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.