Trump is looking for a BIG success on foreign policy

Trump must be getting desperate. He needs a BIG success overseas to shore up his power base which at home is being daily chipped away by Nancy Pelosi and her majority Democrats in the House of Representatives. Trump needs China or Syria or Afghanistan or North Korea to give him a triumph that will propel him towards reelection in 2020. I stick to my prediction that Trump will be a one-term president because there are so many things that could go wrong for him between now and 2020. The Mexico wall is clearly not going to happen unless he declares a state of emergency because Pelosi has once again said there will be no money for his wall. She is content for extra fencing where required, perhaps even a more solid barrier here and there but not a full-length Trump wall. So, the president who by the way MAY still declare a national emergency to get his wall built, is looking elsewhere for his headline-making breakthrough triumph. He is hinting that the negotiations on trade with China are going well and he and President Xi Zinping, his "friend", will meet to sort out all the really tough bits. But if that fails, where else can he turn to get his victory? Not Syria, his policy is going to produce no triumphs for the US. If all the US troops are withdrawn, and the pull-out has already begun, Russia and Turkey and Iran will benefit. Iran is a mess. Trump claims his intelligence chiefs know nothing and need to be reschooled in the art of spying. He believes Iran is still intent on having a nuclear weapon and are secretly getting on with it. The CIA and others say the opposite. How long will Gina Haspel, CIA director appointed by Trump, last I wonder! Iraq is never going to be a success story for Trump because Iran is in the lead on that one, so where else is there? The answer is Venezuela. I think Trump has deep deep plans to get Nicolas Maduro OUT. Because if the US succeeds in getting rid of the ghastly Maduro, everyone, except Russia and China, will be pleased. Whether it will be done by military intervention or massive new sanctions or covert CIA action Trump has yet to decide. Trump has initially gone for sanctions against the oil industry which could bring Maduro to his knees. But Moscow will help out. So that's when Trump might turn to something more covert. He must be itching to send in the Marines, to hell with his friend Putin. I don't think there will be a full-scale military intervention but I reckon Trump will turn to his intelligence people - yes the same ones he has just been maligning - and tell them it's time for some clandestine activity.

Theresa May will get a bloody nose in Brussels and Berlin

You get the feeling that the 27 nations of the European Union are sick to death of the UK and Theresa May and the whole of the House of Commons. It's hardly surprising. The EU thought they had got a deal, it was approved and signed by Prime Minister May, then agreed by her cabinet. All neatly wrapped up and done. Then the whole thing was thrown up into the air, the Conservative Party split into battle factions, each as obstinate as the other, Labour didn't know what the hell it wanted, the Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) just stuck out their formidable chins and said no whenever asked any question about Brexit and the dreaded backstop to avoid a hard border between north and south, and Theresa May sailed through with her Brexit boat pointing in exactly the same direction whatever the windy conditions. Now who knows what's going to happen. Theresa bless her sort of won most of the arguments in the House of Commons last night, shaking off the threat of different amendments to her Brexit deal which would have taken control out of her hands. But in reality nothing really changed. We still have her Brexit deal or no deal or no Brexit. The only difference is that one amendment stipulated that the word "backstop" be replaced by "other arrangements" - which was passed - giving Theresa a mandate, or so she claimed, to go back to Brussels and say, "Now I have the Commons backing me, you must change your ways and get rid of the Northern Ireland backstop idea and find another way of keeping the border open between north and south without your backstop insurance policy which the DUP hates". But the EU leaders and negotiators have already said they will NOT change the backstop. In fact they won't change anything. All they might do is ADD a few words to appease anyone who thinks the EU plot is to ensure that whatever happens in the future, there will be no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland - ie the North will be like a member of the EU inside the EU customs union and thus be different from any other part of the UK after we have left the European Union. And the DUP doesn't want to be different. This isn't a plot, this the reality. I do not see what formula of words can be found that will resolve this issue and be legally binding. The EU bureaucrats tried before and failed. Also the UK government still talks about a technological solution to border checks but there isn't one apparently. Everyone has looked into it and according to the deputy EU negotiator, Sabine Weyand, no such thing exists on any border in the whole wide world. In this era of artificial intelligence, landings on Mars and weapons that can travel at 15 times the speed of sound, no clever dick has managed to come up with a device that technologically checks stuff going across a border without anyone knowing about it!! Unbelievable. Theresa May presumably knows this, so why does she go on and on about it as if somewhere in a small high-tech shop in Outer Mongolia, such a piece of kit is just waiting to be found. So, Theresa will head off yet again to meet with the stony-faced EU chiefs who will say, "Hello, Theresa, nice to see you, but please go home, we have nothing to talk about". It's 27 against 1. Of course the EU will win. However, the only other amendment which was approved yesterday by the Commons was one that said a no-deal Brexit was out of the question. Everyone, or most people, seem to agree with this, but the amendment is not binding on the government. So it's still on the table if the EU refuses to change or add to the Brexit deal text. The EU lot are being brutal. Yet none of them want a no-deal Brexit because it would be almost as disastrous for the whole of the EU as it would be for the UK. So, Mr Bureacrats, get your finger out, stop being so stubborn and give a little. For God's sake let's have a deal. Time is running out.

Another ex-White House flunky reveals all to piss off Trump

I've never heard of him, nor has Donald Trump apparently, but a former White House official "close" to the president called Cliff Sims is bursting into print with the now-familiar description of a chaotic administration. Trump is going around saying "Who is this guy?" One of his officials, no doubt also planning a future blockbuster, came up with the wonderful remark, as revealed by Politico, when he advised Trump not to bust a gut over the Sims' memoir: "It's beneath you, you barely remember him. Go run the world." I love it. Go run the world hahahaha! I bet that brought a smile to Trump's face. Meanwhile this bloke Cliff Sims is causing all kinds of anger inside the White House. In fact, for once, his revelations have so pissed off everyone that they are united in condemning him and supporting the president. Sims, some sort of adviser who apparently helped Trump make videos, claims to have been at every meeting that counts and has exposed the disarray around the president. There have been so many books already on the same theme that this latest version deserves to die a death. But no doubt Sims will get his pound (or dollar) of flesh and can retire on the royalties. There is no such thing as loyalty in the Trump camp. All his best mates have either been fired or resigned and the little fish in the Trump pond have been ousted or resigned and rushed straight to the publishers. Bob Woodward has probably written the best inside account of life in the White House so far, having interviewed pretty well everyone and acquired marvellous snippets of gossip about who said what at which moment, like the time Jim Mattis allegedly called Trump a fifth or sixth-grader on foreign policy matters. Embarrassingly for Trump, when Sims resigned from his job at the White House, Sarah Sanders, the press secretary, said everyone was sorry to see him go because he was such a good chap and a loyal and trusted member of the team. Ooops. She even said she trusted Sims would be a loyal supporter of Trump in the future wherever he was working. Ooops ooops. Sims has had his 15 minutes of fame. Well, a bit longer because he has already appeared on a couple of TV shows. But in the end, the canny White House official quoted in Politico probably got it right. Trump should ignore the former videographer and go rule the world!

A draft peace framework with the Taliban but huge obstacles remain

Before Trump and co start celebrating with the news that the US and the Taliban have agreed a framework peace formula there remains a grave danger that it will still all go wrong. And what if there is a long-term deal? What will it mean for the people of Afghanistan, especially women who have nightmare memories of life under the Taliban when the militants were in power in Kabul? How many concessions will have to be made with the black-turbaned insurgents and can they ever be trusted? Under the framework agreement the Taliban have already won their first big concession from the Americans. The US will agree to a timetable to withdraw all troops, in return for the Taliban promising never again to give sanctuary to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. This is more important to the US than anything else. The presence of al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, and hundreds of fighters living and training in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban was the reason for the US-led invasion in 2001, post the 9/11 terrorist attacks in America. But al-Qaeda still exists to this day in Afghanistan, albeit in much smaller numbers. And then there is the relatively new presence of Isis militants also in the country. Who will be responsible for eliminating them if the US withdraws all troops? The Taliban? They have clashed with Isis in northern Afghanistan but will they take over the role from the US of ensuring Isis is prevented from plotting bomb attacks in the West from their refuges in Afghanistan? I think not. The Pentagon would argue that even if the majority of US troops are withdrawn - currently about 14,000 - a force of counter-terrorist special operations units would have to stay to keep monitoring and attacking Isis and al-Qaeda elements. But the Taliban will never allow this, not if they agree to a peace deal that stops the war in Afghanistan after 17 years. They have always made clear they want ALL foreign troops out of Afghanistan. Still, the announcement of a framework peace deal - a long way from being a final settlement - is encouraging and may at last be a sign that the Taliban are as fed up with the war as the Americans and other coalition partners are. The Taliban's new chief negotiator is Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar who is a legendary figure in the insurgency. He is one of the founding members of the Taliban and was a trusted associate of the late Mullah Mohammed Omar, the original leader of the Taliban when it was set up in 1994. He is also a veteran fighter and commander and is respected throughout the insurgency movement. His appointment as chief negotiator for the talks with the Americans is another encouraging sign. The US team is headed by Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-born American diplomat who was appointed as Trump's special adviser on reconciliation in Afghanistan. Khalilzad has decades of experience in dealing with the world's toughest problems, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he and Mullah Baradar can sort out a deal if anyone can. But the future talks are still fraught with dangers. The two biggest stumbling blocks are that the Taliban refuse to consider a ceasefire until all US troops have left and will not talk to the Afghan government because they regard the Kabul administration as a puppet organisation of the Americans. The US negotiators cannot give ground on either of these Taliban demands. The Taliban will have to deal with President Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan president, and they will have to stop the killings and bombings and shootings and intimidation BEFORE the last US soldier has left. So it's very early days. But at least there is a sense of optimism following six days of talks between Khalilzad and the Taliban in Doha, capital of Qatar.

Donald Trump is not going to be reelected

Donald Trump is going to have to face up to the possibility that he will fail to win reelection in 2020. It's looking more and more likely that a revolt within the Republican Party as well as the change in fortune for the Democratic Party following the success of Nancy Pelosi in defeating the president in the shutdown drama, will mean the end of the Trump administration in 2020, not the beginning of another four years. Who would have thought it only a few months ago when Trump seemed to be enjoying good economic news and potential foreign policy successes. Now, the Syria story has gone crazy with his decision to pull out US troops, Afghanistan is still awash with Taliban massacres of Afghan troops (peace? What peace?), the 35-day government shutdown has ended very badly for him, a lot of people, supporters included, are turning against him, and the Russian collusion investigation is getting more and more serious and closer and closer to the president himself. What chances are there for Trump to turn this all around to put himself ahead of the campaign game for 2020? If he fails to get his money for the Mexico wall and even hints at another shutdown, there will be total disillusion within the Republican Party and even a plot to find a new candidate for 2020. That really would be the ultimate humiliation for Trump. I never thought I'd say this, but the Democrats will probably have a better chance of winning the 2020 election if Trump IS the Republican candidate as the incumbent president. Meanwhile, the next few weeks in Washington promise to be lively. The deadline for another potential shutdown will be here before we know it, and if there is no concession from Nancy Pelosi on border wall funding, Trump's presidency is going to go into free fall. It's bizarre but his administration may now rest on successes overseas. So a huge breakthrough with Kim Jong-un, the North Korea leader, for example, would help the Trump cause. But that, I predict, is unlikely to happen. Or a peace settlement with the Taliban followed by the withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan would be a big bonus for his political fortunes. But, again, that's probably pie in the sky. A peace-loving Taliban is an oxymoron. In my view, and experience. So this year is going to be the defining period of Trump's presidency. If things continue to go against him throughout 2019, 2020 could be a lame duck year for him before he leaves the White House for ever.

One of Trump's worst weeks

Donald Trump has suffered some pretty bad periods in his two-year presidency. But this last week has probably been the worst. Not only was he forced to surrender and agree to end the government shutdown without any promise of money for his cherished border wall, but he was attacked by his most conservative supporters who accused him of being weak, AND a key player in the Trump presidential campaign, Roger Stone, was arrested and indicted for allegedly dodgy links with Russians and WikiLeaks as part of the Russia collusion investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. Stone was a close associate of Trump's and if he is convicted of some deal with WikiLeaks involving the leak of emails about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party which had been stolen/hacked by Russians, it is bound to be bad news for the president's own survival. The White House summarily dismissed the Stone arrest as having nothing to do with the Trump administration. But who's kidding? I bet Trump himself is not feeling remotely sanguine about his old friend's indictment. But his worst moment came when he had to declare that he, after all, was going to sign the federal budget so all the 800,000 workers who had been on unpaid furlough could get their back pay. Whatever way you look at this, it was the one thing he had pledged he wasn't going to do, UNLESS he got his $5.7 billion for the border wall. But then there he was agreeing to do the opposite. He got nothing for his surrender except political humiliation. It's tough being president, Mr President, even when you think you are the cleverest and smartest person in town. He was outmanouevred by Nancy Pelosi, and even though Trump has threatened to return to his border wall demands over the next three weeks he is not going to get the money he needs. If he then declares a national emergency or forces another shutdown he will become one of the most unpopular presidents in US history. How he will hate that! The irony is that during the 35-day shutdown the US economy lost $6 billion, the same amount Trump wanted for his wall. What a cruel world it is but in the game of politics, there are very few happy days. None at all for Donald Trump.

The Queen says let's all be nice to each other

Such a rumpus has been caused by a little speech given by Her Majesty The Queen at the Sandringham Women's Institute. She basically called on everyone to be nice to each other and to respect each other's views. Well, you would have thought she had said, "Down with my government, down with Trump and go to hell Brexit!" She didn't say anything like that but all the know-all commentators have claimed the Queen seriously breached royal protocol - ie rules - by appealing for a compromise on Brexit so we can all get on with our nice lives. Some commentators, one in particular, said the Queen was wrong wrong wrong. For speaking out at all and for hinting that compromise on Brexit was the right thing to do. What poppycock!! The Queen, first of all, didn't mention Brexit. She may have been thinking Brexit in her mind and why not. But what she actually said was, "hey let's do it the old-fashioned way and be calm and gentle". The Queen is the most stabilising person in the whole of the United Kingdom, people like to hear her views. She is not supposed to get involved in politics, but she IS entitled to put across her views about life and how we should all behave. She has been Queen since 1952 and knows more about how British prime ministers go about their business than anyone in the universe. I personally would love to know everything she thinks about Brexit, to hell with royal protocol. But to accuse her of some sort of treason for hinting at her Brexit views is just rude and rubbish. Here is actually what she said: "As we look for new answers in the modern age, I for one prefer the tried and tested recipes like speaking well of each other and respecting different points of view; coming together to seek out the common ground; and never losing sight of the bigger picture. To me these approaches are timeless and I commend them to everyone." Well said, Queenie. OK she may have had Brexit in mind when she made the remarks. I bet she did because like everyone else in this country she must be fed up to the teeth with all the MPs and the Cabinet rowing against each other and not being sensible and getting Brexit sorted out with everyone involved. This is about the future of this country. Surely what the Queen said is what the head of state should say. She could have said "Stop bickering and get this fixed once and for all". But all she said was sometimes the old ways work best. I can't stand the pomposity of commentators who think they KNOW what the Queen was thinking. The only treason here is us lot interpreting what we think the Queen meant. I say, good for you Your Majesty and keep going. Perhaps you and only you can solve the Brexit problem for us all by just reminding the politicians to stop feuding and unselfishly do what's best for the nation and its future.

Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo are playing a dangerous game

The US president and his secretary of state have decided to play a high-risk game of challenge directed at Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela. Refusing to recognise him as the legitimate leader of Venezuela they have, therefore, ignored his demand that all American diplomats leave the country within 72 hours, after breaking off relations with the US. The diplomatic staff at the embassy in Caracas have been told to stay put and carry on as if Maduro doesn't exist. Trump and Pompeo are only dealing diplomatically with Juan Guiado, the president of the National Assembly and self-styled legitimate interim leader of Venezuela. In some ways it's strange that Trump has recognised Guiada as the only official leader he will talk to. It's a bit like if Maduro announced to the world that he no longer recognised Trump as president of the United States and would only handle bilateral state matters with Nancy Pelosi. Well, obviously the circumstances are totally different but I'm not sure how legal it is under international law for countries to recognise a leader who hasn't actually been voted The Leader, unless there is proof that in the recent presidential election in Venezuela which gave Maduro another six years the real winner by a margin was Juan Guaido. But the election was rigged, so it would be very difficult to prove one way or the other. Be that as it may, the fact is that the US and Canada and half a dozen countries in South America now recognise Guaido as the interim leader. So Pompeo has said that the US diplomats can stay in Venezuela because Guaido says they can. Well, as a symbolic snub to Maduro that's all well and fine. But Guaido does not head the Venezuelan armed forces and has no way of ensuring the safety and protection of the US embassy in Caracas. So the embassy staff are being used as part of the game of dare between Trump and Maduro. There are potential dangers here. It can never be forgotten what happened to the US diplomatic staff at the American consulate in Benghazi in Libya on September 11, 2012. Insufficiently protected by local guards, the visiting ambassador from Tripoli, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans were killed when the consulate was attacked by extremist jihadist militia. It was a scandal and tragedy of the highest order which caused a huge political outcry against President Obama and Hilary Clinton, his secretary of state. Caracas is a different scenario. But in the atmosphere of violence and repression that's going on in Caracas and elsewhere in the country, there can be no absolute guarantees that the US diplomats stuck in the middle of this dangerous political game will not be targeted. Mind you, if any of them were to be hurt or captured, I imagine Trump will order in the Marines. Maduro probably knows this.

Nicolas Maduro has all the instincts of a brutal dictator

Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have come out into the streets across the country in protest at the Maduro government whose economic mismanagement and brutal repression have destroyed a nation once rich in everything. Now Donald Trump has recognised Juan Guiado, the leader of the opposition, as the legitimate president because he is the head of the National Assembly. And Maduro has therefore broken off diplomatic relations with the US and told its diplomats to leave within 72 hours. Maduro, a former bus driver, has all the natural instincts of a brutal dictator. Ignoring the cries for help from his suffering people, he just hides in his palace and orders his military to suppress the demonstrators. Thanks to Maduro, Venezuela is now a basket case, just as Zimbabwe is still a basket case, first under the regime of Robert Mugabe and now under the continuing brutality of his successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa, known as The Crocodile. Both men will do everything they can to retain power. No surprise that the only foreign leader they turn to when things get difficult is Vladimir Putin. Both Maduro and The Crocodile have taken their begging bowls to Moscow and Putin has delivered. Three lovely men in the same club! Maduro's action against the United States will not change the appalling state of his country and the desperation of the Venezuelan people. They now know that Trump supports them and wants the opposition leader to take over. But what difference will it make? Unless the military suddenly turn against Maduro, this dictator will survive. But the military are the only ones who benefit from the Maduro regime. They get paid and they have food. The US isn't going to intervene militarily, so the brutal status quo will continue. If only Venezuela's neighbours had the courage to do something. Countries like Colombia, Chile and Peru have thousands of Venezuelan refugees living with them who have fled their homes to find safety and jobs. These countries have every reason to get together and force Maduro out of office. But it will never happen. Maduro has been "elected" for another six years and he intends to stay put.

The Favourite is favourite to win Oscars. You have to be joking.

Tired of Donald Trump and Theresa May and everything that goes with them, I shall take a brief diversion and focus on the Oscar nominations. Yet again the Academy has gone mad. In 2017 the Academy nominated La la Land on the Best Picture list after one of the biggest marketing hypes in the history of Hollywood. Like everyone else I went to see La La Land expecting an amazing cinema experience. It was fun, quite entertaining, fairly jolly, sweet in places and I like Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling. But Oscar material? Never. It was just an enjoyable film without knocking your socks off. In 2012, The Artist, a silent movie, won everything at the Oscars because and only because it was a celebration of Hollywood's silent movie era. I thought the film was boring. Quite cute but basically boring. NOT Oscar material for me. Now here we go again. The Favourite is running away with Oscar nominations, including best film. Have you seen it?!!! It's a pretty terrible film, the plot is all over the place, where it's understandable it's pointless and silly and sometimes boring. I am a fan of Olivia Coleman and Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone and all of them act very well, especially Rachel Weisz who is often stunning in her haughtiness. But some reviewers said the film was so funny there was a laugh a minute, and likened it to the classic 1980 disaster parody, Airplane! Oh please!! In the cinema I went to to see The Favourite there wasn't so much as a titter throughout the whole 121 minutes. Nothing was funny, except perhaps once when Emma Stone kneed a suitor in the lower region. But compare this dire film with Airplane! which was genuinely hilarious slapstick entertainment is an insult. The Favourite has more lesbianism in it than any film I have ever seen but that didn't make it funny. It was actually pretty gross. There is nothing in this film which merits consideration for an Oscar. The worst component was the music. For some of the film the music was just ordinary swingalong stuff but in two long passages the "music" consisted of a single drum beat followed by a single note from, I think, a cello, repeated again and again and again and again until I felt like shouting out "SHUT UP". The Favourite is probably my most unfavourite film of the last decade. Compare it with Bohemian Rhapsody which was slammed by many of the critics. Take it from me, the criticising critics, probably the same ones who praised The Favourite, don't know a good film when it is shoved under their noses. Bohemian Rhapsody is a joy of a film with awesome music and a stunning lead performance by Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury. I could see this film again and again. It deserves several Oscars, certainly for lead male actor. But the way things are, The Favourite will scoop up everything. Such drivel!!

Would you let Prince Philip drive you home?

The story about Prince Philip and his unfortunate car accident in which the female passenger of the other car involved broke her wrist took over the headlines last week, relieving us all of the endless Brexit drama. The Philip story is continuing if only because Buckingham Palace, despite learning the biggest lesson of its life when Princess Diana was killed in a car crash on August 31 1997, has still not got its public relations skills worked out properly. The Prince Philip crash is still being investigated by the police but the basic details are known. The Queen's 97-year-old husband emerged in his fancy Land Rover 4x4 from a side road onto the busy A149 not far from the Queen's Sandringham Estate and collided with a Kia travelling at an as yet undisclosed speed. But the result was dramatic. Prince Philip's car was flipped over and ended up on its side. All the fuss since then has been on how the Palace reacted to the accident. The woman with the broken wrist said she had received no apology, no flowers and no personal visit or telephone call from either Her Majesty the Queen or from Prince Philip. All she got was a message from the Palace via the police liaison officer saying that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh "would like to be remembered to you". Now you have to say that's a pretty odd message. "To be remembered to you". What exactly does that mean? Shouldn't there have been a little more caring and sympathy? Obviously their lawyers would have advised against a full apology because that would indicate acceptance of responsibility for being the cause of the crash. But even so, the wording could and should have been different. Who advised the Queen and her husband to use the "remember" word? Surely not a switched-on public relations official with even the most limited experience of how tabloid journalism works in this country. But the Palace is all about protocol. All words intended for public consumption have to be worked out with infinite care. Some senior flunkey in the Palace will have advised that "remembered" was better than, say, "condolence" or "hope you're ok" or "sorry about your injury" or "any time you're passing the Palace come in for tea". So the injured wrist woman felt hard done by and spoke to the Sunday Mirror which meant headlines in every other newspaper as well. Another lesson in PR for the Palace. In the case of Diana of course, the Queen stayed up at Balmoral while the whole country grieved and had to be persuaded by Tony Blair, then prime minister, to return to Buckingham Palace to see for herself the extraordinary outpouring of emotion of her subjects. The Philip crash is a tiny incident by comparison, but the lesson is the same.

Rudi Giuliani and Donald Trump deserve each other

Every time Rudi Giuliani speaks out as Donald Trump's lawyer he puts his size 10 feet into his mouth. I never know whether he is telling the truth, the real truth and nothing but the truth or whether he is just making it up as he goes along. He and his client, the president of the United States, deserve each other. They speak in the same careless way, saying one thing one day and changing it another. This weekend Giuliani was all over the television chat shows, dismissing the claim that Trump had ordered his former lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the timing of discussions with the Russians about building a Trump Tower in Moscow. Giuliani, a former heaven-help-us Republican presidential candidate, then came out with a blockbuster admission. He said discussions about building a Trump Tower had carried on until October or November 2016! Polling day for the presidential election in 2016 was November 8. So was the Moscow project live on the day Trump was elected president? Michael Cohen initially told a closed-door session of Congress that the talks had ended in January 2016 but then during conversations with Robert Mueller, the special counsel, he admitted they might have continued until June. Now here is Giuliani saying, well actually the Trump Tower project was still under discussion with the Russians in late 2016, by which time Trump was in the final stage of his presidential election campaign. But the big question is, was Trump himself involved or did he leave it all to Cohen without checking how things were going? Giuliani was adamant that it was Cohen talking to the Russians in October/November; and Trump himself said some time ago he had nothing to do with the discussions because he was by then heavily involved in campaigning for the presidency. But where did Giuliani get his facts from? He clearly didn't talk to Cohen because he's in jail, serving three years. So he must have spoken to Trump and asked him whether he could remember when the talks with the Russians stopped. Robert Mueller must have watched Giuliani on TV with an open mouth, probably turning to his wife and saying "but but but..." Only a few days ago Mueller did something he has never done. He got his spokesman to say that the BuzzFeed newspaper website story claiming Trump had ordered Cohen to lie to Congress was "not accurate". I assume he did this because Cohen had never said at any point, "Oh and Trump told me to lie to Congress about the timing of the discussions with Moscow about the Trump Tower project". Mueller must have believed Cohen because rubbishing a media allegation is pretty dodgy unless you are absolutely sure of your ground. BuzzFeed said their story was based on two law enforcement sources involved in the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Mueller effectively said these two sources were wrong. So, one up for Trump and bad news for Buzzfeed. But then Giuliani stirs the pot once again, as he always does, by admitting the Russian talks went on for much longer than had previously been admitted by Cohen or anyone. What are we to make of this? Who knew at the time that there were still discussions going on with the Russians about a Trump Tower in October or November 2016? Did Trump know? Was it just Cohen? Did he or did he not whisper in Trump's ear as he campaigned for the presidency: "Mr Soon-To-Be President, Moscow is pretty keen for this wonderful hotel. What shall I tell them?" Whenever asked, Trump has always dismissed the Moscow project as nothing really serious, just an idea, and he decided to scrap it all anyway. So no big deal, in fact no deal at all! But Giuliani's confession on TV says otherwise. If it was such a non-event, why were talks still going on in November 2016? Why, Mr Giuliani? Why, Mr Trump?

UK is heading for a no-deal Brexit disaster

You get the impression that Theresa May is so fed up with being tossed out of the window with her Brexit deal that in revenge she is heading the country towards the harshest of all exits - no deal with Brussels. For some reason I simply can't understand why she refuses to rule out the no-deal option, even though the vast majority of MPs don't want it, the whole of the rest of the EU doesn't want it and most people with brains don't want it. But Theresa more than anything else in this world wants HER Brexit deal to be approved and because of that she is trying to force Parliament to choose between her deal or no deal. It's total blackmail. All these last-minute cross-party discussions and phone calls to EU leaders are about tinkering with HER deal. Most people are saying her deal is dead but not in Theresa's mind. She wants the basic structure and content of her deal to survive with bits and pieces added or subtracted to get it through Parliament. Or else it's no deal. It's definitely blackmail politics. She is also playing the deadline game. In her head she has March 29 fixed for good as the day the UK leaves the EU. She could ask for an extension but she is not going to because she said all along that come what may we will leave the EU on March 29. She is taking the future of this country of mine to the ropes. There will be no more rounds, no more toing and froing to Brussels. March 29 is IT. Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader and would-be prime minister, is so alarmed at this approach that he has refused to take part in her offer of talks unless she rules out a no-deal Brexit. But of course she won't do that because then she loses her main bargaining chip: My deal or no deal. If she sticks with this policy she probably believes that MPs will finally approve her deal with the few extra assurances that will probably be fairly meaningless. It's outrageous but it might just work. But it's truly risky and could finally bring down her premiership.

Pelosi is grounded by Trump

Oh the pleasure it must have given Donald Trump when he wrote to Nancy Pelosi and told her she couldn't use a military plane to take her on her planned trip to Brussels, Egypt and Afghanistan. I bet he high-fived himself when he wrote the letter. What a way to get back at his Enemy Number 1. Sorry, Nancy, you're grounded. Normally she and her Congressional colleagues would have swanned off in a Pentagon-provided VIP C-32 or C-40 transport plane beautifully outfitted to take cabinet members, military chefs or top Congressional leaders on foreign trips. But Trump decided Pelosi had no right to taxpayer-funded aircraft as she continued to refuse to give him the $5.7 billion he wants for his Mexico wall. He told Pelosi she could go on a commercial plane at her expense if she wanted. But Trump was also indicating she should be in Washington trying to resolve the government shutdown. If Pelosi is now forced to cancel the trip, I can guarantee there will be a whole lot of people who will be mightily relieved. I'm referring to the poor military guys in Kabul who have to devote their valuable time to entertaining, hosting and endlessly briefing visitors on a regular basis. Having a bunch of members from Congress, all with their know-it-all comments about what to do about Afghanistan can be a nightmare. Especially in dealing with the security for the visit. It involves hundreds of troops and armed private contractors to keep them safe. Pelosi will be furious and will hate Trump even more than she does already. But Trump? He will be laughing his head off. It won't help the shutdown situation of course. That has now been running for 28 days and shows no sign of ending. Neither side in this battle of egos is prepared to back down. Pelosi I'm sure will even now be planning her revenge against the president for spoiling her foreign trip.

Pelosi raises the option of postponing Trump's State of the Union address

Nancy Pelosi has raised the stakes in her battle with Donald Trump over the government partial shutdown. She has written a letter to the president suggesting it's too risky to hold the annual State of the Union address on January 29 because of insufficient security staff available to keep the Capitol safe. Wow! She must be a fan of the television drama, Designated Survivor, which starts off with the Capitol building being blown up by terrorist bombs during the State of the Union, killing the president, the vice president and every member of the cabinet and Congress and Supreme Court. Except the housing minister, who was not allowed to attend the State of the Union occasion because he had been selected to become president in the event of a catastrophe killing the president and all those authorised under the constitution to succeed him in such circumstances. For the State of the Union on January 29, anyone who is anyone will be there, including the service chiefs and, of course the whole of Congress. Only one member of the House of Representatives and one member of the cabinet will be absent, just in case of an attack. Nancy Pelosi says that with the partial shutdown now in its fourth week it would be unsafe to let the State of the Union take place on January 29, unless the shutdown is lifted. The responsibility for securing the Capitol for this annual event is down to the Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service. But for an occasion like this it seems highly unlikely that Homeland Security and the Secret Service will be unable or unwilling to provide the necessary staff even without pay. The Secret Service is carrying out its normal duties anyway. So I think Pelosi is just trying to turn the political screw a little tighter. On the other hand, it could be argued that the president should not address the nation when his government is partially forced into furlough. Perhaps Pelosi and Trump should set a deadline, fix the shutdown/wall argument by January 28!

Theresa May cannot and will not drop the basics of her Brexit deal

After two years of negotiations - of blood, sweat and tears, as Winston Churchill said of the war with Nazi Germany - Theresa May just cannot contemplate giving up her Brexit deal. She has decisively lost the vote in the House of Commons but she is still hanging on to her deal as the best way forward for the UK and will only be prepared to soften its edges, not its fundamental core. Although this is based on the conviction that what she has negotiated is the best for the country, someone has to tell her: "Prime Minister, your deal has been thrown over the cliff, there is no May deal anymore. No one wants it." The trouble with this argument which I guess is true, is that no one has come up with an obviously better solution. "Let the UK stay in the EU customs union, then we might be on your side," shouts Labour. Ok, but Mrs May will argue, this is not what the people of this country voted for. They voted by a small but significant majority to leave the EU. Does staying in the customs union honour that referendum vote? No. Mrs May who voted to remain in the EU clearly feels, as prime minister, duty bound to give the majority of the voters exactly what they wanted. Ah, but here's the loophole in her conviction. The people who voted to leave the EU did so because given the choice courtesy of David Cameron, Mrs May's predecessor, they just couldn't vote FOR the EU. For a number of reasons. One was immigration and the free movement of labour throughout the EU resulting in the UK being the favourite EU country for Poles, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Czechs and Romanians. Another was EU bureaucracy. Another was all the money the UK seemed to be sending over to Brussels. Another was the shape of EU bananas etc etc. So they voted Leave because they thought, "we don't need all those money-wasting European civil servants and politicians telling us what to do." What they didn't know or take into account were the full implications of leaving the EU. The Northern Ireland backstop was not something they had heard of, let alone understood. They had some sort of idea that if we left the EU it would be back to Rule Britannia, back to some form of greatness in which we could survive much much better in this new globalised world. And, thanks to false promises offered by Brexiteers, they were told that leaving the EU would save us huge amounts of money which we could then spend on the National Health Service and other socially important programmes. It was all lies and deliberate deception. So the idea that Theresa May is sticking with her Brexit deal because she thinks she is being faithful to the referendum voters is simply no longer valid. Since the referendum in 2016 we have all changed, we all know better what leaving the EU means, and maybe, maybe, some of the Leavers have become Remainers. Either way, Mrs May should be prepared to move from her stubborn position and acknowledge that the UK and its people are different now, and closer ties with the EU would be acceptable. The trouble is, would a second referendum, a second people's vote, provide the answers? I fear not. As I have said before, it could make the whole issue even more confusing. But what other alternative is there? Certainly not a snap general election. We have already had one of those and it was a disaster for the May government, and for the country. WHAT A MESS!!

The challenge of being Trump's secretary of state

Mike Pompeo, the well filled-out US secretary of state, has returned from his Middle East travels probably somewhat confused. His mission had been to get everyone on board the president's strategy for withdrawing all US troops from Syria while still fighting Isis and keeping the Kurds safe, and the Turks happy. Not an easy combination of ingredients since, on face value, they all seem to cancel each other out. But Pompeo, as a former director of the CIA and with a good political head on his shoulders, probably thought that his large presence in various capitals in the Middle East would help to calm everyone down. But for that to happen, it was imperative that his boss back in the White House focused all his attention on the government shutdown and leave all foreign matters to his secretary of state while he was away. But of course that didn't happen. First of all Trump very helpfully tweeted hat he would "devastate" Turkey's economy if President Erdogan harmed one hair of America's trusty Kurdish allies in northern Syria. What that meant was a little unclear and when Pompeo was asked about it, he drew himself up to his full height and suggested the reporter ask the question of the president but assumed, thinking on his feet, that Trump had in mind sanctions or something. Then he continued on his travels. The president wasn't finished. He rang Erdogan for a chat and came up with a totally different scenario. He agreed that the best thing for the Kurds in Syria and Turkey's worries about Kurdish terrorism against its country was to have a 20-mile security buffer zone set up, a sort of demilitarised zone keeping the Kurds of the Syrian Democratic Forces well away from the Turkish border. Problem solved. And in return Trump promised wonderful new trade deals with Turkey, thus boosting not devastating the Turkish economy. All this was tweeted, with Trump making it sound like, at a stroke, he had solved the problem all by himself, never mind his secretary of state. I bet Pompeo got no advance warning of this plan. Otherwise he would have raised it during his Middle East travels. Who is going to enforce this security zone in northern Syria isn't clear. Presumably not by US troops because they are beginning to withdraw. But for the moment Trump has managed to delay a Turkish army invasion of northern Syria and the attempted annihilation of the Kurds. All without any apparent input from Pompeo. There's no point in Pompeo going to the White House and saying to Trump, "Hey, Mr President, thanks a bunch for making my job impossible, what the .... is going on?" Trump would just reply, "I decided the only person who can do anything around here is me, so don't come whingeing to me. Have a McDonald's Big Mac, I've got dozens left over from yesterday (from the fast-food meal offered to the visiting Clemson Tigers from South Carolina)." Pompeo has no alternative but to keep his mouth shut if he wants to keep his job.

May Brexit or no Brexit, Leave or Remain, Survival or Disaster?

It is impossible to overestimate the potential disasters, economic, social and political, that await the United Kingdom tomorrow. There are so many plots and counter-plots going on inside and outside the Houses of Parliament that reading about them all in the newspapers and hearing them on television and on the radio is like entering a dark world in which everyone is conspiring against each other. No one can be believed. No one can be trusted. Everyone in the politics business is scheming. There are plotting cabals all over the place. If Theresa May astonishes everyone and actually wins her vote on her Brexit deal which must have odds of about 150-1, the country will still be as divided as ever but there will be an agreed legal framework passed by Parliament, and the UK will leave the EU on March 29 based on the 580-page negotiated fix achieved by the prime minister. If she loses by a considerable margin which must be odds of, say, 6-4, then all the plotters and conspirators will leap in to fill the gap. There will be a mad rush of MPs of all varieties attempting to put their spin on the result and to put forward their answer to the problem. There are so many twists and turns and different alternatives to the May vision that the ordinary voters worried about their future, their savings, their children and their survival that it will just not be possible to explain to any of them what will be best for them. After two years of the Brexit negotiations and all the claims and counter-claims none of us have a clue what it's about anymore. Back-stop, Norway plus, Canada plus plus, World Trade not EU Trade, customs union, single market, free movement of labour, all the well-worn words and phrases are now just a kaleidoscope of meaningful but meaningless jargon. On top of all that there is the small matter of Theresa May's future. Does she survive or resign? Does the Conservative government survive or fall? Does Jeremy Corbyn get the general election which is all he wants? Do we get a second referendum to muddy the waters even further etc etc? Tomorrow when MPs vote for or against the May Brexit deal is truly going to be a momentous day in the UK's history. My prediction? Mrs May will fail to get enough votes but she will refuse to step down. Jeremy Corbyn will lose the vote of no confidence in the government. So there will be no general election. There will be no second referendum on the EU. The EU, shocked by the result, will step in to prevent a no-deal exit and will offer more talks, with an extension to the March 29 cut-off deadline, and a suggestion that the way forward is Norway plus plus, in other words, an associated membership status for the UK in which this country will benefit from the EU customs union and the single market but have only an honorary but not voting arrangement for all EU decision-making that affects the UK. An extension to the March 29 exit will be agreed by the UK Parliament and the negotiations will begin all over again. No one will be happy, many will be outraged, there will be a move to force May to step down as leader. But she will survive against all the odds. Voila!

Nancy Pelosi has to stop being arrogant and start working with Trump

After 23 days of the US government shutdown there seems to be no way out of the political impasse. It’s no longer about border security or illegal immigration or drug smuggling or countering terrorism or budget approvals. It’s about one thing and one thing only and it had to come to this point at some stage. It’s solely abut Trump. Everything is about Trump. Actually it was pretty well always abut Trump. The Wall was just a symbol of Trumpism. So no wonder there is no way out. Trump is a unique phenomenon in American history. You either love him or hate him. The Democrats hate him ad despise him and think he is not worthy of being president. You never heard Democrats saying that abut President George W Bush or President George HW Bush or President Ronald Reagan. Trump is different. He is the most politically and socially divisive president of the last four decades but also has a firm foundation of committed supporters who want him to honour all the pledges he made in his election campaign and they will not accept or expect failure on the president’s part. So ever since he was elected, this gridlock the US s now suffering was inevitable. If the Democrats deep down respected Trump despite their dislike of him, they might be prepared to consider compromise. But Nancy Pelosi , the Speaker of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, and Chuck Schumer, the Minority Leader of the Senate, cannot do business with Trump because they have made it abundantly clear they can’t stand him. This is a shocking state of affairs. Both Trump and Pelosi are at fault. Trump, because he believes he has a divine right to do what he wants and hates anyone getting in his way; and Pelosi, because politics is about compromise and it is arrogant of her to say “no” to the president when he simply asked, “Will you provide the money I want for border security?” She knows that The Wall was one of his main election pledges which helped him become president . So as a Democrat she should understand that if democracy is to work in the United States the incumbent president should be allowed to fulfil the mandate which brought him to the White House. I realise in this world that may sound a little naive. But I believe it to be true. So she needs to get off her high horse and think of clever ways of getting round the blockage and coming up with a compromise of some sort. I think if she does produce a solution it will enhance her reputation and the prospects of a Democrat unseating Trump in the 2020 election. But if she remains adamantly opposed to any form of give-and-take relationship with Trump, she will be doomed as Speaker, the Democrats will be doomed in the 2020 election and Trump will win a second term.

Who is in charge of the US Syria strategy?

The US policy on Syria is about as clear as the water in the Dead Sea. One minute Trump is in charge, ordering all 2,000 US troops to get out of Syria within 30 days. Then a worried Senator Lindsay Graham has lunch with Trump in the White House and comes out smiling, saying that the president didn't really mean 30 days and the withdrawal would be slowed until the time and conditions were right. Then Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, Trump's two heavyweight officials, stepped in and said none of the troops would be withdrawn until Isis had been fully defeated and America's Kurdish allies in Syria had been given a promise by Turkey that they wouldn't face annihilation by the Turkish army once the American military had gone. Now for heaven's sake it has been confirmed by official US defence spokesmen that the withdrawal process has begun!! Never mind that Turkish leader President Erdogan refused to guarantee any safe passage for the Kurds. What the hell is going on? Has Trump given a straight order to the Pentagon, "start withdrawing from Syria immediately or else you can pay for the construction of my Mexico border wall". Whatever conversations were had, the Pentagon has jumped and the process has started. How long will it take? Will it be weeks or months? And what about the loyal British and French special fores troops who have been serving alongside the Americans? They will be left in a highly dangerous situation. Britain and France have said they will stay in Syria. But there are only a few of them, perhaps 100 French troops and maybe only 50 or so Brits. They need US back-up. Did Trump tell Bolton about Operation Withdrawal NOW when he sent him off to Israel and Turkey to give reassuring sounds about US continuing commitment to fighting Isis in Syria and protecting the Kurds? And what about Pompeo's ridiculous vow to eliminate every Iranian boot on the ground in Syria? This was only yesterday when a US warship was already on its way to begin the withdrawal process. What a farce, a dangerous farce.

Will Trump make The Wall a national emergency?

Will Donald Trump leap to his last resort and declare a national emergency to build his wall? I think he is sorely tempted if only to set down his marker with Nancy Pelosi. Whether he has proper legal and constitutional grounds for doing so remains a point of debate. But as the president and commander-in-chief he could argue that it is his firm belief that national security is at risk and therefore a wall is the only way of protecting the country from foreign marauders! It would be a tricky one for the high court or the appeal court or Supreme Court to argue against unless those opposed to it could prove that there is no such risk and that the president is making it all up for political reasons. But under the US constitution, the status of the president has some weight to it. He has executive rights. So if he goes down this route he might well succeed. But then he has to find the money from somewhere which doesn't require Congressional approval. The Pentagon is the obvious choice because it could be argued that if the Mexico border without a new wall is posing a threat to the security of the United States, then payment for and construction of a barrier/wall should be carried out by the military. This bit of the argument is probably more difficult to justify than having Trump override Congress by declaring a national emergency. But fortunately for the president, he now has an acting defence secretary who I guess is desperately keen to be nominated as the permanent Pentagon chief, in which case Patrick Shanahan will be more than amenable to providing funds for the construction of the wall from the defence budget. The service chiefs will NOT be happy, but as he is their boss, they will have to do whatever he says. Trump must be pretty pleased Jim Mattis stepped down when he did, because he, I think, would have kicked up a fuss. So, Nancy Pelosi, unless you can start thinking of a possible compromise solution that will keep Trump happy, a national emergency may be on the cards quite soon. I think it's going to happen!

Oh my goodness Trump sounded reasonable

Donald Trump has already won plaudits for sounding like a grown-up when he addressed the nation from the Oval Office. Instead of the much-anticipated rant against the Democrats and loads of wild statements about the United States being invaded by robbers, rapists and terrorists across the Mexico border, he laid out a reasonable argument for The Wall, and pointed out that until he turned up as president the Democrats had been all for a stronger barrier across the border. I'm not sure Nancy Pelosi and her sidekick, Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader, listened properly to Trump's address because they came across as stubborn and unrelenting in their opposition to The Wall rather than tell the voters that the Democrats would do everything in their power to get some sort of compromise deal on the table so that the 800,000 federal workers could get paid once again. They had no Plan B, other than rejecting the Trump proposal out of hand. That may be harsh politics at play here but I doubt whether it was the sensible approach to take. Pelosi says The Wall is immoral which is a strange adjective to choose, and doesn't really bear scrutiny. Unaffordable, unnecessary, a waste of money. She could have chosen these sort of words but the overall impression from their joint address in answering the president was that they are never going to let Trump build any sort of wall or barrier or fence on their watch. Whether The Wall has any sort of merit it's difficult to say. I doubt that the flow of heroin going into the US from Mexico will be reduced if there's a 30ft wall in the way on the border. The vast percentage of the heroin comes over the border by truck or other vehicle or by plane or by boat. So that's not a good justification for spending taxpayers' money on constructing a wall or barrier. But it's probably true to say that a 1,000-mile 30ft wall/steel barrier along the border would have an impact on the volume of illegal immigrants trying to break into the US of A. It would be a statement from the White House that says, "we don't want you unless you are a genuine refugee/asylum seeker". The UK has its own wall fr this very purpose. It's called the English Channel. Trump's reasonable tone and his emphasis on welcoming proper immigrants to his country gave him the edge on the night while Pelosi and Schumer just looked like tired politicians with nothing positive to say. Well well well.

The Wall for Trump is like Brexit for Theresa May - a disaster. See:

Trump's biggest and most extreme supporters are right by his side in his fight to protect the United States of America from the world's baddies by building a heck of a large wall/barrier along the border with Mexico. But how about the hundreds of thousands of people who are not earning any money because of the government shutdown, and the shopkeepers who aren't able to sell their goods because no one has money to go shopping and the petrol/gas stations that aren't selling petrol/gas etc etc? Soon there will come a point of diminishing return for Donald Trump when praise for his stand against the Democrats in the House of Representatives over the Mexico wall will turn to pure anger over the president's intransigence and seeming uncaring attitude towards the federal workers who are not being paid. It's into the third week and still no sign of any income for the near-million workers and their families. Trump is going over the heads of Congress and appealing to the people tonight when he addresses the nation but I suspect his words will not be soothing. They will be cantankerous and will lead to further division. And still no wall. The trouble is, both Trump and the Nancy Pelosi-led Democrats in the House have put themselves into a corner from which there is no obvious exit. One or other has to give way but there is too much at stake for either to budge an inch. So the federal workers and all the communities which are now suffering have the prospect of weeks and weeks of political gridlock. Who will be blamed, Pelosi or Trump? Trump is the most powerful person in the US - theoretically - but Pelosi has the power to outmanoeuvre him and force him to surrender. The Wall is to Trump what Brexit is to Theresa May. Any way you look at it, it's a disaster for the two countries they lead.

US airstrikes against Isis in Syria carry on regardless

In all the hoo-ha about Trump's decision to withdraw all 2,000 American troops from Syria within 30 days - and his subsequent rowing back from that bald statement - US airstrikes from Incirlik in Turkey have been carrying on as if nothing had happened. It's one of the bizarre ingredients of Trump's foreign and security policy. It's all about bold and bald statements, mostly by Twitter, that set a new White House position but without any pre-planning by which particular government department is going to be affected. Thus, the Pentagon had not been preparing to withdraw all troops from Syria. But as soon as Trump made his announcement, that's what they were supposed to do. We all know what happened next. Jim Mattis resigned as defence secretary and all was confusion. And now we have another new position, as outlined by John Bolton, national security adviser, during a trip to Israel. He said the troops would not be withdrawn just like that but would go once Isis had finally been defeated, and Turkey had promised not to attack the US-trained and funded Kurds fighting Isis in Syria. So, sort of back to square one. Meanwhile the guys running the air campaign from US Central Command forward HQ in Qatar had apparently received no new orders, so they plugged away, selecting targets and bombing on a daily basis, never mind all the political nonsense in Washington. Over this last weekend there were raids on Isis media/propaganda sites. US commanders said these sites were crucial to destroying Isis because the fanatics spent a huge amount of time blasting out propaganda to encourage new recruits. So, bombs away. I don't think Trump ever mentioned airstrikes. Perhaps he had forgotten about them. But actually, while the 2,000 US troops have played a very helpful role in guiding the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces to fight Isis, the real damage has come from the daily airstrikes and from artillery strikes, also operated by US troops. Take these two components away and Isis really will be cheering...and recruiting. Please take note, Mr President.

Trump loses his rag

Reports coming out of the session Donald Trump had with Congressional leaders at the White House over government funding and The Wall suggest the president lost his rag. He was said to have used the 'f' word on a number of occasions, indicating that he is getting increasingly angry at the Democrats' refusal to give him the $5 billion he wants for his Mexico wall. According to the New York Times, Trump hasn't managed to extend the existing security barrier along the border by an inch since becoming president. Which is petty embarrassing for him, as The Wall was one of his biggest pledges during his election campaign. So that means, assuming it's true, that all the work carried out by the US Army Corps of Engineers has just involved strengthening and heightening the existing security barriers which apparently run for 654 miles. But these barriers are an assortment of different sizes, some of which are considered inadequate for stopping ingenious illegal immigrants. Trump wants a brand new wall, based on a prototype already designed and ready to buy, to run for at least 1,000 miles along the southern border. So $5 billion is just a spit in the ocean. But at this stage it's all symbolic. Once he gets the Democrats to hand over the first $5 billion it will make it easier for him to go back and ask for more. The Democrats of course know this and are digging in, refusing to listen to Trump's pleas. So that's why, I guess, the president resorted to the 'f' word to emphasise his displeasure. I doubt Nancy Pelosi was impressed. She certainly wasn't cowed by his outburst. She is determined not to give in. Then up pops Mick Mulvaney, the new go-to White House chief of staff, during one of the dreadful Sunday TV chat shows today and indicates Trump might be ready to compromise in order to lift the government shutdown. I don't know whether that was Mulvaney doing a bit of ad-libbing or whether Trump had told him to say it. But certainly during his 'f' word meeting at the White House Trump offered no hint of a compromise. He wants that wall to be well on the way before he starts his reelection campaign. And if the Democrats fail to provide the funding I suspect there are going to be a lot more 'f' word rows.

Was Paul Whelan, ex-US Marine, really a spy?

My Times story that got subbed down. Here's the full version: RUSSIA's claim it had caught an American/British spy red-handed receiving sensitive information on a flash drive in a hotel in Moscow was derided by western intelligence and diplomatic experts yesterday. If Paul Whelan, ex-Marine, was a spy working for the CIA, he broke one of the golden rules of intelligence-gathering in Russia - never do secret business in a hotel room in Moscow, one espionage expert said. “Every hotel used by westerners in Moscow is wired for video and sound,” Rupert Allason, author of numerous books on intelligence and espionage, said. Both the CIA and Britain’s secret intelligence service (MI6) send the majority of their spies to Russia under diplomatic cover, to provide them with protection under the Geneva Convention. However, there are exceptions. A former senior British diplomat who served in Moscow recalled the role played by the late Greville Wynne, a British businessman who worked for MI6 under the cover of his legitimate professional activities during the Cold War. The CIA’s directorate of operations has a highly secret organisation called the office of external development which runs spies under “non-official cover”. They’re known as “NOCs”. They are paid members of the CIA but work for businesses abroad or as lawyers or in academic institutions or even on occasions as journalists, operating without any obvious link to the US government. Only the chairman of the relevant company or organisation is in the know about these particular employees. However, Mr Allason who has written a book on Russia’s use of “illegals” – Russian spies living and working undercover in normal jobs with false identities – said Paul Whelan could not have been employed by the CIA’s office of external development. “He was court-martialed as a Marine on charges of dishonesty which would have excluded him from ever being accepted by the CIA,” he said. Edward Price, a former CIA officer, also doubted Mr Whelan was a paid-up spy of the United States. “By detaining this American and charging him, the Russians are implicitly making the claim that he is a US intelligence officer working under what’s known as'non-official cover'," he said, adding, "in other words, he’s an operative who doesn’t purport to work for the US government. There are two traits in this individual’s background that make that claim highly implausible: he's a retired Marine. That’s important because the concept of non-official cover is predicated on the idea that NOCs have no known ties to the US government. That’s what allows them to do their job effectively and, if all goes according to plan, without detection." Mr Price went on: "But Paul Whelan served his country in uniform for some 15 years and in a fairly prominent way. He’s even quoted in military publications. That is about as far from the traditional NOC profile as one could get." Mr Price who resigned from the CIA after President Trump took over, said: "Whelan left the Marines with a bad conduct discharge and was court-martialed on various charges. Even if we were to set aside our scepticism on the first count, this fact makes any US government affiliation all the more dubious." "On the other hand, his profile does fit that of someone whom the Russians would detain if they wanted to secure a bargaining chip in the Maria Butina case (the Russian woman jailed for espionage in the US). They surely know that Trump would like nothing more than to boast about securing the release of a veteran. Additionally, I have no doubt they came across his pro-Trump statements on his social media page, something they have to know would reach Trump’s desk, too," he said. Mr Price went on: "We currently have a president who has openly entertained the idea of handing over private US citizens for questioning by Russian officials. That includes Ambassador Michael McFaul (a former US ambassador to Moscow). But Whelan's profile is befitting of someone whom the Russians would deem worthy of Trump making a deal. And the deal in this case may be a swap for Butina." Mr Price said a swap would send "a terrible message - that any private American can be arrested on baseless charges and released only in return for Russian agents, who were acting against our national interest. But, sadly, Trump and Putin’s interests are aligned in this case. Putin obviously wants her back, and the Trump administration would love nothing more than to avoid additional details of her infiltration of the US conservative movement, which could come at her next hearing next month". If not an approved and paid-up spy, could Mr Whelan have been acting as a freelance “agent”, providing intelligence on an ad hoc basis? His background as a court-martialed Marine would not have made him an obvious choice for such a role, Mr Allason said, unless he was perceived to have special access to certain Russian officials or companies. Nothing suggested he had such access, he said. The former senior British diplomat who served in Moscow said his instincts were that the Whelan case was a “tit-for-tat” operation by Russia to gain the release of Maria Butina.

General John Kelly slipped out of the White House front door

Generals don't normally like to retreat unless it's a strategic or tactical retreat. But General John Kelly, for 17 months Trump's White House chief of staff, had no alternative but to retreat into the background in his last days in the post and then, without any fanfare or farewell party, slip away into obscurity. The incoming acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, followed Kelly around wherever he went to watch him perform his duties and then just took over Kelly's office. Again without fanfare. When generals give up command of an operation, such as in Afghanistan or Europe or Central Command, there is always a big ceremony. The defence secretary turns up, sometimes even the president, and there are a lot of speeches and hugs and flags and bands and respect. Kelly had his share of such ceremonies when he was a four-star Marine Corps general but not this time. Did Trump shake his hand and give him a fond farewell and thank him for all his hard work? I doubt it. Kelly said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times that the work of a White House chief of staff was bone-crushing. Especially with a boss like Trump, although he didn't say that. He said he was up every day at 4am and never got home before 9pm, and even then there was still work to do. He has some serious sleep-ins ahead of him. But it is sad that he has left the White House without any form of ceremony. I know that's politics for you. But eventually Trump will realise that Kelly did him a great service by making his life more ordered. With Mulvaney in charge, Trump will be given more leeway to do what he wants and that could lead to more, not less, chaos. Kelly meanwhile will get some home life and catch up with his family. Perhaps he'll have a drink with Jim Mattis and they can compare notes on their time with Commander-in-Chief Trump. Kelly left the White House on January 2. Mattis left his job at the Pentagon at midnight on December 31. They have much to talk about. So farewell Trump's generals, enjoy your new-found leisure time.

General Jim Mattis rubbished by Trump

Most people in the US have praised General Jim Mattis, for being a good steady bloke, for being a brilliant combat commander and battlefield strategist and for being a serious grown-up as defence secretary in Donald Trump's cabinet. But now he has gone back to his home town of Pullman in the state of Washington in the Pacific northwest after resigning and leaving office at midnight on December 31, his former commander-in-chief has been rubbishing him. Having initially praised him - the man he used to call Mad Dog and he meant it affectionately - Trump has decided to tell everyone what he really felt. Mattis was no good as defence secretary, he graciously said to a bunch of reporters. He achieved nothing in Afghanistan, Trump said. Oh, and he fired Mattis, Mattis didn't resign. Well, Mr President, Mattis did resign, we all read his resignation letter. You may have not given him much choice but he still did the honourable thing. Poor old Mattis. I'm sure he is very happy back at home a long long way away from the other Washington (DC), away from all the pressure and strain of being Trump's Pentagon chief. But he must be pretty sickened at the way the president is now treating him. You get no thanks from the White House boss with the exception of Nikki Haley, the superstar former US ambassador to the UN who managed to resign without being savaged by the president. He couldn't have been nicer about her and hoped she would return to government in due course. But Mattis is finished as far as Trump is concerned. He failed to end the war in Afghanistan! Well no one has succeeded in ending the war in Afghanistan, despite the best brains in the US military. So it's a touch unfair for Trump to have expected Mattis to wave a magic wand and force the Taliban to surrender. As for Mattis's temporary successor, Patrick Shanahan, he has obviously got the message from the White House. After coming out of his first cabinet meeting with Trump in his new role, the former deputy defence secretary was word perfect, saying he was fully ready to carry out the president's "vision" for the military. If he stays on message like that he might get the job permanently! But if he steps out of line, he'll be gone too. Trump doesn't appreciate disobedience - ie not doing what he wants - and he likes only success. So watch out Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, if the North Korea "triumph" goes wrong, he too will be out and no doubt described as "not very good".

Can the world survive another two years of Trump?

Never mind Brexit and the creepy Jean-Claude Juncker and fuel prices and tax demands and the thought of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Britain's prime minister, the only real question is this: can the world survive another two years of Donald Trump? Not to mention another four years after that? Except for spear-carrying tribes in the deepest parts of the jungle, male drinkers in Alice Springs and pony lovers in the Outer Hebrides, pretty well everyone else in this world have been affected one way or another by the Trump presidency. It's almost impossible to escape him. So much depends on his leadership or lack of it that the United States of America, supposedly the guardian of western security and its values that we are all in a sort of collective nervous breakdown, unsure of what might happen from day to day. You invest whatever money you might have acquired wisely and sensibly but it seems to make no difference. Trump's volatility and gamesmanship and impulsiveness have reduced the stock market around the world to a state of paranoia. Up go the shares one day and then down down down the next. £50,000 invested one month is worth £40,000 a year later. There is no longer such a thing as a safe investment because Trump's actions can undermine confidence like nothing else. Has Trump and all his investments suffered too? I don't think so! The filthy rich are getting filthier richer. So what are the prospects for the planet over the next two Trump years? Before the president accuses me of being a fake news provider, let me be the first to say that he has achieved quite a lot in his first two years. The US economy has survived despite everything and is doing reasonably well although the country's federal deficit could shoot up to $1 trillion this year. Jobs are still booming - although not in the steel industry despite Trump's claims to the contrary. The electric car business is expanding in leaps and bounds which will have a positive impact on pollution, and Trump's $1 trillion tax cuts for the better-off should increasingly benefit the rest of the country, with more employment and job potential. The charm offensive with Kim Jong-un is still paying dividends although a false move by the president, like insulting the North Korean leader or telling him sanctions will never be lifted until every nuclear weapon has been destroyed (carrot and stick, Mr President, carrot and stick), could change all that. Trump's apparent chemistry with Xi Zinping is also a Good Thing and could lead to a genuine trade deal to benefit everyone. So, plenty of positives. But after two years, Trump has not changed one iota with his bull-in-a-china-shop approach and as a result has upset nearly all of America's allies and most of his own cabinet. The Jim Mattis book, if it is ever written, will be one to watch out for. Publishers must be clamouring for the resigned defence secretary's memoirs. The White House and Congress are in a constant state of chaotic anger, frustration and duplicity. How can proper grown-up government be sustained under these conditions? So I ask again, can the US and the rest of us survive another two years of this terrible uncertainty and unpredictability?

My predictions for 2019

Predictions are a fool's game. But it's January 1 2019, so here goes: 1. The United States: Robert Mueller, special counsel for the investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow, will find that members of the president's family, notably Donald Trump Jr, were naively drawn into a Russian web because of the offer of political dirt on Hillary Clinton, but none were guilty of a prima facie criminal offence. Mueller will say the whole episode tainted the US presidential election system and reputation but there is no evidence of deliberate collusion. The evidence of Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, however, will lead to demands from the Democratic Party for the president to face a charge of knowingly suppressing material that could have affected voters' support for him - ie the payments made to two women to keep them silent about their alleged affairs with Trump. The Democrats, in control of the House of Representatives, will get nowhere with this demand but will later turn to Trump's non-payment of taxes and his business dealings in Russia to mount a full impeachment inquiry. Trump will never get the money he wants to build a wall along the Mexico border. Instead he will order his new defence secretary to get the Corps of Engineers to extend the existing fencing by hundreds of miles, funding the work through a combination of budget allocations from the defence department and department of homeland security. Trump then starts a huge effort with Congress to spend billions of dollars on ageing infrastructure. The economy improves, falters and then improves steadily, ending the year in fine fettle. 2. Russia. Putin makes a move on Ukraine by permanently blocking all Ukrainian ships in the Sea of Azov and then mounts a blockade of the vital Ukrainian port of Mariupol, bringing Ukraine to its knees. The move persuades Trump to send warships to the Black Sea, leading to a potentially dangerous escalation. Putin backs down after a summit with Trump. 3. China comes up with what seems like a face-saving end to the trade war with the US. Trump seizes on it as a victory for his leadership, but the small print shows the Chinese still have the advantage. 4. Britain: March 29 comes and goes without any real change to the Brexit drama. Theresa May's compromise Brexit deal, with some additions designed to reassure doubters about the so-called Northern Ireland back-stop arrangement, passes through parliament by such a tiny majority that divisions between the Remainers and Leavers stays as volatile as ever. The whole process is put into suspension as MPs consider a possible second referendum. The UK economy goes into a wild spin downwards. But there are no riots in the streets. The government survives, just. 5. Europe: Macron retreats further and further into gloomy despondency as far right and far left extremists mount devastating protests across the country. Merkel tries to launch a new way forward for the EU, and for Germany, but is pushed back by right-wing leaders in Poland, Hungary and Italy. The EU looks shakier than ever. 6. The Middle East: Assad assumes control of the whole of Syria. The final bastion of Isis fighters in the northeast is destroyed by the Turkish army and Iraqi air force. The US plays no further meaningful role.