Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s Vande Mataram was the emotional soul of India’s independence movement. It served as a powerful rallying cry against colonial rule and remains deeply etched in national memory. Yet, in January 1950, when the Constituent Assembly formally adopted the national anthem, it chose Rabindranath Tagore’s Jana Gana Mana, while granting Vande Mataram equal status as the national song.

But a national anthem has a different job from a song of resistance. It must turn emotion into a common voice of a nation, one that can be sung by crowds, played at ceremonies, and carried beyond the country’s borders.

About Us

1. Built for everybody

Many national anthems are notoriously difficult for ordinary crowds to sing. The US anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, demands a wide vocal range, with sudden leaps between high and low notes. As a result, it is often performed by solo singers or played from a recording rather than sung by the crowd. France’s La Marseillaise similarly demands dramatic, operatic power. Jana Gana Mana sits at the other end of the spectrum, alongside accessible anthems like Japan’s Kimigayo and Canada’s O Canada.

Widely believed to be based on Raga Alhaiya Bilawal—a simple morning raga—the melody moves gently note by note without sharp jumps. This steady structure lets thousands of untrained voices in school assemblies, stadiums, or parades sound dignified and unified. Vande Mataram, by comparison, has a more classical and intricate melody, with expressive bends and pauses. It can be beautiful when performed by a trained singer or choir, but those same features make it harder for an ordinary crowd to sing together in sync…

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

Subscribe to get updates, bookmark, or comment.

Subscribe now

Take a look around global politics today and an obvious disconnect jumps out: the average world leader is 63 years old, while the median age of the global population is just 30. There are exceptions, of course—like Nepal’s 36-year-old Prime Minister Balen Shah, or 38-year-old leaders in Iceland, Burkina Faso, and Ecuador. But the broader trend leans heavily toward gerontocracy.

At the extreme end sit rulers governing populations a fraction of their age, like Cameroon’s Paul Biya at 93 or Saudi Arabia’s King Salman at 90. Yet this isn’t just an authoritarian habit. Major democracies show the exact same pattern. Donald Trump governs in his 80s, and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi serves in his late 70s.

About Us

In almost any other field, this would look strange. Boardrooms rarely hire 80- or 90-year-olds to run major corporations, yet politics remains uniquely open to—and dominated by—very old leaders.

It isn’t because voters dislike young candidates. As Aksel Sundström, political scientist at the University of Gothenburg and co-author of Youth Without Representation, pointed out in a recent TV discussion: “It’s very expensive to run as a candidate for politics. So it’s not really that voters do not want young leaders, but it is something in the systems that makes it inherently difficult to become elected.”

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

Rarely does a single human frame capture a generation’s defiance in an unforgettable visual. Standing on the rain-soaked asphalt near Dadar’s Shivaji Park, 27-year-old Rhiya Ahir created one of those moments. As a police transport van packed with detained student protesters pushed forward, she stepped directly into its path—arm raised, refusing to budge.

About Us

For anyone versed in the lineage of global civil defiance, the visual instantly summoned a phantom from the past: Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in June 1989. Thirty-seven years and more than five thousand kilometers apart, an ordinary citizen stood unarmed against the machinery of state authority. Yet while the visual memory of “Tank Man” stopping an armored column of 18 military tanks remains shrouded in historical tragedy, Rhiya Ahir’s standoff in Mumbai offers a vibrant, modern testament to citizen intervention in a constitutional democracy.

On the day of the protest, Rhiya was waiting for her friends inside her house. Listening to the slogans coming from the street, she decided she couldn’t wait any longer. Stepping outside to join the demonstration, she witnessed police loading young students into a transport van—and moved instinctively to block its path.

Read full article on Satyagrah.news

Subscribe to get updates, bookmark, or comment.

Subscribe now

In 2013, Tehelka magazine’s founder and then editor, Tarun Tejpal, was accused of sexual assault by a colleague. A trial court in Goa acquitted him of all charges in 2021. The Goa government appealed the verdict in the High Court, where the matter is currently being heard. India’s Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, is representing the state in these hearings. Satyagrah originally published this detailed analysis of the trial court’s judgment in 2021. For readers looking to understand the verdict, the debates surrounding it, and the case in its entirety, this analysis remains just as relevant today.

On page 509 of its judgment, the Goa district court, while acquitting Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal, noted:

“The IO didn’t supply a copy of unedited CCTV footage of Block 7 to the accused (Tarun Tejpal) due to which the accused had to move to the honourable Supreme Court. The honourable court had directed the prosecution to provide clone copies of the unedited CCTV footage to the accused, which was not done for two years and a clone copy of the CCTV footage was finally handed over to the accused in 2016.”

About Us

Two important points emerge from this observation of the court. First, it would not have been easy for Tarun Tejpal to defend himself in court. Second, what actually was in the CCTV footage that required the accused to go all the way to the Supreme Court just to get a copy? Add to this the fact that despite the Supreme Court’s directive, the accused didn’t receive a clone copy of the footage for two full years, and the matter becomes even more intriguing.

It is no secret that in our country, the victim of a sexual assault case often undergoes extreme hardships. This has less to do with the laws themselves and more to do with the attitude of law enforcement agencies and the overall response of society in such cases. The Tejpal case, however, was different in this regard: the establishment stood firmly with the complainant. The fact that the Goa police acted on its own and registered a suo motu FIR against Tejpal gives an indication of that backing.

Read full article on Satyagrah.news

When a film shines a light on the darkest chapters of a nation’s history, governments usually react in one of two ways: they either suppress it out of fear it might disturb public calm or their political interests, or they keep their calm and trust their citizens to confront reality.

The swift digital takedown of Satluj—released on ZEE5 and removed within 48 hours—shows a clear preference for containment. Yet global experience shows mature democracies consistently choose open dialogue over censorship. By treating audiences as adults, they have found that facing uncomfortable truths builds greater public trust than sudden bans ever could.

Satluj, directed by Honey Trehan, portrays the life of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, who documented alleged police excesses and disappearances in 1990s Punjab before his own abduction and murder in 1995—events backed by court records and investigations. The film faced over three years of CBFC hurdles, including demands for more than 100 cuts. Here is how five other nations responded to similarly critical films:

About Us

1. South Korea: A Taxi Driver (2017)

This film depicts the Gwangju Uprising of 1980, when the military dictatorship imposed a strict media blackout and killed hundreds of civilians and student protestors.

The Reaction: Instead of blocking it out of fear that it would damage the military’s reputation, the government completely embraced the film. President Moon Jae-in publicly attended a high-profile theater screening alongside the creators.

The Outcome: It became a massive box-office hit, represented South Korea at the Oscars, and sparked a fresh, independent official investigation into the historic massacre and its subsequent cover-up.

Read full article on Satyagrah.news

You could easily call Rahul Dev Burman the Gulzar of the musical world. Not just because decades before Vishal Bhardwaj, Pancham and Gulzar epitomized the ultimate duet of a meaningful lyricist and an experimental composer, but because within Pancham the musician, there always lived a Gulzar.

About Us

Just as Gulzar altered the grammar of film lyrics, discovered new imagery, and shifted the audience’s sensibilities with his pen, RD Burman did the exact same for Hindi film music. He didn’t just step out of the shadow of his father, SD Burman; he also steered clear of the established tracks laid down by composers like Salil Chowdhury, Naushad, Kalyanji-Anandji, and Shankar-Jaikishan. He chose an entirely new, uninhibited path of experimentation.

Credit for the success of Pancham Da’s music is also given to the superstar of that era, Rajesh Khanna, who popularized the songs by lip-syncing them in his signature style. Yet, he could perhaps only do so because RD’s music afforded him that creative freedom. Shunning the addiction of purely commercial success throughout his long career, Pancham did not just alter the temperament of Hindi film music; he subtly transformed the cinema and its audience as well. Through continuous, fresh experiments, he constantly hooked the audience to entirely new flavors of music.

Read full article on Satyagrah.news

Yet another chapter has been added to the political turmoil gripping Britain over the past few years. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who led the Labour Party to a historic victory just two years ago, has resigned from office. He is the sixth British prime minister in the past ten years to leave before completing a full term. The country is expected to have a new prime minister in the coming weeks or months. However, given the current political situation, Britain could even end up getting yet another prime minister before the next general election in 2029.

When Keir Starmer led the Labour Party to a massive victory in the 2024 general election, he was hailed as the party’s savior. Before this, Labour had last won a national election in 2005, and in 2019, it had suffered its worst defeat since 1935. But Starmer’s victory was not what it seemed on the surface. Political analysts described it as a “loveless landslide”—a victory devoid of genuine public affection or trust.

Read this article in Hindi

In that 2024 election, Labour won 411 out of 650 seats in the House of Commons—a commanding 63 percent. Yet, the party secured just 33 percent of the popular vote. In terms of absolute numbers, this vote count was actually lower than what Labour received during its historic defeat in 2019. Because of this, analysts argued that Starmer’s landslide was less a mandate for Labour and more a fierce public backlash against the incumbent Conservative (Tory) government. Voters wanted change at any cost; consequently, traditional Tory supporters either switched to parties like Reform UK or stayed home entirely. As a result, the Tories collapsed to just 23 percent of the vote and 121 seats, handing Keir Starmer an incredibly massive victory.

Read full article on Satyagrah.news

The recent resignation of Tulsi Gabbard from her post as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) marks a telling pattern. She is the fourth cabinet-level official to leave the Trump administration within a span of just three months. High turnover is hardly a novelty under Donald Trump; during his first presidential term, nearly 90 percent of his top-tier officials were replaced or ousted.

About Us

However, the striking anomaly this time lies in the demographics of departure. All four cabinet officials who have left the administration so far are women—a figure that represents exactly half of the total female representation in the Trump cabinet. While it is true that most of these women were surrounded by controversies and allegations, the same can easily be said about several male cabinet officials who continue to remain securely anchored in their positions.

This raises a fundamental question: Can we view these high-profile exits merely as routine administrative shifts or personal decisions? Or is there a deeper, systemic gender bias at play? If so, it invites us to examine a larger global reality: when it comes to institutional gender parity, are governing structures from New Delhi to Washington equally flawed?

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

Subscribe to get updates, bookmark, or comment.

Subscribe now

For decades, the friction between India and Pakistan was largely contained within South Asia. Occasionally, it spilled into international forums, and at times its echoes reached the Middle East—though usually confined to cricket fields. That is now changing. In recent months, the Middle East has emerged as a primary arena for this rivalry. At the center of this shift is an informal alignment of four Islamic nations, with Pakistan playing a leading role.

This development stands in contrast to the formal Quad that India had invested significant strategic capital in. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue—consisting of the United States, Japan, Australia, and India—was born from shared relief efforts after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and eventually formalised to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific. For New Delhi, it was a golden ticket to a high table where it could balance the rising influence of China. However, Donald Trump’s return to the White House and his administration’s isolationist “America First” stance, along with cooler India–US relations, have left it a largely dormant forum.

About Us

Even as the original Quad faded into the background, a new and more assertive formation began to take shape in West Asia. This informal Quad—bringing together Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia (PETSA)—has evolved from a collection of shared interests into a more coordinated alignment, sometimes described as a “West Asian Quad,” or “Islamic NATO.” Unlike the formal Quad, which has often moved cautiously, PETSA seems to be moving faster on key security and strategic issues. For New Delhi, the irony is hard to miss: this emerging alignment, which places Pakistan at its centre, appears to draw tacit support from the United States, the leader of the original Quad, and China, the very power the Quad was designed to counter.

To understand this shift better, it helps to recall the optimism of the early 2020s. At the time, India was central to a new diplomatic architecture. The Quad was at its peak, holding high-profile summits and moving with a sense of purpose aimed at balancing China’s growing influence. It was in this atmosphere that the I2U2 (India, Israel, the UAE, and the US) also took shape. Often described as a “West Asian Quad,” it complemented the original Quad’s broader strategic outlook. Together, these frameworks reflected India’s attempt to project influence across both the Indo-Pacific and West Asia. But as the political climate in Washington shifted, the momentum behind this approach began to decline.

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

Subscribe to get updates, bookmark, or comment.

Subscribe now

The Modi government has convened a special three-day session of Parliament from April 16–18, 2026. The stated objective is to amend the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam (The 106th Constitutional Amendment Act) to fast-track the 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha by 2029.

However, a closer look at the timing and the legal fine print suggests that this move has less to do with gender justice and more to do with a strategic “delimitation” designed to secure a lopsided political advantage for the BJP.

About Us

The first red flag is the schedule. The session is being held while West Bengal is in the middle of crucial assembly elections, with polling phases on April 23 and 29. By calling this session now, the government is forcing opposition MPs—particularly from the TMC—to choose between representing their constituents in Parliament or campaigning in their home state.

This isn’t just a logistical hurdle; it is a calculated attempt to disrupt the opposition’s momentum. If the government truly cared about the sanctity of the process, this exercise could easily have waited until after April 29.

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

“Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran… I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double-sided CEASEFIRE!”

Donald Trump, the President of the United States, wrote on social media announcing the ceasefire between the US-Israel alliance and Iran.

In an official statement, Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, responding to the “brotherly request of PM Sharif”, also declared the ceasefire on behalf of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. He expressed gratitude and appreciation for his “dear brothers HE Prime Minister of Pakistan Sharif and HE Field Marshal Munir for their tireless efforts to end the war in the region.”

About Us

In the volatile weeks following the February 28 US–Israeli strike that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, a quiet but profound role reversal unfolded in South Asian diplomacy. Pakistan—often dismissed as a rogue actor in world affairs—emerged as the most visible mediator in the Middle East crisis. India, with its centuries-old civilisational links to Iran, strong ties with both the US and Israel, non-aligned legacy, membership of the Quad, presidency of BRICS+, and reputation as a principled global voice, found itself largely on the margins—issuing measured calls for restraint while watching Islamabad take the lead in a conflict that affected not just a few countries, but much of the world.

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

On March 4, 2026, during a discussion at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney ended his remarks with an unusual gesture. Instead of waving or nodding, he briefly pressed his palms together to thank the audience.

It was a small, almost reflexive moment at the end of a high-stakes program that many might not have even noticed. But for those who did, it might have triggered a vivid memory of exactly six years ago.

About Us

It was March 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic first tightened its grip on India, forcing a nationwide lockdown. At that time, the world was scrambling for ways to say “hello” or “thank you” without risking infection. Six years later, seeing one of the most educated leaders of the G7 fold his hands in a high-level forum in Australia suggests a deeper reality: India’s most widely used body gesture has moved beyond a cultural symbol to become a global symbol of hygienic, sincere, and refined etiquette.

The Indian folded-hand gesture, called the Anjali Mudra, is rooted in the Vedas and the Natya Shastra. It has always served a multi-dimensional purpose: it is the posture of worship, the standard social greeting (Namaste), and a profound expression of gratitude. And these are not separate from each other. Whether you say “hello” or a heartfelt “thank you,” you also acknowledge a spiritual presence in the other person.

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

Wars are rarely judged only by what they do to the country being targeted. They are also judged by what they do to the wider balance of power. The recent U.S.—Israel confrontation with Iran may well weaken Tehran in the short term, but the deeper strategic question is whether it simultaneously opens opportunities for America’s larger geopolitical rivals, particularly Russia and China.

About Us

The stated objective of the campaign against Iran has been clear. Washington and Israel argue that reducing Iran’s military capacity will limit its ability to threaten regional partners such as Israel and project influence across the Middle East through allied militias and political networks. Iran’s military infrastructure and economic resources are under pressure, and that in itself could curb Tehran’s regional ambitions for some time. From this perspective, the war is presented as a strategic necessity — a move intended to prevent a more dangerous future confrontation, particularly if Iran were to advance further toward nuclear capability.

But wars produce consequences that cannot be contained by military superiority…

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

News that a United States submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Iranian warship IRIS Dena about 40 nautical miles off Sri Lanka this week took many observers by surprise. An attack like this so far from the Persian Gulf – and in a key trade route connecting China to the Middle East – suggests the arena of this war may be widening.

But the incident also highlights something rarely well understood outside military and legal circles: the law of naval warfare. Many have wondered: was this attack lawful? And who was under an obligation to rescue survivors?

About Us

When does the law of naval warfare apply?

The law of naval warfare is a subset of the law of armed conflict. It sets out permissions and protections for combatants, civilians and neutral actors engaged in conflict at sea.

Importantly, it applies regardless of whether the resort to force was lawful. In other words, you’re supposed to follow the law of the sea even if your whole justification for war in the first place isn’t legal under international law.

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

In a landmark decision that has sent shockwaves from the White House to New Delhi, the United States Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026, that President Donald Trump lacked the legal authority to unilaterally impose sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). For India, which had been pushed to the brink of a trade war with effective tariffs as high as 50%, the ruling is more than a legal victory—it is a validation of New Delhi’s strategic patience.

As other nations like Japan, Vietnam, the UK, and the EU rushed to sign trade deals under the shadow of “Liberation Day” threats, India stood its ground. Now, with the legal floor of Trump’s trade policy falling through, the “almost ready” India-US trade deal is in a state of flux. The question for New Delhi is no longer how to mitigate a 50% tariff, but why it should settle for 18% when the legal basis for those threats has been declared invalid.

About Us

The 50 percent pressure cooker

The trade friction began on what President Trump dubbed “Liberation Day”—April 2, 2025—when he announced a 26% “reciprocal tariff” on Indian imports, later adjusted to 25%, citing a national emergency over trade deficits. By August 2025, the pressure intensified. Citing India’s continued imports of Russian oil, the administration slapped an additional 25% “punitive duty” on Indian goods, bringing the effective tariff to a staggering 50%.

This “double-whammy” forced India into a corner. For months, Indian negotiators faced a binary choice: accept a permanent, albeit lower, tariff regime or watch their export competitiveness evaporate. Under this duress, a breakthrough was announced on February 2, 2026. According to U.S. officials, in exchange for India committing to stop Russian oil imports and purchasing $500 billion in U.S. energy, technology, and defense products, the U.S. agreed to roll back tariffs from 50% to an “interim” rate of 18%.

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

1. Made for everyone, not just trained voices

Unlike many national anthems, Jana Gana Mana stays within a comfortable vocal range and moves mostly step by step. Set in a simple and calm scale (Raga Alhaiya Bilawal), its melody is very easy to sing for trained singers and ordinary crowds alike.

The US national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, sits at the other extreme. It is notoriously difficult to sing—even for professional singers—which is why it is often performed, lip-synced, or played instrumentally. Vande Mataram, too, is musically more demanding and suits trained voices better than mixed crowds.

Globally, Jana Gan Man ranks among the easier national anthems to sing, alongside Japan’s Kimigayo, Canada’s O Canada, Israel’s Hatikvah and Denmark’s Der er et yndigt land. It is far more accessible than many other anthems such as The Star-Spangled Banner, France’s La Marseillaise, or Italy’s Il Canto degli Italiani or even UK’s God Save the King.

About Us

2. A collective song, not a solo performance

Many of us who have regularly sung Jana Gana Mana in our schools can easily recall that it is meant for collective participation, not individual performances. It sounds dignified even when sung imperfectly by large groups and discourages vocal artistry or unnecessary personal touches to the poem. This quality makes Jana Gana Mana suitable for schools, stadiums, state ceremonies, and international events.

Many national anthems are more suited as performance pieces, where soloists try to own the song rather than guide collective singing. Such songs find a limited role in the everyday singing of normal citizens.

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

For a prime minister whose politics thrives on performance and nationalism, speaking in Hindi on the world stage is both identity and instrument. It also reflects a pragmatic reality — English is not a language in which Narendra Modi is most at ease. That should not be surprising in a country like India and, in fact, reflects the strength and inclusiveness of its democracy. But when it comes to international affairs, it might carry a cost.

About Us

When world leaders meet, what they say behind closed doors — the hints, jokes, reassurances, and quick clarifications — often matters as much as the formal communiqués that emerge later. Direct communication in a shared language is the most efficient path to trust. When someone understands both your words and the tone and non-verbal cues behind them, doubt diminishes, while comfort and credibility expand.

Narendra Modi’s public camaraderie with Donald Trump — from Houston’s “Howdy Modi” to Ahmedabad’s “Namaste Trump” — served clear political purposes for both men. These events created a spectacle of affinity. But can such orchestrated moments substitute the quieter, candid one-on-one diplomacy that happens when no one else is listening? Probably not. Optics can be manufactured; genuine, unscripted conversation between two leaders, without any intermediaries, is far harder to replicate.

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

1. Reply out of turn

The Election Commission’s first public reaction to Rahul Gandhi’s press conference (PC) was notable as much for its timing as for its content. Gandhi was still midway through his 70-minute briefing — having just finished the main part — when the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Karnataka posted a letter in response to his allegations on social media. Shortly afterwards, similar statements came from the CEOs of Haryana and Maharashtra, all quickly echoed by the EC’s own official account.

The speed alone suggests this could not have been a considered reply to Gandhi’s detailed allegations. The content reinforced that impression. For example, at one place it states, “It is understood that during a Press Conference held today, you had mentioned about the inclusion of ineligible electors and exclusion of eligible electors in the Electoral Rolls…”

About Us

This is factually incorrect. Had the EC listened carefully before writing its response — or simply waited until Gandhi finished — it likely would not have done that. In the later part of his briefing, Rahul specifically mentioned,“we have only shown voter addition (inclusion of ineligible electors). There is also something called voter subtraction (exclusion of eligible electors). We know that it is almost of the same scale, but, we haven’t got the data to assert that, so, we are not talking about.”

Rather than engaging with the core issues or showing any intent to address them, the EC’s response clearly looks like what it likely was — a hastily drafted, centrally co-ordinated standard bureaucratic note, leaning completely on unnecessary technicalities. The urgency seemed less about fact-finding and more about seizing control of the narrative before it could take shape in the public mind.

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

The Nobel Prizes, established by the will of Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel, are widely regarded as the most prestigious awards given for intellectual achievement and contributions to humanity in the world. Among these, the Nobel Peace Prize holds a unique global significance. It is an extraordinary honor that contributes significantly to the global image, historical legacy, and domestic standing of the most powerful people in the world. It places them among a rare group of global figures such as Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama, Theodore Roosevelt, and Barack Obama.

The Prize seems to hold even greater significance for U.S. President Donald Trump. He has often expressed frustration at not winning the award and openly questioned the Nobel Committee's past decisions, saying, ‘they only give Peace Prize to liberals (read democrats)’. His predecessor, Barack Obama, was awarded before he completed the first year of his presidency, which makes him a special target of Trump. This stands in stark contrast to most former presidents, who rarely, if ever, publicly campaigned for or complained about not winning the prize.

About Us

For Donald Trump, winning the Nobel would mean rewriting a century of its history, particularly for U.S. Presidents. To date, only four U.S. Presidents—Theodore Roosevelt (1906), Woodrow Wilson (1919), Jimmy Carter (2002), and Barack Obama (2009)—and one Vice President, Al Gore (2007), have been laureates. Notably, Theodore Roosevelt, awarded 119 years ago, stands as the sole Republican among them. In stark contrast, three of the four Democratic recipients have won the prize in the present century alone.

Nobel moves

According to the will of Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Peace Prize is to be awarded to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Read full article on Satyagrah.News

When the G7 last gathered in Canada in June 2018, President Donald Trump stunned America’s allies by refusing to sign the joint statement and calling for Russia’s readmission to the group, despite its 2014 annexation of Crimea. That moment marked the beginning of an uneasy phase in US-Europe relations which eased during Joe Biden’s presidency. But Trump’s return to the White House in 2024 brought back familiar tensions — and perhaps made them worse.

At the 2025 G7 Summit, again in Canada, Donald Trump reiterated that removing Russia from the group was a mistake and argued that its presence in the G7 could have prevented the war in Ukraine. He skipped key meetings including with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and suggested that Vladimir Putin might serve as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. Throughout the Summit, Trump openly showed his friendly feelings toward the Russian leader, and played down allies' plans for tougher sanctions on Russia.

About Us

Just a few weeks before the 2025 G7 Summit, on the issue of tariffs, Trump treated his strongest allies—the European Union and Canada—with the same transactional hostility he often directs toward adversaries.

This makes us ask: would Europe have been in a stronger position to navigate Trump’s unpredictability and Russia’s war in Ukraine if the UK had remained in the EU?

Read full article on Satyagrah.News