We don't want a war, says Russia. Ok so well then...

It's difficult to believe someone who says he doesn't want a war but still takes all the appropriate steps to launch one at short notice. Vladimir Putin has been pretty quiet on the subject for some weeks now but a lot of Russian officials have gone round saying Russia isn't about to invade Ukraine and doesn't want a war.The lugubrious Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov has said it many times that Russia is not in an invasion mood. But then he has warned that the West/Nato hasn't offered any concessions vis a vis Moscow's demands for a change in the security architecture in Europe - no Nato troops in Eastern Europe and no offer of alliance membership to Ukraine. This is diplomaticspeak for, if there is an invasion it won't be Russia's fault it will be Nato's fault. So he's kind of playing both sides of the argument. But the message from Moscow is, there will be no invasion. Yet absolutely no one in authority in the West believes this Moscow mantra because of what is going on right now along the Russian/Ukrainian border and on the Belarus/Ukrainian border. If Putin has decided to invade whatever happens in the next few days, he's not going to preannounce it. We will wake up one morning to find that 100,000 Russian troops are going hell for leather for Kyiv. It might even surprise Sergey Lavrov. Only those really close to Putin will get the nod about when the invasion is on. They include his defence minister, Sergey Shoigu, and his national security adviser, Nicolae Patrushev. They are both hardliners who would like the same thing as their boss, a revival of the Soviet empire and that's not possible in their eyes without absorbing Ukraine into the family of Russian-dominated nations. So both Shoigu and Patrushev I'm sure will be bending Putin's ears about the importance of acting now before it's too late. Lavrov is probably not part of these inner discussions. So as the United Nations Security Council meets to warn Russia of the perils of bringing large-scale war back to Europe after the prolonged peace since the end of the Second World War, Putin is holding his cards so close to his chest that all these Russian officials going around saying the last thing they want is war actually haven't a clue what the Kremlin boss is thinking.

Is Putin listening to western leaders or just pretending?

As the world waits for catastrophe in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is at least agreeing to see or speak on the phone to all manner of political VIPs from the West to talk to him about not invading. Does it mean he is actually hearing what they are all saying - including this coming week from Boris Johnson who is due to ring him - or is he just playing a game and chuckling to himself? I doubt he needs advice or appeals from anyone. He knows what he is going to do, invade or not, probably the former in one form or another. So what is the point of all this telephone and shuttle diplomacy? Putin has surely got the message by now that if he invades Russia, his closest mates and possibly him too and the whole Russian economy are going to take a massive sanctions blow and thousands of Nato troops and fancy equipment are going to start arriving in Eastern Europe as a deterrent, likely to stay for the foreseeable future if not for ever. So what it's really about is Western leaders and key ministers getting involved to demonstrate at some point in the future that they did all they could to persuade the Russian leader to stop being an aggressive hoodlum and pull back his troops from the border with Ukraine. What they don't want is for some nasty newspaper columnist to point out that while Putin was arranging his troops in invasion order along the border, Boris was having another party in Number 10, Liz Truss, Foreign Secretary, was having her hair done, President Joe Biden was rowing with Senator Joe Manchin again about his $2 trillion domestic legislation, President Macron was looking across the English Channel with irritation and the new German chancellor was holidaying in Baden-Baden. So it's all go go go. Desperate to leave all his troubles behind him, Boris is hawking off to Eastern Europe to strengthen deterrence (?), Macron is on the phone to Putin talking about a new security architecture in Europe, whatever that means, Biden appears resigned to a Russian invasion and Chancellor Olaf Scholz is trying on new helmet headgear to send to Ukraine, bless. Non-stop activity. But Putin calmly picks up the phone when it rings or ushers the latest Western visitor into his Kremlin boudoir. But really it's all an act. He KNOWS what he is going to do. He has now decided. Of that I am sure.

Before another war breaks out, just remember Afghanistan and how it is today

My Sunday Times colleague Christina Lamb has written a devastating piece about life for families in Afghanistan today. It is a country in a spiral of desperation, hunger, depression and hopelessness. Just five months after the let's-get-the-hell-out-of-here evacuation of all international troops and thousands of lucky Afghans, Afghanistan under Taliban rule has fallen into a giant black hole of despair. The UN World Food Programme is trying against all odds to provide enough food to stop children dying of malnutrition but it's a Herculean challenge. One thing that seems clear from Christina's article is that the Taliban don't care. One so-called spokesman said the problems facing the country weren't affecting his lot, they were fine thank you. Presumably they have their own ways of getting plenty of food to fill their bellies. Recently there was a meeting between western nations and the Taliban to talk abut the dire situation in Afghanistan but, I guess understandably, the West wanted assurances about the treatment of women, education for children and all the other things which the Taliban appears to be rigidly opposed to. Since none of this is going to happen there is no likelihood that the West will unfreeze the billions of dollars of aid which not that long ago was pouring into the country, sometimes in suitcases packed with dollar bills. So doom, gloom and disaster for the Afghan people. No western leaders seem to be bothered. The only thing I have heard Boris Johnson talk about is how proud he is about the way the British military evacuated so many people in such a short period. For God's sake! Now Putin wants to add to the world's woes by considering causing death and destruction in Ukraine. Despite his denials. Another war, more misery and terror and death and life-changing injuries. And for what? So that Putin can live his dream of being the leader of a revived Soviet empire.

Is the Russian army ready for a bloody war?

Tank for tank, missile for missile, Russia is so far ahead of neighbour Ukraine in terms of long-range firepower and combat manoeuvrability that a Kremlin-ordered invasion could end up being a mad dash to Kiev. Not unlike the rapid advance by the US 3rd Infantry Division and the Marine Corps’ 1st Marine Division, equipped with M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles which stormed through southern Iraq to reach Baghdad in April 2003. The Russian army today is far better organised and equipped for a combat operation than it has been for a decade, with a motivated and more disciplined officer class and a high-readiness structure based around multiple battalion tactical groups (BTGs). However, is this new army waiting on Ukraine’s borders for the go ahead from President Putin ready for a long bloody war with a neighbour now also better armed, Nato-trained and combat-experienced from nearly eight years of fighting Russians and separatists in the east of the country? “After the end of the Cold War, Russia saw the embarrassing operations in Chechnya [1994-1996 and 1999 to 2009] . Things began improving when the military showed its ability to employ cyber weapons against Estonia in 2007, and again against Georgia along with some conventional forces a year later [when Russia sent troops to back two self-proclaimed republics],” said Andrew Krepinevich, 20 years in the US Army and a former senior Pentagon official. “But both were small operations. More impressive were the operations of the so-called Ukrainian separatists in the past few years aided by the Russian military,” he said. “However I do not think today’s Russian military is highly capable of dealing effectively with a broad spectrum insurgency which could spring up if Putin attempted to conquer the country,” he said. He also cast doubt on whether the Russian army was capable of conducting large, sustained conventional operations if Ukrainian resistance proved resilient. “Its logistics are not that good,” he said. Twenty years ago, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’ s military had become a hollowed-out shell. No greater evidence of the transformation from superpower status to crumpled third rateness was the graveyard of rusty submarines abandoned in polluted bays along the Kola Peninsula. When Putin came to power as Russian president on May 7, 2000, his first ambition was to revive and rebuild the military. He made it clear he wanted Russia once again to be a force to be reckoned with. While the United States gained all-arms combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and became engrossed in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency, Putin launched a military modernisation programme. He converted the Russian army from an organisation that was reliant on underpaid, badly equipped and often bullied conscripts into a largely professional volunteer force of 400,000 soldiers, on much-improved wages. Absenteeism , the bane of the old conscript Russian army, was eliminated. The average Russian army lieutenant now gets the equivalent of $1,000 a month, better than their civilian counterparts. All Russian ground troop commanders also now have combat experience, according to Sergei Shoigu, defence minister. Putin had a dream of resuscitating even a small part of what used to be the mighty Soviet empire, and to achieve that he needed a military behind him which his perceived adversaries would be forced to respect. Today, Pentagon chiefs and US combat commanders who have seen the way the Russian military have made their presence felt in different parts of the world, especially in Syria, openly acknowledge that Russia is back. “The compliment that we have to pay to Russia is that they are a learning and adaptive force,” General Philip Breedlove, former supreme allied commander Europe (Saceur from 2013-2016), told The New York Times. “Every time we see them in conflict, they get a little better and a little better,” he said. Putin’s boasting in 2018 of Russia’s new exotic weapons, notably a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide-vehicle missile with unlimited range and a nuclear cruise missile was in some ways a side issue. It was a demonstration of his increasing confidence that Russia was seemingly taking the lead in developing and deploying the next generation of weapons. However, the improved status of Russia’s conventional forces is now the real focus. The putative invasion force on Ukraine’s borders is equipped, for example, with at least three dozen Iskander-M short-range ballistic missiles which could hit Kiev and other critical military targets without even crossing the frontier. Russian forces deployed in Syria to support the regime of President Bashar al-Assad proved beyond question that they could carry out multi-faceted operations, launching precision-guided missiles both from land and from the sea. In 2017 a Russian frigate fired three Kalibr cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea and hit Isis targets in eastern Syria. US commanders in Syria were taken by surprise. It turned out they didn’t even know the Russian navy had such weapons operating in the region.

Fighter jet overboard!

The US Navy is to begin an urgent recovery operation to find an $83million F-35C stealth fighter which toppled off an aircraft carrier into the South China Sea. The pilot of the joint strike fighter was safely rescued after he ejected when the aircraft crash-landed on the deck of the carrier, USS Carl Vinson, during naval exercises in the region. However, as the drama unfolded, the aircraft slipped off the edge of the deck and fell into the water. The F-35C Lightning II contains the most advanced electronic and communications technology and were it to fall into the hands of the Chinese navy it would provide a goldmine of US naval secrets. The US 7th Fleet, responsible for naval missions in the region, said “recovery operations arrangements” were being made to locate the aircraft on the seabed and bring it back to the surface. The average depth of the South China Sea which covers more than 1,400 square miles is less than 4,000ft, making the recovery operation not too challenging, according to experts. It is the second time one of these latest carrier-borne fighter jets has had to be hauled up to the surface from an ocean seabed. Last year the Royal Navy lost an F-35B jump-jet version of the strike fighter in the Mediterranean after a failed take-off from the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. Concerned that the Russian Navy might attempt to hunt for the aircraft, the F-35B was successfully salvaged from the seabed on December 7 from where the wreckage rested one mile below, with the help of the Americans and Italians after a two-week search. In the latest incident the USS Carl Vinson had been involved in a training mission with a second US carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln . A US 7th Fleet spokesman would not divulge the precise location of the Carl Vinson in the South China Sea. Following the statements from the 7th Fleet, China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (Plan) is expected to send ships to watch the salvage process. The F-35C could be intact at the bottom of the sea because of the way it tumbled slowly off the deck. Seven sailors were injured in the incident, including the pilot. All are now recovered or in stable condition, the navy said. “Impact to the flight deck was superficial and all equipment for flight operations is operational,” Lieutenant Mark Langford, spokesman for the 7th Fleet, said.

Will Biden dare to freeze Putin's assets?

Freezing the substantial assets of a leader of a country is a big deal. Freezing the hugely substantial assets of one Vladimir Putin would be a mega-move which could have unpredictable consequences. Joe Biden put forward this idea yesterday. He mused to reporters that he could sanction Putin personally if he authorised the invasion of Ukraine. There are some commentators who have warned in the past that any action taken by the West to freeze Putin's bank accounts could be seen in the Kremlin as an act of war. Putin's wealth is a mystery but there have been rumours over the years that, allegedly, he has bank accounts in Geneva, although not, clearly, under his own name. I don't have any evidence to prove tbis one way or the other. But I suspect that those clever chaps and ladies who work in the US Treasury's terrorism and financial intelligence branch will have a pretty good idea where Putin has hidden his money. The Kremlin just talks about Putin having his salary cheques sent to a bank in Moscow. That may well be true but there is little doubt he has other financial assets outside the homeland of Russia and if Biden can get his hands on such assets and block them, Putin would be furious to the point of apoplexy. It's a high-risk suggestion by Biden. For years when Russia was having sanctions imposed on numerous individuals and companies for all kinds of malevolent deeds, notably the invasion and annexing of Crimea, the alleged involvement in the fatal poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in a London hotel and the claimed GRU role in the near-fatal poisoning of ex-Russian intelligence officer turned MI6 doube agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, questions were raised then about why Putin's personal assets had not been frozen. Basically no one dared do it. Now Biden has it in his mind. I wonder whether this sanction, this personal attack on Putin's personal wealth, might be the best deterrent of all. We will see.

Is Western intelligence right to be warning of an imminent invasion

Certainly all the signs from the Ukraine/Russia border are that Vladimir Putin is just moments away from ordering an invasion of Ukraine. Judging by remarks from Boris Johnson and others the latest secret intelligence landing on their desks is scary stuff. That may well be based on sound analysis of satellite images but does it take into account Putin himself? The Russian leader is thinking long term. What will he achieve if he invades, what will he achieve if he doesn't invade? He hasn't made up his mind yet which way to go but in the meantime he lets his soldiers prepare the ground for a lightning raid as Boris put it. Does the Western intel include top secret communications between the Kremlin and the Russian ministry of defence, is there an insider agent spilling the beans? This is all James Bond stuff but even if this is actually happening right now can the intelligence really be trusted? One thing Putin is good at is spreading false information and propaganda. So whatever Boris and Biden and co have been reading in the last few days from reports marked For Their Eyes Only, how much of it is absolutely 100 per cent accurate and how much is based on Putinised clever tricks? Putin now knows that if he orders an invasion, the 40,000-strong Nato Response Force will be deployed to Eastern Europe and the Baltics and, who knows, eventually a shipload of tanks and armoured vehicles setting up shop in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland which surely is the one thing the Russian president is trying to stop. So it might make him think twice or it might make him even more determined to invade, as I blogged recently on the question of Nato arming Ukraine to defend itself against Russia. On the face of it, Putin wants Ukraine to be under Russia's wing, controllable and loyal to Moscow, like the good old days. But will an invasion, involving potentially having a Moscow puppet leader in Kyiv, give him what he wants or will it lead to decades of insurgency, instability and increasing trouble back home? Long term that could be disastrous for him and for the well-being of Russia. These are the questions that must be filling his mind right now. I wonder how much of this deliberation is included in the Western intelligence reports that appear to be suggesting Putin is dead set on military action, and soon.

If America is not careful they are going to have Trump back as president

The one thing which is absolutely concrete certain following the completion of Joe Biden's first year as president: Donald Trump is still the biggest thing the Republican Party has on its side. The former one-term president is in the news every day and very very few Republican lawmakers have the cajones to drop him and start supporting other potential candidates for the 2024 election. People like Senator Lindsey Graham have gone much further. He talks of nothing else but getting Trump back in the White House. I used to have respect for Senator Graham because when Senator John McCain was alive the two of them used to be like twins, very strong on defence matters, very well informed and revered in at least some sections of the Senate. Today Graham is a Trump loyalist to such an extent one wonders whether the former president has offered him the Pentagon or State Department job if he wins in 2024. After those four climactic years when Trump was in power anyone with any sense, intelligence or hope for the future should have experienced only one emotion when Trump was voted out in 2020: huge relief! Where would we be today if Trump had won the 2020 election? I shudder to think. But people like Lindsey Graham are convinced that what the United States needs more than anything else is another four years of Donald Trump as president. I spent three years as Pentagon Correspondent in Washington for the illustrious Times newspaper, so I learnt quite a bit about how Washington ticks and never forgot that I was working in the capital of the most powerful nation on earth. It still is, just. But if Graham and co really think that Trump is the answer, then I fear for the country's soundness of mind and future prospects.

What does Putin think about the West arming Ukraine?

The US is pouring ammunition and small arms into Ukraine by the multi-tons worth, and the UK is contemplating sending more than the 2,000 anti-tank missile launchers it has already flown to Kyiv by C-17 transport aircraft. How will this be viewed in the Kremlin? And more specifically, will this give Putin the extra bit of motivation he needs to order his 100,000 troops over the border and down into the whole of eastern Ukraine and beyond? Or will it act as a deterrent? A better-armed Ukraine will mean a longer and bloodier war. The one thing Putin DOES know is that Joe Biden and the rest of Nato are never going to join in the war. Whatever Nato does it won't be fighting alongside the Ukrainian army. First, because Ukraine is not a member of Nato and therefore there is no obligation to do so, and second, because the last thing Biden wants is another war on his watch. Afghanistan was a disaster for the US and the way US military involvement was brought to an abrupt end was nothing short of shameful. Afghanistan is now in an economic, human rights black hole and malnutrition is everywhere. So Biden will never take on the Russians in Ukraine. Arming Kyiv is the only way to get back at Putin, plus launching severe economic sanctions in the event of an invasion and reinforcing eastern Europe. So with all this ammo arriving for the Ukrainian army, could it just be a step too far in Putin's mind, making him even more determined to teach Ukraine a lesson? I fear that may be the case. He will think to himself, "if the West is arming Ukraine now, it won't be long before they hand them membership of Nato, so it's time to go go go". In other words, if he invades he will at least have a chance of taking control of what happens in Ukraine in the future, whereas if he pulls his troops back he will no longer have a big stick to wave to prevent Ukraine from rushing into alliance membership, and before he knows it there will be American troops settling into a barracks outside Kyiv and wholesale Nato execises taking place the other side of the Russian border. So, yes, I believe the US/UK arming of Ukraine might just stir Putin to go for broke and order an invasion.

Nato on standby to reinforce eastern Europe

Thousands of reinforcement combat troops could be sent to boost Nato’s military presence in eastern Europe if Russia invades Ukraine. Contingency planning has been underway for weeks as Moscow’s build-up of troops, missiles and rocket launchers continued along the Ukrainian border. President Biden’s implied suggestion that a minor incursion rather than a full invasion might lead to a lower-scale response by Nato has not affected the alliance’s military planning. In the event of an alliance political decision to go ahead with reinforcing Nato’s eastern European members to deter any Russian encroachment on their territory, rapid steps would be taken to fly out extra troops and equipment to strengthen the four multinational battle groups stationed in Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. “Whilst we are not able to comment on operational matters, recent comments from the [Nato] secretary-general [Jens Stoltenberg] in Berlin underscore the guiding principle that Nato will always act to defend and protect alliance members,” a Nato spokesman said. “Since 2014, Nato has made its largest ever increase to its collective defence as a response to the aggressive behaviour of the Russian Federation,” the spokesman said. “This includes tripling the size of the Nato response force and increasing Nato’s presence in the eastern part of the alliance through the creation of the enhanced forward presence battle groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland,” he said. There are currently just under 5,000 troops from 20 Nato members based in the four countries regarded as the most vulnerable to Russian aggression. The four armoured battle groups are led by the UK in Estonia, by Canada in Latvia, by Germany in Lithuania and by the US in Poland. “Their presence makes clear that an attack on one ally will be considered an attack on the whole alliance,” the Nato spokesman said. Reinforcements could also be sent to Nato’s multinational brigade of 5,000 troops in Craiova, Romania. The brigade consists mainly of Romanian troops but also has contributions from Poland and Bulgaria. Nato has two dedicated quick-reaction forces available which could be sent to provide an instant extra presence in the region if it was felt necessary. These are the 40,000-strong Nato response force, with elements held at varying levels of readiness, and a component of this large-scale military organisation called the very high-readiness joint task force (VHRJTF), with 20,000 troops. Overall command of the Nato response force belongs to General Tod Wolters, the US supreme allied commander Europe. The Nato spokesman said the 20,000-strong very high-readiness joint task force included land, air, maritime and special operations components and was formed around the 3,500-strong Franco-German Brigade, and France’s rapid reaction corps based in Lille. The spokesman said leading elements of the high-readiness force were “ready to move within two to three days”. Other military options for Nato include sending more warships to the Baltic and Black Seas and additional fighter jets for combat air patrols over the Baltic states, Poland and Romania. Nato agreed to establish a forward presence in eastern and south-eastern alliance territory and in the Black Sea region at a summit in Warsaw in 2016, after Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine in 2014. The four battle groups are defined as “combat-ready forces”, and it was always envisioned that they could be rapidly reinforced in a time of crisis. In 2016 a Rand Corporation report warned that for Nato to resist a Russian attack on the Baltic states the alliance would need about seven brigades including three heavy armoured brigades, supported by air power. Biden ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine. However, there are a limited number of Nato training units currently in Ukraine. These include about 200 US National Guard soldiers who are training and advising local forces. There are no plans to augment these troops. There is also a small number of Green Beret special forces training their counterparts in the Ukrainian army. It’s not clear whether they would stay in Ukraine if Russia invaded. The UK has 30 soldiers in Ukraine training Ukrainian units how to fire the anti-tank weapons delivered this week. The UK has supplied 2,000 anti-tank launchers.

Nobody in Russia knows what's in Putin's head

So yet another crisis meeting between the US and Russia over Ukraine and the threat of a Moscow-ordered invasion. Antony Blinken, US secretary of state, and Sergey Lavrov, Russian foreign minister, have met in Geneva to go over the same old ground without any sign of a breakthrough. But both Blinken and Lavrov have one thing in common. Neither has a clue whether Putin will authorise an invasion. The decision rests solely with Putin and as far as we know he hasn't yet imparted to Lavrov or any of his other ministers what is in his mind from day to day. All Putin has instructed Lavrov to repeat endlessly is that Russia nas no intention of invading Ukraine! If that were true, what on earth is this massive offensive force doing sitting on the border with Ukraine ready to venture across and cause mayhem? Ok, I understand that Putin is playing a deadly game, hoping that his display of aggression-in-waiting will persuade Nato to do his bidding and promise to refuse membership of the alliance to Ukraine and pull out all alliance troops and tanks from eastern Europe. But if, as seems likely, Nato continues to refuse to meet his demands, then what will he do? As Joe Biden very unhelpfully said in the White House press conference this week, Putin has to do something. But Lavrov doesn't know what that will be, nor, I suspect, does Putin's defence minister, General Sergei Shoigu. Russia is a country isolated in many ways from the rest of the world, or at least feels isolated, still suffering from Cold War paranoia. But Putin is isolated within the Kremlin. He is the top guy and being a former KGB spy he keeps everything to himself. Lavrov must wake up every morning and wonder what the hell the day is going to bring. Quite tricky to play the top diplomat on behalf of the country when he doesn't know what his boss is thinking. Putin could suddenly decide he has had enough of the West and order his 100,000 troops into Ukraine, to hell with the consequences. Or he could suddenly decide to do the opposite and end the crisis. It could go either way. But if he gets absolutely zilch from Nato in return for adopting the latter of the two options, he could change his mind again and go for broke - a full-scale invasion.

Killer drones winning conflicts across the planet

Bomb-toting robotic drones are now winning wars in nearly every conflict on the planet. The Iran-built armed drones used in the strike by Houthi rebels in Yemen against oil plant targets in the United Arab Emirates this week demonstrated once again that these weapon systems have the reach and the firepower to cause a tactical and strategic impact. Drones with a range of weapons attached have been playing an increasingly deadly role in the eight-year-old conflict in eastern Ukraine while the world waits to see if President Putin will order his army across the border. Moscow-backed separatists in eastern Donbas have been bombarding dug-in Ukrainian troops with mortar-armed drones. In retaliation the Kyiv government has bought Turkey’s Bayraktar TB2 drone armed with precision missiles and has successfully targeted Russian D-30 howitzers used by Moscow’s proxy force. It has been a reminder to Putin that Ukraine no longer has a second-rate army with old Soviet weapons but has a force with a rising capability and advanced weaponry. New types of drone are also emerging. One version of the remotely-controlled aerial killer, this time capable of carrying an assault or sniper rifle, was unveiled by an Israeli company this month and could soon be the de rigueur weapon system for every infantry combat commander. The proliferation of weaponised drones in the hands of a growing club of nations – and armed non-state actors, such as the Iran-backed Houthis - has changed the whole concept of warfare strategy in current and future conflicts. Every government wants them and the export market generated by the top drone producers is so huge that access to these airborne robot weapons is easy and affordable. The majority of military drones sold for export are unarmed and in this area Israel leads the way. Even the US flies Israeli surveillance drones. However, affordable weapons-carrying drones produced by China have cornered the export market for armed models. Relative newcomers, Turkey and Iran, are also now strong competitors and have set up production lines. Their drones are selling fast. As a result, a Turkish or Iranian armed drone is increasingly being involved in an attack that makes a difference on the battlefield in some part of the globe. Multiple Iranian drones were used in the attack in Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital. As the Tigrayan rebels have discovered in the civil war in northern Ethiopia, there is nowhere to hide when the Addis Ababa government drones, bought from Turkey, Iran and Chinese ones sold by the UAE, appear in clusters from over the horizon to pound their convoys and camps. Robotic aerial bombing transformed the fortunes of the national government in Libya and during last year’s conflict in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh between Azerbaijan and Armenia where Turkey’s missile-armed Bayraktar TB2 ruled the skies for the Azerbaijanis. The morality of having a weapon system that just requires an operator sitting doing a shift at his console destroying human targets from hundreds or thousands of miles away has yet to be seriously addressed. For the moment, drones armed with precision-guided missiles and bombs have created a new era of vulnerability for all forces operating on the ground. Not since the invention of the machinegun and its use on the battlefield in the First World War has a weapon system so dramatically changed the face of warfare, according to Paul Scharre, a former US Army Ranger and later a senior Pentagon official who is an acknowledged authority on drone warfare. “With the arrival of the first machineguns, armies had to adapt their tactics, and so today military forces under attack from armed drones have to change their tactics,” Scharre said. “In Nagorno-Karabakh it put at a premium the ability of the ground forces to hide from the drones. Ground forces are far more vulnerable today than they ever used to be,” he said. “Drones also create more attention than attacks by fighter jets. A strike by an armed drone gets more media focus than an attack by an F-16 dropping bombs, and that has an impression on policy-makers,” he said. Armed drones have gone from being a weapon system for the few to becoming an asset for every army and, potentially, for every terrorist group. The US monopoly on drones, epitomised by the thousands of strikes on al-Qaeda and other terrorist targets in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria and Somalia, has been replaced by a free-for-all in drone production and export sales. China is at the heart of this new warfare potential. Its Caihong CH-4 and CH-5 drones, looking remarkably similar to America’s Reaper model, has been sold to a growing number of nation customers, including Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkmenistan and the UAE. The US has been careful to sell its Predator and Reaper armed drones only to close allies. For example, the UK bought Reaper drones from the US in 2007 and armed them with Brimstone anti--armour missiles. The UK is due to replace them with Protector drones bought from the US company, General Atomics. However, with other nations, notably China, Turkey and Iran, less reluctant to sell their armed drones, there is a risk that nations armed with such advanced weapons might be increasingly tempted to use them not just for internal suppression but also for extraterritorial strikes, following the US example. This would not only raise questions about America’s extraterritorial counter-terrorist strategy but would focus attention on whether such attacks are illegal under international law. It’s a topic which is likely to become more emotive as the proliferation of armed drones gathers pace. The US has been urged to work with other nations to expand the number of state signatories to the joint declaration for “the export and subsequent use of armed or strike-enabled unmanned aerial vehicles”, signed by 45 countries in 2016, and to encourage responsible use of drones consistent with international law. The Biden administration is currently reviewing drone policy and no new approach has yet emerged. The US first launched a drone strike, using a Predator armed with Hellfire anti-tank missiles, in Afghanistan in November, 2001. when George W Bush was president. His successor, Barack Obama, became an enthusiastic supporter of drone strikes. The CIA and Joint Special Operations Command killed an estimated 3,000 or more terrorists up to 2016 under his administration. In July 2016 Obama issued an executive order, setting out new guidelines in an attempt to limit collateral damage (civilian deaths). The strikes continued at an accelerated pace under President Trump and remain an option for the current administration. However, there has been a remarkable silence about America’s drone wars since Joe Biden became president, apart from the disastrous strike in Kabul which killed, in error, ten members of an Afghan family, including seven children, during the fateful evacuation of US troops from Afghanistan in August last year. Meanwhile, the top priority for the next generation of drones designed in the US is silence. The CIA and special forces operators want drones without the familiar buzzing sound which can give away their presence. Researchers and defence companies working for the spy agency and the US Air Force have turned to hybrid-electric technology to reduce noise levels to the minimum. If super-quiet drones could fly lower it would help provide better definition optics, using face-recognition technology to be 100 per cent certain of a particular terrorist on a wanted list, thus reducing further the risk of civilian casualties and the elimination of the wrong target. In the world’s conflicts today, however, the armed drone has become a deadly weapon of war, an easy and safe way to kill and destroy with only the buzzing sound giving an early warning of an approaching attack.

US says commitment to Ukraine is "unshakeable". What does that mean?

It's always dangerous in this world for one country to say to another that they will be there for them come what may. Especially when the one is the United States and the other is Ukraine. Antony Blinken, US secretary of state, who has been travelling all over the place to demonstrate America's support for Ukraine in the face of a potential massive invasion of the country by the Russian army. Today he has stated that America's commitment to Ukraine is "unshakeable". It's a good word but in the end what exactly does it mean? If Russia invades will the US 82nd Airborne Division drop by parachute into Kyiv and advance rapidly to fight the Russians? Will B-2 Spirit bombers from Missouri take off and bomb the 100,000 Russian troops as they make their way over the border? Will US Special Operations Command deploy hundreds of elite troops to fight alongside the Ukrainian army. Will US heavy armour in Germany be shipped to Ukraine to battle it out with Russian tanks? I don't think any of these things will happen? Because if anything like this did happen there would be all-out war with Russia and the whole of Nato would be dragged in, and heaven knows how that would end. The truth is, if Russia does invade Ukraine, that unshakeable commitment could only be exhibited in other ways, non-military ways. Unless Blinken has a secret card up his sleeve. He is seeing the Ukrainian president during his latest travels. Will he perhaps put Nato membership for Ukraine at the top of his agenda. Now there's a thought. Blinken could tell his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, that if Moscow invades Ukraine, Nato leaders would instantly offer alliance membership to Kyiv which would be the worst of all worlds for the Kremlin because then Nato would be able, indeed obliged, to station troops and armour in Ukraine. It's not a bad idea and I'm sure Ukraine would be delighted. The trouble is that sort of ultimatum might actually spur Putin to go ahead and invade anyway just to keep Nato out. But then that would mean occupying Ukraine for ever and there is no way either Putin or the Russian public would accept that. Whatever Putin is thinking right now, that word "unshakeable" will have made him also wonder, what the hell does it mean.

US show of nuclear deterrent strength

A US nuclear-deterrent submarine armed with 20 Trident II D5 strategic missiles has made a rare appearance during a port call in Guam in the western Pacific, sending a warning signal to China and North Korea of America’s “readiness and commitment” to the region. The USS Nevada, one of 14 Ohio-class “boomer” deterrent boats, arrived at Apra harbour in Guam on Saturday. Normally submerged on secret undetectable patrols, providing the US with its most survivable leg of the so-called nuclear triad (land, sea, air), the ballistic-missile submarine was officially photographed by the US Navy to publicise its presence at the American island territory. Coinciding with a series of ballistic-missile tests carried out by North Korea, the deliberate display of US Navy nuclear firepower will not have gone unnoticed in Pyongyang or in Beijing. “This port visit to Guam reflects the United States’ commitment to the Indo-Pacific region and complements the many exercises, operations, training and military cooperation activities conducted by strategic forces to ensure they are available and ready to operate around the globe at any time,” the US Navy said in a statement. It was the first visit of a “boomer” to Guam since 2016 when USS Pennsylvania made a port call, and only the second appearance in public at the island since the 1980s. The Chinese Navy has a fleet of ballistic-missile submarines whose home port is at Yulin navy base on Hainan Island, the southernmost province of China. However, compared with the US Navy’s 14 Ohio-class boats, China has only four Type 094 strategic submarines and two Type 094A variants, each of which carry up to 12 Julang-2 ballistic missiles. North Korea has a ballistic-missile submarine construction programme and has carried out at least one test flight. Each of the 14 Ohio-class submarines originally carried up to 24 strategic missiles with multiple independently-targeted warheads. However, under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed by the US and Russia in 2010, each submarine had four of their missile tubes permanently deactivated and now carry a maximum of 20 missiles. On average the submarines spend 77 days at sea followed by 35 days in port for maintenance. The US Navy’s next-generation ballistic-missile submarines, the Columbia-class boats, are due to be delivered from 2027.

Two major sporting disasters Down Under

Two major sporting events in Australia have ended in disaster, for very different reasons. Novak Djokovic, world number 1 tennis player and Serbia's greatest sportsman, finally lost his case against the Australian government and has been deported. The Australian Open will have to carry on without him which probably means that Rafa Nidal, his closest rival along with Roger Federer, will now have his best chance of winning another grand slam and moving ahead of Djokovic and Federer as the holder of the largest number of Open trophies. At the same time, The England cricket team was slaughtered by the Australians in the latest Ashes series, losing overwhelmingly badly in the fifth Test in Hobart, Tasmania, and began packing their bags to return home after losing four out of five of the Test matches. Just one draw. Not a five-nil whitewash as had been feared but as close as dammit. The batting display was abysmal. The bowling, particularly by the wonderful fast bowler Mark Wood, was excellent. But their achievements were let down by the batters. Djokovic has already left Australia after his visa was revoked, and the England team, their heads bowed in regret and disappointment and misery, will soon be on the plane home. For tennis and cricket lovers (me), both events are a crying shame. Djokovic can really only blame himself for what happened to him because he refused to have a vaccine jab against Covid-19 and the Australian rules were clear. But then again, they clearly weren't because the world number 1 had applied for exemption from the Australia tennis authorities and had won his argument. He was given a visa. So he and his team flew to Australia, expecting to play in the tournament. Why was he given a visa if the rules were supposed to be the same for everyone: no vaccinations, no visa for entry. Well, it's obvious of course. The tennis tournament bosses were desperate to have Djokovic playing to make sure the Open was a big money-spinner. They must have hoped that despite a potential outcry from the public about Djokovic being treated differently from everyone else, they could sneak him in without too much of a fuss. So in that context and that context only I feel sorry for Djokovic. I think he is wrong not to have had the vaccine and find it difficult to understand why he is so against it but that was his choice. And on that basis he should never have been allowed into Australia. But he was and then it became a worldwide issue. Now all that has to be said is, good luck Nidal (Federer isn't playing because of injury). As for the England cricket team, it may have been a disaster series and a terrible letdown for us fans, but let's hope the next matches will be totally different and the talent in the team will be on much better display. The troubLe with losing so badly is that it creates a failure mindset. Already there are calls for a massive turnover of staff and players. But the team was supposed to be the best available. Better to stick with these players and give them every encouragement to turn into superstars. The only three acknowledged world-class players in the team were Joe Root, the captain, Ben Stokes, the all-rounder, and Jimmy Anderson, openng bowler. But even they didn't do that well. So the Ashes series was a disaster. But there's life after Australia, both for the England cricket team and for Djokovic.

Please don't shoot, we're just Green Berets

US Army special forces are planning such a realistic military exercise across North and South Carolina this month they have had to warn local police and rifle-carrying rednecks not to mistake the gunfire for a real insurrection. The exercise, carried out four times a year, is the culmination of the gruelling training programme faced by recruits at the John F Kennedy special warfare centre and school (SWCS) who are hoping to become Green Berets. Spread across the two states from January 22 to February 4, the would-be Green Berets will be engaged in intensive unconventional warfare against a simulated guerrilla force. Perhaps with the recent warnings in mind of a potential civil war breaking out in the United States following the January 6 assault on the Capitol in Washington a year ago, the special forces school put out a release to warn local people that the upcoming exercise was designed to replicate an “environment of political instability characterised by armed conflict”. The exercise is codenamed Robin Sage, derived from the town of Robbins in North Carolina and a former army colonel, Jerry Sage, a Second World War veteran who taught unconventional warfare tactics. In a Robin Sage exercise in February, 2002 , a soldier died because of a breakdown in communication. A sheriff’s deputy in Robbins pulled over a vehicle containing two soldiers in civilian clothes who were involved in a reconnaissance mission. The deputy was unaware the exercise was underway and the two soldiers thought he was part of the training programme because, traditionally, local people were enlisted in role-playing. When one of the soldiers tried to disarm the deputy he opened fire, fatally shooting one and injuring the other. In the news release, the SWCS warned locals they might hear gunfire and see flares going off but promised there would be “no risk to persons or property”.

Apologies apologies apologies - the Boris Johnson legacy

It really is one apology after another from Boris Johnson and his government after a whole series of Christmas and farewell parties at Number 10 Downing Street during the pandemic social restrictions are revealed. It almost beggars belief. How is it possible that Number 10 was having a shindig on the very evening before the Queen was to attend the funeral of her beloved husband, Prince Philip, when she was caught on camera sitting all alone in the pew? I still can't really believe it. But these scandalous titbits of revelatory items are being leaked, this time to the Daily Telegraph. I don't know who is behind all these carefully timed leaks. But a cetain Dominic Cummings, Boris's former chief adviser at Number 10 who got shafted by Boris, always said he had diaries and emails full of stuff that would harm his former boss. So I guess there's a whole lot more to come out. The latest apology from Boris, to the Queen herself, is surely the most galling of all, galling to Boris that is. As for Her Majesty she must have given up being surprised by her flaxen-haired prime minister a long time ago. We humble folk have now got the message. While we were all hiding in our houses, not seeing other members of our families, observing the law like good citizens, Number 10 - and other departments it seems - were partying, partying, partying. It's no longer a laughing matter, it is sheer effrontery. Whether it's criminal is a matter for others. Whether it's a resigning offence, that's up to Boris. But how many times should you be allowed to apologise to the Queen and stay in office? I think just once and that's being very generous.

A new US destroyer bristling wth hypersonic and laser weapons

The US has revealed plans for a next-generation destroyer which will be packed with hypersonic missiles and laser weapons to challenge the threat posed by China’s rapidly growing navy. The new warship, expected to be the largest of its kind built in the last two decades, will have about 100 silos for all types of missiles including large ones to take the hypersonic weapons capable of reaching more than five times the speed of sound (Mach 5). The armoury of hypersonic and laser systems will enable the destroyer, known currently as DDGX, to shoot down low-flying anti-ship cruise missiles and enemy fighter aircraft as well as weapons travelling at more than Mach 5. The guided-missile DDGX will replace the US Navy’s current fleet of 22 Ticonderoga-class and 69 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The new destroyer will become the principal escort to protect aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships, especially when they are deployed to the Indo-Pacific region. China is developing hypersonic weapons and already has anti-ship ballistic missiles. Under current plans the first of the next-generation destroyers will be ordered in 2028 and be ready for service by around 2032. It will be the first US Navy warship to be designed specifically to carry hypersonic missiles. Three multi-mission Zumwalt-class destroyers, the last of which is still being fitted out, are now having to be converted to make room for 12 of the heavyweight missiles. The US Navy had originally planned to build 32 of the exotically-shaped Zumwalt-class destroyers but the programme was cancelled after the first three had been ordered. The DDGX will form the backbone of the navy’s escort fleet. Each ship is likely to cost at least $1 billion. The destroyer will be armed with the conventional prompt strike hypersonic missile which is being developed jointly by the US Navy and US Army. It’s expected to have a range of more than 1,700 miles. The weapon system has a glide vehicle with a conventional warhead that separates from the missile when it reaches Mach 5 and then flies down to hit the target with enormous kinetic force. The navy hopes to have its version of the hypersonic system ready to field in 2023. The laser will be based on the Helios system, a 60-kilowatt high-energy system which has been designed to burn a hole through a low-flying fighter aircraft or drone or even guided missiles. The navy is planning for a laser that will be ten times more powerful, a 600-kilowatt system, for when the DDGX is completed. Katherine Connelly, deputy programme manager for the new destroyer, said “increased missile capability and directed energy weapons” would play a vital role in combating new threats in the 21st century.

Donald Trump still banging on about the "fraudulent" 2020 election

You have to give it to Donald Trump. More than a year later and he is still haranguing crowds of supporters with his view that Joe Biden is president only as a result of a giant fraud. Judges up and down the country and polling experts have unanimously said there was no evidence of any fraud in the election process. Even some sensible Republicans agree the election result was numerically correct. But no, Trump bangs on and on about his right still to be president. When US National Public Radio asked him in an interview about his fraud claims and his personal involvement in the January 6 riotous assault on the Capitol, Trump took the easy option. He switched off his mic and walked away from the interview. He surely knows by now that all his huffing and puffing isn't going to change anything. But by now it's really the only subject he can talk about. He is obsessed with it. Unfortunately millions of his supporters feel the same way. It does seem extraordinary that with so much going on in the world Trump doesn't just drop his obsession and get on with making comments about the world at large. If he has anything interesting to say. Like, for example, what does he think his old friend Vladimir Putin is trying to do. Trump once used to go about saying Nato was finished as an organisation. He never actually carried out his threat to withdraw the US from the alliance but he was clearly tempted. This is of course what Putin wants. All his troops-on-the-border stuff with Ukraine is about just that, forcing Nato to pull back from eastern Europe and basically pack up its bags. Does Trump have a view about this or is he so one-subject minded - fraud election - that he can't think straight about anything else? The trouble is, because he goes on and on about how he was defrauded from the office of the president, radio, TV and newspaper interviewers only seek to ask the same old questions about the 2020 election and January 6. It would be interesting to know what he really thinks about Putin these days, and Kim Jong-un. And Boris Johnson.

Now it's drones with assault rifles attached

Drone warfare has taken one giant step forward with the development of a system that can carry and fire assault or sniper rifles as it hovers over a target. A robot weapon called Smash Dragon designed by an Israeli company can be mounted on different forms of unmanned aerial platforms and turned into a devastatingly accurate system that fires as it flies. The most sophisticated armed drones deployed in wars so far have been capable of launching guided missiles and bombs. The most advanced is the American Reaper which was used extensively in Afghanistan. However, the new unmanned platform armed with a rifle, unveiled by the company Smart Shooter, provides the potential for having a robot infantryman flying overhead and launching attacks with a fire control system that remains steady however fast the drone is going. In live firing tests, special stabilising equipment on the drone enabled he Smash Dragon weapon to hit static and moving targets with deadly precision. The trigger for the assault or sniper rifle carried by the drone is fired remotely from a ground station by an operator sitting in front of a monitor. Michal Mor, chief executive of Smart Shooter, said the rifle-armed drone could be controlled “from a distance”. The Israel-based company has developed an ultra-light drone platform to carry the guns. “When it comes to drones, platform weight is a critical factor as it impacts mission endurance and cost,” Mor said. The Pentagon is expected to be a customer for the Smash Dragon. Last year the US defence department contracted the Israeli company to design a smart sight for rifles used by special operations troops. It will be based on the company’s Smash 2000 optics system which helps soldiers spot a threat and then calculate the best time to fire even if the target is moving.

England leads the way over Omicron fightback

With the world so globalised thanks to the Internet it should be possible for all countries to face whatever challenge comes to the planet in a joined-up follow-my-leader way, so everyone benefits from the same lessons learned. Unfortunately that has not happened with Covid-19, with countries going their own way, some successfully, others disastrously. This of course is because of governments, local, state and federal, choosing different methods for countering the virus for individual, political, social or even ideological reasons. Yet amidst all this confusion and disunity, England - I have to say England because Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have all taken different approaches as is their right - has stepped forward as a leader in the field. Not just with the distribution of vaccines and boosters but also with guaging, hopefully, the right balance between freedom restrictions and returning to normality. The decision by the Boris Johnson government not to order any form of lockdown/closures/bans over Christmas and New Year was a huge gamble, and infections rose unbelievably. But hospitalisations and deaths did not rise in the same way and, again hopefully, it seems the Omicron variant makes you feel ill for a bit but, unless you are suffering from some other illness or are just unlucky, you soon start to feel better. So Omicron IS milder, whatever the World Health Organisation says. Now the Boris government is saying we will have to live with Covid for years to come but it should be treated like flu. So the return to normal continues, with the exception of the sensible and mandatory wearing of masks. A lot of American governors and mayors are looking at the England example and seem determined to do the same. ie no further restrictions and keep schools and businesses open. It has to be the right way forward although with so many Omicron infections it means large numbers of people are having to stay at home isolating. That too can be dealt with over the next few weeks, with the isolation periods being cut back. If Boris DOES prove to have taken the right Covid decision it could boost his political fortunes which have been somewhat battered in recent weeks.

Not much optimism around for tomorrow's US/Russia talks

Both sides in the brinkmanship game being played by Moscow and Washington over Ukraine are trying to reduce any expectations of a breakthrough to ease tensions. But this is all part of the diplomatic to-and-fro that happens every time there is an important summit or meeting between the big powers. A Russian foreign minister has said the Moscow negotiating team could walk out very quickly if the US fails to offer anything, and Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, has as good as said nothing will be achieved straightaway. So why bother meet at all? Because clearly the White House and Kremlin, after years of experience of handling the most tricky issues during the Cold War will be coming to the table with a few titbits that might just give a reason and purpose for extending the Geneva talks. There is no point in having a meeting with both sides sitting like rigid slabs of concrete refusing to budge an inch. The Cold War really is over despite appearances and it's time for some intelligent discussions between adults. That may be too much to hope for but you never know. In the old days it was called confidence-building measures. If the Geneva talks achieve nothing else let us hope at least that the wording of the communique - if there is a communique - will include words along the lines that both Moscow and Washington agree how important it is to maintain proper relations and to avoid conflict of any kind. From that foundation perhaps further talks can be arranged to cement a deal on guaranteeing stability and peaceful relations - and no invasion of Ukraine!

Blinken wants to know why Russian troops are in Kazakhstan

Antony Blinken, US secretary of state, wants to know why Russian troops are now helping to end violent protests in Kazakhstan. In fact he is as good as saying the Russians have no need or right to be in Kazakhstan. Now we don't know what went on between President Putin and his Kazakh counterpart President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. It was reported the Kazakh leader had appealed for Moscow's help but for all we know Putin rang him first and told him to ask for Russian troops as a sort of notice to Biden and Nato that Russia too has an alliance and that each member can call on another for military assistance. I suspect that's what it's about, especially coinciding with the imminent talks to take place between US and Russian officials in Geneva tomorrow over Ukraine and Nato's expanding membership hopes. But actually, under the treaty signed between Russia and her neighbours, the main purpose is to provide collective security and that includes the right for one member nation to go to the aid of another, a bit like Nato's Article 5. So it's a little strange for Blinken to cast doubt on why Russian troops are now in the Kazakh capital. But I know what he has in mind. The Kazakh president has all the troops and security apparatus he needs to quell riots but obviously he thought the presence of Russian troops would have more impact and at the same time give him a warm glow that his friend Putin is ready to rush to his aid when he calls. It's all about politics and signal-sending, none of which should surprise Blinken. But then I suppose Blinken is also trying to get his messaging in before the Geneva talks. Judging by the remarks by Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, Putin has no chance of persuading the western alliance to stop its expanding mission embracing Ukraine. Personally I think it would be madness to bring Ukraine into full Nato membership. Think up some other form of exclusive partnership but having Ukraine benefting from Article 5 under which all members have to defend another member under attack could lead to a conventional war between the US and Nato allies and Russia with its treaty alliance members.

Russian military demonstrates its quick-reaction readiness in Kazakhstan

From the order to standby for deployment in Kazakhstan to when troops began to pile into transport aircraft only a few hours had passed. It was an impressive display of Russian military quick-reaction readiness. Armoured personnel vehicles, mobile-phone-jamming drones and a whole lot of other equipment for the "peacekeeping" mission were also spotted being shipped into the huge aircraft. The Russian-led rapid reaction force set up in 2009 but never used operationally until now was in position and controlling the capital of Kazakhstan in a breathtakingly short time. The force was mostly Russian - airborne and special operations Spetsnaz troops - but there were also contributions from Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, all sent in the emergency under the Collective Security Treaty Organisation signed in May 1992 and involving nine regional nations. A sort of mini Warsaw Pact arrangement. The appeal for help by the Kazakhstan president after days of violent protests came at a bad time for President Putin who was gving all his focus to Ukraine and what he hoped to get from the planned talks in Geneva on Sunday between US and Russian officials. But in some ways he was probably quite happy to deploy troops to Kazakhstan to prove to the world that the Russian military was now a modernised force capable of mounting operations swiftly and lethally. You could almost hear him saying to himself: "Watch out, Ukraine."

Angry words between Biden and Trump

Oh my goodness, Joe Biden chose the first anniversary of the January 6 assault on the Capitol to lay into Donald Trump. Big time. No holding back. A positive thundering attack on his immediate predecessor in the White House. It has been a long time coming. Most presidents don't talk ill of their predecessors but Biden couldn't resist the moment to slam into him over his involvement in the January 6 outrage. Trump did after all rouse his supporters to march on the Capitol on the day Congress was supposed to be voting to confirm the result of the 2020 election. And despite his daughter Ivanka pleading with him to call off his supporters he did nothing to stop the violence. So Biden grabbed his moment to denounce Trump in language which, for the president, was pretty strong. He also emphasised that there was absolutely no evidence that the 2020 election was wrong or false. Seven million voters - the difference between Trump's total and Biden's - was the only evidence needed to prove that point. Trump must have been steaming when he heard what Biden had to say and issued a statement which attacked everything Biden stood for and accused him of operating a failed presidency. Democracy is a great thing in America. The president attacks his predecessor for inspiring a violent assault on the Capitol and the former president reacts back with a vitriolic denunciation of his successor but unlike in, say China or Russia, it's all part of a normal day in politics. No one gets arrested at dawn and thrown into prison.

Can Biden and Nato offer any concessions to Putin?

On April 4, 2008, President Vladimir Putin strode into the huge conference hall inside the Palace of Parliament in Bucharest to confront the world’s media on the last day of a Nato summit and put down his marker for future relations with the Western alliance. The Russian leader was there as an invited guest to attend the post-summit meeting of the Nato-Russia Council, an organisation set up after the Cold War to generate and motivate good relations between the former Soviet Union and its old perceived adversary. Putin was in an ebullient mood. “So let’s be friends, guys, let’s be frank and open,” he quipped. Some of the reporters present had clapped him when he entered the hall. However, behind the smiles and the bravura performance, Putin had a message for the West. One of the items on the Nato summit agenda had been a proposal to hand to Ukraine and Georgia the greatest gift the alliance could offer, a membership action plan which would lead to both countries joining the organisation in due course. Any such move to expand eastwards to embrace Ukraine and Georgia would not “contribute to trust and predictability in our relations” and would be treated as “a direct threat to the security of our country”, Putin warned. From that moment, more than 13 years ago, the Ukraine issue became the standard bearer for both Nato which wanted its open door policy to include any nation which wished to adopt its values and defensive commitments, as well as for Putin who had decried the loss of the Soviet empire and still regarded Russia’s former Warsaw Pact ally as a Moscow satellite. The Nato summit held in the old Romanian dictator President Nicolae Ceausescu’s 1,000-room palace, had been an ill-conceived affair. President George W Bush had pushed hard for the membership plan to be handed to Ukraine and Georgia but wiser counsel, principally from France, Germany and Italy, softened what would have been viewed as a highly provocative move by the Russian president. With British negotiators at the heart of the struggle to avoid a slap in Putin’s face, a fudge was designed. The formal invitation for Nato membership was postponed. But it remained on the table. Thirteen years later Ukraine is getting impatient and is wondering why it has had to wait so long. Having watched as Nato expanded rapidly across eastern Europe, absorbing the eager and anxious Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in 1999, and the Baltics, plus Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004, the sense of encroachment reached paranoia level inside the Kremlin. Putin struck back in 2014 with the annexing of Crimea and the long war in eastern Ukraine. Now Putin is trying to turn the tables on the West by effectively blackmailing Washington and other Nato capitals to reverse much of what was decided in Bucharest and previous Nato summits by threatening an invasion of Ukraine and other military retaliatory steps. The US and Russia will be holding talks to discuss these issues on January 10, and Putin and President Biden are talking on the phone today for the second time in less than a month. Looking ahead from the Kremlin’s point of view, Putin has always insisted that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, then Russian president, was given a promise that Nato wouldn’t expand eastwards. No such pledge was given. Indeed, Nato expansion eastwards was not an issue in 1990 although Gorbachev did raise Moscow’s concerns about the potential reunification of Germany and the possibility of Nato troops taking up positions closer to Russia. Since taking power, Putin has demonstrated his antipathy towards Nato. But does the alliance owe him some form of concession as a result of the expansion to Russia’s borders? Putin has posed his red lines, including scrapping all talk of Nato membership for Ukraine and a pull-back of troops and weapons from eastern Europe. Could or should Biden offer flexibility as a means of dissuading Putin from ordering an invasion of Ukraine? Withdrawing troops or weapons from Poland or the Baltics, or reneging on Nato’s acceptance of Ukraine’s right to apply for alliance membership are surely steps too far. However, could Biden, with Nato approval, offer extended talks with Moscow on the whole issue of alliance expansion in return for a stand-down of Russian forces on Ukraine’s border; or suggest confidence-building military exchanges and even some minor combined exercises to demonstrate good will? “If Biden/Nato offers to abandon the Ukrainians and the Poles and the Baltic states by agreeing to forego placing troops there it would be an attractive deal for Putin, giving him vastly increased geostrategic positional advantage and an enhanced ability for Moscow to engage in coercion against these states, “ said Andrew Krepinevich, a Washington-based security analyst who served on the personal staff of three US secretaries of defence. “Were I Biden I would tell Putin that if he attacks Ukraine Nato would do a great deal, short of introducing troops to aid Kyiv, such as providing intelligence equipment, perhaps engaging in cyber activities as well as imposing severe economic measures. But also to look to offer Putin a way out without losing face,” he said. Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defence for policy in the George W Bush administration, said all of the Russian complaints were based on a false premise, “which is that Nato is somehow threatening Russia”. It’s the same false premise that kept the Cold War alive for so long. “I don’t think Putin has grievances that he wants the West to assuage,” he said. “I think he just wants to be aggrieved to justify his aggressive policies to an increasingly restive Russian public that is sick of the economic stagnation and utter corruption of Putin’s kleptocratic regime,” he said. Whatever is in Putin’s mind right now, he will be seeking in the January 10 talks some counter-proposal from the US that will either meet his red-lines ultimatum which he must realise is unrealistic or will provide him with sufficient incentive to call back his troops from the Ukraine border. Any significant concession to appease Putin’s security concerns will be seen in Moscow as a sign of Washington’s weakness, something to be exploited in the future. Biden and his national security team, and fellow Nato leaders, have to find a formula that will sound concessionary without actually offering anything of real substance: an acknowledgment of Putin’s concerns and a commitment to improved relations and communications, but only if the threat to Ukraine’s borders is lifted.

The massive frustrations of Covid

For reasons that are totally understandable, Covid and the scarecity of staff are more often than not the reasons why it is almost impossible to get through to any business/company/bank/etc when there is something urgent to get fixed or sorted out. But waiting one and a half hours to get through when there is a serious worry about fraudulent scamming activity and then once through to be cut off!!!! I won't mention the particular company involved but it has to be one of a million cases a day in this country and other nations where the long long wait to get something sorted out raises stress levels to Everest height. This is one of the many negative impacts of the pandemic. With so many key workers working from home they are inundated with calls and can't cope. How many thousands of people must have slammed the phone down in frustration and anger as they fail totally to get the answer they need to resolve a particular crisis. Fraud and scams are so prevalent that anyone with any common sense would be wary about trying to do anything over the phone or indeed Online that relates to transferring sums of money. But sometimes it has to be done. And that's when the nightmare starts. An hour and a half waiting for that voice that actually says "hello can I help you", rather than "sorry for the delay but we are short of staff because of Covid". I fear it is only going to get worse as the number of Omicron victims accelerates over the next few weeks and people are forced to self-isolate. The one and a half hours delay will become two hours and then three hours. Who is going to wait that long before bursting a blood vessel?

Republicans are still going on about the "false" 2020 election

There are a lot of stories and commentaries and editorial pieces in the US papers today about how America's democracy is truly at stake. Why? Because, aided and abetted by Donald Trump, a huge number of Republicans, voters and "lawmakers", still believe that Joe Biden falsely won the 2020 presidential election. It is totally unbelievable that this is still the case after very nearly a year since a bunch of wild Trump supporters charged Capitol Hill and took over the sacred parliamentary building to try and overturn the election verdict. It was the most scandalous event of 2021 and there are many sensible and intelligent people in the US who fear that this sort of incident could happen again. I believe they are right. There is a burning resentment in many parts of America that won't go away and Trump is still peddling his conviction that he and not Biden should have won the election when patently the voting records show that Biden lawfully and constitutionally was the victor. Let me paint the worst possible scenario: Trump announces later this year that he is definitely going to stand for reelection in 2024, his supporters go wild and then in 2024 he loses for the second time by a relatively small margin. Would there then be another assault on the Capitol, but this time far more organised and deadly? I have to say the chances must be high. Senior politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Liz Cheney (Republican!) are warning of the dangers facing democracy in the US if Trump were to win in 2024. But actually if he nearly wins but loses to Biden or whoever, the dangers are still there because his supporters will not accept it. All those terrible images of January 6, 2021, will come flooding back. Scary? Definitely.

Most political leaders failed in one way or another in 2021

No political leader can look back on 2021 with any degree of satisfaction. There were too many failures, too many bad judgments and too many signs that their political fortunes are heading for reverse. The possible exception is Vladimir Putin who somehow manages to look and sound as if he is in total control of his master plan for himself and for his country. He has thrown down the gauntlet to Joe Biden over Ukraine and Nato's eaternwards expansion and clearly believes his ultimatums are going to bear fruit. We shall see. But Biden has suffered many setbacks during 2021, not least his failure (not really his fault) to defeat Covid as he promised he would because of the dramatic appearance of the Omicron variant. Then there's his failure to persuade an obstructive Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, to back his Build Back Better $2 trillion legislation and thus saw the end of the year pass by without a deal. There are also rumblings about 2024 and whetherhe will be capable, physically and mentally, to do another four years in the White House. As for Boris Johnson he has had such mixed fortunes and misfortunes that it's a wonder he is still in charge at all. But it's possible that things are beginning to look up. He stuck his neck out and refused to impose new liberty restrictions on the English - and the Scottish who flocked in coaches over the border to drink in English bars on New Year's Eve. The signs so far are that he may have got away with it. There have been masses of Omicron infections over the period but not a big jump in deaths and hospitalisations. It's still touch-and-go whether his judgment will be proved sound but he must be desperately hoping that 2022 will revive his popularity ratings. But all in all 2021 was very bad for him. President Macron also had a bad year. All his nonsense about the boatloads of migrants leaving French beaches, claiming the French police were doing everything to stop them when it was patently obvious they did the opposite, and the French leader trying to stop the Brits from coming anywhere near France because of Covid. His political fortunes took a very definite turn for the worse with right wing extremism looking healthier every day. Other leaders around the world battled away to try and save their countries from Covid but never quite seemed to find the right formula. So let us hope that in 2022 political leaders get the balance right between freedom and common sense restrictions until Covid in whatever form is finally sent packing.

The terror of drone warfare in Ethiopia

The cheapest air force in the world has changed the face of the battlefield in the civil war between Ethiopian government forces and rebels of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). Multiple purchases of armed surveillance drones at a fraction of the cost of buying fighter jets and bombers have provided Ethiopia’s leader, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, with a war-winning weapon system that has forced the rebels to take cover. The TPLF has no alternative but to hide from the relentless aerial bombardment. The rebels in the northern Tigray region of Ethiopia have been fighting the government forces since Abiy launched a military campaign in Tigray in November last year. The rebels battled hard and had made such progress that they marched south and were within about 80 miles from the capital Addis Ababa. The government was facing a violent overthrow. A decision to invest in armed drones, widely available from countries which have developed reputations for building cheap and accurate systems not only halted the advance but also threw into disarray the battle plans of the rebels and reversed their territorial gains after months of fighting. The dramatic change in fortune for the TPLF and the role armed drones have played have highlighted how the concept of warfare has been transformed in recent years. With drones and foreign expertise to operate them, the Ethiopian government has been able to gain total aerial superiority over rebel forces that have neither the weapons nor any form of air defence to protect themselves. The slaughter that has followed is reminiscent of the final hours of the 1991 Gulf War when US Apache attack helicopters and fighter aircraft picked off Iraqi forces as they fled from Kuwait City up the six-lane highway to Mutla Ridge en route to the border with Iraq. The success story for the government in Addis Ababa will be a lesson learned by other small-power nations needing to arm against internal or external adversaries. It will also boost significantly the armed drones export by countries which have cleverly exploited this new market by developing their own systems for overseas sales. Turkey, Iran and the United Arab Emirates head the list. “It’s no longer just the big powers such as the US, China, Russia, UK and France producing armed drones. Turkey and Iran are selling significant numbers abroad and for countries that can’t afford fighter aircraft, this is a game-changer,” said Paul Scharre, a former senior Pentagon official who helped develop US policy on drones and is author of the award-winning Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. “It means these countries can have air power at a much lower cost. The drones also perform surveillance missions, thus changing the whole tactical landscape,” he said. “Clearly they are not as advanced as F-35 stealth fighters but these countries [such as Ethiopia] don’t need F-35s or F-16s because the armed drones provide them with the level of air power that suits their requirements ,” Scharre said. “Drones also provide other advantages over the traditional fighter aircraft. They have longer endurance and can provide vital surveillance of the battlefield, allowing for precision strikes,” he said. Drones had a significant impact on changing the battle landscape in Nagorno-Karabakh last year where Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey-provided drones, won a 44-day war against Armenia for control of the disputed enclave. Turkish drone airpower also saved Tripoli in the war in Libya between the government of national accord (GNA) and the forces of retired Major-General Khalifa Haftar. In Ethiopia, the Addis Ababa government sought multiple sources for a rapid supply of armed drones and began purchasing about a year ago. Turkey , with its Bayrakter TB2, and Iran, selling its Mohajer-6, were willing suppliers. The United Arab Emirates provided China’s Wing Loong-2 drone. The Bayrakter is around $5 million each and can carry four small laser-guided missiles, the Chinese drone is about $2 million and is armed with eight weapons, and the Mohajer-6, an estimated $3 million, is fitted with two missiles. About 90 per cent of armed drone transfers come from China. But with the US reluctant to sell its Reaper and other drones abroad, even to allies, countries such as Turkey and Iran have moved in to snatch some of the export potential from the Chinese. “This spectrum of drone capability is like an air force on the cheap for the Ethiopian government forces. They acquired these drones, initially from Iran, then the Chinese ones from the Emiratis and finally the TB2 from Turkey, which allowed them to spot rebel ground troops and carry out precision strikes,” said Stacie Pettyjohn, director of the defence programme at the Washington-based Centre for a New American Security (CNAS). “The TB2 can stick around for about 24 hours, so they could find rebel forces who had no way of defending themselves,” she said. The Tigrayans, she said, were trying to acquire an effective counter to the drones. “But air defence systems are more sophisticated and expensive,” she said. Meanwhile, the Abiy government can not only rely on its arsenal of drones to guarantee battlefield advantage but it reportedly has technical experts from their foreign suppliers to help operate and maintain them. The use of armed drones is no longer a choice solely for nation states. Modified commercial drones fitted with makeshift explosive devices in the hands of terrorists and jihadist insurgents is already a reality. Four years ago Isis revealed in a progaganda video that it had developed its own bomb-carrying quadcopter drones. The off-the-shelf drones not only proved effective weapon systems in Iraq and elsewhere but also demonstrated the heightened publicity value of such attacks from the air. drone strikes create a greater sense of vulnerability than even a fighter bomber flying overhead and generate more media attention. The innovative methods used by Isis will have encouraged other non-state actors engaged in conflicts around the world to devise their own drones. However, more alarming is the possibility that terrorist organisations might be able to get their hands on bigger and better drones now that the export market has expanded so rapidly. China has shown no hesitation in offering its drones to overseas customers. Its CH-4 drone which looks like the US Reaper although is not as technologically advanced, has been sold to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. More than 100 countries now have armed or surveillance drones. The potential for such systems to end up in the wrong hands must be high.