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.