Tag Archives: tom arms world review

Where are the Democrats?

The question has been repeatedly asked as Donald Trump has flooded the political landscape with Executive Orders. Well, the answer became apparent this week: they are alive and well and living in California.

Gavin Newsom, the Governor of the Great Bear State, has donned the mantle of leader of the anti-Trump brigade.

To do that he has adopted many of the same techniques of Trump himself. Michelle Obama once said: “When they hit low we hit high.” That has not worked, says Newsom. He is hitting lower and lower and lower.

Trump has called on the acolyte Republican state of Texas to gerrymander their congressional districts to give him five more seats in the House of Representatives. Newsom has threatened to gerrymander California to counter the Texas Republicans unless the redistricting plans in Texas and elsewhere are dropped.

The California governor has taken to social media to troll Donald Trump. He uses the same shoutie capital letters and boastful, self-congratulatory rhetoric as the president. He explains: “We need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done…. We have to meet fire with fire and wake up to the assault on institutions, knowledge and history.”

Trump is fighting back. When Newsom called a press conference to announce his redistricting plans, Trump sent armed ICE agents to stand in the crowd.

A US Grand Jury is involved now.

With three separate criminal referrals, the Department of Justice has launched a full-scale investigation into claims that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and CIA Director John Brennan, orchestrated an intelligence assessment that claims the Russians meddled in and backed Trump in the 2016 elections.

It is true that Obama ordered the CIA to investigate claims that Trump was backed by the Russians. They found no proof of collusion but they did report that Russia tried to influence the elections in Trump’s favour. This assessment was published shortly before Trump took office and Trump claimed that it undermined his first four year administration.

The first referral came from Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s director of national intelligence. She claimed to have unearthed a congressional report that claimed the Russians did not support Trump and that Democrats orchestrated a false assessment. Gabbard says that this means the initial report was nothing short of “treason.”  Gabbard failed to mention that the report was written by Trump-supporting Republicans congressmen.

Referral number two was from CIA Director John Ratcliffe who stumbled across classified documents that said the report was “rushed” at the behest of Obama and others. Ratcliffe again says this proves “treason.” Ratcliffe failed to say that the report says it would have reached the same conclusion no matter how much time it took to investigate.

Finally, FBI Director Kash Patel said he uncovered a “treasonous” email from Hillary Clinton calling for a false assessment of Russian involvement. The email was old news and had already been dismissed as “fake” news.

The irony is that Obama cannot be prosecuted no matter what a Trump-convened Grand Jury decides. Thanks to the Trump-controlled Supreme Court, a sitting president cannot be held accountable in law for any act committed while president.

When it comes to law and order…

Tariff Time

At the stroke of midnight on Wednesday American tariffs took effect in 90 countries. The tariffs were the highest in a century.

They start at 15 percent and rise to 35 percent for Canada and 50 percent for Brazil and India. Brazil is the victim of Trump’s anger over the decision to prosecute his friend Jair Bolsonaro for attempting to overthrow the government. India has been hit with a 25 percent punitive secondary tariff for importing Russian oil.

The Trump Administration is still talking to Mexico and China. Currently the tariff on Chinese goods is 30 percent. Deals have been struck with the UK, EU, South Korea, Japan and Vietnam.

So far this year, tariffs are estimated to have contributed $152 billion to the US Treasury. Trump has said this is only the start. He is threatening more and higher tariffs on pharmaceuticals and computer equipment and chips.

So far, the impact on the US economy has been nominal. But this is because American businesses stockpiled foreign goods before the tariffs took effect and consumers have been paying pre-tariff prices.

This will soon start to change, although the latest rise will not work its way through the pipeline until early October. However, businesses have been warning the administration that they cannot keep prices down much longer, and in fact, they are signs of inflation for items such as appliances, clothing and furnishings. The full impact will be ready in time for Christmas.

The Yale Budget Lab reckons that once all the tariffs have worked their way through the pipeline, the cost to the average American household will be $2,500 and half a percentage point will be shaved off the US economic growth figure.

Gaza

A divided Supreme Court?

Birthright citizenship coupled with the power of the courts v. the executive was up before the Supreme Court this week. And it looks as if the court is divided.

A decision will take time, probably a couple of months. But based on the questioning from the Bench it appears as if a decision could go either way, or be wrapped up in so much qualifying legal mumbo-jumbo as to be nearly useless.

Birthright citizenship and the courts v the president are two separate issues but they have been judicially linked because the lower courts have been blocking Trump’s plans to deport more than 5 million people who were born in the US to parents who were illegal aliens.

There are 94 District Courts in the US that hear cases involving the US constitution that are brought to them by people in their district. A ruling by one of the federal judges in those districts can be applied nationally. This means that one of Trump’s Executive Orders can be blocked until the Supreme Court finds time to make a final ruling. This could take many frustrating months—if not longer.

The Trump Administration wants the law changed so that a District Court’s judgements apply only to their district. This would, of course, substantially increase the power of the presidency and his Executive Orders, but could create a confusing judicial quilt of which laws apply where.

Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the The 13th Amendment of the US constitution. The amendment is a direct result of disputes leading up to the American Civil War and the abolition of slavery after it. In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that African American slaves had no right to citizenship. That meant that when Lincoln issue the Emancipation Declaration on January 1, 1863, the slaves were freed but they were also stateless. The 13th Amendment was meant to correct that.

When it was passed in 1865, no one thought at the time that the amendment would become a loophole for illegal aliens to establish citizenship for their children and a moral right to residency for themselves. But it is still the law. And because it is in the constitution, it is a chiselled in legal granite law.

The only way it can be changed is by amending the constitution. This involves one of two processes. The most difficult is a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress followed by passage of the change by three-quarters of the state legislatures. The second, more usual route, is by ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states. Both are difficult and time consuming and the reason why the constitution is rarely amended.

Trump likes moving at speed, which is why he is hoping that the Supreme Court will either find a way to declare the 13th Amendment null and void or come up with a work around that will allow him to circumvent it.

Midterm dilemma

Republican Congressmen and Senators are in a bind. Or at least they will be in November 2026 when all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are up for election.

I keep hearing that a growing number of the Republican congressional club are fed up, appalled and seriously worried at the way that Donald Trump is riding roughshod over the constitution, destroying established trade patterns with his tariffs and jettisoning important allies.

But they feel trapped. If they speak up. If they oppose him. They risk losing their seats. And if they lose their seats they lose the platform from which they can oppose him if they can find a way to do so.

It has happened before. Liz Cheney was a highly respected, extremely conservative, Republican senator who vociferously opposed Trump because she thought he was a dictator in the making. Trump turned to his loyal MAGA base and told them to dump Cheney in the Senate primaries and support the far-right MAGA alternative. They did as instructed.

Cheney’s demise was an object lesson for ever centrist-minded Republican in Congress. Tow the Trump line are you are out. Hence the climate of Omerta which has descended on Capitol Hill.

But, Trump is falling in the approval stakes. The majority is starting to turn against the president. Not everywhere. In some states MAGA remains dominant. But enough states that the anti-Trump vote is like to return enough Democrats for the Republicans to lose control of the House of Representatives.

Republican anti-Trump lawmakers are thus caught in the middle between Trump and the MAGA crowd on one side and baying Democrats on the other. It may just be possible that moving against Trump now could win them enough centrist and Democratic votes to keep their seats. That, however, seems unlikely.

Anti-Trump Republicans still, have 18 months until the next election. Will they remember their oath to defend the constitution, rediscover their morals and fight against Trump’s increasingly corrupt authoritarianism? If they do—and lose—at least they will have the knowledge that they went down fighting.

Nobel ambitions

Donald Trump desperately wants the Nobel Peace Prize. One of his success v failure yardsticks is outdoing Barack Obama. Obama won the peace prize. Trump must have it too.

Pakistan and water

Pakistan is a water-stressed country. It is totally dependent on the Indus Valley Basin for survival.

That is why it has threatened war in response to India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty following the killing of 26 Indian tourists in Kashmir.

The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty is considered the most successful treaty of its kind in the world. Probably in the history of the world. It has held through three wars and numerous skirmishes between two countries whose religious difference mean that they truly detest each other.

There are six rivers in the Indus Basin (Indus, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, Jhelum and Sutlej). India administers the three eastern rivers and Pakistan the three western rivers. Both countries use the network for transport, drinking water, hydro-electricity, agriculture and industry.

But here is the rub. The main headwaters for the Indus Basin are in India which gives it the power to control the flow of water downstream. And Pakistan needs the water more than India.

Ninety percent of Pakistanis live in the Indus Basin. The rivers provide 90 percent of the irrigation water needed for Pakistani farms which provide 24 percent of the country’s GDP and employ 34 percent of the labour force. Eighty percent of the water needed for domestic and industrial use comes from the basin and nearly a quarter of Pakistan’s electricity is hydro based.

Economists reckon that Indian withdrawal from the treaty would lead to a flight of capital from economically hard-pressed Pakistan and the destruction of the country’s economy. Even worse, it raises a spectre of a war for survival between the regions two nuclear powers.

The Easter Bunny

The Easter Bunny played a centre-stage diplomatic role this week. When Donald Trump announced the death of Pope Francis this week he stood next to an actor dressed as the Easter bunny.

The juxtaposition was symbolic. Trump hated the Pope and wanted to demonstrate this by belittling the announcement of his death.

He has proven form for such occasions. When the widely-admired Senator John McCain died, Congress directed that America’s flags be lowered to half-mast. McCain and Trump were enemies. Trump ordered that the White House flag stay up.

Donald Trump and Pope Francis could not have been more different. The Pope lived a life of poverty. Trump lives a life of gilded ostentatiousness.

There was also policy substance behind the stylistic differences—mostly on the issue of immigration and migrants. The centrepiece of Trump’s first election campaign was a “big beautiful wall” to keep out illegal immigrants.

On a trip to Mexico, Pope Francis said: “A person who thinks only about building walls…and not bridges, is not a Christian.”

Pope Francis believed that Christian love required compassionate care for migrants. Trump called them “rapists, murderers and terrorists.”

After Trump’s second election victory, the Pope gave a television interview in which he said it would be a “disgrace” if Trump implemented his mass deportation plans. He followed that up with a letter to America’s Catholic bishops in which he said: “I exhort all the faithful of the Catholic Church not to give in to narratives that discriminate against and cause unnecessary suffering to our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters.”

The Pope’s last visitor before he died was Vice President JD Vance, himself a Catholic convert. What the two men discussed is not known. But it was reported that after the audience JD Vance was sent to a Vatican cardinal to be lectured on the responsibilities of a Christian leader.

Who benefits from the Chinese/American trade war?

South American farmers are delighted with the Sino-American trade war. Especially those in Argentina and Brazil.

Trumpian chaos has dealt another blow to Ukraine.

The American president said that he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. He would bring peace to the region even before he was inaugurated.

Trump had a special bond with Vladimir Putin. The two men had chemistry and he could use it to the end war.

Zelensky meanwhile was a “dictator”. Ukraine started the war. Zelensky needed to sign over his country’s mineral rights to pay an inflated price for past help.

And then, Putin isacting unreasonably. He is sending in missiles and killing children when there is supposed to be a limited ceasefire. The Russian leader is stalling.

Then finally, on Friday—exactly one month after US and Russian teams gathered in Riyadh, Secretary of State Marco Rubio tells his European counterparts that Donald Trump has decided that talks are taking too long and he is considering pulling out of the negotiations that he initiated.

Ukraine is just another example of chaotically disjointed governance which is leaving the world’s leaders standing around scratching their heads in Trump’s destructive wake

Tariff Hokey Cokey

Liberation Day, tariffs on everything and everyone except Russia, Belarus and North Korea. No, tariffs off. No, tariffs still on China. No, tariffs off some goods from China.

America is committed to NATO, says Rubio. No, NATO is full of freeloading Europeans and we should exit the alliance as quickly as possible, says Vice President JD Vance.

Trump’s anti-woke ideology harnessed to his 19th century economic policies, short-termism and demand for instant solutions to complex problems has created a crisis of confidence in America and its position in the world. It has also created a vacuum for China to step into.

China traces its civilisation back nearly 5,000 years. The United States will next year celebrate its 250th birthday.

Short term planning for China is a decade. Long term is… well, forever.

Short-term planning for the United States is until the next mid-term congressional elections held every two years. Long-term is the presidential elections every four years.

Governments in China stay in power until the “Mandate of Heaven” falls from their shoulders. American governments last four, maybe eight years if they are lucky.

Chinese people have no experience of democracy. Like their governments they live in the present and think not of tomorrow but of a future well beyond tomorrow. They are the standard bearers of an ancient well-ordered and established civilisation

American people think of themselves as the standard bearers of democracy. Their society is thrusting, fast-moving, exciting and constantly changing at a sometimes exhausting pace.

Which of these two countries is best equipped to deal with the economic hardships that Donald Trump is inflicting on both of them?

A rock and a hard place

Why is Trump after Greenland?

Trump has three reasons for wanting to acquire Greenland:

1. The world’s largest island has substantial deposits of 43 out of 50 of the “rare earth” minerals.
2. It guards the eastern approach to the melting Northwest Passage
3. It straddles the route that Russian ballistic missiles would take in an attack on America’s East coast.

“Rare earth” minerals are essential to the building of batteries, computer chips and modern defense equipment. The country with the largest rare earth deposits is China. This makes Americans very nervous.

However, just because the minerals are there does not mean they can be easily extracted. Engineers have so far located 150 potential mining sites. But Arctic conditions, a labour shortage and the indigenous Innuits respect for their environment, means that after ten years, only one mine is operational.

In the early days of American exploration hundreds died searching for an ice-free passage through the Canadian Arctic linking Europe and Asia. Global warming means that within a few years ships will finally be breaking through the Northwest Passage. Greenland sits at the eastern end of what will become a major shipping lane.

It has long been recognised that the shortest route for Russian missiles attacking the US is over Greenland and Canada. That is why the US has established an early-warning system at Pituffik Space Base. Some 650 military personnel man radar systems and monitor space debris from their station 750 miles inside Greenland’s Arctic Circle.

But Trump does not need to own Greenland to place military bases there. The US has the right to build whatever military systems it requires under a 1951 treaty with the Danes, who are responsible for Greenland’s defence and foreign affairs. Trump can construct 50 more bases if he wants them.

However, it is also clear that ownership would give America greater control in other areas. It would, for instance, enable the US to introduce lax mining regulations in order to fully exploit the island’s untapped natural resources. This would, however, run counter to the daily lifestyle of the 57,000 Greenlanders who place a high premium on maintaining their unique – albeit cold – way of life.

Panama

American conservatives fought tooth and nail against relinquishing control of the Panama Canal. When the new revised treaty came before the Senate in 1977 it squeaked by with just one vote to spare.

It is not surprising therefore that ultra-conservative Donald Trump wants it back.

Unfortunately for the soon-to-be president, the reasons he has given for the re-acquisition range from outright lies to commercially dubious.

To start with, Trump says that the 50-miles of locks linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans is now occupied by Chinese troops. Thus America’s security is threatened. Next, is the claim that Panama is singling out American shipping and charging it unfair prices.

It is true that China has invested heavily in Panama since 2017 when the Panamanians switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to Mainland China.  The Chinese have built bridges, a railway line and a cruise ship terminal. The Hong Kong-based company Hutchison Port Holdings has also secured the contract to manage terminal facilities at both ends of the canal.

But there are no Chinese soldiers in Panama. That is a lie. If there were troops that would be a casus belli for US intervention. Under the terms of the existing US-Panama treaty, America retains the right to intervene if its security interests are threatened.

Diplomatic Miracles do happen.

And if you need proof just look at the exchange of hostages currently taking place between Hamas and the Israeli government.

Enmity, internal divisions and complex diplomatic channels have all been overcome to allow not only a hostages-for-Palestinian-prisoners exchange but also a ceasefire and aid convoy into Gaza.

There were problems. One was the opposition by far-right Israeli cabinet ministers to any agreement on anything with Hamas. The other was the fact that 50 of the roughly 240 hostages were held not by Hamas but the even more extreme Islamic Jihad.

Then there were the complex diplomatic channels. There are no direct links between Hamas and Israel. Instead the Israelis talked to the Americans who talked to the Qataris who talked to Hamas who talked to Islamic Jihad. There was—still is—a danger of mixed or misinterpreted signals in this game of diplomatic Chinese whispers.

But so far so good. The two sides have agreed a four-day ceasefire during which the Palestinians will release 13 Israeli hostages a day. As soon as their release is confirmed, Israel will set free 50 Palestinians held in Israeli prisoners.

At the same time, the aid convoy that has been sitting on the Gaza-Egyptian border will cross into Gaza to deliver much needed water, fuel, food and energy supplies. 300 lorries are expected to cross the border today (Friday). The UN World Food Programme says it is not enough, but it is a start for the 2.2 million aid dependents Gazans.

There is even another potential diplomatic miracle. According to diplomatic sources, the Israelis have offered to extend the ceasefire a day at a time in return for the release of 20 hostages per day.

But hanging over the good news is the real danger that the ceasefire could quickly collapse.  There are many danger points. One is that Islamic Jihad may back out of the hostage deal. Relations between it and Hamas are poor.

The other is Israeli insistence that Palestinians who have fled northern Gaza for southern Gaza do not return home during the ceasefire. They fear that returning Palestinians would include Hamas fighters. But from the Gazans point of view, they want to retrieve their belongings and, in many cases, bury their dead.

Then there is the very real possibility that a frightened, nervous, hate-filled and trigger-happy Israeli soldier or Hamas fighter will loose a deadly rifle volley.

Finally, there is the possibility of a major conflict with Hezbollah on the Israel-Lebanon border. Hezbollah attacks have significantly increased since October 7, but so far the presence of two US aircraft carriers off the coast of Lebanon has been an effective deterrent.

The Argentina peso may soon be no more. 

The country’s newly-elected anarcho-capitalist (his phrase) president Javier Milei wants to ditch it for the US dollar.

Ukraine

Lest we forget in the turmoil of the Middle East, there is an important war being fought in Eastern Europe. Russia has launched what appears to be a counter to the Ukrainian counter-offensive. Bitter fighting has been reported around the town of Avdiika.  Volodomyr Zelensky has said his men are holding their own, but it should be acknowledged that the Ukrainians have suffered heavy losses in their summer counter-offensive.

One of Ukraine’s biggest concerns is keeping the lights on. The Russian-controlled nuclear power plant at Zaporizhia supplied 48 percent of Ukraine’s energy needs. A significant chunk of the remainder of Ukraine’s electricity network was knocked out last winter by Russian missile and drone attacks. Much of it has been patched up in a fashion that would do Heath Robinson proud. But Ukrainians fear that their patched up energy infrastructure will collapse under another attack this winter. President Zelensky visited NATO HQ again this week to appeal for more air defences and jet fighters. One positive factor on the energy front, is that Ukraine is now plugged into the wider European grid, but that still does not supply all of its needs.

Nuclear weapons

Meanwhile, general relations between the West and Russia are expected to take another knock next week when the Russian Duma votes on whether withdrawal from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The vote is widely expected to be a resounding yes. The Russians have already withdrawn from the INF Treaty, START and New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) and the Comprehensive Weapons in Europe Treaty. The test ban treaty is the last agreement to be scuppered in the mosaic of Cold War and post-Cold War treaties.

While the Russian parliament is voting, NATO will be conducting its annual nuclear exercise codenamed “Steadfast Noon”. It involves fighter jets capable of delivering nuclear weapons, although no such nukes will be on the planes. The exercise will be conducted over Italy, Croatia and the Mediterranean. Russia has already objected.

Polish Elections

Poland is on the political knife-edge this week as it prepares to go to the polls on Sunday. The stakes could not be higher. Opinion surveys put the ruling right-wing PiS (or Law and Justice) Party ahead, but without enough votes to form a government. Nipping at its heels is Civic Coalition, led by liberal centrist Donald Tusk, a former Polish Prime Minister and president of the European Council.

If PiS wins an overall majority—or is able to form a coalition with even more right-wing parties—then it will be their third successive government. This means that many of the policies that they have enacted will be almost impossible to reverse. These include a virtual ban on abortion, politicisation of the judiciary, increasing control of the media and academia and a curb on LGBTQ rights. Most recently the PiS leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski announced that Poland was stopping military aid to Ukraine because it needed to restock its own weapons store.

The World reacts to Russian Mutiny

World Reaction to the Wagner Group Mutiny ranged from the supportive to the thoughtful to the frightened and everything in between.

A Russian exile in Turkey told America’s National Public Radio: “The Putin regime is a circus because they don’t have power. They can’t even control their pets.”

Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky was understandably jubilant. “Anyone who choose the path of evil,” he said, “destroys himself… Russia’s weakness is obvious…And the longer Russia keeps its troops and mercenaries in our land, the more chaos, pain and problems it will have for itself later.”

The immediate comment from Washington was “No Comment” and Secretary of State Antony Blinken ordered US diplomats to stick rigidly to that line. He was concerned that any American remarks would lead to Russian claims of US involvement. It took four days before President Biden specifically denied US backing and said “This was part of a struggle within the Russian system.”

India has been a key supporter of Russia during the Ukraine War. It has lobbied on behalf of Moscow among developing countries and its purchases of Russian oil and gas helps finance Putin’s war machine. India has long-standing close relations with Moscow which supplies the country with half of their weapons. But that weapons supply has been disrupted by the Ukraine War and Prime Minister Narendra Modi just completed a successful state visit to America. The comment from New Delhi was a non-committal: “India prefers a strong, stable and influential Russia.”

The European Council met on Thursday to discuss the implications of the mutiny. The 27 members are worried. Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal and they are concerned about the sanity of the person who has their finger on the nuclear button, or that Putin feels backed into a corner. “Russia,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, “has become unstable and more dangerous.” Joseph Borrell, Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, said: “A weaker Putin is a greater danger.”

The Chinese reaction to the Wagner Mutiny was guarded. Party mouthpiece “The Global Times” was quick to point out that the insurrection was short-lived and relatively bloodless. But at the same time, Beijing diplomats were saying that it was important that their “limitless” partner put his house in order. They are also adamant that they were not wrong to “bet” on the Putin horse.

Xi Jinping is as worried about the domestic repercussions of Putin’s problems as the diplomatic. China’s party-dominated governmental structure is different from Russia’s feudal system. But they are allied autocracies and both the domestic Chinese and world public opinion are quick to draw comparisons. Chinese social media has been awash with veiled and unveiled criticisms of the Chinese Communist Party in the wake of the failed Russian mutiny. Some bloggers have even used the banned words “Tiananmen Square.”

The Wagner Group’s activities are not confined to Ukraine

The message from COP 27

I am writing this on Friday afternoon, a few hours before the COP 27 in Sharm el-Sheikh is due to produce its final communique. The outlook is bad.

Yesterday the EU Climate Policy Chief, Frans Timmerman, said the first draft “left a lot to be desired.” The same day a joint delegation from Canada, the EU and UK went to see COP president Sameh Shankry to tell him to “fill the gaps.”

The two main sticking points are a renewed commitment to the 1.5 degree rise in global temperature which was agreed at Glasgow, and the establishment of a “Loss and Damage Fund”.

The former looks achievable but without any serious teeth. The latter is more problematic.

The fund would be financed by the wealthy countries to compensate developing countries for climate change damage caused by historic emissions and to help pay for a switch to renewable sources. The US, in particular is concerned that the current proposed structure would expose America to limitless liability. One bit of good news is that the world’s top two polluters—China and America—are talking to each other again. US climate tsar John Kerry met with his Chinese counterpart Xie Zenhua, and at the G20 summit in Bali Joe Biden and Xi Jinping agreed to liase more on the issue of global warming.

Accidental war is a real danger

A missile killed two people this week in the Polish village of Przewdow and the world held its breath. Had a NATO country been attacked by Russia? Was this the start of World War Three?

The Polish military was put on high alert. President Biden was roused from his bed in Bali and a hurried meeting was held of first NATO heads of government at the G20 and then the G20 leaders themselves (minus Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov).

Then everyone exhaled.

The missile was “most likely” a Ukrainian S-300 surface-to-air missile that had gone astray. The Ukrainians denied responsibility (they, of course, have a vested interest in blaming Russia). The Russian Ministry of Defence said that none of its missiles had gone further than 20 miles from the Polish-Ukrainian border. Whomever was responsible, it was clear that the attack was unintentional. But accidents have caused wars in the past. In 1925 Greece and Bulgaria went to war after a Greek soldier inadvertently chased a runaway dog across the border into Bulgaria. Accidental war is a real danger.

Who holds the power in China?

Fifteen thousand US troops have been either sent from America or re-deployed to NATO’s Eastern blank in Poland, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria. The total number of American soldiers now based in Europe is 90,000. But before NATO supporters become too excited by this show of martial resolve, it should be noted that at the height of the Cold War in 1960, when the Berlin Wall was built, there were 400,000 American soldiers in Europe spread across 100 sites. One should also remember that NATO has a border with Russia in the Arctic region as well as in Eastern Europe. Until 1999, Norway was the only NATO ally with a land border with Russia. Military planners are working on this strategic fact next week with a military manoeuvre in Norway dubbed “Cold Response”. The military exercise involves 30,000 troops from 27 countries, including 3,000 US marines. These exercises are meant to be held every other year, but because of reluctance from the Trump Administration and Covid, they have not taken place since 2014. This is a pity, because Norway is one of the most strategically placed NATO countries. During World War Two, its long North Atlantic coastline dotted with sheltered fjords, provided Hitler’s navy with a forward base from which to terrorise Allied shipping in the North Atlantic.

In the meantime, Ukrainian Volodomyr Zelensky is pleading for more weapons. The Biden Administration has responded this week by despatching another 2,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 2,000 shoulder-launched Javelin launchers, Another 15,000 anti-tank and surface to air missiles are being provided by other European countries, mainly the UK and Sweden. The EU meanwhile has upped its spending on military equipment for Ukraine to $1 billion. Ukraine will need every penny of it. The British and American arms manufacturers are not giving away their equipment. They are selling it, and just one Javelin missile costs $175,000 whether it hits or misses its Russian target.