Western leaders are talking more about defeating Russia

Within the Nato alliance there seems to be a growing view that the only way to end the war in Ukraine is for Russia to be defeated. If the world was a simple place where right and wrong were easily distinguishable and everyone played fair, then, yes, it would solve a lot of problems if Russia were defeated, Putin was humiliated, and we could all get back to our nice lives and not to have to continue sending billions of dollars of weapons to Kyiv. But the world is not like that. The world is cruel and power-mad, so if the ultimate goal in the West and in Kyiv is for total defeat of Russia, I fear the consequences. I'm not saying it's wrong, it's not wrong, it's the right thing to do, but it has to be thought through. What would Putin do if he faced overwhelming defeat? Fortunately I don't think we need to spell out whether he will go mad and go nuclear out of revenge. I think what will happen if Ukraine makes huge strides in its imminent territory-grabbing-back counter-offensive is that China will step in big time and bring all the parties together for a peace-deal summit. It's not in Beijing's interest for Russia/Putin to be defeated. Xi Zinping may not have come out in public support of Putin's invasion but he wants a strong and anti-West partner and he won't let Putin be crushed into defeat. And when China steps in, the West, including the US, will be secretly happy, or even openly happy, because the worst scenario is a for-ever war. There has to be a deal at some stage. General Mark Milley, US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said so a long time ago and he was right. It's the political leaders, not the military, who talk about victory and defeat. If the Ukrainian counter-offensive achieves big results, Zelensky can come to the table with a strong hand. That's the most realistic scenario.

Another reason why Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination

Donald Trump will end up with plenty of rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. So it will be a really tough fight? Well actually not at all and the reason is simple. None of the other candidates, whether it be Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence or Tom Scott or whoever is going to dare to come out and attack the former president with everything they have got. Because if they do, they will alienate the very people whom they will be trying their best to win over. In other words, the only way they are going to beat Trump is by being nice about him but at the same time try to offer an alternative way forward to make Trump loyalists begin to have doubts about a man who is not only 76 but also one of the most controversial politicians in US history. This is called trying to square the circle. An outright attack on Trump will put so many Republican voters off that it will be like committing political suicide. One way for the Trump challengers to make their case might be to ignore Trump altogether, not mention him, just focus on their own agenda and hope it's enough for the millions of supporters of The Donald to switch. But that would be like being in a room with the largest elephant on the planet and pretending it's not there. Another option might be to praise Trump for everything he has done and stands for but suggest that it would be a good idea to have a younger nominee to take on the octogenarian Joe Biden. But a lot of Republican voters with Trump as their favourite might think that's disrespectful. So every which way, the challenge for the Trump rivals is going to be very very difficult. Put a foot wrong, say the wrong thing, even hint that Trump is past it and the voters will wither away. For all these reasons, I repeat what I said before, Trump is going to win the nomination, way ahead of his rivals, and will probably beat Biden.

Salute to Henry Kissinger, 100 today

Henry Kissinger is possibly the most famous person on the planet. Never mind all the pop stars and rock stars, the popes and presidents and others on the so-called A List of celebrities. Kissinger has been around for 100 years and has more wisdom and knowledge in his head than most of the world's population put together. I met him twice, each time in a relatively intimate setting with a dozen or so other journalists sitting round a table in a special dining room in the posh part of London, and just listened to him answering our questions. He was a formidable presence and each occasion was unforgettable. There will be many commentators who will try to gainsay his reputation by pointing to his involvement in the decision to launch a massive bombing campaign against Cambodia in 1969/70 when 110,000 tons of bombs were dropped, causing mass casualties. But as a statesman and diplomat and supreme intellect he probably had more influence on the world than any other comparable figure in modern history. His opinions are sought still to this day by presidents and prime ministers. He is a unique figure and has an esteeemed place in history. May he have many more birthdays.

DeSantis says he might pardon the convicted January 6 riot participants

When a politician announces he or she is going to run for the White House they get all power-thoughtful and start making lists of what they might do on day one of being voted in as president. Ron DeSantis, literally only a day or so into his campaign after his somewhat twitchy Twitter performance and he is already musing at the prospect of pardoning the January 6 Capitol rioters. He can only do that of course if, first, he beats Donald Trump to the Republican nomination and, second, defeats Joe Biden. So it's all a bit premature but what is interesting is that even at this early stage he is thinking about pardoning people involved in one of the most climactic events in Washington since the British burnt down the White House and Congress on August 24, 1814. The pardoning would of course include Donald Trump who hasn't been convicted of anything related to the January 6 assault but is still being investigated. So on day one DeSantis marches into the White House, gets out his fountain pen and signs pardons for the lot. I wonder how that will play with voters when they try to make up their minds who they want to be the 47th president. I guess all those weird-looking guys with horns and tattoos will vote for him. For me, it's a bad move even to hint at pardoning people who tried to overturn democracy. But perhaps I'm old-fashioned.

How can the destruction of Bakhmut be seen as a victory for Moscow?

After pounding by artillery, rockets, cruise missiles, air-launched bombs and everything else in the Russian armoury, Bakhmut looks like Dresden after it was firebombed by the Allies in the Second World War. There is nothing left in Bakhmut for it to justify being called a city. Like Mariupol on the northern coast of the Sea of Azov which received similar treatment by the Russians last year, Bakhmut is a place of death and rubble. It will take billions and billions of dollars for both cities to be restored to their former glory. Who is going to do it? The Russians? No, not a hope in hell. They will remain, probably for years, as the legacy of Vladimir Putin's war. It almost doesn't matter that the Russian army is now supposedly taking over control of Bakhmut from the notoriously murderous Wagner Group of Russian convicts. There is nothing for them to control, the devastation is so great. My own experience of walking through a city destroyed by war was in the 1990s in Bosnia. The city of Mostar, or at least the eastern section of it where the Muslim population lived. After the artillery barrages launched by the Croatian forces there wasn't a building left which had not either been reduced to rubble or made structurally, dangerously unsound. When a city is destroyed like that, what's left is an eery silence. I shall never forget it. So the Russian troops will be walking around the ruins of Bakhmut and, hopefully, wondering what the point of it all had been. Putin thinks it was a victory. It was never that.

Despite everything Donald Trump could still be president again in 20 months' time

Ron DeSantis is now in the race for the White House. The Florida governor is tweeting his way into a presidential campaign alongside Twitter king Elon Musk. All very jazzy and new-style. Almost at the same time as DeSantis launches his bid for the 2024 Republican nomination, Donald Trump gets the news that he is to face trial in March next year during the primary season, charged with business fraud over the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who claimed she had an affair with the president before he was president. In the normal world, this should have been excellent news for DeSantis and very bad news for Trump. But there is nothing normal about politics in the US when Donald Trump is around which is why I believe the date for Trump's trial just eight months before the election will be irrelevant. In fact it might well help his cause because it will give him even more publicity than he gets every day already and it will no doubt boost his claim that the Biden administration is out to get him and it's all fake news.The donations will keep rolling in. So, despite the upcoming trial, despite other possible legal confrontations over his retention of classified documents and his claimed role behind the January 6 2021 attack on the Capitol, despite the arrival of a serious candidate in DeSantis for the Republican nomination and despite a million other things, I still think there is every chance that Donald Trump will win the nomination, will beat Joe Biden and will be president once again. That's the way it is in America. A helluva lot of voters love him and will vote for him whatever he does or did in the past.

Putin and his nuclear card

The destruction and overwhelmingly high casualty toll suffered during the long battle for the city of Bakhmut has underlined for President Putin that however this particular battle ends he will never be able to declare victory. Bakhmut will always be remembered as the city which proved Putin's so-called special military operation was bound to fail in its objectives. First because the Russian leader underestimated the commitment of the Ukrainian military forces to defend their country; and second because of the West's united support for the Kyiv government. Under such circumstances, is the nuclear option still the single most devastating card Putin has to play? Or would the launching of tactical nuclear weapons be the final acknowledgement by the Kremlin that the war to take control of Ukraine has irrevocably failed? *Why would Putin resort to nuclear weapons? After 15 months of war and the prospect of a never-ending conflict ahead of him, Putin who has sole command of Russia's large stockpile of tactical nuclear bombs and missiles, could come to the conclusion that only a mighty blow using the most deadly weapon at his disposal would save his nation, and his regime, from humiliation and ignominy. Putin and Sergey Lavrov, the foreign minister, have stated that Moscow would have the right to turn to nuclear weapons if the very existence of the Russian motherland faced extinction. Putin's definition of an existential threat to Russia may have changed. He may see a prolonged war with accelerating Russian casualties and the harm it is doing to the country's economic well-being as justification for going nuclear. Avril Haines, director of US National intelligence, the organisation which heads up all 18 of America's intelligence agencies, is still convinced that it is "unlikely" Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. But the most difficult question facing the West's intelligence services is trying to guess or second-guess what is in Putin's mind. Looking at the nuclear issue from a western standpoint, the answer seems clear. Strategically and tactically it would make little sense. Tactical nuclear weapons, with their more limited range and potency, would be devastating but would not guarantee either an end to the war or an instant "victory" for Putin. However, in Putin's mind, using nuclear weapons could be his way of throwing the gauntlet down to the West, his message being: "by continuing to arm Kyiv with increasingly advanced weaponry to hurt Russian forces I had no other choice." *What is stopping Putin from launching tactical nuclear weapons? There are two principal reasons. First is China. President Xi Zinping has publicly stated and, no doubt privately warned Putin in person, that nuclear weapons should never be used. China is Russia's strategic partner. The alliance between the two nations has grown exponentially since the war in Ukraine began. The Chinese leader has never condemned his Russian friend for invading Ukraine but, so far, he has not offered military help. Furthermore, he is trying to position himself as a peacemaker, attempting to forge a settlement that would bring a diplomatic end to the war and boost his own reputation and power on the global stage. Putin will know that if he orders a nuclear strike, however limited, his partnership with China would be put at grave risk if not destroyed. The second reason is the likely response from US and NATO. Putin may argue the case in his mind that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would not lead to a nuclear or conventional counterstrike by the West because Kyiv is not a member of the western alliance and is therefore not covered by Article Five of the organisation's founding treaty. This guarantees that an attack on an individual member of the alliance is equivalent to an attack on Nato as a whole. However, the US has made it clear that the use of nuclear weapons by Putin in Ukraine would have "catastrophic consequences" for Russia. What these consequences would be have not been spelled out. But could it lead to a direct confrontation between Nato and Russia? Could President Biden be persuaded to send an armoured division or more into Ukraine to fight alongside Ukrainian troops? Putin has to take these possible scenarios into account before gambling on his nuclear options. *Has anything changed which makes it more or less likely that Putin will use nuclear weapons? It could be argued that out of desperation because of the way his war has backfired, Putin will risk going nuclear. However, this picture of a leader pressing the nuclear button like a man with nowhere else to turn is not realistic. Putin has shown that he is prepared to battle on, irrespective of the appalling losses his troops have suffered. He will grab what he can, and if the destroyed Bakhmut eventually falls into his hands, it will convince him to continue pursuing his war aims, even though the capture of the city would not advance his strategic objectives. What has changed, however, is the scale and quality of the weaponry provided by the US-led coalition of 50 countries. Now that the US has finally agreed for American-built F-16 fighter jets to be supplied to Ukraine, the battle for air superiority will pose a new and potentially crucial phase in the war. Russia has failed to win air superiority largely due to effective Ukrainian defences - and now especially with US Patriot missile systems in operation. Once the Ukrainian air force has F-16s, Kyiv will have a better chance to dominate the battleground below. Moscow has warned of "enormous risks" if the West goes ahead with sending these fighter aircraft to Ukraine. When he used these words was Alexander Grushko, Russia's deputy foreign minister, hinting that the arrival of F-16s could lead to a nuclear response? Moscow has been warning of the nuclear option since the war began. It has been interpreted by Western governments as a propaganda tool, a way of scaring the West into backing off with its supplies of weapons to Kyiv, not as a serious ultimatum. Grushko's warning has been viewed in the same light. But can the West still be confident it can prevent what President Biden always said he wanted to avoid: a dramatic and dangerous escalation in the war. Could the supply of F-16s be Putin's red line? Or could it be some other weapon system provided in the future which makes the Russian leader begin to think seriously about the tactical nuclear option? Putin has already gone one step further with his nuclear card when he announced in March he would be sending tactical nuclear weapons to be based in Belarus. It was Putin's most pronounced nuclear signal to the West since Russian troops invaded Ukraine in February last year. Putin said the construction of a storage facility in Belarus would be completed by July 1. Whenever asked, the Biden administration has stated that there have been no signs that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. "We have not seen any reason to adjust our own strategic nuclear posture," has been the stock response. However, if tactical nuclear bombs are moved to Belarus which shares borders with three Nato countries, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, it may force a reassessment of Putin's likely options if the war in Ukraine fails to give him the strategic trophies he thought would fall into his hands months ago.