Daniel Korski

Today, President Barack Obama hosts leaders from 46 countries for a two-day nuclear security summit that will focus on how to better safeguard weapons materials, both old and new, and to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. Labour’s manifesto was also launched today. What do the two things have in common? Not a lot, really. But they could have had a lot in common – if the Labour government had been willing to be bold. Here's how. As preparation for the summit, the US signed a new treaty with Russia last week to reduce the nuclear stockpiles of both nations, and the Obama administration issued a revised nuclear arms strategy intended to reinforce the nation's nuclear deterrent.

The transformation of Nick Clegg from moderate Europeanist to a populist continues apace. The Lib Dem leader is very serious about capturing the anti-politics mood among the electorate - no easy feat for some who looks as Establishment as the rest. Though he will likely be pleased with today's Observer interview, I wonder whether he will, in retrospect, feel comfortable with his view that a small Tory majority would somehow make a Cameron government illegitimate and that Britain could be plunged into "Greek-style unrest" if cuts were introduced. Where to begin? The electoral system works the way it does. It has many inbuilt problems - particularly for the Tories - but until it is reformed it produces lawful and legitimate governments.

The Civil Service is readying itself for a new government. The BBC has already reported a discussion of efficiency savings among senior officials. In another part of Whitehall, work is a foot on how to set up a National Security Council should the Tories win. I have in the last few weeks been interviewing ex-ministers and senior officials as research for a RUSI paper, due out soon after the election, on how to improve the government's security set-up. Traipsing around various departments, a number of interesting conclusions have come to light: - Conservative ideas for an NSC are not the same as the government's NSID committee, however much ministers say it is, but there is yet no clarity on the Tory detail of what one official called "the second layer" of reforms.

A Cameron government has the potential to change Britain - but not much else beside.  A Tory loss, however, could change much more. The Cameron Tories are a bellwether for Conservative movements in a number of countries, including the US. If they succeed, they will prove a powerful model for many moderate Republicans who believe their party is in an earlier post-Major phase - angry, divided and negative. If David Cameron fails to defeat Gordon Brown, few Republicans will look across to their British cousins for inspiration. The party will eschew any modernising project for a while longer and stick to their equivalent of IDS. In this scenario, the Republicans will pick up some congressional seats and governorships.

With plenty of domestic issues to debate, the election campaign promises to see little intrusion from the outside world - barring Russia invading a small neighbouring country, a terrorist attack or another financial meltdown. Nor will Britain say much to the world in the next couple of weeks; ministers will be be represented at international meetings, for example in NATO, by senior officials, and Britain's diplomats have been told to keep quiet. As soon as the election is over, however, there will be plenty of action. The Cabinet Office is busy planning a quick update of the National Security Strategy, and then will come a slightly longer Security and Defence Review.

At times the chasm between Britain’s political parties is as great as the San Andreas Fault. Sometimes the difference is more like a small rift, a matter of tone not policy. In this year’s election, the difference between the parties is somewhere in between, like the lesser-known Tunnel Ridge Fault in Eastern California. In part, the appearance of only minor differences may explain why the polls are showing such different things; some predict that Labour will hang on to power, others that the Tories will be able to win.

When your face has been slammed into a concrete pavement, as you take cover from the mortar fire, you struggle to think the best of your fellow man. I certainly did. I cursed the Iraqis who were firing at me, and swore at the Iranians who were arming them. Most of all, I thought "what the hell are you doing here, you idiot?" I could have stayed in my diplomatic posting in Washington, DC. I could have been satisfied with my work in Bosnia and Afghanistan. But I had to go to Basra. Duty, a hunt for adventure, a worry I was missing out and a feeling that we, I, you and me, owed it to the Iraqis to rebuild their country whatever the rights and wrongs of the original invasion, had led me to go. We brought the regime down, I thought, we had to build the country up.

A Conservative Party article of faith has been the belief that other Europeans are innately more pro-EU than the British. In the past, this has undoubtedly been the case. Poll after poll has shown that Britons see the EU differently than most other Europeans. But as I have argued before, times are changing on the continent. In an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (not a Europhile newspaper by any stretch), Germany's new politics is explained.

David Cameron may be talking about a new relationship with France, but let’s hope the Conservatives do better than Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP, which suffered a heavy defeat in local and regional elections, with a Socialist-led opposition alliance taking an estimated 52 percent of the vote. This is bad. At least three of President Sarkozy’s enemies have now made a comeback: the French left, the far-right Front National and Dominique de Villepin, who appears to have been buoyed by UMP’s defeat and a new poll that showed the French preferred de Villepin to Sarkozy as UMP leader. It will be interesting to see how Sarkozy copes. Until now, he has not had any significant set-backs, but a defeat of this kind halfway into a five-year mandate cannot be dismissed.

It is easy to paint Ukraine’s new leader, Viktor Yanukovych, as a pantomime monster, Russian stooge and businessman’s puppet. Last month I suggested his electoral victory over namesake Victor Yushchenko may not be as bad as people think. Now Andrew Wilson, Britain’s foremost Ukraine expert, argues the same. In a briefing paper, he notes that elections in Ukraine open up new opportunities for the EU: 'Paradoxically, Yanukovych’s quest for good relations with Russia could also make it easier for EU member states to reach a consensus about how to deal with Ukraine. Too often in the past, the EU has been unable to develop a coherent policy on Ukraine because some member states fear offending Russia.

Everyone has been guessing at what Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats would do if the voters return a hung parliament after the next election. The Lib Dem leader has sent all kinds of mixed signals. But if there is one person worth listening on the party’s intentions it is Julian Astle, the head of CentreForum, Britain’s leading Liberal think-tank, and a former political advisor to Paddy Ashdown. Astle has, in recent years, acted as one of the Lib Dem’s unofficial consiglieri – but one that has never shied away from challenging party orthodoxy. He has, for example, argued against the Liberal Democrat pledge to abolish tuition fees – showing it would involve a significant redistribution of resources from poor to rich.