Coin Press - India defies U.S. tariffs


India defies U.S. tariffs




When Washington decided to double tariffs on Indian goods in mid‑2025, many analysts predicted a serious blow to New Delhi’s export‑led ambitions. The new duties – raising effective rates to 50 % and applying to a broad range of merchandise – were justified by the United States as a response to India’s purchases of discounted Russian crude and long‑standing trade imbalances.

Yet the effect so far has been counter‑intuitive. India has retained its position as one of the world’s fastest‑growing major economies. Provisional figures show gross domestic product expanding at an annualised 7.8 % in the April–June 2025 quarter, the fastest in five quarters and well above market forecasts. Gross value added, regarded as a better measure of underlying activity, grew 7.6 %, while private consumption – which accounts for nearly 60 % of output – rose 7 %. These gains have encouraged officials to predict full‑year growth close to 7 %, and the statistics office now projects 7.4 % for the 2025/26 fiscal year.

Trade tensions and political rhetoric
The tariff escalation marks the sharpest turn in U.S.–India commerce since the Trump administration’s early complaints about India’s high import barriers. What began as a push to narrow America’s trade deficit quickly widened into a broader confrontation: Washington demanded easier market access, higher visa fees and curbs on H‑1B immigration, while New Delhi defended its right to buy Russian oil and declined to join Western sanctions. When U.S. officials linked Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine with bilateral trade talks, they imposed an extra 25‑percentage‑point surcharge over the existing 25 % tariff. President Donald Trump used social media to label India a “dead economy,” arguing that the United States did little business with a nation he said was overly protected. Such rhetoric belied the depth of bilateral ties: India remains a key defence partner for Washington, and the two countries signed a ten‑year defence cooperation framework last year.

Why India’s growth holds up
Several factors explain why punitive tariffs have not derailed growth. First, India’s economy is driven far more by domestic demand than by exports. Private consumption has been buoyed by rural spending, demand for durable goods and tax relief measures. Government spending rose 7.4 % in the June quarter after contracting in the previous period. The manufacturing sector expanded 7.7 %, a sharp improvement on the previous quarter, and services – spanning trade, hotels, transport and finance – posted a robust 9.3 % increase. Agriculture also contributed, growing 3.7 % after a strong sowing season. Collectively, these drivers more than offset the early effects of higher U.S. duties.

Second, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has pursued reforms that underpin domestic resilience. Officials cut personal income taxes and announced forthcoming consumption‑tax reductions to stimulate spending. Labour and consumer‑tax overhauls came into force in 2025, improving compliance and investment conditions. Authorities are also front‑loading capital expenditure on infrastructure and offering targeted support to sectors most exposed to foreign tariffs, such as textiles and leather. These measures, along with monetary policy that keeps real interest rates supportive, have helped sustain household and corporate confidence.

Third, India has diversified its trade relationships. While U.S. tariffs threaten around 55 % of the country’s $87 billion of goods exports to America, exporters have been quick to court alternative markets. New Delhi is negotiating free‑trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union and has concluded pacts with Australia and the United Arab Emirates. Bilateral deals in South‑East Asia and Latin America have opened new routes for manufacturers of automobiles, pharmaceuticals and electronics. Even where tariffs bite, such as in Mexico – which recently raised import duties on non‑FTA partners to up to 50 % – Indian negotiators are pursuing country‑specific exemptions. The government has also stepped up outreach to African and Middle‑Eastern economies, leveraging its successful Group‑of‑Twenty presidency to deepen investment ties.

The risks ahead
Economists still warn that the full impact of the U.S. tariffs has yet to be felt. Exporter groups estimate that 50 % duties could shave 0.6 to 0.8 percentage points off India’s growth over a year. With nominal GDP growth already slowing to 8.8 % in the June quarter – its lowest in several years – corporate profits and tax revenues may come under pressure. Currency markets have reflected these concerns: the rupee touched a record low against the dollar following the tariff hikes, while equity indices sagged. There are also structural challenges. The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, set for full implementation in 2026, will impose new reporting obligations and costs on steel, aluminium and cement exporters, potentially eroding their competitiveness. Meanwhile, Mexico’s broad tariff increases threaten to disrupt a fast‑growing destination for Indian automobiles and components.

Another concern is private investment. Capital expenditure rose 7.8 % in the June quarter, but analysts say many firms are deferring large projects pending clarity on global trade rules. Although official forecasts point to 7 % annual growth, the Reserve Bank of India expects a moderation as the tariffs take full effect and global demand slows. To sustain momentum, India will need to accelerate structural reforms, improve labour‑market flexibility and expand production incentives under its “Make in India” programme.

A contest of narratives
The commercial clash between Washington and New Delhi is as much about narrative as economics. U.S. officials portray the tariffs as leverage to obtain market access and influence India’s foreign policy. Indian leaders characterise them as an unfair attempt to “crush” a rising power, and they point to the country’s 1.4 billion‑strong market and digital‑economy boom as evidence of enduring strength. In truth, the clash underscores a shifting global order. As China’s growth slows, investors and governments are reassessing supply‑chain dependence and seeking alternatives. India’s ability to deliver near‑8 % growth despite trade headwinds highlights its potential as a manufacturing and services hub. Yet the dispute also exposes vulnerabilities: a heavy reliance on imported oil, a still‑nascent export base and an under‑developed logistics system.

For now, India’s economy is soaring even as one of its most important partners raises barriers. Whether this resilience can be sustained will depend on how quickly tariffs bite, how successfully New Delhi diversifies its trading partners and whether domestic reforms continue apace. The coming year will reveal whether the world’s fastest‑growing major economy can stay on course amid rougher commercial seas.



Featured


Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Да здравствует Украина

Es lebe die Ukraine - Да здравствует Украина - Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Nech žije Ukrajina - Länge leve Ukraina - תחי אוקראינה - Lang leve Oekraïne - Да живее Украйна - Elagu Ukraina - Kauan eläköön Ukraina - Vive l'Ukraine - Ζήτω η Ουκρανία - 乌克兰万岁 - Viva Ucrania - Ať žije Ukrajina - Çok yaşa Ukrayna - Viva a Ucrânia - Trăiască Ucraina - ウクライナ万歳 - Tegyvuoja Ukraina - Lai dzīvo Ukraina - Viva l'Ucraina - Hidup Ukraina - تحيا أوكرانيا - Vivat Ucraina - ขอให้ยูเครนจงเจริญ - Ucraina muôn năm - ژوندی دی وی اوکراین - Yashasin Ukraina - Озак яшә Украина - Živjela Ukrajina - 우크라이나 만세 - Mabuhay ang Ukraine - Lenge leve Ukraina - Nyob ntev Ukraine - Да живее Украина - გაუმარჯოს უკრაინას - Hidup Ukraine - Vivu Ukrainio - Længe leve Ukraine - Živjela Ukrajina - Жыве Украіна - Yaşasın Ukrayna - Lengi lifi Úkraína - Lank lewe die Oekraïne

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Ukraine sends ground robots

Ukraine is putting ground robots to work on a scale that is beginning to change how its army supplies positions, evacuates casualties and conducts some of its most dangerous combat missions. The significance lies in the gradual transfer of battlefield exposure from people to machines. For a force under sustained pressure to preserve experienced soldiers, that change could matter well beyond the individual missions captured on video.The expansion is measurable. By early September 2026, Ukraine’s DELTA battlefield management system had recorded approximately 112,000 logistics and evacuation missions by ground robotic systems since the start of the year. The monthly total rose from 7,511 in January to 25,143 in August, an increase of roughly 3.3 times. These figures describe missions, not the number of robots deployed, and they should not be read as a tally of successful attacks or lives saved. They nevertheless show how far the technology has moved into routine military activity.Supply work explains much of its value. Ammunition, food and water still have to reach troops in positions exposed to surveillance and attack. Wounded soldiers still have to be brought out. A remotely operated vehicle can undertake part of that movement while its operator remains elsewhere. The load may be ordinary; the route is what makes the task dangerous. Repeated across many positions, reducing the number of journeys made by people can alter the daily burden on an infantry force.The strongest case for a robot is often the journey it allows a soldier to avoid. That changes the economics of military equipment. The purchase price matters, but so do the consequences of losing it. A destroyed machine consumes production capacity and money. A lost soldier also removes training, experience and relationships that cannot be replaced on a factory schedule. This is why an apparently modest cargo platform can have greater practical importance than a more spectacular experimental weapon.Combat applications are developing alongside that logistical role. Ukraine’s Third Army Corps includes NC13, a unit specialising in ground robotic operations. In September, corps commander Andrii Biletskyi described an ambition to replace around a third of the corps’ frontline personnel with robots by the end of the year. That remains an objective for a particular formation, rather than a demonstrated reduction across the Ukrainian army. It signals how seriously some commanders now regard the technology.There is a longer history behind the sudden attention. In December 2024, the Khartiia Brigade used a coordinated force of aerial drones and ground robots in an assault near Hlyboke in the Kharkiv region. More than 50 unmanned systems took part. The operation demonstrated that different remotely operated platforms could be combined for surveillance, fire support and attack. It also exposed the limits: ground conditions disabled some machines, and soldiers were still needed to secure and hold the territory afterwards.Those distinctions remain essential. An unmanned vehicle has no crew aboard; that does not make it an autonomous decision-maker. Remote operation, assistance with navigation and independent target selection are different capabilities. Much of the operational change visible in Ukraine concerns the first of these. Human operators, commanders and technicians remain central to making the equipment useful. Describing every remotely controlled vehicle as an artificial intelligence weapon obscures both its present strengths and its weaknesses.The physical environment imposes constraints that software cannot simply remove. A ground vehicle must negotiate soil, vegetation, rubble and obstacles that an aircraft may pass over. Its camera sees from a low position. Communications can be intermittent, and movement through complex terrain requires information that may be incomplete or already outdated. Research on small military robot teams has long identified the combination of restricted visibility, difficult navigation and unreliable communication as a central challenge. Ukraine is testing those problems under combat conditions.Scaling the fleet therefore requires a larger support system. More vehicles mean more operators to train, more repairs, more replacement components and a greater need to coordinate machines with the soldiers around them. The useful measure is how many tasks can be completed reliably over time. A large delivery of equipment can look impressive while leaving unanswered questions about serviceability, workload and availability after repeated deployments.Nor does removing a crew eliminate risk. Operators still work within a military system exposed to attack, and a machine that fails during an evacuation may leave a casualty in danger. Remote control changes where human vulnerability sits. It does not make the mission consequence-free. Reliability is particularly important when the payload is a wounded person rather than ammunition, and success in one role cannot automatically establish suitability for another.The likely effect on the fighting is therefore uneven. Robotic systems can ease dangerous supply tasks and support selected assaults while remaining poorly suited to others. Their value depends on the terrain, the communications environment and the organisation using them. A successful demonstration offers evidence of a capability; repeated use establishes whether a formation can depend on it.Ukraine’s developing robot force is best understood through that practical test. Can it keep a position supplied with fewer exposed soldiers? Can it bring someone back who would otherwise remain stranded? Can it reduce the personnel required for a dangerous task without creating a greater burden elsewhere? The answers will determine how much battlefield activity can move to machines. For the soldiers still holding the line, those gains are substantial enough without the promise of a war fought without people.