Is Donald Trump a wannabee dictator?

The last passing shot from General Mark Milley as he gave his retirement address was aimed full square at one of his former commanders-in-chief. He talked during the handover ceremony yesterday to the new chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff about the importance of serving the constitution. Milley saw that as his role, his only role. What the chairman of the Joint Chiefs should never do was serve the interests of a "wannabee dictator". Milley was thinking of course of Donald Trump, although he didn't identify him. Milley always said the military should not be involved in politics but on his last day in office he made what was probably the most political statement he could think of. Trump had been a challenging and difficult master to advise but every time Milley had a face-to-face with the then commander-in-chief, he reminded himself that his God was the constitution, not the holder of the top political job in the land. He knew when he was Trump's principal military adviser that the man in front of him had visions of power which veered towards the mind of an autocrat rather than a democrat. So Milley, in his last public statement as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, decided to warn American citizens of the dangers of voting for a wannabee dictator. Nice one, General.

Gitmo detainee "confessed" that the White House or Capitol were on the 9/11 hitlist

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, “voluntarily” admitted to an FBI agent that the plan had been to hit the White House or the Capitol as well as the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The “confession” by the former alleged “operations director” of al-Qaeda, was given during an interrogation at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba, according to retired FBI agent Frank Pellegrino during a hearing at the military courtroom, located about a mile from where Mohammed has been held since 2006. “When we went in to speak to him, we were very comfortable that he was speaking to us voluntarily, given every opportunity to walk away,” Pellegrino told the court. At that time, in January, 2007, Pellegrino said he was unaware that since his arrest in Pakistan in 2003 Mohammed had been detained by the CIA in secret “black” prisons (in Poland and Romania) and subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” including being waterboarded 183 times. The simulated drowning technique was one of many other forms of torture used to extract a confession. However, Pellegrino insisted the 13-hour interrogation he took part in was carried out on a voluntary basis, although he admitted to the court that Mohammed, now 58, was not granted a lawyer when he asked for one. He didn’t get a lawyer for 15 months. With an FBI colleague taking notes, Mohammed freely described the three targets of the 9/11 hijacked-airliner attacks, Pellegrino said: the World Trade Centre as America’s economic symbol, the Pentagon as the military symbol, and either the White House or the Capitol as the political symbol. Passengers on board United Airlines Flight 93 from Newark, New Jersey, confronted the hijackers when they realised where they were heading and forced the plane to crash into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. All 44 people on board, 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers, died. Underlining the easygoing atmosphere of the interrogation at Guantanamo, Pellegrino said he told Mohammed he was envious of the laptop he was using before he was captured. Mohammed responded: “Frank, if you join al-Qaeda, I can get you a good computer.” However, the issue of Mohammed’s treatment at the hands of the CIA in the three years before he was moved to Guantanamo lies at the core of his defence case. In August a military judge ruled that a confession made to federal agents by Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, accused of orchestrating the attack on the USS Cole which killed 17 sailors in Aden in 2000, was inadmissible because of the torture he had suffered previously during CIA interrogations. The judge said the years of violent treatment would have weighed on his mind when he volunteered to be questioned by the FBI at Guantanamo. Mohammed and four other Guantanamo detainees are charged with multiple offences including the murder of 2,977 people. They all face the death penalty if convicted. Their trial has been delayed by years of legal arguments, principally linked to the torture they suffered after being captured. One of the charged, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was also tortured by the CIA, has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and a military judge ruled last week that he was delusional and unfit to stand trial alongside the other accused. The five alleged 9/11 co-conspirators are among 30 inmates still detained at Guantanamo, down from about 780 at the peak detention period.

Countdown to shutdown in Washington

Governing the United States has become increasingly challenging in recent years because of the huge divides between left and right, between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Some of the right wing Republicans in the House of Representatives are so extreme they don't seem to mind whether they bring the whole administration to its knees. The federal budget has to be agreed and signed by the end of Saturday or there will be complete government shutdown and no money to pay millions of federal employees. This farce has occurred so many times in recent years it has almost become routine. Obama had the same problem, and Trump and now Biden. But this time, the voices of anger and extremism are so brazen that it is difficult to see how the embattled Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, can come up with a solution. So little time left to bring the extremists to heel. Politicians such as Matt Gaetz representing Florida's first district is almost anarchic in his approach to the federal budget. He wants Biden out and McCarthy out, too, unless he plays ball with what he wants. The man is such a thorn in the side of the Speaker that he must drive the poor man mad. And they are in the same party. Nancy Pelosi who had her own challenges when she was Speaker would not have put up with it. McCarthy is possibly too weak in dealing with these rebels. Time is running out. A shutdown would be disastrous and damaging to the economy. Gaetz doesn't care, that's obvious.

Trump finds another "deranged" judge

Over the years Donad Trump has come up with a few choice and favoured words and phrases and repeats them over and over again. Among his most repeated ones are "witch hunt", "fake news" and "deranged". Anyone who doesn't agree with what he says or does is deranged in his view. The latest one to receive this epithet is Justice Arthur Engoron, a New York judge, who has ruled that the former president inflated the value of all of his properties by £2.2 billion in order to raise loans for his business empire. In other words, the judge was accusing Trump of fraud. Trump dismissed the accusation and said the judge was deranged. He has used this adjective before, many times. Any lawyer or judge or political opponent who has spoken out against him has been accused of being deranged. Jack Smith, the special counsel, has more than once been described as deranged. It's an effective word because what it is basically saying is that Trump believes anyone who finds fault with him has to be mad. Even in America, I doubt many people would get away with calling a judge deranged. In the UK, they would be summoned and charged with contempt of court. But Trump's language is now so much part of the political landscape that it seems he can get away with insulting whom he likes. If the judge has a sense of humour he will no doubt see it as a badge of honour that the former president thinks he is doolally. Whatever Trump thinks, however, the fact is a judge has looked at the books and has ruled that the would-be 47th president is guilty of fraud, or put it another way, guilty of lying and cheating. What a lovely prospect for the nation as the 2024 presidential election gets closer.

Trump becomes president or goes to jail

Donald Trump is way ahead of his rivals in the presidential stakes and that includes Joe Biden. So I think we have got to the point where there are now only two scenarios left in the 2024 campaign: Trump wins the election outright or he goes to jail. He has four serious indictments against him and the prospect of four trials before the November 2024 election date. If he is found guilty in all of them it's difficult to see how he could avoid a prison sentence. If he is found guilty in only one of them, he might avoid imprisonment, depending on which one he is convicted for. If he is acquitted on all charges, the likelihood of him becoming the 47th president will rise by a factor of at least ten. All Trump's Republican rivals who have made it to the second TV debate which takes place tomorrow night will bash away at each other but make not a scratch on Trump's election bandwagon. He will once again ignore them all and make a separate speech in Detroit before the debate begins, ensuring he gets maximum play on all the networks. He is no fool. However, he, too, may have come to the same conclusion I have which is the White House or a federal penitentiary. That must give him the jitters, yes even Trump must get nervous at times. He won't show it, but deep down inside his flossy-haired head, there has to be a nagging anxiety lurking that he could be spending several years in jail, beginning next year. Most of the time he dismisses it as witch-hunt nonsense, but it's still there, probably at night before he goes to sleep. I doubt any of the other Republican candidates will mention this in the debate tonight and the Fox News presenter in charge probably won't ask the question.

General Mark Milley, an exceptional military chief in a difficult time

General Mark Milley is due to retire at the end of this month as chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has had one of the toughest periods in America's top military post, not because of wars or declining budgets but because of having to serve two very different masters, first Donad Trump who appointed him and then Joe Biden who hung on to him when he took over as president. Milley I am sure would say that being defence secretary under Trump was a harder mission than he had ever had to face in a combat situation. The Washington Post in its profile of Milley prior to his retirement described him in the headline as polarising. In fact he did his best best never to be divisive and always tried to serve Trump as his principal military adviser without sacrificing his own beliefs about what his role entailed and the importance of staying out of politics. He made one big error which really wasn't his fault when he was obliged to walk in his combat uniform alongside Trump as he marched past anti-racial protesters near the White House to a church for a PR photograph. Mark Esper, the defence secretary at the time, was also in the group with Trump. In hindsight it looked really bad and Milley apologised profusely for taking part in something which was so blatantly political. Not only did he bitterly regret that walk but he said so. So, I don't think he was remotely polarising. He did his job in an honourable way and when he disagreed with Trump he always outlined his reasons for advising against taking action that the 45th president was keen to take. It was because of his integrity and steadfastness that Biden decided to keep him in post in 2020.

Big challenge for Five Eyes intel club over alleged India assassination of Sikh leader in Canada

The Five Eyes intelligence club whose members are the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, share nearly everything. That's the whole point of the club, everyone gets to know pretty much everything everyone else discovers from human intelligence, satellite intelligence and anything else gleaned that gets the Secret branding. Not everything is shared. For example. the identity of super secret human sources is always kept close to the individual agency's chest and never divulged. But all the mass of material picked up by America's National Security Agency, Britain's GCHQ and the equivalent agencies operated by the other members gets shared around. So when eavesdropping satellites, probably US ones, picked up chatter from Indian diplomats about the targeting of a Sikh leader in Canada, allegedly authorised by the Indian government, the devastating intelligence would have been passed around the Five Eyes club members. And, of course, especially for the attention of the Canadian government. The Sikh leader, Hardeep Singh Niijar, a strong advocate for an independent homeland for Sikhs in India's Punjab region, was shot dead outside a Sikh temple in Surrey, British Columbia in June. Canada started an immediate investigation but sought the help of the Five Eyes club to gather any electronic communication evidence. The evidence was provided which was why the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a public announcement that there were "credible allegations" that the Indian government had authorised the assassination. In other words, an extra-judicial killing on Canadian sovereign territory. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, a Hindu, denied the allegation and diplomatic relations between the two countries has been rock bottom ever since. But where are the rest of the Five Eyes club which helped provide the "evidence". They have all been desperately cautious, not wanting to accuse India of anything. All they have done is express concern and appealed to Modi to cooperate in finding out who the assassins were. Poor old Trudeau, left alone to face the flack. Big Politics and Big Diplomacy have tied the tongues of the other four Five Eyes leaders. They, and the West in general, want India on side to confront China and the last thing they need is an assassination in Canada to spoil the charm offensive with the Modi government. So Modi wins and Trudeau looks increasingly crestfallen and let down. It's the way of the world but it's a tough lesson for the Canadian prime minister.

Looks like Biden is giving Ukraine the big guns

After months and months of delay and reluctance it seems President Biden has decided to give the long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. Zelensky has been after them from the beginning. Biden was always worried that Zelensky would use them to hit targets inside Russia but since Ukraine has been striking at targets inside Russia for months, and also Russian-annexed Crimea, with their own weapons and with the British Storm Shadow air-launched stand-off cruise missiles, ATACMS will not seem quite such a dramatic step. But Moscow will not be happy, especially if the 190-mile range missiles start hitting some serious targets in Russia. The war is moving into a new phase, possibly a new dangerous phase that could provoke Putin into something horrendous. Not nuclear, I don't believe he will do that, but Ukraine I fear will be in for some frightening moments. What worries me is that as the weapons escalate there is less and less chance of the war coming to an end.

Poland's weapons ban to Ukraine is slippery slope

Poland has been one of the most generous Nato members helping Ukraine with weapons and military aid since the Russian invasion in February last year. But now for all kinds of reasons, most of them political, the Polish prime minister has announced that the weapons flow to Kyiv will stop and that Warsaw's focus will be on buying advanced weapons for its own military. This is a reasoning which many other former Soviet bloc nations might come up with over the next few months. All of them had huge storages of old Soviet-era tanks, armoured vehicles and fighter aircraft which they were happy to offload to Ukraine. But Poland now has little left in the cupboard and wants to replace the old stuff with spanking new weapons and aircraft to defend their country and to fulfil their obligation to be a modernised member of the Nato alliance. Poland is still happy for the rest of the alliance to ferry their weapons to Ukraine through Polish territory and of course the country is host to millions of Ukrainian refugees. But the decision announced by the Polish leader is potentially damaging to the whole Ukrainian cause. Support for Ukraine among the Polish people remains high, according to polls, but the timing of the decision is not just about stores running out of old Soviet armour, it's also about politics and upcoming elections. The ruling Law and Justice Party is fighting for reelection next month. So, talking about a strong Polish military in the face of Moscow's aggression will no doubt meet with approval from voters. But the Polish announcement could still be a slippery slope for the coalition against Russia and Putin will be rubbing his hands with glee.

Zelensky has a tough fight on his hands to keep US Congress on board

President Volodymyr Zelensky's appeal to the West to help Ukraine defend itself against the Russian invasion has been one of the most remarkable achievements by any world leader in recent decades. But the strategic objective, both for Ukraine and for the United States, has now changed. Instead of having the weapons capability to defend against the Russian invasion force, the ambition now, and has been for some time, is to defeat Russia and throw all the occupying troops out of Ukraine. The objective now, seemingly accepted by the US, is to win a famous victory and to humble Russia into a humiliating withdrawal. It wasn't that long ago when the White House was talking about Ukraine doing well enough to force the Russians into a peace settlement. But not any longer. Now it's go go go all the way until the last Russian soldier has been driven out. While that is understandable, particularly from the Ukrainian standpoint, it presents a much tougher challenge for Zelensky, and for President Biden too, to persuade the US-lead coalition of 50 countries to continue arming and financing Kyiv until that famous victory is achieved. How long will that take? Is it actually achievable? Already Poland has announced it will no longer send weapons to Ukraine because it needs to spend money on arming its own military with advanced systems. Will other countries follow suit if they realise this war has no end in sight? Zelensky is addressing the US Congress today and he will repeat his mantra about how vital it is for the safety and security of the world for the fight against Russia to continue. He is right. But that's going to mean a helluva lot of dollars over the next few years. How much longer will the 50-nation coalition stick to its guns in its support of Zelensky and his beleagured nation?

The US is hunting for long sandy beaches in the Pacific as airstripes for war with China

The US is searching for 3,000ft-long “straight” sandy beaches in the Pacific for use as airstrips for special operations troops in any future conflict with China. With limited airbases available in the Indo-China region, American military chiefs believe beach airstrips will provide the perfect landing spot for aircraft such as the MC-130J Hercules transport aircraft, adapted for special operations, and the CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor hybrid plane which can land vertically like a helicopter. Landing on improvised beach airstrips is not a new concept. Such landings were carried out in the Second World War and Britain’s Royal Air Force has successfully performed such operations in recent military exercises. However, US special operations command is now focusing much of its future planning on potential conflict in the Pacific and the search for long, straight beaches is part what is being called “runway agnostic” missions where improvisation will be the key. Long, straight highways are also being looked at. In the most recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US had the luxury of using ready-made airbases for all flight operations: Bagram and Kandahar in Afghanistan, Balad in Iraq, and the huge Al Udeid base in Qatar. The US Navy’s aircraft carriers have also supplied floating runways for a multitude of operations where land bases have not been available. However, a war with China has posed new challenges, not just because of the limited runways in the region for American use but also because of the ability of the Chinese military to target US bases in the Pacific, such as Guam, with ballistic-missile strikes. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has also developed “carrier killer” anti-ship ballistic missiles. The beach-landing concept is aimed at multiplying the number of options for flight missions which China would find difficult to counter. “We’re getting the engineers looking at it because there’s a lot of 3,000ft straight beaches [in the Pacific] that we could bring our MC-130s and CV-22s into to deliver the effects we need,” Lieutenant-General Tony Bauernfeind, the head of US air force special operations command, said. “Our adversaries have watched the American way of war for several decades and they are going to hold our initial staging bases and our forward operating bases at risk, “ Bauernfeind said, speaking at the air and space forces association annual conference in Maryland. “They understand that the way to slow the American joint force down is to target our basing. We have to acknowledge that we cannot always rely on a Bagram, a Kandahar, a Balad or an Al Udeid in the future,” he said.

Joe Biden bangs the drum for Ukraine at the UN

Is the US-led coalition's support for Kyiv in the war all about punishing Russia for its aggression or has it always been about Autocracy versus Democracy? Joe Biden in his speech to the United Nations General Assemby today made it clear that in his mind it was the rest of the world against the autocracy of Russia and China and he wanted every other nation to join the battle against the two nations who appear to be determined to change the world order and replace America's "rules-based order" - ie democracy - with autocratic government. These days any denouncement of Russia's invasion of Ukraine is also implicitly linked to a warning to Beijing to leave Taiwan alone. But neither Putin nor Xi Zinping were there to hear Biden's speech. This is the way it is now. Putin can't go anywhere because he might be arrested for war crimes, and Xi can't go anywhere because of all the economic and social troubles facing his leadership back home. So much for the power of autocracy. So on this day at least, the democracy-loving president of the United States was able to hold court before all the other world leaders and to remind them that the war in Ukraine was not just a territorial dispute but a conflict threatening the world order. I doubt either Putin or Xi were listening. But they will still get the message, even if they do nothing about it.

Can Ukraine drive out 200,000 Russian troops?

General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned, not for the first time, that it will be a long war in Ukraine. He doesn't spell out how long but I imagine he is thinking in terms of years. Three, four, five years? The prospect of a long, drawn-out war would be disastrous. But the pessimistic view is not surprising. As Milley says, there are still at least 200,000 Russian troops in Ukraine. That is a huge force, even if many of them are conscripts with low morale and motivation. How will it be possible to get rid of them all back across the border into Russia without a decision by Putin to call off the whole "special operation"? Putin is never going to do that because it would be humiliating. So the 200,000 troops will stay put. However many breakthroughs there might be by the Ukrainian troops, and there haven't been many so far, they will never be enough to get Putin to surrender. So Milley has to be right. It's going to be a protracted war. How damaging is that going to be for Ukraine and for the 50-nation coalition supporting the Kyiv government? An endless war with no solution in sight for years is what this planet doesn't need when climate-change is threatening to make the world's population suffer. The only answer has to be a deal which will not satisfy anyone but it will at least bring the slaughter and destruction to a halt.

How exactly will Trump end the war in Ukraine in one day?

Does Donald Trump actually have a proper plan to end the war in Ukraine on his first day back in the White House - IF he gets there of course? Putin has commented that he's very pleased that Trump could end the war so quickly. Kyiv on the other hand, for obvious reasons, is extremely alarmed because they can see Trump handing over its sovereign land for a deal with Putin. So what is in Trump's mind? Just like trying to second-guess what's in Putin's mind it's impossible to second-guess what's in Trump's mind. However, I guess it would go something like this: Trump would anounce on Day One that he is going to order the Pentagon to stop all future supplies of weapons to Ukraine in return for Putin announcing an immediate ceasefire. Trump would then tell Kyiv to attend a summit with Putin, President Zelensky (and Trump, of course) with their respective foreign ministers to bash out a land/peace settlement. If Kyiv agrees to surrender some of the land that Putin wants, including the whole of Crimea, he, Trump will make sure that Ukraine joins Nato to protect the rest of the territory. He will tell Putin that he has to put up with Ukraine being with Nato but promises no alliance missiles or troops will ever be permanently based on Ukrainian territory. That's about it. Putin will like the land-grab bit but will oppose the Nato membership, and Kyiv will hate the territory handover but love the Nato membership guarantee. It's a deal probably only Trump could propose. He obviously thinks it will work. Zelensky will never agree.

Can Trump get a fair trial?

The trials of Donald Trump are months away but the big question is already being asked. Can he get a fair trial? Can there be any jury-age person in the United States of America who doesn't have an opinion about the former president? Will it not be the case that everyone has a preconceived notion about the man and will therefore take that preconceived notion into the jury box? However much the judge appeals to the members of the jury to forget everything they know about Trump and focus solely on the evidence put by the prosecution, they will have already made up their minds, depending on whether they love him or hate him. It's a near impossibility that 12 jury members can be found who have not formed a view of the 45th president and the alleged offences he is supposed to have committed. This could mean that every jury at every Trump trial will be hopelessly divided and will therefore be unable to reach consensus. The only thing that gives some hope that a jury might be able to perform their duty without bias is that the grand juries who agreed to send Trump to trial DID do just that. They listened to the prosecution evidence and agreed there was enough meat on the bone to send him to trial. But the grand jury is very different from a publicly visible jury in a courtroom trial. If Trump is put on trial in Washington DC for the charges relating to the January 6 attack on the Capitol, it might be near-impossible for the Trump legal team to find a jury which is not already lined up against him. All these questions are going to have to be addressed before the former president appears in the dock.

Poor old Joe is being advised to retire from all quarters

Suddenly, President Joe Biden is getting advice from all kinds of people about retiring at the end of his four-year term and handing over to someone younger. Several big-time US columnists, such as David Ignatius of the Washington Post, are saying it's time he recognised that he will be too old to be president for another four years from 2025. Now Mitt Romney, a one-time would-be president and a grandee Republican senator from Utah, has offered the same advice. He's stepping down as senator at the next election and he's in his 70s, not 80s, like Biden. The clamour for Biden to hand the reigns to a younger Democrat is getting louder by the day. As far as we know, Biden is ignoring the advice and is resolved to stay and fight for another four years. The debate about Biden’s age and health has broadened out into a bigger discussion about the country’s ageing leadership. The focus is also on Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority Leader of the Senate. He is 81 and on two occasions has frozen in mid-sentence, looking both confused and bewildered. After medical tests he has reassured everyone that his health is fine and he remains determined to see out his Senate leadership term which is due to end in January 2025. He is already the longest-serving party leader in US Senate history. He will be approaching the age of 83 when his term as Minority leader of the Senate ends. If McConnell were to suffer any further moments when he freezes and becomes temporarily unable to speak, the health and age issue is going to be raised again, and the senator could find himself under pressure to retire from public office. The big question is whether the public feel confident about having such ageing leaders. McConnell comes up for reelection to the Senate in January, 2027 when he will be nearly 85. Opinion polls have shown that the majority of people questioned have their doubts about voting for a president, Joe Biden, who would be 86 by the end of a second term in office. Both Biden and McConnell will have the job of convincing the doubters that they are still fully capable of doing their jobs and do not need to be replaced by someone younger.

Has the threat of Putin resorting to nukes receded?

As the war in Ukraine approaches its second winter, the Ukrainian military have recovered about 50 per cent of the territory seized by the Russian invasion forces and have extended their counteroffensive by persistently hitting targets in occupied Crimea and in Russia itself. From a Moscow point of view, the Russian military setbacks may have caused President Putin to think seriously about resorting to tactical nuclear weapons as a way of driving forward what North Korean leader Kim Jong-un predicted would be a “victory” for Russia in Ukraine. Since the invasion on February 24, 2021, Putin and, even more frequently Dimitry Medvedev, the former Russian president, have warned of Russia’s right to use nuclear weapons. Has the Russian threat to turn to tactical nuclear weapons grown or receded? Nato has repeatedly said there are no signs that Russia is preparing to unleash its nuclear arsenal. Indeed, it could be argued that the threat, seen as credible by President Biden only a few months ago, has receded. Putin seems to be placing his hopes on the US-led coalition tiring of supporting Ukraine “for as long it takes”, or perhaps anticipating a new American president next year who would be more willing to push for a deal which he could then claim as a victory. Resorting to nuclear weapons would end any prospect of a settlement acceptable to Moscow. So belligerent nuclear-war warnings, particularly by Medvedev whose current job is deputy chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, are generally viewed in the West as just alarmist propaganda. However, the most difficult question for western governments is trying to guess or second-guess what is in Putin’s mind. Rhetoric around nuclear weapons has become so routine in Russia in recent years, it could potentially lower the psychological threshold for their use. But for Putin, the launching of tactical nuclear weapons would be the final acknowledgment by the Kremlin that the war to take control of Ukraine has irrevocably failed? Why would Putin ever consider resorting to nuclear weapons? With the prospect of a never-ending conflict, Putin who has sole command of Russia’s giant stockpile of tactical nuclear bombs and missiles, could come to the conclusion that only a mighty blow, using the most deadly weapon at his disposal, would save his nation — and his regime — from humiliation and ignominy. Putin and Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, have stated that Moscow would have the right to turn to nuclear weapons if the Russian motherland faced an “existential” threat. The definition of existential threat might have changed in Putin’s mind as a result of the growing number of Ukrainian armed drone and sabotage attacks on Russian airbases and cities inside Russia and on military targets in Crimea, annexed and occupied since 2014. Looking at the nuclear issue from a western standpoint, the answer seems clear. Strategically and tactically, it would make little sense. Tactical nuclear weapons, with their more limited range and potency, would be devastating but would not guarantee an end to the war or an instant victory for Putin. However, in Putin’s mind, using nuclear weapons could be his way of throwing down the gauntlet to the West, his message being: “With you continuing to arm Kyiv with increasingly advanced weaponry to hurt Russian forces, I had no other choice.” What is stopping Putin from using tactical nuclear weapons? There are two principal reasons. The first is China. President Xi has publicly stated and, no doubt privately warned Putin in person, that nuclear weapons should never be used. China is Russia’s strategic partner. The alliance between the two nations has grown exponentially since the war in Ukraine began. The Chinese leader has never condemned his Russian friend for invading Ukraine but, so far, he has not offered military help. Furthermore, he is trying to position himself as a peacemaker, attempting to forge a settlement that would bring a diplomatic end to the war and boost his own reputation and power on the global stage. Putin will know that if he orders a nuclear strike, however limited, his partnership with China would be put at grave risk, if not destroyed. The second reason is the likely response from the United States and Nato. Putin may argue the case in his mind that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would not lead to a nuclear or conventional counterstrike by the West because Kyiv is not yet a member of the western alliance and is therefore not covered by Article 5 of the organisation’s founding treaty. This guarantees that an attack on an individual member of the alliance is equivalent to an attack on Nato as a whole. However, the US has made it clear that the use of nuclear weapons by Putin in Ukraine would have “catastrophic consequences” for Russia. What these consequences would be have not been spelt out. But could it lead to a direct confrontation between Nato and Russia? Putin has to take this possible scenario into account before gambling on his nuclear options. Has anything changed that makes it more or less likely Putin will use nuclear weapons? What has changed is the scale and quality of the weaponry provided by the US-led coalition of 50 countries. Now that the US has agreed to American-built F-16 fighter jets being supplied to Ukraine, the battle for air superiority will pose a new and potentially crucial phase in the war. Alexander Grushko, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, warned of “enormous risks” if the West went ahead with sending these fighter aircraft to Ukraine. Was he hinting that the arrival of F-16s could lead to a nuclear response? F-16s won’t be operational in Ukraine for several more months. The first ten of 31 US Abrams tanks are also expected to be delivered soon to Ukraine, ratcheting up the threat posed to Russian defences in the south and east; and if Biden decides to supply Kyiv with longer-range weapons, as President Zelensky has been urging for a long time, such a move could be viewed by Putin as a serious and unacceptable escalation, posing an even greater threat to Russian bases and cities. As if in preparation for a possible nuclear attack, Putin has sent the first batch of tactical systems to Belarus, his friendly neighbour. It’s the first time Moscow has deployed nuclear missiles outside Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It’s also the most pronounced nuclear signal to the West since Russian troops invaded Ukraine last year. The short-range nuclear missiles have been housed in a new storage facility.Tactical nuclear bombs being moved to Belarus, which shares borders with three Nato countries, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, could force a reassessment in the West of Putin’s likely options if the war in Ukraine fails to give him the strategic trophies he thought would fall into his hands months ago.

Putin and Kim play best bunnies

The get-together between Putin and Kim Jong-un went swimmingly. Face to face they are about the same height, so no problem with eye-to-eye chats. Putin afterwards hinted at military cooperation and they beemed at each other like they were old mates. Which I guess they are. What we don't know is whether Putin actually likes the fellow or can't stand the sight of him and puts up with him because he has so few other friends around the world. I suspect it's the latter. No one likes Kim Jong-un, right? Kim had come to see Putin in Russia in his ridiculous armoured train. It really is something out of a Stanley Kubrick film, weird, weird and even weirder. Two sort of human beings trying to show the world how tough they are. The trouble is, of course, they both have nuclear weapons and both of them have their days when they probably consider actually using them against their enemies. This is the sort of world we all have to live in, sharing it with leaders who contemplate turning the planet into a burning cauldron.

Putin criticises US for charging Donald Trump

I doubt it will help Trump's cause - indeed, he doesn't really need extra help - but Vladimir Putin thinks the charging of the former president is a sign of how rotten the US is. There speaks a man who when he goes off certain people, like his opponents who dare to speak out against him, they tend to come to grizzly ends. Putin didn't say he thinks Trump is a victim of a witchhunt but he clearly can't understand what all the fuss is about. By charging Trump with criminal offences, America's democracy is being damaged. That's Putin's view. Democracy is a big word and I don't think Putin has much concept of what it means for a country to adhere religiously to democratic values. The charging of Trump with offenses under a system in which no one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law. is the finest example of democracy at work. In Russia, of course, the president could never be charged with a federal offence because no one would dare to consider such an option, let alone take the first step. That's the big difference between the democracy that Putin claims to honour in his country and the democracy that underlines the American constitution. But I'm sure Trump will be happy to know that his old mate Vlad still backs him. **Buy my new spy thriller, SHADOW LIVES, from Amazon or Rowanvale Books.

A very shakey Joe Biden holds forth at a press conference

All the doubts about Joe Biden's staying power were resurrected in Delhi during his press conference in Vietnam following the end of the G20 summit in New Delhi. He tried the good old folks comedy chatline routine to start with, presumably to woo the reporters into submission. But it didn't take long before his press people were beginning to look really worried. He was rambling, there is no other word for it, and he speaks so quietly even the most forgiving reporter was looking confused. Basically, after an important G20 summit when vital subjects such as Ukraine and climate-change were discussed at length, you need an American president to stand up and be counted and to tell the world exactly what he thinks and what he's going to do to put things right. But Biden was so tired he could hardly get the words out and in the end he announced he was going to bed. I think that was a relief to everyone, especially to his press secretary who as good as shut him off when she called for music to be played. Now imagine a similar type of press conference in four years' time, with Biden half way through a second term. If he's tired after a summit today, how much tireder will he sound in four years? If he is honest with himself, he must know that in a second term in office he will get progressively exhausted. That's not to say he should step down and let a younger person take his place. But you can bet an increasing number of Democrats are going to come to this view in the months ahead.

G20 fails to condemn Russian invasion of Ukraine

Not every member of the powerful G20 summit of international leaders thinks the Russian invasion of Ukraine was an invasion per se. That's the only conclusion one can come to. The communique following the summit in India supported the idea that a country's territorial sovereignty was kind of sacrosanct but that wasn't a good enough reason to single out Russia for condemnation after it stamped all over Ukraine's territorial integrity on February 24, last year, and has continued to do so ever since. This failure on the part of the G20 summit leaders was supposedly all about sensitive diplomacy, with those wanting outright condemnation having to give in to those who wanted to tiptoe round the invasion issue. Summits of world leaders, which on this occasion excluded President Xi Zinping of China and Putin of Russia, have always been about compromise. Without compromise, it is always explained, a final communique could not be written. So Putin will be happy that some leaders still hope he is a nice guy and will do the right thing eventually, which of course he won't, and he will be pretty pleased with the G20 lot. But war has nothing to do with diplomacy until diplomacy ends the war. And right now there is absolutely no sgn that Putin is interested in any form of diplomacy to bring the war to a close. So, surely it would have been better for the G20 leaders to actually have mentioned Russia in the final statement, condemned outright the appalling slaughter that is going on, courtesy of Russian cruise missiles, artillery and rockets, and demanded an end to the fighting - and the total withdrawal of all Russian troops. But they knew that was never going to be possible, so they came up with a dribble of words that sounded faintly disapproving. Moscow will be smiling.

Nancy Pelosi is a phenomenon

At the age of 83 Nancy Pelosi is going to stand again for Congress to represent California. She really is a phenomenon. US politics would never be the same without her. She has more influence and experience than 98 per cent of the rest of Congress put together. She is also a helluva lot more stylish dressed as she likes to do in her spectacular trouser suits. In the next few months her voice will be the one heard loudest and clearest about the dangers of bringing Donald Trump back to the White House. She has served in Congress for so long, twice as Speaker, that it is difficult to imagine the Capitol without her. No doubt there will be some people who will be critical of her decision: Trump of course who seriously dislikes her, other Republicans, and probably, secretly, the much younger Democrats in California who fancied their chances of replacing her there. But her decision in my view is in the best interests of the country as a whole. She knows more than most that democracy in the United States is at risk because of the growing violence of extreme politics. She represents moderation and common sense. America is going to need these two qualities as the country faces the prospect of a return of Trump in the White House. **Order my new spy thriller, Shadow Lives, from Amazon or Rowanvale Books.

More Americans are concerned than happy about Biden

When Joe Biden's people say the president is not getting the kind of support he deserves after all his domestic and foreign policy achievements, you know he is in trouble. He's not as popular as he should be. He's not as well respected as he should be. He's not as well liked as he should be. Well, that's the way it is in the political game. Sometimes he who makes the loudest noise tends to get more noticed and supported. Biden is a quiet American, hardly raises his voice, even in addresses to the nation. If it wasn't for microphones and stereo loudspeakers, nobody except those in the very front row would hear a word he utters. Whereas Trump hardly needs a mic. He just shouts loud enough for all those in the back row to hear every word. The latest polls make tough reading for Biden and his campaign team. The most extraordinary statistic from one survey was that in a head-to-head election between Biden and Nikki Haley, the former US ambassador to the United Nations and ex-South Carolina governor, would win. Bizarre. So what can Biden do about it? Wise people say it's all too early to start getting worried about polling figures. But actually all politicians worry about polling figures all the time and I can bet you that when Biden was told abut the latest figures he would not have replied: "Oh well, never mind, it's far too early to worry." What he would have done is tell his aides to get known people in the political world to make pronouncements about how the president was not getting the love and support he deserved. The trouble with polls is that when questioned a survey participant will say the frst thing that comes into their head. Q. Do you think Biden will be too old to be president for four more years after 2024? A. Good lord yes, I've got an 80-year-old uncle and he's as dotty as a cracked biscuit. Q. Do you think Biden has got what it takes, mentally, to be president for a second term? A. Good lord no, did you see him the other day, he didn't know whether he was coming or going? Can't have a guy like that with his finger on the button, right? So, never mind that it's only September, 2023, it can only get worse for Joe Biden in the next 14 months. **Buy my new spy thriller, Shadow Lives, from Amazon, Waterstones or Rowanvale Books.

Pentagon ramps up firepower for Ukraine

The US is ramping up the firepower to be delivered to Ukraine this month with the imminent arrival of the first Abrams battle tanks along with armour-piercing depleted uranium shells. Intended specifically to help the Ukrainian military break through Russian defences in the three-month-old counteroffensive, the tanks and controversial radioactive shells will pose a significant threat to the invasion force’s armoured battle lines. Although Britain’s Challenger 2 tanks, also armed with depleted uranium shells, have been operating effectively in Ukraine since June, the 72-ton US Abrams M1A1 is noted for its mobility and higher speed (42mph). It’s powered by a 1,500-horsepower gas turbine engine. The first ten of the 31 promised by the US will be delivered in about two weeks and the decision to arm them with depleted uranium shells has been confirmed by American officials. Depleted uranium is a less radioactive by-product of the process developed to prepare the dense metal for use in nuclear weapons. It’s packed into the tip of the 120mm tank shells, providing far greater armour-piercing power than traditional shells. Both the US and UK have dismissed Moscow’s accusations that they are supplying Ukraine with nuclear weapons. Depleted uranium shells were used extensively in the 1991 Gulf and 2003 Iraq wars. They are not banned by any existing treaty. With the arrival of the first modified Abrams M1A1s, Ukraine will have a broad range of western tanks, including the British Challenger 2s, German Leopard 2s and French Leclercs, all of them superior to the ageing former Soviet models available to Kyiv when Russian troops invaded on February 24 last year. The US strategy has been adapted to give impetus to the Ukrainian counteroffensive which, while a slow process so far, it is hoped will produce significant gains over the next few months. As part of this push to liberate Russian-occupied territory, US officials are saying they are now “very closely considering” longer-range weapons for Ukraine. The Kyiv government has been pressing for months for the US to supply the army tactical missile system (Atacms) which has a range of up to 190 miles. They are launched from the US army’s multiple launch rocket systems. “We do need to continue to take a very close and deliberate look at what it is Ukraine needs,” Laura Cressey, director of regional security and arms transfers at the US state department, told a conference in Arlington, Virginia, this week. “Long-range fires” were among weapons being closely considered, she said.

Trump should be getting really worried about a prison sentence

For all his brashness and his delight over the publicity boost to his campaign following the tweeting of his police mugshot, Donald Trump has every reason to start getting really worried about what may happen to him when the trials start next year. A lot of his top supporters who took part in the January 6 2021 attack on the Capitol are getting long jail sentences. The former leader of the Proud Boys who played such a major role in the assault has been given 22 years. But while the sentences should worry Trump, what is really damaging for him is that they seem to think they are the scapegoats for January 6 and that it was all down to Trump. Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader, had previously shown no regrets for that day but at his court apearance he begged to be treated leniently, saying he had never planned to cause violence. All of this will be scooped up by the US prosecuting authorities when the main man, Donald J Trump, appears in the dock.The Proud Boys' words will be levelled at him. Trump has pleaded not guilty to every charge against him and will obviously fight to prove his innocence but his most devoted followers, those who led the riot, are admitting it was a day of shame. Tarrio admitted he was wrong about Trump winning the 2020 election. He will be more than two decades in prison, the longest sentence so far. And Trump faces a lot more charges than he did. So, yes, Trump must be worried. **Order my new spy thriller, Shadow Lives, (Amazon and Waterstones)

Putin and Kim Jong-un make a perfect pairing

I'm surprised Kim Jong-un has got time to get into his armoured train and travel to Russia for a get-together with his "mate" Vladimir Putin. He seems to spend most days attending the latest blast-off of a ballistic missile test, trying to demonstrate to the US that Washngton should never underestimate him. I don't think Washington does, by the way. You can never underestimate the potential danger posed by a leader like Kim. But while the US spends a lot of time worrying about what he might do next, Putin just sits back and invites him to Russia for a nice little chat about buying North Korean arms. This is the way the world has always been. When there are bad guys in charge of countries they tend to form a groupie together so that they can do two fingers to everyone else and keep them on their toes. So Kim will go by train into Russia and meet up with Putin and no doubt agree to sell Russia home-made drones and missiles to help the Russian president not lose the war in Ukraine. China has so far refrained from doing the same but the North Korean leader has no compunction about handing over weapons to prolong the war. No doubt it will make him feel good and at the same time forge closer ties between Pyongyang and Moscow. Kim doesn't have many friends in the world, so Putin's hand of friendship will boost his ego. Joe Biden has done very little about North Korea other than put out statements condemning the latest ballistc missile launch, so I doubt Kim has many worries about the US attacking his country. Putin's charm offensive with Kim is all about snubbing the nose of the West which seems to be his number one priority, along with destroying Ukraine. What a lovely pair they make, Putin and Kim. **Please buy my new spy thriller, Shadow Lives, (paperback and ebook from Amazon and Rowanvale Books)

The war in Ukraine is contributing to global warming!

The war in Ukraine, totally the responsibility of Vladimir Putin, is a war of killing and destruction and more killing and destruction. But it is also helping the devastation of the planet's climate. It's one of the many additional hugely negative consequences of the Russian invasion on February 24 last year. Politico magazine in the US has written a brilliant article on how a Dutch carbon expert has attempted to calculate the damage done to the environment by the daily dose of cruise msisiles and artillery shells and burning buildings. Putin is never going to stop the war to save the planet's climate but it's an invaluable exercise to demonstrate how many other negative consequences there are to a war. Any war. Apparently in the first seven months of the war, at least 100 million metric tons of carbon emissions were launched into the atmosphere. And the war has been going on now for about 18 months. So the emissions figure can be more than doubled. In another report published by Oilchange International in 2008 it was estimated that 141 million tons of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere as a result of the war in Iraq between 2003 and 2008. That was said to be the equivalent of putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US. The US spent more in one year on the war in Iraq than the whole world spent on investing in renewable energy. So despite all the attempts to tackle the rapidly increasing global warming crisis, Putin's war in Ukraine is now making sure that as we take one step forward to meet the climate crisis, the poor planet is taking two steps back. **Order my new spy thriller, Shadow Lives, from Amazon.

That Trump mugshot keeps rolling in the dollars

THE mugshot of the century has raised another $2 million. Since it was taken last month at Fulton county jail in Atlanta, Georgia, more than $9 million has poured into Trump's election coffers, bringing the total in August alone to $20 million. The shot of Trump looking "good and hard" as a female Fox News presenter described it, is now appearing on walls, as well on caps and t-shirts and mugs, and no doubt soon it will become the must-have tattoo for all Trump fanatics. The Trump mugshot is a phenomenon, and there is nothing his Republican rivals can do to equal it. It should be a badge of shame but for Trump it's something to glory in and promote and publicise and to generate donations. It's a campaign promotional device we have never seen before and it's going to carry Trump all the way to the White House where, if he really does win in November, 2024, he will no doubt produce another one of those scowling stares as a way of warning any opponents to keep quiet. He's probably working on his presidential address from the Capitol already. It will be withering, it will attack everything Joe Biden has done, it will be relentlessly harsh. It will be true Mugshot Trump. **Buy my new spy thriller, Shadow Lives, from Amazon.

How would artificial intelligence predict the 2024 election result?

Using all the massive computer power it has at its disposal, AI would surely predict that with all the troubles facing Donald Trump, there will come a point when the whole of the United States of America, apart from a few lunatics, would conclude, eventually, that it's probably not a good idea to support and vote for a man who faces a long jail sentence, who cannot be trusted to tell the truth, whose business empire appears to be built on shaky foundations - according to the New York attorney general - who treats classified documents like coffee table magazines to be read by all and sundry visitors to his residence, who has displayed a pretty nasty attitude towards women, who stil believes he and not Joe Biden won the 2020 election, who said he loved Kim Jong-un, who confessed he thought Putin was a pretty good guy and who hates all media except those who adore him and flatter him. AI would absorb all the millions of words written and spoken about him since he emerged as a power in the land and come to the conclusion, based on intelligence far superior to the average human being, that it would be madness to consider Trump as the next president. But, you see, I fear even AI will prove to be wrong. **Order my new spy thriller, Shadow Lives (Amazon and Waterstones)

Putin and Erdogan to meet. Is that good news or just politics?

President Putin and President Erdogan of Turkey sit in separate camps but I am pretty sure they like or at least respect each other. So the announcement that the two leaders are to meet in the Black Sea resort of Sochi next week is either a good development or is just plain old-fashioned playing to the gallery. The fact that Erdogan, a wily leader if ever there was one, is going to Russia to meet Putin is not that extraordinary because if they met in, say, Istanbul or Geneva, some law enforcement agency might interrupt the meeting and arrest the Russian president who faces an international warrant for war crimes in Ukraine. So they will talk about the abandoned grain deal under which Putin had allowed tankers filled with grain to leave Ukraine for trips through the Black Sea to reach Africa and elsewhere. I can't see Erdogan succeeding in getting Putin to give up on his war in Ukraine but he just might persuade him to revive the grain deal. It would be sensible politics for Putin although there is unlikely to be any quid pro quo for him, like a semi-lifting of sanctions against Russia. In my view it is better to talk to Putin than shout at him. He's a hardened ex-FSB (KGB) leader, so he will only do a deal if he thinks it's in his interest. But charming Erdogan might give him a sort of friend in the enemy camp - Nato. So I see a deal coming up but no end to the war. **Order my new spy thriller, Shadow Lives, which has a strong Russian theme (Amazon and Waterstones).