Mark Galeotti

It seems to be criminal cosplay season for Donald Trump, as he successively takes on the roles first of kidnapper, then pirate. There is a case, albeit disputed, to be made under the laws of the sea for the legality of the seizure of the tanker Marinera. There is none under international law for the seizure of the admittedly odious Nicolás Maduro. But none of that matters in Trumpworld, where might makes right and American laws and interests override all else. Now, suddenly, commentators have woken up to the presence of more tankers from the 'shadow fleet' – which is both an inaccurate label and also an inadvertently cool way to describe a collection of superannuated rust buckets – in the seas off Britain. Calls for more seizures are the inevitable breast-beating result.

Russia is still known for a great deal of innovative programming, but one area where there is concern it is falling behind is in AI. Judging by Vladimir Putin’s New Year’s Eve address, there are no grounds to worry, as this year’s was of a such blandness that it could have been generated by a large language model. Everything felt much more low-energy in Putin's address than previous years, from rhetoric to delivery In his 1999 New Year’s speech, former president Boris Yeltsin made the shock announcement that he was standing down, and his recently-appointed prime minister, the relatively unknown Vladimir Putin, would become acting head of state.

Are we really on the cusp of a real, shooting war with Russia? If you believe some of the rhetoric, it would seem so – but does anyone really think it? The war drums are certainly beating. Last night, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, the Chief of the Defence Staff, called for 'our defence and resilience [to be] a higher national priority for all of us. An "all-in" mentality' because 'the situation is more dangerous than I have known during my career'. Armed Forces minister Al Carns warned more picturesquely that 'the shadow of war is knocking on Europe’s door once more'.

One of the crucial obstacles to a Ukraine peace deal appears to be Vladimir Putin’s demand for the remaining fifth of Donetsk region not in Russian hands. Kyiv not only resents the idea of surrendering hard-defended land, it also fears this could be use it as a springboard for future attacks deeper into Ukraine. One potential workaround under debate is apparently allowing Moscow to claim it, but also making it a demilitarised zone (DMZ) to ensure Russian troops stay out. But it’s not so cut and dried.

As Moscow and Washington prepare for talks on the latest version of Donald Trump’s peace plan next week, leaked recordings of a conversation with US envoy Steve Witkoff have thrown a spotlight on to senior diplomat Yuri Ushakov. It seems he, not Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, is the prime mover behind Russia’s negotiating position. The stature of Lavrov, once a legend in the diplomatic community, has steadily diminished since 2014, when he wasn’t even consulted before Vladimir Putin decided to annex Crimea. Every year since then, the now-75-year-old minister has petitioned Putin to be allowed to retire; every year this is denied. Instead, Lavrov remains confined to a role of repeating threadbare talking points to audiences who frequently and openly disbelieve him.

At a time when Western commentators are tying themselves in knots trying to parse the ongoing Ukraine peace discussions, the Russian media is suddenly strikingly united in its coverage. There is a common misperception that, like their Soviet forebears, the Russian press simply reproduces some standard party line, day in, day out. In fact, there is often surprising pluralism, with different newspapers having their own interests and angles. However, the Kremlin does impose its will when it comes to especially important or sensitive matters, with editors receiving tyomniki, informal but authoritative guidance from the presidential administration on lines to take and topics to avoid. When the press is speaking in one voice, that voice is Putin’s.

I don’t think it’s accurate or helpful to think of Vladimir Putin as some Bond villain figure – but he certainly does make it harder to hold this line sometimes. In particular, his enthusiasm for ‘wonder weapons’ – often of questionable strategic value – does suggest a certain grandiose vanity. Some have genuine military utility, but others seem more useful in psychological than actual warfare. Last week, the Russians announced a successful test of the 9M730 Burevestnik (‘Storm Petrel’), a nuclear-armed and -powered cruise missile. Its reactor allows it to travel further than any regular cruise missile, manoeuvring at altitudes as low as 50 metres.

Has the world turned upside-down? Russia's former president Dmitry Medvedev, generally known for his toxic social media posts packed with threat and vitriol, is turning down the volume, while various Western public figures are determinedly turning it up. Yesterday, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, in what he called 'a sentence that may be a little shocking at first glance,' stated that 'we are not at war, but we are no longer at peace either.' Actually, this was relatively mild. Meanwhile, Polish prime minister Donald Tusk was describing the current confrontation between Europe and Russia as a 'new type of war' at the opening of the Warsaw Security Forum.

Another Russian military exercise is over, and some Western commentators would have us believe that we ought to be heaving a collective sigh of relief that Putin's legions didn’t use this as an excuse for another invasion. Of course, that was very overblown hype. Instead, what we saw was a Russian military still clinging to outmoded ways of war, as if its armoured columns had not been blocked and burnt when they rolled into Ukraine in 2022. The Zapad-2025 (West-2025) exercises, which concluded on Tuesday, involved perhaps 30,000 Russian and Belarusian soldiers in a wargame stretching from the Arctic Circle to Belarus. This was the latest iteration of a biennial series of exercises, although it was skipped in 2023.

‘Rejuvenation is unstoppable, we will prevail,’ blared the editorial in the Chinese newspaper Global Times. The subject was China's resurgence, but it looked oddly apposite in light of an inadvertently overheard conversation between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Some Western journalists have mistaken this as evidence of Putin's hubris and his personality cult 'Biotechnology is continuously developing,' commented Putin as the two men walked towards the podium in Beijing's Tiananmen Square during the military parade to mark 80 years since Japan's surrender in World War Two. 'In the past, it used to be rare for someone to be older than 70 and these days they say that at 70 one's still a child,' the 72-year-old Xi replied to his similarly-aged counterpart.

Will Ukraine’s fate depend on Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka and Kostiantynivka? These may not be household names, but they are the four key ‘fortress cities’ in the remaining portions of Donetsk region that Vladimir Putin is reportedly demanding as the price for peace. Although the details are still unclear, it seems that the framework for a peace deal agreed in outline between Putin and Trump would see the Russians agreeing to freeze the current front line. They could maybe even hand back some small sections of the Sumy and Kharkiv regions they have conquered in return for Kyiv surrendering the much larger portion of Donetsk region it still holds.

It seems conventional wisdom by now that the public can only be convinced by hyperbole. As Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte implies that Britain faces a choice between the NHS and Russian conquest, it is worth asking how much this actually damages democracy – and helps Vladimir Putin? The real threat Russia poses is less of direct military action but through its ‘hybrid war’ instruments of subversion and division Rutte is on tour in a bid to sell the new orthodoxy that Nato member states – many of whom barely, if at all, hit the previous target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence – must commit to spending 3.5 per cent directly on defence and 1.5 per cent on defence-related spending (such as resilience, R&D and support for Ukraine).