sanctions Iran’s crypto network after Strait of Hormuz attacks, offers $15m bounty for intel on IRGC finance

Why the Su-30MKI is one of the heaviest fighters ever built

Uttarakhand young innovator builds India's own flying vehicle, conducts first test flight: WATCH

Chilling video shows students take cover as teen opens fire at Thai school

Reese Witherspoon's father hospitalised after poolside incident in Nashville: Report

The chequered history of antagonistic stances during the decades-long USA-Soviet Union Cold War and subsequent détente, which brought Capitol Hill and Raisina Hill closer, shaped by geopolitical power balances between the world’s oldest and youngest democratic countries, is a tell-tale sign of the complexity and dynamics of their relationship. A high-voltage trade war between the United States and India could have far-reaching consequences—not just economically, but also diplomatically and strategically. At a time when the US is already deeply entrenched in a tech and trade cold war with China, the feasibility of sustaining another trade conflict, particularly with a strategic partner like India, appears both impractical and unwise. Such a conflict could overshadow the efforts of former US presidents like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, who extended an olive branch to Delhi to work together on common concerns regarding growing Islamic extremism, energy security, and climate change.&nbsp;The trade war between the United States and China, initiated under the Trump administration and continued with nuanced strategies by President Joe Biden, has disrupted global supply chains, increased tariffs, and led to decoupling in key sectors like semiconductors, AI, 5G, and pharmaceuticals. This rivalry is not just about economics but also technology supremacy, national security, and ideological competition between democratic and authoritarian models of governance.&nbsp;The US is now actively working to "de-risk" from China, which includes encouraging Chian Plus One strategy, manufacturing relocations, forming trade partnerships with democratic nations, and controlling Chinese access to cutting-edge technologies. In this strategic calculus, India has emerged as a natural partner—not only because of its shared democratic values, but also due to its economic potential, strategic location, and growing technological prowess.&nbsp;India, with a population of over 1.4 billion and a GDP nearing USD 4 trillion, is the world's fastest-growing major economy, placing it behind the United States with a GDP of USD 30.51 trillion, China at USD19.23 trillion, and Germany at USD 4.74 trillion. It is projected to become the third-largest economy by 2030. More importantly, it is a robust democracy, unlike China, and has a young, digitally enabled consumer base.&nbsp;Over the years, successive Indian governments—whether led by the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—have nurtured deeper ties with the United States. From the civil nuclear deal during the Manmohan Singh-Bush era to the strengthening of QUAD and signing of key defense agreements under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Biden, bilateral ties have touched new heights. "Howdy Modi" and "Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar," the reverberations of which are still echoing around the world, have cemented India-US relations with an emotional bond between PM Modi and Trump.&nbsp;The US now sees India as a central pillar of its Indo-Pacific strategy, aimed at counterbalancing Chinese influence in the region. From military cooperation and joint exercises like Malabar to investments in critical technologies and semiconductors, India’s positioning with the US has become more strategic than transactional.<h2>Can the US Sustain Strained Ties with India?</h2>&nbsp;Engaging in a trade war with India, especially in the current geopolitical climate, could be counterproductive for the United States. Here are five compelling reasons WHY:&nbsp;1. India as a Consumer Powerhouse&nbsp;India is one of the largest markets for American companies in sectors like technology, defense, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and energy. US giants such as Apple, Amazon, Boeing, and Tesla see India as a critical growth destination. Restricting trade or imposing tariffs would directly impact US corporate interests.&nbsp;Moreover, India’s increasing emphasis on local manufacturing (Make in India, PLI schemes) is creating opportunities for American investments in electronics, green energy, and EVs. Disrupting this potential through a trade war could push India toward alternative partners such as Russia or the EU.&nbsp;2. A Reliable Democratic Ally in Asia&nbsp;As the US seeks to strengthen global democracies and build resilient supply chains, India remains the only large, stable, and democratic counterweight to China in Asia. Its neutral stance in conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war has also demonstrated India's commitment to strategic autonomy, a quality the US respects.&nbsp;India’s G20 presidency and leadership role in the Global South further enhance its diplomatic influence. Isolating or antagonizing such a partner could weaken the US's broader goals of forming a rules-based global order.&nbsp;3. Economic Interdependence&nbsp;In the fiscal year 2024–25, India–US trade reached USD 131.8 billion, comprising USD 86.5 billion in exports from India and USD 45.3 billion in imports, making the US India’s largest trading partner. This shows a strong and robust strategic economic relationship between the two countries. Nearly 2,000 American companies operate in India, while Indian firms have invested over USD 40 billion in the US, creating around 425,000 jobs that is documented in a report titled "Indian Roots, American Soil”. This economic interdependence serves as a buffer against abrupt policy shifts or trade hostilities.&nbsp;4. Geopolitical Timing Matters&nbsp;With tensions in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and Ukraine-Russia conflict still unresolved, the US cannot afford to lose India as a regional ally. Unlike Cold War times, today’s conflicts are multipolar and multidimensional—ranging from cyberspace to climate diplomacy. India’s cooperation is crucial in areas like AI regulation, global data flows, cybersecurity, and space exploration.&nbsp;5. India-US for Global PeaceIndia and the US, united, can ensure global peace, prosperity, and stability. India, once counted among the 'Fragile Five' nations, as coined by investment firm Morgan Stanley, today finds itself among the 'Fabulous Five' economies of the world. The strong base of the Indian diaspora in the US works with honesty and dedication, in line with the spirit of 'Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' (The World is One Family). The India-America partnership operates on the principle of promoting global peace.<h3>Pragmatism Over Provocation</h3>&nbsp;Of course, India and the US have their share of trade disputes—ranging from tariffs on agricultural products and medical devices to data localization policies and digital taxation. But these should be addressed through dialogue and negotiation mechanisms such as the US-India Trade Policy Forum, rather than retaliatory measures. Both nations are members of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and have begun collaborating on semiconductor supply chains, critical minerals, and AI governance. These positive developments must be leveraged to create a roadmap for sustainable, balanced trade rather than indulging in protectionist impulses.&nbsp;In an era where alliances are being redrawn and global order is in flux, the US must tread carefully. Engaging in a trade war with India would not only harm American business interests but also erode the foundation of a strategic partnership that is essential to its Indo-Pacific vision. India, with its demographic dividend, economic momentum, and democratic stability, is not just another trade partner—it is a strategic necessity for the United States. It worth mentioned the famous quote of former US president Barack Obama, “India is not simply an emerging power; it is already a world power, and a natural partner of the United States.” So, instead of trade conflict, collaboration should guide the next phase of India-US relations, Donald Trump must rethink.

 A high-voltage trade war between the United States and India could have far-reaching consequences—not just economically, but also diplomatically and strategically.

The chequered history of antagonistic stances during the decades-long USA-Soviet Union Cold War and subsequent détente, which brought Capitol Hill and Raisina Hill closer, shaped by geopolitical power balances between the world’s oldest and youngest democratic countries, is a tell-tale sign of the complexity and dynamics of their relationship. A high-voltage trade war between the United States and India could have far-reaching consequences—not just economically, but also diplomatically and strategically. At a time when the US is already deeply entrenched in a tech and trade cold war with China, the feasibility of sustaining another trade conflict, particularly with a strategic partner like India, appears both impractical and unwise. Such a conflict could overshadow the efforts of former US presidents like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, who extended an olive branch to Delhi to work together on common concerns regarding growing Islamic extremism, energy security, and climate change. The trade war between the United States and China, initiated under the Trump administration and continued with nuanced strategies by President Joe Biden, has disrupted global supply chains, increased tariffs, and led to decoupling in key sectors like semiconductors, AI, 5G, and pharmaceuticals. This rivalry is not just about economics but also technology supremacy, national security, and ideological competition between democratic and authoritarian models of governance. The US is now actively working to "de-risk" from China, which includes encouraging Chian Plus One strategy, manufacturing relocations, forming trade partnerships with democratic nations, and controlling Chinese access to cutting-edge technologies. In this strategic calculus, India has emerged as a natural partner—not only because of its shared democratic values, but also due to its economic potential, strategic location, and growing technological prowess. India, with a population of over 1.4 billion and a GDP nearing USD 4 trillion, is the world's fastest-growing major economy, placing it behind the United States with a GDP of USD 30.51 trillion, China at USD19.23 trillion, and Germany at USD 4.74 trillion. It is projected to become the third-largest economy by 2030. More importantly, it is a robust democracy, unlike China, and has a young, digitally enabled consumer base. Over the years, successive Indian governments—whether led by the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—have nurtured deeper ties with the United States. From the civil nuclear deal during the Manmohan Singh-Bush era to the strengthening of QUAD and signing of key defense agreements under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Biden, bilateral ties have touched new heights. "Howdy Modi" and "Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar," the reverberations of which are still echoing around the world, have cemented India-US relations with an emotional bond between PM Modi and Trump. The US now sees India as a central pillar of its Indo-Pacific strategy, aimed at counterbalancing Chinese influence in the region. From military cooperation and joint exercises like Malabar to investments in critical technologies and semiconductors, India’s positioning with the US has become more strategic than transactional. Can the US Sustain Strained Ties with India? Engaging in a trade war with India, especially in the current geopolitical climate, could be counterproductive for the United States. Here are five compelling reasons WHY: 1. India as a Consumer Powerhouse India is one of the largest markets for American companies in sectors like technology, defense, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and energy. US giants such as Apple, Amazon, Boeing, and Tesla see India as a critical growth destination. Restricting trade or imposing tariffs would directly impact US corporate interests. Moreover, India’s increasing emphasis on local manufacturing (Make in India, PLI schemes) is creating opportunities for American investments in electronics, green energy, and EVs. Disrupting this potential through a trade war could push India toward alternative partners such as Russia or the EU. 2. A Reliable Democratic Ally in Asia As the US seeks to strengthen global democracies and build resilient supply chains, India remains the only large, stable, and democratic counterweight to China in Asia. Its neutral stance in conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war has also demonstrated India's commitment to strategic autonomy, a quality the US respects. India’s G20 presidency and leadership role in the Global South further enhance its diplomatic influence. Isolating or antagonizing such a partner could weaken the US's broader goals of forming a rules-based global order. 3. Economic Interdependence In the fiscal year 2024–25, India–US trade reached USD 131.8 billion, comprising USD 86.5 billion in exports from India and USD 45.3 billion in imports, making the US India’s largest trading partner. This shows a strong and robust strategic economic relationship between the two countries. Nearly 2,000 American companies operate in India, while Indian firms have invested over USD 40 billion in the US, creating around 425,000 jobs that is documented in a report titled "Indian Roots, American Soil”. This economic interdependence serves as a buffer against abrupt policy shifts or trade hostilities. 4. Geopolitical Timing Matters With tensions in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and Ukraine-Russia conflict still unresolved, the US cannot afford to lose India as a regional ally. Unlike Cold War times, today’s conflicts are multipolar and multidimensional—ranging from cyberspace to climate diplomacy. India’s cooperation is crucial in areas like AI regulation, global data flows, cybersecurity, and space exploration. 5. India-US for Global Peace India and the US, united, can ensure global peace, prosperity, and stability. India, once counted among the 'Fragile Five' nations, as coined by investment firm Morgan Stanley, today finds itself among the 'Fabulous Five' economies of the world. The strong base of the Indian diaspora in the US works with honesty and dedication, in line with the spirit of 'Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' (The World is One Family). The India-America partnership operates on the principle of promoting global peace. Pragmatism Over Provocation Of course, India and the US have their share of trade disputes—ranging from tariffs on agricultural products and medical devices to data localization policies and digital taxation. But these should be addressed through dialogue and negotiation mechanisms such as the US-India Trade Policy Forum, rather than retaliatory measures. Both nations are members of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and have begun collaborating on semiconductor supply chains, critical minerals, and AI governance. These positive developments must be leveraged to create a roadmap for sustainable, balanced trade rather than indulging in protectionist impulses. In an era where alliances are being redrawn and global order is in flux, the US must tread carefully. Engaging in a trade war with India would not only harm American business interests but also erode the foundation of a strategic partnership that is essential to its Indo-Pacific vision. India, with its demographic dividend, economic momentum, and democratic stability, is not just another trade partner—it is a strategic necessity for the United States. It worth mentioned the famous quote of former US president Barack Obama, “India is not simply an emerging power; it is already a world power, and a natural partner of the United States.” So, instead of trade conflict, collaboration should guide the next phase of India-US relations, Donald Trump must rethink.

&nbsp;A high-voltage trade war between the United States and India could have far-reaching consequences—not just economically, but also diplomatically and strategically.

Can US afford trade war with India amid evolving geopolitics? 5 must-know geopolitical realities

What are your thoughts on the overall economy so far? From your perspective as a scholar, how do you see the current situation? Specifically, with the US prioritising tariffs and placing itself first, what is your opinion on this approach?&nbsp;Yeah, look, I mean, at one level, this reflects a kind of view taken by the administration and by this president, that the U.S., for a very long time, has borne the costs of global public goods, right? So, setting up the WTO or the United Nations, or whatever it is, and that the U.S. has not earned the proportionate return from having borne those costs. So this is a perspective. There are many who would disagree with that perspective and push back, saying that in fact the U.S. has done extremely well, and that the kind of post-World War II, postwar trading regime or geopolitical system that was in place has actually served U.S. interests and the U.S. economy very well. But be that as it may, right? So this idea that America has to be first, and that other countries are exploiting the United States and so on, is a particular type of view, and the view that, for example, trade deficits the U.S. is experiencing, or has experienced for many decades now, reflect some sort of exploitative intent by other countries toward the United States. I personally disagree with that, but that's where the thinking is, and that's where the policy is emanating from in Washington, right? So very clearly, it's led to a very high degree of economic uncertainty, a very high degree of geoeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty. And where this all ends, we’ll see. We're still very much in a stage of transition. And, as I’m sure you’ve noticed as well, just over the last three or four months, even under this administration, there have been tons of announcements: the recalls of the tariffs, delayed tariffs, changes in tariffs. And so, you know, where all this actually settles, and what finally is implemented, I guess, is yet to be seen.&nbsp;&nbsp;Do you think the Indian diaspora in the U.S. views Trump’s tariffs as a setback to the growing U.S.-India trade partnership or just part of a tough negotiation strategy?&nbsp;Yeah, but given the very positive trajectory of U.S.–India trade relations both in an economic sense and a geopolitical sense over the last several decades, I think there was certainly an expectation that this would be continued, and maybe even improved, under the new Trump administration, especially given the apparently friendly relationship between the two leaders, Prime Minister Modi and President Trump. So there was everyexpectation going into this that there would be continuity or even an improvement in that trajectory. So, in a certain sense, then, the tariff announcements and the trade negotiations are, in fact, a setback. But let's be careful, I mean, the dust really hasn’t settled on this issue. The tariffs announced for India, even they are not permanent; they can be changed anytime, really. And as I understand it, at least, negotiations are still ongoing. So we’ll wait and see where things finally settle. Maybe this is just a tough negotiation strategy. Maybe it’s going to be the case that the eventual outcome is a trade deal that leaves both countries in a better position than where they are today. That’s entirely conceivable. And so, that’s yet to be seen. I think most people are just still taking in the news. In terms of the diaspora, I don’t think they’ve really had a chance to fully process what it is that’s going on. That being said, I’m sure that there are many who are surprised, and maybe a bit disappointed, by the toughness of the statement from the White House with respect to India, right? So this stance taken in these negotiations seems to focus very narrowly on the issue of international trade, trade deficits, and business, and doesn’t seem to give any allowance or room for the broader goal of improving economic and geopolitical linkages between the two countries. So I think there’s some element of surprise there, that the kind of positive connection that was building, and where the momentum had been growing over the past many years, including very recently, I would add, that somehow, that seems to have been set aside. And these negotiations are on a kind of track that seems to have their own momentum, independent of those broader considerations.&nbsp;How do you see these tariffs affecting that mission and the broader sentiment among Indian-American entrepreneurs?&nbsp;Yeah, current tariffs will certainly lower trade. And this is especially consequential because, on the one hand, one of the dominant themes of the last decade or at least the last half-decade has been this U.S. attempt to pivot away from overreliance on China. The so-called “China plus one” strategy, where you have China as a key supplier of goods to the U.S., but you’re also looking for other partners. And India was certainly one of the countries mentioned very often in that context, as a possible alternative platform for manufacturing particularly for the kinds of goods the U.S. needs to import. So that was an interesting window of opportunity, both for Indian businesspeople and for entrepreneurs in the U.S. And some of those opportunities were taken some very high-profile, including Apple setting up shop and opening a plant in India to manufacture iPhones and so on. So that, too, was something on a positive trajectory. But that becomes harder when there’s friction in the flow of goods between the two countries whether it’s Indian goods being exported to the U.S., or U.S. goods going to India, or U.S. companies setting up manufacturing plants and sending intermediate inputs from the U.S. to be processed and finalized, then sent back to the States. All of this type of exchange starts to become more problematic in the presence of tariffs. And so, if the tariffs are implemented and stay in place for some time, I’m sure there will be negative impacts on businesses on both sides of the border, and there’s bound to be some apprehension about that. That being said, I still think there’s an opportunity for India and the U.S. to work out a better trade arrangement even given the particular concerns expressed by the White House. I think there’s room for India to look at its own tariff regime, which is undoubtedly characterized by high tariffs in some manufacturing and other sectors, and ask some tough questions about what type of liberalization it can realistically undertake. One that could, on the one hand, satisfy American demands, and on the other, actually help the Indian economy itself. So this shouldn’t be seen purely as a concession to the United States. These are tariff reductions that could help Indian consumers, and also Indian producers especially if these are intermediate inputs coming in from the U.S. that would aid domestic production. In many ways, these goals are actually joint goals. If you think about Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” aspiration and President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” with its emphasis on manufacturing these two goals can be reconciled. I still believe a trade negotiation and deal could achieve both. And so I’m optimistic about that. I’m sure the business community remains optimistic as well. That being said, there’s no doubt we’re in a period of great uncertainty about policy. I expect this will hurt business sentiment and likely freeze, or at least pause, some investment plans and new business ideas that people were thinking about. And overall, when the whole concept was first introduced by the administration, they were proud to announce that everything was going to be “made in America.” But from an economic standpoint, we understand that importing goods from countries like China and others with cheaper labor and inputs often makes more sense than trying to build something like an iPhone entirely within America. Because at the end of the day, the costs of that approach are going to be felt by consumers. And ultimately, it all comes down to the consumer being affected by the cost of these decisions.&nbsp;Many in the diaspora identify as both proud Americans and proud Indians. How are they navigating this moment where the two countries may appear at odds economically?&nbsp;Yeah, let me take both of these slightly separately, right? So your first point about the benefits of international trade you're a good student of international trade, and so you know there are benefits to mutual exchange and so on. And I think that’s obvious, that’s visible. By and large, I would think that public sentiment in the United States as well as political sentiment over many decades has been broadly in support of free trade. And that’s reflected in the fact that the U.S. is a relatively open economy I’d say a very significantly open economy and has been for many decades. That being said, I think this kind of increasing concern in the U.S. is not completely unjustified when it applies to specific issues. So, if you reach a point where you're over-reliant on a particular country for crucial imports imports that may have national security implications then it’s very natural to recalibrate and rethink: how reliant are we on, say, China? We’re not talking about the import of Barbies and Kendalls here. If it’s rare earths, semiconductors, communications devices, and so on, I think it’s reasonable for a country to ask itself: what can we do to ensure our national security interests aren't threatened? Now, whether the response that’s actually come out of the White House is the right one to that concern I think it’s been too broad in its sweep. Alongside chips and sensitive technologies, the policy also targets everything else plastic toys, razor blades, every other goddamn thing in the world. So, it seems poorly targeted, if you will. So that’s the question about international trade the benefits of trade versus concerns about over-concentration which, again, I’d summarize as legitimate, but perhaps not adequately or efficiently addressed by the current policy. On the Indian diaspora I’m sure there’s a wide range of views and reactions to recent developments. Some are hoping this is temporary and will get resolved. Others are more pensive, not just about what this means for international trade relations, but also for broader relations between India and the U.S., and even the U.S. and the rest of the world. There are immigration concerns; people are worried about the way the U.S. is engaging the world and the shift that appears to be taking place. So yes, there are many different concerns. But I think one important thing to recognize in the midst of all this and it’s important for your readership as well is that it’s not as if India has been specifically singled out by this administration. India has not been uniquely targeted. Very close allies of the U.S. like the European Union, Japan, NATO countries, South Korea, Mexico, Canada have all been in similar positions. These are strong military and economic allies, many of whom are part of long-standing trade agreements like NAFTA, and even they have been targeted by high tariffs and have gone through tough negotiations with the U.S., many of which remain unresolved. So from the standpoint of proud Indians and proud Indian Americans, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not something specific to India it reflects a broader policy shift. Of course, we can remain disappointed with the policy that’s valid but this should not be viewed as an action aimed solely at India. I’m sure everyone wishes for a smooth resolution that addresses the core interests of both countries to mutual benefit. And I remain optimistic about that as well.&nbsp;Pakistan has proven conventional crude oil reserves estimated at around 200 to 300 million barrels and is ranked as the 50th largest oil importer in the world. Given this, what are your thoughts on the new oil pact between the USA and Pakistan?&nbsp;Frankly, I was surprised to see that announcement as I think many others were. I didn’t know that Pakistan had major oil reserves. Maybe someone unearthed reserves that we were previously unaware of, and we’ll just have to wait for future announcements on that. And I’ll just leave it at that, right? Of course, if there are oil reserves and there’s interest in developing them, the U.S. is free to engage in those businesses as it sees fit and so is Pakistan. So I don’t know much more about the Pakistan issue, especially with respect to oil reserves. Yeah.&nbsp;In closing, how do you foresee this evolving in the future? Is there potential for additional tariffs to be implemented, and could we see a further increase in figures for the United States and India? The current 25% rate may well rise. What is your perspective on this trajectory?&nbsp;Look, my thoughts on this operate at two or three different levels. One, purely from the perspective of just going into the U.S. or India or any other country lowering tariffs would be a good thing, right? There’s a very long economic history of the world that shows the benefits of international trade, the benefits of freer international trade, and that really can’t be ignored. And right now, we seem to be going against that experience. So I hope, at some point, that what we’re seeing is just the positioning and posturing that comes with negotiations and that once those are complete, we’ll return to more reasonable levels of tariffs that support global commerce in the way it has done so effectively in the past. Trade has helped generate prosperity and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past few decades. All of that has been supported by a relatively open international trading system, and I hope we can return to that.&nbsp;On the other hand, I’m actually concerned and I say this as someone who works in international economics and trade, and who has spent time thinking about the global trade system, the WTO, and so on. This kind of unilateral action by the United States, as I see it, violates many of the rules and norms of the WTO. And that has left the WTO in a very weak position. It clearly cannot enforce its own rules when one of its most powerful members chooses to act outside them. That weakens the overall structure of international trade law the rules that countries have broadly followed since the GATT and the WTO came into existence. It wasn’t a perfect system far from it but there was a framework. And now we have to ask: What is the future of that system, if countries can just decide, with little notice, to pull back from it or violate its principles, and do so without consequence? If the U.S. can do it, so can others. And if arbitrariness becomes the norm, then a lot of countries facing economic or political difficulties may start to do the same. That’s a real concern, one of the potentially lasting consequences of these recent developments.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is an old point but one that economists and students of international trade know well: It is to remind your readers that when a country imposes tariffs, the cost is largely borne by that country itself. Sure, some of that cost may be passed on to the exporting country, because they might lower their prices to stay competitive. But for the most part, and there are many quantitative studies to support this the cost falls on the importing country. Even with the tariffs the U.S. imposed on China in recent years, studies have shown that 90% of the cost was borne by the U.S. by U.S. consumers.

Pravin Krishna, Intl Economics Prof, Johns Hopkins SAIS, spoke to WION's Dhruv Goyal and shared insights on the evolving US-India trade relationship. He emphasised the importance of strategic partnership, mutual respect, and optimism for a balanced resolution despite tariff war.

What are your thoughts on the overall economy so far? From your perspective as a scholar, how do you see the current situation? Specifically, with the US prioritising tariffs and placing itself first, what is your opinion on this approach? Yeah, look, I mean, at one level, this reflects a kind of view taken by the administration and by this president, that the U.S., for a very long time, has borne the costs of global public goods, right? So, setting up the WTO or the United Nations, or whatever it is, and that the U.S. has not earned the proportionate return from having borne those costs. So this is a perspective. There are many who would disagree with that perspective and push back, saying that in fact the U.S. has done extremely well, and that the kind of post-World War II, postwar trading regime or geopolitical system that was in place has actually served U.S. interests and the U.S. economy very well. But be that as it may, right? So this idea that America has to be first, and that other countries are exploiting the United States and so on, is a particular type of view, and the view that, for example, trade deficits the U.S. is experiencing, or has experienced for many decades now, reflect some sort of exploitative intent by other countries toward the United States. I personally disagree with that, but that's where the thinking is, and that's where the policy is emanating from in Washington, right? So very clearly, it's led to a very high degree of economic uncertainty, a very high degree of geoeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty. And where this all ends, we’ll see. We're still very much in a stage of transition. And, as I’m sure you’ve noticed as well, just over the last three or four months, even under this administration, there have been tons of announcements: the recalls of the tariffs, delayed tariffs, changes in tariffs. And so, you know, where all this actually settles, and what finally is implemented, I guess, is yet to be seen. Do you think the Indian diaspora in the U.S. views Trump’s tariffs as a setback to the growing U.S.-India trade partnership or just part of a tough negotiation strategy? Yeah, but given the very positive trajectory of U.S.–India trade relations both in an economic sense and a geopolitical sense over the last several decades, I think there was certainly an expectation that this would be continued, and maybe even improved, under the new Trump administration, especially given the apparently friendly relationship between the two leaders, Prime Minister Modi and President Trump. So there was every expectation going into this that there would be continuity or even an improvement in that trajectory. So, in a certain sense, then, the tariff announcements and the trade negotiations are, in fact, a setback. But let's be careful, I mean, the dust really hasn’t settled on this issue. The tariffs announced for India, even they are not permanent; they can be changed anytime, really. And as I understand it, at least, negotiations are still ongoing. So we’ll wait and see where things finally settle. Maybe this is just a tough negotiation strategy. Maybe it’s going to be the case that the eventual outcome is a trade deal that leaves both countries in a better position than where they are today. That’s entirely conceivable. And so, that’s yet to be seen. I think most people are just still taking in the news. In terms of the diaspora, I don’t think they’ve really had a chance to fully process what it is that’s going on. That being said, I’m sure that there are many who are surprised, and maybe a bit disappointed, by the toughness of the statement from the White House with respect to India, right? So this stance taken in these negotiations seems to focus very narrowly on the issue of international trade, trade deficits, and business, and doesn’t seem to give any allowance or room for the broader goal of improving economic and geopolitical linkages between the two countries. So I think there’s some element of surprise there, that the kind of positive connection that was building, and where the momentum had been growing over the past many years, including very recently, I would add, that somehow, that seems to have been set aside. And these negotiations are on a kind of track that seems to have their own momentum, independent of those broader considerations. How do you see these tariffs affecting that mission and the broader sentiment among Indian-American entrepreneurs? Yeah, current tariffs will certainly lower trade. And this is especially consequential because, on the one hand, one of the dominant themes of the last decade or at least the last half-decade has been this U.S. attempt to pivot away from overreliance on China. The so-called “China plus one” strategy, where you have China as a key supplier of goods to the U.S., but you’re also looking for other partners. And India was certainly one of the countries mentioned very often in that context, as a possible alternative platform for manufacturing particularly for the kinds of goods the U.S. needs to import. So that was an interesting window of opportunity, both for Indian businesspeople and for entrepreneurs in the U.S. And some of those opportunities were taken some very high-profile, including Apple setting up shop and opening a plant in India to manufacture iPhones and so on. So that, too, was something on a positive trajectory. But that becomes harder when there’s friction in the flow of goods between the two countries whether it’s Indian goods being exported to the U.S., or U.S. goods going to India, or U.S. companies setting up manufacturing plants and sending intermediate inputs from the U.S. to be processed and finalized, then sent back to the States. All of this type of exchange starts to become more problematic in the presence of tariffs. And so, if the tariffs are implemented and stay in place for some time, I’m sure there will be negative impacts on businesses on both sides of the border, and there’s bound to be some apprehension about that. That being said, I still think there’s an opportunity for India and the U.S. to work out a better trade arrangement even given the particular concerns expressed by the White House. I think there’s room for India to look at its own tariff regime, which is undoubtedly characterized by high tariffs in some manufacturing and other sectors, and ask some tough questions about what type of liberalization it can realistically undertake. One that could, on the one hand, satisfy American demands, and on the other, actually help the Indian economy itself. So this shouldn’t be seen purely as a concession to the United States. These are tariff reductions that could help Indian consumers, and also Indian producers especially if these are intermediate inputs coming in from the U.S. that would aid domestic production. In many ways, these goals are actually joint goals. If you think about Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” aspiration and President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” with its emphasis on manufacturing these two goals can be reconciled. I still believe a trade negotiation and deal could achieve both. And so I’m optimistic about that. I’m sure the business community remains optimistic as well. That being said, there’s no doubt we’re in a period of great uncertainty about policy. I expect this will hurt business sentiment and likely freeze, or at least pause, some investment plans and new business ideas that people were thinking about. And overall, when the whole concept was first introduced by the administration, they were proud to announce that everything was going to be “made in America.” But from an economic standpoint, we understand that importing goods from countries like China and others with cheaper labor and inputs often makes more sense than trying to build something like an iPhone entirely within America. Because at the end of the day, the costs of that approach are going to be felt by consumers. And ultimately, it all comes down to the consumer being affected by the cost of these decisions. Many in the diaspora identify as both proud Americans and proud Indians. How are they navigating this moment where the two countries may appear at odds economically? Yeah, let me take both of these slightly separately, right? So your first point about the benefits of international trade you're a good student of international trade, and so you know there are benefits to mutual exchange and so on. And I think that’s obvious, that’s visible. By and large, I would think that public sentiment in the United States as well as political sentiment over many decades has been broadly in support of free trade. And that’s reflected in the fact that the U.S. is a relatively open economy I’d say a very significantly open economy and has been for many decades. That being said, I think this kind of increasing concern in the U.S. is not completely unjustified when it applies to specific issues. So, if you reach a point where you're over-reliant on a particular country for crucial imports imports that may have national security implications then it’s very natural to recalibrate and rethink: how reliant are we on, say, China? We’re not talking about the import of Barbies and Kendalls here. If it’s rare earths, semiconductors, communications devices, and so on, I think it’s reasonable for a country to ask itself: what can we do to ensure our national security interests aren't threatened? Now, whether the response that’s actually come out of the White House is the right one to that concern I think it’s been too broad in its sweep. Alongside chips and sensitive technologies, the policy also targets everything else plastic toys, razor blades, every other goddamn thing in the world. So, it seems poorly targeted, if you will. So that’s the question about international trade the benefits of trade versus concerns about over-concentration which, again, I’d summarize as legitimate, but perhaps not adequately or efficiently addressed by the current policy. On the Indian diaspora I’m sure there’s a wide range of views and reactions to recent developments. Some are hoping this is temporary and will get resolved. Others are more pensive, not just about what this means for international trade relations, but also for broader relations between India and the U.S., and even the U.S. and the rest of the world. There are immigration concerns; people are worried about the way the U.S. is engaging the world and the shift that appears to be taking place. So yes, there are many different concerns. But I think one important thing to recognize in the midst of all this and it’s important for your readership as well is that it’s not as if India has been specifically singled out by this administration. India has not been uniquely targeted. Very close allies of the U.S. like the European Union, Japan, NATO countries, South Korea, Mexico, Canada have all been in similar positions. These are strong military and economic allies, many of whom are part of long-standing trade agreements like NAFTA, and even they have been targeted by high tariffs and have gone through tough negotiations with the U.S., many of which remain unresolved. So from the standpoint of proud Indians and proud Indian Americans, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not something specific to India it reflects a broader policy shift. Of course, we can remain disappointed with the policy that’s valid but this should not be viewed as an action aimed solely at India. I’m sure everyone wishes for a smooth resolution that addresses the core interests of both countries to mutual benefit. And I remain optimistic about that as well. Pakistan has proven conventional crude oil reserves estimated at around 200 to 300 million barrels and is ranked as the 50th largest oil importer in the world. Given this, what are your thoughts on the new oil pact between the USA and Pakistan? Frankly, I was surprised to see that announcement as I think many others were. I didn’t know that Pakistan had major oil reserves. Maybe someone unearthed reserves that we were previously unaware of, and we’ll just have to wait for future announcements on that. And I’ll just leave it at that, right? Of course, if there are oil reserves and there’s interest in developing them, the U.S. is free to engage in those businesses as it sees fit and so is Pakistan. So I don’t know much more about the Pakistan issue, especially with respect to oil reserves. Yeah. In closing, how do you foresee this evolving in the future? Is there potential for additional tariffs to be implemented, and could we see a further increase in figures for the United States and India? The current 25% rate may well rise. What is your perspective on this trajectory? Look, my thoughts on this operate at two or three different levels. One, purely from the perspective of just going into the U.S. or India or any other country lowering tariffs would be a good thing, right? There’s a very long economic history of the world that shows the benefits of international trade, the benefits of freer international trade, and that really can’t be ignored. And right now, we seem to be going against that experience. So I hope, at some point, that what we’re seeing is just the positioning and posturing that comes with negotiations and that once those are complete, we’ll return to more reasonable levels of tariffs that support global commerce in the way it has done so effectively in the past. Trade has helped generate prosperity and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past few decades. All of that has been supported by a relatively open international trading system, and I hope we can return to that. On the other hand, I’m actually concerned and I say this as someone who works in international economics and trade, and who has spent time thinking about the global trade system, the WTO, and so on. This kind of unilateral action by the United States, as I see it, violates many of the rules and norms of the WTO. And that has left the WTO in a very weak position. It clearly cannot enforce its own rules when one of its most powerful members chooses to act outside them. That weakens the overall structure of international trade law the rules that countries have broadly followed since the GATT and the WTO came into existence. It wasn’t a perfect system far from it but there was a framework. And now we have to ask: What is the future of that system, if countries can just decide, with little notice, to pull back from it or violate its principles, and do so without consequence? If the U.S. can do it, so can others. And if arbitrariness becomes the norm, then a lot of countries facing economic or political difficulties may start to do the same. That’s a real concern, one of the potentially lasting consequences of these recent developments. This is an old point but one that economists and students of international trade know well: It is to remind your readers that when a country imposes tariffs, the cost is largely borne by that country itself. Sure, some of that cost may be passed on to the exporting country, because they might lower their prices to stay competitive. But for the most part, and there are many quantitative studies to support this the cost falls on the importing country. Even with the tariffs the U.S. imposed on China in recent years, studies have shown that 90% of the cost was borne by the U.S. by U.S. consumers.

Pravin Krishna, Intl Economics Prof, Johns Hopkins SAIS, spoke to WION's Dhruv Goyal and shared insights on the evolving US-India trade relationship. He emphasised the importance of strategic partnership, mutual respect, and optimism for a balanced resolution despite tariff war.

US–India trade at a crossroads: An expert’s take on tariffs and diplomacy in Trump's world

Donald Trump is bashing India daily with tariff threats over energy and defence trade with Russia and the inconclusive trade talks, but did you know that the US president's real estate empire, the Trump Organization, has the largest investments outside his country in India? Even as Trump called India a ‘dead economy’, those projects are minting millions of dollars, that too with practically no direct cash investment from him. Wonder how? read on:

<h2>India is Trump Organization's top global playground</h2>With 13 projects across six cities, India is where Trump’s real estate brand is shining the brightest outside America, with more projects than any other nation. Yet, Trump doesn’t actually invest big bucks in India. His firm is mostly licensing out his name and cashing in on the brand hype: no huge capital risk, just fat royalty checks.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-team-highlights-indias-high-tariffs-8916254/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-team-highlights-indias-high-tariffs-8916254/embed</a><h2>Snapshot of Trump Organization’s India projects, its biggest overseas market</h2>There are 13 Trump-branded projects in India in different stages of completion, way more than any other foreign country. Here is how it works: Indian developers build the towers, offices, and golf courses named after Trump. Trump Organization slaps his name on them and gets paid a cut in the form of licensing fees and sales royalties.&nbsp;<h2>Trump Towers and more: Size, value and bling in India</h2>There are four Trump Towers in India: in Mumbai, Pune, Gurgaon and Kolkata, covering about 3 million sqare feet. Some 8 million sq ft are under development in Noida, Hyderabad, Bengaluru, among others, bringing the total to a staggering 11 million sq ft.&nbsp;And the price tag? Existing towers are estimated to be worth around ₹7,500 crore ($900 million). Upcoming projects are valued at around ₹15,000 crore ($1.8 billion). The total, thus, adds up to a whopping ₹22,500 crore ($2.7 billion).<h2>Brand Trump sells at a premium in India&nbsp;</h2>According to reports in Indian and American media, Trump-branded projects in India come with premium price tags, selling at an eye-popping 35 per cent above local rivals.They include a 75-storey luxury tower in Mumbai that boasts of Trump Card exclusives. The Trump commercial project in Pune has office towers and retail space, with investments (by the local partners of course) estimated at ₹1,700 crore. In the northern Gurgaon city, the twin luxury towers and an office tower called Trump Residences sold out on day one, raking in ₹3,250 crore. In Kolkata, which saw Trump’s eastern India debut, a luxury residential project is underway. And coming soon are golf courses, villas, and mega-projects in Noida, Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Gurgaon and Pune.<h2>How Trump real estate makes money in India</h2>If reports in Indian media are to go by, there's zero direct investment from Trump Organization. He just licenses his brand. The licensing and development fees alone was $12 million in 2024, claimed the reports. But it's not all rosy for Trump real estate biz in India. Trump’s deals with politically connected Indian developers have in the past raised conflict-of-interest alarms in the US. The Pune project was hit with a land acquisition probe.<h2>So, who's Trump fooling with ‘dead economy jibe’ at India?</h2>Trump’s attack on India, calling it a “dead economy” rings hollow given the aggressive Indian expansion spree of the real estate firm that bears his name.India’s Trump-branded properties are being lapped up, and growing fast, making the nation Trump’s biggest global playground. Trump Organization’s brand power is selling luxury homes and offices at a premium, raking in billions, without him shelling out any serious dole. So, next time Trump bashes the Indian economy, take it with a pinch of salt.&nbsp;

India’s Trump-branded properties are being lapped up, and growing fast, making the nation Trump’s biggest global playground outside the US. Trump Organization’s brand power is selling luxury homes and offices at a premium, raking in billions

Donald Trump is bashing India daily with tariff threats over energy and defence trade with Russia and the inconclusive trade talks, but did you know that the US president's real estate empire, the Trump Organization, has the largest investments outside his country in India? Even as Trump called India a ‘dead economy’, those projects are minting millions of dollars, that too with practically no direct cash investment from him. Wonder how? read on:

India’s Trump-branded properties are being lapped up, and growing fast, making the nation Trump’s biggest global playground outside the US. Trump Organization’s brand power is selling luxury homes and offices at a premium, raking in billions

Who is he fooling? 13 projects, zero cash investment, Trump’s biggest real estate empire outside US is in India, the country he bashes daily

The discovery of the next Dalai Lama will be carried out by the Chinese government, and not under the current Dalai Lama's directions, a Chinese Communist Party committee official for Tibet said on Tuesday. China considers the Nobel laureate Dalai Lama a separatist and wants to bring Tibetan Buddhism under its control, open new tab, but the Dalai Lama and his huge following have been obstacles to that ambition.&nbsp;At his 90th birthday celebration last month, he assured followers that he would be reincarnated, and a non-profit institution he has set up will have the sole authority to identify his reincarnation. But Gama Cedain, the deputy secretary of the Chinese Communist Party committee in Tibet, said the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation would be found using a domestic search and approval by the central government.&nbsp;“The central government has the indisputable final say in the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama,” he told reporters at a press conference about the socioeconomic development in Tibet. He said that was the creed devotees adhered to, and the government’s process follows the strict religious rituals and historical customs of the reincarnation of living Buddhas.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-warns-czech-republic-of-negative-impacts-after-president-meets-dalai-lama-in-india-1753702910995">China warns Czech Republic of 'negative impacts' after President meets Dalai Lama in India</a>&nbsp;“The reincarnation has never been decided by the Dalai Lama himself,” he said. The current Dalai Lama, 14th in the line of spiritual leaders for Tibetan Buddhism, has said his reincarnation will be born outside China and ruled out Beijing’s role in choosing his successor.&nbsp;China installed a Tibetan Buddhist monk picked by Beijing as the faith’s No. 2 leader, the Panchen Lama, &nbsp;three decades ago after a six-year-old chosen by the Dalai Lama for the position disappeared in 1995.

On Tuesday (August 6), a Chinese Communist Party committee official for Tibet said the discovery of the next Dalai Lama will be carried out by the Chinese government.

The discovery of the next Dalai Lama will be carried out by the Chinese government, and not under the current Dalai Lama's directions, a Chinese Communist Party committee official for Tibet said on Tuesday. China considers the Nobel laureate Dalai Lama a separatist and wants to bring Tibetan Buddhism under its control, open new tab, but the Dalai Lama and his huge following have been obstacles to that ambition. At his 90th birthday celebration last month, he assured followers that he would be reincarnated, and a non-profit institution he has set up will have the sole authority to identify his reincarnation. But Gama Cedain, the deputy secretary of the Chinese Communist Party committee in Tibet, said the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation would be found using a domestic search and approval by the central government. “The central government has the indisputable final say in the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama,” he told reporters at a press conference about the socioeconomic development in Tibet. He said that was the creed devotees adhered to, and the government’s process follows the strict religious rituals and historical customs of the reincarnation of living Buddhas. Also read: China warns Czech Republic of 'negative impacts' after President meets Dalai Lama in India “The reincarnation has never been decided by the Dalai Lama himself,” he said. The current Dalai Lama, 14th in the line of spiritual leaders for Tibetan Buddhism, has said his reincarnation will be born outside China and ruled out Beijing’s role in choosing his successor. China installed a Tibetan Buddhist monk picked by Beijing as the faith’s No. 2 leader, the Panchen Lama, three decades ago after a six-year-old chosen by the Dalai Lama for the position disappeared in 1995.

On Tuesday (August 6), a Chinese Communist Party committee official for Tibet said the discovery of the next Dalai Lama will be carried out by the Chinese government.

Chinese government has ‘final say’ in Dalai Lama reincarnation: Tibetan official

A 20-year-old London-based model, Chloe Ayling, was kidnapped from France under the pretence of a photo shoot. She was drugged and shoved into a suitcase before her kidnappers revealed their true intentions. A Docudrama on the kidnapping story was released in August 2017. She became well known in London, and her story is being adopted in a documentary on the BBC, Chloe Ayling: My Unbelievable Kidnapping, which has been airing since August 4, 2025.In April 2017, Chloe, who was thought to be 19 at the time, went to Paris, France, for a photoshoot booked by her former agent, Phil Green. However, she soon found out that the job was a setup, as she arrived at the studio, two masked men drugged her with Ketamine.&nbsp;Luckasz Herba, her kidnapper who had posed as a photographer, and his brother Michael Herba had said that they had been recruited by an international crime gang, ‘Black Death’, to kidnap her. If she does not pay the ransom of €300,000, she will be auctioned off as a Sex Slave on the Dark Web.Chloe Ayling said she had ‘accepted that she was going to die’ following spending six days against her will. She then noticed that Luckasz had started to take a liking to her. Chloe convinced Luckasz that she would date him if he let her go. Chloe said that this softened her captors towards her, and Luckasz allowed her to sleep in his bed. Earlier, she had to sleep on the floor of a farmhouse. Luckasz then gave her a pizza, took her shopping to replace her missing shoes, before driving Chloe to the British consulate in Milan six days after her abduction.&nbsp;"Even though I was out, I didn’t feel safe," said Chloe. As she had to put a stop to any investigation into her disappearance and stump up the hefty amount of cash for the ransom herself.However, people did not believe her story and accused her of staging her kidnapping. This was fuelled by the CCTV footage, which captured her holding Lukasz's hand while they shopped for shoes. Authorities had insisted that she was merely playing along for her safety. Later, her kidnappers, Lukas and his brother Michael, were arrested and sentenced to 16 years and nine months in prison.&nbsp;

Chloe Ayling, a 20-year-old woman who was kidnapped to be sold on the dark web as a sex slave, reveals the details of her escape. A docuseries on her kidnapping is streaming on BBC,' Chloe Ayling: My Unbelievable Kidnapping', 

A 20-year-old London-based model, Chloe Ayling, was kidnapped from France under the pretence of a photo shoot. She was drugged and shoved into a suitcase before her kidnappers revealed their true intentions. A Docudrama on the kidnapping story was released in August 2017. She became well known in London, and her story is being adopted in a documentary on the BBC, Chloe Ayling: My Unbelievable Kidnapping, which has been airing since August 4, 2025. In April 2017, Chloe, who was thought to be 19 at the time, went to Paris, France, for a photoshoot booked by her former agent, Phil Green. However, she soon found out that the job was a setup, as she arrived at the studio, two masked men drugged her with Ketamine. Luckasz Herba, her kidnapper who had posed as a photographer, and his brother Michael Herba had said that they had been recruited by an international crime gang, ‘Black Death’, to kidnap her. If she does not pay the ransom of €300,000, she will be auctioned off as a Sex Slave on the Dark Web. Chloe Ayling said she had ‘accepted that she was going to die’ following spending six days against her will. She then noticed that Luckasz had started to take a liking to her. Chloe convinced Luckasz that she would date him if he let her go. Chloe said that this softened her captors towards her, and Luckasz allowed her to sleep in his bed. Earlier, she had to sleep on the floor of a farmhouse. Luckasz then gave her a pizza, took her shopping to replace her missing shoes, before driving Chloe to the British consulate in Milan six days after her abduction. "Even though I was out, I didn’t feel safe," said Chloe. As she had to put a stop to any investigation into her disappearance and stump up the hefty amount of cash for the ransom herself. However, people did not believe her story and accused her of staging her kidnapping. This was fuelled by the CCTV footage, which captured her holding Lukasz's hand while they shopped for shoes. Authorities had insisted that she was merely playing along for her safety. Later, her kidnappers, Lukas and his brother Michael, were arrested and sentenced to 16 years and nine months in prison.

Chloe Ayling, a 20-year-old woman who was kidnapped to be sold on the dark web as a sex slave, reveals the details of her escape. A docuseries on her kidnapping is streaming on BBC, 'Chloe Ayling: My Unbelievable Kidnapping',&nbsp;

Kidnapped to be sold as 'sex slave': Chloe Ayling narrates how she escaped her captors

Will Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva call Donald Trump? Now, this is the latest decision world leaders need to take. The US president, who is unabashed when it comes to expressing himself, said Silva can call him anytime to discuss tariffs. He also mentioned it may include talks on the friction between other countries.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/brazil-s-supreme-court-orders-house-arrest-of-ex-prez-bolsonaro-1754419478948/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/brazil-s-supreme-court-orders-house-arrest-of-ex-prez-bolsonaro-1754419478948/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;While Lula says he won't call Trump to talk about trade or tariffs. In a widely circulated video of the president, he is seen saying, “I am not going to call Trump to negotiate anything, because he doesn’t want to talk. But rest assured, Marina, I will call Trump to invite him to the COP, because I want to know what he thinks about the climate issue. I will have the courtesy to call, I will call him, I will call Xi Jinping, I will call Prime Minister Modi, I will call."&nbsp;Lula said he won't be calling Russian President Putin, but that's because he cannot travel. "But I will call many presidents," he continued&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brazil-s-former-president-jair-bolsonaro-put-under-house-arrest-for-treating-court-like-a-fool-defying-social-media-ban-1754355150037">Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro put under house arrest for 'treating court like a fool', defying social media ban</a>&nbsp;He added, "We will pursue all available measures, starting with WTO (World Trade Organisation), to defend all our interests as the US prepares to impose tariffs on Brazilian goods."

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said that his country would use all available resources, including the World Trade Organization, to defend its interests as the US prepares to impose tariffs on Brazilian goods. More here: <a href="https://t.co/zT2WiykibP">https://t.co/zT2WiykibP</a> <a href="https://t.co/Ug5itO5jsN">pic.twitter.com/Ug5itO5jsN</a>&mdash; Reuters Business (@ReutersBiz) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReutersBiz/status/1952894893577376004?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

On Friday (August 1), Trump said Lula can call me whenever he wishes to discuss tariffs and other matters. Speaking to reporters at the White House, he said, “He can talk to me anytime he wants." This comes after the US levied a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods. With that, the US also intervened in Brazil's judicial matters after imposing sanctions on the Supreme Court justice, who is monitoring Jair Bolsonaro's trial. The former President has been charged for plotting a coup after he lost the elections in 2022.

In a widely circulated video, Brazilian President  Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was seen saying he will not call up Donald Trump to discuss tariffs. Now, as America is on a tariff-imposing spree.

Will Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva call Donald Trump? Now, this is the latest decision world leaders need to take. The US president, who is unabashed when it comes to expressing himself, said Silva can call him anytime to discuss tariffs. He also mentioned it may include talks on the friction between other countries. https://www.wionews.com/videos/brazil-s-supreme-court-orders-house-arrest-of-ex-prez-bolsonaro-1754419478948/embed While Lula says he won't call Trump to talk about trade or tariffs. In a widely circulated video of the president, he is seen saying, “I am not going to call Trump to negotiate anything, because he doesn’t want to talk. But rest assured, Marina, I will call Trump to invite him to the COP, because I want to know what he thinks about the climate issue. I will have the courtesy to call, I will call him, I will call Xi Jinping, I will call Prime Minister Modi, I will call." Lula said he won't be calling Russian President Putin, but that's because he cannot travel. "But I will call many presidents," he continued Also read: Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro put under house arrest for 'treating court like a fool', defying social media ban He added, "We will pursue all available measures, starting with WTO (World Trade Organisation), to defend all our interests as the US prepares to impose tariffs on Brazilian goods."

In a widely circulated video, Brazilian President &nbsp;Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was seen saying he will not call up Donald Trump to discuss tariffs. Now, as America is on a tariff-imposing spree.

'Will call PM Modi': Brazilian President Lula Silva after saying he won't dial Trump. Here's why

A former DOGE employee was allegedly mugged and beaten in Washington, DC, prompting a sharp response from United States President Donald Trump and former chief of the cost-slashing department, Elon Musk. While Trump threatened to federalise Washington DC, the Tesla boss backed him, burying his differences with the US president that had stemmed due to their contrasting views on the big and beautiful tax bill. The federalism in Washington DC means a specific arrangement where the District of Columbia, a federal district, is governed by the US federal government, rather than being a state with its own state-level government.<h2>What was the incident?</h2>Former DOGE worker, Edward Coristine, aka Big Balls, was allegedly attacked in Washington, DC, earlier this week. &nbsp;FOX 5 DC reported that the attack took place at Swann Street and 14th Street in Northwest DC. Musk revealed that the DOGE worker attempted to stop a gang of about a dozen young men who tried to assault a woman in her car at night in DC. After the DOGE worker ran to defend the woman, he was severely beaten to the point of concussion by the gang members. The SpaceX CEO then revealed that the worker managed to save the woman even after he was severaly injured. Trump in his post stated that gang members are "randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent citizens." While both Trump and Musk did not reveal the identity of the DOGE worker who was assaulted, Rapid Response 47 posted a photo on social media, indicating he was the famous ‘Big Balls’, whose real name is Edward Coristine.<h2>What did Trump and Musk say?</h2>In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump condemned the attack on the DOGE worker and said that law must be changed to prosecute the minors. He proposed that the starting age to prosecute minors as adults should start at the age of 14. He warned that if 'DC doesn't get its act together', then he would have to exert his powers and fedralise the city. "The Law in D.C. must be changed to prosecute these “minors” as adults, and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14. The most recent victim was beaten mercilessly by local thugs. Washington, D.C., must be safe, clean, and beautiful for all Americans and, importantly, for the World to see. If D.C. doesn’t get its act together and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they’re not going to get away with it anymore," Trump said. Calling the man who was assaulted 'an incredible young man', Trump said that he wouldn't have to go through the horrors of violent crime if Washington D.C. were federalised. He also added, “Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control. Local “youths” and gang members, some only 14, 15, and 16-years-old, are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent Citizens, at the same time knowing that they will be almost immediately released.”

Sharing Elon Musk's post on X, the Tesla CEO said that it time to fedralise DC. Notably, Musk and Trump were on the same page after a long time since their distance grew over stance on the big beautiful bill. Former buddies were seen exchanging harsh words against each other, with Trump threatening to deport Musk and the latter stating that the US president's name was in the Epstein Files. Since his exit from the White House, Musk has demanded the release of the controversial Epstein Files.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">A few days ago, a gang of about a dozen young men tried to assault a woman in her car at night in DC. A <a href="https://twitter.com/DOGE?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Doge</a> team member saw what was happening, ran to defend her and was severely beaten to the point of concussion, but he saved her. It is time to federalize DC. <a href="https://t.co/RPHKj7J3ti">pic.twitter.com/RPHKj7J3ti</a>— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1952836498971344926?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 5, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

A former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employee was violently attacked during an attempted carjacking in Washington DC. This attack has prompted Donald Trump and Elon Musk to be on the same page 

A former DOGE employee was allegedly mugged and beaten in Washington, DC, prompting a sharp response from United States President Donald Trump and former chief of the cost-slashing department, Elon Musk. While Trump threatened to federalise Washington DC, the Tesla boss backed him, burying his differences with the US president that had stemmed due to their contrasting views on the big and beautiful tax bill. The federalism in Washington DC means a specific arrangement where the District of Columbia, a federal district, is governed by the US federal government, rather than being a state with its own state-level government. What was the incident? Former DOGE worker, Edward Coristine, aka Big Balls, was allegedly attacked in Washington, DC, earlier this week. FOX 5 DC reported that the attack took place at Swann Street and 14th Street in Northwest DC. Musk revealed that the DOGE worker attempted to stop a gang of about a dozen young men who tried to assault a woman in her car at night in DC. After the DOGE worker ran to defend the woman, he was severely beaten to the point of concussion by the gang members. The SpaceX CEO then revealed that the worker managed to save the woman even after he was severaly injured. Trump in his post stated that gang members are "randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent citizens." While both Trump and Musk did not reveal the identity of the DOGE worker who was assaulted, Rapid Response 47 posted a photo on social media, indicating he was the famous ‘Big Balls’, whose real name is Edward Coristine. What did Trump and Musk say? In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump condemned the attack on the DOGE worker and said that law must be changed to prosecute the minors. He proposed that the starting age to prosecute minors as adults should start at the age of 14. He warned that if 'DC doesn't get its act together', then he would have to exert his powers and fedralise the city. "The Law in D.C. must be changed to prosecute these “minors” as adults, and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14. The most recent victim was beaten mercilessly by local thugs. Washington, D.C., must be safe, clean, and beautiful for all Americans and, importantly, for the World to see. If D.C. doesn’t get its act together and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they’re not going to get away with it anymore," Trump said. Calling the man who was assaulted 'an incredible young man', Trump said that he wouldn't have to go through the horrors of violent crime if Washington D.C. were federalised. He also added, “Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control. Local “youths” and gang members, some only 14, 15, and 16-years-old, are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent Citizens, at the same time knowing that they will be almost immediately released.”

A former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employee was violently attacked during an attempted carjacking in Washington DC. This attack has prompted Donald Trump and Elon Musk to be on the same page&nbsp;

'Federalise this city...': DOGE staff's assault in Washington DC brings Trump, Musk on same page - Here's what happened

A man who has been fighting since 2013 to excavate a landfill where a hard drive with Bitcoin worth $923 million today landed after a grave error has come up with a new plan to gain access to it. James Howells has been trying to recover 8,000 Bitcoin for 12 years that were accidentally thrown away by his girlfriend. He told Decrypt that he had done everything to get into the landfill in Newport, Wales, and dig up his Bitcoin-filled hard disk. However, all his efforts have failed, but he refuses to give up. Despite not having his Bitcoin, Howells is launching a Bitcoin L2 “backed” by the lost funds. He says a court had recognised that he is the legal owner of the cryptocurrency in the landfill, and so he can float the new network called Ceiniog. Howells thinks that Ceiniog’s market capitalisation will rise to $923 million based on the Bitcoin he theoretically owns. The value means it would become the 81st-largest cryptocurrency. Howells is on paper only $77 million away from becoming a billionaire. His new plan comes after 12 years of effort to get into the landfill for a search that failed. Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/bitcoin-shark-left-btc-worth-7-800-in-his-wallet-for-14-years-he-is-now-a-billionaire-1752212119370">Bitcoin shark left BTC worth $7,800 in his wallet for 14 years. He just realised he is now a billionaire</a>&nbsp;https://www.wionews.com/videos/can-bitcoin-displace-regular-currencies-for-regular-payments-1753160348770/embed<h2>How James Howells lost more than 8,000 BTC</h2>Howells took the legal route, filed public proposals and even offered to buy the landfill for $3 million. But, he says it was all like talking to a wall as no one paid any heed to his requests. Howells' bad luck started when his then-girlfriend threw the hard drive with the keys to his more than 8,000 BTC during an office cleanup. He worked out where it could have ended up and zeroed in on the landfill in Newport, Wales. He then approached the local council for a permit to dig up the landfill. He reached the court, but his case was dismissed by the judge, citing legal concerns. When nothing else worked, he proposed purchasing the landfill. However, his request by ignored. Howells told decrypt, “It seems that, anyway I try, the establishment in this country is never going to allow this to happen." He added that as the value of Bitcoin went up, he assumed things would be smoothed over. "Well, we're at [$923 million] today, and they still won't talk to me," he said.

James Howells has been trying to gain access to a landfill in Wales where his hard disk with 8,000 Bitcoin ended up 12 years ago. All his efforts have failed, and he has now come up with a new plan to recover the amount based on the BTC he does not own.  

A man who has been fighting since 2013 to excavate a landfill where a hard drive with Bitcoin worth $923 million today landed after a grave error has come up with a new plan to gain access to it. James Howells has been trying to recover 8,000 Bitcoin for 12 years that were accidentally thrown away by his girlfriend. He told Decrypt that he had done everything to get into the landfill in Newport, Wales, and dig up his Bitcoin-filled hard disk. However, all his efforts have failed, but he refuses to give up. Despite not having his Bitcoin, Howells is launching a Bitcoin L2 “backed” by the lost funds. He says a court had recognised that he is the legal owner of the cryptocurrency in the landfill, and so he can float the new network called Ceiniog. Howells thinks that Ceiniog’s market capitalisation will rise to $923 million based on the Bitcoin he theoretically owns. The value means it would become the 81st-largest cryptocurrency. Howells is on paper only $77 million away from becoming a billionaire. His new plan comes after 12 years of effort to get into the landfill for a search that failed. Also Read: Bitcoin shark left BTC worth $7,800 in his wallet for 14 years. He just realised he is now a billionaire https://www.wionews.com/videos/can-bitcoin-displace-regular-currencies-for-regular-payments-1753160348770/embed How James Howells lost more than 8,000 BTC Howells took the legal route, filed public proposals and even offered to buy the landfill for $3 million. But, he says it was all like talking to a wall as no one paid any heed to his requests. Howells' bad luck started when his then-girlfriend threw the hard drive with the keys to his more than 8,000 BTC during an office cleanup. He worked out where it could have ended up and zeroed in on the landfill in Newport, Wales. He then approached the local council for a permit to dig up the landfill. He reached the court, but his case was dismissed by the judge, citing legal concerns. When nothing else worked, he proposed purchasing the landfill. However, his request by ignored. Howells told decrypt, “It seems that, anyway I try, the establishment in this country is never going to allow this to happen." He added that as the value of Bitcoin went up, he assumed things would be smoothed over. "Well, we're at [$923 million] today, and they still won't talk to me," he said.

James Howells has been trying to gain access to a landfill in Wales where his hard disk with 8,000 Bitcoin ended up 12 years ago. All his efforts have failed, and he has now come up with a new plan to recover the amount based on the BTC he does not own. &nbsp;

Man gives up 12-year fight to recover $923 million Bitcoin his girlfriend threw out

Fortuna Düsseldorf, competing in the German Bundesliga 2, have cancelled the confirmed transfer of Israel striker, Shon Weissman, amid intense opposition from fans. He had already passed his medical and was about to agree on personal terms with the club. Meanwhile, fans started protesting over his prior social media activity. Thus leading the club to withdraw interest from the 29-year-old who is currently on loan at the Salernitana in the Italian Serie C.“We looked into Shon Weissman intensively, but ultimately decided not to sign him,” said the club in a public statement.Shon had 33 Caps for his National Team and had scored 6 goals. Following the attack of October 7, 2023, Shon posted, liked and reposted on Gaza. His posts included, “What is the logical reason why 200 tons of bombs have not already been dropped on Gaza?” He wrote on the picture of two detained Palestinians, “Why the hell aren't they being shot in the head?” He called for Israel to “wipe Gaza off the map”.These comments sparked protests among those arguing it clashed with the club’s values. Fortuna Düsseldorf fans, who launched an online petition against his signing “disrespectful and discriminatory,”. He also faced similar trouble in his Parent Club Granada, which was in the Spanish La Liga in 2023-24. In early 2024, he was reported to the authorities for incitement and provocation to violence. Following which he was loaned to the Italian third Division.However, this is not an isolated case in 2023; Mainz terminated the contract of Dutch‑Moroccan forward Anwar El Ghazi for a post supporting Palestinians. A German labour court ruled that the dismissal was wrongful and compensated him. Former Bayern Munich and Manchester United right back Noussair Mazraoui have apologised after making several posts, including one which called for “victory” for “our oppressed brothers in Palestine”.After almost 22 months of combat, Israel has killed almost 60,933 Palestinians, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. Germany, which had long been atoning for its holocaust crimes, has been an Israel apologist, but the dire humanitarian situation that has been unfolding in Gaza has raised concerns in Germany as well. German fans and clubs, operating under the 50 + 1 rule, as a result, are heavily involved in all major decisions, from signing players to setting fixtures.&nbsp;

German Second Division Football club Fortuna Düsseldorf pulled away from the signing of the Israel striker, Shon Weissman, over his past provocative posts calling for Israel to “wipe Gaza off the map”.

Fortuna Düsseldorf, competing in the German Bundesliga 2, have cancelled the confirmed transfer of Israel striker, Shon Weissman, amid intense opposition from fans. He had already passed his medical and was about to agree on personal terms with the club. Meanwhile, fans started protesting over his prior social media activity. Thus leading the club to withdraw interest from the 29-year-old who is currently on loan at the Salernitana in the Italian Serie C. “We looked into Shon Weissman intensively, but ultimately decided not to sign him,” said the club in a public statement. Shon had 33 Caps for his National Team and had scored 6 goals. Following the attack of October 7, 2023, Shon posted, liked and reposted on Gaza. His posts included, “What is the logical reason why 200 tons of bombs have not already been dropped on Gaza?” He wrote on the picture of two detained Palestinians, “Why the hell aren't they being shot in the head?” He called for Israel to “wipe Gaza off the map”. These comments sparked protests among those arguing it clashed with the club’s values. Fortuna Düsseldorf fans, who launched an online petition against his signing “disrespectful and discriminatory,”. He also faced similar trouble in his Parent Club Granada, which was in the Spanish La Liga in 2023-24. In early 2024, he was reported to the authorities for incitement and provocation to violence. Following which he was loaned to the Italian third Division. However, this is not an isolated case in 2023; Mainz terminated the contract of Dutch‑Moroccan forward Anwar El Ghazi for a post supporting Palestinians. A German labour court ruled that the dismissal was wrongful and compensated him. Former Bayern Munich and Manchester United right back Noussair Mazraoui have apologised after making several posts, including one which called for “victory” for “our oppressed brothers in Palestine”. After almost 22 months of combat, Israel has killed almost 60,933 Palestinians, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. Germany, which had long been atoning for its holocaust crimes, has been an Israel apologist, but the dire humanitarian situation that has been unfolding in Gaza has raised concerns in Germany as well. German fans and clubs, operating under the 50 + 1 rule, as a result, are heavily involved in all major decisions, from signing players to setting fixtures.

German Second Division Football club Fortuna Düsseldorf pulled away from the signing of the Israel striker, Shon Weissman, over his past provocative posts calling for Israel to “wipe Gaza off the map”.

Fan fury pushed German football club to cancel signing of Israel striker over offensive social media posts on Gaza war

Indian National Security Adviser was in Moscow on Wednesday, media in New Delhi reported, after Washington threatened to hike US tariffs because of India's purchases of Russian oil.&nbsp;India is a major buyer of Russian oil, a key source of revenue for Moscow's military offensive on Ukraine.US President Donald Trump said Tuesday he was considering "substantially" hiking tariffs on Indian imports over the country's purchases of Russian oil.New Delhi did not give official confirmation but The Hindu newspaper reported that security chief Ajit Doval had travelled to Moscow overnight Tuesday, while NTDV broadcaster also said he was in Russia.Doval's reported visit to Moscow coincides with that of US envoy Steve Witkoff, who is also set to meet with the Russian leadership.Trump has given Russia until Friday to halt its offensive in Ukraine or face new penalties.India's foreign ministry on Monday said US pressure to stop it buying Russian oil was "unjustified and unreasonable" and that it would protect its interests.New Delhi argued it "began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict".Shilan Shah of Capital Economics said that India could "in principle" &nbsp;find other suppliers "relatively easily with little economic impact".But politically it would be a challenge."Domestically, it would not play well to be seen caving to Trump's demands", Shah said in a note, adding that "policymakers would be reluctant to upend generally cordial (and long-standing) relations with&nbsp;Russia."In addition, Ukraine on Tuesday said it had found Indian-made components in&nbsp;Russian drones fired on the country.Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's chief of staff&nbsp;Andriy Yermak, in a post on Telegram, said that "we must deprive the&nbsp;Russians of the ability to obtain components from other countries and stop the killing of Ukrainians".Analysts say Trump's anger with Indian purchases of Russian military equipment and oil overlooks the fact that New Delhi and Moscow have had historically close ties since the Cold War.Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows Russia supplied 76 percent of India's military imports between 2009 and 2013.And while this percentage has dropped significantly in recent years, India still depends on Russia for key parts.Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.&nbsp;

India's foreign ministry on Monday said US pressure to stop it buying Russian oil was "unjustified and unreasonable" and that it would protect its interests.

Indian National Security Adviser was in Moscow on Wednesday, media in New Delhi reported, after Washington threatened to hike US tariffs because of India's purchases of Russian oil. India is a major buyer of Russian oil, a key source of revenue for Moscow's military offensive on Ukraine. US President Donald Trump said Tuesday he was considering "substantially" hiking tariffs on Indian imports over the country's purchases of Russian oil. New Delhi did not give official confirmation but The Hindu newspaper reported that security chief Ajit Doval had travelled to Moscow overnight Tuesday, while NTDV broadcaster also said he was in Russia. Doval's reported visit to Moscow coincides with that of US envoy Steve Witkoff, who is also set to meet with the Russian leadership. Trump has given Russia until Friday to halt its offensive in Ukraine or face new penalties. India's foreign ministry on Monday said US pressure to stop it buying Russian oil was "unjustified and unreasonable" and that it would protect its interests. New Delhi argued it "began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict". Shilan Shah of Capital Economics said that India could "in principle" find other suppliers "relatively easily with little economic impact". But politically it would be a challenge. "Domestically, it would not play well to be seen caving to Trump's demands", Shah said in a note, adding that "policymakers would be reluctant to upend generally cordial (and long-standing) relations with Russia." In addition, Ukraine on Tuesday said it had found Indian-made components in Russian drones fired on the country. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's chief of staff Andriy Yermak, in a post on Telegram, said that "we must deprive the Russians of the ability to obtain components from other countries and stop the killing of Ukrainians". Analysts say Trump's anger with Indian purchases of Russian military equipment and oil overlooks the fact that New Delhi and Moscow have had historically close ties since the Cold War. Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows Russia supplied 76 percent of India's military imports between 2009 and 2013. And while this percentage has dropped significantly in recent years, India still depends on Russia for key parts. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

India's foreign ministry on Monday said US pressure to stop it buying Russian oil was "unjustified and unreasonable" and that it would protect its interests.

Ajit Doval in Moscow as Trump threatens India with tariffs over Russian oil purchases

As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signs a law allowing citizens aged 60 and above to go to the frontline to fight the war against Russia, US president was asked why America is funding a country that is 'scrapping the bottom of the barrel population'. This also highlights Trump's earlier statement that mentioned he was against the killing of people. To which the president promptly responded with 'this is Biden's war' which 'should have never happened, would have never happened'. He was confident as he said none of this would have happened if he were the president.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-trump-tariffs-backfire-groceries-now-the-biggest-stress-1754416759666/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-trump-tariffs-backfire-groceries-now-the-biggest-stress-1754416759666/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Not the first time, Trump has always been clear about his efforts in stopping wars across the world. Speaking to the media, he said, “This is Biden's war, and we're working very hard to get us out. I stopped five wars in the last five months actually, and I'd like this to be the sixth, frankly...”&nbsp;"The other ones I stopped with in a matter of days, almost every one of them, including India and Pakistan. And I could go over the whole list, but you know the list as well as I do..." he added.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">President Donald Trump said, &quot;This is Biden&#39;s war, and we&#39;re working very hard to get us out... I stopped five wars in the last five months actually... including India and Pakistan. I could go over the whole list, but you know the list as well as I do.&quot; (Source: US Network Pool… <a href="https://t.co/ITQvJxjHBI">pic.twitter.com/ITQvJxjHBI</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONews/status/1952930841849381178?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

He also spoke of the last war he stopped, between Iran and Iraq, had he not obliterated Iranian nuclear facilities they ‘would have had nuclear weapons within two months’.&nbsp;

Stopped five wars in five months, and is eyeing the sixth ceasefire, US President Donald Trump elaborates on why he is funding war-torn Ukraine. Earlier in a statement, the president was against killing of people.

As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signs a law allowing citizens aged 60 and above to go to the frontline to fight the war against Russia, US president was asked why America is funding a country that is 'scrapping the bottom of the barrel population'. This also highlights Trump's earlier statement that mentioned he was against the killing of people. To which the president promptly responded with 'this is Biden's war' which 'should have never happened, would have never happened'. He was confident as he said none of this would have happened if he were the president. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-trump-tariffs-backfire-groceries-now-the-biggest-stress-1754416759666/embed Not the first time, Trump has always been clear about his efforts in stopping wars across the world. Speaking to the media, he said, “This is Biden's war, and we're working very hard to get us out. I stopped five wars in the last five months actually, and I'd like this to be the sixth, frankly...” "The other ones I stopped with in a matter of days, almost every one of them, including India and Pakistan. And I could go over the whole list, but you know the list as well as I do..." he added.

Stopped five wars in five months, and is eyeing the sixth ceasefire, US President Donald Trump elaborates on why he is funding war-torn Ukraine. Earlier in a statement, the president was against killing of people, and now, the country is funding Kyiv as it allows citizens aged 60 and above to move to the frontline.

'This is Biden's war...': Trump reveals why he is funding Ukraine in war against Russia

Pakistan plans to land a spacecraft on the Moon by 2035, despite beginning its space research programme almost a decade earlier than India, according to Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal, as reported by Geo News. The announcement comes at a time when Pakistan is grappling with the upsurge of terrorist attacks, weak infrastructure, and economic instability.&nbsp;Iqbal emphasised the need for deeper reliance on China to bridge gaps in its space and nuclear programs. His statement came while speaking during a meeting in Beijing with Chinese officials, including Shan Zhongde, Head of China's Atomic Energy Authority and Space Agency, Geo News reported.&nbsp;The responsibility for the lunar mission lies with Pakistan's Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO), which has yet to independently launch any satellite or space mission, particularly without Chinese assistance.&nbsp;As part of its collaboration with China, Pakistan will contribute a 35-kilogram lunar rover for the Chang'e-8 mission in 2028. The rover will explore the south pole of the Moon, and it will conduct scientific experiments, analyse terrain, and assess resource utilisation.<h3>Pakistan’s reliance on China</h3>This partnership highlights Pakistan’s heavy dependence on the technology and expertise of China, which shows its limited independent capabilities.&nbsp;Along with space, Pakistan has also increased its dependency on China in nuclear energy and advanced technologies such as the quantum computing sector, where it has negligible capacity to build indigenously. This shows Beijing acting as the driving force behind the scientific and technological ambitions of Pakistan.&nbsp;Meanwhile, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has made a significant leapfrog as compared to Pakistan, with some of the famous successful missions, which include the lunar mission Chandrayaan and the Mars mission (Mangalyaan). ISRO is also preparing for its first human spaceflight mission, Gaganyaan, which is scheduled for launch in early 2027.

Pakistan will contribute a 35-kilogram lunar rover for the Chang'e-8 mission in 2028. The rover will explore the south pole of the Moon, conducting scientific experiments, analysing terrain, and assessing resource utilisation.

Pakistan plans to land a spacecraft on the Moon by 2035, despite beginning its space research programme almost a decade earlier than India, according to Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal, as reported by Geo News. The announcement comes at a time when Pakistan is grappling with the upsurge of terrorist attacks, weak infrastructure, and economic instability. Iqbal emphasised the need for deeper reliance on China to bridge gaps in its space and nuclear programs. His statement came while speaking during a meeting in Beijing with Chinese officials, including Shan Zhongde, Head of China's Atomic Energy Authority and Space Agency, Geo News reported. The responsibility for the lunar mission lies with Pakistan's Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO), which has yet to independently launch any satellite or space mission, particularly without Chinese assistance. As part of its collaboration with China, Pakistan will contribute a 35-kilogram lunar rover for the Chang'e-8 mission in 2028. The rover will explore the south pole of the Moon, and it will conduct scientific experiments, analyse terrain, and assess resource utilisation. Pakistan’s reliance on China This partnership highlights Pakistan’s heavy dependence on the technology and expertise of China, which shows its limited independent capabilities. Along with space, Pakistan has also increased its dependency on China in nuclear energy and advanced technologies such as the quantum computing sector, where it has negligible capacity to build indigenously. This shows Beijing acting as the driving force behind the scientific and technological ambitions of Pakistan. Meanwhile, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has made a significant leapfrog as compared to Pakistan, with some of the famous successful missions, which include the lunar mission Chandrayaan and the Mars mission (Mangalyaan). ISRO is also preparing for its first human spaceflight mission, Gaganyaan, which is scheduled for launch in early 2027.

Pakistan will contribute a 35-kilogram lunar rover for the Chang'e-8 mission in 2028. The rover will explore the south pole of the Moon, conducting scientific experiments, analysing terrain, and assessing resource utilisation.

Pakistan's lunar dream: Islamabad aims for its first mission by 2035 with China’s help

United States President Donald Trump on Tuesday (Aug 6) clarified his ‘penalty’ announcement on countries trading with Russia, stating that he has not yet specified a percentage. He had previously said that countries trading with Russia will face additional tariffs as a ‘penalty’ for engaging with Moscow, despite US sanctions. The &nbsp;US president made the remarks during a press conference at the White House, originally called to discuss the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. The POTUS was asked about imposing a 100% tariff on countries buying Russian energy.&nbsp;Trump responded, "I never said a percentage, but we'll be doing quite a bit of that. We'll see what happens over the next fairly short period of time... We have a meeting with Russia tomorrow. We're going to see what happens..." He was also asked about America's trade with Russia amid his threat to India for buying Russian oil. The POTUS seemed to dodge the question and said that he is not aware of his country's imports from Russia. Trump has been issuing multiple warnings to India since last week over its trade with Moscow, adding that he would impose very substantial tariff "over the next 24 hours.” Last week, he had also called India and Russia's economy ‘dead.’&nbsp;Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff is in Moscow days before the US president’s deadline on Friday for Russia to make progress on ending the war in Ukraine. When asked what message Witkoff would take to Russia and what Vladimir Putin could do to avoid new sanctions, the US president answered: “Yeah, get a deal where people stop getting killed.” US president's statement hints that he would take the decision after Witkoff's meeting with Russian leaders.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a> | On being asked about imposing 100% tariffs on all countries that purchase Russian energy, including China, US President Donald Trump says, &quot;I never said a percentage, but we&#39;ll be doing quite a bit of that. We&#39;ll see what happens over the next fairly short period of… <a href="https://t.co/qHOVywQ9TW">pic.twitter.com/qHOVywQ9TW</a>&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1952846659333054533?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 5, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>India's response to Trump's continuous threats</h2>New Delhi, in its response to the White House, argued that it was the US that had encouraged India to buy oil from Russia after the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, as such purchases helped stabilise global energy markets. “Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security.” “We make decisions based on the price at which oil is available in the international market, and depending on the global situation at that time,” Randhir Jaiswal, the spokesperson of the MEA, told journalists in New Delhi on Friday. The MEA statement also highlighted that the US and Europe import several items from Russia while they continue to demand the suspension of India-Russia trade. “Where the United States is concerned, it continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers as well as chemicals…Europe-Russia trade includes not just energy, but also fertilisers, mining products, chemicals, iron and steel and machinery and transport equipment.,” the statement said.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Statement by Official Spokesperson⬇️ 🔗 <a href="https://t.co/O2hJTOZBby">https://t.co/O2hJTOZBby</a> <a href="https://t.co/RTQ2beJC0W">pic.twitter.com/RTQ2beJC0W</a>&mdash; Randhir Jaiswal (@MEAIndia) <a href="https://twitter.com/MEAIndia/status/1952412858567844061?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 4, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

US President Donald Trump said that he never specified the exact rate of tariffs he would impose on countries doing business with Russia. He hinted that his decision would come after the meeting between Steve Witkoff and Russian leaders 

United States President Donald Trump on Tuesday (Aug 6) clarified his ‘penalty’ announcement on countries trading with Russia, stating that he has not yet specified a percentage. He had previously said that countries trading with Russia will face additional tariffs as a ‘penalty’ for engaging with Moscow, despite US sanctions. The US president made the remarks during a press conference at the White House, originally called to discuss the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. The POTUS was asked about imposing a 100% tariff on countries buying Russian energy. Trump responded, "I never said a percentage, but we'll be doing quite a bit of that. We'll see what happens over the next fairly short period of time... We have a meeting with Russia tomorrow. We're going to see what happens..." He was also asked about America's trade with Russia amid his threat to India for buying Russian oil. The POTUS seemed to dodge the question and said that he is not aware of his country's imports from Russia. Trump has been issuing multiple warnings to India since last week over its trade with Moscow, adding that he would impose very substantial tariff "over the next 24 hours.” Last week, he had also called India and Russia's economy ‘dead.’ Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff is in Moscow days before the US president’s deadline on Friday for Russia to make progress on ending the war in Ukraine. When asked what message Witkoff would take to Russia and what Vladimir Putin could do to avoid new sanctions, the US president answered: “Yeah, get a deal where people stop getting killed.” US president's statement hints that he would take the decision after Witkoff's meeting with Russian leaders.

US President Donald Trump said that he never specified the exact rate of tariffs he would impose on countries doing business with Russia. He hinted that his decision would come after the meeting between Steve Witkoff and Russian leaders&nbsp;

Will US impose 100% tariffs on countries purchasing Russian energy? Trump REVEALS his plans amid Witkoff's Moscow visit

Scientists have warned that a devastating hurricane is overdue to strike the Northeast US coastline. In an alert issued on Tuesday, &nbsp;meteorologists at AccuWeather said that the region is "climatologically overdue" for a hurricane since a major hurricane has not made landfall here in more than 70 years, and a direct Category 1 hurricane landfall has not occurred in over three decades. Alex DaSilva, lead hurricane expert, said in a press release, a hurricane typically "will strike New Jersey northward into southern New England" every 15 to 20 years on average. "A major hurricane, so that's Category 3 or higher, for the Northeast is every 60 to 70 years or so," he added. However, since this has not happened, it makes the region vulnerable to a big storm. It would not be a regular hurricane, and could be one of the biggest natural disasters in terms of economic losses. According to AccuWeather, it would cause devastation equal to the Great New England hurricane of 1938 that killed 700 people. The destruction cost $450 million. Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/snowmageddon-warning-for-us-east-coast-expert-says-worst-is-yet-to-come-1752566588819">Buckle up East Coasters! An even stronger 'storm of the century' is coming</a> &nbsp;<h2>Hurricanes can strike the US Northeast</h2>Jonathan Porter, chief meteorologist, warned, "This kind of storm will happen again in New England", and it is only a matter of when, not if. Hurricanes are ideally thought to occur only on the Southeast or Gulf Coast. However, DaSilva asserted the need for preparation, adding that people in the Northeast "don't take hurricanes seriously because they haven't had one since 1991." The worst storms for them are Nor'easters, but hurricanes can also strike the region, and would be much worse, he said. &nbsp;According to him, the odds of a major hurricane hitting the Northeast in a year are about 1.5 per cent. He added that the region does not face a hurricane threat this year, although authorities need to be prepared for such a scenario in future. Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/when-does-a-storm-get-named-and-who-chooses-the-names-hurricane-naming-explained-1751285320349">When does a storm get named, and who chooses the names? Hurricane naming explained</a>&nbsp;Last month, a study warned that the US East Coast could face an even bigger storm of the century, or nor’easters, due to climate change. The storm typically hits the US between September and April, bringing huge amounts of rain, snow and flooding. The region witnessed the “Storm of the Century” in March 1993, and then the “Snowmageddon” in 2010 that affected Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. The study author stated that while the number of nor’easters is expected to go down in a warming world, the few that will happen will be highly intense and strong.&nbsp;

The US Northeast is long overdue for a hurricane, experts have warned. Whenever this happens, it could cause massive destruction, causing damages worth more than $450 million. The region has not witnessed a major hurricane landfall for 70 years.

Scientists have warned that a devastating hurricane is overdue to strike the Northeast US coastline. In an alert issued on Tuesday, meteorologists at AccuWeather said that the region is "climatologically overdue" for a hurricane since a major hurricane has not made landfall here in more than 70 years, and a direct Category 1 hurricane landfall has not occurred in over three decades. Alex DaSilva, lead hurricane expert, said in a press release, a hurricane typically "will strike New Jersey northward into southern New England" every 15 to 20 years on average. "A major hurricane, so that's Category 3 or higher, for the Northeast is every 60 to 70 years or so," he added. However, since this has not happened, it makes the region vulnerable to a big storm. It would not be a regular hurricane, and could be one of the biggest natural disasters in terms of economic losses. According to AccuWeather, it would cause devastation equal to the Great New England hurricane of 1938 that killed 700 people. The destruction cost $450 million. Also Read: Buckle up East Coasters! An even stronger 'storm of the century' is coming Hurricanes can strike the US Northeast Jonathan Porter, chief meteorologist, warned, "This kind of storm will happen again in New England", and it is only a matter of when, not if. Hurricanes are ideally thought to occur only on the Southeast or Gulf Coast. However, DaSilva asserted the need for preparation, adding that people in the Northeast "don't take hurricanes seriously because they haven't had one since 1991." The worst storms for them are Nor'easters, but hurricanes can also strike the region, and would be much worse, he said. According to him, the odds of a major hurricane hitting the Northeast in a year are about 1.5 per cent. He added that the region does not face a hurricane threat this year, although authorities need to be prepared for such a scenario in future. Also Read: When does a storm get named, and who chooses the names? Hurricane naming explained Last month, a study warned that the US East Coast could face an even bigger storm of the century, or nor’easters, due to climate change. The storm typically hits the US between September and April, bringing huge amounts of rain, snow and flooding. The region witnessed the “Storm of the Century” in March 1993, and then the “Snowmageddon” in 2010 that affected Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. The study author stated that while the number of nor’easters is expected to go down in a warming world, the few that will happen will be highly intense and strong.

The US Northeast is long overdue for a hurricane, experts have warned. Whenever this happens, it could cause massive destruction, causing damages worth more than $450 million. The region has not witnessed a major hurricane landfall for 70 years.

Gargantuan hurricane WILL occur in Northeast US. It is long overdue, experts warn

United States President Donald Trump, during a press briefing on Tuesday (Aug 6), was asked who would succeed him in the Presidential Elections of 2028. The US president said that his incumbent Vice President JD Vance would 'most likely' be the heir-apparent. However, Trump added that it was too early to decide on his successor as of now. Trump has completed approximately seven months in the presidency after coming back to power for the second time in January this year. He had earlier made headlines after expressing his desire to run for the presidency once again in 2028.&nbsp;&nbsp;Trump's response came after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Vance would be 'great nominee' if he decides to contest. Trump said, "I think most likely — in all fairness, he’s the vice president...I think Marco is also somebody who maybe would get together with JD in some form.""I also think we have incredible people, some of the people on the stage right here...So it’s too early, obviously, to talk about it, but certainly he’s doing a great job, and he would be probably favoured at this point," Trump added. However,

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">🚨 BREAKING: President Trump all-but clears the GOP 2028 presidential primary field, says JD VANCE is LIKELY the favorite. DOOCY: Do you agree the heir apparent to MAGA is JD VANCE? TRUMP: &quot;I think MOST LIKELY. He&#39;s the VP. Marco maybe would get together with JD...We have… <a href="https://t.co/WL8QzqDAjq">pic.twitter.com/WL8QzqDAjq</a>&mdash; Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1952838244082827653?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 5, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>Trump's desire to run for the presidency&nbsp;</h2>US President Donald Trump has kept the ambiguity over his intention to run for the US presidency once again in 2028. &nbsp;Speaking at CNBC’s TV show Squawk Box, Trump said that he would “probably not” seek a third term, but added, “I’d like to run…I have the best poll numbers I’ve ever had."&nbsp;

After making headlines for expressing his desire to run for the third time for presidency, Donald Trump seems to back JD Vance and Marco Rubio's candidacies for 2028

United States President Donald Trump, during a press briefing on Tuesday (Aug 6), was asked who would succeed him in the Presidential Elections of 2028. The US president said that his incumbent Vice President JD Vance would 'most likely' be the heir-apparent. However, Trump added that it was too early to decide on his successor as of now. Trump has completed approximately seven months in the presidency after coming back to power for the second time in January this year. He had earlier made headlines after expressing his desire to run for the presidency once again in 2028. Trump's response came after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Vance would be 'great nominee' if he decides to contest. Trump said, "I think most likely — in all fairness, he’s the vice president...I think Marco is also somebody who maybe would get together with JD in some form." "I also think we have incredible people, some of the people on the stage right here...So it’s too early, obviously, to talk about it, but certainly he’s doing a great job, and he would be probably favoured at this point," Trump added. However,

After making headlines for expressing his desire to run for the third time for presidency, United States President Donald Trump seems to back JD Vance and Marco Rubio's candidacies for 2028

Trump takes U-turn on running for presidency in 2028, backs JD Vance, Rubio: Here's what he said

A Scottish island is up for sale with a market price that is way less than what one usually pays for a three-bedroom home in the United Kingdom. The island boasts gorgeous views, beaches and a huge green area. No one lives on this island, and it is completely off-grid, making it an extremely private space for whoever ends up buying it. Eilean Mor is a remote 30-acre island located in Loch Sunart, in the Scottish Highlands. It could be all yours for £275,000. According to the latest data from Zoopla, the average British house is pegged to cost around £268,400. In comparison, a flat in London costs £540,000, making it a steal. However, you would still need that kind of money to purchase it. The island can be reached using only a boat. A natural causeway opens up during low tide. This makes it a secluded piece of land where privacy is guaranteed. The island has a protected status, meaning its natural beauty is not at risk of commercialisation. Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/indians-to-pay-15k-to-enter-us-trump-s-america-will-force-foreigners-to-post-hefty-bond-for-visa-1754383690677">Indians to pay $15k to enter US? Trump's America will force foreigners to post hefty bond for visa</a> &nbsp;<h2>The catch with the Scottish island - You can own it, but you cannot live here</h2>It is a wonderful place for nature lovers. Eilean Mor has three cove beaches, a thick forest, and crystal blue waters, with seals, otters and sea eagles making regular appearances. However, the problem is that you cannot build anything on this island since it is part of the Sunart Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). No planning permission exists for any kind of development work. Any construction is limited to protecting the island’s rare habitats and wildlife. The island has remained in the same family for generations and even has links to pilgrimages that go back nearly 1,000 years. Estate agents Bell Ingram told The Mirror, "This captivating island offers a unique blend of natural beauty and historical intrigue, a serene hideaway and a chance to own a piece of Scotland’s wild beauty."&nbsp;A mystery also surrounds Eilean Mor. There is a lighthouse on this uninhabited island from where three of its keepers disappeared in 1900. The disappearance only came to light when a ship docked there one night and found there was no one in the lighthouse.&nbsp;Describing the ethereal beauty of Eilean Mor, Ingram said, "The island’s diverse terrain and tidal nature make it a fascinating destination for adventurers and nature enthusiasts alike. The waters around Eilean Mor are teeming with marine life, and the island itself is a haven for seabirds, making it an excellent spot for birdwatching." There are things you can do nearby, such as go hiking and visit ancient woodlands and the Ardnamurchan Lighthouse.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Britons can now own a Scottish island for half of what they would pay for an average London apartment. The island is teeming with wildlife and a natural hiking trail, but there is a catch. The island also witnessed three mysterious disappearances over 125 years ago.

A Scottish island is up for sale with a market price that is way less than what one usually pays for a three-bedroom home in the United Kingdom. The island boasts gorgeous views, beaches and a huge green area. No one lives on this island, and it is completely off-grid, making it an extremely private space for whoever ends up buying it. Eilean Mor is a remote 30-acre island located in Loch Sunart, in the Scottish Highlands. It could be all yours for £275,000. According to the latest data from Zoopla, the average British house is pegged to cost around £268,400. In comparison, a flat in London costs £540,000, making it a steal. However, you would still need that kind of money to purchase it. The island can be reached using only a boat. A natural causeway opens up during low tide. This makes it a secluded piece of land where privacy is guaranteed. The island has a protected status, meaning its natural beauty is not at risk of commercialisation. Also Read: Indians to pay $15k to enter US? Trump's America will force foreigners to post hefty bond for visa The catch with the Scottish island - You can own it, but you cannot live here It is a wonderful place for nature lovers. Eilean Mor has three cove beaches, a thick forest, and crystal blue waters, with seals, otters and sea eagles making regular appearances. However, the problem is that you cannot build anything on this island since it is part of the Sunart Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). No planning permission exists for any kind of development work. Any construction is limited to protecting the island’s rare habitats and wildlife. The island has remained in the same family for generations and even has links to pilgrimages that go back nearly 1,000 years. Estate agents Bell Ingram told The Mirror, "This captivating island offers a unique blend of natural beauty and historical intrigue, a serene hideaway and a chance to own a piece of Scotland’s wild beauty." A mystery also surrounds Eilean Mor. There is a lighthouse on this uninhabited island from where three of its keepers disappeared in 1900. The disappearance only came to light when a ship docked there one night and found there was no one in the lighthouse. Describing the ethereal beauty of Eilean Mor, Ingram said, "The island’s diverse terrain and tidal nature make it a fascinating destination for adventurers and nature enthusiasts alike. The waters around Eilean Mor are teeming with marine life, and the island itself is a haven for seabirds, making it an excellent spot for birdwatching." There are things you can do nearby, such as go hiking and visit ancient woodlands and the Ardnamurchan Lighthouse.

Britons can now own a Scottish island for half of what they would pay for an average London apartment. The island is teeming with wildlife and a natural hiking trail, but there is a catch. The island also witnessed three mysterious disappearances over 125 years ago.

Three lighthouse keepers mysteriously vanished from this Scottish island 125 years ago. You can now own it

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday (Aug 5) said the Israeli military must "complete" the defeat of Hamas to ensure the release of all hostages and prevent future threats from Gaza, hinting at a possible expansion of the war days ahead of a key cabinet meeting. His remarks come amid growing outrage in Israel over harrowing videos of emaciated captives and warnings from UN officials of an unfolding famine in Gaza. "It is necessary to complete the defeat of the enemy in Gaza, to free all our hostages and to ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel," Netanyahu said during a visit to an army training base.<h2>New war plans or a negotiating tactic?</h2>According to the Israeli PM's office, he held a three-hour security discussion with army chief Lt Gen Eyal Zamir. However, the PMO did not give any details of new war plans. It stated that a meeting of the security cabinet would take place later this week to approve updated instructions.Israeli media reports suggest Netanyahu was considering a full military reoccupation of Gaza or an expanded ground push into areas where hostages may be held. Public broadcaster Kan said the prime minister had “decided to extend the fight to areas where hostages might be held,” while Channel 12 suggested that the move might be a negotiation tactic.Meanwhile, Palestinian officials warned that any such escalation would derail ceasefire talks. Hamas said its position would not change and again demanded a full Israeli withdrawal. "The ball is in the hands of... (Israel) and the Americans," said senior Hamas official Hossam Badran, adding that the group wants to "end the war and the famine."&nbsp;UN Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca also warned the Security Council that further expansion "would risk catastrophic consequences for millions of Palestinians and could further endanger the lives of the remaining hostages".

 "It is necessary to complete the defeat of the enemy in Gaza, to free all our hostages and to ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel," Netanyahu said during a visit to an army training base.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday (Aug 5) said the Israeli military must "complete" the defeat of Hamas to ensure the release of all hostages and prevent future threats from Gaza, hinting at a possible expansion of the war days ahead of a key cabinet meeting. His remarks come amid growing outrage in Israel over harrowing videos of emaciated captives and warnings from UN officials of an unfolding famine in Gaza. "It is necessary to complete the defeat of the enemy in Gaza, to free all our hostages and to ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel," Netanyahu said during a visit to an army training base. New war plans or a negotiating tactic? According to the Israeli PM's office, he held a three-hour security discussion with army chief Lt Gen Eyal Zamir. However, the PMO did not give any details of new war plans. It stated that a meeting of the security cabinet would take place later this week to approve updated instructions. Israeli media reports suggest Netanyahu was considering a full military reoccupation of Gaza or an expanded ground push into areas where hostages may be held. Public broadcaster Kan said the prime minister had “decided to extend the fight to areas where hostages might be held,” while Channel 12 suggested that the move might be a negotiation tactic. Meanwhile, Palestinian officials warned that any such escalation would derail ceasefire talks. Hamas said its position would not change and again demanded a full Israeli withdrawal. "The ball is in the hands of... (Israel) and the Americans," said senior Hamas official Hossam Badran, adding that the group wants to "end the war and the famine." UN Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca also warned the Security Council that further expansion "would risk catastrophic consequences for millions of Palestinians and could further endanger the lives of the remaining hostages".

&nbsp;"It is necessary to complete the defeat of the enemy in Gaza, to free all our hostages and to ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel," Netanyahu said during a visit to an army training base.

Netanyahu signals Gaza war could expand says 'necessary to complete the defeat' of Hamas in Gaza

Japan marked 80 years since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Wednesday with a ceremony reminding the world of the horrors unleashed, as sabre-rattling between the United States and Russia keeps the nuclear "Doomsday Clock" close to midnight.A silent prayer was held at 8:15 am (2315 GMT), the moment when US aircraft Enola Gay dropped "Little Boy" over the western Japanese city on August 6, 1945.On a sweltering morning, hundreds of black-clad officials, students and survivors laid flowers at the memorial cenotaph, with the ruins of a domed building in the background, a stark reminder of the horrors that unfolded.In a speech, Hiroshima mayor Kazumi Matsui warned of "an accelerating trend toward military buildup around the world", against the backdrop of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the chaos in the Middle East."These developments flagrantly disregard the lessons the international community should have learned from the tragedies of history," he said."They threaten to topple the peacebuilding frameworks so many have worked so hard to construct."The final death toll of the Hiroshima attack would hit around 140,000 people, killed not just by the colossal blast and the ball of fire, but also later by the radiation.Three days after "Little Boy", on August 9, another atomic bomb killed 74,000 people in Nagasaki. Imperial Japan surrendered on August 15, bringing an end to World War II.Today, Hiroshima is a thriving metropolis of 1.2 million but the attacks live on in the memories of many.On the eve of the ceremony, people began lining up to pay their respects to the victims in front of the cenotaph.Before dawn on Wednesday, families who had lost loved ones in the attack also came to pray.Yoshie Yokoyama, 96, who came in a wheelchair with her grandson, told reporters that her parents and grandparents were bomb victims."My grandfather died soon after the bombing, while my father and mother both died after developing cancer. My parents-in-law also died, so my husband couldn't see them again when he came back from battlefields after the war."People are still suffering," she added.Wednesday's ceremony was set to include a record of around 120 countries and regions including, for the first time, Taiwanese and Palestinian representatives.Nihon Hidankyo, the grassroots organisation that last year won the Nobel Peace Prize, is representing the dwindling number of survivors, known as hibakusha.As of March, there were 99,130 hibakusha, according to the Japanese health ministry, with the average age of 86."I want foreign envoys to visit the peace memorial museum and understand what happened," the group's co-chair Toshiyuki Mimaki told local media ahead of the commemorations.Pope Leo XIV said in a statement that "in our time of mounting global tensions and conflicts", Hiroshima and Nagasaki remained "living reminders of the profound horrors wrought by nuclear weapons". - Younger generation -The attacks remain the only time atomic bombs have been used in wartime.Kunihiko Sakuma, 80, who survived the blasts as a baby, told AFP he was hopeful that there could eventually be a nuclear-free world."The younger generation is working hard for that end," he said ahead of the ceremony.But in January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' "Doomsday Clock" shifted to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest in its 78-year history.The clock symbolising humanity's distance from destruction was last moved to 90 seconds to midnight over Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.Russia and the United States account for around 90 percent of the world's over 12,000 warheads, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).SIPRI warned in June that "a dangerous new nuclear arms race is emerging at a time when arms control regimes are severely weakened," with nearly all of the nine nuclear-armed states modernising their arsenals.Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump said that he had ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines following an online spat with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.Last month, Matsui urged Trump to visit Hiroshima after the US president likened the 1945 atomic bombings to air strikes on Iran in June."It seems to me that he does not fully understand the reality of the atomic bombings, which, if used, take the lives of many innocent citizens, regardless of whether they were friend or foe, and threaten the survival of the human race," Matsui said at the time.Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

In a speech, Hiroshima mayor Kazumi Matsui warned of "an accelerating trend toward military buildup around the world", against the backdrop of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the chaos in the Middle East.

Japan marked 80 years since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Wednesday with a ceremony reminding the world of the horrors unleashed, as sabre-rattling between the United States and Russia keeps the nuclear "Doomsday Clock" close to midnight. A silent prayer was held at 8:15 am (2315 GMT), the moment when US aircraft Enola Gay dropped "Little Boy" over the western Japanese city on August 6, 1945. On a sweltering morning, hundreds of black-clad officials, students and survivors laid flowers at the memorial cenotaph, with the ruins of a domed building in the background, a stark reminder of the horrors that unfolded. In a speech, Hiroshima mayor Kazumi Matsui warned of "an accelerating trend toward military buildup around the world", against the backdrop of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the chaos in the Middle East. "These developments flagrantly disregard the lessons the international community should have learned from the tragedies of history," he said. "They threaten to topple the peacebuilding frameworks so many have worked so hard to construct." The final death toll of the Hiroshima attack would hit around 140,000 people, killed not just by the colossal blast and the ball of fire, but also later by the radiation. Three days after "Little Boy", on August 9, another atomic bomb killed 74,000 people in Nagasaki. Imperial Japan surrendered on August 15, bringing an end to World War II. Today, Hiroshima is a thriving metropolis of 1.2 million but the attacks live on in the memories of many. On the eve of the ceremony, people began lining up to pay their respects to the victims in front of the cenotaph. Before dawn on Wednesday, families who had lost loved ones in the attack also came to pray. Yoshie Yokoyama, 96, who came in a wheelchair with her grandson, told reporters that her parents and grandparents were bomb victims. "My grandfather died soon after the bombing, while my father and mother both died after developing cancer. My parents-in-law also died, so my husband couldn't see them again when he came back from battlefields after the war. "People are still suffering," she added. Wednesday's ceremony was set to include a record of around 120 countries and regions including, for the first time, Taiwanese and Palestinian representatives. Nihon Hidankyo, the grassroots organisation that last year won the Nobel Peace Prize, is representing the dwindling number of survivors, known as hibakusha. As of March, there were 99,130 hibakusha, according to the Japanese health ministry, with the average age of 86. "I want foreign envoys to visit the peace memorial museum and understand what happened," the group's co-chair Toshiyuki Mimaki told local media ahead of the commemorations. Pope Leo XIV said in a statement that "in our time of mounting global tensions and conflicts", Hiroshima and Nagasaki remained "living reminders of the profound horrors wrought by nuclear weapons". - Younger generation - The attacks remain the only time atomic bombs have been used in wartime. Kunihiko Sakuma, 80, who survived the blasts as a baby, told AFP he was hopeful that there could eventually be a nuclear-free world. "The younger generation is working hard for that end," he said ahead of the ceremony. But in January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' "Doomsday Clock" shifted to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest in its 78-year history. The clock symbolising humanity's distance from destruction was last moved to 90 seconds to midnight over Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Russia and the United States account for around 90 percent of the world's over 12,000 warheads, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). SIPRI warned in June that "a dangerous new nuclear arms race is emerging at a time when arms control regimes are severely weakened," with nearly all of the nine nuclear-armed states modernising their arsenals. Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump said that he had ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines following an online spat with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. Last month, Matsui urged Trump to visit Hiroshima after the US president likened the 1945 atomic bombings to air strikes on Iran in June. "It seems to me that he does not fully understand the reality of the atomic bombings, which, if used, take the lives of many innocent citizens, regardless of whether they were friend or foe, and threaten the survival of the human race," Matsui said at the time. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

In a speech, Hiroshima mayor Kazumi Matsui warned of "an accelerating trend toward military buildup around the world", against the backdrop of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the chaos in the Middle East.

Hiroshima 80 years on: Japan warns world edging closer to nuclear war

The US House Oversight Committee on Tuesday subpoenaed former president Bill Clinton and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton for testimony on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to letters posted on its website.The Clintons were among multiple former government officials -- including two of President Donald Trump's attorney generals from his first term -- summoned by investigators in a major escalation of the controversy surrounding the investigation into the disgraced financier, who died in 2019 awaiting trial for sex trafficking.The White House has been facing increasingly intense demands to be more transparent after the Justice Department angered Trump supporters -- many of whom believe Epstein was murdered in a cover-up -- when it confirmed last month that he had died by suicide and that his case was effectively closed.The department also said Epstein had no secret "client list" -- rebuffing conspiracy theories held by Trump's far-right supporters about supposedly high-level Democratic complicity.Trump has urged his supporters to drop demands for the Epstein files, but Democrats in the Republican-led Congress -- with some support from majority lawmakers -- have also been seeking a floor vote to force their release."By your own admission, you flew on Jeffrey Epstein's private plane four separate times in 2002 and 2003," committee chairman James Comer wrote to former president Clinton."During one of these trips, you were even pictured receiving a 'massage' from one of Mr. Epstein's victims."It has also been claimed that you pressured Vanity Fair not to publish sex trafficking allegations against your 'good friend' Mr. Epstein, and there are conflicting reports about whether you ever visited Mr. Epstein's island."Other officials targeted by the panel include former FBI director James Comey, former special counsel Robert Mueller and ex-attorney generals Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Alberto Gonzales.Their depositions will take place between mid-August and mid-October.Comer also issued a subpoena to the Justice Department for records related to Epstein -- including its communications with Trump's predecessor Joe Biden and his officials.House Oversight Committee Democrats, backed by some Republicans, approved a subpoena in July for the Justice Department to hand over documents.Lawmakers have also been seeking testimony from Epstein's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving 20 years in prison for her role in his alleged crimes -- although her cooperation is seen as unlikely.Meanwhile the Supreme Court's justices are expected to consider at a September 29 conference ahead of their October term whether to hear an appeal by Maxwell of her sex trafficking conviction.

Trump's attorney generals from his first term -- summoned by investigators in a major escalation of the controversy surrounding the investigation into the disgraced financier, who died in 2019 awaiting trial for sex trafficking.

The US House Oversight Committee on Tuesday subpoenaed former president Bill Clinton and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton for testimony on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to letters posted on its website. The Clintons were among multiple former government officials -- including two of President Donald Trump's attorney generals from his first term -- summoned by investigators in a major escalation of the controversy surrounding the investigation into the disgraced financier, who died in 2019 awaiting trial for sex trafficking. The White House has been facing increasingly intense demands to be more transparent after the Justice Department angered Trump supporters -- many of whom believe Epstein was murdered in a cover-up -- when it confirmed last month that he had died by suicide and that his case was effectively closed. The department also said Epstein had no secret "client list" -- rebuffing conspiracy theories held by Trump's far-right supporters about supposedly high-level Democratic complicity. Trump has urged his supporters to drop demands for the Epstein files, but Democrats in the Republican-led Congress -- with some support from majority lawmakers -- have also been seeking a floor vote to force their release. "By your own admission, you flew on Jeffrey Epstein's private plane four separate times in 2002 and 2003," committee chairman James Comer wrote to former president Clinton. "During one of these trips, you were even pictured receiving a 'massage' from one of Mr. Epstein's victims. "It has also been claimed that you pressured Vanity Fair not to publish sex trafficking allegations against your 'good friend' Mr. Epstein, and there are conflicting reports about whether you ever visited Mr. Epstein's island." Other officials targeted by the panel include former FBI director James Comey, former special counsel Robert Mueller and ex-attorney generals Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Alberto Gonzales. Their depositions will take place between mid-August and mid-October. Comer also issued a subpoena to the Justice Department for records related to Epstein -- including its communications with Trump's predecessor Joe Biden and his officials. House Oversight Committee Democrats, backed by some Republicans, approved a subpoena in July for the Justice Department to hand over documents. Lawmakers have also been seeking testimony from Epstein's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving 20 years in prison for her role in his alleged crimes -- although her cooperation is seen as unlikely. Meanwhile the Supreme Court's justices are expected to consider at a September 29 conference ahead of their October term whether to hear an appeal by Maxwell of her sex trafficking conviction.

Trump's attorney generals from his first term -- summoned by investigators in a major escalation of the controversy surrounding the investigation into the disgraced financier, who died in 2019 awaiting trial for sex trafficking.

US House panel subpoenas Clintons, other former officials in Epstein probe

Hiroshima Day is observed every year on August 6 to remember the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in Japan, 1945. The attack led to many deaths and left many survivors(Hibakusha), suffering from the lasting effects of radiation.

Hiroshima Day 2025: What’s the history and significance of the ‘catastrophic moment’ in World War II

US President Donald Trump, speaking in an interview with CNBC on Tuesday (August 5), said that he would probably not run for a third term as president. The remark holds significance since he won the presidential election in 2024, several reports have emerged that Trump was looking to change the American constitution to allow himself to run for the president for the third time. The president's constitution bars a person from taking over the presidency for three terms. Trump himself has many times asserted that he will run for a third term in the White House in 2028.&nbsp;When he was asked in the interview if he would run again, Trump said, &nbsp;"No. Probably not." "Probably not," he said a second time with a laugh.<h2>Trump to punish US banks?</h2>After the reports that the White House is preparing an executive order to put pressure on big banks in the US for their discrimination against conservatives, US President Donald Trump subtly confirmed it, saying the banks certainly did discriminate. Talking at an interview with the CNBC on Tuesday (August 5), the American president gave his own example, saying he had "many accounts" loaded with cash, but the banks did not take him as a customer.&nbsp;A journalist questioned Trump, “The Wall Street Journal is reporting that you're preparing an order to punish banks that discriminate against conservatives, including potentially the Bank of America ... Can you tell us about that executive order, what's in that?”&nbsp;The US president responded, saying, “Well, they did discriminate. I had JP Morgan Chase, and I had hundreds of millions of dollars in cash. I can see they want to do something bad if you don't have any money; they took people out. But now I'll give you an amazing example. I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts, loaded up with cash, and they told me, 'I'm sorry, sir. We can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.' I said you gotta be kidding. I have been with you for 35-40 years.”

After constant claims that he was seeking a third term in the White House, US President Donald Trump said on August 5 that he would probably not run for the 2028 presidential election. 

US President Donald Trump, speaking in an interview with CNBC on Tuesday (August 5), said that he would probably not run for a third term as president. The remark holds significance since he won the presidential election in 2024, several reports have emerged that Trump was looking to change the American constitution to allow himself to run for the president for the third time. The president's constitution bars a person from taking over the presidency for three terms. Trump himself has many times asserted that he will run for a third term in the White House in 2028. When he was asked in the interview if he would run again, Trump said, "No. Probably not." "Probably not," he said a second time with a laugh. Trump to punish US banks? After the reports that the White House is preparing an executive order to put pressure on big banks in the US for their discrimination against conservatives, US President Donald Trump subtly confirmed it, saying the banks certainly did discriminate. Talking at an interview with the CNBC on Tuesday (August 5), the American president gave his own example, saying he had "many accounts" loaded with cash, but the banks did not take him as a customer. A journalist questioned Trump, “The Wall Street Journal is reporting that you're preparing an order to punish banks that discriminate against conservatives, including potentially the Bank of America ... Can you tell us about that executive order, what's in that?” The US president responded, saying, “Well, they did discriminate. I had JP Morgan Chase, and I had hundreds of millions of dollars in cash. I can see they want to do something bad if you don't have any money; they took people out. But now I'll give you an amazing example. I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts, loaded up with cash, and they told me, 'I'm sorry, sir. We can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.' I said you gotta be kidding. I have been with you for 35-40 years.”

After constant claims that he was seeking a third term in the White House, US President Donald Trump said on August 5 that he would probably not run for the 2028 presidential election.&nbsp;

Donald Trump would ‘probably not’ run for a third term in White House. Says...

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Tuesday that he had a ‘productive conversation” with US President Donald Trump and discussed sanctions on Russia, the finalisation of the US-Ukraine drone deal, and ending Russia’s war, besides coordinating military and diplomatic efforts. The conversation comes as Ukrainian authorities said Russian strikes killed six people across the east of the country, including a mechanic at a railway station, and wounded at least a dozen people.“The draft agreement on drones has already been prepared by the Ukrainian side, we are ready to discuss it in detail and conclude it,” Zelensky said on X.&nbsp;“Russian terrorists inflicted a massive strike on the railway infrastructure of Lozova,” the Ukrainian Railways company said in a Telegram post. Ukraine’s railways have been heavily targeted by Russia during its invasion.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>‘Russia escalated aerial attacks ahead of Trump deadline’</h2>&nbsp;Russia has escalated aerial attacks and accelerated its advance on the ground to capture more Ukrainian territory ahead of a Friday deadline by US President Donald Trump to make progress towards peace or face massive sanctions.Trump’s deadline looms after three rounds of peace talks in Istanbul failed to make any headway on ceasefire.The strikes on Lozova in eastern Kharkiv region left a passenger train mangled and damaged the station building.Two people were killed in Lozova, Kharkiv Governor Oleg Synegubov said on Telegram.Zelensky said Russia had launched more than 25 Iranian-designed Shahed drones at the city, striking civilian infrastructure.“The railway was damaged, including a depot and a station,” he said on social media, adding that ten people were wounded in the attack.&nbsp;US envoy Steve Witkoff will visit Russia this week and is expected to meet President Vladimir Putin, ahead of the Friday deadline.&nbsp;<h2>Dutch buy US arms for Ukraine in NATO deal</h2>&nbsp;Meanwhile, the Netherlands will buy €500m of US weapons for Ukraine, becoming the first NATO member to fund a full package under a new scheme. The purchase will be under the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) mechanism launched by President Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte last month.Under the scheme, countries pay the US for defence systems and munitions in American warehouses that will be shipped to Ukraine.“The Netherlands is now taking the lead in supplying military equipment from American stockpiles,” Dutch Defence Minister Ruben Brekelmans said on X.“By supporting Ukraine with determination, we are increasing the pressure on Russia to negotiate.”The Dutch package includes US Patriot missile parts and other systems tailored to Ukraine’s front-line requirements.

Trump’s deadline for more sanctions on Russia looms after three rounds of peace talks in Istanbul failed to make any headway on a ceasefire. US envoy Steve Witkoff will visit Russia this week and may meet President Vladimir Putin before Friday.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Tuesday that he had a ‘productive conversation” with US President Donald Trump and discussed sanctions on Russia, the finalisation of the US-Ukraine drone deal, and ending Russia’s war, besides coordinating military and diplomatic efforts. The conversation comes as Ukrainian authorities said Russian strikes killed six people across the east of the country, including a mechanic at a railway station, and wounded at least a dozen people. “The draft agreement on drones has already been prepared by the Ukrainian side, we are ready to discuss it in detail and conclude it,” Zelensky said on X. “Russian terrorists inflicted a massive strike on the railway infrastructure of Lozova,” the Ukrainian Railways company said in a Telegram post. Ukraine’s railways have been heavily targeted by Russia during its invasion. ‘Russia escalated aerial attacks ahead of Trump deadline’ Russia has escalated aerial attacks and accelerated its advance on the ground to capture more Ukrainian territory ahead of a Friday deadline by US President Donald Trump to make progress towards peace or face massive sanctions. Trump’s deadline looms after three rounds of peace talks in Istanbul failed to make any headway on ceasefire. The strikes on Lozova in eastern Kharkiv region left a passenger train mangled and damaged the station building. Two people were killed in Lozova, Kharkiv Governor Oleg Synegubov said on Telegram. Zelensky said Russia had launched more than 25 Iranian-designed Shahed drones at the city, striking civilian infrastructure. “The railway was damaged, including a depot and a station,” he said on social media, adding that ten people were wounded in the attack. US envoy Steve Witkoff will visit Russia this week and is expected to meet President Vladimir Putin, ahead of the Friday deadline. Dutch buy US arms for Ukraine in NATO deal Meanwhile, the Netherlands will buy €500m of US weapons for Ukraine, becoming the first NATO member to fund a full package under a new scheme. The purchase will be under the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) mechanism launched by President Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte last month. Under the scheme, countries pay the US for defence systems and munitions in American warehouses that will be shipped to Ukraine. “The Netherlands is now taking the lead in supplying military equipment from American stockpiles,” Dutch Defence Minister Ruben Brekelmans said on X. “By supporting Ukraine with determination, we are increasing the pressure on Russia to negotiate.” The Dutch package includes US Patriot missile parts and other systems tailored to Ukraine’s front-line requirements.

Trump’s deadline for more sanctions on Russia looms after three rounds of peace talks in Istanbul failed to make any headway on a ceasefire. US envoy Steve Witkoff will visit Russia this week and may meet President Vladimir Putin before Friday.

Zelensky speaks to Trump, discusses war, sanctions and drone deal in ‘productive’ call

US President Donald Trump lashed out at Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) just days after the company named a new chief executive and embarked on a divisive rebrand. Posting on Truth Social on Monday (August 4), Trump said the UK carmaker was in “absolute turmoil” and accused its outgoing boss of leaving “in disgrace.” He also dismissed its recent marketing campaign as “stupid” and “woke.”&nbsp;The comments came shortly after JLR announced PB Balaji, finance chief of parent company Tata Motors, will take over as chief executive in November—becoming the company’s first Indian CEO.&nbsp;Balaji will succeed Adrian Mardell, who last week announced his retirement after 35 years with the firm. Mardell oversaw JLR’s strongest profits in a decade but also pushed through controversial changes, including dropping Jaguar’s iconic leaping cat logo and pivoting towards electric vehicles. JLR insists his retirement was long-planned and unrelated to the backlash.&nbsp;Trump on his Truth Social posted, “Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the “HOTTEST” ad out there. It’s for American Eagle, and the jeans are “flying off the shelves.” Go get ‘em Sydney! On the other side of the ledger, Jaguar did a stupid, and seriously WOKE advertisement, THAT IS A TOTAL DISASTER! The CEO just resigned in disgrace, and the company is in absolute turmoil. Who wants to buy a Jaguar after looking at that disgraceful ad. Shouldn’t they have learned a lesson from Bud Lite, which went Woke and essentially destroyed, in a short campaign, the Company. The market cap destruction has been unprecedented, with BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SO FOOLISHLY LOST. Or just look at Woke singer Taylor Swift. Ever since I alerted the world as to what she was by saying on TRUTH that I can’t stand her (HATE!). She was booed out of the Super Bowl and became, NO LONGER HOT. The tide has seriously turned — Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”&nbsp;Trump contrasted Jaguar’s campaign—featuring brightly dressed models in a hot-pink desert setting with no cars or logos in sight—with American Eagle’s recent jeans adverts starring Euphoria actress Sydney Sweeney. Calling the latter the “‘hottest’ ad out there,” Trump praised Sweeney and derided Jaguar’s approach as “a total disaster,” adding: “Who wants to buy a Jaguar after looking at that disgraceful ad?”&nbsp;Jaguar’s rebrand and concept for its upcoming all-electric “Type 00” model, due in 2026, have divided opinion. Some hailed the design as “absolutely stunning,” while others branded it “rubbish.” The company is also contending with US tariff policies under the Trump administration and, in July, announced 500 UK management job cuts. Balaji will take the helm during a critical period as JLR prepares to launch its first all-electric range and seeks to win back sceptical customers.

Donald Trump slams Jaguar Land Rover’s ‘woke’ rebrand, calls ad campaign a ‘disaster’

US President Donald Trump lashed out at Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) just days after the company named a new chief executive and embarked on a divisive rebrand. Posting on Truth Social on Monday (August 4), Trump said the UK carmaker was in “absolute turmoil” and accused its outgoing boss of leaving “in disgrace.” He also dismissed its recent marketing campaign as “stupid” and “woke.” The comments came shortly after JLR announced PB Balaji, finance chief of parent company Tata Motors, will take over as chief executive in November—becoming the company’s first Indian CEO. Balaji will succeed Adrian Mardell, who last week announced his retirement after 35 years with the firm. Mardell oversaw JLR’s strongest profits in a decade but also pushed through controversial changes, including dropping Jaguar’s iconic leaping cat logo and pivoting towards electric vehicles. JLR insists his retirement was long-planned and unrelated to the backlash. Trump on his Truth Social posted, “Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the “HOTTEST” ad out there. It’s for American Eagle, and the jeans are “flying off the shelves.” Go get ‘em Sydney! On the other side of the ledger, Jaguar did a stupid, and seriously WOKE advertisement, THAT IS A TOTAL DISASTER! The CEO just resigned in disgrace, and the company is in absolute turmoil. Who wants to buy a Jaguar after looking at that disgraceful ad. Shouldn’t they have learned a lesson from Bud Lite, which went Woke and essentially destroyed, in a short campaign, the Company. The market cap destruction has been unprecedented, with BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SO FOOLISHLY LOST. Or just look at Woke singer Taylor Swift. Ever since I alerted the world as to what she was by saying on TRUTH that I can’t stand her (HATE!). She was booed out of the Super Bowl and became, NO LONGER HOT. The tide has seriously turned — Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump contrasted Jaguar’s campaign—featuring brightly dressed models in a hot-pink desert setting with no cars or logos in sight—with American Eagle’s recent jeans adverts starring Euphoria actress Sydney Sweeney. Calling the latter the “‘hottest’ ad out there,” Trump praised Sweeney and derided Jaguar’s approach as “a total disaster,” adding: “Who wants to buy a Jaguar after looking at that disgraceful ad?” Jaguar’s rebrand and concept for its upcoming all-electric “Type 00” model, due in 2026, have divided opinion. Some hailed the design as “absolutely stunning,” while others branded it “rubbish.” The company is also contending with US tariff policies under the Trump administration and, in July, announced 500 UK management job cuts. Balaji will take the helm during a critical period as JLR prepares to launch its first all-electric range and seeks to win back sceptical customers.

The US President on Monday that JLR was in "absolute turmoil" and its boss had left the company “in disgrace". The president also called its recent marketing campaign "stupid" and “woke”

On August 6, 1945,&nbsp; the world changed forever. An entire city wiped out from the face of the earth. At around 8.45 am, a blinding beam of light appeared in the sky, along with a deafening sound of an explosion. It marked the arrival of the nuclear age.<h2>The little boy</h2>They called it 'the little boy', a US B-29 bomber also known as the ‘Elona Gay’, dropped a 10 feet long and 4,400 kg bomb from a height of 31,000 feet. The bomb detonated in the air at 1,900 feet above Hiroshima. It released 15,000 tons of TNT; in an instant, 80,000 people were incinerated, some just leaving behind only their shadows. The US dropped another plutonium bomb at Nagasaki on August 9, which it claims was an attempt to finish the war swiftly.<h2>Why Hiroshima? This was not just about ending the war</h2>The United States have iterated again and again that the bomb was necessary to end the bloody invasion of Japan.&nbsp; August 6, 2025, will be the 80th anniversary of the dreadful incident of Hiroshima. Historians have long debated the rationale of the attack."I had urged (the bomb not be used) because Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was not necessary,” said Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy, in a memo dated June 27, 1945.Japan was already weak; it had already lost the bloodiest clash of the Pacific War, the Battle of Okinawa. The US have captured the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. American forces were within striking distance of mainland Japan. Japan's navy and air force were virtually destroyed. The US had complete control of the sky. Japan had absorbed firebombs in 60 different cities, and Tokyo only had a death toll of 100,000. Japan's economy was crumbling, and there was a widespread shortage of food, fuel and raw materials. It was exploring a peace deal and wanted to preserve its Empire. It reached out to the USSR to mediate a peace deal even though the USSR had not declared war on Japan. The Soviet Union was about to enter the war; it officially declared war against Japan on August 8, 1945.Scholars and historians have debated the logic behind using the devastating weapon. Many, like Herbert Feis, have defended the use of the bomb. While others, like American Historian Martin Sherwin, said that the bombing had complex political motivations. Gar Alperovitz, a revisionist American historian and political economist who later challenged Herbert Feis in his book, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (1965), claiming that the US used the atomic bomb to gain geopolitical leverage over the USSR. The bomb was not necessary; it was a way to display US military might to the USSR, which was an ideological rival of the West, and send a message to Joseph Stalin, even if they were fighting against a common enemy, Nazi Germany.&nbsp;"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender… dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary," said General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in 1963, recalling his memories. He served as the U.S. President in 1953, succeeding Harry S. Truman.“We knew we were beaten. We had no arms left with which to fight. The peace party was carrying on a very bitter struggle within the government to end the war,” said Prince Konoe Fumimaro, former Japanese Prime Minister, in post-war interrogation.Nonetheless, President Truman went on with his plan. His rationale was that a ground invasion of Japan would be a bloody affair. Japanese leaders were not ready for unconditional surrender as demanded by the Potsdam Declaration of the Allied forces and promptly&nbsp;denied the ultimatum of July 26.“The question is not whether Truman had to use the bomb to end the war quickly, but whether he believed that was the only way or the best way, given the wider context,” wrote J. Samuel Walker, a more balanced historian. Eighty years later, the debate still carries on, whether Hiroshima was the needed price for peace or the beginning of the Cold War.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Uncover the truth behind the US bombing of Hiroshima with ‘Little Boy’. Was it truly to end the War? Discover the untold motivation that led to the nuclear age. 

On August 6, 1945, the world changed forever. An entire city wiped out from the face of the earth. At around 8.45 am, a blinding beam of light appeared in the sky, along with a deafening sound of an explosion. It marked the arrival of the nuclear age. The little boy They called it 'the little boy', a US B-29 bomber also known as the ‘Elona Gay’, dropped a 10 feet long and 4,400 kg bomb from a height of 31,000 feet. The bomb detonated in the air at 1,900 feet above Hiroshima. It released 15,000 tons of TNT; in an instant, 80,000 people were incinerated, some just leaving behind only their shadows. The US dropped another plutonium bomb at Nagasaki on August 9, which it claims was an attempt to finish the war swiftly. Why Hiroshima? This was not just about ending the war The United States have iterated again and again that the bomb was necessary to end the bloody invasion of Japan. August 6, 2025, will be the 80th anniversary of the dreadful incident of Hiroshima. Historians have long debated the rationale of the attack. "I had urged (the bomb not be used) because Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was not necessary,” said Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy, in a memo dated June 27, 1945. Japan was already weak; it had already lost the bloodiest clash of the Pacific War, the Battle of Okinawa. The US have captured the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. American forces were within striking distance of mainland Japan. Japan's navy and air force were virtually destroyed. The US had complete control of the sky. Japan had absorbed firebombs in 60 different cities, and Tokyo only had a death toll of 100,000. Japan's economy was crumbling, and there was a widespread shortage of food, fuel and raw materials. It was exploring a peace deal and wanted to preserve its Empire. It reached out to the USSR to mediate a peace deal even though the USSR had not declared war on Japan. The Soviet Union was about to enter the war; it officially declared war against Japan on August 8, 1945. Scholars and historians have debated the logic behind using the devastating weapon. Many, like Herbert Feis, have defended the use of the bomb. While others, like American Historian Martin Sherwin, said that the bombing had complex political motivations. Gar Alperovitz, a revisionist American historian and political economist who later challenged Herbert Feis in his book, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (1965), claiming that the US used the atomic bomb to gain geopolitical leverage over the USSR. The bomb was not necessary; it was a way to display US military might to the USSR, which was an ideological rival of the West, and send a message to Joseph Stalin, even if they were fighting against a common enemy, Nazi Germany. "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender… dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary," said General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in 1963, recalling his memories. He served as the U.S. President in 1953, succeeding Harry S. Truman. “We knew we were beaten. We had no arms left with which to fight. The peace party was carrying on a very bitter struggle within the government to end the war,” said Prince Konoe Fumimaro, former Japanese Prime Minister, in post-war interrogation. Nonetheless, President Truman went on with his plan. His rationale was that a ground invasion of Japan would be a bloody affair. Japanese leaders were not ready for unconditional surrender as demanded by the Potsdam Declaration of the Allied forces and promptly denied the ultimatum of July 26. “The question is not whether Truman had to use the bomb to end the war quickly, but whether he believed that was the only way or the best way, given the wider context,” wrote J. Samuel Walker, a more balanced historian. Eighty years later, the debate still carries on, whether Hiroshima was the needed price for peace or the beginning of the Cold War.

Uncover the truth behind the US bombing of Hiroshima with ‘Little Boy’. Was it truly to end the War? Discover the untold motivation that led to the nuclear age.&nbsp;

The bomb that changed everything: Truth about Hiroshima's 'Little Boy'

Health officials in New York City on Monday (Aug 4) have confirmed that two people have died and at least 58 others have fallen sick due to an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in the Harlem area. The outbreak has been tracked since July 25 in central Harlem and nearby neighborhoods. The identities of the people who died have not been released yet. A statement from the city’s acting health commissioner, Dr. Michelle Morse, advised people that anyone in the affected area with flu-like symptoms should contact a doctor as soon as possible.&nbsp;“Legionnaires’ disease can be effectively treated if diagnosed early, but New Yorkers at higher risk, like adults aged 50 and older and those who smoke or have chronic lung conditions, should be especially mindful of their symptoms and seek care as soon as symptoms begin.” said Morse, according to Guardian.&nbsp;Also Read - <a href="What is 'CRIB'? India recently discovers world's rarest blood group in Bengaluru woman - Here's why it's unique">What is 'CRIB'? India recently discovers world's rarest blood group in Bengaluru woman - Here's why it's unique</a>&nbsp;According to the New York City health department, “Legionnaires’ disease can be caused by plumbing systems where conditions are favorable for legionella growth, such as cooling towers, whirlpool spas, hot tubs, humidifiers, hot water tanks and evaporative condensers of large air-conditioning systems.”<h2>What is Legionnaires’ disease?</h2>Legionnaires’ disease is a serious lung infection (a kind of pneumonia) caused by Legionella bacteria. The illness from this disease does not spread from person to person.&nbsp;This bacteria usually grows in warm water and can be found in places like cooling towers, hot tubs, humidifiers, water tanks and parts of large air conditioning systems.<h2>Symptoms to watch for&nbsp;</h2>According to the Mayo Clinic, symptoms of Legionnaires' disease start about 2 to 10 days after contact with the bacteria and often begin with these symptoms.<ul><li>Fever (can be 104°F or higher)</li><li>Headache</li><li>Muscle pain</li></ul><h2>Later symptoms can include</h2><ul><li>Cough (sometimes with blood)</li><li>Chest pain</li><li>Shortness of breath</li><li>Nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea</li><li>Confusion or changes in mental state</li></ul>According to reports, each year in the United States (US), about 8,000 to 18,000 people are hospitalized due to Legionnaires’ disease and it has a death rate of around 10 per cent.&nbsp;

Each year in the United States (US), about 8,000 to 18,000 people are hospitalized due to Legionnaires’ disease and it has a death rate of around 10%.

Health officials in New York City on Monday (Aug 4) have confirmed that two people have died and at least 58 others have fallen sick due to an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in the Harlem area. The outbreak has been tracked since July 25 in central Harlem and nearby neighborhoods. The identities of the people who died have not been released yet. A statement from the city’s acting health commissioner, Dr. Michelle Morse, advised people that anyone in the affected area with flu-like symptoms should contact a doctor as soon as possible. “Legionnaires’ disease can be effectively treated if diagnosed early, but New Yorkers at higher risk, like adults aged 50 and older and those who smoke or have chronic lung conditions, should be especially mindful of their symptoms and seek care as soon as symptoms begin.” said Morse, according to Guardian. Also Read - What is 'CRIB'? India recently discovers world's rarest blood group in Bengaluru woman - Here's why it's unique According to the New York City health department, “Legionnaires’ disease can be caused by plumbing systems where conditions are favorable for legionella growth, such as cooling towers, whirlpool spas, hot tubs, humidifiers, hot water tanks and evaporative condensers of large air-conditioning systems.” What is Legionnaires’ disease? Legionnaires’ disease is a serious lung infection (a kind of pneumonia) caused by Legionella bacteria. The illness from this disease does not spread from person to person. This bacteria usually grows in warm water and can be found in places like cooling towers, hot tubs, humidifiers, water tanks and parts of large air conditioning systems. Symptoms to watch for According to the Mayo Clinic, symptoms of Legionnaires' disease start about 2 to 10 days after contact with the bacteria and often begin with these symptoms. Fever (can be 104°F or higher) Headache Muscle pain Later symptoms can include Cough (sometimes with blood) Chest pain Shortness of breath Nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea Confusion or changes in mental state According to reports, each year in the United States (US), about 8,000 to 18,000 people are hospitalized due to Legionnaires’ disease and it has a death rate of around 10 per cent.

Each year in the United States (US), about 8,000 to 18,000 people are hospitalised due to Legionnaires’ disease and it has a death rate of around 10 per cent.&nbsp;

What is Legionnaires’ disease? Know as two deaths reported in New York - Check it's possible symptoms

Republican Leader and former US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Tuesday (August 5) criticised US President Donald Trump for threatening India over the purchase of Russian oil, as he said to impose 25 per cent tariffs plus penalties, while giving China a pass for the same reason.In a post on X, Nikki Haley stressed that Trump’s move to impose tariffs on India for buying Russian oil could impact US-India relations.She further said that not just India, but also China, is a number one buyer of Russian oil, but got a pass as the US gave it a 90-day tariff pause.“India should not be buying oil from Russia. But China, an adversary and the number one buyer of Russian and Iranian oil, got a 90-day tariff pause. Don’t give China a pass and burn a relationship with a strong ally like India,” Haley wrote in her post on X.&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">India should not be buying oil from Russia. But China, an adversary and the number one buyer of Russian and Iranian oil, got a 90-day tariff pause. Don’t give China a pass and burn a relationship with a strong ally like India.&mdash; Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) <a href="https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1952737102967275590?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 5, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Trump last week also imposed 25 per cent tariffs on India, along with penalties for arms trading with Russia, as well as oil imports. Later, on Monday (Aug 4), Trump issued a fresh threat of a “substantial hike” in trade duties on India for buying Russian oil and “selling it on the open market for big profits”.Following the statements made by the US president, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said, “India has been targeted by the United States and the European Union for importing oil from Russia after the commencement of the Ukraine conflict.”India even stated that the US had earlier actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening the stability of global energy markets.“In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable. Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security,” the statement added.Earlier today, the Kremlin slammed Trump's threats to raise tariffs on India for buying Russian oil, calling it "illegal". Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, while speaking to reporters, said that it was unacceptable to force countries to stop trading with Russia.Peskov further stressed that sovereign nations can choose their trading partners. “Sovereign countries have the right to choose their own trading partners,” spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

Nikki Haley said that not just India, but also China, is a number one buyer of Russian oil, but got a pass as the US gave it a 90-day tariff pause.

Republican Leader and former US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Tuesday (August 5) criticised US President Donald Trump for threatening India over the purchase of Russian oil, as he said to impose 25 per cent tariffs plus penalties, while giving China a pass for the same reason. In a post on X, Nikki Haley stressed that Trump’s move to impose tariffs on India for buying Russian oil could impact US-India relations. She further said that not just India, but also China, is a number one buyer of Russian oil, but got a pass as the US gave it a 90-day tariff pause. “India should not be buying oil from Russia. But China, an adversary and the number one buyer of Russian and Iranian oil, got a 90-day tariff pause. Don’t give China a pass and burn a relationship with a strong ally like India,” Haley wrote in her post on X.

Nikki Haley said that not just India, but also China, is a number one buyer of Russian oil, but got a pass as the US gave it a 90-day tariff pause.

‘Don’t burn relationship with India’: Nikki Haley defends India, accuses Trump of favouring China amid tariff threats

world

World, News on World, stories on World, articles on World, World stories at Wion, World news, World latest news

world news

Can US afford trade war with India amid evolving geopolitics? 5 must-know geopolitical realities

US–India trade at a crossroads: An expert’s take on tariffs and diplomacy

Who is he fooling? Trump’s biggest real estate empire outside US is in India

Chinese government has ‘final say’ in Dalai Lama reincarnation: Tibetan official

Kidnapped to be sold as 'sex slave': Chloe Ayling narrates her shocking escape

'Will call PM Modi': Brazilian President after saying he won't dial Trump

DOGE staff's assault in Washington DC brings Trump, Musk on same page

Man gives up 12yr fight to recover $923 million Bitcoin his girlfriend threw out

German club cancels signing of Israel striker for offensive Gaza war posts

Ajit Doval in Moscow as Trump threatens India with tariffs over Russian oil

'This is Biden's war...': Trump reveals why he is funding Ukraine in the war

Pakistan's lunar dream: Islamabad aims for its first mission by 2035

Will US impose 100% tariffs on countries trading with Russia? Trump says THIS

Gargantuan hurricane WILL occur in Northeast US. It is long overdue, experts warn

JD Vance and Marco Rubio for 2028 Presidential Elections? What Trump said

Scottish island where three lighthouse keepers mysteriously disappeared on sale

Netanyahu signals Gaza war could expand says 'necessary to defeat' Hamas in Gaza

Hiroshima 80 years on: Japan warns world edging closer to nuclear war

US House panel subpoenas Clintons, other former officials in Epstein probe

Hiroshima Day 2025: Check history, significance of WWII’s ‘catastrophic moment’

Donald Trump would ‘probably not’ run for a third term in White House

Zelensky speaks to Trump, discusses war, sanctions and drone deal in call

Trump slams Jaguar Land Rover’s ‘woke’ rebrand, calls ad campaign a ‘disaster’

The bomb that changed everything: Truth about Hiroshima's 'Little Boy'

What is Legionnaires’ disease? Know as two deaths reported in NY- Check symptoms

‘Don’t burn relationship’: Nikki Haley defends India amid Trump's tariff threats