Trump throws down the gauntlet

So he did it. No surprise there. But Donald Trump's official-at-last declaration about standing in 2024 is going to cause a mass of problems for the Republican party, especially among those who fancy their chances for the nomination. Republicans such as Mike Pence, ex-vice president, Mike Pompeo, ex-secretary of state and ex-CIA director and, of course, Rick DeSantis, governor of Florida and the up-and-coming darling of the Republican party. Do they take on Trump and attract withering accusations of betrayal from The Don or do they leave the field to him and wait for 2028? There's a pile of egos here but none bigger than Trump's. Anyone who stands against him is going to have a really hard time. Trump will fight dirty. This won't help the cause of the Republicans who will be desperate to fall in behind a dynamic leader who can beat the sitting president. After his success in Florida, DeSantis is now all the rage. But basically DeSantis is a slightly toned-down Trump. And if he were to win the nomination and beat Biden he might turn out to be just as bad as Trump. So if I was a Republican in the US I would be looking for someone with experience and dynamism and charm and a personality that can bring unity back to America. If that is remotely possible. Perhaps Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina and US ambassador to the United Nations in the Trump administration. If she became president it would be historic - the first woman and the first Indian-American. But Trump would never step aside for her and the Republicans might feel less than confident that she could beat Biden. But I firmly predict that Biden would beat Trump for a second time if the contest becomes a rerun of the 2020 election. See link to my spy thriller, Shadow Lives, in my profile.

Bad news all round for Trump but he will still stand

I don't think it makes much difference for Donald Trump. All the reverses he has suffered in the midterm elections, with most of his chosen candidates for Congress and governorships defeated and Republicans openly talking about possible alternative names for the 2024 presidential election, should make him think again about putting his name forward for the Republican nomination. But this is Trump. He won't be deflected from what he believes to be his rightful place which is back in the Oval Office. So tonight I and most people have every expectation that the big man will stand before a cheering crowd with his red MAGA cap firmly placed over his yellowy locks and will declare he will be president in 2024. He will do it more out of anger at what I have no doubt he sees as betrayal by elements of the Republican party who have dared to oppose his nomination for the White House. Trump will want above all to prove all his doubters wrong. He KNOWS he is the best, he KNOWS he's what America needs, he KNOWS there is no one to touch him in the Republican or Democratic party. He is a man on a mission and nothing is going to stop him. Setbacks? What setbacks? I predicted in 2016 that he would win against Hillary Clinton. Much to the dismay and astonishment of my American friends, he won. If he does declare his decision to fight again for the White House in his speech tonight, I firmly predict that he will lose in 2024. In fact he won't even be the chosen Republican nominated candidate. Fingers crossed my prediction is right.

Biden pressured to think again about axeing nuclear cruise missile

President Biden is facing pressure from within Congress to reverse his decision to cancel a $10 billion programme to develop a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N). The new deterrent weapon system had been fully supported by the top military hierarchy at the Pentagon but was officially scrapped last month as part of the administration’s nuclear posture review. Despite public backing from General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nuclear cruise missile was assessed to be of “zero value” in terms of deterrence against Russia and China and other potential adversaries. However, US defence sources confirmed that since the decision “hawks on the Hill” who disagreed with any military cuts made by the Biden administration had been pushing back and demanding a rethink. A former senior Pentagon official also pledged his support to reinstate the weapon programme. “I support Congressional efforts to restore funding for the SLCM-N project,” Eric Edelman, under-secretary of defence for policy from 2005 to 2009, said. He co-chaired a 2018 bipartisan national defence strategy commission mandated by Congress which endorsed the SLCM-N programme. “I continue to believe it would make a useful contribution to deterrence,” Edelman said. The idea for the new weapon system was proposed in the 2018 nuclear posture review. The Pentagon backed it as a way of providing an additional low-yield nuclear response to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by a foreign power. There have been fears recently that President Putin might resort to tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine following the series of military setbacks, including the withdrawal of Russian troops from the city of Kherson in the south. The US has warned Putin of “catastrophic consequences” if he uses nuclear weapons. However, Lloyd Austin, US defence secretary, has said that a new deterrent weapon capability was not needed. Also the nuclear cruise missile would not have been ready for service until 2035. The US Navy already has a low-yield warhead , the W76-2, on some of the Ohio-class Trident ballistic-missile submarines to provide regional deterrence; and the US Air Force has upgraded its B61 nuclear gravity bombs which are being placed in storage in Europe. The US defence sources said that although General Milley had supported the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile option, he had fully accepted the president’s decision to abandon it. The US Navy has said the scrapping of the SLCM-N weapon would initially save nearly $200 million and an additional $2 billion over the next five years.

Biden now has to stand for reelection but do the Democrats want him?

The results of the midterm elections in the US have been surprisingly and unpredictably good for the Democrats and therefore for President Joe Biden. In fact by hanging onto the Senate and only losing the House by a small margin, Biden's face has lit up and he must have started writing the statement he will make in the next two or three months about standing for the White House for a second term in 2024. But here's the thing. There are going to be a lot of Democrats who while they like Joe and feel comfortable under his leadership they are not very happy at the thought of having a president who will be 86 by the time he completes his second term in 2028. Isn't that just too old, they will be wondering, especially in this super-pressured world with a major war seemingly in the offing from a number of quarters, possibly within the next five or six years? But after such a positive midterms election which inluded a big fat one in the eye for Donald Trump many of whose chosen candidates were defeated, how could anyone in the Democratic party even hint at the possibility that Biden shouldn't stand and should step aside for someone younger and more dynamic? And even if they could who would they be looking at take on the baton? There isn't anyone of such star quality that they would automatically step into Biden's shoes. Certainly not Kamala Harris who, though vice president, has done nothing to suggest she has either the calibre or the vision or leadership hutzpah to be the next president. Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so. Bernie Sanders? His time has come and gone. Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan? She's good but hardly a household name. So it's Biden. It has to be Biden. If he after all decides against running then the Democratic party will have a major challenge on its hands.

Washington's efforts for diplomatic solution in Ukraine

Washington’s apparent new diplomatic focus on ending the war in Ukraine is not what it seems. Rather than being the first step towards pressurising the Kyiv government to seek a negotiated settlement with Moscow, it is more a message directed at President Putin that he is never going to subjugate Ukraine. To back up this message, the administration of President Biden has authorised a significant leap in advanced weaponry for Kyiv to underline the US commitment to supply Ukraine with systems that will protect the country from attack in the long-term future from air and ballistic-missile strikes. In particular, the Pentagon this week announced the supply of four Avenger air-defence systems, launched from Humvee vehicles which can fire Stinger surface-to-air missiles. These could protect the capital Kyiv from Iran-provided kamikaze drone attacks and other forms of airstrikes. The timing of the new diplomatic efforts and the supply of sophisticated defensive weapons that will safeguard the capital, Kyiv, is not linked in any way to the better-than-predicted midterm election results in which the Republicans failed to sweep aside the Democrats and take unassailable control of both the House of Representatives and Senate. There were fears that bipartisan support for Ukraine might have weakened, making it more difficult for the US to stand firm against Moscow. But US diplomatic sources said the timing was more a function of the recent success Ukraine has had in the counter-offensive and the violent reaction Putin has pursued against civilian infrastructure. No pressure was being put on the Ukrainians while they were under constant air assault, the sources said. However, there seem to be mixed messages in Washington about the way forward for policy on Ukraine. The most notable intervention came on Wednesday from General Mark Milley, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, Biden’s principal military adviser. He urged an end to the appalling casualty toll and suggested now was the moment to grab the chance for peace before the winter sets in. Milley said that “well over” 100,000 Russian troops had been killed and wounded and that Ukraine had suffered the same number of casualties; plus about 40,000 Ukrainian civilians killed and up to 30 million displaced. His advice was, “to seize the moment”, to prevent further slaughter. But other officials are questioning whether now is the right time to even talk of a diplomatic end to the war when the Russians are evacuating the key strategic city of Kherson in the south and Putin’s objectives appear doomed to fail. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, visited Kyiv last week and spoke with President Zelensky. But the US sources said the focus of Washington’s efforts was to make sure the Kyiv government hadn’t given up on the idea of a diplomatic solution, not advising them to start preparing for a deal. Biden added to the confusing signals when he said it remained to be seen “whether or not Ukraine is prepared to compromise with Russia”. However, compromise seems a long way away at this point. Despite the sombre news reaching Moscow every day from the war in Ukraine, Putin has shown no sign of giving up, let alone seizing the moment for a negotiated settlement, as Milley suggested.

Russia's super-torpedo fails its test

Russia’s test of a nuclear-powered torpedo capable of carrying an atomic warhead more than 100 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb failed after suffering technical difficulties, US intelligence officials have claimed. The huge Poseidon torpedo which was first announced with great pride by President Putin in 2018 as an “innovative new weapon” was due to have been tested from the 30,000-ton Russian submarine, Belgorod, in the Arctic. However, the Belgorod, which at 583ft long is the largest submarine in the world, has returned to port at Severomorsk, the Russian Northern Fleet base, without any evidence of the Poseidon test having taken place. The technical failure, first reported by CNN quoting US intelligence officials, is a significant blow for Moscow as the Poseidon was touted as an “unstoppable” doomsday weapon system with an unlimited range. The failure could be another sign of the Russian military suffering challenging times because of international sanctions which have barred Moscow from acquiring western technology. There was always scepticism in the West over the feasibility of a submarine-launched torpedo being powered by a nuclear reactor. Fitting a miniaturised nuclear reactor to a torpedo was viewed as being a technological challenge too far, although the Pentagon is currently engaged in developing small-scale reactors to provide power for forward-deployed special forces units. In recent weeks the US had begun monitoring Russian naval vessels gathering in the Arctic for an expected test of the Poseidon. The Belgorod submarine which can carry up to eight of the nuclear torpedoes was spotted among them. The planned test of the Poseidon coincided with increasing fears that Putin might order the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine following persistent setbacks suffered by the Russian military. Moscow has boasted that the Poseidon can deliver a nuclear warhead to a coastal target such as a submarine base, evading all defence systems. The torpedo is 70ft long and 6.5ft wide. It was designed to travel at up to 80mph underwater, carrying a two-megaton (2,000 kilotons) nuclear warhead. The Hiroshima bomb was about 16 kilotons. The nuclear torpedo is expected to enter service around 2027, although if the technical difficulties persist, the timeframe could change.

The appalling statistics of dead and wounded in Putin's war in Ukraine

General Mark Milley, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and therefore the most senior military figure in America, is not someone who tends to exaggerate anything. He is a steady, straight-down-the-middle army officer and he doesn't say anything that he knows is not accurate. So listen to what he has to say about the war in Ukraine. He says 100,000 Russian troops have been killed and wounded and the same number of Ukrainians. So 200,000 casualties, plus 40,000 Ukrainian civilians killed and up to 30 million people displaced from their homes. All this in less than nine months. What a terrifying list of statistics. And they don't include the appalling destruction of property and national infrastructure facilities. Milley advises the Ukrainians to seize the moment for peace to bring this terrible death toll to an end. But there is no peace. There can be no peace. Putin cannot benefit in anyway from the war he started. He cannot be allowed to retain any territory in Ukraine, not when so many Ukrainians have been sacrificed to save their sovereign land from the invaders. And Putin must be punished for everything he has done. He has to pay the penalty. And that means no peace deal that has his signature on the document. Sorry, General Milley, although the Ukrainian people must be desperate for peace, what possible options are there for President Zelensky? After all the brutality by the invading forces how can he sit down and negotiate a peace settlement. I know this is what the Biden administration is now pushing for, and Milley is the latest official to voice hopes for a peace deal. But a deal with Putin? Surely, never!! But then I am writing this at home in safe England where there are no missiles flying or artillery shells being fired. The decision has to be for Zelensky and for the people he serves.