• India buys Russian oil on discounted price.
• US tariff reduces India’s Russian oil buying by 38%.
• Modi doesn’t say US ask for halting oil purchases.
  

The Kremlin said on Tuesday it had not received any indication from India that it would stop buying Russian oil following the announcement of a trade deal with US President Donald Trump.

Trump said he had struck a deal to reduce tariffs on India and that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had promised to stop buying Russian oil over the war in Ukraine.

India’s purchases of Russian oil — discounted due to Western sanctions complicating logistics and cutting off markets — have surged since Russia launched its full-scale military offensive on Ukraine in February 2022.

Ukraine and its Western allies have been seeking to cut off the billions of dollars in revenue, a vital source of income for Russia’s stretched economy and its military.

“So far, we haven’t heard any statements from New Delhi on this matter,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters, including AFP.

Trump said he was cutting levies on Indian goods to 18%. He had previously imposed 25% “reciprocal” tariffs on many products, plus an additional 25% for New Delhi’s purchases of Moscow’s oil.

While Modi thanked Trump for the “wonderful” phone call and the easing of tariffs, he made no reference to Trump’s assertion about halting oil purchases.

In 2024, Russia supplied nearly 36% of India’s total crude imports, around 1.8 million barrels of discounted oil per day.

But after Trump hit New Delhi with tariffs, India’s monthly oil imports from Russia plunged by 38%, local media reported, citing India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry’s data.

Russian President Vladimir Putin promised “uninterrupted shipments” of oil during a visit to New Delhi in late 2025.

Bilateral trade between the two sides reached $68.7 billion in 2024-25 — almost six times higher than the pre-pandemic levels — dominated by Moscow’s energy sales, with Indian exports to Russia accounting for under $5 billion.

DUBAI: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has warned that stabilising Gaza requires simultaneous progress on Palestinian statehood and Israeli security, built through regional and international cooperation, saying that the same political urgency is required to prevent tensions with Iran from spiralling into another Middle East crisis.

The message was delivered by Dr Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, during a session at the World Government Summit in Dubai on Tuesday, where he said the region could not afford to deal with either Gaza or Iran through force or repeated confrontation.

“The way forward in Gaza is political,” Gargash said. “The Middle East has already witnessed calamitous confrontations, and it does not need another escalation, whether in Gaza or with Iran.”

He said any sustainable outcome for Gaza must emerge from a joint framework involving Palestinians, Egypt, Israel, Jordan and key international partners, with the United States playing a central role in shaping a political settlement.

Gargash reiterated that the UAE has no ambition to administer Gaza, rejecting speculation that Abu Dhabi could take on a civilian governing role in the enclave.

“The UAE has no separate national agenda for Gaza,” he said, adding that while the country remains a major humanitarian donor, governance and reconstruction must be rooted in a broader political process.

Turning to Iran, Gargash said unresolved tensions over Tehran’s nuclear programme and regional posture risk opening a second major crisis in a Middle East already shaken by the Gaza war.

“From everything that I know, Iran today needs to reach a deal,” he said, pointing to the economic pressure and geopolitical strain facing Tehran. He added that rebuilding Iran’s relations with the United States through a broader political and geostrategic agreement was essential for long-term stability.

He called for direct US-Iran negotiations, warning that without an understanding, Iran’s nuclear file would remain a persistent source of instability for the region.

Gargash said the same principle applied to both files: Gaza’s future and Iran’s nuclear dispute must be resolved through political processes rather than open-ended confrontation.

A credible path towards Palestinian statehood that guarantees Israel’s security, alongside a deal that curbs Iran’s nuclear ambitions and eases its isolation, would help defuse regional tensions and create space for reconstruction and economic recovery, he said.

A previously recorded interview of disgraced financier and late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has surfaced in which he is heard claiming that he had donated funds for anti-polio campaigns in Pakistan and India.

In the interview, Epstein, who was implicated in the sexual abuse of minors and human trafficking, said he had given money for efforts aimed at eradicating the crippling disease in the two countries. The interview was conducted by an unidentified individual at an undisclosed location and time.

During the conversation, Epstein is heard acknowledging he is a “Tier 1 predator”.

The interviewer asked him whether he was “the devil”, to which Epstein responded that he did not have an answer but questioned why such a question was being asked. The interviewer replied that Epstein possessed all the flaws associated with a devil. 

Epstein responded that he did not think of himself as the devil and said that he was afraid of the devil.

British media have speculated that the interview may have been conducted by Steve Bannon, who served as chief strategist during Donald Trump’s first term as US president.

Epstein was also asked whether his wealth was “dirty money”. He denied this, prompting the interviewer to say that Epstein had earned money by advising some of the world’s “worst people” who had committed serious wrongdoing. In response, Epstein said that morality had always been a complex subject.

Repeating his claim, Epstein said he had donated money for polio eradication efforts in Pakistan and India. He argued that instead of questioning whether the money should have been given for children’s vaccinations, people should ask the mothers whose children received the vaccines and would not suffer from polio whether Epstein should have made such donations.

At one point, the interviewer remarked that Epstein was a mathematician and posed a hypothetical question, asking what proportion of poor and sick people would object if they were told at a clinic that the money being given to them came from a criminal. Epstein replied that everyone would say they needed the money for their children.

Despite Epstein’s claims, it remains unclear whether he ever donated funds for anti-polio campaigns in Pakistan. It is also not known during which government such a donation may have been made, to whom the funds were sent, or through which channel.