Buffer zone for Ukraine is a nonsense

The Europeans seem to be getting increasingly desperate with their ideas for a post-war solution for Ukraine. First of all, there is absolutely no sign yet of a post-war situation. Putin wants to carry on the war for as long as he can which could be years. Second, the European idea of setting up a buffer zone between Russian-occupied land and the rest of Ukraine with thousands of peacekeeping-style troops from other countries, is impractical, unrealisable and naive. That wold be a huge area to cover, and the maximum number of troops being envisaged, roughly 60,000, would not cut it. Their role would he impossible to enforce and could lead to a dangerous confrontation with Russian troops. Then what? It beats me why all the clever military commanders around in Europe, and I'm including Brexit Britain here, don't point this all out. Or are they so gungho that they believe something like this could actually work? Putin won't agree to having Nato troops in Ukraine, ever. So if British troops were sent would they have to wear a UN beret or, God forbid, a European Army beret? No one will be fooled by that, least of all Putin. But the whole concept is beyond credibility, unless the buffer zone is protected by, say, 150,000-200,000 troops. But who is going to provide that size force from Europe? And how long would they have to stay there? Twenty, thirty, forty years? It's totally impractical.

The latest Trump-style arms deal to Ukraine

It's one of those deals which only someone like Donald Trump could have negotiated. Under the latest arms scheme for Ukraine which was announced some weeks ago but is now actually happening, the US is selling warfighting weapons to Europe in order for the Europeans to give them to Ukraine. It's a huge boost for US defence companies at no cost to the American taxpayer, because Europe is paying all the bills. It's an extraordinary arrangement, because Trump can also claim that the US is no longer arming Ukraine,even though it patently is. Putin won't be fooled but it really is quite clever. The first batch of US air-launched long-range cruise missiles have just been sent to the Ukrainian air force but via the bill payers which in this case are Denmark and The Netherlands. Total amount is $825 million so it's not a sneeze. Trump has claimed that the US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on arms for Ukraine. Actually the total figure is around $67 billion. But he came to the White House with the promise that the open-chequebook arrangement with the Kyiv government would stop, and with his canny bill-paying arrangement, he has kind of stuck to his guns, as it were. Anyway, Ukraine gets what it needs to carry on the fight with Russia, and Trump continues trying to end the war by cuddling up to Putin. It might work, or it might not. So far, it definitely hasn't.

Xi Zinping outsmarts Donald Trump with invite to Kim Jong-un

Is this a coincidence or a smart move by China's leader to undermine Donald Trump? Xi Zinping, it has been announced today, has invited the North Korea leader Kim Jong-un to join him and Vladimir Putin for a military parade in Beijing on September 3. It comes just 24 hours after Trump said he would be happy to meet Kim Jong-un and have another go at charming him, and mentioned a possible time later this year. Then out pops the beaming Chinese president and says: "Ha, Mr Trump, I've got my invite in before you." So the Terrible Threesome, Xi, Putin and Kim, will be all smiles together on the VIP dais to watch China's fancy weapons parading through Tiananmen Square, followed, no doubt, by lots of state noodles. It's definitely a grrrr moment for Trump who knows he has been out-cunninged by his Beijing rival. Kim Jong-un wins either way. He can be satisfied that his friend in Beijing has selected him for special honours and he will get a chance to have more chats with Vlad, his strategic partner. He also has the satisfaction to be reminded that Trump looks upon him as a friend and that they could be meeting up for another wonderful shaking of hands sometime soon. Obviously, Trump was never going to be invited to the Beijing jamboree but, still, he must be cursing Xi for taking the headlines away from him.

Is the UK so miserable as everyone is saying?

The American newspapers like to get a bee in their bonnet about the United Kingdom, especially when things are not going right. "Broken Britain" seems to be the favourite headline at the moment. Is this true and, if so, why? First of all, Britain is a beautiful country and one of the best to live in happily. But there is no doubt that currently there is a sort of malaise around which is hitting a lot of people. The Labour government appears not to have a clue about how to boost the economy and make everyone want to work and prosper. Every attempt to improve the economy has largely failed. Huge political mistakes were made early on in the Keir Starmer government and the country has yet to recover from them. Now, everyone, from the rich down to the poorest, are afraid of what Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, is going to do to confront the $20 billion hole in the finances. What she should do is put income tax up by one per cent but she won't and can't do that because the Labour Manifesto prior to the election which they won so comfortably, promised not to raise income tax. That was stupid, politically and economically. No government should ever close options. The alternatives will be hugely unpopular and probably unsuccessful. Then there's the small-boats scandal with thousands more migrants popping over the Channel onto English beaches every week, and nothing seems to stop them. Huge sums of money have been paid to France to police the Calais beaches and prevent gang leaders from pusing off the next migrant-packed boat. Yet still they come. No one has an answer to this crisis. Hotels are full of asylum seekers, protests are rising. It's all totally out of control. The Conservatives were hopeless about resolving this issue, and now Labour is also all over the place. Nothing has been effective. So the poor economy and the small boats, and the lack of jobs for all the students who have just graduated from university with no hopes of a decent career have soured the whole population. So, for once, the US newspaper headlines are pretty right. However, this is still a great country, with fabulous people, gorgeous countryside and an awesome history. There is always room for optimism that things will turn out all right eventually. That is what miserable Britain is counting on.

Trump and Kim Jong-un, here we go again

It looks like we are in for another Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un love-in. Until now, Trump's foreign policy moves have mostly been about Russia, Ukraine, Gaza and Israel, Iran and Houthis, with a little bit of India-Pakistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan thrown in. No mention of North Korea, let alone his old friend Kim Jong-un. But at last Trump has spoken his name and reminded everyone that he has a great relationship with the fellow in Panmunjom. The North Korean leader must be chuffed to know that at some point later this year the great Donald will be skaking his hand once again. The last time they met, in Hanoi, Trump walked off in a huff because his friend didn't concede one iota vis a vis his nukes. Now, years later, North Korea has more nuclear warheads and more intercontinental ballistic missiles. It's too late. far too late, for Trump to even dream about persuading Kim Jong-un (or Kim Jong Un or Kim Jong un) to give up all his nukes and become friends with South Korea. Kim Jong-un, like Vladimir Putin, will be delighted to have a meet with the president of the United States because it builds up his status as an important person on the world stage, which he loves. Just like Putin. So, Trump will be doing him a favour by going to talk to him. But will anything come of it? Will Kim Jong-un this time be in a conciliatory mood? No, of course not. He is committed to his nukes and will never give them up.

Why Putin asked for the Alaska summit

It was Vladimir Putin who asked Donald Trump for a meeting on Ukraine, and the White House picked on Alaska, the US territory closest to Russia. Everyone, including me, thought it was at least a positive move that Putin had asked for the summit. Trump leapt on the suggestion and the rest is red-carpet history. But, on reflection, it was actually Putin's cleverest move. He knew that if he requested a summit with Trump it would be seized on as a sign of the Russian leader's desperation to persuade Trump to go for a deal which would suit Moscow in every way. But, clearly, the cunning plan was very simple: Putin wanted to be back on the world stage and he knew that if he offered to meet Trump it would be greeted as a sign of weakness on his part when in fact it was a sign of his dominating strength. He got the full works from Trump, including a ride in The Beast armoured car that transports the US president around. All the world thought, this is brilliant, the war is going to come to an end. But Putin achieved exactly what he wanted. He trapped Trump into meeting and then because it provoked world headlines, he gambled, successfully, that if the summit didn't match up to expectations (which he knew it wouldn't), Trump wouldn't and couldn't then blast him with more severe sanctions, as he had promised he would do. So, the whole summit plan was a coup by Putin. He was able to outline his demands without being punished and then went home and continued bombing Ukraine. Post-summit, Putin is in a much better, stronger position, while Trump has got very little, even though JD Vance is claiming that Putin offered concessions. The concessions were so insignificant they weren't worth studying. So, Putin is winning, winning, winning.

Sanctions have totally failed to stop the Russian war in Ukraine

It has to be said that nothing the West has done so far, whether it be economic sanctions against Moscow or arms supplies to Kyiv have succeeded in stopping Putin from continuing to bomb and destroy Ukrainian cities and power infrastructure. It's the old story. Sanctions don't work. Why? Because whoever is being sanctioned finds ways to get round the restrictions and, in particular, finds countries who are still prepared to do business with Moscow. North Korea is heavily sanctioned for developing nuclear weapons but has it stopped Kim Jong-un's nuclear programme or driven his regime to its knees? No, absolutely not. North Korean people may be suffering but the regime is fine thank you very much. The same with Putin. The sanctions have caused problems but they have failed to make a huge difference. Russia is still trading and selling oil around the world, especially to China and India, and its economy is doing well enough to continue the war in Ukraine at full pelt. Even Trump's warning of severe consequences if the war doesn't come to an end soon is falling on stony ground. Putin doesn't care. He has built a war economy and the arms prpduction companies are doing very nicely. Sanctions sound a nice and easy way of forcing a country to behave, but they seldom ever work.