China marches on to military might

If you want a sobering read try the Pentagon's latest report on China's military power.There are numerous paragraphs in the report to remind everyone that China is making huge progress towards turning itself into a military superpower. Beijing under President Xi Zinping, the same man now facing thousands of protesters demanding he resign over his zero Covid policy, has two dates in mind: 2027 to have a fully integrated combat force capable of taking on anyone and beating them (including the US), and 2049 when Xi wants China to be the dominating nation in the world. He calls it a rejuvinated China. We call it a threatening China. One little paragraph states that China last year test-fired more ballistic missiles than the rest of the world combined. That suggests a serious intent. Xi also wants to boost China's arsenal of nuclear warheads to 1,500 over the next few years. Ok, still way below the stocks held by the US and Russia, but this is 1,500 and rising, while Washington and Moscow, in between shouting at each other, are actually keen to reduce theirs, though how long that will last who knows. The annual Pentagon report on China follows a similar pattern. The Pentagon says China poses a major threat to international security and quotes a bunch of statistics to prove the point. Then Beijing answers back and basically says the Pentagon is being unkind, untruthful and hostile. This is the way diplomacy works between the US and China.

America's new super-stealth bomber to be unveiled

For years the US company building a new-generation strategic stealth bomber in total secrecy has given subtle hints at what it will look like, with artist's impressions of an exotic flying wing. Now the B-21 Raider which will form the backbone of America's airborne nuclear force in the future is to be unveiled to the world on Friday. The official roll-out of the US Air Force B-21 will take place at Palmdale, California where Northrop Grumman, the selected company to design the futuristic bomber, has been developing the classified programme. Although the flying-wing shape will be similar to the B-2 Spirit bomber built more than 30 years ago, the Raider will be smaller and more finely designed, making it far more difficult to spot by enemy radar. If the revolutionary B-2 was super-stealthy in design, the B-21 is expected to be barely visible in combat operations. Much of the focus during the design stages was on survivability. With America's potential adversaries developing and deploying new sophisticated air-defence systems the B-21 Raider will need to be capable of penetrating the toughest defences without being targeted. Like the B-2 which has been used in nearly every conflict in the last 30 years, including Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, the B-21 will be capable of carrying both precision-guided conventional and nuclear bomb payloads. With 100 B-21s planned at a cost of $550 million each (at 2010 prices), it will eventually replace the B-2 and the older B-1 bombers. The B-1 is no longer nuclear-capable. However, the B-21 will not be replacing one of America's oldest aircraft, the B-52H Stratofortress bomber which has been given numerous engine and avionics updates to ensure it stays operational far into the future. Although both Russia and China are building exotic weapon systems and next-generation strategic bombers, the B-21 will be the most advanced military aircraft ever built. "With the capability to hold targets at risk anywhere in the world, this weapon system is critical to our national security," Doug Young, vice president of Northrop Grumman's strike division, said at an air, space and cyber conference. It will also be cheaper than the B-2. The plan from the start of the programme was to design a new bomber at a unit cost of no more than $550 million. Northrop Grumman is confident it has met that target although at today's prices it is likely each aircraft will cost around $639 million. The B-2 was more than $1 billion. Costs were reduced by the use of the most advanced digital tools to design the bomber. Northrop Grumman also built the B-2 in the 1980s and the lessons learned from that bomber's revolutionary design played a key role in creating the new-style flying wing which will emerge from its previously secret hanger at the Palmdale facility. The giant US defence company won the contract for a new long-range strike bomber in 2015. It was designated the Raider in honour of the Doolittle Raiders of the second world war. On April 18, 1942, 80 airmen and 16 B-25 Mitchell aircraft flew the first raid on Tokyo after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. The raid was planned and led by Lieutenant-Colonel James "Jimmy" Doolittle of US army air forces.

Should the West capitalise on China's protest problems?

Whenever any sort of uprising occurs in a country which is not allied to or friendly with the United States the government of that country will often acuse the Americans and the West of being behind the demostrations, stirring it up for ideological and hostile reasons. Tehran always tries to blame the US for anything going wrong in Iran. Like now for example, with young women and others protesting across the country over the killing of a woman in prison who had refused to wear the hijab in public. I sincerely doubt the CIA or any other US organisation is playing any role in the demonstrations. The young people of Iran have enough fire in their bellies to protest by themselves without any foreign backing. The same can be said about the spreading protests in China over President Xi Zinping's zero-Covid policy and the nationwide lockdowns that have shut Chinese people inside their homes for weeks. The angry Chinese demonstrators are brave enough to carry out the protests and demand Xi's resignation and the end of communist rule and don't need or want outside help. But with China facing demonstrations on a scale not seen since Tiananman Square in 1989, should the Biden administration make a conscious effort to highlight the repression that's going on in China and try to exploit the challenges now facing the Chinese president-for-life? It's a tricky one. Diplomatic relations between Washington and Beijing are fragile at best and an overt policy of backing the protesters would hardly improve matters. In my view, Biden should refrain from gloating publicly about Beijing's problems but focus any criticism on the harsh methods being used by the Chinese security authorities to clamp down on the demonstrators. We saw how protesters were attacked and abused during the riots in Hong Kong in 2019 and 2020. This sort of over-the-top police suppression needs to be highlighted. It will anger Xi no doubt but he is facing humiliation at the hands of the thousands of protesters and he needs to be held to account on the world stage.

Is Xi Zinping's dream of superpower status at risk with the Covid protests?

It seems extraordinary that Covid-19 started in China (in December 2019)- no one disputes that except Beijing - and yet here we are nearly three years later and the country is still suffering from a rising number of cases. Unlike other countries where Covid is also still a problem, Beijing, or more particularly President Xi Zinping, is behaving like he did when the first outbreak began in Chinese cities, ordering total lockdowns. Most scientists would say that now after the long pandemic the world has to get used to having Covid around in some form and to treat it like annual flu. Very few people in the UK bother to wear masks anymore, even on packed Underground trains. But Xi is a leader who wants total control over people's lives and so he has ordered towns and cities where Covid is rampant to close their doors and not emerge until he says so. When that edict led to people losing their lives in an apartment block fire, protests erupted and are still erupting. Those with more bravery than most Chinese people are calling for Xi to resign. He won't of course, he is the president for life. But I wonder if there are members of the Communist party Central Committee who might be worried that if millions of Chinese people start to demonstrate against the Covid restrictions, it could prove fatal for the Beijing leadership. It's the one area where Xi is vulnerable. Social unrest could undermine his grand vision for China to become a military and economic superpower. He is so hell-bent on this dream that he won't allow China's population to spoil his plans. But if the protests get worse he could face another Tiananmen Square disaster of 1989 when hundreds, if not thousands, of Chinese people were killed by the security authorities who used tanks to quell unarmed protesters. That could just finish off Xi, and his dream of leading a superpower to rival the US.

How can the West stop the Russian missile strikes?

Suddenly, just arming the Ukrainians to fight and defend against the Russians doesn't seem enough. Whatever the Ukrainian military can do to shoot down some of the missiles, rockets and artillery shells pouring onto the country from a long way off, they keep on coming. The Ministry of Defence in London says Moscow is running out of missiles but tell that to the Ukrainian people. They have noticed no let-up in the constant strikes that are destroying their homes, power stations, water plants and railways. Nato, especially the US, has supplied billions of dollars worth of equipment from air-defence systems to winter clothing to help the Kyiv government confront Putin's invasion force but the missile and artillery assaults are never-ending. Can the West do more to stop this destruction? I know that Biden and co are desperately worried about doing anything that might cause a full-scale war between Russian and Nato because of the risk of it going nuclear. But Putin, as I wrote yesterday, is intent on destroying Ukraine's total infrastructure. And he will keep going until Ukraine begs for mercy. Whatever the MoD says in London about Moscow running out of stocks, Russia must have enough to terrorise Ukraine throughout the winter. So should Nato finally, at last, intervene and if it does, what could the alliance do to stop Putin's attempted annihilation of a country and its people? I believe the answer lies in helping Ukraine to carry out a series of spectacular attacks against the Russians which will so shock Putin that he will be forced by his own people to end the war. The US should provide all the intelligence and much longer-range missiles and artillery for Ukraine to go on the offensive with strikes on every military site in Crimea and destroy Russia's ability to wage war from Crimea. At the same time, the same intelligence and weapons should be provided for Ukraine to destroy every warship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet hiding in port at Sevastopol. That might make Putin halt in his tracks. There would be huge risks but the destruction of Ukraine by a vengeful Russian leader can no longer be allowed to continue.

Putin's new objective: the destruction of Ukraine

I suspect Vladimir Putin has given up on defeating Ukraine with troops and tanks. They have failed abysmally. So now he is just concentrating on firing artillery shells and missiles every day at civilian infrastucture to obliterate the country. That is his sole objective now, to punish Ukraine and in particular the Kyiv govenment, for daring to fight back and not surrender to the mighty Russian army. It almost doesn't matter whether the Ukrainian military liberates towns and cities because the Russians will continue bombing and shelling the cities they have abandoned until there is nothing left. Russian combat troops don't have a role anymore in this war of attrition. It's now all about long-range cruise missiles and artillery. Kherson was liberated and Ukraine rejoiced. Indeed, the western world rejoiced. But Putin's answer, once he had got the surviving Russian forces out of Kherson and into relative safety on the other side of the Dnipro river, was to order mass shelling and missile strikes in revenge. Kherson is being blasted into a scraheap. All the residents are being advised to leave. So much for liberation. Putin is no fool and he doesn't care about the Ukrainian civilians. He wants revenge for his army's failures and the easiest way is to annihilate Ukraine's towns and cities, and that is what he is doing. He once said he didn't want to destroy Ukraine but now he does.

Who will be the first to take on Trump?

As Donald Trump's fortunes continue to wane, the big question now is: which Republican is going to be brave enough to throw his or her hat in the ring and announce a campaign for the White House? There are lots of names around but no one has yet come forward to take on Trump following his formal announcement soon after the midterm elections were over that he is standing again. Until now the impression given within the Republican party was that Trump was a leader to be feared and that anyone confronting him for the White House race would be obliterated. There is no qustion that Trump is a formidable politician and although I have never met him or even stood in the same room as Trump I can well imagine that he is pretty scary. He has the look and self-assurance of the biggest bully in the playground. But now things are changing. Quite dramatically. Trump is no longer seen or feared as the rampaging winner. He has suffered so many losses in recent weeks and is facing so many legal challenges over the next few months - the declaration by the Supreme Court that his tax returns must be handed over to Congress being the latest setback - that he looks more like a wounded buffalo surrounded by predators than the king of the jungle. His rivals in the Republican party have yet to come out formally but all of them have been hinting about the way things are going and, most importantly, emphasising that the Republican party needs new leadership for the 2024 battle. In other words, step down, Trump, and let younger people take over. Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley have all been voicing their opinions recently and none of them are saying: "Hey let's support Trump". And of course there's Ron DeSantis, the new darling of the Republican party after his huge victory in the Florida governor election. He hasn't yet been calling for a new generation to take over the Republican leadership but he boasted that his success in Florida was just the start of something ever greater! So who will be the first to declare? I suspect we will have to wait. The principal candidates will bide their time, make carefully worded speeches and then when the time is right, probably when Trump has another major setback, they will all move in for the kill.

South Korea developing an anti-ballistic missile defence system

South Korea has successfully tested a new domestically-produced anti-ballistic missile system which will add a significant new layer of protection against the increasing threat of missile strikes by Pyongyang. Hit-to-kill interceptors destroyed high-altitude targets during the test. Although few details were disclosed by military officials, the success of the long-range surface-to-air missile (L-SAM) has been confirmed by South Korea's Yonhap news agency three weeks after North Korea fired 23 ballistic missiles into the sea in a single day. South Korea has already deployed a lover-level missile defence system, based on a medium-range surface-to-air missile (M-SAM), also called Cheongung II or Iron Hawk which was designed to target ballistic missiles at an altitude of about 12 miles. The new L-SAM interceptor system has the capability to hit incoming missiles at an altitude of between 25 and 60 miles, according to Janes. South Korea first flight-tested the anti-ballistic missile interceptor in February but without a target involved. The L-SAM has been under development since 2019 and is expected to be operational by 2024. With a planned range of about 90 miles it will have the capability to destroy both ballistic missiles and high-flying aircraft. The steady build-up of anti-ballistic missile defence (ABM) systems in South Korea has become more urgent following the unprecedented number of ballistic missiles launched by North Korea this year - more than 60 so far. Last week North Korea test-fired a Hwasong-17 intercontinental ballistic missile which could reach the US. It flew nearly 620 miles for about 69 minutes and reached a maximum altitude of more than 3,750 miles. It was fired from a mobile transporter and was designed to carry a nuclear warhead. The South Korean indigenous missile-defence programme combines with US ABM systems which already protect the country from its neighbour. These are the Patriot PAC-3, the most advanced version of the US theatre air-defence missile, and the THAAD (terminal high-altitude area defence) system operated by the US army. THAAD, first deployed to South Korea in 2017, is capable of destroying ballistic missiles at an altitude of between 90 and 120 miles.

A winter of attrition in Ukraine

The war may slown down in Ukraine because of the snow and freezing temperatures but you can be sure the attrition will continue with thousands more lives lost. While the war will be neither lost nor won by either side in the months ahead, I think it's fair to say that the Ukrainian military is better trained, better equipped, and certainly more motivated to make progress in the winter months. They have been provided with western winter-weather combat clothing, and thousands of Ukrainian troops have already been and are continuing to be trained in a number of European countries, including the UK. They are geared up in every sense of the word for winter fighting conditions. Whereas the Russians, or certainly most of the 300,000 or so newly mobilised troops, are ill-equipped, poorly trained and lacking in any form of motivation, discipline or capability. It's good news for the Ukrainians but a shameful situation for Putin and his military chiefs who have blindly sent unwilling reservists into battle to face death or injury. They will achieve nothing but their own humiliation. No doubt Putin will continue with his daily shelling of Ukraine's energy infrastructure to try and freeze the population into submission. But somehow I think Putin will fail because the Ukrainian people will survive even the most extreme conditions if they can believe that at some point in the not too distant future the Russians will be driven out. In the meantime, the better trained and better equipped Ukrainian troops will not only survive the winter but will push the Russians further back towards the Russian border.

So no peace effort in Ukraine after all

It's amazing how views change in such a short time. Not that long ago there were all kinds of whisperings in Washington that Ukraine should start considering the possibility that now, or at least soon, might be a good time to work out how a deal could be reached with Moscow. No pressure, no direct arm-twisting, just messages back and forth indicating that the diplomatic solution to end the war might be in everyone's interest. Officials in Washington totally denied there was any suggestion that a settlement should be in the forefront of President Zelensky's thinking from now on. But subtle messages, yes that was definitely the ongoing tactic. But there as a lot of push-back from Kyiv. The military there in particular rejected any idea of talking to Putin and said things were going so well that it was imperative to keep battling on to cause more grief for the Russian invasion forces. Now the Pentagon at least is back swinging and dancing for warfighting to continue. Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, was positively bellicose in his remarks at a fancy conference of military types in Canada. War war, not jaw jaw. You wonder what the State Department and National Security Council back in Washington are thinking now that their carefully-laid peace messaging has been stamped on by the big man at the Pentagon. Kyiv will be delighted. As the snow arrives in Ukraine and the war grinds on with increasing difficulty, Zelensky I'm sure wants to persist with bashing the Russians for as long as possible until they are driven out of his country or lie dead in the cornfields. The next few months are going to be grim for the Ukrainian people with extensive power cuts and missile strikes throughout the winter. But Austin will keep plugging away with more weapons for Kyiv because, in his view, to stop now would be tantamount to ending the fight for democracy. I hope Putin has got the message.

We are still facing a fossil fuel future

All the focus of the "triumph" at the Sharm el-Sheikh climate conference has been on the fund to be set up to compensate developing countries for the suffering they have had and are having as a result of global warming, caused by the developed countries. There is no doubt it is a just and fair decision. Why should countries such as Bangladesh bear the burden of climate-change disasters when they have contributed only a small percentage of the carbon emissions that are destroying our planet? But will China which claims to be still a developing country contribute to the fund? China is the biggest carbon emitter in the world, double the amount of what the US emits. We will have to wait and see. But far more interesting and alarming is the fundamental failure of the conference of heads of government to announce a total war on fossil fuels. Indeed at the last moment a clause was slipped into the final document which appeared to favour an increase in the use of natural gas because it emits fewer carbons than coal. But it's still a big-time carbon emitter and the conference should have been brave enough to set a timetable for stopping the use of all fossil fuels. Russia which holds Europe to ransom with its export of natural gas to keep European homes warm will be delighted. Does Moscow care about the world's climate when it needs to sell its vast stocks of natural gas to fund the war in Ukraine? So another year will go by before the fossil fuel issue is raised again. That's another year of rising temnperatures and rising sea levels. So the developing nations have got the financial help they have been begging for for years, but the world as a whole is still heading for climatic catastrophe.

The law and politics can't be separated when it involves Donald Trump

The appointment of a special counsel to investigate allegations of criminality against Donald Trump will dominate politics in Washington over the next two years. The decision by the Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel was intended to separate the Biden administration from involvement in the long-running series of investigations into the former president and to ensure that a lawyer who is independent of government makes the decision whether to institute charges or not. However, in Washington everything is about politics, and neither Trump nor his loyal followers will view the appointment with anything other than ridicule. Trump has already described the decision by Garland as a witch hunt. The special counsel, Jack Smith, a former war crimes prosecutor, will focus his investigation on the accusation that Trump incited the violence that led to the assault on the Capitol on January 6 last year, and the former president’s removal of classified documents from the White House and the storage of them at his residence at Mar-al-Lago in Florida. Putting these investigations into the hands of a special counsel is bound to delay the decision on whether to charge Trump, although Smith will be able to benefit from the months of work already carried out by the FBI. However, at some point, probably before the 2024 presidential election, the special counsel will be in a position to announce his conclusions; and if he were to decide that charges are justified, how is this going to be orchestrated so as not to have maximum impact on the election? It’s impossible to separate the law from politics when it comes to the most controversial politician in the US. Whatever the special counsel decides it will be within a political environment even though he will insist his decision has been based purely on his legal judgment.

Can Trump run for the presidency and be charged with criminality?

There are literally piles of potential charges that could be laid against Donald Trump, from incitement to violence prior to the January 6 assault on Congress by his supporters, to fraud for claiming he won the 2020 election, dodgy business deals, and taking classified documents to his home in Florida. So with all this hanging over him should he be allowed to campaign for the White House? Ok, he is innocent until proven guilty but the allegations and accusations against him are pretty serious for a man who believes he has the right to be the next president.It's very likely that one of the reasons Trump decided to announce his bid for the White House at this point is because he hopes it will put the fear of God into his accusers, especially in the Justice Department, and stop them from announcing any charges. Because if the Attorney General does decide to press charges, Trump will no doubt claim that they are purely political aimed at undermining his chances of running for president. By coincidence, two other leaders elsewhere in the world are facing a similar situation: Benjamin Netanyahu who has been selected to become Israel's prime minister again, is still facing corruption charges, and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia should, in the eyes of many people, be accused of something to do with the outrageous murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the dissident Saudi journalist, whose body was cut into pieces at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018 by a hit squad sent from Riyadh. But under US law, it seems, bin Salman cannot face prosecution in any private legal action in America because he is a head of government. Trump will be hoping he can similarly escape any form of prosecution.

So farewell Nancy Pelosi

It's difficut to imagine the US House of Representatives without Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker. Obviously after the success of the Republicans in winning a small majority in the House in the midterm elections, Nancy was not going to remain as Speaker. She would have handed over to her political rival, Kevin McCarthy. But she could have stayed on as Minority Leader. Many hoped she would. But now she has announced she is stepping down, leaving the post she has so elegantly and eloquently filled for as long as one can remember - actually two terms, 2007-2011 and 2019-2022. She is 82 but age didn't seem to matter. She had the two key ingredients needed for holding sway in the House of Representatives: class and class. She was in every way a class act and stylish with it. She will still be around, serving the 12th district of California, but no longer in charge. It's a sgnificant moment in the life of the US Congress. Her decision was not unexpected after the appalling and brutal attack on her husband, Paul, at their home in San Francisco. She has been saying for some days that her decision about her future political career would be impacted by the attack on her husband. She said today that she thought it was the right time for her to hand over to someone younger but one cannot exclude the fact that a violent act played a part in her decision to step down which is intensely sad and a reflection of the violence that erupts so often in the United States. But bless her, she has been a stalwart and unflinching advocate for democracy and fairness and has shown a political astuteness which few in Congress can rival. Her visit to Taiwan in August demonstrated more than anything that she was prepared to act in the name of democracy irrespective of the bullying warnings made by Beijing who launched the biggest military exercise against Taiwan during and after her trip. One up to her I think. Nancy's leadership will be missed.

Trump throws down the gauntlet

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

Bad news all round for Trump but he will still stand

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

Biden pressured to think again about axeing nuclear cruise missile

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

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

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

Washington's efforts for diplomatic solution in Ukraine

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

Russia's super-torpedo fails its test

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

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

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

Trump loses - kind of

Donald Trump will no doubt deny it but he hasn't got what he wanted in the midterm elections. He will still declare it a great victory for him because the Republicans appear to have won control of the House of Representatives but, so far anyway, have failed to grab the majority in the Senate. Trump will probably claim it was all fixed and a false result but the fact is he has been dealt a blow to his ego. Some of his personally selected candidates haven't made it and the great red rush of Republican wins across the country just hasn't materialised. There are a number of positives that have come out of the midterms: Trump may have scared off a lot of voters and the Democrats have done much better than they predicted. It may also give Trump reason to feel les confident about making his "very big" announcement next week. For Biden it's more complicated. Obviously if the Democrats had swept all before them and won control of both houses of Congress for the next two years that would have been a helluva filip for his administration and probably would have encouraged him to be defnite about standing for reelection as president in 2024. But losing the House of Representatives and hanging on to the Senate for dear life, albeit wth an extra seat (so far), can't really be classed as a major victory. Biden's poll ratings are also slipping. So in other words, the Big Declaration for the 2024 battle is not as clear-cut for either Biden or Trump.

Donald Trump does love to tease

In the latest from the Trump bandwagon, the man says he is going to make a very big announcement on November 15. Donald Trump really does like to tease. I think it's safe to say that if he doesn't declare that he will be standing for reelection as president in 2024 the whole of the United States, nay the whole of the globe, will be so amazed everyone will fall off their respective chairs. So unless he is teasing for teasing's sake and just wants to keep people on tenterhooks for another few months, Trump will be standing again. Now that we pretty well know for sure one has to ask what will this mean for the planet if he stands and wins the presidency and moves back into the White House. The predictions are not too difficult. He will be the most interfering president since the last time he was in the White House. He will make decisions based on whatever he wakes up thinking about. It could be "let's stop the war in Ukraine, I'm off to Moscow" (yes it will still be going on in 2024), or it could be "It's time we bombed North Korea/Iran", or maybe *I'm going to finish building that wall and the Pentagon can pay for it". It's truly hard to believe that the 45th president might be back. Those who will support him all the way to the White House haven't learn any lessons or harboured any doubts. They just want their man back and to hell with the rest of you. I guess this is the way the world is going right now. Apart from Brazil where they have gone socialist the majority of elections are going to the right, the extreme right. Italy is already off the wall right, France is probably going to swing to the nationalists in the next election and now America is heading into Republican hands (probably) and the Trumpites are getting excited. I'm all for democracy but heaven help us.

Trump waits in the wings with the midterms up for grabs

Anything could happen tomorrow at the US midterm elections. I doubt either the Republican party or the Democrats are absolutely confident of winning. That is, winning enough seats in the House of Representatives and Senate to grab the majority. At present the Democrats have control over both with the skin of their teeth. But they have one big disadvantage. It's common if not traditional for the governing party to lose popularity halfway through the first four years of its administration, so expectations will not be high anyway. But with the added factor of having nice old Joe Biden in the White Huouse, the Republicans have been having a ball knocking him down at every available opportunity, and voters may start to get the message - that old Joe is too old to carry on beyond the next two years and it's time to prepare for a Republican president. The midterms are nothing to do with the 2024 presidential election and everything to do with the 2024 election. You cannot separate one from the other, and if the Democrats lose the majority in both houses, as is being predicted, then the path to 2024 will seem pretty straight and narrow for the Republican nominated candidate which of course could be one Donald Trump. If by a miracle the Democats retain control of the House and the Senate - not an impossibility - then Trump will feel somewhat chagrined and might delay his announcement about the presidency. But it won't necessarily be all good news for Biden and his 2024 hopes because there isn't a single voter in the country who doesn't know that it's Biden's 80th birthday coming up this month and another six years on top of that would be, well...quite a gamble. If the Republicans win big time tomorrow and Trump gets his chosen candidates through then the 45th president (Trump) will definitely go for the White House in 2024. Not probably as he said the other day but absolutely definitely. As for Biden, a serious defeat for the Democrats in Congress would be writing on the wall for his future I suspect. With any luck, Trump's candidates will fail to win seats and Biden's lot will scrape through. It still doesn't mean Trump won't stand for the presidency but it might make him hesitate.

China is the biggest carbon emissions polluter

No matter what the world decides at the climate-change summit in Egypt, nothing will be seriously achieved unless China, the biggest polluter in the world, agrees to make huge policy decisions: either cut back on carbon emissions on a scale and timetable that would be immensely impressive or donate vast sums to developing countries which have played little part in destroying the planet but have suffered the worst from flooding, tsunamies and other devastating global-warming challenges. The chances are that China will do something but not nearly enough. The US used to be the biggest pulluter and was number one in the rankings for carbon emissions. China now is so far ahead of the US that it is guilty of producing double the amount compared with America. Beijing claims it is still a developing nation, so it's unfair to make them the scapegoat. But that argument holds no water any longer. China's economy is striding ahead and the country is a vast production line for what the rest of the world needs. So in Egypt Beijing has to make the biggest gesture of its life and lead the way towards saving this planet. It won't I'm sure because the President-for-life Xi Zinping doesn't want to stop polluting the atmosphere until China rivals or overtakes the US as an economic and military superpower. Rishi Sunak who is attending the summit after all - surprise surprise - is going to call on world leaders to do more to switch to alternative energy sources. Well, duh, we've got well beyond that. People have been pressurising for that for DECADES and no one really listened, well not enough to invest big sums on alternative energy. What we need now from the summit in Egypt is a firm, binding commitment to drastically reduce carbon emissions in a much shorter timeframe, with China and the US providing joint leadership to save the planet from a catastrophe. Will this happen? I suspect not which means the next generations of humans are doomed to a fearful future. That's not being alarmist, it's a fact!

North Korea's real nuclear threat

North Korea has progressed from having a few old Soviet Scud missiles bought from Egypt in the 1970s to becoming a fully-fledged member of the exclusive nuclear club with intercontinental ballistic missiles to match. It has been a dedicated pursuit by successive dynastic regimes in Pyongyang, accelerated by Kim Jong-un, the present leader, at the expense of the North Korean people. “From a humanitarian perspective it’s heartbreaking to see that what wealth North Korea has it is literally dumping into the ocean,” said Ian Williams, deputy director of the missile defence project at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He was referring to the latest multiple launch of short-range missiles and one intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) which splashed into the Sea of Japan. There was nothing new in terms of technology from the test launches, he said. “But what was new was the volume of launches – 23 short-range and one ICBM which failed in its second stage,” he said. “It shows they have a manufacturing production line that’s humming along, so we have to assume they can amass them very quickly. This is by a country whose GDP is on a par with Uganda,” he said. North Korea has now launched more than 60 missiles this year, 23 of them on Wednesday, the most in a single day, a hypersonic missile in January and a claimed test of its largest-ever ICBM called Hwasong-17 with a potential range of 9,300 miles. The size of the missile indicates it could carry multiple, manoeuvrable warheads. The US said it was actually an older Hwasong-15 but this missile still has an estimated range of more than 8,000 miles, capable of reaching anywhere in the US if fired on a flatter trajectory. Pyongyang has also developed submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the Pukkuksong-4 and Pukkuksong-5, with ranges of more than 1,800 miles. “We have to assume they have minituarised nuclear warheads to fit on the end of their missiles. The technology has been around since the 1950s and 1960s, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they mastered it themselves although they may have had help; there are a lot of people around the world who know how to build nuclear weapons,” Williams said. “The greatest dangers we face from North Korea fall into two areas: one is its artillery which is embedded in many of the mountains on their side of the demilitarised zone, and, more formidable, is its nuclear-armed missiles,” said Andrew Krepinevich, a US defence analyst and former Pentagon official. “Given open source information on the number of nuclear warheads in their possession – 20 or so – we could face the challenge of dealing with a ‘haystack’ attack in which North Korea launches a salvo of, say, 40 missiles but only a small number of which are actually armed with nuclear weapons,” he said. “Yet we would be compelled to intercept all 40 which would deplete our inventory of missile interceptors. Assuming they have 20 nuclear warheads and they can fit them on missiles, North Korea has enough missiles to fire several such salvoes until it finally overwhelms its adversaries’ defences,” he said.

US taxpayers money pouring into Afghanistan without accountability

The US has donated more than $1 billion to Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in August last year but has failed to account for how the money was spent, a government watchdog has reported. Successive US administrations spent more than $2 trillion during the 20-year war in Afghanistan and used to provide expenditure details to the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction (Sigar) which reports to Congress. However, since the Taliban takeover following the decision by President Biden to withdraw all US troops in an accelerated and controversial evacuation programme, the watchdog has struggled to fulfil its oversight obligations. John Sopko, the inspector general, said it was the first time cooperation by government departments and agencies had been withdrawn. The state department, treasury and USAID, the principal international development aid agency, had refused to give updated information on programmes being supported by the US in Afghanistan, totalling $1.1 billion. Under US legislation the state department and USAID are forbidden to provide any funds to the Taliban. Before the Taliban’s return to power, the US had given more than $17 billion directly to the Afghan government. According to Sigar, up to $1 million in cash “was taken from the grounds of the presidential palace and loaded onto helicopters” as the Taliban approached Kabul. While no evidence is provided in the latest Sigar report that the Taliban has benefited from continuing US donations, the refusal by the relevant agencies to supply precise details of funded projects is likely to lead to questions in Congress. In previous years when US troops were present in Afghanistan, Sigar staff were able to travel to the country to monitor reconstruction projects. But since August last year, no Sigar investigators have been to Afghanistan. Sigar estimates the US spent $146.55 billion on reconstruction and related activities in Afghanistan from shortly after the US-led invasion on October 7, 2001 through to September 20, 2022. The Pentagon reported last year it had spent $849.7 billion on the war. However, the Watson Institute at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island estimated the total cost of the war for US taxpayers in Afghanistan was $2.313 trillion, including $1 trillion for warfighting, £233 billion on care for Afghan war veterans to date and $532 billion interest on borrowing to fund the military operation. The majority of Americans (69 per cent) agreed the US had mostly failed in achieving its goals in Afghanistan, according to a Pew Research Centre poll conducted in late August last year.

America fighting for its own democracy

Joe Biden and Barack Obama have given the same warning, that democracy in the United States is looking more fragile than ever. While the timing of their warning is clearly aimed at influencing voters in the midterm elections on November 8, the substance of their message is scary but essentially true. There are extremist elements in America who do not want anything to do with democracy. All they want is to damage, undermine, even kill those who hold what they perceive to be liberal views. The break-in and assault at the house of Nancy Pelosi summed up the terrifying anger that is circulating in different parts of the US. Hopefully this sort of attack on democracy is not going to become commonplace; and all the signs are that the suspected perpetrator was unhinged. But his intentions were clear, according to the police. He wanted to enter Pelosi's house and kidnap her and then bust her kneecaps. Her poor husband was the one who got attacked because Nancy, Speaker of the House, was away in Washington but the plot was aimed at her. It seems that anyone who has been a longstanding public figure and represents middle-of-the-road, centrist views could become a target for exremist right wing hatred. This is what Biden and Obama meant when they said America's democracy was at stake. Donald Trump's rhetoric and inciteful language have played a significant part in this alarming rise in anger across the US. In the lead-up to the midterms this anger is palpable. With Russia tramping on democracy in all forms and China turning sharply back towards Marxism and Leninism, the US needs more than ever to be a beacon for democracy and human values. If Trump stands for reelection and wins the presidency in 2024, the true meaning of democracy will be threatened. I fear it is as simple as that.

Are Iranian drones fitted with "stolen" light aircraft engines?

Iranian undercover operators may be behind the mysterious theft worldwide of nearly 140 civilian light aircraft engines since 2000, some of which have been used to power advanced drones supplied to Russia for recent strikes in Ukraine. Many of them were stolen in the UK and a special police national intelligence unit called Opal which focuses on organised crime is involved in investigating the thefts. Proof that Iran has been unlawfully acquiring the Austrian-made Rotax 912 piston engine emerged last week when CNN was shown a Mohajer-6 Iranian drone which had been shot down over the Black Sea. It was fitted with a Rotax engine. Another of Iran’s drones sold to Russia for the war in Ukraine, the Shahed-129, has been found to have a Rotax 914 four-cylinder engine. British investigators discovered that some of the thefts involved break-ins at airfields in different parts of the UK where engines have been ripped out, according to a website called Flyer which has been monitoring the incidents for several years. Other Rotax engine thefts have been reported in Germany, Norway, elsewhere in Europe and in the US. Under European Union trade embargoes, the sale of such engines to Iran and to Russia, whether for military or civilian use, is banned. Rotax which is a subsidiary of Bombardier Recreational Products (BRP), a Canadian company, said: “We have been made aware of the alleged use of Rotax engines, or counterfeit engines, in certain specific situations involving Mohajer-6 drones in the conflict areas [in Ukraine].” “We ae taking this situation very seriously. BRP has not authorised and has not given any authorisation to its distributors to supply military UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] manufacturers in Iran or Russia,” the company said in a statement. More than 130 Rotax 912 and six Rotax 914 engines were stolen worldwide between 2000 and 2021, the company reported. However, the thefts have been going on for years. In the UK, the British Microlight Aircraft Association has been monitoring the thefts for more than 13 years, and has been cooperating with the West Mercia-based Opal police unit. Opal was established in 2019 to build up intelligence against organised crime groups. A spokesman for the Opal police unit said there had been no reports of further thefts in the last 12 months. to comment. But Rob Hughes, chief executive officer of the British Microlight Aircraft Association, told The Times:”The Rotax 912 is installed in microlight aircraft as it is a reliable and relatively powerful engine for its size and weight and delivers economical and quiet performance figures.” “Reports of thefts indicate there have been on average five per year since we started recording them in 2009. Often these thefts have been carried out in a professional manner. Entire engines are stolen by disconnecting oil, water and electrical systems,” he said. “We have no evidence to show that these particular stolen engines have ended up in Iranian drones. It’s possible of course, though Rotax 912 engines are used very widely throughout the world for many vehicles including snowmobiles, hovercraft and a whole range of other uses,” Hughes said.

Extreme language and politics make a fatal combination

How long will Suella Braverman be the UK Home Secretary? Not long I predict. The last time she was in the job she lasted just a few weeks. This time around, given a second chance by new prime minister Rishi Sunak, she might survive in her post a little longer but she's hardly going about it the right way. Talking of an "invasion" of illegal immigrants will no doubt be greeted with cheers and nodding of heads by the extreme right in the country who hate all immigration from wherever it comes. That's why they voted for Brexit because they were promised that once free of the EU shackles the UK government could stop everyone coming to Britain via little boats and other unsafe forms of English Channel crossings. But of course that hasn't been the case. Successive home secretaries have failed to stop the boatloads arriving, sometimes as many as 1,000 people a day. Which is why Braverman, currently fighting for her political reputation, has leapt into the fray with inflammatory language to underline the problem she says she is facing as the minister in charge overall of stemming the daily boatloads of immigrants. Enoch Powell, a feared right wing name from the past, warned in a notorious speech in 1968 that Britain would be flooded with immigrants and the nation would be hit by "rivers of blood" violence. Now Braverman has adopted similar histrionic rhetoric to warn the country of what is going on in the English Channel each day. There is no doubt that the boatloads of immigrants seeking a better life in the UK are a challenge for the government. But I fear that under Braverman as Home Secretary it's not going to be solved by sensible, humane policies. Sending them all off to Rwanda is grossly inhumane and stupid. Somehow Braverman and her sidekick immigration minister Robert Jenrick have to find ways of joining with the French to get some order into this catastrophic crisis. But cooperation and sensible policies won't come easy if the person responsible in the UK regards immigrants as invaders, although the right wing in the Conservative party will no doubt love such language and if Sunak decides to sack her they will kick up a mighty row. Good luck Rishi.