As I write this, Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, is preparing to sit down in the Oval Office with President Donald Trump.
The Ukrainian leader had high hopes for this meeting. Trump had broadly hinted that he was prepared to give Ukraine Tomahawk missiles. These weapons can be launched from air, land or sea and have a range of 1,500 miles and carry an enormous payload.
That means that Ukraine could launch the missiles from anywhere inside Ukraine or on the Black Sea and easily hit targets in Moscow and beyond. Up to now the West has been reluctant to provide Ukraine with long-range weaponry for fear that it would escalate the conflict. These missiles are a game changer.
Then, while Zelensky, was in mid-flight, Trump and Vladimir Putin had another marathon telephone session—two and a half hours.
Putin held out the golden carrot of “colossal” trade projects for America once the Ukraine War ended and sanctions were lifted.
Nothing tempts Trump more than money. Putin stressed that money came with peace and that he had control over when that peace came—not Zelensky.
So, Trump agreed to hold another meeting Putin; sometime in the next fortnight in Hungary. It is likely, but not certain, that the Tomahawks to Ukraine deal will go on ice or out the window altogether.
In the meantime, Putin is increasing the military pressure on Ukraine. On Thursday night there were dozens of Russian missile attacks and 300 drone attacks on Ukrainian targets. They mainly hit gas and electricity infrastructure as Ukrainians prepare for another hard, cold winter.
These attacks—and a wavering Trump—seem to be Putin’s main cards. The frontline is at stalemate and the Russian economy is struggling from sanctions and Ukrainian attacks on oil depots.
Britain’s collapsed Chinese spy case has brought into focus the structure and nature of Chinese intelligence.
Basically, when we talk about the Chinese intelligence service we are talking about the Ministry of State Security, aka MSS. Although, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is responsible for military intelligence.
The MSS is huge. One unofficial estimate puts the number of employees at 100,000. One former diplomat pointed that is only the ones on the payroll, “the rest of the population are unpaid interns.”
Chinese intelligence is all pervasive in Chinese society. In Britain and America foreign intelligence gathering, counter-intelligence, domestic security and electronic intelligence all come under different departments. In China, the MSS controls everything.
And they are good at their jobs, especially when it comes to electronic spying. An MSS group called “Salt Typhoon” is reported to have infiltrated American telecoms networks and accessed the Meta data of millions of users. The successful hack went undiscovered for years.
A Chinese group known as UNC3886 has been discovered exploiting weaknesses in American and European produced routers to create long-term access into business and government computers through “back door” technology.
According to the cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike there was an average 150 percent increase in Chinese cyber espionage in 2024. Some sectors, such as finance, have seen a 300 percent increase.
The major concern is that Chinese companies producing computer equipment or running social media platforms are being instructed by the Chinese Communist Party to install “back door” technology. Fears of such an operation are behind the row over Tik Tok.
A joint study by the University of Edinburgh and Trinity College Dublin showed that some Chinese-produced phones did have apps that allowed sensitive data to be sent to third party domains.
However, the researchers could not identify the third party domains and concluded that the information was most likely be used by Chinese companies for commercial reasons rather than by the government for political reasons.
The Belgian government, however, has certainly warned that Chinese-produced smartphones pose a significant espionage risk.
On the other side, Chinese manufacturers, insist that they would not risk important export deals by allowing the government to install “back door” technology and that the government would not want the damage it would cause to its reputation and exports.
The US Supreme Court may be about to put a giant nail in the Democratic Party’s chances of winning control of the House of Representatives in next year’s mid-term elections.
A Democrat failure in 2026 would mean an open goal for Trump’s final two years and improved chances for the Republicans winning the 2028 presidential elections and continuing the conservative revolution that Trump started.
The case involves the redrawing of Congressional district boundaries in the southern—and very Republican—state of Louisiana.
Louisiana is 31 percent Black but only one of its congressmen is Black. He is, of course, a Democrat. Black voters started off asking the Supreme Court to force the Louisiana legislature to redraw the congressional boundaries to give Black (Democrat) voters an opportunity to elect a congressman who represents them.
In support of their case, they cited the 1965 Voting Rights Act which prohibits states from denying or limiting voting rights on the basis of race, skin colour or preferred language.
This argument has worked repeatedly in the past and the courts have interpreted it as meaning that states are required to create what is known as “opportunity districts” so that a state’s demographics are accurately represented in congress.
The problem is that the current Supreme Court is strongly biased in a conservative direction. It has, for instance, already ruled against affirmative action by universities.
Benjamin Aquinaga, Louisiana’s Solicitor General, spotted the shift and has flipped the case to argue that affirmative action in congressional districting should also be dropped. It has been 60 years since the Voting Rights Act. The country is now integrated. Minority groups no longer need special consideration when it comes to voting rights.
It will be a few months before the court issues its judgement. But based on the questions asked by the Justices, it looks like the Voting Rights Act will be pared back considerably if not ditched altogether.
The result will be that a whole slew of Republican-controlled states, mainly in the South, will push through a series re-drawn electoral maps that will insure fewer seats for Blacks (Democrats) and more for Republicans. It is estimated that this could result in up to 19 more Republican seats in the House of Representatives, virtually a guaranteed majority for Trump.
The current session of the Supreme Court is set to be one of the most historic on record.
On its docket is a case about whether federal laws prohibit the president from removing members of agencies designed by Congress to be independent of presidential influence.
The Justices will also decide the fate of Lisa Cook, the member of the Federal Reserve whom Trump wants removed. The decision in this case would have an impact on future economic policies as well as the livelihood of Ms. Cook.
Trump’s tariffs are also up before the court. Does the constitution prohibit him from imposing wide-ranging tariffs without the approval of Congress?
Birthright citizenship — the right to American citizenship for anyone born in America — is on the docket. This affects millions whom Trump would like to see deported. Other aggressive immigration and deportation tactics will also be considered.
Trump’s unilateral cuts in federal spending and the firing of government employees is another case before the Justices.
Finally, there is the issue of the credibility of the US Supreme Court. It was designed by the Founding Fathers to be apolitical. The Justices are appointed for life rather than elected. But so far, this court has at times seemed like an extension of Trump’s White House.
It is important that the law is respected and that it is seen to be even-handed. One of the major issues before the court this session is Trump’s refusal to seek congressional approval. Biden did the same with student loans and some environmental regulations and was blocked by the Supreme Court. Failure to act the same towards Trump will only mean a loss of the court’s credibility and damage to the rule of law.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
12 Comments
Just one point I disagree with, if I may. You describe the war in Ukraine as being ‘at stalemate’ but a more accurate description would be that Russia is making small, grinding, advances each day at huge cost in terms of lives and equipment. Putin does not care about the cost and appears willing to force the Russian people to pay that price until he achieves his objectives. If the frontline was at a stalemate, Putin may feel more inclined to do a deal that locked in some gains. However, knowing that his forces are gradually advancing, Putin appears willing to let the war continue. This is why the Ukrainians face a huge decision – settle now and accept some loss of territory or continue the fight and risk losing even more.
The West must increase its support for Ukraine so it can stop the Russians advancing – otherwise Ukraine will face having to accept a bad deal now or a worse deal later.
Hello Jean,
I think you are making several very valid points which puts the harsh reality before us. The Ukraine war is not at a stalemate. Russia is slowly grinding Ukraine down. Likewise Putin does not care about the cost and appears willing to force the Russian people to pay that price until he achieves his objectives.
These are uncomfortable truths for naturally optimistic, glass half full people like many Lib Dems are, to have to accept before we can
However I fear you then go on to undermine your position when you suggest Ukraine could ‘settle now and accept some loss of territory or continue the fight and risk losing even more’ and ‘ Ukraine will face having to accept a bad deal now or a worse deal later’.
Surely the only choice for Ukraine is total surrender or keep fighting? That is why they need the best weapons we (the Europeans) can give right now, because TACO Trump never will.
David
@David Evans
Hi David, to answer your question, I don’t believe that ‘total surrender’ is the only alternative to ‘keep fighting’. A total surrender would be, in my view, if the Ukrainians decided to stop resisting Russian forces and instead gave over control over the whole of Ukraine to the invaders. That would mark the end of Ukraine as an independent country.
A negotiated end to the war, even if Ukraine had to agree to some harsh terms, would not be the same as a total surrender. It could involve conceding the loss of territory and possibly an agreement not to join NATO or have NATO troops in the country, but Ukraine could still continue as an independent country after the war. That, to me, would be a better option than either total surrender or fighting on and risking total defeat and conquest. I am hearted in this by the experience of Finland when it was invaded by the USSR – it fought and resisted bravely and ultimately agreed a treaty in which it lost territory but guaranteed its independence. Today, Finland is not only independent but a member of NATO. Surely Ukraine would view a similar outcome as better than either total surrender or fighting on and risking total defeat?
The issue David is how do you get to the Ukrainian objectives – three years into the spring offensive. Rolling back that Russian army out of Donbas and Crimea seems like an impossible task. It’s barely holding a line at significant costs.
A negotiated agreement would only be temporary. After a brief pause Putin will come back for another chunk of Ukraine or go for Georgia Moldova or the Baltics. Only Ukraine can decide what to negotiate and should be invited to join NATO. Some people need to be educated about the Munich treaty and the results that followed.
“We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.
Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.
A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again”
Gegseth
Hi Jean,
Thanks for the reply. I think I understand your point now.
You believe that Putin will settle for less than all of Ukraine with a peace deal that will last.
However, the Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians do not, and I believe they are right. Likewise democrats in Georgia and Armenia still feel they are under attack from Putin supporters within their countries.
As for your example of Finland, the reason it joined NATO and is now pressing hard for EU rearmament is that it has no faith in Putin’s integrity and acceptance of international borders and treaties, not because it felt its situation was secure.
We also need to remember Putin’s demands that Ukraine has to de-arm and never join NATO. Effectively Ukraine will become a Russian puppet state within a few years.
Overall, I have to say I have a lot more faith in the judgement of nations who border Putin’s Russia than I do in your assessment of the likely effect of any so called peace deal on Putin’s real expansionary ambitions.
Hi David
Thanks for your reply. I fully understand why the countries who border Russia want the war to continue – they feel safer with Russia being weakened by a prolonged war and it is Ukrainian soldiers, rather than their forces, paying the price.
I have no ‘skin in the game’ as those countries have. My views are just based on me wanting the best outcome that is realistically possible. If I had a friend in a casino who was £10,000 down at roulette, I would seek to advise them that the odds were stacked against them and it may be better to accept a loss and be able to carry on with their life rather than risk everything trying to recoup their loss. I would give the same advice to Ukraine though it may well wish to take the gamble and carry on until conquest or victory.
Remember many Americans thought, including the then London Ambassador, that the UK would only last a fortnight in July 1940, that Moscow would fall in the Autumn of 1941 and South Korea only had a few days left when the North reached its south in 1950!
What Trump is proposing is appeasement. Mind you he could well change his mind by Friday, reverse it on Monday and then go back again the next Friday. He is a real problem not least for himself.
@Jean Your casino analogy doesn’t work. Because if your friend walked away £10k down, that would be an end to it. The casino would indeed let them ‘carry on with their life’.
Putin wouldn’t.
A better analogy would be if your friend was being attacked by a pack of wolves. His chances of beating them might be slim, and he has already been badly bitten. But he keeps on the fight because it’s do so or be totally ripped to pieces.
Theakes, David, Cassie …You need to try to explain how Ukraine gets to its position of retaking Donbas & Crimea. This conflict is approaching it’s twelfth year. Let’s be brutally honest – there is people in Eastern Ukraine that do not want to be part of it – and for that matter NATO membership for Ukraine would be an absolute bitter pill to swallow for any Russian leader let alone one like Putin.
No Greg,
Unfortunately, you are asking for an answer to the wrong question. The answer you, Jean (and anyone else who thinks that Ukraine stopping fighting is the best option) have to provide is how do you then get Putin to stop, because the Cassie, Theakes, myself, the Ukrainians, Poles, Finns, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians all know he won’t.
It’s a simple choice – are your Liberal Democratic values worth fighting for? Putin has made his decision – His values are worth getting other people to fight for and he believes we don’t think ours are. You in your small way are proving him right and the Chinese, are watching with growing interest.