Gaza still as bleak as ever

There is little reason to express optimism for the Palestinian people in Gaza and West Bank. The "war" may be over but in many ways it carries on for so many of them. Most Palestinians in Gaza have lost their homes and are living in tents. Food is coming in at a faster rate but there is still no clear idea what their future will be. We have gone from all of them being persuaded to leave and live in another country while Donald Trump builds a Gaza Riviera, to the position today where half of Gaza is occupied by Israeli troops and the other half is ruthlessly controlled by Hamas. This is the same Hamas which the Israel Defence Forces supposedly defeated. They may have lost all their top leaders and a huge amount of weeponnry and tunnels to hide in. But those who survived the IDF onslaught - perahps 17,000-20,000 - fill the streets of their 50 per cent of Gaza,showing every intention of keeping their controlling position far into the future and may be for ever. There is a ceasefire which is violated frequently by both sides, so life is not as violent and dangerous as it used to be. But it's like Gaza has been put into limbo. There is no sign of the next phase of the ceasefire peace plan under which Hamas will be disarmed and put out of business and construction companies will pour in and rebuild the territory, destroyed by war. So, Christmas for the Palestinian people both in Gaza and in the West Bank where there has been increasing violence, will not be a happy and festive season. How much longer is this going to go on?

Can the West ever trust Putin?

The two most interesting statements made by Vladimir Putin in his more than four-hour press conference on Friday were: there will be no more wars provided the West respects Russia; and the West deceived Moscow by trying to expand Nato's membership to include Ukraine. So, all the talk about Europe having to go on a war footing to fight Russia in the next few years is all blarney, provided Europe is nice to Putin, takes him back into the international community and lifts all sanctions etc etc. I assume that's what Putin means by "respect". And then his constant mantra that there would never have been a war in Ukraine if Nato hadn't put Ukraine on the potential list of applicants for joining the alliance. I was at the Bucharest Nato summit in 2008 when President George W Bush pushed hard for the alliance to present Ukraine with a Membership Action Plan which would have been the first step in bringing Kyiv into the alliance. France, Italy and the UK argued against it and in the end all the summit promised was that some day Ukraine would be part of the alliance. But Moscow had been given a verbal pledge in 1990 by James Baker, then US secretary of state, that Nato would not expand eastwards. Gorbachov was the Russian leader then. But Putin never forgot the Baker verbal, even though it never became a written pledge by the alliance, because not much later East Germany reunified with West Germany and as a result, East Germany was absorbed into Nato. Ergo, the Baker pledge vanished. But Putin's answer to a question by the BBC's inestimable Moscow Editor, Steve Rosenberg, made it clear that he justified the invasion of Ukraine because of that breach of trust by the Americans. Whether that justifies what Putin did by invading Ukraine is a matter for debate. But the fact is, the 1990 promise that Nato would not expand eastwards still makes Putin angry and distrustful of the West. For what it's worth, I always thought and wrote and spoke out about that Nato expanding or promising to expand to absorb Ukraine and Georgia was a mistake and was likely to raise paranoia in Moscow. Et voila!

Putin confirms war continues unless Ukraine surrenders land

Vladimir Putin has firmly set his stall and refuses to budge from it. The war in Ukraine will go on and on unless or until Kyiv agrees to hand over the whole of the Donbas region in the east. The Russian president has not changed his strategy one iota in the face of desperate attempts by Kyiv, the US and Europe to find a formula for peace that would allow Ukraine to hang on to the land which Russian troops have failed to seize since the invasion in February 2022. Putin restated his position during a long press conference at the Kremlin, his annual session with the media where he outlines what he expects to happen in the next twelve months. It was a grim message for Kyiv and for his allies in the West, but not remotely surprising. Putin has remained consistent. What he wants is what he wants and he is never going to concede anything which fails to deliver exactly what he thinks is his right to demand. His invasion troops have taken control of around 75 per cent of Donbas which is split between Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. Putin wants the remainder ceded to Russia without a fight, with all Ukrainian troops withdrawing. Zelensky has said that can never happen. So Putin's press conference message is: "So be it, the war goes on." Putin is basically in charge and has defeated not only Zelensky and his courageous soldiers, but also the US, Donald Trump, the UK and the whole of Europe. No wonder he looks so pleased with himself. BUY FOR CHRISTMAS, AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, WHICH HAS A STRONG RUSSIAN THEME. CHECK IT OUT ON AMAZON.

It's all down to money between the EU and Putin

Ukraine is running out of money and Putin knows it which is why he is continuing to attack the country every day to destroy an economy that is already wavering. He is thinking, collapse of Kyiv's econmy will mean capitulation to Moscow. This is why Putin is pulling out all the stops, including legal ones, to try and stop the EU country, Belgium, from agreeing to hand over the billions of dollars held by the Kremlin in Brussels. The money belongs to Russia but has been frozen for a long time, ever since the invasion of Ukraine. European leaders have been urging for months for this money to be handed to Ukraine as compensation for the destruction caused by Moscow's bombing. But handing billions of dollars of Russia's money and giving it to Moscow's Enemy Number One would be considered an act of war by Europe, and Putin has issued a warning to Europe of dire consequences if it goes ahead. Keir Starmer has effectively said it's definitely going to happen, and very soon. European leaders are meeting at this moment to resolve the matter. But most of the Russian assets are held in banks in Belgium, and, understandably, the Belgian government is increasingly worried that it will suffer Moscow's anger if the Belgian banks are given authority to release the funds to Ukraine. Moscow argues that giving its frozen funds to Ukraine would be against international law and has threatened to sue Belgium. The Belgian government is in a tizzy. The trouble is, if Kyiv doesn't get the money, the country could be bankrupt by next Spring.

Oh dear, Susie Wiles, a lesson learned

By all accounts, Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff, is a super clever lady and extremely good at her job. Donald Trump depends on her efficiency and professionalism. So how is it possible that she agrees to half a dozen interviews with a reporter from Vanity Fair, makes a few somewhat derogatory remarks about her boss, as well as JD Vance and Elon Musk, and then discovers with horror that the article is heavily weighted in favour of the negative comments she made and not on the glories of being the chief of staff to the finest president in US history. Of course, if the Vanity Fair reporter had focused all the article on the latter element, being Trump's loyal right hand woman, the lengthy piece would have been boring and hardly worth reading. So, when the reporter went through all the material, the focus would have been on all the more unusual, slightly controversial, even critical remarks she made in hours of intervies, to give the article some headline drama. I'm afraid that's the way journalism works. Readers of Vanity Fair will lap up the juicy bits and probably read swiftly through the more ordinary quotes, such as when Susie Wiles arrives at the White House and what she eats for breakfast. But the lady in question is now erupting with fury over the article, saying she has been quoted out of context and has attacked Vanity Fair for leaving out all the stuff she really wanted to be included. What she doesn't say is that she was misquoted, or that she didn'ty say what she was supposed to have said, such as saying Trump's personality was like an alcoholic's or that Vance was a conspiracy theorist. C'est la vie, Ms Wiles. If you said it, you said it. PLEASE CONSIDER BUYING MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AGENT REDRUTH WHICH IS FULL OF TENSION, SUSPENSE AND DRAMA. CHECK IT OUT ON AMAZON. THANK YOU.

It's now all down to land concessions in Ukraine

After weeks of non-stop negotiatons involving the US, Europe and Zelensky, it looks like the final ingredient for a peace plan is about land. What, if any, is Zelensky prepared to hand to the Russians without a fight? In other words, will the Ukrainian leader ever be in a position where he will contemplate handing over the rest of the Donbas region, even though his troops still control key defensive positions in Donetsk. He says not. Indeed, he says he would need to hold elections and/or a referendum before any such transaction can be discussed. So, even though land is the one remaining obstacle, it's a huge one and I don't see any likelihood of a resolution to this thorny issue any time in the near future. It's just too sensitive an issue. Why should Putin be handed more land to add to the land his army has seized? Trump's negotiators have talked about demilitarising the section of Donbas still in Ukrainian hands which would mean no Russian troops would be allowed to enter the zone. But Moscow has said Russian police and national guardsmen would need to patrol the area to maintain order. So, obviously, Kyiv has said no to that. And, of course, there is one other Big Issue. Does Putin actually want a ceasefire and peace? This war suits him and his vision for Russia. It has helped him create a war economy in Russia which means he would be better prepared to launch attacks elsewhere if he were so inclined. I fear we are getting to a point where Trump will just say to Zelensky: "We've done our best. Accept the plan, including the land handover arrangement, or else we will leave you to fight on for ever. It's now or never." For the first time, I believe there may well have to be a land-swap of some sort but only because it's driven by Trump. Europe and Kyiv will cry foul. PLEASE BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AGENT REDRUTH. REVIEWERS LOVE IT. CHECK IT OUT ON AMAZON.

The appalling, devastating Bondi Beach killings

There is so much hatred and evil in the world.There always has been but today it is definitely getting worse and worse. The slaughter of 15 Jewish people celebrating their annual festival on Bondi Beach in Australia was so appalling and gruesome it was yet another example of how vulnerable innocent people of all ages can be when there are hateful Isis sympathisers armed with guns and other weapons ready to pounce. Terrorism is the blight of our lives but especially for those who face religious or cultural or ethnic discrimination. Jewish people have suffered so much for such a long time and it was so tragic that a survivor of Hitler's holocaust was one of the victims of the two Isis gunmen at Bondi. The Australian prime minister has called for tighter gun controls but that's never going to stop the determined killer who will use whatever means available to pursue their murderous cause. The slaughter on the beach followed the ambush by Isis gunmen of three Americans - two soldiers and a civilian - in Syria. They died in a war which has been almnost forgotten. There are still about 1,000 US soldiers based in Syria fighting Isis, and the triple deaths remind everyone that while Isis may have been "defeated", as a terror organisation they remain a threat to this day.

Zelensky in yet more peace talks but not with Russia

It's becoming a bit like a merry-go-round, with no disrespect intended. Zelensky has continued to have meetings with European leaders, Amerian envoys, European leaders again and US officials again and then back again and again and again. Now he's off to Berlin to meet with US officials and it's reported that Zelensky is getting closer to a new version of the infamous Donald Trump 28-point formula which Putin quite liked but everyone else hated. But at no stage in this merry-go-round is Russia a feature, well not in the sense of having a Russian sitting in the same room with the Ukrainians to see if there is any possibility of a compromise deal. The reason for this is that Putin is not remotely interested in adapting the Trump plan to better suit Kyiv and he is not interested in ending the war. So this whole toing and froing is a total waste of time. It raises expectations when there are no expectations to be raised. It raises hope when there is no hope. Peace today in Ukraine is as far away as it has been over the last three and three-quarter years. And that is very very depressing.

What will Russia do if Trump attacks Venezuela?

Before any US president, or any leader come to that, contemplates a foreign military venture, they have to spend time thinking of the consequences, or potential consequences. Thus, Putin must have calculated that if he invaded Ukraine, the chances of the US and the rest of Nato intervening on the ground to confront Russian troops and drive them back over the border, were remote. He was right about that, but he miscalculated what Joe Biden would do. He certainly can't have imagined that Biden would gather a huge coalition of countries to back Ukraine with weapons, intelligence and cash. As a result of that miscalculation, his war is still continuing and around a million of his fellow countrymen have died or been injured. History will curse Putin. Now Donald Trump must be asking his advisers what Russia and China might do if he decides to launch ground troops into Venezuela to topple the dreadful Nicolas Maduro. Putin supposedly rang Maduor this week to ask if there was anything he needed to confront Trump. We don't know whether President Xi Zinping has made a similar call from Beijing, but I suspect not. The phone call from Putin, I expect, was a gesture but didn't mean very much. I doubt either Russia or China will get heavily involved if there is US action against Venezuela. They will launch a load of rhetoric about the infamy of attacking sovereign countries and the rest of the world will laugh. Xi is probably going to attack Taiwan some time in the next few years, and Putin....well we know about Putin. So, Trump might get away with action against Venezuela without drawing in Russia or China. But will he do it? So far it has been all swagger and threats.

Russia's cyber warfare needs challenging

A German internatioonal airport gets cyber-attacked, presumably by Russia, and air traffic controllers find they can't do their job safely. So flights are cancelled. Is this a unique occurrence? No, it's just one of many, many cyber attacks carried out by state-sponsored cyber aggressors. Russia is in the forefront of such attacks. But what did Germany do about it? The German government summoned the Russian ambassador in Berlin and delivered a ticking-off. Russia. basically, is getting away with a war against Europe which is undeclared and unchallenged. Every country in Europe has faced similar attacks of one sort or another and each time the Russians have been accused of being behind the outrageous incidents but nothing has been done to punish Russia. This is because Europe is afraid of Putin, and scared of escalating what is already a dangerous confrontation with Moscow. It's high time Russia had a taste of its own medicine. Europe should stand up to this bully and cyber-attack back, so that his airports and banks and energy systems and other vital infrastructure are impacted. He can't just be allowed to get away with denying these attacks and then carry on doing the same again. This guy is only 5ft 5ins tall, he's not 7ft. We should stop treating him like he's some sort of Big Guy. BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER AGENT REDRUTH, GIVEN BRILLIANT REVIEWS. CHECK OUT AMAZON.

Would the US come to Poland's aid if Russia invaded?

It has not been a good week for Europe. In a new national strategy document, the Trump administration switched US interests to the Western Hemisphere and downgraded Europe. To emphasise his disaffection with Europe, President Trump said in an interview that European leaders were weak and suggested the European continent was heading for trouble. The head of Nato, Mark Rutte, the secretary-general, seemed to back the warning that Europe might be facing a dangerous security challenge when he warned that it might be at war with Russia within the next five years. While this is an alarming prospect, the purpose behind Rutte’s prediction was to urge European members of the Nato alliance to spend much more on defence to be prepared for such an event. Trump has in the past given the same message, that Europe must share a bigger burden when it comes to defence expenditure. What is new is that Trump has now demonstrated, beyond doubt, that he is no longer as interested as previous presidents were in propping up Europe to protect the alliance from potential adversaries such as Russia, but rather to focus the national strategy towards US neighbours, in particular, Latin America and Mexico, focusing on the threats posed by illegal immigration and drug trafficking. This is a totally different view of the world and fits closely with the president’s America First policy which helped him to get elected for the second time. However, the message is clear for Europe. It must now face a future in which the automatic dependence on the US can no longer be taken for granted. The unavoidable question is: what would the US do under a Trump administration if Russia decided to invade, say, Poland or Lithuania? Under Article 5 of Nato’s founding treaty, an attack on any member of the alliance has to be considered an attack on every member, obligating the whole organisation to come to the rescue. Does the Trump administration’s new focus on the Western Hemisphere indicate that the US would not necessarily come to the aid of, say, Poland, if Russian tanks swept across the border or Russian bombers started to target key installations in the country? In other words, would Trump leave any response from Nato to the Europeans? This would be a huge moment for Europe which has always known in the past that the US, as the leading nation of the alliance, would without question adhere to Article 5 and back Poland against Russian aggression. The problem for Europe is that if the US starts to back away from this cast-iron guarantee of military support, it might persuade President Putin to consider an attack on an eastern European country, gambling that the US might stand back. Then it would be Russia versus Europe. This is surely why Nato chief Mark Rutte gave his dire warning to Europe last week about the urgent need to build up defences to deter Russia. Europe will have to make up its mind whether to hope Trump is bluffing or to go ahead and prepare for war with Russia.

So the US military HAS rescued survivors of drug boat strikes

Since the September 2 second drone strike by Seal Team 6 which killed two survivors in the Caribbean Sea, the US Navy has begun rescuing survivors by helicopter and then deporting them back to their countries. So someone womewhere, presumably the State Department's lawyers, must have rung the Pentagon to warn them against killing any more survivors. Has the Pentagon explained this change of policy? The only thing said so far is that the circumstances were different.The one surprising thing is that the drone strikes are not obliterating the boats and killing everyone on board. A drone aimed for the middle of the boat would surely blast everything to kingdom come. Perhaps the survivors leapt overboard when they saw the drone coming. Anyway, the deportation of the survivors is now causing a stir because there are some in Congress who want them put through the US legal system, but as I wrote recently, that's the last thing the Pentagon and Trump administration want to do. According to The New York Times, there was even a suggestion to send them to Guantanamo. But that was rejected. So, off they went back to their countries of origin. This is going to cause a lot more hassle for the Trump administration which is already under fire for what some in Congress fear is an illegal military operation, bumping off suspected drug smugglers off the coast of Venezuela.

Trump disinterested in Europe

It seems Donald Trump isn't interested in Europe and thinks the various countries are run by losers, or at least weak people. The historically close Trans-Atlantic alliance upon which the peace of the world, or the peace of Europe, has depended, is now cast into the bin. Trump is only really interested in America's backyard which is why he has sent a large proportion of the US armed forces into the Caribbean region. It's drugs drugs drugs and illegal immigration which are worryimng him. Not the war in Ukraine and the rising robustness of Russia, nor even China's continuing determination to absorb Taiwan under its communist wing. No, it's Western Hemisphere stuff. That's what's keeping Trump awake at night. So the whole of history is being swivelled around. The only issues that matter are what is going in and out of America, drugs, migrants and trade. It wasn't long ago that Trump was expressing his anger at Putin and vowing to give Ukraine what it wants. Even considering giving them Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. But all that is out of the window now. He is caring less and less about Ukraine and is happy to let the losers in Europe prop up poor old Zelensky who spends more time in European capitals than he does in Kyiv. Keir Starmer who has spent the morning chatting with Zelensky in Number 10 Downing Street, came out and spoke to reporters and the first thing he did was praise Trump for all his efforts to end the war in Ukraine, but then delivered nothing new himself other than the usual mantra about Ukraine choosing its own future. Zelensky can't cboose his own future, let alone his country's because Putin will just plough on with his war, knowing that his main obstacle, the United States, is now not really a factor. And Putin, like Trump, thinks Europe is full of losers. So, Zelensky will go back to Kyiv with nothing to show for his diplomatic back and forth, apart from a promise from Starmer to hand him all the frozen Russian money sitting in European banks. But we have heard that one before. As Trump would say, let's see what happens on that score. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, GREAT GIFT FOR CHRISTMAS. CHECK IT OUT ON AMAZON.

Fingers crossed for Syria's renewal

One year after the fall of Bashar Assad, the Syrian leader who always looked as if he should be a nice quietly-spoken chap but was actually, like his father, a dictator monster, Syria has a chance for a better future. Many things have gone wrong since the Islamic militia organisation which had past links with al-Qaeda, took over Damascus, not least the appalling ethnic-cleansing slaughter of Syrian Christians. But there are enough signs that can be described as positive. There is a tough new leader, Ahmed al-Shara, who has won over most of the world's leaders and appears to be foocused on uniting the country and making it prosperous. It's an extraordinary transformation in a guy who was effectively categorised as a terrorist before he overthrew Assad. Anyway, good luck to him and let's hope that all the encouraging signs bear fruit. There are still plenty of evil forces in Syria, exemplified by the fact that the Israeli air force keeps bombing anti-Israel extremists still embedded in northern and eastern parts of the country. If the relative calm in Syria continues, then next year should see the lifting of sanctions. Damascus used to have a reputation for old-school civilisation and hospitality. Hopefully those days will return once people stop having to fear for their lives. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, FOR CHRISTMAS (AMAZON AND WATERSTONES)

Trump could "walk away" from Ukraine

It was Trump Junior who came out with this warning. Did he do so because his father wanted him to say it, or was it an off-the-cuff remark to stir things up? I'm sure it's true that Trump would love to stop worrying about Ukraine and the wretched war which next February will have been running for four years. But the US has been the leading light in backing Volodymyr Zelensky ever since Putin's invasion of Ukraine was launched in 2022. Without the US, initially under Joe Biden's presidency, Ukraine would have been conquered by Russia, or at least subjugated to a greater extent than it is now. American weapons, American intelligence, American big-power status, all helped to smother Putin's ambitions to turn Ukraine into a vassel state. The Europeans have played a crucial role, too, notably led by Britain, France and Germany. But they did so knowing that Joe Biden's America was with them all the way to the end whatever the end was going to be. Now Trump Junior says his father is ready to back off, and presumably just leave it to the Europeans. This will be music to the ears of Putin who has been working hard to split up the US-led alliance. He reckoned a long time back that eventually the US and Europe would divide over Ukraine.He must be very pleased that he was right. As I have said many times before, the war will go on and on.

What are the rules of engagement for the drug boat strikes?

Rules of engagement for military operations are classified. But they are becoming more and more important in relation to the cntinuing strikes on suspected drug boats that are still, amazingly, setting off from Venezuela and heading across the Caribbean Sea. You do wonder how it is that these alleged drug traffickers are not being deterred from leaving the safety of the shore. They can see the mighty aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R Ford, on the horizon, and yet they still risk the trip across the water. They must be getting a big fat wad of money to risk their lives against the massive US Navy firepower waiting for them. Everyone from the top admiral to the US Navy Seal operators carrying out the drone hits is subject to the same rules of engagement. The only sentence in the list of rules I know will be there authorises the military to use force for self-defence. So if they get fired on by the drug traffickers they can answer back. But as far as I know, there has beden no exchange of fire which would justify the self-defence protocol. So the rest of the rules of engagement must specify that for this mission, codenamed Operation Southern Spear, the US Navy and associated units are authorised to target any boat suspected, based on intelligence, to be carrying drugs. That has to be part of the rules, because more than 20 boats have been hit. It must also presumably say that authorisation is given to target whoever is in the boats. But it won't say, "ensure there are no survivors". You couldn't put that in any rules of engagement. The lawyers would go spare. Still so many unanswered questions about this second strike on a drug boat on September 2 which killed two "survivors".

Pete Hegseth absolved of "kill everybody" allegation

The US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has had quite a week. Essentially accused of ordering a war crime, he has now been absolved of any such crime by the much-revered and exceptionally able Admiral Frank Bradley, known to all as Mitch. Bradley, formerly commander of US Joint Special Operations (JSOC) and recently promoted to commander of US Special Operations Command (the umbrella organisation for all special forces and special operations troops in the US military) gave evidence yesterday to a very select group of top politicians from the Senate and House armed services committees in which, apparently, he stated that Hegseth never told him to "kill everybody" in the drug-running boats that are being targeted by a massive armada of US Navy warships off Venezuela. According to some of the senators who attended the meeting, Bradley insisted the two survivors of a drone attack on one of the boats were subsequently killed by a second strike because they still posed a threat, ie, they were trying to clamber back onto the boat. But I thought the boat had been obliterated in the first attack and they were clinging for dear life to what remained, a bit like that chap in the Titanic film. Then there was a claim that they were trying to ring for help. Really? Wouldn't their mobiles have got somewhat wet in the first strike? Anyway, Bradley took responsibility for the second strike and said Hegseth wasm't asked for permission, although he was watching it all on video at the time. But here's a thing. If the two survivors had been left alone and then rescued and taken on board one of the US warships, what would have happened to them? They would have to have been either dropped off on Venezuelan territory or taken back to the US, charged and put through the criminal prosecution system. Surely, far less bother just to bump them off to avoid all the legal and diplomatic hassles. I'm not syaing this is what happened. But the alternative to killing them was to give them food and shelter on board ship and ring the FBI to take them into custody. Two suspected drug traffickers benefiting from US Navy hospitality? I think not. Hegseth might have drawn the line there.

Admiral Mitch Bradley fights back over war crimes accusation in Caribbean Sea

The Joint Special Operations Command has been behind some of the most spectacular American military success stories of the last 15 years. It was responsible for the killing of Osama bin Laden, for example, and eight years later, the death of Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi, the Isis leader, in a tunnel in northern Syria. Its latest mission, however, which led to the deaths of two survivors last seen clinging to the wreckage of a Venezuelan drug boat in the Caribbean Sea, is now being touted as a war crime. Amid growing condemnation of the two strikes on the drug boat, the White House has insisted that responsibility for the second strike, which killed the two survivors on September 2, was the sole responsibility of a former Navy Seal called Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who at the time headed Joint Special Operations Command. The apparent attempt to blame Bradley for the incident has prompted outrage within the Pentagon’s uniformed personnel who believe he is being left to take the flak for decisions by his political master, Pete Hegseth, the under-fire US defence secretary. It was reported by The Washington Post that Hegseth, the former Fox News presenter, ordered the military involved in Operation Southern Spear “to kill everybody” which he has denied. The White House said on Monday it was Bradley who gave the order for the second strike. Bradley, however, could be about to fight back. A source with intimate knowledge of special operations told The Times that Bradley will have tape recordings of all discussions prior to the decision to launch a second strike. “Everything on the operations floor [on board a warship in the Caribbean Sea] would have been recorded, even if it’s highly classified, so there will be evidence that proper authority was given to ensure there can be no misinterpretations,” the source said. That could be used as a defence by Bradley on Capitol Hill today THUR. So far, 21 drug boats have been hit, killing 83 people. Bradley, a veteran US Navy Seal commander, and “revered” among his peers, has been summoned to give evidence today (Thurs), alongside General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for a classified briefing with senior members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. “On the face of it, there is no rational explanation why the second strike was ordered, killing two survivors, but Admiral Bradley will have tapes of everything discussed about the mission,” said the source who served in the special operations community. One explanation, reported in The New York Times, is that one of the survivors was attempting to communicate by phone to his bosses on land; and under contingency plans authorised by Hegseth, this would have justified the second strike. Tape recordings of operational discussions would make this clear. Bradley is also said to have used a text-message communications system called Strike Bridge to communicate with his Seal Team 6 operators who were carrying out the drone strikes. This would give further evidence of careful consideration before the order was given for a second strike. “There are rules of engagement for every operation which impose limits on lethal action to be taken. It doesn’t matter whether it’s for special operations troops, special forces or regular forces,” the source said. “From the first moment when you raise your hand and promise to defend the constitution, it’s driven into you that you don’t use deadly force if the enemy is incapacitated or, in this case, shipwrecked. If it was a kill mission, then it would have been talked about at the highest level and it would have been recorded,” said the source. “If there was an order, political or military, to kill everyone on the drug boat, then that would mean the total absence of rules of engagement. No lawyer or military commander would go along with such an order. It would be against everything the military stands for. This is why those tapes should provide the explanation for why there was a follow-on attack,” said the source. “Admiral Bradley is a revered commander, it would be extraordinary if he doesn’t have an explanation for the decision to attack the boat for a second time." The source also pointed out that two admirals were involved: 57-year-old Bradley, who was promoted to commander of US Special Operations Command in October, and Admiral Alvin Holsey, 60, commander of US Southern Command. Admiral Holsey suddenly announced his retirement in October. He is due to step down on December 12, after only one year of his expected three-year appointment. “All the talk is that he retired prematurely because of what has been happening off Venezuela," the source said. "He was in command at the time of the controversial incident and he will have been informed of the decision to strike that boat for the second time." A former senior Pentagon official said: “It seems both Trump and Hegseth initially took credit for ordering these strikes but are now backing away to let Admiral Bradley hold the bag which has sparked a furious backlash inside DoD [Department of Defence] among the uniformed officers. “ It comes amid growing pressure on Hegseth, who is battling fresh accusations of misconduct after an internal Pentagon report concluded he risked endangering American troops by discussing sensitive military operations on Signal. Amid the continuing fallout over the legality of US attacks in the Caribbean, the independent watchdog of the Department of Defence, recently renamed the “Department of War”, reportedly found Hegseth broke security protocols by sharing details about an upcoming airstrike on Houthi targets in a Sigal group chat earlier this year. In September, Hegseth, addressing 800 generals and admirals at an unprecedented “rebranding” event, ordered an end to “tepid legality” and an embrace of “maximum lethality”. He described rules of engagement as “stupid”. Special Operations Command only comprises about three per cent of America’s active duty force but in recent years, under Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, it has increasingly become the favoured military organisation because of its instant readiness, its reputation for lethal efficiency and its procurement of the most advanced weaponry. Special operations units have been deployed extensively in Latin America in recent years, combating narcotics traffickers and training government forces to disrupt criminal networks. BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER AGENT REDRUTH, STARRING SUPERSPY REBECCA STRONG. CHECK IT OUT ON AMAZON.

Europe desperately wondering what to do about Ukraine

After Vladimir Putin's dismissal of the latest Europe/US/Ukraine peace proposal, European leaders are left floundering. They know that Trump has probably now had more than enough and would like to get shot of Ukraine which will leave the Europeans to fill the gap to help Zelensky continue to fight the Russians. Nothing they can come up will persuade Putin to compromise at any time in the near or far future, and, anyway, the Russian president has totally taken against Europe. If they want war with Russia, they can have it, he said the other day. Well, of course Europe doesn't want war with Russia but nor does Europe want Russia to win the war in Ukraine. So, there is massive bafflement and concern. What on earth can they do about Putin? The answer is pretty much nothing, especially if Trump backs off. The US is still sanctioning Russia's two biggest oil producers but Putin seems not to be overly worried. The only thing Europe can do is grab all of Russia's frozen assets in western banks, mostly in Belgium for some reason, and use it to send more weapons to Ukraine. But Putin might regard this as both illegal and an attack on Russia. Then what? As I said, Europe is floundering.

Pete Hegseth on the fatal targeting of two drug boat survivors in the Caribbean

In September the US Navy targeted a suspected drug-carrying boat coming out of Venezuela and blew it up. Two of the suspected drug traffickers miraculously survived and were seen clinging onto the wreckage. Instead of sweeping in to pick them up and detain them, the US Navy had another go and this time managed to kill them. According to the Washington Post, it was Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, who authorised the second shooting after giving an order to kill everyone. Hegseth has now denied this and the White House announced it was actually Admiral Frank Bradley, commander of US Special Operations Command, who gave the order to kill the two survivors. There is a lot of murky water here. Did the admiral really see for himself that there were two survivors clinging on for dear life and order his men to kill them anyway? First, that would be morally wrong, and second, I don't believe it. There has to be a better explanation. Unless... the admiral had received specific orders that under no circumstances were there to be any survivors. If so, this was a political, not a military decision. But Hegseth denies it. The targeting of more than 20 boats and the death of about 80 people in the boats is all a bit dodgy, legally, but Hegseth says it's all above board and in accordance with international law because these drug traffickers in Venezuela have been designated as part of a terrorist organisation and are, therefore, legitimate targets. Definitely murky waters.

The Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner show in Moscow

Two of Donald Trump's most trusted "envoys" arrive in Moscow today for what could be a total waste of time when they meet with Vladimir Putin. Steve Witkoff, special envoy for Ukraine and everywhere else, and Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, will be bringing with them the latest version of the original 28-point pro-Moscow peace plan. Putin has had time to look at it and I imagine that he has already applied the blue pencil through all the clauses which favour Ukraine. But Witkoff and Kushner can't return to Washington with nothing, so Putin will be clever. He will make a big number about how he wants peace, too, and will praise Trump for all his efforts and might even suggest that he is prepared to make some concessions. This will mean that he won't anger Trump but he will keep him sweet, and Trump will be able to claim that great progress has been made in Moscow, and hopes for an end to the war have been raised. But in reality it will all be smoke and mirrors, with Putin the conjuror behind the scenes, manipulating everyone. Whatever comes out of the Moscow meeting, it won't end the war in Ukraine and it won't do any favours to poor President Zelensky. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AS A GIFT FOR CHRISTMAS FOR FAMILY AND FRIENDS. ORDER THROUGH AMAZON.