Seventeen US warships are waiting for war off Iran

The armada that was built up in the Caribbean to snatch Nicolas Maduro in his pyjamas at a bunker home in Caracas was impressive enough, with an aircraft carrier and around 11 warships and more than 100 aircraft of one sort or another. Now we have Donald Trump's next and imminent military venture, to bomb Iran and oust the regime. For this much much bigger operation, Trump has assembled two aircraft carrier strike groups, a total of 17 warships, dozens of fighter aircraft and the rest of the paraphernalia required for a superpower military mission Trump says he doesn't want to resort to force, he would prefer a diplomatic deal but he has set the marker so high, Tehran and the ayatollahs are never going to agree. So, military force it will be. With the huge firepower available, there shouldn't be any doubt that Iran is going to have a terrifying few weeks once the go ahead has been given. Plus, Israel is almost bpund to join in. Assuming this scenario is correct, I would imagine the first strikes will focus on taking out as many ballistic missile sites and ballistic missile plants as possible to reduce the threat of a massive response from Iran against Israel and US forces in the Middle East. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has warned that Iran will sink one of the aircraft carriers. But this is more bluster than genuinbe threat. The US has surrounded the carriers with anti-missile protection on other warships, and the outcome of an American attack is not difficult to predict. Iran will be the huge and overwhelming loser. Will Tehran cave in and agree a humiliating settlement before the first bomb has dropped, or will it, unwisely, take on the might of the US military and try to score a few hits? If Iran follows the latter course, Trump will hit back even harder. There won't be a wider war throughout the Middle East, as so many people are predicting, it will be total defeat for Khamenei and his regime. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER PAPERBACK. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Ban on use of UK bases for Iran attack is staggering

We don't know exactly how the conversation went between Donald Trump and Keir Starmer earlier this week but the US president came away with a flea in his ear. He was told, according to the illustrious Times, that if he wanted to use RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean for planned bombing raids on Iran, he could forget it. The UK government, Starmer apparently said, was not going to authorise either base for attacks. In political, diplomatic, military, strategic terms, this is a staggering decision, one that will have angered Trump beyond words. If Trump does order more strikes on Iran, then the US will definitely want to use Fairford and Diego Garcia. Both these bases are specifically structured and adapted for American bombers, from B-2 strategic aircraft to F-22 ground-attack jets, and because both bases are around 2,500 miles from Iran, as opposed to 6,500 miles from the US to Iran, it makes a helluva difference in terms of combat bombing runs, logistics, wear and tear on aircraft and gas costs. The US military can still go ahead with the strikes on Iran without the two bases, but it won't be so easy, and to have an ally, such as Britain, refuse to allow key bases to be used is a massive slap in the face. Unless Starmer changes his mind, this is going to have a longlasting negative effect on relations with Washington while Trump is in the White House. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, THE SECOND IN A PLANNED TRILOGY STARRING PART-TIME SPY REBECCA STRONG.

Britain in state of turmoil

The arrest and detention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, former Prince Andrew, ex-Duke of York, younger brother of King Charles, still eighth in line to the throne, is the latest development in a series of ups and downs, mostly downs, which have hit this country like a hurricane and given the impression to the rest of the world that we are in turmoil. Actually, we are in turmoil. Andrew has been caught up in the Jeffery Epstein scandal because of his friendship with the paedophile and convicted sex offender. The former prince is currently sitting in a police cell! In addition, Donald Trump has turned on Keir Starmer over the Labour Government's bizarre and unnecessary handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius (costing us taxpayers £35 billion), the Starmer administration has now carried out 14 U-turns on major policy issues, the UK's former ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, is being investigated by the police over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and an allegation that when Business Secretary in the Labour government of Gordon Brown, he passed confidential Cabinet data to Epstein; the roads througout the country are pitted with potholes and the size of the welfare state - with rising youth unemployment and more and more people off work for mental health reasons - is growing by the day. The local elections are due in May and all the signs are that Nigel Farage and his Reform party will win win win. Starmer will then be pushed out and we'll get Angela Rayner as our unelected new prime minister. Turmoil indeed. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, YOU WILL LOVE IT. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

No end in sight of the war in Ukraine

Whatever the Americans say about "meaningful progress" in the latest talks to stop the war in Ukraine, in reality Donald Trump's two main envoys, Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner, are no closer to a settlement than they were when negotiations began. The two envoys, neither of whom are trained diplomats, are basically Trump message-carriers, repeating endlessly the need to find a solution based on transfer of land. Poor Zelensky, the Ukrainian leader, must feel sick at heart that every time his negotiators sit down for talks with the Russians, they argue for hours about compromise but pretty much all on the Ukrainian side, not the Russians who of course started the war in the first place. Zelensky said it was "unfair" that the Americans didn't insist on the Russians compromising, too. The trouble is, Putin is not going to compromise, not on the question of the Donbas regio in eastern Ukraine. He wants all of it and for Ukrainian troops to withdraw from the bits they still control.That message from the Kremlin hasn't changed. So it's difficult to see what was "meaningful" in the latest talks in Geneva. I anticipate Putin will get even tougher with his territorial demands because he will hope that Trump will become distracted by Iran and the prospects of a wir within the next month or so. Putin isn't going to do Trump any favours by suddenly agreeing to compromise on the land issue. So, nothing of note is going to happen in the Geneva talks, just more arguing round and round in familiar circles. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER STARRING REBECCA STRONG. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

The world cannot afford a nuclear-armed Iran

If there is any US president who is actually going to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it is probably Donald Trump. All his predecessors vowed that Iran could never become a nuclear power but did nothing about it except try to use diplomacy and sanctions to restrain Tehran's ambitions. Obama went the furthest with his 2015 deal. But, actually, the small print still allowed Iran to restart its uranium-enrichment programme eventually. The hope was that Iran would change its ambitions altogether and with the lifting of sanctions give up the nukes idea and concentrate on developing a better, more flourishing country. But that was somewhat naive because we are talking here about the most extreme form of Islamic revolitionary politics, and successive Supreme Leaders said categorically it was the right of the Iranian nation to enrich uranium. So, even if Obama's deal had survived the arrival of Trump in the White House in 2016, it was still a risk that Iran would go nuclear in the distant future. Now, we are in a totally different situation, with Trump making it clear that, unlike his predecessors, he is ready to bomb Iran to bits to stop the country continuing to be a menace to global security. I am begininng to think that whatever Iran comes up with at the reopening of talks with the US, nothing will be good enough to stop the bombing. So in the next month or so, there will probably be a whole lot of bombing. Will it fnally end Tehran's ambition to be nuclear and a pain in the neck in the Middle East, or will it just lead to more war, and an even more determined Iran? PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER - AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES

Should the UK and France provide nuclear cover for Europe?

Both the UK and France have what is called a minimum nuclear deterrent. In other words, unlike the US and Russia which have several thousand nuclear warheads, the British and French arsenals have just enough to deter an enemy such as Russia (Uk, 225 and France, 290). But with the US under Donald Trump urging Europe to spend more and more on defence and not to rely on American to rush to their aid at every possible crisis moment, could and should the Brits and French restructure their nuke arsenals to provide a broad cover for Europe as a whole? It might sound relatively straightforward but of course it isn't. At what point, for example, would the UK and/or France decide it would be justified to threaten to fire nuclear missiles at Russia if Moscow invaded Poland or Latvia or Finland? At present the UK and France retain independent nuclear deterrents, ready to be used in the event of a possible crushing defeat in a conventional war. But the UK and France would not resort to the nuclear option unless the very existence of the two countries was at risk. It is, if you like, a selfish deterrent. It covers the sovereignty of the UK and France but not of the rest of Europe. The US, on the other hand, has committed its nuclear weapons to form a deterrent umbrella over the whole of the North American continent AND Europe. It's the ultimate protection. But now there has to be doubt about whether the Trump administration would launch anything nuclear if some part or all parts of Europe came under mass conventional or nuclear attack. Nuclear deterrence has a theology all of its own and it's changing fast. What we can't have is other members of Europe deciding to go nuclear, developing their own arsenals. That would lead to nuclear proliferation across the globe. For the UK and France to provide a European nuclear umbrella, both nations would need to double or triple their warhead arsenals. That would also lead to proliferation elsewhere and make the world an even more dangerous place. And the costs would be huge, albeit the rest of Europe would be expected to contribute financially. On the whole, it's not a good idea. Spend a lot more on conventional defence and create deterrence that way. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, SEE AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Iran claims it's ready for compromise

Tehran, or at least the deputy foreign minister, is claiming that Iran is ready for compromise with the Americans to get a nuclear deal underway and agreed. In an interview with the BBC, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, says the ball is now in the US court. But actually, this is all playing games. The ball is very much in Iran's court. Donald Trump has stipulated, with Israel pushing hard in the background, that Iran must broaden the current round of talks by compromising not just on nukes but also on the other issues that stand in the way of an all-round settlement - a reduction in ballistic missiles and removing support for proxy militia forces in the Middle East. Takht-Ravanachi as good as ruled out any concessions on these issues. So a deal seems most unlikely. The interview with the BBC was just another example of Iran stretching it out for as long as possible, giving the impression that it's ready for a deal provided, of course, the quid pro quo is that the US lifts sanctions which have crippled the country's economy for years. He promised compromise but gives no clue what that means. It surely won't be enough to satisfy Trump and defnitely not enough to satisfy Benjamin Netanyahu. So, military action would now seem to be almost inevitable. Probably some time in the middle of March. Unless Tehran really does get frightened and offers a lot more. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, ANOTHER REBECCA STRONG SPY THRILLER, AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS

Marco Rubio brings back the smile on Europe's face

Marco Rubio isn't America's top diplomat for nothing. He came to the Munich security conference and made evryone breathe with a sigh of relief when he said that the US and Europe were, effectievly, the same family and would always be partners. So different from Vice President JD Vance's speech in Munich a year ago when he pretty much tore into Europe over its immigration policy and failure to safeguard free speech. He left a very nasty taste in the mouth. But Rubio is a gentler soul and he tried to reassure Europeans that the US was not cutting off from Europe but still valued the shared partnership and alliance. However, although the language was softer, the reality is that he, too, has underlined the White House message that Europe has to be stronger and better able to defend itself, a warning which most, if not all, European leaders are taking on board. I see Keir Starmer, in his Munich speech, said Europe (including the UK) must be ready to fight (Russia). As I have said in a previous blog, surely what needs to be said is that Europe as a whole should be arming itself with mnodern weapons of war in order to DETER Russia and other potential adversaries. Fighting a war would be disastrous for Europe and for the world. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. YOU WILL LOVE IT. SEE AMAZON, WATERSTONES OR ROWANVALE BOOKS

The world order has gone, says German chancellor

This is the weekend when all the politically powerful meet in Munich for the annual security conference and already the warning has gone out: the world order we knew and loved has gone for good. Nothing is the same. Everything we relied on before is no longer valid. The biggest warning came from Chancellor Mertz of Germany who is increasingly taking on the role of speaking for and acting for the whole of Europe. He told the conference that international rules have changed beyond recognition. What he and all the others meant to say was that, thanks to Donald Trump, we can't trust the US to come to our aid any more. Europe has to stand on its own feet. It is exraordinary, althpugh not surprising, that Trump has managed, in his second term, to unsettle what before was regarded as set in concrete, ie the Transatlantic alliance. Previous US presidents all confirmed that Nato and the US leadership of the alliance were iron-clad commitments for Washington. There was never any doubt. But all that has gone, and the Munich conference is another exmaple - after the meeting in Davos earlier this year - of where the world's leaders are walking around not knowing what is happening and what the future holds. But, basically, the time for whingeing and worrying is over. The fact is, Trump will be in power for another three years and the changes he has begun to make will stay for ever. Europe has to get tougher and more robust and more unified. Europe without the US being at their beck and call is the reality today, and European leaders will have to accept it. However, I still firmly believe that Nato will survive all these changes and probably become a better and more powerful organisation than ever. That should surely be everyone's goal in the western world.

Trump improves his options for striking Iran

Donald Trump appears to be peparing even more firepower for the waters off Iran. Another aircraft carrier may be earmarked for Iran duty, alongside the USS Abraham Lincoln which is already there. The most likely carrier seems to be the USS George HW Bush which could be deployed from its base in the US. The journey to the Gulf would take three or four weeks. We can probably safely say that no military action is likely before the new carrier arrives. Meanwhile, after his session with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, Trump has made it clear he wants to concentrate on getting a nuclear deal first with Tehran, holding back the military option while US and Iran squabble over what a nukes deal would look like. If nothing has been ahcieved while the second carrier heads for the Gulf (once Trump approves), then I would imagine the pressure for military force will increase significantly. Netanyahu has always been sceptical about a nuclear deal with Iran. He didn't like the last one, brokered by Barack Obama in 2015, and he won't like the Trump version, if it comes about, unless there are other agreements to curb Iran's huge stock of ballistic missiles, all capable of reaching targets in Israel. So now everything will depend on when or if the second carrier is sent to the Gulf. If Trump gives the go ahead, the clock for military action will start ticking. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, SEQUEL TO SHADOW LIVES, STARRING REBECCA STRONG, ARTIST AND SPY. BUY THROUGH AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS OR WATERSTONES.

Can Iran ever be trusted to keep their word?

Iran has a reputation for being devious, and for that reason it is highly unlikely that any deal Donald Trump might fix with Tehran will actually hold water. Obama did a nukes deal with Iran in 2015 but it was never strong enough to stop Iran from secretly continuing its ambition to build a bomb, even if the programme had to be curtailed under the restrictions imposed by the treaty that was signed. In other words, Iran under its present regime can never be trusted. I feel sorriest for the Iranian people who have had to put up with this regime ever since the revolution in 1979. So, is this the right time for the US to take action that might in the end lead to regime-change? The answer is not simple. If regime-change can only be brought about by war, that won't help the Iranian people who will suffer even more. Many will be killed. It might sound the only solution but violence cannot be the answer. The trouble is, the tens of thousands who bravely protested in the streets against the regime, were brutally repressed. Thousands were killed by the so-called security authorities, many of them moving around on motorbikes, opening fire at random. Now there are even reports of wounded protesters in hosptals being shot in the head as they lie in their beds. A war between Iran and the US and probably Israel, will lead to more and more violence against the poor Iranian people. War or no war, they will always be the victims.

Netanyahu on mission to the White House

When Benjamin Betanyahu jumps on the first available plane to Washington to see Donald Trump, you know he is very anxious about something. The Israeli prime minister clearly took fright when Trump said the first round of new talks with Iran had gone very well. He coild see the unpredictable US president suddenly doing a deal which would, in Israeli eyes, be half-cocked. Netanyahu desperately wants Trump to stick to his principles which would mean the president refusing to concede on any of his objectives vis a vis Tehran: scrapping the nuke programme, handing over all highly enriched uranium, reducing hugely the ballistic-missile programme and axeing all links to the proxy militia scattered throughout the Middle East. Trump shouldn't need to be persuaded because when he decided in his first term of office to take the US out of the Obama-brokered nuclear deal with Tehran, he said it was becausee the deal was terrible, didn't limit the nukes programme sufficiently and didn't include any restrictions on ballistic missiles or those proxy forces working their evil on behalf of Tehran. So, if that was his feeling in his first term, Netanyahu wants to make sure Trump still abides by those red lines. The reference to how good the talks were in Muscat, Oman, last week upset Netanyahu because the Iranian negotiator, the foreign minister, said all he wanted to talk about was nukes. Netanyahu has a point. Trump gets carried away with these high-profile talks and seems to be optimistic that a deal can be done. Despite sending a massive armada of warships to threaten Iran, Trump has been very open that he doesn't want a war. So the talks are absolutely key. Netanyahu will try to persuade Trump that now is the time to drive the hardest bargain and get those ballistic missiles which threaten Israel more than anywhere else, must be curtailed. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

If Epstein was a Russian spy, Moscow must be cheering

As the Jeffrey Epstein scandal spreads to almost every corner of the planet, there has been much speculation that this paedophile financier and Ultimate Creep may have been a Russian spy. In other words, working with the Ruskies to do down as many so-called elite rich buddies as possible to cause the downfall of institutions and governments in the West. Could this have been his real plot? If it was and if the Russians really did work with him, then it has been an amazing success story for Moscow, because more and more rich and famous and otherwise are being drawn into this appalling scandal. Somehow I doubt the Russian connection. It's just that whenever a scandal of this enormity breaks, clever people start thinking there must be more to it. There has even been talk that Epstein was working secretly for Mossad. To what end, for goodness sake? Basically, Epstein was a brilliant, charming sleazebag who charmed the pants off multiple people, including royalty and the richest individuals on earth by offering to fulfill their fantasies free of charge. It was all about temptation temptation temptation, and when offered on a plate, it was just too irrestible. Clearly this is the case because the names in his contacts book cover a huge network of pleasure-seeking males. BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AGENT REDRUTH, DESCRIBED BY ONE REVIEWER AS BETTER THAN JAMES BOND. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Why was a US admiral at the Iran talks?

The oresence of a fully uniformed US admiral at the talks on Friday between American and Iranian delegates was a nice touch. More a piece of theatre than a diplomatic move. I don't suppose Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of Central Command, and thus the boss of the armada of ships currently in the Gulf off Iran, had to actually say anything other than "how do you do, good to meet you" when he was introduced to Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister. But the symbolism was huge. It was Donald Trump's way of saying to Tehran, "we're here to do a diplomatic deal but if you don't play ball then Admiral Cooper has his orders to start bombing military sites in Iran". I'm sure the Iranian foreign minister got the message. I wonder if the Iranians were warned beforehand that the admiral in his uniform would be participating in the talks, held in Muscat in Oman. Central Command covers 16 countries including all of the nations in the Gulf region. So for the admiral it was a chance to meet an important figure representing the country which basically provides most of the aggravation in the Middle East, either directly or indirectly through its proxy militia. The involvement of Admiral Cooper in Muscat was an in-your-face signal from Trump that his massive armada, headed by the carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, is ready and waiting for the order to strike at Iran if the talks fail to achieve the required objectives: an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions, the handover of all the 60 per cent-enriched uraniuma, a halt to all further uranium-enrichment, the axeing of all links to Iran's proxy forces in the Middle East such as Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen, and the stopping of all killings of protesters by the security forces. It's a big ask which Araghchi has already dutifully dismissed. He wants just the nuclear issue to be discussed. He will have returned to Tehran, hoever, with the image of Admiral Cooper staring at him across the table. PLEASE BUY AND ENJOY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Trump wants the war in Ukraine to end by June

It's always risky to name a date to end a war that has shown no sign yet of ever coming to an end. Donald Trump's latest deadline for stopping the killings and destruction is June. It sounds arbitrary except that if the war were to end by that month, it would probably help the Republicans to keep their seats in the US mid-term elections in November. So we can expect a massive push from Washington to fix many more trilateral talks between the US, Russia and Ukraine to find the formula that so far has been sadly absent. Eventually, we could see a summit between Trump, Putin and Zelensky, although that would seem to be pie-in-the-sky at the moment. There won't be a summit of this stature until the negotiators have done a deal, and that's as far off as ever. Meanwhile, to emphasise the leverage that Putin has over Zelesnky, his forces have been pounding Ukraine's energy sector with hundreds of drones and amissiles, so that large numbers of Ukrainians are living in freezing conditions. War is always cruel, but Putin is masterminding the cruellest of all, making as many civilians as possible suffer from appalling cold temperatures, lack of water, and no power to cook food. How many Ukrainians are dying from cold or lack of food? Under Trump's timetable this will all come to an end in four months. I seriously doubt it. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER. YOU WILL LOVE IT, I GUARANTEE!!

Could there be a new nuclear arms race?

The expiration of the New Start Treaty reducing the size of the nuclear arsenals held by the United States and Russia has inevitably led to fears that the world is about to see a so-called nuclear arms race with each of the two signatories to that treaty rushing ahead to build more and more warheads and missiles. But it's not in their interest to start spending vast new sums on increasing the size of the arsenals. There are already way too many to make the Cold War's Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) concept any less or more effective. Russia certainly can't afford to build and field hundreds or thousands more nukes, and nor can the US. The focus will surely be more on modernising the nukes now getting old and potentially unreliable, rather than increasing stocks. However, when a treaty of such historic importance expires without any talk of urgent meetings to extend it, should the world be worried? Donald Trump's approach is actually the right one. Instead of trying to extend the New Start Treaty, he says he wants a totally new treaty and for it to be signed by China as well. This is surely the way forward. China will resist it but with Beijing planning to build its stock of nuclear warheads from 600 to at least 1,000 by 2030, there is every reason to persuade Beijing to join a treaty to keep nuclear stocks to a limited level, even though China is far behind the American and Russian stockpiles. Meanwhile, the real arms race will continue to be in developing hypersonic missiles, nuclear or conventionally armed. A new treaty limiting these weapons would make sense, too. PLEASE BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER - AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.

Latest Russia/Ukraine talks go nowhere

The exchange of a few hundred prisoners of war was all that was achieved in the latest talks involving Ukraine and Russia in Abu Dhabi. You could argue that was at least something. But on the question of the two biggest obstacles to peace - land and Ukraine's future security guarantees from the US - there was seemingly no movement at all. When is there ever going to be a change of mind on Putin's part, or Zelensky's part? Neither is prepared to give up their red line demands - Putin to have the whole of Donbas, asnd Zelensky to hold onto the 20 per cent of land his military still control in Donetsk in the Donbas region. It's not just an impasse, it's an unmoveable blockage. Whatever Donald Trump says to Zelensky, the Ukrainian leader is never going to back down on this issue, and whatever incentives Trump gives to Putin to concede the land issue. the Russian leader is never going to stop the war until he gets Donbas on a plate. Not just that, he wants agreement for Donbas to be designated a Russian province and for the world to recognise it. On the security question, we have heard before that Zelensky has been offered a deal which he says is satisfactory. But if and when it is actually implemented, what will it involve? Not US troops stationed in Ukraine. That will never happen. Not US fighter jets based in Ukraine. That won't happen either. So how strong will the guarantees be once the war is over, to give Kyiv reassurance that in the event of future aggression from Moscow, the US will rush to help? The US is never going to agree a deal in which there is a possibility that as a result the US and Russia will be at war. That's just not going to happen, either, not while Trump is president. PLEASE BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AGENT REDRUTH. IT'S IN PAPERBACK. SEE AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Can Ukraine and Russia ever do a deal?

Representatives from Russia, Ukraine and the US are gathering in Abu Dhabi for a second round of talks to try and forge a peace settlement to end the four-year war. But is there really any hope of a breakthrough when both sides are so adamant about the land issue. Zelensky cannot envisage any time when he might consider giving up the whole of the Donbas to the Russians without a fight; and Putin says there will be no end to the war until Kyiv hands over Donbas. According to newspaper reports, there is a growing feeling in Ukraine, especially perhaps in Donbas, that getting peace would be better than hanging on for dear life to the bits of Donbas still controlled by Ukraine. In fact it's about 20 per cent of Donetsk, one of two provinces in the Donbas region. That's a lot of land to surrender, especially as it includes crucial defensive positions which so far have managed to keep the Russian military at bay for the last four years. Has it come to this? Peace or land? This is the question which is going to come up again and again in the Abu Dhabi talks. I just don't see this being resolved. Zelensky is never going to agree. Zelensky can't agree. Not when so many Ukrainian lives have been lost in Moscow's relentless bombing and drone campaign in Donbas. BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AGENT REDRUTH, STARRING SPY HEROINE REBECCA STRONG. SEE AMAZON, WATERSTONES, ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Why did so many people love Jeffrey Epstein?

I don't think I'm misquoting Donald Trump who described Jeffrey Epstein as a slezebag and creep. But Trump for a time also fell under his spell, even if in later years he banned him from his Mar-a-Lago resort residence. The queue of people from the top end of society who fell for Epstein's charms was so long that he managed to absorb into his web huge numbers of rich and famous - and of course royalty. Now, in hindsight, with so much known about what he was doing, it beggars belief that such people carried on adoring him, even when they knew or suspected he was abusing young women/girls. There have been other examples over the years of people becoming attracted to monster human beings, but Epstein is on a pedestal all of his own. His supposed charm and money and powerful friends brought people with similar attributes running to his door. The Epstein club was a unique haven for the rich and famous who wanted to indulge in Epstein's world, supposedly with the promise of secrecy and omerta (the Mafia 'code' for keeping quiet). He was found out and now everyone in his vast contacts book is being exposed. In a brilliant interview in The Times today between Peter Mandelson, former British ambassador to the US, and Katy Balls, Washington editor, the now-disgraced figure in the Epstein scandal gives a pretty good insight into how he got drawn into the Epstein world. He said he was invited to one of Epstein's famous dinner parties and found himself next to a brilliant brain surgeon, and opposite was Bill Gates, with Bill Clinton down the other end of the table. Power.and glamour and influence were on the menu. It doesn't excuse the appalling lack of judgement on the part of everyone who succumbed to Epstein's charms. But it should be a lesson for all power-chasing politicians and the like to take a step back when a seemingly engaging, island-owning charmer shakes your hand and invites you to a swanky dinner party. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, SEQUEL TO SHADOW LIVES. CHECK OUT AMAZON, WATERSTONES, AND ROWANVALE BOOKS

Is Greenland really important for Trump's Golden Dome?

Negotiations for an American take-over of Greenland have gone quiet. The threat of military action may have been abandoned, for the moment, but Trump still wants the largest island in the world. Much of the focus has been on his desire to grab the rare earth minerals buried under Greenland. But the priority reason has already been hinted at. Trump appears to have been told by the Pentagon that if he is to have his Golden Dome anti-missile system to protect the whole of the US, he must acquire Greenland to convert it into a huge anti-missile base, with interceptors in silos all over the island. Situated as it is on the edge of the Arctic, Greenland is in the perfect spot for intercepting hostile nuclear missiles coming from Russia, China or North Korea. These ballistic missiles, were they ever to be launched against the North American continent, would fly above the Earth over the North Pole. At present, there are silos with interceptors in Alaska and California, and there has been much discussion about installing some in New York State. But if the first layer of defence was established on Greenland, it would increase by a significant amount the ability to knock out enemy nukes aiming for the US. At present the US only has an early-warning missile installation site on northwest Greenland. Trump wants to take control of Greenland because he feels America can then do what it wants on the island to provide the sort of missile defence he hopes the Golden Dome will be able to guarantee. But in reality, with negotiations, there is probably a solution to Trump's massive military expansion plans for Greenland without grabbing its sovereignty at the same time. BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER, AGENT REDRUTH. YOU WILL LOVE IT. CHECK OUT AMAZON, WATERSTONES AND ROWANVALE BOOKS.

Should Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor testify to US Congress?

On the face of it, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, former Prince Andrew and ex-Duke of York, should be willing to fly to the US and give whatever evidence he can to the Congressional committee examining the repercussions of the scandal surrounding the late disgraced sex trafficker and underage girl sex abuser Jeffry Epstein. The younger brother of King Charles knew Epstein over an extended period and has had a number of very revealing and totally inappropriate photos taken of him with young girls allegedly supplied by his friend Epstein. If he knows much more about Epstein, then for the sake of the young girl victims, should he not be obliged to appear before Congress and give the victims and their families further insight into the life of a man who appears to have trapped hundreds, if not thousands, of people into his web? The answer is more complex than that. What would actually be achieved by Andrew appearing before Congress. First of all, he would face humiliation. Congressional panels are known to be pretty harsh and unforgiving. Serve him right, some might argue, but Andrew has already been humiliated in the public's eyes. He agreed, unwisely, to be interviewed on camera in 2019 by Emily Maitlis from which he has never recovered. The King has removed all his titles. In the Royal Family he is now a nobody. He insists he never did anything wrong and whether that is to be believed or not, he is now a sorry figure. Humiliation enough in my view. Let him carry on his life out of the public view and somehow come to terms with his downfall. We don't need another public spectacle, this time in Washington, with the world's press listening and watching. The second reason for Andrew not to go Washington would be the further humiliation it would bring to the monarchy as a whole. Charles has done his best to sort out the scandals in his family, he has effectively consigned his brother to a life of no meaning. It would be devastating for the king to see his brother being torn apart by over-eager American lawmakers. I think enough's enough, and for that reason, Keir Starmer is totally wrong and discourteous to the monarch and the monarchy to call for Andrew to give evidence to Congress. Totally wrong.