Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer

The discourse surrounding former U.S. President Donald Trump and his policy shift concerning Ukraine has been met with measured responses from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has strategically avoided overt displays of triumph. Following Trump’s reinstatement to the White House, his interactions with Putin have underscored an attempt at recalibrating U.S.-Russia relations, with the Kremlin emphasizing the importance of trust building. During their first officially acknowledged conversation on February 12, Putin articulated that the primary objective of diplomatic engagements was to foster trust between both states. This sentiment was reiterated in a subsequent two-hour discussion on March 18, during which the Kremlin’s official communication indicated that both leaders affirmed their commitment to pursuing a bilateral resolution to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. However, despite Putin’s reserved demeanor, subtle indications of Moscow’s satisfaction with Trump’s policy shift are discernible. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, in February, described the United States as adopting a “more balanced position”a stance that Moscow openly welcomed. Additionally, the Kremlin later expressed gratitude to Trump for his purported commitment to facilitating an end to hostilities, acknowledging the significant diplomatic and strategic benefits accrued by Russia in a relatively short period.Trump’s engagement with Russia has resulted in a series of symbolic and material concessions favorable to Moscow. Notably, following an intense discussion in the Oval Office on February 28 involving Trump, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and Ukrainian President VolodymyrZelensky, Trump temporarily suspended U.S. military assistance to Kyiv. Moreover, Washington disengaged from an international investigative body dedicated to examining Russian war crimes, opposed a United Nations resolution condemning Russia’s role in the conflict and echoed Russian narratives regarding the origins of the war, attributing blame to Kyiv. These developments have provided Russia with a significant diplomatic advantage, reinforcing its strategic objectives.Despite these apparent gains, Russia remains cognizant of the unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy approach. Given his history of abrupt policy shifts and his fluctuating positions on international issues, the Kremlin recognizes that his warmth towards Moscow may not be enduring. The precedent set during his first term, wherein initial hopes for improved U.S.-Russia relations were thwarted by congressional sanctions and the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine, serves as a cautionary reminder for Moscow. Consequently, while the Kremlin seeks to maximize its gains under the current U.S. administration, it remains wary of potential policy reversals.

Moscow’s strategy involves leveraging Trump’s diplomatic openness to secure a direct bilateral agreement that would ostensibly bring an end to the war in Ukraine. This envisioned agreement, from the Kremlin’s perspective, would impose substantial restrictions on Kyiv and grant Russia a decisive influence over Ukraine’s political landscape. While an ideal scenario for Putin would involve comprehensive limitations on Western military assistance to Ukraine, Moscow may also settle for partial measures that weaken Kyiv’s strategic position over time. Even in the event of Ukrainian and European rejection of such an accord, the Kremlin anticipates that Trump’s administration may use this as a pretext to withdraw U.S. support entirely, thereby facilitating Moscow’s long-term objectives.Beyond the Ukrainian conflict, Russia aims to leverage its relationship with Trump to recalibrate broader U.S.-Russia diplomatic and economic relations. The Kremlin seeks a reduction in economic sanctions and an overall improvement in bilateral ties. However, should these aspirations remain unfulfilled, Moscow appears prepared to persist with its current strategic trajectory. While the Russian economy faces significant challenges due to sustained Western sanctions, its leadership maintains a degree of stability and has capitalized on work force advantages over Ukraine to sustain military operations. In this context, the Kremlin’s overarching objective remains the strategic defeat of Ukraine, with or without direct U.S. support.Russia’s diplomatic overtures toward the Trump administration commenced shortly after the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The Kremlin sought engagement through official intelligence channels, informal networks linked to Trump is political and business associates. One notable figure in this diplomatic maneuvering was Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, who utilized his connections with Jared Kushner and other members of Trump’s inner circle to facilitate discussions with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy for the Middle East. These backchannel negotiations culminated in a high-profile meeting in Riyadh on February 18, attended by key Russian and U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. This engagement laid the groundwork for subsequent diplomatic interactions between Trump and Putin, shaping the U.S. administration’sevolving stance on Ukraine.Putin’s strategy has been multifaceted, incorporating psychological and ideological appeals to Trump’s worldview. Following their February 12 conversation, Trump’s rhetoric increasingly aligned with Kremlin talking points, including characterizing Zelensky as a “dictator” and raising concerns about corruption in Ukraine. Simultaneously, Putin propagated the narrative that the 2020 U.S. presidential election had been “stolen,” suggesting that had Trump remained in power, Moscow would not have initiated military action against Kyiv. This manipulation underscores Putin’s calculated efforts to appeal to Trump’s personal and political biases to advance Russia’s strategic objectives.Beyond personal persuasion, Moscow has positioned itself as a valuable partner in advancing Trump’s global agenda. Russia has expressed willingness to assist in U.S. negotiations with Iran, endorsed proposals to reduce military expenditures and subtly suggested a willingness to reconfigure its strategic partnership with China. These overtures, coupled with the rhetoric of U.S. officials such as Rubio and Vance regarding a potential “reverse Nixon” strategy—aimed at driving a wedge between Beijing and Moscow—have further ingratiated Russia with the Trump administration. While such a geopolitical shift remains unlikely, Moscow has skillfully exploited these discussions to create the impression that closer U.S.-Russia relations could yield significant strategic dividends for Washington.

Additionally, Russia has employed cultural and ideological arguments to strengthen its ties with the Trump administration. The Kremlin has highlighted historical U.S.-Soviet cooperation during World War II, emphasized shared opposition to progressive social policies and positioned itself as an ally in challenging Western liberal elites. Furthermore, Moscow has suggested that economic normalization could result in lucrative business opportunities, a prospect underscored in Riyadh, where Dmitriev presented an analysis (albeit flawed) suggesting that U.S. companies had suffered significant financial losses due to sanctions on Russia.Amid these diplomatic overtures, Russia has reframed the Ukrainian conflict as an impediment to a broader U.S.-Russia strategic partnership. The Kremlin has played into Trump’s frustrations with Kyiv’s insistence on strong security guarantees, portraying Zelensky as a primary obstacle to peace. Additionally, Moscow has propagated the narrative that Ukraine lacks a legitimate democratic mandate, suggesting that elections should precede any diplomatic resolution—a perspective that Trump has seemingly embraced.Zelensky’s reluctance to engage in negotiations stems from the existential nature of the conflict and his profound distrust of the Kremlin’s intentions. Putin’s demands remain maximalist, including territorial concessions, the recognition of Russian sovereignty over occupied regions, Ukrainian military reductions and limitations on Ukraine’s security partnerships with the West. While Trump may not immediately endorse all of these conditions, Russia anticipates a gradual shift in U.S. policy toward positions favorable to Moscow.The Kremlin views a potential one-on-one summit between Putin and Trump as a critical opportunity to cement a favorable agreement. Moscow recalls Trump’s 2018 Helsinki summit with Putin, during which Trump expressed greater trust in the Russian leader than in U.S. intelligence agencies. Should such a meeting occur, Russia hopes to secure Trump’s commitment to policies that undermine Ukraine’s security while advancing Moscow’s long-term geopolitical interests.Even if Trump is unable to fully implement Russia’s preferred policies, Moscow believes that diplomatic engagement can still yield meaningful gains. The Kremlin is optimistic that Trump’s pressure on European states could erode their support for Ukraine, thereby weakening Kyiv’s defensive capabilities. Additionally, Russia views Trump’s potential cessation of U.S. military aid as a significant strategic victory, given Ukraine’s continued reliance on Western assistance. Simultaneously, Russia continues its efforts to reestablish full diplomatic ties with the United States and secure incremental sanctions relief.

Dr. M Ali Hamza

In a developing country like Pakistan, the national budget plays a crucial role in economic stability and growth. A well-planned budget fosters sustainable development, economic resilience, and improved living standards.In multiple search results, the two consistent top priorities when drafting the national budget of a developing country like Pakistan were education and healthcare funding, ahead of other considerations such as infrastructure investment, fiscal deficits, external debt, inflation management, currency stabilization, and tax reforms.

To assure healthcare funding in a national budget, mostly disease burden, medical Infrastructure, healthcare workforce availability, and cost-effectiveness of medical programs are considered as main factors. The neglected part is nutrition: a fundamental pillar of a country’s healthcare system that directly impacts public health and economic productivity. Poor nutrition leads to malnutrition, weakened immunity, stunting and increased susceptibility to diseases, placing a heavy burden on healthcare services.

In developing countries undernutrition and deficiencies in essential nutrients contribute to maternal and child mortality. On the other hand, unhealthy diets cause obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases, escalating healthcare costs. A well-nourished population is more productive and requires fewer medical interventions. Investing in nutrition through public health programs, food security initiatives, strict safe food regulations, and awareness campaigns strengthens a nation’s overall healthcare system and economic growth.

In Pakistan, human nutrition statistics reveal a complex picture marked by both progress and persistent challenges. Recent surveys indicate that chronic undernutrition remains widespread, with nearly 40 percent of children under five years of age affected by stunting. Wasting, which signifies acute malnutrition, is also prevalent, impacting many children and increasing their susceptibility to infections. Malnutrition is also contributing to impaired cognitive development.

Governments of developing countries have implemented various budget policies to address malnutrition by boosting access to nutritious food and healthcare services. For example, India’s budget has supported initiatives like subsidized food distribution under the National Food Security Act, which provides vulnerable populations with essential staples. Brazil’s Zero Hunger Program, backed by significant budget allocations, combines cash transfers, school feeding programs, and nutrition education to improve diet quality and food access. In Bangladesh, considerable public spending on health and nutrition has facilitated widespread distribution of micronutrient supplements and fortified foods.

Additionally, many countries have reformed their trade policies to reduce import tariffs on nutrient-rich foods, incentivizing local production, exempting sales taxes, and lowering market prices. Investments in rural infrastructure, agricultural subsidies for fruits, vegetables, and dairy products, as well as enhanced water and sanitation facilities, further contribute to improved nutritional outcomes. Besides government initiatives the international organizations like WHO, FAO, GAIN (Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition), Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement etc. aim to address these issues through nutrition funding, nutrition education, and fortification programs.

Is the government using a nutrition-focused approach to assess and plan the health landscape of Pakistan?Perhaps in some cases, yes, but in many others, no. For instance, in a food bucket, milk is one of the most nutritionally complete foods, providing essential proteins, calcium, vitamins A and D, and other micronutrients crucial for bone health, muscle development, and overall growth. Regular milk consumption has been linked to better immunity, reduced risk of osteoporosis, improved cognitive development in children, and less burden on healthcare facilities.

Is all type of milk good? Raw milk is unpasteurized and untreated, meaning it contains natural nutrients but also potential harmful bacteria like Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, which can cause serious health risks. In contrast, processed milk undergoes pasteurization, eliminating harmful microbes while maintaining nutritional value. Developed countries transitioned to processed milk due to public health concerns. In the early 20th century, the United States and Europe experienced frequent outbreaks of milk-borne diseases, leading to mandatory pasteurization laws.

Governments worldwide have facilitated the transition from raw to processed milk byenforcing strict food safety laws, such as the FDA pasteurization mandate (US) and EU milk hygiene regulations, supporting dairy cooperatives, exemption from taxes, and running public awareness campaigns to educate consumers about the dangers of raw milk and the benefits of processed alternatives.

In Pakistan, packaged milk was historically zero-rated under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, but national budget of Pakistan 2024-25 imposed 18% sales tax on packaged milk. The decision pushed many consumers toward raw milk that is indeed an unsafe alternative, and goes against the government priorities to improveaccess to safe nutrition, advancement in health index and support farmer livelihoods.

Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, South Africa, Canada, USA, Australia, India and several other countries have 0% sales tax on packaged milk and other countries have 10% or less. Why these countries do not compromise? The reason is simple “nourishing healthy societies”.

A nutrition-focused approach is essential for ensuring long-term improvements in the overall health status of Pakistan’s diverse population. Targeted interventions, robust policy measures, long sightedness are vital for sustainable progress. Budget 2025-26 is just around the corner. It is ging to set the tone for the year. We hope the tone is set for nourished Pakistan.