Biden and his throwaway comments

Asked whether he would be sending F-16 fighter aircraft to Ukraine, President Biden replied, "no". Asked whether the US would go to Taiwan's aid if China invaded, Biden replied, "yes". It's amazing how powerful these two words are when they come from the lips of the president of the United States. Although in each case the White House hastily rowed back on Biden's comments and tried to put them into a different context, the damage, if it is damage, was done. One has to assume that Biden actually meant to say no in the one case and yes in the other, athough some of his comments are so wayward that one is never quite sure whether the presidential marbles are functioning properly. But I think we can safely say that if left on his own to make the decision on F-16s for Ukraine, his instinct is to deny Kyiv what it desperately wants. Of course as president the buck does stop with him and he is the ultimate decision-maker. However, he also relies on all his national security council team of advisers and as far as one can judge, the F-16 issue has not yet been discussed in detail with all the top advsers present. So Biden jumped the gun. But the reporter got the answer to his shouted question and suddenly there were headines around the world that the US has ruled out sending F-16s to Ukraine. As for the Taiwan question, Biden has replied to that one on at last two occasions, giving his firm yes to the US military intervening in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, even though the protocol states that the US recognises there is only one China and US diplomats are not allowed to say that American carrriers will go steaming into the Taiwan Strait to repel Chinese forces if they invade. But the president can say what he wants and I'm sure Beijing got the message on both occasions. As for President Zelensky, he must be pretty pissed off with Biden that he replied so succinctly to the reporter's question when he could have finessed the answer with something much more vague and uninteresting. But it was a no to F-16s and until we are told differently that's it.

The Ukraine war is approaching acute danger time

As the war in Ukraine relentlessly approaches its first anniversary, even Vladimir Putin must be thinking: what the hell is going on? It's certainly not what he signed up for. But the US and the rest of Nato must also be wondering: how much longer do we have to prop up Ukraine with billions and billions and billions of dollars worth of arms? Basically no one thought initially that this war was going to drag on for years. But unless something pretty dramatic happens, like one side or the other capitulates which isn't going to happen, this war IS going to go on for years. In 11 and a bit months Nato and partners but mostly the US have sent air-defence systems, armoured vehicles, howitzers, drones, multiple-launch rocket systems, millions of shells and ammunition, mortars etc and now tanks and Patriot missile batteries. And there is huge pressure to up the ante even more by sending fighter aircraft. One Ukrainian official even suggested submarines. I mean, what IS going on? Has there been a war like this before? If this carries on for another three years, Ukraine will be one of the best-armed nations in the universe and Nato's stocks of weapons will be so diminished that China will mount an invasion of Taiwan and get away with it. Ok, that's a bit over the top, but there is a serious risk here that what is happening in Ukraine vis a vis western arms flows will benefit the likes of China. All they are doing is giving Putin moral support and waiting for the West to exhaust itself. Yes, there are serious dangers here. This war needs to be brought to an end. And fast.

Will Kamala Harris run with Joe Biden?

If Joe Biden decides to go for a second term in the White House will he stick with Kamala Harris as his vice presidential running mate? It's a tricky one for Biden and his campaign team because it has to be said she has made very little impact on the political stage in the first two years of the Biden administration. But she has remained loyal to the point of devotion and has never tried to wrest the headlines away from the president. For these two reasons it could be argued she deserves to be kept on as Biden's 2024 running mate. But the question the American voters will be asking is: if Biden wins again, will his health and general mental capacities survive another four years in office? If not, then it would mean Kamala Harris taking over. Is she, voters will want to know, a president in the making or is she only good enough to be vice president? Of course she tried to prove she could be president when she stood as a candidate in the 2020 election. But while she raised her public image during the campaign and performed well in the debates, she never looked like beating Biden. Traditionally, the incumbent president seeking a second term sticks with their vice president and it's likely Biden will say he wants Harris to be his running mate. But is there someone else in the wings who would more readily be viewed by Democratic voters as a politician more suitable to become president in the event of Biden opting out before completing his second term? As Biden made a point of choosing a woman as his vice president, the obvious option for swapping Harris with a new running mate would be Elizabeth Warren, senator from Massachusetts who is apparently constantly making herself available for advising Biden on the country's economy. But Warren is 73, and voters might prefer to see a younger person alongside Biden, ready to move into the hot seat at a moment's notice. Harris is 58 and with the experience she is gaining as vice president, Biden will surely stick with her when he eventually makes his announcement about standing again.

Donald Trump is back with a vengeance

The decision to let Donald Trump back on Facebook and Instagram was a disaster because if you go to either social media platforms he is everywhere with his orange face and pursed lips and pointy eyes. Soon he will be back on Twitter I am sure and then it will be non-stop Trumpery. What bothers me, now that I have recently joined the Instagram and TikTok set to try and promote my spy thriller Shadow Lives, is that social media is awash with two contrasting images of the two potential rival candidates for the presidency in the 2024 election. Donald Trump is full of bombast, pledging to save America, while there are videos galore of Joe Biden looking confused, stumbling along like a robot, failing to read his autocue properly and basically sounding like a very old man who has lost his marbles. If you are an American voter and you have to decide whether Trump or Biden should be president for the four years from 2024, you would take one look at these videos and decide, no way, sorry Joe. The videos are not fake news unfortunately. What they show actually happened but of course there are no videos of Joe speaking articulately or walking purposefully. They all focus on his bad days. But to be honest, should the president of the United States have bad days? No, not really. Whereas all the images of Trump make him look super-confident and decisive. You could never say that Trump looks like a bumbling old man. That's what's so unfair about social media. People who get their news only from Facebook, Instagram, TikTok or any of the other outlets will get their views shaped by the videos they watch. In which case, bye bye Joe and hello, God help us, D Trump. The US newspapers all seem to have come to the view that Trump is yesterday's man, or at least yesterday's Republican, and that the rivals for the 2024 nomination, such as Rick DeSantis, will sweep Trump aside. But take it from me, Trump is not finished yet, and with him firing on all cylinders on social media once again he is going to build a helluva momentum. The 2024 election, far more than the 2020 election, is going to be about social media and how it is exploited. Trump kmows that, Joe Biden definitely doesn't.

Heavy metal tanks for Ukraine but no depleted uranium

Thousands of Abrams battle tanks are lined up in rows in desert locations in California and Kuwait, ready for battle when the need arises. However, none of them will be going to Ukraine because the Pentagon has decided to buy a new batch of Abrams tanks for Kyiv off the production line at General Dynamics. Moreover, they will be without the most secret components which have made the latest version of Abrams the best-protected and most lethal tank in the world. The tanks held in desert storage are mostly the older-version Abrams M1A1. But the Pentagon contract to General Dynamics is for the more sophisticated M1A2 model, already exported to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Australia and Iraq, and now also being manufactured for Poland, a US defence source said. The 31 brand-new Abrams M1A2 s to be sent to Ukraine will be fitted with Chobham armour, the composite ceramic and steel protective material originally developed in the UK in the 1960s. The highly secret additional layer of depleted uranium fitted to US Army Abrams tanks will not be included. “Weapons and systems the US sends overseas for use by our allies and partners necessarily have certain mitigations in place to prohibit the spilling of classified information or materials or capabilities,” the defence source said. The Abrams tanks bound for Ukraine may also lack the most classified electronic and communications systems fitted to the US Amy’s version. But the export model of the M1A2 has better optics for targeting than the M1A1 and has a sophisticated thermal-imaging system which helps the tank crew commander hunt for enemy tanks in all weather conditions. If the General Dynamics tank-building facility in Lima, Ohio had no other orders, the contract for 31 Abrams M1A2s for Ukraine could be completed in about three months. However, the company is already engaged in building 250 export Abrams M1A2s for Poland and 108 for Taiwan. Ukraine is likely to be third in line, so it could be many months before the Kyiv orders come off the production line. Training, however, could start straightaway. It normally takes 22 weeks for the basic training programme to be completed. But then the Ukrainian tank crews will need to carry out further training once the Abrams have been delivered, including mastering tactical manoeuvres. The US defence source said the main concerns were about the huge logistic tail required to keep the gas-guzzling Abrams running while on the battlefield, including ensuring a constant flow of fuel trucks and also having recovery vehicles if the tanks get stuck in challenging terrain conditions. Eight tracked M-88 Hercules recovery vehicles are being sent with the 31 Abrams tanks. “Fuelling these tanks is incredibly hard. Securing the line of communications that help to keep the fuel flowing and then protecting that fuel when it’s nearby so that the tanks don’t have to leave the fight for too long is brutally difficult,” the source said.

Zelensky gets what he has been asking for for months

Heavy battle tanks have become the crucial weapon system for Kyiv as the fighting has ground to a stalemate war of attrition. The priority for the Ukrainian forces is to break through Russian defences that have been built up in the Donbas region over the last few months and seize back territory occupied by Moscow’s invasion forces. For these two operations, they need advanced tanks. So far, a White House source said, Russia had shown no inclination to hold meaningful negotiations, nor to withdraw its invasion forces. “So our role, as we see it, is to help the Ukrainians defend their country for as long as it takes in order for them to be in as strong a position as possible for negotiations with Russia to end the war,” the source said. Until now Nato has supplied Russian-made T-72s held by eastern European members of the alliance. While effective they have not given Ukraine the technological and operational edge they need to overcome Russia’s armoured forces. The US Abrams M1A1 and M1A2 tanks and Germany’s Leopard 2s now being proposed after months of indecision will provide that extra capability. But will they arrive in time to confront the anticipated Russian spring offensive in March or April? The Abrams is the most potent tank in the world and has been battle-tested like no other armoured vehicle. Only nine Abrams have been destroyed in war and seven of those were in error in friendly-fire incidents. The other two were destroyed to avoid capture during the Iraq war in 2003. The Abrams, however, is a complex piece of kit and is powered by gas turbines. It is also filled with highly sensitive equipment which creates maintenance challenges. Even experienced Ukrainian tank operators will require months of training with a logistical back-up team on constant readiness. The Pentagon has been reluctant to offer the Abrams claiming that it would not be an appropriate system for Ukraine. In fact the fuel issue is not a huge obstacle. The Abrams can run on all sorts of fuel, including jet fuel, diesel and petrol. With 490 gallons in the tanks, it can run for 265 miles without refuelling, a significant asset on the battlefield. It can also travel at 45mph. However, the Leopard 2s are more likely to be ready for service before the Abrams, and the focus will be on getting these advanced tanks into the field as quickly as possible. Like the Abrams, it is a 55-tonne tank but has a longer range, about 310 miles, and can reach speeds of 42mph. Both the US and German tanks have a 120mm smooth bore gun fitted with a fully digital fire control system, facilitating accurate shell launches on the move. There are so many Leopard 2s of different models in Europe – at least 2,000 – that it’s possible Ukraine will eventually get the 300 or so tanks it says it needs to make a significant difference on the battlefield – and all of them will be Leopards, apart from the 14 UK Challenger 2s already pledged. With so many tanks en route to Ukraine, the challenge will be to deliver them safely without being targeted by Russian bombers, drones and long-range missiles. Road and rail routes into Ukraine from Poland, Germany and Slovakia will be used. Until now Russian strikes have failed to have any impact on Nato’s weapons supply routes. Abrams tanks are not going to be seen on the battlefield in Ukraine for a long time, possibly not even by the end of this year. But America’s decision to send them has provided the political cover the Berlin government needed before announcing the dispatch of Leopard 2s.

So now the US is considering sending Abrams tanks after all

There's an unprecedented tank momentum going on. After months of pleading by Presidennt Zelensky for advanced western tanks it now looks like both Germany and the US are going to oblige. I always thought that the Pentagon's argument against sending Abrams M1s because of the logistical problems involved was rather feeble. Yes, it's not a diesel-powered tank like everyone else's, but logistical problems can be sorted out if the will is there. I don't think the will WAS there until Gemany started kicking up a fuss and saying they wouldn't send their Leopard 2 tanks unless the US first sent Abrams. All a bit childish really but Berlin seems to have won the argument because the Pentagon is now examining how and when it might supply Abrams. Biden will still have to give the go ahead but I somehow doubt he will say no. So Zelensky is going to get the full works, a pile of advanced tanks which will overwhelm all the T-90s, T-72s and T-65s the Russians have been driving around in. There's talk of Moscow sending the most advanced of its tanks, the T-14 Armata. But I bet Putin won't risk it if there's risk of his fancy Armata coming up against the Abrams and Leopard 2s. How humiliating would it be for Russia to lose an Armata to an Abrams. Abrams tanks are combat proven whereas the Armata has no war experience and is hardly off the production line. If Zelensky gets both Leopard 2s and Abrams in time for Russia's expected new offensive in the spring, there is going to be a helluva tank battle which I think the Russians will lose.

Putin ups the nuclear stakes

Three of Putin's accolytes have now raised the prospect of a war between Nato and Russia and a potential nuclear exchange. First in the frame was that ever-dramatising Dmitry Medvedev, one-time president of Russia and now deputy chairman of the security council of Russia. He spoke of nuclear war like it was almost inevitable. Then came Vyasheslav Volodin, chairman of the state Duma, the Russian lower "parliamentary" house who said the defeat of Russia in Ukraine would lead to nuclear war. And now we have the ultimate whinger-in-chief, Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, who while visiting South Africa has warned that the more weapons Nato supplies to Ukraine the bigger the chance of an all-out war between Russia and the West. All of these mates of Putin have obviously been told to spread the word that Russia is ready to press the nuclear button if Putin feels the safety and security of his country depends on it. Whhich of course is contradictory to say the least. If he presses the button much of his country will be destroyed during massive retaliation by the US and Nato. So hopefully it's all bluster aimed at trying to dissuade Germany and other hesitant Nato members to stop providing Ukraine with the weapons that could defeat Russia's invasion force. BUt it's also a sign of desperation on Putin's part. He has very little going for him at the moment and all he can fall back on is nuclear annihilation. He knows he won't press the button but he wants to scare everyone in the West, especially Germany. The West has little alternative but to stand up to Putin's bluster and propaganda. It's a dangerous game but that's where we are.

Is Germany's reluctance over tanks a sign of trouble ahead?

Germany claims that a number of other Nato countries are also worried about providing advanced western tanks to Ukraine. But no mention of which countries might share the same concerns. If the Berlin government is right, what does this mean for Nato and for the wonderful unity which it has so far shown towards arming Ukraine to defend against the Russian invasion force. All the talk in Kyiv is now about removing Russian troops from Ukraine and from Russian-occupied Crimea. In other words, going on the offensive, or at least mounting counter-offensive operations to defeat Russia. If Germany agrees to allow Leopard 2 tanks to be sent to Ukraine would this overstep the line between helping Kyiv to defend itself or help Ukraine to defeat Russia? Ben Wallace, the British defence secretary, stated a few days ago that a tank was a defensive weapon. That's a pretty arguable point to make. A tank can be defensive. In other words it can be lined up in a defensive position to answer back when attacked by an enemy tank. Or it can counter-strike on the move when faced by an enemy armoured assault. In both these case, you could argue that a tank is being used in a defensive manner. But what if Kyiv was to plan a major assault on Russian positions in, say, the Donbas region, to try and drive them back over the border into Russia and used a massed array of tanks supplied by the West to do so? Of course Ukraine is entitled to do what it feels is necessary to defeat Russia in its attempt to regain full sovereignty of its territory. But if they use western tanks to do so, does that make a difference and how would it play in Moscow? Is this what Olaf Scholtz, German Chancellor, is worried about? And are other members of Nato of like mind? What doesn't help is the US failure to send Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine. The Pentagon says the only reason for this is because the gas-powered tank would be too difficult to maintain in Ukraine. Technically this is correct but on the other hand it provides a let-off for the US. I bet there are people in the Pentagon who are against sending Abrams tanks for all sorts of reasons, not all of them logistical. Abrams tanks are the best in the world and would destroy every Russian tank on the battlefield. They would change the face of the war. This is why Scholtz has said he would send Leopard 2s provided the US sent Abrams. He knows that the US is also sitting on the fence when it comes to tanks. But the US thinks it has a legitimate excuse. So Scholtz is not just prevaricating out of political cowardice (not wanting to ruin any chance of future relations with Putin). He is also smart and is putting the US in a difficult spot.

Tanks are the big issue. Who would have predicted?

Nato has between them nearly 15,000 battle tanks but only recently have members of the alliance seriously contemplated sending any of them to Ukraine. Until now, for practical as well as political reasons, the focus has been on providing Soviet-made T-72 tanks held by former members of the Warsaw Pact who joined Nato after the end of the Cold War. Nato officials said it was sensible to send T-72s early on in the war because Ukraine had its own stock of similar Soviet-era tanks and knew how to operate them. However, as the war progressed it became clear that more advanced western tanks were required to outpace and outgun the tanks deployed by the Russian invasion force. Such tanks have been at the top of President Zelensky’s shopping list, as well as advanced air-defence systems and longer-range rocket launchers. The priority now being given to tanks serves as an ironic lesson to the West. With the switch in resources to the Indo-Pacific to meet the perceived increasing security threat from China, the tank role has been re-examined. The UK considered at one point giving up tanks altogether to prioritise on other weapon systems such as armed drones and long-range missiles. The US Marine Corps has already handed over all its Abrams M1 tanks to the army as part of a redesign of its future warfighting requirements. However, the war in Ukraine has reminded Nato that tanks still have a vital place on the battlefield. The UK was the first Nato member to offer its most advanced (though now nearly 30 years old) Challenger 2 tank. Zelensky wants the German Leopard 2 because it is rated as one of the best tanks in the world and has seen service in Afghanistan, Syria and Kosovo. The biggest tank owner in Nato is the US with more than 6,600 in warehouse storage in Europe – Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Poland – at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait for Middle East operations, in Japan and South Korea for Indo-Pacific missions, and at the US army depot in Sierra, California. There are also tanks on prepositioned ships in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Turkey has more than 3,000, Greece, nearly 1,250, France, about 400, Poland, around 860, Germany, 266, the UK, 227 and Italy, 200. Although the US has almost more tanks than the rest of Nato combined, the Pentagon has been reluctant to offer Ukraine the army’s Abrams M1A2 or the older M1A1 tank which was used by the Marine Corps before the decision to scrap tank units. However, Pentagon officials have said the reasons are not political but purely logistical. Unlike the T-72s already in use in Ukraine and the German Leopard 2s and British Challenger 2s, all of which run on diesel, Abrams tanks are powered by gas turbines and require experienced maintenance teams to ensure constant serviceability. In combat only nine Abrams tanks have been destroyed, seven of them by friendly-fire incidents and two to prevent capture during the Iraq war.

German chancellor just doesn't want to send tanks to Ukraine

Olaf Scholtz, the rather demure not very inspiring Chancellor of Germany is desperately trying to think of any way he can avoid having to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. He is so worried about upsetting Vladimir Putin that he is still prevaricating about providing these advanced tanks for the Ukrainian military. Poland and other Nato countries which have Leopard 2s would be happy to send them to Kyiv but first they need legal authority from Germany and the Berlin government simply won't give it. Then Berlin came up with the daft idea of agreeing to send Leopard 2s only if the US first supplied its Abrams M1 battle tanks. But the Pentagon had already made it clear that these tanks were not right for Ukraine. They have gas turbine engines and have to be carefully and regularly maintained whereas Leopard 2s like the British Challenger 2s and Soviet-made T-7s which Ukraine already has, run on diesel which makes life on the battlefield a helluva lot simpler. Berlin knew all about this argument but still insisted on making the US reluctance to supply Abrams as justification for not sending Leopard 2s, or allowing Poland to donate the ones they have. Now after a big meeting in Germany of 50 defence ministers representing the countries helping to arm Ukraine, Scholtz said he would consider sending his tanks provided the whole of the Nato alliance agreed. For God's sake can't he make up his mind on his own without forming a Nato wall around him. Putin must be laughing his head off.

Jacinda Arden, a bit of honesty is a sweet thing

Thank you Jacinda Ardern for your near-six years as New Zealand prime minister and your honesty for admitting that it was a tough job and you have had enough. Better to be honest than struggle on trying to do a job while suffering more and more mental stress. But it took courage and not all political leaders are blessed with either honesty or courage. As a woman in her 30s when she was elected, as well as being the mother of a very young child, she must have faced often intolerable life/work choices, having to make decisions for the good of the country and its people while placing her family second. Not everyone I'm sure will look at her decision kindly, the more chauvinistic no doubt nodding their heads and thinking it was too tough for her because she is a woman. Well yah boo to them. I think this is about human, not male/female issues. This is purely about her coming to the realisation that she had reached a point where she needed to hand over to someone else. As she said, she had nothing left in the tank. The only difference between a man and a woman in this situation is probably that a man would not be able to concede that he couldn't go on while a woman, at least in the case of Jacinda Arden, knows that there are more important things in life. I can't envisage a man admitting that after nearly six years in the leadership chair they can't carry on any longer, but that doesn't make them better human beings. Often they stay on out of pride or obstinacy or because they refuse to accept reality. The late Pope Benedict resigned but then he was very old and knew it was time to hand over to a younger man. Boris Johnson resigned but he was forced into it and I'm sure he is plotting to make a comeback. I can think of no other political leader, man or woman, who has reached the end of their tether and admits to the world that they want, voluntarily, to step down. Good luck to her, I say, and who knows, perhaps at some pont in the future she might be back.

Why western sanctions have not forced Putin to his knees?

If the world was united against Russia, President Putin would now be on his knees unable to revive his country's economy and heading towards financial ruin. But of course this is not the case. While the western world, led by the United States, has imposed the heaviest sanctions ever against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, many other parts of the world are still doing business with Moscow and some of them have increased their trade with the Russians. So Russia is definitely frozen out and isolated as far as the West is concerned, but remarkably Putin can see that his country is surviving pretty well. The shops are still full of what the Russian people need and while oil and gas exports to Europe have partially dried up, countries such as India and China have eagerly stepped in to buy masses of the stuff to keep the Russian economy buoyant. This is seriously bad news. There are many other countries helping out Russia, notably North Korea and Iran but also nations in Africa which the Russians have been wooing. So the only thing that might force Putin to reconsider his military strategy in Ukraine is if he runs out of shells and missiles. Certainly he has problems, partly because of sanctions cutting off supplies of high-tech components. But again, he is getting help from elsewhere - North Korea and Iran. So I doubt we will get to a stage where the Russian invasion forces have no munitions left to continue fighting. So the great push by the West to so isolate Russia from the international community that it becomes a pariah state simply hasn't worked. Putin is struggling to keep afloat but he is not drowning. It's another old lesson learned, that sanctions never really achieve what they are supposed to achieve. There are always ways round the toughest of measures, and Putin has been adroit at finding them.

China, the Great Leap Backward

These days because of globalisation anything that happens in China affects the whole world. The Covid-19 pandemic was a classic example. It started there, in the city of Wuhan, and it is still raging across China. Now the focus is all about the population size and the economy. For the first time for decades the number of Chinese people who died in the last 12 months exceeded the number of births. China has a huge popluation of more than 1.4 billion. But for the economy to flourish Beijing needs more babies to be born so as not to screw up the demographic balance between those in work and those approaching or enjoying pensionable age. Since pretty well everything seems to be "made in China" the factories churning out all the stuff that gets shoved into huge containers on ships need to be working flat-out to cater for the billions of customers. That's now all going wrong for Beijing and the for-ever president Xi Zinping who so far in 2023 is having a ghastly year what with all the Covid lockdown protests and his massive U-turn that led to the lifting of all restrictions. Again, that decision will affect the globe because as the Chinese people return to travelling overseas, Covid infections are going to spread. But the biggest worry is the economy, and the birth/death ratio will play a key part in damaging both China's and the rest of the world's economic future. Ever since the Great Leap Forward in the 1960s, Beijing has tried to keep a tight control over birthrates. The one-child policy per family may have seemed a good idea at the time but for years Chinese couples got used to planning for just one child. Now that Beijing wants them to have more babies, a lot of young marrieds are saying no no no. Beijing has offered all kinds of incentives, like money for more children, but to no avail. It seems Beijing can order its people to have only one child but does not have the power to order families to have two or three or four. Perhaps instead of providing financial incentives to give birth more often Beijing will resort to penalising families for failing to have more than one child! Anyway the Greap Leap Forward is now the Great Leap Backward and the rest of the planet will be watching with some trepidation.

Germany needs to get off the fence

The German defence minister has resigned. Christine Lambrecht had not had a distinguished career in this post. She and the German government have been dithering too long over whether to give serious equipment to Ukraine. I can understand the different geopolitical arguments for Berlin because they are next-door neighbours to Moscow and think they need to maintain good relations. But come on, Berlin, enough is enough. Your next-door neighbour has invaded one of its other neighbours and is steadily destroying the country and killing its citizens. Vladimir Putin needs to be punished and the best way Germany can play its part is by authorising Poland to send German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Kyiv. There should be no hesitation. Poland is ready now to dispatch them, but Berlin still won't give permission. There has been a lot of talk about Germany itself supplying the tanks from its stocks but now admits that even if this decision was made it would take until 2024 for the first batch to arrive. So, there we are, that's even more of a reason to let Poland send their Leopard 2s. The US would approve. So why the delay? Ukraine needs these tanks before the expected Russian offensive in the spring. By then they should have the UK's Challenger 2 tanks but only 14 of them. Kyiv will need more if they are going to withstand a Russian armoured attack. Germany should regard Ukraine in the same way as every other member of Nato - as a de facto member of the alliance. Russia has to be stopped. And Germany's Leopard 2 tanks should be in the frontlines helping to bring this about.

Congress investigation of Afghanistan withdrawal will open a can of monsters

What a difference it makes for the Biden administration to have a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. All kinds of investigations to embarass Biden are now in the melting pot, perhaps most notably his administration's handling of the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. Whatever comes out of that will be potentially disastrous for Biden and since the Republicans are calling the shots I anticipate they will delay publication of the report until it can have maximum impact on Biden's chances of winning another four years in office. Republican Representative for Texas Michael McCaul is in the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and he has already made it clear he wants full cooperation from the intelligence services, the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department etc etc. I doubt anything good will come out of it apart from a great deal of heroism by many of the thousands of American troops involved in the evacuation. Some of the stories about C-17 transport aircraft crews battling to help hundreds of Afghans onto planes to take them away to safety are remarkable. But the chaotic scenes at Kabul airport that ultimately led to a catastrophic Isis terrorist suicide attack were viewed around the world. A Republican-led inquiry into these appalling scenes and the general sense that we were witnessing a rerun of the withdrawal from Vietnam will go very badly for Biden who of course took the decision to get all US troops out of Afghanistan in such short order, believing for some extraordinary reason that the Taliban would play ball and at least wait a few months before rushing into Kabul to seize power. The Republicans will have a field day. And there will be other House inquiries into the Biden administration which will bring more and more bad news for the president. You do wonder whether he will have the stomach for what's coming and will still want to be president for another four years.

Biden and his Corvette Stingray

Biden is now in real trouble over the discovery of classified documents in various places where they shouldn't be kept, including in the back of his garage at his home in Wilmington, Delaware. It hardly needs to be said that this discovery puts him on the same dodgy plateau as one Donald Trump who of course squirrelled away thousands of documents at his home in Palm Springs once he had left the White House. Biden had been doing pretty well until this revelation and is now in all sorts of political trouble. But one thing came out from all the fuss this week which was news to me, though probably not to the wise-guy reporters in Washington. Apart from the stache of classified documents in a box in the Wilmington garage, Biden also has a 1967 Corvette Stingray. Now that is a fancy sportscar if ever there was one. A real-deal classic, worth a bundle. Apparently his father gave it to him. I love Corvettes, always have done.The fact that the president of the United States has got one made me smile. Not with envy but with sort of disbelief that the Top Man has such a gorgeous car in his garage. He does wear pretty cool sunglases, so I guess the Corvette goes well, fashion-wise. But where is the pic of Biden driving his sporty car? That would surely boost his image and help him win the 2024 election. I've never heard of Trump riding around in a fancy car, just the usual boring 4x4 power mobiles. So come on, Joe, get the Corvette out of the garage and go for a drive.

Little harmony in the Mozart Group in Ukraine

The Mozart Group, an independent ex-military American organisation founded to help Ukraine fight the Russians, is suffering from distinctly unmusical divisions. A spat of angry tweets from the group’s hierarchy has cast a discordant note on the efforts of the Mozart players who pride themselves on training inexperienced Ukrainian soldiers and rescuing civilians in some of the towns and cities targeted by Russian missiles and artillery. Led by Colonel Andy Milburn, a retired US Marine Corps and special operations commander, the Mozart Group does not engage in combat but has, nevertheless, been depicted as trying to counter the excesses of the Russian Wagner Group of mercenaries acting as a proxy force for the Kremlin. The divisions in the group emerged when a war of words erupted between Milburn, founder and chief executive officer (CEO), and Andy Bain, chief financial officer (CFO) and also a US Marine Corps veteran. According to Milburn, Bain impounded all of Mozart’s vehicles in Kyiv. He then refused to release them until Milburn resigned and turned over the company, a registered charity, to him or “buy him out for a sum of $5 million”. Milburn dismissed reports that Mozart shareholders had fired him as CEO. “It’s fake news [and] the origin is Andy Bain, former CFO fired by me in December,” Milburn tweeted. Milburn who served in the US Marines for 31 years and finished his career commanding special operations forces against Isis in Syria, said he had sacked Bain, accusing him of financial irregularities. He claimed Bain was trying to shut down Mozart and accused him of having “extensive Russian connections”. The Pentagon has not got involved with the Mozart Group which while seemingly altruistic in its endeavour to assist Ukrainians, both military and civilian, is seen as adding complications to an already complex war environment. By contrast, the Wagner Group whose name inspired Milburn to call his organisation Mozart, has gained a reputation for ruthless and brutal assaults in Ukraine, particularly in the eastern Donbas region. Its leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Russian oligarch and close confidant of President Putin, wrote on the Telegram social media platform in November that the Mozart Group consisted of “American mercenaries”. The same day he posted the accusation, Mozart’s website was hit by a cyber attack. Milburn denies Mozart is a private military company. “We don’t carry weapons, our tasks are humanitarian,” he has said. His organisation relies on private donations. Mozart volunteers who include British ex-military, have been operating in Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine which has been targeted by the Wagner Group. US defence sources said that one of the downsides of having an independent organisation such as Mozart in the war in Ukraine was that they had no diplomatic or official backing and could therefore not be recovered by a US military rescue team if they needed help. “It also adds to Russia’s perception that they are at war with the West, and the US specifically, even though Mozart appears to be benevolent and are in Ukraine in a training and aid capacity,” one source said.

China's fly-by-laser drones

China is developing a drone powered by high-energy laser beams which could keep it airborne for unlimited periods. Drones have become the de rigueur weapon of choice on the modern battlefield, especially in the war in Ukraine. But like combat aircraft, the range and operational endurance of drones are restricted by their power source. A drone that could effectively fly for ever would create a huge advantage in surveillance and intelligence-gathering missions. Researchers at the Northwestern Polytechnical University in Shaanxi province have succeeded in converting light energy from a laser into electricity, using a photoelectric conversion module that could be fitted to a drone. Lasers can be diverted by changing atmosphere and air turbulence. But the researchers led by Professor Li Xuelong of the university’s school of artificial intelligence, optics and electronics, have devised a way of adapting the shape and density of the laser beam so that it could be automatically adjusted to reduce the impact of weather patterns. Although there is no evidence that China is close to producing a drone with limitless endurance, the researchers have apparently demonstrated the technology to make this feasible. By contrast, the US Reaper drone which is America’s most deployed unmanned aerial vehicle has an operational endurance limit of about 40 hours and is powered by a turboprop engine. America’s longest-range drone, Global Hawk, can fly at high altitudes for more than 30 hours and is powered by a single Rolls-Royce turbofan engine. China’s current advanced drones, such as the Wing Loong models, are claimed to have an endurance capability of around 40 hours and are powered by a turbocharged engine. Until now, the focus of government-funded researchers in both western and Chinese defence industries and universities has been on developing lasers for use as anti-drone weapons. As the export of armed and surveillance drones has proliferated in recent years, so the need to counter the threat they pose has increased. Laser weapons are seen as one of the best options for the future. The US and China are engaged in developing such weapons. Like China, the Pentagon may also be looking into using lasers to power drones. Last year it emerged that the Pentagon’s research arm, DARPA, was examining ways of using lasers on fleets of drones to beam electricity to remote military theatres to save on the huge cost of flying in diesel to generate electrical power.

US and allies are converting Ukraine into a de facto Nato member

The US and Nato allies are converting Ukraine into a de facto alliance member with a proposed huge new build-up of weapons that could include the American Stryker armoured combat vehicle and European tanks. From a tentative start, the Pentagon is leading the way in providing battlefield equipment to enable the Kyiv forces to withstand a Russian offensive in the spring. The list of new armour and anti-tank capabilities will be announced next week at a meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group consisting of 50 defence ministers, headed by Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin. They will be assessing Kyiv’s long list of new weapons requests, with tanks and other armoured vehicles at the top. Although no decision has yet been made about offering Stryker combat vehicles, the fact that the Pentagon is considering going down this route – first reported by the US Politico website – underlines the sense of urgency within the alliance about the need to thwart Moscow’s plans for a big push against Kyiv in March or April, aided by a potential mobilisation of 500,000 more Russian troops. The Stryker is an eight-wheeled fighting vehicle that can carry nine soldiers, is protected by bolt-on ceramic armour all round and is armed with a .5-calibre machinegun. It first came into operational service in the US army in 2003 and was deployed to Iraq. With a maximum speed of more than 60mph on roads, it would give the Ukrainian army a faster-moving and quieter combat vehicle against the Russians than the Bradley fighting vehicle, 50 of which are already assigned for Kyiv under a deal announced last week. The Bradley is tracked and has a top speed of 35mph. While the US is still hesitant about supplying M1 Abrams battle tanks, the reasons are more to do with logistics and maintenance challenges for the gas-powered tank than concerns about escalating the confrontation risks between Nato and Moscow. Ukraine’s tank requirement is expected to be filled with a dozen British Challenger 2s, German Leopard 2s supplied by Poland, if Berlin gives the go ahead, plus a continuing delivery of 90 Czech T-72 Soviet-era tanks which are being upgraded by the US and Netherlands at a cost of $90 million. Twenty have arrived so far. The US and other allies have already sent or are in the process of delivering thousands of armoured vehicles to Ukraine. They include American Humvees, Canadian armoured combat support vehicles (ACSVs), French AMX-10RC light tanks, and Mastiff armoured patrol vehicles from the UK.

What can Charles and Camilla do about Harry?

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex or Harold as his brother William seems to call him, has pretty well declared war on his father, stepmother, brother, sister-in-law and anyone else in the Royal Family who has taken against him. As a result, King Charles III and his Queen Consort, Camilla, now referred to by some newspapers, notably The Times, as the Queen will have to decide what the hell to do with this errant prince. It's not just his memoir which has sold 400,000 copies on day one of its release (official release), nor his endless interviews to promote his book but the whole Harry and Meghan situation. They are definitely a situation which has to be dealt with. Can they keep silent for ever, should they try reconciliation privately, should Harry be given a role in the Coronation in May, should they be allowed anywhere near Buckingham Palace or any of the other palaces? Right now Charles and Camilla and William and the rest have opted for the silent option. Say nothing, not even no comment. Just mouths shut, ignore the whole shebang. It infuriates Harry but it's probably the best course for now. But can it be kept up for ever? Because if there is no family reunion with Harry, Meghan and their two kids, then the books and TV interviews and chat shows will just keep coming. OK, there is a good chance everyone on the planet will be sick of the Sussexes soon and any future books/memoirs will die a death. Let us hope so. But the trouble is, people DO want to read all this guff, if only to be able to berate Harry and Meghan to mates in the pub. They are a never-ending conversation piece and publishers will take notice and ask for more and more. Meghan of course will produce her own blockbuster for $20 million, and I have no doubt that a helluva lot of people will want to buy it. So, Charles and Camilla, there may come a time when you will have to step out of the shadows and answer back. Big time. Not yet but before we all get swamped by Harry and Meghan's varying recollections of past events.

Will a new Russian mobilisation make a difference?

There are widespread reports that Putin's next move in Ukraine is to mobilise another 500,000 troops for a massive spring offensive. But will fresh troops make the sort of difference which Putin is desperate for? Well, clearly, shoving another half a million newly recruited warfighters into Ukraine to confront the battle-hardended but weary Ukrainian forces would give the Russian forces and their commanders the chance of a renewed momentum as well as frustrate Kyiv's hopes of retaking Crimea and the eastern Donbas region. But the Ukrainians have learned so many invaluable lessons in the ten months of the war that even with such a large influx of new Russian soldiers Putin is likely to fail to make the sort of breakthrough he wants. For a start, by the time the newly mobilised troops have been trained and deploy to Ukraine, the Kyiv government will have 50 US-supplied Bradley armoured fighting vehicles and a whole pile of new advanced weapons which should be more than enough to keep the Russians, reinforcements included, cowering in their trenches. Joe Biden is already coming under renewed pressure to supply more and more fancy weapons to change the balance on the battefield in Ukraine. Robert Gates, former Pentagon chief, and Condoleezza Rice, ex-secretary of state, are the latest George W Bush officials to urge a much greater supply of weapons for Kyiv to get the job done this year and end the war. Well, the last package of arms announced last week were worth more than $3 billion, so I think Biden is doing a pretty good job keeping the Ukrainians equipped to fight the Russians. But I think Gates and Rice are probably right. This is the year when the war has to end one way or the other. A massive counter-offensive by the Kyiv forces may be the only way to drive the Russians out. But as I have written before, that could be when the US and Nato accelerate the possibility of a war between the alliance and Russia. Is it worth the risk? Probably yes because Putin would be too scared to take on the might of Nato. If Russian forces are being defeated by Ukrainian "minnows" what chances have they got of beating Nato?

Britain is grinding into gridlock

This poor country is now set for a mighty battle. And I'm not talking about the monarchy and Prince Harry but Government versus trades unions. It's Maggie Thatcher versus the miners all over again. This time, though, there is no one remotely resembling the Iron Lady to take on the unions and get the country sorted out. There is so much rebellion going on in Britain that the government of Rishi Sunak, the quiet man of 10 Downing Street, seems to be incapable of stemming the tide of protests over pay and conditions and overwork. Very few things seem to be working in this country right now: anyone wanting the NHS urgently has to wait, sometimes fatally long periods, ambulancemen and women are on strike, nurses are on strike, doctors are talking of going on strike, train drivers are striking continuously, cities are emptying because commuting workers can't get into the office, the weather is terrible, the nation's finest cultural events are being cancelled because of savage cuts in Arts Council funding, food prices are rising steeply, heating the home is beyond a joke, investments are falling in value, house prices are dropping, and no one really seems to be in charge, apart from Mick Lynch, leader of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, who is on TV every moment of every day spouting his pearls of wisdom which basically amounts to no, no, no to any deal. Sunak has summoned various leaders to chat about everything but he is no Maggie. He will plea and try to charm. But the likes of Mick Lynch won't fall for that. And on top of all this we have Harry whingeing on every day like he is the only important person on this planet. God help us.

Prince Harry in yet another step too far

I suppose the publishers of his memoir wanted as much drama, controversy and secret stuff as possible to turn Prince Harry's ghost-written memoir into a bestseller. Fair enough, that's normal. But this is Prince Harry, a member of the Royal Family. How many indiscretions should he include before the whole thing just becomes tacky, creepy, embarrassing and awful. Congratulations, Harry, all the leaked excerpts I have read in the newspapers have shown beyond doubt that "Spare", the title of his recollections in anger and bitterness, is tacky, creepy, embarrassing and awful. But it will of course makes pots of money. He has already gone too far in revealing all the details of his breach with members of the Royal Family, especially his brother Prince William. But his boast about killing 25 Taliban in Afghanistan is a gross step too far. I have worked as a journalist with the military, British, American and others over many years and no one ever boasted to me how many of the "enemy" they had killed. It's just not something the military talks about, although there are exceptions to this. In the Second World War, RAF Spitfire pilots used to return to base and make claims about shooting down a certain number of German aircraft. But even then it wasn't a case of them boasting about killing German pilots. Special forces raids in Afghanistan by American, British and other coalition units used to include body counts. And of course details of enemy troops killed and wounded in wars are an accepted and acceptable way of demonstrating progress and achievement. But for an individual soldier to tell the world he managed to kill 25 enemy soldiers is definitely creepy and makes it sound like killing as an act itself is noble and praiseworthy. It's also inappropriate for a single soldier to make such a claim when he was part of a much larger force engaged in trying to improve the life of the average Afghan. Overall the claim by Harry made me feel uncomfortable. Why on earth did he include it in his memoir? To sensationalise and make money of course.

Sending Bradley fighting vehicles to Ukraine is a big deal

The Biden administration's decision to send 50 Bradley armoured fighting vehicles to Ukraine is, like the dispatching of Patriot missiles, a hugely significant move. Bradleys are not tanks but they can still be used to attack Russian tanks and they can ferry Ukrainian troops around the battlefield in a far more efficient and protective way than they are at present. Bradleys are being replaced by the Pentagon but they are still an excellent combat-proven armoured vehicle and will make a noticeable difference in Ukraine. The decision also makes it more likely that Biden will eventually give in to the constant pressure from President Zelensky and agree to send Abrams battle takes to Ukraine. This would be an even more significant development. Were the US to send the gas-powered Abrams tanks to Kyiv it would be tantamount to Washington saying to Moscow that the intent of the White House is for Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion force, not just help Zelensky to defend itself. Sending Bradleys is the first step in this developing Washington strategy. Putin will take note I am sure. The signalling going on between Washington, Kyiv and Moscow, is getting more blatant as each day passes. If the war is not over by the end of this year I can foresee dramatic changes on the battlefield, with US tanks, fighter aircraft and armed drones playing a key role. That indeed would be a full proxy war between the US, backed by Nato allies, and Putin.

Everyone wants a HIMARS

Nato’s supply of weapons to the Kyiv government to fight the Russians has led to an arms bonanza for western defence industries. For certain systems the US is almost on a war footing for arms production not only to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs, but also to restock dwindling inventories of battlefield weapons required for potential future conflicts. In more than ten months of fighting in Ukraine, the US and allies have contributed hundreds of thousands of tons of weapons and munitions to Kyiv, and many of the most advanced systems have become a byword for combat capability. As a result, with Ukraine becoming a showcase for such weapons, the US , in particular, has been inundated with requests for arms deals from around the world. The agreement to sell the much-touted long range M142 high mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS) to Australia is just the latest boon for the US defence industry. Estonia signed a $200 million contract last month to buy six HIMARS launchers with deliveries due next year. It was Estonia’s largest-ever arms procurement programme. Two other Baltic countries, Lithuania and Latvia, are also involved in buying HIMARS, and Poland is planning to order a second batch of these Ukraine-war-proven rocket systems. The Polish government first ordered HIMARS in 2019. Only Russia has used the war to try out its most exotic weapons, launching a number of Kinzhal hypersonic missiles from MiG-31 aircraft in August but to little effect. The US and Nato allies, however, have focused on systems that would have greatest impact both for protecting Ukraine’s military and critical infrastructure and attacking Russian warfighting assets. These are the weapons which have attracted most attention in the arms-exporting world. US companies such as Lockheed Martin, makers of HIMARS, and Raytheon with Norwegian firm Kongsberg, joint manufacturers of the national advanced surface-to-air missile system (NASAMS) , have benefited to the tune of billions of dollars as a consequence of the war in Ukraine. The UK government has sent so many of its Swedish/British next generation light anti-tank weapons (NLAW) to Ukraine it has had to place a £229 million order for fresh supplies. The priority given to armed drone warfare by both Russia and Ukraine has also generated world-wide interest. Turkey’s relatively cheap , long-endurance Bayraktar TB2 drones supplied to Kyiv played a crucial role in the successful strikes on advancing Russian tanks in the early phase of the war. Turkish drone production lines have been busy ever since.

Election deniers rule the roost in the House of Representatives

Underlining the political chaos after the failure of Kevin McCarthy to win the role of Speaker in the House of Representatives in the first round it has been revealed that 12 out of the 20 Republican dissenters who voted against him are 2020 election deniers. In other words, they support the Donald Trump position that he was robbed of the election prize and Biden should never have been president. These 12 people - nine men and three women - scuppered McCarthy's chances of sitting in the Speaker chair vacated by the illustrious Nancy Pelosi. It does seem incredible that in a democracy like the United States there are so-called representatives of the American people who claim to be democratic yet reject one of the main tenets of democracy, that a free and accountable vote elects the leader of the country. These 12 people must have given Trump new encouragement that perhaps he can after all win back the White House in 2024. Meanwhile they have disrupted the House to such an extent that no one knows who is going to be the next Speaker. You could argue that this is good for the Democrats and bad for the Republicans who are supposed to be in charge of the House after the results of the midterm elections in November. But it's actually a disaster for both parties and therefore the Biden administration. It shows that the Republicans are severely divided but that means it will be even more difficult for Biden to get legislation through the House in the next two years because the Republicans will be spending most of their time in-fighting. The one possible good bit of news for Biden is that when he eventually announces he is planning to stand for a second term he will be able to claim the Republicans are simply not ready or able to return to power as a united party.

Putin to blame for the 400 Russian reservist troops killed in Makiivka?

When Vladimir Putin called up 300,000 reservists in September to fill the casualty gaps on the battlefield in Ukraine, western commentators concluded they would be cannon-fodder for Kyiv's Nato-backed armed forces. So it has proved. If it is true that 400 of these newly-trained reservists have been killed by being caught all together in one building next to an ammunition dump in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, then it shows how little the Kremlin cares about the mobilised troops sent to keep Putin's war going. For Russian commanders to think it's sensible to put so many soldiers into one building and then to allow them all to use their cell phones, sending up a mass of "come-and-get-me" signals to Ukrainian gunners, beggars belief. Moscow insists "only" 63 Russian soldiers were killed in the huge HIMARS rocket attack on the building in the city of Makiivka. But all the reports from the Kyiv authorities and from angry Russian military bloggers indicate that the casualty toll was much higher. Indeed the building was demolished and there must be dozens of bodies buried under the rubble. My first reaction was, how scandalous that so many Russian troops were all gathered together under one roof without any protection, offering an easy target for the American-supplied HIMARS rockets. Yet another example of Russian command negligence. My second reaction was, how desperately tragic that these Russian soldiers, dragooned into fightng a war their leader, and only their leader, wanted to pursue, died becasue of the criminal neglect by their commanders. Perhaps the commanders died, too. War is always tragic and I feel nothing but sadness that 400 more lives may have been lost. Probably the majority of those who died were unremarkable Russians with families back home, not the rapists and looters and butchers we have read so much about in the last ten months. They were trained for war but may have died without firing a shot. It's a coup for the Ukrainian military, a victory of sorts and a massive blow to the Russians. But it is also another desperately sad example of the pointlessness of war.

Does Biden actually want Ukraine to defeat Russia?

It's a big question which must have been discussed within the White House National Security Council many times. First, is it feasible for Ukraine to win a total victory against the Russian invasion force, driving them out of Ukraine AND out of Crimea, returning every inch of territory back to Kyiv? Realistically this seems a remote possibility. With Russia's firepower, never-ending troop reserves and Putin's determination to conquer or destroy Ukraine, such a victory would take years of fighting and there would be nothing left. A Pyrrhic victory. But what if Ukraine, backed by longer-range Nato weapons, manages to make life so difficult for the Russian troops in Ukraine, and adds to Putin's woes by dramatically stepping up attacks on targets inside Russia, that victory of sorts can be claimed by Kyiv. Would Putin be forced to backtrack in some way? This is the moment when the question in the headline comes to the fore. Would Putin become more dangerous if facing "defeat" and would the US and Europe suffer long-term as a result? Some might argue, wouldn't it be better, surely, for there to be a negotiated peace when both sides can claim something? And if this were to happen, could Russia/Putin be returned to the international family of nations and participate in global issues once again? Russia back in the G20 etc. None of these questions have satisfactory answers because the other argument is that Russia and Putin should be punished for attacking Ukraine and fully held to account. Putin in absentia found guilty of war crimes? That's what Ukraine wants but if it were to happen there would not be any hope of reconciliation between Moscow and the western world, and that would have high risks. What seems like a long time ago there was talk in Washington and in Nato about the need to give Putin a way out. In other words, some way of ending the war without totally humiliating the Russian leader. It's all too late for that now. How could it be morally right to let the man who is destroying Ukraine's civilian infrastructure to be allowed to take a prize home and carry on as if nothing has happened? So perhaps the answer really is for Russia to be defeated in this war. In which case the US and Nato have no choice but to give Ukraine everything they need to win this victory: tanks, fighter aircraft, long-range missiles and rockets. That would be war on a different scale. But how would Putin react to that? That's the question to which even the brightest members of Biden's national security team cannot have a definitive answer. So at least for the next six months, the war in Ukraine is going to be about stalemate and drift and uncertainty until Biden and Nato decide whether to go all-out for Russia's defeat or continue to hold back, as they are right now.

Lots of reasons why Biden might not want to stand again

I'm not saying Joe Biden won't stand again. In fact I am pretty sure he will and we will know for sure when he makes his announcement in the next few weeks. However, there are many reasons why he might not want to hold one of the toughest political jobs in the world for another four years. First, he will be approaching 82 during the most critical and exhausting part of the presidential campaign. At that age there will surely come moments when he might wish he could go home and put his feet up and watch some rubbish tv rather than prep for yet another boring rallying speech. Age is a defining thing even when you think you are the youngest octogenarian on the planet. Biden can, let's face it, look pretty dogdery on occasions. But he defnitely won't want to decide against standing because of his age. There would have to be other reasons and here they are: the war in Ukraine will get tougher and more dangerous for the world as 2023 progresses and if it's still going on in 2024, Biden may find his whole time will be taken up with trying to bring the slaughter to an end without risking a Third World War. He's doing that now but this challenge will get more and more complex and threatening the longer the war lasts. Will he be able to face the stresses and strains of confrontation with Putin as he begins a new presidential term in January 2025? Then there's the prospect of having his legislative programme over the next two years hammered into the ground by the Republicans who take majority control of the House of Representatives next month. Two years of wrangling with Congress will be exhausting, frustrating and possibly demotivating. Another thought is that if Biden decides against standing again he can spend his time safeguarding his legacy as a one-term president without putting it all at risk by having another four years. Right now his presidency has enough going for it to guarantee him a pretty decent legacy. His uniting of Nato against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the chunk of legislation he managed to get through Congress and his general niceness should all help to give him a decent send-off after four years in the White House but might not last into another four years. I'm sure Biden and his whole family are going over the same arguments at this very moment but in the end the current president will more than likely want to be the next president.