1.Maruti Suzuki begins export of ‘Made in India’ Fronx model to Japan, first-ever for an SUV

Maruti Suzuki India has began exports of its newest sports utility vehicle (SUV) Fronx from India to Japan. The first consignment of more than 1,600 SUVs departed from Pipapav Port (Gujarat), to Japan, making it Maruti Suzuki first SUV to be launched in Japan, the statement added. It is the second car after the Baleno in 2016 to be exported to Japan from India.

Notably, the Fronx is being exclusively manufactured at Maruti's Gujarat facility and will be introduced to the Japanese market later this year by the Suzuki Motor Corporation.

2.Central Asia gives India's largest budget carrier IndiGo its wings

Central Asia — including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia — has emerged as a top destination for Indian travellers seeking affordable international holidays, especially as Europe becomes increasingly expensive and visa processes slow down.
 

India’s largest budget carrier, IndiGo, which launched its services to this region last August with its first flight to Baku (Azerbaijan), is now aggressively expanding its capacity. National carriers in these countries are also seizing the opportunity, launching more flights to attract Indian travellers.

Just over a three-hour flight from Delhi, these four countries have seen a big jump in visitors. According to data from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the number of Indians travelling to these countries more than doubled in the first quarter (Q1) of the calendar year (CY) 2024, rising by 104 per cent to 76,341 from 37,254 in the same period last year.

3.Large deals power paradigm shift in India's venture capital terrain

India’s venture capital (VC) landscape saw a strategic shift during the first half (H1) of the calendar year (CY) 2024, with a notable increase in larger-sized investments. This was evident from a 45.3 per cent rise in disclosed funding value year-on-year, despite a 2.1 per cent drop in deal volume, according to GlobalData, a data analytics and consulting company.

This trend indicates growing investor confidence in high-potential startups. Big deals like Zepto ($665 million) and Meesho ($300 million) also signal a robust future.

According to the analysis, India saw 572 VC deals worth $5.6 billion announced during H1CY24, compared to 584 VC deals totalling $3.8 billion in H1CY23. The growing investor confidence in India is also reflected in its share of global VC funding. In H1CY24, India accounted for 4.4 per cent of global VC funding value, up from 3.1 per cent in the same period last year. The volume share of deals in India rose to 7 per cent in H1CY24 from 5.1 per cent last year.  

4.Thailand appoints 37-year-old Paetongtarn Shinawatra as PM; Financial Times

Paetongtarn Shinawatra has been appointed as Thailand’s new prime minister, becoming the country’s youngest-ever leader and marking the return to power of the Shinawatra family, which has dominated Thai politics over the past two decades.

Paetongtarn, 37, clinched the premiership on Friday after gaining the backing of a majority of lawmakers in the Thai parliament. She will become Asia’s youngest leader, and Thailand’s third from the Shinawatra clan after her father, the divisive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and her aunt, Yingluck Shinawatra.

 The move surprised analysts who believed the tycoon Thaksin would “shield his youngest daughter from Thailand’s cutthroat politics for a little longer,” Reuters wrote. She will have major hurdles to overcome, including a lackluster economy and the notion of being Thaksin’s puppet, Bloomberg wrote, but ultimately “will have to rely on her farther,” a political scientist said.

5.Sleep may be essential for enabling our brain to make memories over the course of a lifetime, a new study on mice has found.

While scientists already knew that certain cells in the brain’s hippocampus were essential for learning and memory, they weren’t sure how the brain kept the process going without overloading or running out of these cells. Scientists at Cornell University isolated two subsets of brain cells called interneurons, one that regulates memory, and another that seems to reset the cells during sleep, ready to make new memories. “We show that memory is a dynamic process,” one of the authors said, adding that the finding could lead to treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s.

6.Global stocks on course for best week in nine months

Economic data has soothed investors’ fears that the US economy is heading for recession.

Jobless claims in the US dropped to a five week low, while consumer sentiment rebounded as retail sales grew by an “unexpectedly robust 1% last month,”The Wall Street Journal reported. The slew of data has prompted traders to lower their expectations of an aggressive interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve when it meets next month, Bloomberg reported. Even as inflation slows overall, however, shoppers remain selective: Sales at Walmart, which has made low prices its mantra, rose by 4% in the latest quarter, far surpassing expectations.
Wall Street’s S&P 500 index has climbed 3.6 per cent this week — on course for the best showing since last November — despite a marginal dip in morning trading on Friday.

7.Europeans Deserve to Be as Cool as Americans; Tyler Cowen in Bloomberg. Some excerpts from his opinion piece which under paywall:

“Some 90% of the US has air conditioning, according to one estimate, compared to only 19% for Europe. Worldwide, the US, China and Japan account for about two-thirds of all air conditioning.

And yet it will not be easy to make Europe as cool (speaking only in terms of temperature) as America. Much of the continent faces higher energy prices than does the US, and there are taxes — in France, they are 20% on AC systems.

And then there are the aesthetics. Many Europeans complain that artificially cooled air is less healthy or less pleasant to breathe — a view this American has some sympathy for. (I am not much bothered by the heat and enjoyed the fresh air of Siena.) European buildings are also on average older than those in the US, and were not built to make AC units easy to install. So issues may arise from local regulations and historic-preservation laws.

Some Europeans also have an option unavailable to Americans if the temperature truly is unbearable: They can take the entire month of August off. They can swim in the Mediterranean, or take a quick flight to Finland or Ireland. The economic lesson that people adjust to their circumstances is borne out by these realities.

Personally, I would prefer a world with less air conditioning, or with temperatures not so low.  And in Europe in particular, I enjoy how the relative paucity of AC forces people outdoors and into public squares.  But that is only me.”

8.The new nuclear threat

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

The nuclear de-escalation that followed the cold war is over, the Pentagon warned this month. In its place is a new rivalry among nuclear and almost-nuclear powers, some of them paranoid. It is more complex and less predictable than the old, bipolar contest between America and the Soviet Union. That makes it more dangerous.

Facing new nuclear threats will be a test for America, even as its resources are strained and its politics have grown more isolationist. It must reassure allies that its nuclear umbrella still protects them. And, unfortunately, it will have to expand its nuclear arsenal. Falter on either count and this will fuel proliferation among enemies and friends alike, making America and the world less secure.

Evidence of new dangers is everywhere. China is building hundreds of missile silos in its northern deserts. Vladimir Putin blusters about using nuclear weapons and threatens to aim more Russian missiles at Europe. Even as it is poised to launch another conventional attack on Israel, Iran is closer to a bomb than it was five years ago, having reportedly recently made advances in weaponisation, the process of turning enriched uranium into warheads. North Korea says it is “bolstering” its nuclear programme. This week Donald Trump claimed he would build an “Iron Dome” missile shield to protect America. “It just takes one maniac,” he explained.

All this is a big shift. Between 1986 and 2023 the number of warheads worldwide fell from 70,000 to 12,000 as the end of the cold war ushered in defence cuts and arms control. America slimmed its arsenal while keeping a powerful deterrent. Today it has a smaller “triad” of nuclear weapons that could be launched from land, air or under the sea. Many of its warheads are aimed at its adversaries’ warheads. And it offers “extended deterrence”: a promise to defend allies if required. As recently as 2009 Barack Obama still hoped for “a world without nuclear weapons”. When he became president, Joe Biden aspired to re-energise arms control after the chaos of the Trump administration.

Instead, nuclear threats have proliferated and mutated. The number of warheads is rising again, as China’s arsenal expands from a few hundred a decade ago to perhaps 1,000 by 2035. This will create a third nuclear superpower for the first time. Meanwhile, technology is spreading into new domains and hands. Russia plans to put a bomb in space; North Korean warheads can reach the continental United States. Militias such as those of the Houthis have sophisticated missiles (albeit conventionally armed). China, Iran, Russia and North Korea are co-operating on military matters and could collude on missile technology, too.

All this is a big shift. Between 1986 and 2023 the number of warheads worldwide fell from 70,000 to 12,000 as the end of the cold war ushered in defence cuts and arms control. America slimmed its arsenal while keeping a powerful deterrent. Today it has a smaller “triad” of nuclear weapons that could be launched from land, air or under the sea. Many of its warheads are aimed at its adversaries’ warheads. And it offers “extended deterrence”: a promise to defend allies if required. As recently as 2009 Barack Obama still hoped for “a world without nuclear weapons”. When he became president, Joe Biden aspired to re-energise arms control after the chaos of the Trump administration.

Instead, nuclear threats have proliferated and mutated. The number of warheads is rising again, as China’s arsenal expands from a few hundred a decade ago to perhaps 1,000 by 2035. This will create a third nuclear superpower for the first time. Meanwhile, technology is spreading into new domains and hands. Russia plans to put a bomb in space; North Korean warheads can reach the continental United States. Militias such as those of the Houthis have sophisticated missiles (albeit conventionally armed). China, Iran, Russia and North Korea are co-operating on military matters and could collude on missile technology, too.

The Pentagon fears all this will stretch America’s arsenal thin—will it have enough warheads to deter China, Russia and North Korea at the same time?—and further complicate the psychology of brinkmanship. It also makes extended deterrence more difficult. When America first brought South Korea under its nuclear umbrella, for example, North Korea had no nukes and no long-range missiles. Now it has nuclear missiles that could incinerate American cities. The hope that Iron Dome shields, of the kind used in Israel and Ukraine, can protect America is misplaced: they work less well against long-range missiles. For any American president, the question looms: would you sacrifice Los Angeles to avenge Seoul? And do your enemies believe you would?

Allies face tough questions, too. They know isolationist populism isn’t going away in America, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office next year. They understand that America’s forces are stretched and its promise of extended deterrence is less credible than it was. If South Korea doubts America’s umbrella, it might build its own bomb—and 70% of South Koreans think it should. Japan might follow a similar logic. Europe is discussing whether British and French nuclear weapons are enough to deter Russia if America abandons nato. If Iran gets the bomb, so might Saudi Arabia. Proliferation would be destabilising. With more fingers on more red buttons, the chance of miscalculation increases. The odds of conventional war may rise, too, if countries try to stop their enemies from crossing the nuclear threshold.

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

The nuclear de-escalation that followed the cold war is over, the Pentagon warned this month. In its place is a new rivalry among nuclear and almost-nuclear powers, some of them paranoid. It is more complex and less predictable than the old, bipolar contest between America and the Soviet Union. That makes it more dangerous.

Facing new nuclear threats will be a test for America, even as its resources are strained and its politics have grown more isolationist. It must reassure allies that its nuclear umbrella still protects them. And, unfortunately, it will have to expand its nuclear arsenal. Falter on either count and this will fuel proliferation among enemies and friends alike, making America and the world less secure.

Evidence of new dangers is everywhere. China is building hundreds of missile silos in its northern deserts. Vladimir Putin blusters about using nuclear weapons and threatens to aim more Russian missiles at Europe. Even as it is poised to launch another conventional attack on Israel, Iran is closer to a bomb than it was five years ago, having reportedly recently made advances in weaponisation, the process of turning enriched uranium into warheads. North Korea says it is “bolstering” its nuclear programme. This week Donald Trump claimed he would build an “Iron Dome” missile shield to protect America. “It just takes one maniac,” he explained.

All this is a big shift. Between 1986 and 2023 the number of warheads worldwide fell from 70,000 to 12,000 as the end of the cold war ushered in defence cuts and arms control. America slimmed its arsenal while keeping a powerful deterrent. Today it has a smaller “triad” of nuclear weapons that could be launched from land, air or under the sea. Many of its warheads are aimed at its adversaries’ warheads. And it offers “extended deterrence”: a promise to defend allies if required. As recently as 2009 Barack Obama still hoped for “a world without nuclear weapons”. When he became president, Joe Biden aspired to re-energise arms control after the chaos of the Trump administration.

Instead, nuclear threats have proliferated and mutated. The number of warheads is rising again, as China’s arsenal expands from a few hundred a decade ago to perhaps 1,000 by 2035. This will create a third nuclear superpower for the first time. Meanwhile, technology is spreading into new domains and hands. Russia plans to put a bomb in space; North Korean warheads can reach the continental United States. Militias such as those of the Houthis have sophisticated missiles (albeit conventionally armed). China, Iran, Russia and North Korea are co-operating on military matters and could collude on missile technology, too.

The Pentagon fears all this will stretch America’s arsenal thin—will it have enough warheads to deter China, Russia and North Korea at the same time?—and further complicate the psychology of brinkmanship. It also makes extended deterrence more difficult. When America first brought South Korea under its nuclear umbrella, for example, North Korea had no nukes and no long-range missiles. Now it has nuclear missiles that could incinerate American cities. The hope that Iron Dome shields, of the kind used in Israel and Ukraine, can protect America is misplaced: they work less well against long-range missiles. For any American president, the question looms: would you sacrifice Los Angeles to avenge Seoul? And do your enemies believe you would?

Allies face tough questions, too. They know isolationist populism isn’t going away in America, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office next year. They understand that America’s forces are stretched and its promise of extended deterrence is less credible than it was. If South Korea doubts America’s umbrella, it might build its own bomb—and 70% of South Koreans think it should. Japan might follow a similar logic. Europe is discussing whether British and French nuclear weapons are enough to deter Russia if America abandons nato. If Iran gets the bomb, so might Saudi Arabia. Proliferation would be destabilising. With more fingers on more red buttons, the chance of miscalculation increases. The odds of conventional war may rise, too, if countries try to stop their enemies from crossing the nuclear threshold.

How should America respond? Arms-control talks have stalled. Russia has suspended its participation in New START, a pact which expires in 2026. China, never much interested in nuclear-risk reduction talks with America, halted them in July. North Korea has spurned offers to talk; Iran is mercurial. It would be unwise to give up on arms control. But if these foes return to the table, they are more likely to negotiate seriously if they know America is in a strong position.

That means America should be prepared to build a larger and more diverse arsenal, once New START expires. Mr Biden’s Pentagon has already begun the pivot, embracing new weapons such as a sea-launched nuclear-armed cruise missile. It is exploring how to “upload” warheads quickly to existing launchers, should Russia and China sprint ahead. A President Trump would probably continue the build-up.

But a lack of bipartisan agreement over extended deterrence creates uncertainty. Mr Biden has rightly sought to reassure allies by sending more nuclear-capable bombers and submarines to Europe and Asia, and by consulting them more closely, so they understand how weapons might be used and feel confident that America’s promises are not idle.

Mr Trump and some isolationist Republicans may argue that none of this is necessary to protect America. They are wrong. Extended deterrence is both essential and in its narrow self-interest. Counterintuitively, America chooses to make its homeland more vulnerable in order to protect allies thousands of miles away. In so doing, it helps avert destabilising nuclear proliferation. This logic has kept America, and perhaps even its adversaries, safer for 80 years. In a dangerous world, it would be reckless to let America’s nuclear umbrella fray.