50 days for peace deal or 100% tariffs: Trump arms Ukraine, threatens sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil
But Trump's threat of sanctions came with a 50-day grace period, a move that was welcomed by investors in Russia where the rouble recovered from earlier losses and stock markets rose.
Sitting with
NATO Secretary General
Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, Trump told reporters he was disappointed in Russian President Vladimir Putin and that billions of dollars of U.S. weapons would go to Ukraine.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Top 15 Most Beautiful Women in the World
Topgentlemen.com
Undo
"We're going to make top-of-the-line weapons, and they'll be sent to NATO," Trump said, adding that Washington's NATO allies would pay for them.
The weapons would include Patriot air defence missiles Ukraine has urgently sought, he said.
Live Events
"It's a full complement with the batteries," Trump said. "We're going to have some come very soon, within days."
"We have one country that has 17 Patriots getting ready to be shipped ... we're going to work a deal where the 17 will go or a big portion of the 17 will go to the war site."
Rutte said Germany, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada all wanted to be a part of rearming Ukraine.
Trump's threat to impose so-called
secondary sanctions
on Russia, if carried out, would be a major shift in Western sanctions policy. Lawmakers from both U.S. political parties are pushing for a bill that would authorise such measures, targeting other countries that buy Russian oil.
Throughout the more than three-year-old war, Western countries have cut most of their own financial ties to Moscow, but have held back from taking steps that would restrict Russia from selling its oil elsewhere. That has allowed Moscow to continue earning hundreds of billions of dollars from shipping oil to buyers such as China and India.
"We're going to be doing secondary tariffs," Trump said. "If we don't have a deal in 50 days, it's very simple, and they'll be at 100%."
A White House official said Trump was referring to 100% tariffs on Russian goods as well as secondary sanctions on other countries that buy its exports. Eighty-five of the 100 U.S. senators are co-sponsoring a bill that would give Trump the authority to impose 500% tariffs on any country that helps Russia, but the chamber's Republican leaders have been waiting for Trump to give them the go-ahead for a vote.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Telegram he had spoken to Trump and "thanked him for his readiness to support Ukraine and to continue working together to stop the killings and establish a lasting and just peace."
Zelenskiy held talks with Trump's envoy Keith Kellogg on Monday.
In Kyiv, people welcomed Trump's announcement but some were cautious about his intentions.
"I am pleased that finally European politicians, with their patience and convictions, have slightly swayed him (Trump) to our side, because from the very beginning it was clear that he did not really want to help us," said Denys Podilchuk, a 39-year-old dentist in Kyiv.
GRACE PERIOD
Artyom Nikolayev, an analyst from financial information firm Invest Era, said Trump did not go as far as Russian markets had feared.
"Trump performed below market expectations. He gave 50 days during which the Russian leadership can come up with something and extend the negotiation track. Moreover, Trump likes to postpone and extend such deadlines," he said.
Asked about Trump's remarks, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said an immediate ceasefire was needed to pave the way for a political solution and "whatever can contribute to these objectives will, of course, be important if it is done in line with international law."
Since returning to the White House promising a quick end to the war, Trump has sought rapprochement with Moscow, speaking several times with Putin. His administration has pulled back from pro-Ukrainian policies such as backing Kyiv's membership in NATO and demanding Russia withdraw from all Ukrainian territory.
But Putin has yet to accept a proposal from Trump for an unconditional ceasefire, which was quickly endorsed by Kyiv. Recent days have seen Russia use hundreds of drones to attack Ukrainian cities.
Trump said his shift was motivated by frustration with Putin.
"We actually had probably four times a deal. And then the deal wouldn't happen because bombs would be thrown out that night and you'd say we're not making any deals," he said.
Last week he said, "We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin."
Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and holds about one-fifth of Ukraine. Its forces are slowly advancing in eastern Ukraine and Moscow shows no sign of abandoning its main war goals.
Evelyn Farkas, a former senior Pentagon official who is now executive director of the McCain Institute, said Trump's moves could eventually turn the tide of the war if Trump ratchets up enforcement of current sanctions, adds new ones and provides new equipment quickly.
"If Putin's ministers and generals can be convinced that the war is not winnable they may be willing to push Putin to negotiate, if nothing else but to buy time," said Farkas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
27 minutes ago
- The Wire
Decolonising Ourselves into a Hindu Rashtra
The Postcolonial Left has enabled the fire to spread by disabling a principled critique of Hinduism and Hindu nationalism that could have acted as a fire retardant. Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty. The following is excerpted from Meera Nanda's book Postcolonial Theory and the Making of Hindu Nationalism: The Wages of Unreason, published by Routledge, 2025. This book tells the story of two strange bedfellows, the Postcolonial Left and the Hindu Right. It argues that the Postcolonial Left's relentless attacks on the 'epistemic violence' of Western norms of rationality and modernity are providing the conceptual vocabulary for the Hindu Right's project of 'decolonizing the Hindu mind.' The postcolonial project of creating an alternative modernity free from the 'imperialism' of Eurocentric concepts harks back to the late 19th century when Indian nationalists first began to 'provincialize' Europe and is widely shared by the contemporary Hindu Right. This book will show that far from an avant-garde progressive movement, postcolonialism in India bears a strong family resemblance, in context and content, with 'conservative revolutions' of the kind that brought down the Weimar Republic and prepared the grounds for the Nazi takeover. Postcolonial Theory and the Making of Hindu Nationalism: The Wages of Unreason, Meera Nanda, Routledge, 2025. For nearly five decades, a prominent segment of left-leaning intellectuals who speak for social justice and cultural rights of the marginalized have been waging a war against the ideal of secular modernity that India set upon at the time of Independence. They believe that India's experience of modernity is not organic because the elites running the show have accepted the colonial legacy of scientific reason and secularization as universally valid and universally desirable. Instead of universality, the critics find a deep difference, even incommensurability, between India and Europe. These intellectuals see the critique of colonial legacy as a precondition for creating a modernity that is authentically 'our own.' Our critics insist that Kant's directive of escaping the tutelage of all external authorities by daring to think for oneself — the famous Sapere Aude! 'Dare to use your own reason' — will not work for us in India in the manner it worked for Europe in the Age of Enlightenment. For the once colonized, the Kantian spirit of Sapere Aude! demands that we first escape the apprenticeship of our erstwhile colonial lords and masters before we can dare to think for ourselves. Thus, to live more authentically and chart our independent course in the modern world, they argue, we must rediscover the indigenous modes of living and thinking that are still alive among the non-modern masses who are marginalized and condescended to by the elites with colonized minds. To that end, this segment of the Indian Left has produced withering critiques of the 'Western' values enshrined in the Constitution, especially the commitment to secularism and the cultivation of a secular worldview. They see these values as cast-off clothes of Europe that don't fit Indians and turn them into pathetic mimic men. What unites these critics is a suspicion of the Enlightenment ideal of rational progress, something they see as a product of European history tainted by colonialism, Orientalism, and racism. We will refer to these critics of Indian modernity collectively as the Postcolonial Left. The rise to academic prominence of the Postcolonial Left through the last quarter of the 20th century coincided with the rapid rise of the Hindu Right. The same shock to the Indian polity — the imposition of the Emergency that lasted from 1975 to 1977 — that led many on the Left to rethink the trajectory of Indian modernity, also brought the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the parent of the family of Hindu nationalist outfits, into the public sphere from which it had been banished after the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. The same turn away from state-led development to a neoliberal market economy that enabled a culturalist turn among 'Third World' intellectuals as they moved to the centers of learning in the 'First World,' also brought the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a political front of the RSS, to the commanding heights of Indian politics. The BJP has adroitly welded neoliberal economic policies with a discourse of Hindu civilizational supremacy. We will refer to the 21st-century manifestation of Hindu nationalism as the Hindu Right. A deeply palingenetic, or revivalist, ultranationalism runs through the ideology of the Hindu Right. Like Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo, the late 19th-century pioneers of Indian nationalism, the contemporary Hindu Right seeks the rebirth of the ancient 'Vedic' civilizational virtues while embracing the technological and economic opportunities of 21st-century global capitalism. The rebirth of the Hindu nation in a formally secular nation-state demands a reformulation of the idea of India, which in turn demands purging it of alien impurities, Western as well as Islamic. How else, Hindu nationalists ask, can the ancient nation be restored to its original glory if its ruling ideas don't bear the mark of its primordial civilization? Western ideas and ideals that first came to India through colonialism have long been targets of Indian and Hindu nationalists. Following the long Hindu tradition of hierarchical inclusivism, Hindu nationalists don't oppose these ideas outright but subsume them under the presumed superiority of the holistic nature of Hindu dharma that denies any separation between the human, social, and natural realms from the divine. Thus key ideas of modernity — separating the secular sphere of governance from the claims of faith, recognizing the priority of rights-bearing individuals over the claims of the community, and honoring the separation of material nature from any kind of mind-stuff, whether a personal God or impersonal Intelligence — are deemed to be un-Hindu colonial intrusions which must be suitably reformulated, or 'spiritualized,' to conform to the imperatives of the integral, holistic worldview of Hindu dharma. In a tragic reversal, left-leaning intellectuals who once stood firm in defense of the secular humanist worldview that lies at the core of modernity, and was embraced by the framers of India's Constitution, have become its most vocal critics. Once some of India's best-known public intellectuals went native, so to speak, and later joined forces with poststructuralist currents in the metropolitan universities, words like secularism, science, development, and the Enlightenment would not be mentioned in academic discourse without scare quotes. These critics have expended enormous intellectual labor to debunk these ideas as imposing Eurocentric conceptual categories on the post-colonial world, thereby perpetuating 'mental colonialism.' The Left and the Right, thus, are united in their search for 'alternative modernities' that are no longer bound by the 'Western' model of modernity as a progressive decline of ignorance and blind faith, along with a growth of individualism and personal freedoms. The Left condemns this model of secularizing and liberalizing modernity as Eurocentric and looks for alternatives in the lifeworld of ordinary people who are, supposedly, untouched by modernity. The Right, meanwhile, declares the sacred traditions of Sanskritic Hinduism to be the source of a superior kind of modernity that delivers material goods without the Western 'vices' of individualism, materialism, and atheism. While the Postcolonial Left offers a total critique of modernity, the Right transvaluates the values of modernity and claims to find 'real' science, democracy, and secularism in our hoary ancient civilization. This has led to a paradoxical situation. In their public pronouncements, the Postcolonial Left and the Hindu Right see each other as mortal enemies, while surreptitiously using each other's conceptual vocabulary. For all its radicalism, the Postcolonial Left brings a distinctively Hindu sensibility to its critique of modernity, even as it castigates Hindu nationalism as just one more example of modernizing nation-statist ideology. The Hindu Right, meanwhile, makes full use of the arguments of postcolonial theory, while castigating the postcolonialist intellectuals as creatures of the Western academe who hew to its secularist worldview. The Hindu sensibilities of the Postcolonial Left are obvious, although unacknowledged. Even as the Postcolonial Left seeks to recover the religious lifeworld of the subaltern as an antidote to Enlightenment rationalism, it questions the 'Hindu' of Hindu nationalists as a colonial fabrication that superimposed a 'Semitic' conception of a monotheistic, Book-centered religion on the easy-going, polytheistic, ritual-centered religiosity that prevailed in India before colonialism, and still prevails among the masses. Yet, for all their skepticism about Hinduism as a 'religion' cast in a Christian mold, a distinctively Hindu sensibility constitutes the political unconscious of Indian postcolonial theorists. The non-modern traditions in whose name they confront 'colonial modernity' are all distinctly Hindu. The gods they invoke to battle the rationalists and secularists are straight out of the Puranas; the mythic mode of narrating the past they defend against secular historiography is Hindu; the religious 'tolerance' they valorize against the constitutional secularism is nothing but the hierarchical inclusiveness of Hinduism; the holistic modes of knowing they counterpose against the supposed reductionism of modern science are Hindu. Hinduism is the elephant romping through the postcolonial Ivory Tower that everyone pretends not to see. For its part, the Hindu Right sees itself as the true heir of Edward Said's critique of Orientalism. Indeed, a new generation of Hindu thinkers, who call themselves ' Bauddhika Kshatriyas,' or 'intellectual warriors,' has emerged that wants to proudly and unabashedly proclaim the superiority and universality of dharmic conceptions of divinity, nature, knowledge, and society, without seeking the West's approbation or fearing its opprobrium. To that end, they strategically appropriate the Saidian framework of postcolonial theory to 'provincialize' Europe from a dharmic perspective, and to whitewash Hinduism's peculiar institutions of caste, untouchability, and patriarchy as 'colonial constructions.' Even as they appropriate the postcolonial critiques of 'Western' modernity, they reject the anti-essentialism of all 'post'-marked theory as fashionable nonsense. Thus, in their public pronouncements, our 'intellectual warriors' decry the Postcolonial Left as too beholden to Western fads, while making full use of their writings. The Postcolonial Left and the Hindu Right, in sum, see themselves not as allies but as sworn enemies. But if one were to pause and ask — What is the vision of a future India that the two sides have to offer? What do they think must be done to get to this future? — the postcolonial position turns out to be not all that dissimilar from that of their 'enemies.' Both want an India that proudly embraces its indigenous cultural norms, and an India that boldly confronts the West with 'alternative universals' of Indian provenance. Both direct their ire at Eurocentric conceptual categories for preventing the full flowering of India's native genius. Both seek to decolonize and indigenize science and social theory. Both sides are singing the same song with the same refrain: Down with Eurocentrism! Decolonize Now! Swaraj in Ideas! The Argument: What the Book Says and Does Not Say The central argument of this book is that the Postcolonial Left and the Hindu Right belong to the family of 'conservative revolutions' against Enlightenment rationalism and liberalism on behalf of indigenous traditions. Intellectuals who first called themselves 'conservative revolutionaries' were a loose group of intellectuals who were bitterly opposed to the Weimar Republic, Germany's first constitutional democracy, and hastened its demise at the hands of the Nazis. They condemned the rational foundations of modern liberalism and socialism as culturally alien to German Volkisch traditions and sought a 'Third Way' rooted in Germanic values. Their attempt to reawaken the German Volksgeist would provide a blueprint for the National Socialism of the Nazi party. The kernel of thought on which this book is based is simple: India is facing a Weimar moment, and its intellectual landscape bears a comparison, in context and substance, to the Weimar Republic before it fell to the Nazis. The short and spectacular life of the embattled Weimar Republic can illuminate the dilemmas and challenges facing India's faltering democracy. The role the conservative revolutionaries played in the downfall of the Republic can illuminate the dangers of the intellectual assault on modernity from the Left and the Right wings of postcolonial studies. In the chapters that follow, I juxtapose the intellectual history of India with the revolution against the Enlightenment in Germany between the two world wars. The mantle of conservative revolutionaries in India rightfully belongs to the neo-Hindu founding fathers of modern India — notably, Mahatma Gandhi, Swami Vivekananda, and Sri Aurobindo — who bought into the Orientalist and Romanticist conceptions of India as an idyllic, spiritual nation of perennial wisdom. They were not hostile to non-Hindu minorities as the openly Islamophobic parties like the Hindu Mahasabha or the RSS were and are. (Germany's conservative revolutionaries, too, were not openly anti-Semitic. Their nationalism was more cultural than racialist.) Nevertheless, they saw India as an essentially Hindu nation whose 'soul' lay in its spirituality and its holistic communitarian way of life. When they were not openly hostile to parliamentary democracy, industry, capitalism, and socialism, as in the case of Gandhi, they succeeded in hybridizing modern ideals of individual rights and scientific rationalism with the 'timeless' spiritual traditions of Hinduism, while welcoming the technological innovations of the West. The Postcolonial Left, this book will show, has met the conservative, neo-Hindu currents of Indian nationalism halfway by stigmatizing as colonial and Eurocentric the same ideas of individualism, rationalism, and secularism that the former deem too 'materialistic' for Hindu 'spirituality' and therefore unsuitable for India. By indicting the conceptual categories of modern ways of knowing and living as inflicting 'epistemic violence' on the worldview and traditions of India, the Postcolonial Left has issued a blank check to those clamoring for a return to the Great Hindu Civilization. Postcolonial assault on modernity in the name of recuperating the people's traditions bears striking similarities with that of the conservative revolutionaries of the Weimar period. The following three similarities will be highlighted and substantiated in the body of this work: One, the Postcolonial Left in India emerged from the same kind of cultural despair that sparked the conservative backlash against modernity in the Weimar Republic. In both cases, despair over social displacements and cultural changes caused by the rapid growth of industrial capitalism and a relatively young and insecure democracy led concerned intellectuals to seek a radical escape from the very idea of modernity. In both cases, the West — the French Revolution in the case of Germany, and the legacy of the British Raj in the case of India — was seen as destroying something precious in their respective nations. In both cases, public intellectuals served as cultural middlemen who repackaged old cultural traditions of 'the people,' the volk, as alternatives to liberal democracy, socialism, and Marxism and delivered them to the far Right. Two, like the conservative revolutionaries in the Weimar Republic, Indian postcolonial theorists, from the Left as well as from the Right, target the Enlightenment tradition as an alien imposition and reject the internationalism of science as a myth. Conservative revolutionaries like Oswald Spengler, the author of Weimar's best-selling book, The Decline of the West, argued for civilizationally distinct sciences. The Nazis used the Spenglerian rhetoric of different-sciences-for-different-people to celebrate 'Aryan science' for ideological purposes while investing heavily in science-driven industry, advanced weaponry, and industrial-scale murders. Likewise, the postcolonial devaluation of scientific objectivity in the name of the cultural construction of scientific facts, and the rejection of the universality of science as a mask of Eurocentricity, has opened the door wide to cultural relativism and nativism. The culturalist critique of post-Enlightenment modes of reasoning enables the Hindu Right to institutionalize outdated 'Indian knowledge systems' at all levels of education, in the name of mental decolonization. Just as the Weimar conservatives gave intellectual respectability to the ideologically correct 'Aryan science,' the postcolonial attacks on scientific rationality are providing the grounds for 'Vedic science.' Finally, and most alarmingly, the postcolonial romance of the virtuous, non-modern cultures victimized by Western conceptual categories fuels a sense of India's victimhood and exceptionalism at the same time. Just as the volkisch romance of the Weimar's radical conservatives proved useful for the Nazis, the nostalgic indigenism of postcolonial theorists is feeding the flames of Hindu supremacy that could spell disaster for India's religious minorities. As an old-fashioned Enlightenment secular humanist who proudly locates herself on the side of universal norms of reason and human flourishing, I have watched in anguish how the Postcolonial Left has shredded the ideals we rationalists hold dear. I fear that in their eagerness to embrace native conceptual categories as if they were incommensurable with mainstream exact sciences and social theory, postcolonial intellectuals have betrayed their vocation as intellectuals to speak for the ideals of universal humanity. Through the ages, Indian thinkers — from the Lokayatas of antiquity, through our own Enlightenment thinkers, notably, Ambedkar, Periyar, Nehru, M.N. Roy, and Narendra Dabholkar, and countless unsung women and men fighting the powers of patriarchs and panchayats in our midst — have challenged their cultural particularities against a conception of human flourishing that transcends these particularities. Postcolonial theorists, on the other hand, have dragged the very idea of universal human good before the tribunal of cultural differences. Whereas it is the time-honored responsibility of intellectuals to 'speak the truth, and expose lies,' to quote the plain words of Noam Chomsky, our post-marked intellectuals have made it their mission to expose the very idea of objective truth as a mere ruse of power. What motivated me to write this book is not just my deep and abiding philosophical disagreements with the enemies of the Enlightenment, but my growing concern that their critique of reason and modernity is merging, without a residue, with the reactionary, revivalist modernism of the Hindu Right. I am alarmed when I see the stalwarts of postcolonial and decolonial theory — Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Ashis Nandy, Nicholas Dirks, Walter Mignolo, and Anibal Quijano —respectfully cited in the Hindu Right literature. I am alarmed when tirades against 'mental decolonization' make their way from the Ivory Tower into the halls of government, as happened when the Modi administration made decolonization the guiding principle of the National Education Policy of 2020. Looking beyond India, I am alarmed when the European Right passes itself off as an anti-colonial movement defending European civilization against immigrants and the homogenizing influences of globalization, or when Alexander Dugin, the Russian ultranationalist, speaks the language of decoloniality. I am equally alarmed when theorists of decoloniality embrace authoritarian states like Russia, China, and Iran (and India, too) as mascots of de-westernization and civilizational 'plurivarsalism.' Above all, I am concerned about the kind of cultural values and ways of knowing that are being promoted for our salvation, and if these values are adequate for creating a society that respects rational thought, human equality, and individual freedoms. At the heart of this book lies my concern that under the cover of radical-sounding rhetoric of 'decolonization,' and making India the world's guru, ways of knowing that have been superseded by modern science, and cultural values that belong to the premodern world of integral communities organized on the principles of hierarchy, deference, and duties are being glorified and institutionalized. Let me clearly state what the convergence of the Left with conservative revolutionaries of the Right that I describe in this book does not imply. I am not suggesting that Hindutva's assault on the idea of India as a modern secular state would not have happened if it were not for the unremitting barrage of anti-Western and anti-modernist high theory emanating from the postcolonial battalions from the Left of the political spectrum. The Hindu Right does not need any assistance from the Left on this count. On the contrary, a toxic, resentful Occidentalism, coupled with an overweening sense of Hindu superiority, has defined the mainstream of Indian nationalism, and not just its Hindu nationalist avatars, from its beginnings in the 19th century. Indeed, much of what postcolonial theorists have to say about India's cultural incommensurability with the West is commonplace in the writings of the canonical anti-colonial thinkers, including Gandhi, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, and even Tagore, who positioned himself as an ambassador of Indian spirituality even though he rejected the idea of nationalism. As I argue in this book, postcolonial theory is merely a footnote to the neo-Hindu revivalist strains of anti-colonial nationalism. In other words, I am not suggesting that the Postcolonial Left single-handedly lit the fires of Hindu chauvinism. What I am claiming is that it has enabled the fire to spread by disabling a principled critique of Hinduism and Hindu nationalism that could have acted as a fire retardant. By recklessly propagating the cult of indigeneity, the high priests of postcolonial theory have succeeded in tilting the intellectual-political center of gravity toward a politics of nostalgia and revival, which is the natural terrain of the Right. Consequently, there is now a void where there should have been a strong, principled, secular-democratic front against Hindutva's onslaught on all that was once decent and promising in the idea of India. Meera Nanda taught the history of science at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research for over a decade. She participated in the 'Science Wars' in defense of science against its social constructivist critics and has written extensively on the appropriation of modern science by Hindu apologists in India. Her previous books include Prophets Facing Backward: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism (2004) and A Field Guide to Post-truth India (2024). She lives in Connecticut. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Porsche warns workers of cost-cuts amid 'serious' situation
German sportscar-maker Porsche told employees Friday to prepare for another round of cost-cutting in the latest blow to the country's embattled auto sector. Any further steps would come on top of the 1,900 job cuts the company announced in February while Volkswagen, Porsche's parent group, is already in the process of cutting 35,000 jobs by 2030. "Our business model, which sustained us for many decades, no longer works in its current form," Porsche management said in a letter to employees, excerpts of which were shared with AFP. "Our operating conditions have deteriorated dramatically in a short period of time," the letter read. Negotiations are expected in the second half of the year "to assure the long-term future of the company", the letter added without going into specifics of possible measures. Fierce competition in China from domestic players, tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump and the dollar weakening versus the euro were all weighing on Porsche, bosses said. The cost of ramping up electric vehicle production amid tepid demand was also hurting the company, they added. "The situation remains serious and the sector is evolving very dynamically," the letter said. Porsche in April slashed its profit and sales forecasts for the year, citing "continued challenging market conditions" in China. Porsche's vehicle deliveries in China fell 28 percent in the first half of the year and six percent worldwide.>
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Where's the Trade Deal, Mr Trump?' Priyanka Chaturvedi Slams US President Over India-Pak Claims
/ Jul 19, 2025, 04:22PM IST Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi launched a fiery rebuttal to US President Donald Trump's repeated claims that a proposed US trade deal was behind the recent ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Reacting to Trump's sensational statement that 'five jets were shot down' and the US defused the crisis through trade diplomacy, Chaturvedi wrote on X: 'If Trump keeps repeating the trade deal got India and Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire, then how is it that India-US don't have a trade deal yet?' She further slammed Pakistan, saying, 'Even America knows there's no trade deal with Pakistan, there's only a terror deal because that's the only thing Pakistan excels in.' Trump's unverified 'five jets downed' claim and portrayal of the US as peace broker has drawn criticism and disbelief in India, with leaders across parties questioning his credibility and motives.#priyankachaturvedi #donaldtrump #indiapakistan #tradedeal #ceasefireclaim #trumpjetsclaim #shivsenaubt #usindiarelations #pakterror #trumpspeech #toi #toibharat #bharat #trending #breakingnews #indianews
