discy

Category: Global

  • From Allies to Adversaries? U.S. Slaps Highest Tariffs on India over Russia Energy Links

    From Allies to Adversaries? U.S. Slaps Highest Tariffs on India over Russia Energy Links

    On 6 August 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order that imposes an additional tariff of 25% on imports from India, effectively pushing the headline U.S. tariff on many Indian goods to 50% where the earlier reciprocal rate also applies.

    The implementation is not uniform, with the US administration signalling targeted applications. Some products appear to be exempted (for example, some smartphone and pharmaceutical shipments), but for labour-intensive categories where Indian exporters are concentrated- apparel, gems & jewellery, carpets and some food items- the tariff rate can become a threat very quickly, as buyers can likely shift suppliers.

    The order says the additional duty is being imposed because the U.S. government finds India is “directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil” and that the step is needed to address “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security. Unless India concedes in the next three weeks, the move will potentially hit its single largest export market, worth $87.3 billion annually.

    Indian Energy Security Meets America First

    Before the Ukraine war, Russian oil was barely 2% of India’s imports. However, by 2024, it had increased to 36%. In the first half of 2025, imports hit 1.75 million barrels daily. The rationale for India has been straightforward- cheap oil for a country of 1.4 billion is an economic necessity, not a geopolitical endorsement.

    Trump sees it differently. “India has always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and is Russia’s largest buyer of energy,” he wrote on social media. “They can take their dead economies down together.” It’s the second tariff hike, which has been framed as retaliation for India’s ‘funding’ of Moscow’s war machine.

    New Delhi has pushed back hard, accusing Washington of hypocrisy. The Ministry of External Affairs has pointed out that the EU’s trade with Russia last year- 67.5 billion euros in goods and 17.2 billion euros in services, far exceeded India’s. And the U.S. continues to tolerate large Russian energy purchases by China and Turkey without resorting to similar penalties. “Our imports are based on market factors and energy security needs,” the ministry said, calling the tariffs “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable.”

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin about an upcoming visit did nothing to dismiss Trump’s idea of India as a Moscow enabler.

    Trump’s Real Obsession- The Trade Deficit

    For all the moral high ground Trump’s taking on Russia, many economists believe the real reason is the U.S.’s goods trade deficit with India. In 2024, as per a Reuters report, the gap widened to $45.8 billion, up 5.1% year-on-year. India’s exports to the U.S., led by pharmaceuticals, textiles, gems, and machinery, hit $87.3 billion, while U.S. exports to India lagged at $41.5 billion. May 2025 alone saw $8.83 billion worth of Indian goods heading to America.

    Trump has long viewed this imbalance as proof of Indian protectionism. His “reciprocal trade” doctrine demands zero-deficit commerce- a fantasy in the real world, but one he has applied indiscriminately, from Canada (35% tariffs) to Mexico (25%) and even close allies like the UK and Australia. The Russia issue, analysts argue, is a convenient pretext for a tariff tactic that forces India to buy more American oil, defence hardware, and agricultural goods.

    If the tariffs stick, U.S. consumers will inevitably pay more for everything from T-shirts to generic medicines. However, for Trump, the possibility of a narrowed deficit balances the domestic inflation risk.

    Economy and Market- Two Peas in a Pod  

    Citigroup warns of a 0.6% to 0.8% GDP hit for India if the tariffs endure; Morgan Stanley agrees on the upper bound. A more optimistic PHDCCI report estimates the damage to be just 0.19% of GDP, affecting less than 2% of exports. Either way, the pain will be sector-specific. Labour-intensive industries like textiles, gems, and pharmaceuticals will feel the brunt first. Supply chains may shift to Bangladesh or Vietnam, recreating what had happened when U.S.-China tariffs shifted manufacturing flows. The Reserve Bank of India has already intervened to limit rupee weakness.

    However, if Trump expected the Indian markets to report a major fall, the response has been underwhelming. The BSE Sensex closed at 79,857.79 on 8 August, down just 0.95%, with the Nifty 50 matching the fall. The losses marked a sixth straight week in the red- the longest such streak in five years, but why is panicking unnecessary?

    Foreign institutional investors pulled ₹15,950 crore from Indian equities in early August, but domestic institutional investors more than offset this with ₹29,070 crore in buys, supported by record systematic investment plan inflows. Mid- and small-cap stocks slipped more than 1% each, but the consensus among market strategists is that as long as domestic liquidity holds, i.e.,  the Indian consumers keep buying, India can sustain the tariffs at least in the short term.

    India’s Retaliation-  Damage Control, Negotiation, and Diversification

    India’s options are limited, with negotiation remaining a priority. WTO legal routes are available but slow. India could initiate consultations or panels, challenging U.S. national-security claims under GATT norms, similar to Brazil’s approach, though such resolutions take time and do less to prevent immediate impacts.

    Domestic measures include GST relief, credit support, and insurance for exporters, accelerating diversification via new FTAs with the Middle East, Africa, and the EU. Competitiveness improvements in key sectors are planned, but these address medium-term needs rather than short-term losses like order cancellations. Retaliation is seen as counterproductive, as it would increase Indian costs, expand the deficit from the U.S. perspective, and risk escalation.

    Competitors like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Turkey may gain from U.S. orders. Indian firms with markets in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa stand a better chance, but this may not fully offset job losses in regions like Punjab or in textiles.

    What Does The Future Look Like for U.S.-India Relations

    Relations between the U.S. and India, initially prospering by shared interests against China, are under pressure. Trump’s recent engagement with Pakistan through deals on cryptocurrency, mining, and oil, alongside his claim of negotiating a May ceasefire (denied by India), has raised eyebrows in India.

    For the first time in two decades, U.S. relations have become a domestic political issue in India. In the U.S., with Trump’s influence, issues like immigration, deportations, H-1B visas (72% held by Indians), offshoring, and technology sharing could turn India into a partisan topic.

    Mistrust over third-party relations- such as India’s ties to Russia and U.S. dealings with China and Pakistan was previously managed. Tariffs on Russian oil, however, change this narrative. Trump’s comments, including calling India a ‘dead economy,’ have just added fuel to the tariff fire.

    A negotiated settlement in the near future could restore confidence, secure U.S. export gains, and keep strategic ties intact. Failure could see supply chains rerouted, investments delayed, and both economies paying the price for this unwarranted trade war. As former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran puts it, India must “endure short-term pain to safeguard long-term sovereignty.” However, political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta is blunter, warning that Modi risks’ humiliation’ if he cannot manage a dignified off-ramp.

  • Russia’s Kamchatka Hit by 8.8 Magnitude Earthquake; Pacific Nations on Tsunami Alert

    Russia’s Kamchatka Hit by 8.8 Magnitude Earthquake; Pacific Nations on Tsunami Alert

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS) stated that the quake was at 23:24 UTC (05:54 IST, 30 July), some 119 km southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, an urban municipality in Kamchatka Krai. The earthquake was of relatively shallow depth of 19 kilometres, which maximises its capability to cause surface effects.

    The quake struck near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, close to a volatile underwater fault line where tectonic plates constantly battle for dominance — the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench, infamous for past megaquakes.

    The ground trembled. Sirens cried out. Millions rushed to the top. A strong 8.8-magnitude earthquake off the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia late 29 July sent shockwaves across the Pacific Rim and prompted widespread tsunami warnings from Chile to Japan. The quake, which was one of the most powerful in more than ten years, triggered a worldwide series of evacuations, emergency responses, and a tense wait for impact.

    Epicentre and Geological Details 

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS) stated that the quake was at 23:24 UTC (05:54 IST, 30 July), some 119 km southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, an urban municipality in Kamchatka Krai. The earthquake was of relatively shallow depth of 19 kilometres, which maximises its capability to cause surface effects.

    The quake struck near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, close to a volatile underwater fault line where tectonic plates constantly battle for dominance — the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench, infamous for past megaquakes.

    Tsunami Warnings and Evacuations

    In less than ten minutes, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre (PTWC) came online and sent out warnings for countries in the Pacific, including French Polynesia, Japan, Chile, Hawaii, California, Alaska, Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia. Among the coordinated responses were that  Japan evacuated almost 2 million people from coastal prefectures; one person died due to the evacuation efforts. In the coastal areas of Chile, the evacuation involved more than a million people due to “red alerts”.   Hawaii declared an emergency, closed ports, rerouted traffic, activated statewide sirens, and opened public shelters.

    Western U.S. states, ranging from California to British Columbia, issued tsunami advisories; Crescent City in Northern California issued a warning about potential wave amplification due to underwater topology, despite the fact that actual wave heights were recorded at just over 1 foot (~0.3 m).

    By 31 July, the majority of regions had reduced or revoked warnings; Chile remained on alert, New Zealand kept coastal areas off-limits, and other countries adopted cautious advisory stances.

    The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) attributed the quick, synchronised response of the governments and the emergency services to “effective early warning systems and evacuation protocols.”

    Initial Impact and Damage Reports 

    Even though the earthquake was very powerful, no fatalities have yet been reported as of August 3. Russian officials in the Far East reported minor injuries, minor damage to buildings and power supply disruption in certain areas. Kamchatka Krai and portions of Sakhalin Oblast are yet to be physically inspected.

    Russian rescue forces were sent during the night, and the local authorities declared a state of heightened alert. However, the isolation of the epicentral region most likely limited casualties.

    Nuclear and Military Facility Concerns

    What rattled beneath the surface may have shaken more than just the earth. Some of Russia’s most classified military facilities, including naval bases thought to contain nuclear submarines, were dangerously close to the epicentre. As international intelligence services step up satellite surveillance in search of any indication of structural damage or compromised security, the Russian Defence Ministry’s silence has only stoked rumours. The earthquake has caused anxiety well beyond seismic circles in an area already shrouded in military secrecy.

    Global Seismic Significance

    The July 29 earthquake ranks as the world’s second most powerful earthquake after Japan’s 2011 Tōhoku earthquake, which had a magnitude of 9.1 and caused a devastating tsunami. It is currently the sixth most powerful earthquake to be registered by seismographs since the year 1900.
    Seismologists believe this movement is possibly part of a broader Pacific Ring of Fire tectonic process that will continue to have aftershocks for weeks.

    International seismic safety protocols are receiving more attention as a result of this incident. Budget cuts are a concern; experts stress maintaining and increasing funding for organisations like PTWC, which are essential to early warning effectiveness. There is growing support for regular simulation drills, public education campaigns, and better coordination among national meteorological, defence, and disaster management agencies, especially in areas vulnerable to megathrust earthquakes. Talks have started about extending reliable early-warning systems into under-monitored regions, particularly the Atlantic Ocean basin and Indian Ocean zones, beyond current networks.

    Although the Kamchatka earthquake did not cause significant damage relative to its strength, specialists highlight that it serves to highlight the ongoing seismic danger for countries along the Pacific. Authorities are reminding people who are in risk areas to be aware of safety protocols, especially since aftershocks and secondary risks can still materialise

  • Is ‘F1 – The Movie’ Hollywood’s Victorious Return to the World of Racing Movies?

    Is ‘F1 – The Movie’ Hollywood’s Victorious Return to the World of Racing Movies?

    ‘F1: The Movie’ follows Sonny Hayes (Brad Pitt), an ex-F1 driver who retired from the sport after a career-ending injury and now races in any series he can, in any car he can, chasing the need for speed. Hayes is brought back to Formula One at the request of Apex GP team owner, Ruben Cervantes (Javier Bardem), who used to be his teammate during his first stint in F1. Hayes is set to drive along with Apex GP’s rookie driver, Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris).

    From the get-go, it’s made very evident that Hayes is a one-man team and he only listens to one man: himself, and that he is not above putting himself or others in harm’s way if it gets him that win. We see this perception challenged over the course of the film as Hayes bonds with the Apex GP team, but despite his best efforts, the team struggles to stay afloat.

    The Good…
    The film does an incredible job of immersing you in the world of racing. During a scene in the third act of the film, Hayes describes the perfect moment of being in the car, one where he feels like he’s flying. You see this feeling play out during the last race of the season, and you truly understand exactly what he was talking about.

    Claudio Miranda, the Director of Photography for this film, took the work he and Joseph Kosinski did during Top Gun: Maverick and built on it further. Miranda and Kosinski have worked together multiple times, and Miranda describes their relationship as one where they love to overcome new challenges. With Top Gun: Maverick, that was fitting six cameras into the cockpit of a fighter jet, and with F1, their enemy was weight. To tackle this problem, they fit a Sony FX3 sensor (a very accessible camera) into a camera body, and Panavision built custom remote heads that could be rigged onto the cars, which give us the iconic whip pans during the racing sequences of this film.

    … the Bad…
    Fans of the sport did receive more than enough warnings from the internet and early reviews to leave the technical brain behind and just enjoy the film for what it is: entertainment. Unfortunately, there were quite a few moments when the suspension of disbelief was thrown entirely out the window. Whether it be as tiny as the F1 race calendar being jumbled around or as large as the Apex GP team dealing with car damage fairly often, as a team on the verge of bankruptcy and liquidation, these errors start to pile on. These details are supposed to act like easter eggs and hype up any fans of the sport watching, and it’s actually a great way to up the stakes if you think about it from a narrative point of view.

    Besides the little technical errors, it might not be the best representation of the current era of racing (the early 2010s to now). From a meta perspective, this film is neither fictional nor documentary in nature, with a fictional team made up of characters inserted into the real, current world of F1. Put in the context of racing films as a whole, Cars is an entirely fictional movie with fictional characters. Movies like Rush or Ford v Ferrari, other classics in the list of racing films, while exaggerating historical events for drama, are still built with a foundational truth to them. This film falls smack in the middle of those two. There’s no easy solution to this, of course. They couldn’t have created an entirely new grid filled with fictional characters and teams, and creating a narrative around a current driver would defeat the purpose of this film entirely.

    … and the Ugly.
    Unfortunately, getting racing wrong isn’t the worst thing this movie does, because its portrayal of women characters is lacking, to say the least. There are 4 female characters in the film – one in a minor role, two in side roles, and one in the main role.

    Kate McKenna is the technical director of Apex GP, but has her power almost constantly undermined by Hayes, who asks her to change the entire aerodynamics model of the car. The other two female characters of note are Jodie, a mechanic who’s a part of the pit crew, and Bernadette, Joshua’s mother. Bernadette still feels like a fleshed-out character, one whose point is to illustrate the sacrifices that the families of the drivers have to make. Jodie, however, suffers a fate similar to Kate’s. When we first meet her, she’s seen as a mumbling mess in front of a hot-headed Pearce, and not long after, we see how her mistake costs the team a valuable pitstop.

    Taking both Kate and Jodie’s characters together, it feels like this movie goes out of its way to undermine the role of women in the sport, a hot topic in the last couple of years as the sport has gained more popularity. But in 2025, it feels particularly hurtful because of all that women have accomplished in motorsports in the last year alone. From Laura Mueller becoming the first female race engineer for Esteban Ocon of the Moneygram Haas F1 team to F1 Academy gaining massive popularity in its first two seasons, women have come a long way to prove that they belong in motorsports.

    Simone Ashley was also announced to be in the film in July 2024, but by the time the film actually premiered less than a year later, her role was cut down significantly. She was set to play Joshua Pearce’s love interest, but the storyline was entirely cut out. When asked about this, Kosinski stated that this is what often happens in movies and that they “shoot a lot more than they can actually use,” while still praising Ashley. This is, however, a larger trend in the industry that people of colour, especially women of colour, have their roles in production severely cut down by the time the final product makes it to our screens.

    At the end of the day, F1 is a film built for blockbuster entertainment, and it does that very well. It comes at a lot of costs, especially to the history of the sport and how far it’s come. This isn’t even close to Pitt’s best performance in a sports film (see: Moneyball), and for a fair bit, it comes across as a distant legacy sequel to Tony Scott’s Days of Thunder (which came out on the same day in 1990 as the world premiere of this film). Should you still go and watch this film in theatres? Absolutely! And if you so wish, become a fan of the sport itself and immerse yourself in the very rich, often very funny, often quite scandalous world of Formula One.

  • Are Superhero Movies Still Landing?

    Are Superhero Movies Still Landing?

    The Marvel Cinematic Universe’s (MCU) long-awaited Phase 6 kicks off this month with Fantastic Four: First  Steps. Like most of Marvel’s recent movies, Fantastic Four: First Steps also features a star-studded cast, which includes Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Joseph Quinn, and Ebon Moss-Bachrach. The film is directed by Matt Shakman, a Marvel veteran, who previously directed Marvel’s WandaVision in 2021. Based on pre-ticket sales, the movie is predicted to earn massively at the box office. Despite this initial hype with pre-ticket sales numbers, previous Marvel projects point to a disconnect between their ambitious output and audience engagement, begging the question: Are we still as excited for big Marvel projects as we used to be?

    Dwindling anticipation is not limited to recent projects, as it affected the entirety of Marvel’s last phase, Phase 5, which came to be the MCU’s least successful phase in terms of revenue generated. Superhero fatigue is real, there’s no denying it, but certain box office successes make a case for the genre being an indispensable part of cinema that generates substantial viewership without sacrificing the craft of filmmaking. Like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, which was a remarkable attempt at exploring one of the MCU’s wittiest characters, Rocket, while successfully developing a dynamic group of characters and their stories.

    A few key reasons explain this decline in enthusiasm, particularly the challenge of keeping up with so many interconnected stories, complicated further by the dual system of series and movies. While it was smart to diversify into shows to adapt to the new OTT environment, the decision also hampered the complex Marvel plotline experience because audiences cannot keep up anymore.  Central to MCU’s brand is the seamless connection of different plotlines over time, but ease of continuity in viewers’ minds is essential for this to work. However, now, there are too many shows to consume, with most getting left behind in the “continue watching” sections of our OTT accounts. The sheer anxiety of consuming the massive volume of content in the Cinematic Universe makes it difficult for audiences to appreciate it.

    Shows allow characters to develop over multiple seasons, so when we transition back to a three-hour movie, the character journeys seem substantially less impactful. Remember Eternals? They were a group of ten superheroes that the MCU introduced back in 2021 with the expectation that audiences would root for them for approximately two and a half hours, only to leave them abandoned.

    The problem with character-building is also evident in instances like Yelena Belova’s character, played by Florence Pugh, who is now leading the ‘New Avengers’ (Thunderbolts*). Unlike her sister, Black Widow, who audiences came to adore even before she had a standalone movie, Yelena’s character was tossed around in a series with Hawkeye and the Black Widow movie, and then suddenly handed the baton to be the next leader.

    Established actors and big names now leading Marvel stories highlight a growing misstep for the franchise. The appeal of earlier characters like Captain America and Thor stemmed mainly from the fact that the actors portraying them were relatively fresh faces, stepping into their roles with almost a clean slate. These allowed the audiences to define the actors by their MCU roles.

    Today, however, stars like Florence Pugh, known for her role in the Dune series; Kit Harington, famous as Jon Snow; David Harbour, a fan-favourite from Stranger Things; and Pedro Pascal, who has become a pop-culture icon and phenomenon, headline Marvel projects. Marvel even brought back Wolverine, played by Hugh Jackman, so that the new Deadpool movie could primarily be not a cinematic success, but a marketing one. Marvel, which was once known for launching actors with unforgettable roles, is now feeding off actors’ stardom to fill theatres. Whether this reliance will pay off remains unclear, as viewers continue to find it challenging to dissociate characters from the actors playing them.

    Marvel’s plotlines have been subject to criticism, particularly for their generic protagonist-turned-villain theme, milked repeatedly with characters like Scarlet Witch in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, Hulk in Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Bucky Barnes in Captain  America: The Winter Soldier. In their defence, the infinite number of superhero movies released every year outside the MCU makes it increasingly difficult to stay original.

    In terms of originality, looking beyond the MCU helps put things in perspective, as a lot can still be done to keep the genre fresh. For instance, Everything Everywhere All at  Once was a unique take on the previously explored metaphor of mothers as superheroes. The animated movie series The Incredibles remains highly entertaining, even though a similar concept was previously explored in Fantastic Four. Moreover, classics like The Dark  Knight trilogy continue to be loved because the movies explore real-world themes using their heroes and villains as funnels to make arguments, and not the other way around. Watching the three Spider-Men reunite was undeniably entertaining, but do we really need Robert Downey Jr. to return as a supervillain?

    Inclusivity and diversity, as demonstrated by the success of Black Panther, have been positive additions to the Marvel universe. However, does representation need to be as overt as seen in Ms. Marvel? Taika Waititi’s Thor: Ragnarok executed comedy brilliantly, but should Deadpool & Wolverine have relied so heavily on humour that the movie felt more like a 2-hour-long stand-up routine? The Marvel Cinematic Universe continues to grow, and its budgets, audiences, and VFX capabilities grow with it. They just need to be more selective and certain about the stories they choose to tell. How they tackle this will determine if the next phase sticks the landing.

  • Ozzy Osbourne, Prince of Darkness, dies at 76

    Ozzy Osbourne, Prince of Darkness, dies at 76

    Ozzy Osbourne, the heavy metal pioneer, whose chaotic stage presence, occult imagery, and the infamous bat-biting incident made him one of the most iconic figures in the history of rock music,  passed away on 22nd July 2025; he was 76.

    Known as the “Prince of Darkness”, Osbourne spent decades crafting his horror persona. As the lead vocalist of Black Sabbath and later a solo artist, he helped define the visual and thematic vocabulary of heavy metal. While critics questioned his choices and religious groups denounced and associated him with Satanism, Osbourne embraced his infamy with self-aware flair. His legacy lies not only in the music he made but in the boundary-pushing dark persona, which altered rock music forever.

    Born in a Graveyard, Adopted by Sin

    Born John Michael Osbourne on 3 December 1948, in Birmingham, England, Osbourne did not have an easy and lavish life. He grew up in a modest household alongside five siblings. Osbourne struggled with dyslexia in school, forcing him to drop out at 15. After dropping out, he had to cycle through a series of menial and low-paying jobs; he even served jail time for petty theft. Inspired by the Beatles, his passion for music set him on a radically different path.

    In 1968, he co-founded Black Sabbath. The 60s, known for its peace and love-optimism, was about to change thanks to its dark riffs and apocalyptic lyrics. Black Sabbath released their debut album, “Black Sabbath,” in 1970; the first song opened with church bells, and the eerie music set the tone. Osbourne’s ghostly, almost chant-like vocals became a defining feature of the band’s sound.

    Rock musicians like to play with danger, and Osbourne made it a central theme. Onstage, he seemed possessed, his eyes rolling back as he sang about ghoulish topics like war and mental torment. Offstage, Osbourne had a mysterious persona; he wore black capes and crosses, and spoke cryptically about the dark subjects he sang about.

    The dark image became legendary in 1982 during a solo concert in Des Moines, Iowa. A fan threw a bat on the stage- Osbourne assumed it was a rubber bat, and he bit into it only to discover it was alive. This moment sparked outrage, horror, and fascination across the world.

    Osbourne was removed from Black Sabbath in 1979 due to substance abuse issues, which paved the way for his solo career. With help from his manager and second wife, Sharon Osbourne, he released “Blizzard of Ozz”. He built a solo legacy rooted in the same horror and theatrical darkness that had made him famous initially, but with a clear focus and independence. Alongside his music, Osbourne’s off-stage behaviour became the stuff of tabloid fascination. He was infamous for outrageous acts like urinating on a historic monument in the Alamo while wearing his wife’s dress and snorting a line of ants during a tour. After facing accusations of him being a satanist and the Antichrist from right-wing Christian groups, he replied, “I’m not the Antichrist, I’m just a rock and roll singer with a dramatic flair”.

    His life took a turn in 2002 with The Osbournes, an MTV reality show that exposed a new side of the rock legend. Despite the previous perception of him being a terrifying icon in the 70s and 80s, Osbourne appeared as a fumbling, caring father navigating his daily life with confusion and gentleness. The show became a cultural phenomenon, and millions of viewers tuned in to watch it every week.

    Despite recurring health struggles, including Parkinson’s diagnosis, surgeries, and a well-documented history of addiction to alcohol and drugs, Osbourne continued to record and perform well into his seventies. He collaborated with artists like Post Malone and Elton John to make new music. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with Black Sabbath in 2006 and received numerous awards, including the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2019. Even though he had differences with Black Sabbath, he reunited with them multiple times. Just a few days before his demise, he performed a final show with them on 5 July 2025.

    Fans around the world mourned the death of Prince of Darkness, and said that his last performance was the “perfect farewell for their Prince.” “There will never be another Ozzy,” said guitarist Tony Iommi, his longtime bandmate in Black Sabbath, “he was the voice of metal and the heart of the band.” Elton John wrote, “Ozzy made madness into magic. We’ve lost a legend”.

    Osbourne is survived by his wife, Sharon, and his children, Aimee, Kelly, and Jack.

  • Debut Winners Galore: A review of Wimbledon 2025

    Debut Winners Galore: A review of Wimbledon 2025

    Sinner Redemption

    A month after their five-and-a-half-hour long explosive final at the French Open, Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner once again squared up, this time at Centre Court, to duel for the Wimbledon trophy. Alcaraz was gunning for his third consecutive Wimbledon title, while Sinner aimed to avenge his French Open loss to the Spaniard. Sinner had defeated last year’s finalist and seven-time winner Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals, while Alcaraz had the better of American Taylor Fritz en route to the final.

    While Alcaraz started strongly and won the first set, Sinner found another gear and won the following three sets with ease, winning the match with a scoreline of 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. This was Sinner’s first win over Alcaraz since the China Open in 2023, the Spaniard being a constant thorn in the Italian No. 1’s side. With this win, Sinner extended his lead at the top of the ATP rankings with 12,000 points, while Alcaraz lost ground and dropped to 8,600 points, albeit still in second place. Sinner also became the first Italian player to win Wimbledon in singles.

    Swiatek Domination

    As is tradition on grass, the WTA was filled with drama and unexpected losses from the top seeds. Reigning champion Barbora Krejcikova went out in the third round to Emma Navarro, and by the time the quarterfinalists were decided, a first-time winner was guaranteed. After the dust settled, it was former World No. 1 Iga Swiatek and American Amanda Anisimova who made the final. Swiatek defeated Swiss Belinda Bencic in the semi-final, while Anisimova upset current No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka in a tight three-setter to make her first Grand Slam final. This was the third time in three Majors that an American player defeated Sabalenka.

    Critics favoured Swiatek for being a five-time Major winner and boasting an unbeaten Slam final record, but still gave Anisimova a chance due to her excellent performance against Sabalenka. However, in a surprising turn of events, Swiatek swept the rug off under the American, winning the match with a scoreline of 6-0, 6-0, with Anisimova failing to win a single game and only winning 24 points throughout the match. It was only the second time in the Open Era that a women’s final ended with this scoreline, with German great Steffi Graf defeating Natasha Zvereva similarly in the 1988 French Open final. Swiatek consoled a tearful Anisimova at the net before celebrating the win with her team.

    With this match, Swiatek overcame her trophy slump since the 2024 French Open and jumped back into the top three in the rankings. Despite the devastating loss, Anisimova moved five places up to seventh in the rankings on account of reaching the final.

    Doubles

    The British duo of Julian Cash and Lloyd Glasspool emerged victorious at their home slam, defeating Rinky Hijikata and David Pel in the Men’s Doubles final with a score of 6-2, 7-6(7-3). This was the first time in the Open Era that a British pairing clinched the Wimbledon trophy, as well as being the first Major win for both Cash and Glasspool.

    Veronica Kudermetova and Elise Mertens won the Women’s Doubles after triumphing over Hsieh Su-Wei and Jelena Ostapenko with a score of 3-6, 6-2, 6-4, with Kudermetova winning her first Major title while Mertens won her fifth. In the Mixed Doubles, Sam Verbeek and Katerina Siniakova won a tight final against Joe Salisbury and Luisa Stefani, winning by 7-6(7-3), 7-6(7-3). Verbeek won his first Major title with this win, while Siniakova, the world No. 1 in doubles, clinched her eleventh.

    Image Source: Image credit: Iga Swiatek on Instagram

  • Elon Musk Launches America Party: Fiscal Conservatism, Electric Cars, Revenge

    Elon Musk Launches America Party: Fiscal Conservatism, Electric Cars, Revenge

    Billionaire Elon Musk, on Saturday, announced the launch of a new ‘centrist’ political party, the ‘America Party,’ which looks like both a political gamble and an escalation to his very public feud with US President Donald Trump. In a series of posts on his platform X, Musk has positioned the new party as a direct challenge to America’s historic two-party system.

    “By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party, and you shall have it!” Musk posted, citing a poll he ran on X. He added, “When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste and graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”

    However, there is no evidence as of now of Musk formally registering the party with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Musk, who was born in South Africa and is ineligible to run for president, has not named a leader for the party yet.

    The announcement comes against the backdrop of a dramatic public split with Trump, whom Musk had previously supported with over $275 million in campaign donations. Musk has even served in Trump’s administration as the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), where he oversaw aggressive cuts to federal programs.

    Their falling out began after Musk publicly criticised Trump’s massive tax and spending bill, which the latter refers to as ‘one big beautiful bill’, which was signed into law last week and is expected to add over $3 trillion to the national deficit. Musk, a prominent leader in the EV industry, has very publicly made his opinions known on the bill, which omitted subsidies for electric vehicles, a key interest for Tesla.

    Trump has since then publicly dismissed Musk’s new party as ‘ridiculous’, calling Musk a “TRAIN WRECK” that has gone “off the rails.” Trump has also threatened to revisit federal contracts with Musk’s companies, including SpaceX and Starlink, both of which rely heavily on government deals. He further hinted at potential moves to strip Musk of subsidies or even reconsider his immigration status, despite Musk having been a US citizen since 2002.

    Unbothered by the president’s remarks, Musk suggested that the America Party could start by focusing on a handful of highly contested House and Senate races in the 2026 midterms. He argued that winning just a few seats could give the party leverage in a closely divided Congress.

    Meanwhile, a Reuters report has pointed to a slide of nearly 8% in Tesla’s shares on Monday, following Musk’s announcement. The company is now tasked with selling more than one million vehicles in the second half of the year to avoid a year-on-year decline in sales. If the stock slide continues, Tesla will lose over $80 billion in market value. Can Tesla afford this political venture, given how Trump’s initial threats to cut off subsidies to Musk’s businesses led to a $150 billion wipeout in Tesla’s market cap in a single trading session?

    Despite Musk’s confidence, US political history has shown little success for third parties. So far, the America Party looks more like a personal vendetta than a serious political movement. There are no declared candidates and no clear policies beyond Musk’s usual focus on cutting government spending. No known lawmakers have shown any interest in defecting to his fledgling party.

    In reality, there’s little evidence of a strong voter bloc eager to rally behind Musk. His millions of followers on X and strong financial resources don’t necessarily translate into political power. Without a coalition of committed candidates and grassroots supporters, the America Party risks becoming just another news headline, fizzling out entirely once Musk’s attention shifts elsewhere.

  • Diogo Jota, Portugal and Liverpool Footballer, dies in road accident

    Diogo Jota, Portugal and Liverpool Footballer, dies in road accident

    Diogo Jota, Portuguese footballer for Liverpool FC, died in a road accident on 3rd July, 2025, at the age of 28. His younger brother Andre Silva, travelling with him, was also killed in the accident.

    Just 11 days after his wedding, Jota was returning to England for pre-season. Having recently undergone lung surgery, he was advised to avoid air travel, so he planned to go from Spain to England via ferry. On their way to the port, while trying to overtake another car they suffered a tyre blowout, veering off the road before fatally catching fire. The crash occurred at around 00:30 CEST.

    Tributes poured in worldwide after the deaths were officially confirmed. Many of Jota’s Liverpool and Portugal teammates expressed shock over the news, reminiscing about their shared memories and recent success for club and country. Arne Slot, Liverpool head coach, remarked, “For us as a club, the sense of shock is absolute. Diogo was not just our player. He was a loved one to all of us.” Liverpool announced that they would pay his family the remaining amount of his contract, which ran until 2027. In their reunion performance on 4th July, British band Oasis paid tribute to Jota, with his picture appearing on screen when they performed ‘Live Forever’.

    Born on 4th December 1996 in Porto, Portugal, Jota started his professional football journey with Paços de Ferreira in 2013, becoming the youngest player to score for the club in the Primeira Liga. After playing for various teams like FC Porto and Wolverhampton Wanderers, he was signed by Liverpool FC in 2020. At Liverpool, he helped the team win the cup double in 2022, clinching both the FA Cup and the EFL Cup, as well as winning the league in the 2024-25 season. He was also part of the squad that reached the UEFA Champions League Final in 2022, losing out to Real Madrid 1-0. For Portugal, Jota made his international debut in 2019, contributing to them winning the UEFA Nations League twice, in 2019 and 2025. The 2025 win over Spain was his final match as a football player. He also made appearances for Portugal at the 2021 and 2024 European Championships. Overall, he earned 49 caps for Portugal.

    He is survived by his wife Rute Cardoso, their three children and the millions of fans whose hearts he touched.

  • A Costly Consensus: NATO’s 5% Defence Pledge and the Trump Effect

    A Costly Consensus: NATO’s 5% Defence Pledge and the Trump Effect

    In the 2025 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Summit held from 24 June to 26 June, a strong commitment was made by all the NATO countries. The member states have finally agreed to ramp up their defence spending goal to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035, a major jump from the previous target of 2% set in 2014.

    The US president has raised questions about NATO’s collective defence strategies for several months now, narrowly referring to Article 5 of NATO’s Alliance in his defense, which states, “An armed attack against one or more of the allies shall be considered an attack against them all. Trump has avoided explicitly endorsing the clause, claiming there are “multiple definitions of Article 5,” a move seen by many as an effort to avoid confrontation with Russia.

    In response, NATO has worked towards a compromise, agreeing to increase defence spending to keep the U.S. engaged in the alliance. The 32 countries have decided to dedicate 3.5% of their GDP to crucial military needs and 1.5% to other elements such as cybersecurity, infrastructure, etc.

    NATO has publicly stated that the alliance must work towards deterring Russia’s military force. “NATO needs a “quantum leap” in defence to deter threats to the alliance”, Rutte mentioned in a speech given in London, earlier this month. Thus, he urged member states to invest more funds towards defence.

    Trump went on Truth Social to share a message sent to him by NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte. In the message, Rutte acknowledged that Trump has driven NATO towards a very important global decision. He also added that Trump has “achieved something NO American president in decades could get done.”

    A New York Times report highlights that Trump has previously bashed NATO for not allocating adequate funds for defence, particularly in the face of threats like Russia. During his first term, Trump had threatened that the USA would exit the NATO alliance. Experts believe that Trump may be undermining NATO from within and that this dramatic agreement was primarily made to ensure that the USA remains an enthusiastic participant in NATO.

    Image Source: WhiteHouse/ @x.com 

    However, not all 32 countries were satisfied with this decision. Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, had sent a letter to Mr. Rutte saying that Spain “cannot commit to a specific spending target in terms of GDP.” Sanchez insisted that Madrid would need only 2.1% percent of GDP to acquire and maintain all the personnel, equipment, and infrastructures requested by the alliance to confront these threats with their capabilities.

    As a result, every member state will not be forced to reach the 5% threshold; however, there are some standard military requirements that every country is required to meet. Trump vowed that he would make Spain pay for this “terrible” decision. “I like Spain … It’s a great place and they’re great people. But Spain is the only country out of all the countries that refuses to pay. And, you know, so they want a little bit of a free ride, but they’ll have to pay it back to us on trade because I’m not going to let that happen,” Trump said.

    This commitment was shaped as much by the strategic urgency felt by all 32 countries within the NATO alliance. As they rush to present a united front, a divide is forming within the coalition itself. As key participants like Spain are raising their voices against major players like the US.

  • Big Heels to Fill: Looking Back 37 Years as Anna Wintour Steps Down as Editor-in-Chief of American Vogue

    Big Heels to Fill: Looking Back 37 Years as Anna Wintour Steps Down as Editor-in-Chief of American Vogue

    Nearly 40 years and many a cultural revolution later, Dame Anna Wintour steps down as the Editor-in-Chief of American Vogue. Throughout her tenure, Wintour has been regarded as the most powerful woman in world fashion, with her signature bob and sunglasses becoming an iconic symbol of her influence in the fashion industry.

    While her reign at American Vogue began in 1988, Wintour had a long journey in the industry before becoming the Editor-in-Chief. Journalism runs in her family, as her father, Charles Wintour, was twice the Editor-in-Chief of the London-based Evening Standard. Anna’s career began in fashion journalism after she dropped out of college. By 1975, she was working as a junior fashion editor at Harper’s Bazaar in New York.

    In 1983, a conversation with Alex Liberman, the then editor of Condé Nast, got Wintour an open position at Vogue. After a bidding war that resulted in a doubled salary, she accepted the role, becoming Vogue’s first-ever Creative Director.

    As the creative director, Wintour reimagined the vision of American Vogue, breaking away from the traditionalist influence that Grace Mirabella, the Editor-in-Chief at the time, had brought to the magazine. She pushed the boundaries by bringing out more dramatic layouts and bold photography, which later earned her the position of Editor-in-Chief in 1988.

    However, before stepping into her role as the Editor-in-Chief at American Vogue, Wintour served as the Editor-in-Chief of British Vogue from 1985-1987, where she quickly earned the nickname ‘Nuclear Wintour’ for her bold and drastic editorial decisions. After her time at British Vogue, she moved back to New York to take over House & Garden – a Condé Nast shelter magazine which she famously renamed HG, filling its pages with high fashion and lifestyle features.

    Right from her first issue as Editor-in-Chief of American Vogue, the November 1988 issue, Anna Wintour made sweeping changes to the cover, which revolutionised the magazine. This cover featured 19-year-old Israeli model Michaela Bercu styling a $10,000 bejewelled Christian Lacroix top paired with a $50 pair of faded blue jeans in a candid outdoor setting. This cover, which featured Vogue’s first cover model styling jeans, was so radical to the magazine’s traditional style that the printer mistook it as the wrong image when he saw it for the first time.

    Wintour’s fresh remodel of the magazine birthed a new trend in the industry- the ‘high-low’ look, which, as the name suggests, comprises one high-end luxury item paired with a more understated, low-budget piece. From there on, her work has been pivotal in shaping the fashion magazine into a pop-culture powerhouse.

    Throughout her tenure, Wintour is known for having promoted the emergence of the supermodel era, giving names like Linda Evangelista, Cindy Crawford, and Naomi Campbell international recognition while also bringing emerging designers like Marc Jacobs and Alexander McQueen to the forefront. By featuring celebrities like Madonna, Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama, and soon stars like Kim Kardashian and actress Zendaya on the cover, Wintour also began the trend of celebrities becoming cover stars, which spiked magazine sales and reimagined Vogue’s identity.

    Her influence is not limited to the magazine and its widely known covers. As the lead chairperson, Wintour transformed the Met Gala from a museum fundraiser to one of the most anticipated nights in fashion, curating guest lists and themes with precision. Wintour has also received numerous accolades for her contributions to fashion and philanthropy, including the Order of the British Empire and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    While Dame Anna Wintour steps down as the Editor-in-Chief, she is not completely exiting the fashion scene. She will continue her roles as Global Editorial Director for Vogue and Chief Content Officer for Condé Nast.

    Still, her last days as Editor-in-Chief are not without controversy. Her decision to feature Lauren Sánchez Bezos, media personality and wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, on what now appears to be her final Vogue cover has caused quite the stir online. The cover showed their high-profile wedding in Venice, with Lauren Sánchez Bezos wearing a custom Dolce & Gabbana wedding dress. Social media users are criticising Vogue for flaunting billionaires and are accusing the magazine of publishing paid covers, especially in the current political climate where there are growing conversations about wealth disparity and elitism.

    Now, the big question lies – who could fill the legendary heels left by Wintour? Online speculations are aplenty about possible candidates for the new job, but there is no official word on who will take over as Wintour’s successor. Whoever takes on the role of Editor-in-Chief of American Vogue will work under Wintour as she continues as Global Editorial Director for Vogue.

    Wintour has not been a mere leading force at Vogue – she has transformed it. As the industry absorbs this shift, one thing is clear: Anna Wintour is hardly leaving fashion. She’s simply changing its shape—again.