Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, right, and Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar enter a hall for their talks at Zinaida Morozova’s Mansion in Moscow, Russia, on Monday, Nov. 17, 2025.
| Photo Credit: AP

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Photo: Pool via Reuters

President Donald Trump. File
| Photo Credit: AP

West Palm Beach, United States:

US President Donald Trump said Sunday he could meet “very soon” with Vladimir Putin, adding he believes his Russian counterpart genuinely wants to stop fighting in Ukraine. “No time set, but it could be very soon,” Trump told reporters, hours after Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to play down expectations of upcoming high-level talks in Riyadh on ending the war.

With Rubio set to lead a high-level American delegation at the discussions with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia’s capital in the coming days, a flurry of diplomacy was taking place as the brutal Ukraine war nears its third anniversary.

Trump, addressing reporters after a flight on Air Force One, said his team has been speaking “long and hard” with Russian officials, including his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff whom the president said met with Putin for about three hours recently.

“I think he wants to stop fighting,” Trump said of Putin. 

Asked whether he believes Putin wants to seize the entirety of Ukraine, Trump said: “That was my question to him. 

“If he’s going to go on… that would have caused me a big problem,” Trump added. 

“I think he wants to end it, and they want to end it fast. Both of them,” he said, adding “Zelensky wants to end it too.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky meanwhile said Sunday he believes Russia is preparing to “wage war” against a weakened NATO should Trump dilute US support for the alliance.

Trump appeared to dismiss Zelensky’s remarks, telling reporters he was “not even a little bit” concerned about the Ukrainian leader’s messaging.

The Republican had repeatedly insisted he would end the Ukraine conflict in a single day if he returned to the White House, but Rubio stressed it would “not be easy” to resolve such a long-running, bloody and complex conflict.

“A process towards peace is not a one-meeting thing,” America’s top diplomat said in an interview with CBS on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.

‘Nothing’ finalized

Rubio is set to lead a high-level US team to Riyadh, but it remains unclear whether there will be any Ukrainian participation. Rubio said he wasn’t even sure who Moscow was sending.

“Nothing’s been finalized yet,” he said, adding the aim was to seek an opening for a broader conversation that “would include Ukraine and would involve the end of the war.”

Witkoff and US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz are both expected to attend the talks.

Trump and Putin held a lengthy phone call Wednesday in which they agreed to start ceasefire negotiations immediately.

The call blindsided NATO allies as well as Kyiv, with Zelensky insisting there should be “no decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine.”

“Right now there is no process,” said Rubio, who spoke by phone Saturday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. “One phone call does not make peace.”

In an interview with NBC broadcast Sunday, Zelensky had said Putin was a serial liar and could not be trusted as a negotiating partner.

“I don’t think in geopolitics, anyone should trust anyone,” Rubio said.

“The next few weeks and days will determine whether (Putin) is serious or not.”

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Brussels:

The EU on Sunday said that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin bore “ultimate responsibility” for the death of Alexei Navalny, as it paid tribute to the late opposition figurehead on the one-year anniversary of his passing.

The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said Navalny “gave his life for a free and democratic Russia” and called for the release of all political prisoners in the country.

“Today marks one year since the death of Russian opposition leader politician Alexei Navalny, for which President Putin and the Russian authorities bear ultimate responsibility,” Kallas said in a statement.

The charismatic Navalny — Putin’s main opponent who campaigned against government corruption — died a year ago while incarcerated in a remote Arctic penal colony.

Russian authorities have never fully explained his death, which they said happened while he was walking in the prison yard.

“As Russia intensifies its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, it also continues its internal repression, targeting those who stand for democracy,” Kallas said.

Navalny’s lawyers remain “unjustly imprisoned, together with hundreds of political prisoners”, she added.

“Russia must immediately and unconditionally release Alexei Navalny’s lawyers and all political prisoners,” Kallas said.

Navalny — Putin’s main opponent — was declared an “extremist” by Russian authorities, a ruling that remains in force despite his death, which came less than a month before a presidential election that extended Putin’s more than two-decade rule.

In Russia, anybody who mentions Navalny or his Anti-Corruption Foundation without stating that they have been declared “extremist” is subject to fines, or up to four years in prison for repeated offences.

Until his death, the 47-year-old continued to call for Russians to oppose the Kremlin and denounced Moscow’s Ukraine offensive, even from behind bars.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

This year, Narendra Modi took oath as Prime Minister of India for the third consecutive term. Under his guidance, India has gained global recognition for its economic growth, technological advancements and contributions to global stability, said the Prime Minister’s Office or the PMO.

“From Bhutan to Russia, Germany to Singapore, and the United States to Guyana, the admiration for PM Modi’s leadership is widespread. His tenure, marked by transformative domestic policies and a clear vision for India’s future, has not only reshaped India’s global image but also established the country as a beacon of hope, stability, and progress,” the PMO posted on X in an article titled ‘Global Voices On PM Modi’. 

King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck of Bhutan awarded PM Modi the country’s highest honour, Order of the Druk Gyalpo, acknowledging India’s continued support for Bhutan. Bhutan’s Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay has called for a permanent seat for India in the United Nations Security Council, acknowledging India’s growing importance in global affairs.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has praised PM Modi’s economic initiatives, particularly “Make in India,” which have created favourable conditions for foreign investment. These efforts have boosted India’s manufacturing sector and focused on renewable energy, said the article.

Rising as a symbol of progress and resilience, India is earning global recognition for its economic progress, technological advancements and contributions to regional and global stability. https://t.co/gJPBdKL9tp

— PMO India (@PMOIndia) December 31, 2024

Guyana’s President Mohamed Irfaan Ali also praised India’s transformation under PM Modi, noting that the country now leads in technological advancements and research.

Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu highlighted PM Modi’s repeated electoral victories as proof of India’s robust democratic system. Winning three consecutive elections in a diverse society shows PM Modi’s ability to connect with the people and govern effectively, underlined the Nigerian President. 

“Winning three consecutive elections in such a diverse and complex society is seen as a testament to PM Modi’s ability to connect with the masses and govern effectively, earning him respect not only within India but across the world,” said the PM’s office.

Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz recognised India’s role in stabilising the South Asian region. PM Modi’s diplomatic efforts, especially in managing the Russia-Ukraine conflict, have established India as a trusted global stabilising force.

India’s growth in technology and industry under Narendra Modi has earned global praise. Singapore’s Minister for Trade and Industry, Gan Kim Yong, praised India’s advances in sectors such as renewable energy, electric vehicles, and electronics. India’s conducive environment for innovation has attracted significant global investment.

Vietnam’s Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh noted that India’s growth under PM Modi would propel the country toward becoming a developed nation by 2047.

“The vision of “Viksit Bharat” (Developed India) has become a guiding principle for PM Modi’s government, and it is a vision that is increasingly resonating with the international community. India’s success in economic development, technological innovation, and infrastructure has caught the attention of leaders around the world, who now view India as a reliable partner for future collaboration,” said the PM’s Office.

Ajay Banga, President of the World Bank, has “expressed his awe” at India’s resilience, especially in the face of global economic challenges. 

“Despite worldwide uncertainties, India has consistently grown at a pace that surpasses most economies, demonstrating the success of PM Modi’s policies that focus on industrialization, infrastructure development, and digital transformation,” said the PM’s Office.

Indian-American economist Jagdish Bhagwati’s remark that “India tells the World Bank what to do now” reflects India’s shift from being an aid recipient to a leader in shaping global economic strategies.

“PM Modi’s leadership has undoubtedly transformed India on the global stage. Whether it is through his domestic policies aimed at creating a self-reliant India, his diplomatic efforts to ensure regional stability, or his focus on technological and industrial growth, PM Modi has firmly placed India in a new light,” said the PM’s Office.

Moscow:

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday signed a decree broadening the scope of when Moscow can use nuclear weapons in a clear message to the West and Ukraine.

The move comes on the 1,000th day of Russia’s offensive on Ukraine and after the United States gave Kyiv permission to use long-range missiles to strike military targets inside Russia.

The new doctrine outlines that Russia will consider using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state if they are supported by nuclear powers.

“Aggression by a non-nuclear state with the participation of a nuclear state is considered as a joint attack,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Tuesday — a clear reference to Ukraine and its Western backers.

“It was necessary to bring our principles in line with the current situation,” Peskov added, calling the update a “very important” document that should be “studied” abroad.

Russia “has always viewed nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence,” he said, adding that they would only be deployed if Russia felt “forced” to respond.

Putin has issued a string of nuclear threats throughout the almost three-year campaign against Ukraine, triggering concern in the West over rhetoric it has slammed as reckless.

The new doctrine also allows Moscow to unleash a nuclear response in the event of a “massive” air attack, even if it only uses conventional weapons.

When the Kremlin first unveiled the proposed changes in September, Peskov called it a “warning” against anybody who was thinking about participating “in an attack on our country by various means, not necessarily nuclear”.

Moscow’s nuclear umbrella will also be extended to its close ally Belarus under the new doctrine.

Speaking on the 1,000th day of the conflict, Peskov said the “collective West” had unleashed a “war” against Russia, pledging that Moscow would see what it calls its “special military operation” through to the end.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

It is hard to miss the irony. The idea for a new trans-border payment system and a new currency was apparently discussed at the recently concluded BRICS summit in Russia, a country that has earned the reputation for being the world’s most sanctioned nation. Today, global transactions rely on the SWIFT system, with the US dollar reigning supreme. These two pillars are the heavy hitters in the US-led sanctions regime.

It was also ironic that Vladimir Putin, the world’s most sanctioned politician, whom the Western world believed to be one of the most isolated leaders in the world, played host, with pomp and pageantry, to 36 countries, as well as the United Nations Secretary-General.

Russia Is Far From Isolated

Since Russia’s Ukraine invasion in February 2022, Putin and his country have been smacked with an astounding 19,535 sanctions from the US and its friends. Russia’s assets abroad, in billions of dollars, were frozen. The aim supposedly was to grind the country’s economy and war machine to a halt. And the idea was to make the Russian war against Ukraine so outrageously costly that Putin would be forced to throw in the towel. Western officials and commentators predicted Russia’s economy would collapse under severe sanctions. There was a faint hope that the economic toll might spark a popular uprising against him. But here he is, heavy sanctions notwithstanding, still hosting world leaders with warm hugs and handshakes, and with all the trappings of a grand host.

Against all odds, Russia’s economy has shown surprising resilience. Defying early forecasts, it grew by 3.6% in 2023. In fact, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects further growth at 3.2% in 2024, according to its World Economic Outlook update. Ironically, this rate of growth surpasses that of some of the sanctioning countries. Inflation is low and unemployment has hit record lows. Experts point to factors like economic diversification, increased domestic production, strengthened trade ties with countries like India and China, currency controls and well-managed reserves as key to this unexpected endurance.

This isn’t quite the outcome the US and its allies had in mind. Even so, for a trigger-happy America, sanctions are a preferred tool of its foreign policy, despite the evidence that they may no longer be as effective as once believed. From Russia to Iran, and North Korea to Venezuela, many sanctioned nations have resisted both economic collapse and political upheaval. As critics point out, sanctions often weigh most heavily on ordinary civilians, deepening humanitarian crises without delivering the political outcomes they’re intended to achieve.

Iran Is Happy, Too

Iran is another heavily sanctioned country, which faces curbs not just by the US and its Western allies but also by the United Nations. It has been under sanctions since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The first set of restrictions came in November 1979, after pro-revolution students seized the American Embassy in Tehran and took hostages. Since then, the US and its allies have imposed various sanctions against Iran, ranging from economic and trade to travel restrictions. The US has also frozen Iran’s overseas assets. 

The United Nations has imposed dozens of sanctions of its own, which include some that target its nuclear programme, ballistic missile development and alleged human rights abuses. There is no doubt that these sanctions have significantly impacted Iran’s economy and people, but they have not helped topple the regime. They have proven counterproductive in the sense that they have only pushed Iran towards Russia and China, both arch-US rivals.

A Growing Anti-West Sentiment

Sanctions, as it turns out, don’t just punish economies and leaders-often, they seem to breed a kind of defiant patriotism and anti-West sentiments. In places like Russia and Iran, sanctions appear to be doing less to “cripple” governments and more to cement public loyalty against the West. The logic? For Russia, sanctions have been an unexpected rallying point, fueling anti-West rhetoric that plays right into the Kremlin’s hands. They are framed as hurdles Russia has heroically overcome. 

Similarly, Iran has leaned into sanctions as proof of Western hostility, using it to stoke national unity and portray itself as a bastion against outside interference. Iran’s leadership projects, quite successfully, decades of resistance against sanctions as a national triumph. Far from driving these countries to a breaking point, sanctions have given them the material for a powerful narrative.

India Is No Stranger

If you take a close look at the US sanctions on Russian companies, you will see a pattern emerging: many Russian companies that are direct competitors of American firms have faced sanctions. The other clear pattern is the commission of Russian companies, on which the US relies heavily. For instance, the US has decided not to sanction Russian agencies that supply titanium for Boeing’s commercial aircraft and rocket engines for NASA. In both these areas, the US has no indigenous capacity. 

The US sanctions against Iran have already impacted India in a big way. The sanctions against Russia are also potentially of concern to Indian companies. Russia is India’s strategic partner and a key supplier of defence hardware. Sanctions cast a shadow over this essential relationship. With major Russian defence suppliers on the US sanctions list, Indian companies working with them risk being cut off from the dollar-based financial system that the US commands. Even Indian firms working in areas untouched by sanctions could feel the squeeze.

In the not-so-distant past, even India had been a victim of US sanctions. After India conducted a nuclear test in Pokhran in 1974, the US imposed nuclear-related sanctions under the Symington Amendment. It also put an arms embargo against India. Then, following the 1998 Pokhran-II nuclear test, the US imposed sanctions under the Glenn Amendment. The measures included restrictions on nuclear technology and aid. These sanctions were mostly relaxed and lifted following the India-US Nuclear Agreement in 2008. The US has now also granted India waivers for purchasing the S-400 missile system from Russia.

America’s Double Standards

Many experts point out the Western bias when it comes to taking action against friendly countries, such as Israel. They highlight the White House’s reluctance or its inability to sanction Israel or its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his alleged human rights violations and breach of international laws. Amidst an escalating humanitarian crisis in northern Gaza and southern Lebanon and reports of Israeli settlers’ attacks on Palestinians being on the rise, the US and its Western allies are coming under increasing pressure to impose sanctions or arms embargoes on Israel. So far, they have done nothing except issue a one-month ultimatum to resort to a weapons embargo against Israel if it did not allow uninterrupted humanitarian aid into northern Gaza. The Biden administration also says it has found reports of possible starvation quite disturbing. 

There is, however, little evidence that Israel has complied. What is true is that the US and its European allies have imposed travel sanctions against a handful of hardline Jewish settlers who were allegedly involved in violence against the Palestinians in the West Bank.

How Sanctions Have Emboldened Autocrats

For the US, the question now is not just whether sanctions are effective, but if they are backfiring. Sanctions might weaken economies, but they help autocratic regimes exploit public sentiment in order to stay in power. For example, in Russia, the wave of sanctions since 2014 (when Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region) has led to increased domestic nationalism, enabling President Vladimir Putin to consolidate power and rally public support against what is portrayed as Western aggression. Similarly, Iran has developed a lethal arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones and pursued its nuclear project despite being under the strictest of sanctions.

Is it time for a rethink? If sanctions are less effective than intended and more likely to turn public opinion against the West, then who, exactly, are they benefiting?

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Kursk:

When Ukraine launched a ground assault into Russia’s Kursk region in August, President Vladimir Putin promised to quickly “dislodge” Kyiv’s forces and return normality to local residents.

But nearly three months later, signs of the conflict are still found everywhere in the region’s capital, despite Russia claiming it is clawing back ground from Ukrainian troops.

School buildings in Kursk have been fortified with sandbags, while many windows are sealed with tape due to the risk of Ukrainian attacks.

Displaced people fleeing fighting near the border are regularly seen gathering at aid centres and some residents say they live in fear of aerial bombardment.

“You cannot show fear to your children. Because if you are afraid and they realise it… they become scared,” said 36-year-old Margarita Kotova.

The mother of three said her daughter’s school lessons were often interrupted by air raid sirens, and that state media was glossing over the impact of the conflict.

“If you watch Russian and Kursk news, we are doing well, everything is great, everything is going according to some plan you don’t understand,” she told AFP.

“We were not told for a long time what was happening on our border,” she said, adding that she now used social media to find out “how things really are”.

Russia says it is “achieving the goals” of its two-and-a-half-year offensive in Ukraine, but this statement rings hollow for many in a city home to thousands of internally displaced people.

‘Everyone is fed up’

At an aid centre in Kursk, Oksana Barsukova appeared glum as she queued for supplies.

The 44-year-old nursing assistant was told she could return to her home near the border within “three days” of fleeing Ukraine’s offensive.

But like thousands of others, she remains displaced by fighting, with little idea of when she can go back. “We left everything, and came here in the clothes we were wearing,” the mother of three said.

When she and her family tried going back home, they found its windows were shattered and “everything was broken”.

They quickly left after hearing shooting.

In the city, many residents go about their day as usual and passers-by give no reaction when an air alert sounds.

Residents said they had adapted to the grim reality of the conflict. “At school during a missile threat, they sit in the corridors, or go down to a shelter if the school has one,” Kotova said.

School principal Marina Starikova said pupils had become “used to the sirens”. “Everyone is fed up,” said 27-year-old gym teacher Vladimir Kuroptev, who was displaced by Kyiv’s offensive.

He hopes the conflict will be over soon, but does not know when. “Not this year, of course, but in a year or two, everything will be over.”

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

All eyes have been on Iran for more than a year. Naturally, the first BRICS summit with Tehran’s membership is bound to breed speculation about what the prospective new world order would look like. At home, there needs to be an examination of India’s bilateral ties with a country that is seen firmly anti-West in its outlook. 

Iran and India are sailing in the same boat, at least momentarily: of the West’s castigation. The temptation may be high on both sides to form a joint front against Western hegemony in the security space. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has held bilateral talks with the new Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, with a focus on strategic cooperation in and beyond the Middle East.

Global Groupings vs Realpolitik

It can be endlessly debated without inching anywhere close to a resolution whether multilateral global groupings make any difference to realpolitik either domestically or internationally. The signalling, however, remains crucial. To begin with, the West is already perceiving the summit as Russia’s show of strength. Headlines like ‘Putin Gathers Allies’ and ‘Putin Hosts Global South Leaders at BRICS Summit Meant to Counterbalance Western Clout’ in Western media outlets expose apprehension. 

A complex interplay of sectarian interests and regional dynamics shapes Iran’s geopolitical strategy. It is in the direct line of fire, thanks to Israel’s unchecked belligerence. Already reeling under economic pressure owing to the UN sanctions of 2011, the post-October 7 reality for Tehran is even grimmer. Iran blames the US for almost all of its problems. As such, during the last summit, former president Ebrahim Raisi had anointed Iran’s proposed BRICS membership as one of the ways of getting even with the US and the West at large. “Iran’s membership in the bloc is opposition to American unilateralism.”

India Needs To Defines Its Position

Russia and China share this sentiment of BRICS emerging as a counterbalance to the West. But what about India? India has lauded and endorsed Iran’s presence in BRICS, but will New Delhi also endorse Tehran’s oppressive domestic policies in the name of this cooperative alliance? 

India has not stopped buying oil from Iran despite the sanctions and disapproving remarks from the West. Yet, bilateral trade between the two countries has dropped by 26% in one year. Geoeconomics informs Iranian perceptions of the bloc as a critical driver. Iran aims to secure increased volumes of oil and non-oil exports to fellow BRICS members, bypassing the dollar. 

Like Russia, Iran is engaged in a high-stakes battle with the West. China doesn’t particularly enjoy a friendly status, either. New Delhi’s balancing act, therefore, is set to be tested on many tricky issues in the near future, including the Israel-Palestine issue. 

India has been an outlier in a manner. At the last UN General Assembly vote on a resolution calling for the end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, India was the only founding BRICS country to abstain, along with the newcomer Ethiopia. 

During the Modi-Pezeshkian bilateral, India was urged to play a more substantial role in the Middle East peace process. But what are New Delhi’s realistic options? Calling for peace does not usher in peace; arm-twisting the stakeholders does. 

A Sticky Question For New Delhi

Any BRICS decision mandates unanimous agreement. In that sense, it is even trickier than the domestic coalition politics that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has found itself in the midst of after a decade. What will, for example, be India’s stand should Iran want a revival of its nuclear plan? India’s past tussles with the West over its own nuclear programme may trigger another round of strategic unpleasantness over New Delhi’s stance.

India has a long-standing policy of strategic autonomy, and the complexity of its relations with the West is par for the course. The question is only of degree. The scope of India’s support to its alliance partners in any overtures, real or perceived, against the West needs to be clearly defined, if not announced. While BRICS has achieved precious little in tangible terms in the past 15 years, the symbolism of grouping may have consequences for India as ongoing conflicts stretch into the future and new challenges around them emerge.

On the other hand, the internal dynamics of the expanded BRICS are going to pose another challenge. BRICS, only a little more than an ad hoc grouping with diverse challenges and interests, has miles to go to emerge as a counterforce to alliances like the G7 or the Five Eyes, where members have been able to thrash out at least a common minimum programme.  

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author