Greenland Faces Defining Arctic Summit Amid Trump Pressure
P&C | Wednesday, 14 Jan. 2026
Nuuk | Planet & Commerce
As Washington prepares to host a high-stakes diplomatic meeting that could redefine Arctic geopolitics, Greenlanders are watching events unfold with a mix of anxiety, defiance and uncertainty. The talks, chaired by US Vice President JD Vance, bring together Denmark’s and Greenland’s foreign ministers alongside US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. At the heart of the discussion lies the future of Greenland, the world’s largest island, whose strategic value has once again thrust it into the centre of global power politics. In Nuuk, Greenland’s snow-covered capital, a digital ticker running above a shopping mall flashes the same words repeatedly: Trump, Greenland, sovereignty. The message reflects a growing sense of unease after US President Donald Trump openly declared his desire to acquire Greenland, warning that it could happen “the easy way or the hard way”. Coming in the aftermath of controversial US actions abroad, many Greenlanders say they are taking the rhetoric seriously. Local voices reveal the human dimension behind the geopolitical drama. Residents speak of a prolonged sense of tension, as if the countdown to the Washington summit has lasted years rather than days. Inuit writer and musician Sivnîssoq Rask has publicly stated her hope for an independent, well-managed Greenland that cannot be bought by any foreign power. Others, like young parents in Nuuk, fear the impact of relentless international attention on their families and culture. Beyond the island itself, the dispute has far-reaching consequences. Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, and any attempt by the United States to seize control by force would place NATO allies on opposite sides. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that such a move would effectively end the transatlantic defence alliance that has underpinned European security for decades. Relations between Washington and Europe, already strained since Trump’s return to the White House, could suffer a historic rupture.
European leaders are acutely aware of the stakes. At a time when they are seeking US backing for a sustainable peace framework in Ukraine, a confrontation over Greenland could derail broader strategic cooperation. Yet uncertainty surrounds Washington’s intentions. The key question ahead of the meeting is whether the White House is prepared to compromise or whether confrontation is inevitable. President Trump argues that Greenland is essential for US national security, claiming that if Washington does not act, rivals like Russia or China will fill the vacuum. In response, major European powers have begun exploring ways to strengthen NATO’s presence in and around Greenland. The United Kingdom and Germany are reportedly leading discussions on expanded Arctic security initiatives. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has acknowledged US concerns, emphasising that Greenland’s security situation requires improvement through cooperation rather than coercion. Meanwhile, figures within Germany’s defence establishment have floated the idea of deploying a European brigade to Greenland, arguing that Arctic training would offer strategic advantages. The British government is also consulting allies on potential deployments, citing concerns over Russian and Chinese activity in the High North. Within NATO, proposals remain at an early stage. Ideas under discussion include increased troop rotations, naval patrols, aircraft deployments, submarine surveillance and enhanced anti-drone capabilities. One notable concept is the creation of an Arctic maritime monitoring initiative modelled on NATO’s Baltic Sea security operations established after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Arctic seabed, criss-crossed by energy pipelines and internet cables, is seen as particularly vulnerable to hybrid threats. Security analysts say the alliance has already begun to refocus on the region. Former NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu, now with Royal United Services Institute, notes that while large-scale troop deployments to Greenland are unlikely, expanded exercises and maritime operations are increasingly necessary as Arctic competition intensifies.
Greenland’s strategic importance is not new. During the Second World War, the United States occupied the island to prevent it falling into Nazi hands after Denmark was invaded. Although Washington later attempted to buy Greenland, Copenhagen refused. The two countries instead became founding members of NATO, signing a defence agreement in 1951 that still allows the US to maintain bases on the island, including the vital Pituffik Space Base. Geographically, Greenland sits astride the shortest route between North America and Eurasia, making it crucial for missile defence and early-warning systems. The surrounding waters form the strategic GIUK gap, a maritime choke point between Greenland, Iceland and the UK that is central to monitoring submarine movements between the Arctic and the Atlantic. Despite Denmark pledging billions of dollars to strengthen Greenland’s surveillance and security, the Trump administration has signalled dissatisfaction. Former US ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith warns that the Washington meeting could mark a turning point, questioning whether any security assurances will satisfy a White House seemingly focused on territorial expansion. Some analysts argue that security concerns alone do not explain Trump’s fixation on Greenland. Ian Lesser of the German Marshall Fund suggests economic motivations may be equally significant. Greenland’s vast reserves of rare earths and critical minerals are vital for high-tech and defence industries, while melting Arctic ice could unlock lucrative new shipping routes. Most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, yet polls show an overwhelming majority reject becoming part of the United States. Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has described the current situation as a geopolitical crisis, making clear that if forced to choose, Greenland stands with Denmark. As the summit approaches, uncertainty dominates. Analysts like Sara Olvig warn that any attempt by the US to coerce Greenland would fundamentally undermine NATO and the democratic order. Russia and China, observers note, will be closely monitoring the outcome. For Greenland, the meeting represents more than diplomacy; it is a defining moment for sovereignty, identity and the Arctic’s future.
Russia Reworks Oil Routes To Sustain India Imports
P&C | Wednesday, 14 Jan. 2026
Moscow | Planet & Commerce
Russia has begun restructuring its global oil supply chains to ensure that India continues to receive large volumes of discounted Russian crude, despite a fresh wave of United States sanctions aimed at disrupting Moscow’s energy revenues. Industry analysts say the latest restrictions have slowed shipments temporarily but are unlikely to permanently alter India’s dependence on Russian oil, given the deep price discounts and India’s growing energy demand. Since the start of the Ukraine war, India has emerged as the world’s second-largest buyer of Russian crude oil, capitalising on steep discounts created by Western sanctions. Russian barrels have consistently undercut supplies from the Middle East, allowing Indian refiners to reduce import costs at a time of volatile global energy prices. Moscow, facing mounting pressure on its oil revenues, has made India a cornerstone of its post-sanctions energy strategy. Relations between Washington and New Delhi have deteriorated sharply in recent months, largely over India’s continued oil trade with Russia. US President Donald Trump has accused India of indirectly financing Moscow’s war effort and has repeatedly threatened punitive measures. In August, the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on Indian imports to the US in response to Russian oil purchases. New Delhi refused to yield, asserting that its energy decisions are a sovereign matter and cannot be dictated by external powers. The standoff intensified further last week when Washington warned it could impose tariffs of up to 500% on Indian goods and withdraw from several India-led international initiatives if Russian oil imports continued. The threat coincided with the rollout of expanded US sanctions targeting buyers of crude supplied by Rosneft and Lukoil, Russia’s two largest oil exporters and the primary suppliers to Indian refineries.
Initial data suggests the sanctions have had some effect. India’s Russian oil imports fell from an average of 1.7 million barrels per day to around 1.2 million barrels per day in December, a decline of nearly one-third. However, analysts caution that the dip may be short-lived. Even after the sanctions took effect, four of India’s seven largest refineries remain heavily dependent on Russian crude, underscoring the structural depth of the trade relationship. Energy market specialists point to a key loophole in the US measures. Sanctions apply specifically to crude supplied directly by Rosneft or Lukoil. If shipments are routed through intermediary exporters not formally linked to those companies, refiners are not automatically subject to penalties. Export data indicates that several new Russian oil trading entities emerged toward the end of the year, widely viewed as shadow intermediaries designed to bypass sanctions while keeping barrels flowing to major buyers like India. Homayoun Falakshahi, head of crude oil analysis at Kpler, said the rapid appearance of new exporters signals Moscow’s determination to adapt. He noted that Russia is unlikely to passively absorb the impact of sanctions and will instead reorganise logistics, contracts and ownership structures. Falakshahi estimates it could take only a few months for the new supply network to fully mature, allowing most Russian oil destined for India to be sold by entities outside the sanctions net. The Indian government has so far avoided issuing any explicit directive to refineries regarding Russian oil purchases. Officials have reiterated that companies are free to make commercial decisions based on operational and financial considerations. During a December visit to India, Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged that oil shipments to India would remain uninterrupted, openly defying Western pressure.
Economic realities continue to favour Russian crude. India imports nearly 90% of its oil, making price a critical factor. Following the latest sanctions, discounts on Russian barrels have widened further, with prices reportedly $9 to $10 per barrel cheaper than supplies from Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Analysts estimate that continued purchases could save Indian refiners close to $4 billion annually, a compelling incentive in a competitive refining market. Market sentiment suggests scepticism about the long-term effectiveness of US enforcement. Oil prices initially spiked when sanctions were announced but have since retreated, reflecting trader expectations that Russian supply will continue to find buyers. June Goh, a senior analyst at Sparta Commodities, said the discounts remain too attractive for most Indian refiners to ignore, reinforcing confidence that imports will rebound. One notable exception is Reliance Industries, India’s largest private oil refiner and previously the biggest buyer of Russian crude. The company has publicly stated it will no longer import Russian oil into its Jamnagar refinery, citing its record of sanctions compliance. January marked the first month with no Russian crude intake, a move analysts link both to US sanctions and European Union rules barring imports of fuels refined from Russian oil.
The EU remains a key export destination for Reliance’s diesel and jet fuel, making compliance essential for its global business. As Reliance seeks alternative crude sources, analysts say recent US actions in Venezuela may offer an opening. Reports suggest the company is in talks with Washington for approval to resume Venezuelan oil purchases, which India had relied on before sanctions were imposed. A Reliance spokesperson said the firm would consider buying such oil in a fully compliant manner. For now, the broader picture points to resilience rather than retreat in India-Russia oil trade. While sanctions have introduced friction and uncertainty, Russia’s rapid adaptation and India’s economic calculus suggest that discounted Russian crude will remain a central feature of India’s energy mix. As Washington escalates pressure, the unfolding supply-chain reshuffle highlights the limits of sanctions in a global oil market driven by price, demand and strategic necessity.
Assassination Threat Raises Tensions In Costa Rica Politics
P&C | Wednesday, 14 Jan. 2026
San José | Planet & Commerce
Costa Rica’s national security establishment has revealed the discovery of an alleged plot to assassinate President Rodrigo Chaves, sending shockwaves through the country just weeks before crucial presidential and legislative elections scheduled for February 1. The disclosure has intensified political tensions in a nation long viewed as one of Central America’s most stable democracies, while also highlighting the growing security challenges facing the region. The allegations were made public on Tuesday by Jorge Torres, director of Costa Rica’s Intelligence and National Security Directorate, as he arrived at the public prosecutor’s office to file a formal complaint. Speaking briefly to journalists, Torres confirmed that intelligence officials had received confidential information pointing to a direct threat against the life of the president. “What we received is confidential information that I would like to put on record in the complaint,” Torres said, stopping short of revealing operational details. “I don’t want to go into detail, but I would simply like to tell you that it concerns the life of the president of the Republic.” His carefully worded statement underscored both the seriousness of the allegation and the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation. According to Torres, the alert was triggered by a call from a woman who reported the existence of a supposed assassination plot. The caller allegedly claimed that a payment had already been made to a hitman to carry out the attack. While authorities have not confirmed the credibility of the claim or disclosed the identities involved, the intelligence director said the information was significant enough to warrant immediate legal action and heightened security measures. In response, security around President Chaves has been reinforced, reflecting the government’s concern that the threat could be real. The president, a conservative populist leader, has built much of his political identity around a tough-on-crime agenda, positioning himself as a decisive figure in the fight against rising insecurity. That stance has earned him both support and fierce criticism, particularly as Costa Rica grapples with increasing gang violence and drug trafficking linked to regional criminal networks.
The timing of the alleged plot has drawn particular attention, coming as Costa Rica enters the final stretch before national elections. Although President Chaves is constitutionally barred from seeking re-election, the campaign is widely seen as a referendum on his administration’s policies and political style. The ruling party’s candidate, Laura Fernández, is among those vying to succeed him, making the security situation politically charged. The announcement also coincided with a high-profile regional visit. Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, was scheduled to arrive in Costa Rica as Torres addressed the media. Bukele has gained international attention for his hardline security policies and sweeping crackdown on gangs, measures that have sharply reduced crime but drawn criticism from human rights groups. On Wednesday, President Chaves is due to lay the cornerstone for a new mega-prison, a project Costa Rica plans to model on El Salvador’s controversial detention facility built under Bukele’s administration. The prison initiative reflects a significant shift in Costa Rica’s traditional security approach and has become a defining symbol of Chaves’ law-and-order agenda. The overlap between Bukele’s visit, the prison project, and the assassination allegations has further fuelled debate over whether Costa Rica is entering a more confrontational era of security politics. For decades, Costa Rica has prided itself on political stability, having abolished its army in 1948 and invested heavily in democratic institutions. However, recent years have seen a sharp rise in violent crime, including record homicide rates, driven largely by organised crime and drug trafficking routes connecting South America to North America. The alleged plot against the president underscores how these broader regional pressures are increasingly affecting even traditionally peaceful states.
Authorities have not indicated whether the supposed assassination attempt is linked to criminal groups, political rivals, or foreign actors.
Investigators are expected to assess the credibility of the tip, trace any alleged financial transactions related to the reported payment, and determine whether there is an imminent threat. For now, officials are emphasising caution, insisting that all claims must be verified before conclusions are drawn. The political impact is already being felt. Opposition figures have urged transparency while warning against politicising the investigation. Supporters of President Chaves argue that the alleged plot demonstrates the risks faced by leaders who confront entrenched criminal interests. Critics, meanwhile, caution that unverified claims could heighten fear during an already tense election period. Costa Rica’s upcoming elections will determine not only the next president but also the composition of the legislative assembly, shaping the country’s policy direction at a critical moment. With security now dominating the national conversation, candidates are under pressure to present credible strategies for tackling crime without undermining civil liberties or democratic norms. As prosecutors review the complaint filed by the intelligence chief, the nation waits for further clarity. Whether the alleged plot proves to be a genuine threat or a false alarm, its revelation has exposed underlying anxieties about governance, security, and political polarisation in Costa Rica. With regional leaders watching closely and voters heading to the polls, the coming weeks are likely to test the resilience of Costa Rica’s democratic institutions in unprecedented ways.
G7 Pushes Rare Earth Supply Shift Away From China
P&C | Tuesday, 13 Jan. 2026
Washington D.C. | Planet & Commerce
Finance ministers from the world’s leading economies gathered in Washington this week to confront one of the most sensitive vulnerabilities in the global economy: overwhelming dependence on Chinese rare earths and critical minerals. The meeting, held on Monday, January 12, 2026, brought together finance chiefs from the Group of Seven along with key partners including India, Australia, South Korea and Mexico, underscoring how strategic mineral security has moved to the centre of global economic and geopolitical planning. The discussions were convened by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who urged allies to accelerate efforts to secure and diversify supply chains for rare earth elements and other critical minerals essential for defence systems, semiconductors, electric vehicles and renewable energy technologies. According to the U.S. Treasury, Bessent stressed that the objective was “prudent de-risking over decoupling” from China, signalling a coordinated attempt to reduce strategic exposure without triggering an all-out economic rupture. The meeting included finance ministers from Group of Seven members Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and the United States, alongside officials from India, Australia, Mexico and South Korea. Representatives from the U.S. Export-Import Bank, J.P. Morgan and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer also attended, reflecting the growing role of both public finance and private capital in reshaping mineral supply chains. Although no joint statement was issued, officials described broad convergence on the need to reduce reliance on Chinese-controlled refining and processing. China currently dominates between 47 percent and 87 percent of global refining capacity for copper, lithium, cobalt, graphite and rare earth elements, according to the International Energy Agency. This dominance gives Beijing enormous leverage over industries ranging from advanced weapons systems to electric vehicle batteries. A U.S. official said ahead of the meeting that Bessent planned to press allies to move faster, particularly after Beijing recently imposed fresh export controls on rare earth supplies to Japan. Those restrictions followed China’s decision last week to ban exports of certain dual-use items, including critical minerals, destined for Japan’s military sector, highlighting how resource control is increasingly being weaponised in geopolitical disputes.
Japanese Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama said there was “broad agreement” among participants on the urgency of cutting dependence on China. She outlined a multi-stage policy roadmap aimed at strengthening non-Chinese rare earth supply chains in the short, medium and long term. Katayama emphasised the creation of markets based on shared standards such as labour protections and human rights, alongside coordinated use of policy tools including public financing, tax incentives, trade and tariff measures, quarantine rules and even minimum price-setting mechanisms. The idea of a rare earth price floor emerged as a key, though still exploratory, proposal. By guaranteeing minimum prices, governments hope to make alternative mining and refining projects economically viable, countering China’s ability to undercut competitors through scale and state support. German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil confirmed that price floors and new partnerships were discussed, but cautioned that talks remain at an early stage with many unresolved issues. Klingbeil warned against framing the effort as an anti-China bloc, arguing that Europe must take greater responsibility for its own resource security. “What is very important to me is that we in Europe do not sit back,” he said, adding that “neither complaining nor self-pity helps us, we have to become active.” He pointed to Germany’s new raw materials fund as an example of how national and EU-level financing could accelerate domestic and allied supply development, while stressing the urgency of scaling up recycling to reduce long-term dependency.
India’s participation in the Washington talks marks a notable expansion of the G7-led initiative and highlights New Delhi’s growing role in global supply-chain realignment. India has been positioning itself as both a consumer and a future producer of critical minerals, leveraging its geological potential, expanding refining ambitions and strategic partnerships across Africa, Australia and Latin America. For India, reducing Chinese dominance aligns closely with national security priorities as well as ambitions to become a manufacturing hub for clean energy technologies and electronics. The presence of India and other non-G7 economies also reflects the scale of the challenge. The participating countries and the European Union together account for roughly 60 percent of global demand for critical minerals, yet remain heavily dependent on Chinese processing. Without coordinated action, officials fear that export controls and geopolitical tensions could disrupt everything from fighter jet production to renewable energy deployment. China’s embassy in Washington did not immediately comment on the meeting, but Beijing has consistently criticised what it describes as “unilateral” or “discriminatory” efforts to exclude it from global supply chains. Analysts note that while Western governments emphasise diversification, China retains significant advantages in infrastructure, expertise and economies of scale that will take years, if not decades, to replicate. The issue of rare earths is expected to dominate global economic diplomacy throughout 2026. Klingbeil confirmed that critical minerals would be a central focus under France’s presidency of the G7 this year, signalling sustained political attention rather than a one-off discussion. The European Union, meanwhile, is under pressure to accelerate its Critical Raw Materials Act, expand recycling capacity and streamline permitting for new mining projects. As geopolitical competition increasingly intersects with climate transition and industrial policy, the Washington meeting underscored a shared recognition among advanced and emerging economies alike: control over critical minerals has become as strategically important as control over energy supplies once was. Whether the push for de-risking can meaningfully loosen China’s grip without triggering new trade conflicts will be one of the defining economic questions of the decade.
How NATO Works As Trump Threatens Greenland Seizure
P&C | Tuesday, 13 Jan. 2026
Nuuk | Planet & Commerce
As Donald Trump repeatedly threatens to seize control of Greenland, the world’s largest military alliance is facing one of the most profound internal tests in its 75-year history. Trump’s declaration that the United States will take Greenland “one way or the other” has strained relations within NATO, raising fundamental questions about how the alliance functions when conflict risks emerge not from external adversaries, but from within its own ranks. Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a founding NATO member. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that any U.S. attempt to take Greenland by force would effectively end the transatlantic security compact that has underpinned European defence since the end of World War II. Her stark message reflects growing alarm across allied capitals that a unilateral American move could shatter NATO’s credibility. NATO was founded in 1949 by 12 nations through the Washington Treaty to deter Soviet expansion during the Cold War. At its core lies the principle of collective defence, enshrined in Article 5, which states that an attack on one ally shall be considered an attack on all. Over decades, this pledge has been reinforced by a massive U.S. military presence in Europe, including American troops, advanced weaponry and U.S. nuclear assets stationed on the continent. The alliance has since expanded to 32 members, with Sweden joining in 2024 amid growing concern over an increasingly assertive Russia. Yet Article 5 is designed to address threats from outside the alliance, not disputes between member states. In the event of a U.S.–Denmark confrontation over Greenland, Article 5 would be effectively moot. NATO decisions require unanimity, meaning every member holds a veto. There would be no consensus to trigger collective defence against the alliance’s most powerful member, leaving NATO without a clear mechanism to respond beyond diplomacy. This limitation highlights a structural vulnerability. NATO has endured internal tensions before, notably between Greece and Turkey, two long-time rivals that have repeatedly clashed over territory and airspace. However, those disputes never involved the outright annexation of one ally’s territory by another. A U.S. move against Denmark would set an unprecedented precedent, fundamentally altering how alliance commitments are perceived by both allies and adversaries.
Trump has argued that controlling Greenland is essential to U.S. national security, citing increased Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. He has claimed that Washington must act to prevent Russia or China from gaining influence over the island, whose strategic location and mineral resources have become more valuable as Arctic sea lanes open. While Trump has said a negotiated deal would be preferable, the White House has not ruled out the use of military force, intensifying allied concerns. Denmark’s immediate recourse within NATO would be Article 4, which allows any member to call for consultations if it believes its territorial integrity or security is threatened. Article 4 discussions, however, do not mandate action. They serve as a forum for political dialogue rather than a trigger for collective defence, underscoring NATO’s limited toolkit when facing internal crises. A U.S. attack on Greenland would almost certainly fracture NATO politically. The alliance experienced deep divisions in 2003 when Washington led the invasion of Iraq, supported by Britain and Spain but opposed by France and Germany. That episode demonstrated how divergent national interests can paralyse consensus, even without direct conflict between allies. In the Greenland scenario, it remains unclear which countries, if any, would openly side with Trump. Despite these strains, NATO remains overwhelmingly shaped by American power. The United States spends more on defence than all other allies combined and dominates in terms of military capabilities. Its leadership has traditionally driven alliance strategy, although Trump has often taken a more transactional approach, questioning defence spending commitments and expressing scepticism about multilateral institutions. NATO without U.S. leadership, troops and assets would be dramatically weaker, making the prospect of any ally confronting Washington militarily almost inconceivable.
The day-to-day political management of NATO is handled at its Brussels headquarters, led by Secretary-General Mark Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister. As NATO’s top civilian official, Rutte chairs meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council, convenes ministerial sessions and oversees summits of heads of state and government. One of his central responsibilities is to maintain U.S. engagement in the alliance, which explains his careful avoidance of direct criticism of Trump. Asked about tensions over Greenland, Rutte has emphasised shared concerns over Arctic security rather than internal discord. He has pointed to the strategic importance of the Arctic as melting ice opens new sea routes and increases the risk of Russian and Chinese activity. When questioned on whether NATO is facing a crisis, Rutte has insisted that it is not, reflecting an effort to project unity even as underlying anxieties grow. NATO’s military command structure, based in Mons, Belgium, further underscores U.S. dominance. The post of Supreme Allied Commander Europe, or SACEUR, is always held by an American officer. The current SACEUR, Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich, ultimately answers to Trump as commander in chief, reinforcing how deeply intertwined U.S. political decisions are with NATO’s military posture. Trump’s Greenland threats therefore expose a paradox at the heart of NATO. The alliance is strongest when the United States leads it against external threats, yet most vulnerable when U.S. actions themselves become the source of instability. Article 5 remains a powerful deterrent against outsiders, but it offers no solution when the alliance’s anchor tests the very principles it was built to defend. As senior U.S. and Danish officials prepare for talks, the Greenland dispute has become more than a bilateral disagreement. It is a stress test of NATO’s cohesion, its decision-making model and its ability to survive an era in which internal fractures may prove as dangerous as any external enemy. The outcome will shape not only Arctic security but the future credibility of the transatlantic alliance itself.
New US Envoy Pushes India Trade Despite Russian Oil Rift
P&C | Tuesday, 13 Jan. 2026
New Delhi | Planet & Commerce
The newly appointed United States ambassador to India has signalled a renewed push to deepen economic and strategic ties with New Delhi, even as tensions persist over India’s continued purchases of Russian crude oil. On Monday, the U.S. ambassador-designate to India, Sergio Gor, said Washington and New Delhi remain actively engaged in negotiations toward a long-pending bilateral trade agreement, describing the relationship as resilient despite sharp policy disagreements. Speaking on his first day at the United States Embassy, Gor struck a conciliatory tone, stressing that differences over energy and trade should not derail a broader partnership that spans security, technology and geopolitics. “Real friends can disagree, but always resolve their differences in the end,” he said, adding that the next round of talks on trade-related matters between the two governments was scheduled for Tuesday. The remarks come against the backdrop of mounting friction between Washington and New Delhi over India’s energy ties with Russia. Since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, India has emerged as the world’s second-largest buyer of Russian crude oil after China, taking advantage of steep discounts as Western nations imposed sanctions on Russian energy exports. While New Delhi has argued that these purchases are vital for domestic energy security, the policy has drawn sustained criticism from Washington. Under Donald Trump, the United States has taken an increasingly hard line. In August, Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods in response to New Delhi’s Russian oil imports. That measure pushed total U.S. tariffs on certain Indian exports to 50 percent, one of the steepest trade penalties Washington has levied against a strategic partner in recent years. U.S. officials have said the purchases indirectly help finance Moscow’s war effort, a charge India has consistently rejected. Despite these pressures, Gor emphasised that trade negotiations remain on track, albeit complicated. India and the United States have been discussing a bilateral trade agreement since early last year, with both sides initially hoping to finalise a first tranche by the fall of 2025. Progress has been slower than anticipated, largely due to disagreements over energy sourcing, market access and New Delhi’s insistence on safeguarding small farmers and domestic industries from foreign competition.
Gor acknowledged the challenges, noting India’s size and political complexity. “Remember India is the world’s largest nation, so it’s not an easy task to get this across the finish line,” he said. “But we are determined to get there.” His comments reflect Washington’s recognition that, despite trade frictions, India remains central to U.S. strategic calculations in the Indo-Pacific. In a move that underscores this broader strategic focus, Gor announced that India will be formally invited next month to join a U.S.-led initiative known as Pax Silica. The project aims to create a secure and resilient silicon supply chain, covering everything from critical minerals and energy inputs to advanced manufacturing, semiconductors and artificial intelligence. Countries that joined the initiative last month include Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom and Israel. U.S. officials see Pax Silica as a cornerstone of efforts to reduce global dependence on China-dominated supply chains for semiconductors and advanced technologies. For India, participation would align with its ambitions to become a global manufacturing hub and a key player in emerging technologies, even as it balances relations with Russia and other partners. Gor’s dual role as U.S. ambassador to India and special envoy to South and Central Asia further highlights Washington’s intent to anchor India more firmly within its regional strategy. Beyond trade, he said the two countries would continue close cooperation on security, counterterrorism, energy transition, education, health and cutting-edge technologies. These areas have become increasingly important as the U.S. and India expand defence cooperation and intelligence sharing amid regional tensions involving China and Pakistan.
The renewed diplomatic push comes at a time when India is also actively diversifying its trade relationships. Facing steep U.S. tariffs and prolonged negotiations with Washington, New Delhi has accelerated efforts to conclude free trade agreements with other partners. Last month, India signed a trade pact with Oman and finalised negotiations with New Zealand, moves seen as part of a broader strategy to hedge against protectionist pressures from major economies. Indian officials have maintained that energy purchases from Russia are a matter of national interest, driven by affordability and the need to shield domestic consumers from global price volatility. At the same time, they have signalled willingness to engage the United States in dialogue to prevent trade disputes from escalating further. Analysts say the outcome of the current trade talks will test whether the two sides can compartmentalise disagreements while advancing shared strategic goals. For Washington, maintaining momentum with India is seen as critical, even as the Trump administration applies pressure over Russia. India’s growing economic weight, large consumer market and strategic location make it an indispensable partner in U.S. efforts to shape the Indo-Pacific order and counterbalance China’s influence. As negotiations resume this week, both governments face a delicate balancing act. The challenge lies in reconciling U.S. demands on energy policy with India’s insistence on strategic autonomy, without undermining a partnership that both sides describe as one of the most consequential of the 21st century. Gor’s opening message suggests that, despite tariff threats and political friction, Washington is betting that engagement rather than confrontation will ultimately define the future of U.S.-India relations.
Trump Threatens Strong Action Over Iran Protester Executions
P&C | Wednesday, 14 Jan. 2026
Tehran | Planet & Commerce
US President Donald Trump has issued a stark warning to Iranian authorities, threatening “very strong action” if Tehran proceeds with the execution of anti-government protesters arrested during the country’s intensifying unrest. The warning comes as international rights groups report a dramatic surge in deaths and detentions across Iran, raising alarm over what could become one of the bloodiest crackdowns in the country’s modern history. Speaking to CBS News in an interview broadcast late Tuesday, Trump said the United States would respond decisively if Iranian authorities began carrying out executions this week. “If they do such a thing, we will take very strong action,” he said, just hours before being briefed on the growing scale of casualties inside Iran. His remarks underscore mounting concern in Washington that Tehran may escalate repression as protests continue to spread despite heavy security deployments. The warning follows reports that one detainee, 26-year-old Erfan Soltani, is facing imminent execution after being arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced within days. Soltani was detained in Karaj, northwest of Tehran, during the peak of nationwide demonstrations last week, shortly before authorities imposed a sweeping internet blackout. Rights organisations fear his case could signal the start of a wider campaign of rapid trials and executions aimed at crushing dissent. Amnesty International has highlighted Soltani’s case, warning that Iranian authorities may “once again resort to swift trials and arbitrary executions to crush and deter dissent”. The group has previously documented the use of expedited judicial processes during periods of unrest, often resulting in death sentences following coerced confessions. According to Norway-based Iran Human Rights, at least 1,500 people were executed in Iran last year alone. Trump acknowledged that a “pretty substantial number” of people had already been killed during more than two weeks of demonstrations triggered by public anger over governance, economic hardship and political repression. Independent tallies suggest the death toll is unprecedented in recent decades. The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reported early Wednesday that at least 2,571 people have been killed, including 12 children, while more than 18,100 have been detained. The figures dwarf casualties from previous protest waves and evoke memories of the turmoil surrounding Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Iranian state television has offered its first official acknowledgment of fatalities, with an unnamed official referring to “a lot of martyrs”, a phrase widely interpreted as an attempt to frame deaths within a narrative of state sacrifice rather than accountability. The acknowledgement, however limited, signals the scale of the crisis has become impossible to fully conceal. Amid the escalating violence, the US State Department has urged American citizens to leave Iran immediately, with several Western governments issuing similar travel warnings. Diplomatic missions are increasingly concerned about the security environment as authorities deploy riot police, plainclothes security forces and intelligence units across major cities.
Pressed during his CBS interview on what “very strong action” would entail, Trump pointed to previous US military actions, including recent strikes in Venezuela and the 2019 killing of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. “We don’t want to see what’s happening in Iran happen,” Trump said. “When they start killing thousands of people. And now you’re telling me about hanging. We’ll see how that works out for them. It’s not going to work out good.” While he stopped short of detailing specific measures, the comments suggest Washington is weighing options ranging from diplomatic escalation to targeted military or economic responses. Earlier, Trump took to Truth Social to voice open support for protesters, calling on them to continue demonstrations and seize control of state institutions. He urged Iranians to document abuses, warning that those responsible “will pay a big price” and announced he had cancelled all meetings with Iranian officials until the killings stop. “HELP IS ON ITS WAY,” he wrote, a message Tehran swiftly condemned as incitement. Iran’s mission to the United Nations responded sharply, accusing Washington of pursuing regime change through sanctions, threats and engineered unrest. In a statement posted on X, the mission said the US “playbook” would “fail again”, arguing that external pressure was being used to manufacture a pretext for military intervention. The response reflects Tehran’s long-standing suspicion of Western involvement in domestic protests.
Russia also weighed in, with a foreign ministry spokesperson warning that “external forces hostile to Iran” were exploiting public tension to destabilise the state. Moscow’s comments align with its broader opposition to Western pressure campaigns and its strategic partnership with Tehran. Inside Iran, authorities insist they have regained control after successive nights of mass demonstrations across the country. For the first time in days, Iranians were able to make international phone calls on Tuesday, suggesting a partial easing of communications restrictions imposed during the crackdown. However, activists say security services are actively searching for Starlink satellite internet terminals, with reports of apartment buildings being raided in northern Tehran. While satellite dishes are officially illegal, enforcement had largely lapsed until the current unrest. Activists also report that Starlink is offering free service inside Iran, a move that could undermine the government’s attempts to control information flows. State media, meanwhile, has aired at least 97 televised confessions from detained protesters since late December. HRANA says testimony from released detainees indicates these confessions were coerced, often under torture, and could be used to justify harsh sentences, including executions. Witnesses speaking anonymously to international media describe a heavy security presence at major intersections, with anti-riot police wearing helmets and body armor, carrying batons, shields, shotguns and teargas launchers. Plainclothes officers are also reportedly visible in public spaces, reinforcing an atmosphere of fear and surveillance. As fears of executions grow, the international community faces mounting pressure to respond. Trump’s warning marks one of the strongest statements yet from a US leader during the crisis, raising the stakes for Tehran at a moment when internal unrest shows no sign of abating. With thousands detained, hundreds already dead, and the prospect of hangings looming, Iran’s protest movement has entered a perilous phase that could reshape both its domestic future and its relations with the outside world.