Michael Evans

The worst job in the world is to try negotiating with President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine to everyone’s satisfaction. Yet European leaders want to do just that. Frustrated by the failure of the Trump administration to negotiate anything of value with Putin, Europe is scurrying around looking for the ideal candidate to confront the Russian leader across the table and bash out a peace deal. It’s a fantasy world, of course. If Putin obstructed Trump, his old sparring partner, and never remotely got close to a deal with the Americans, why would he consider sitting down with some European leader, or ex-leader, to bring the four-year war to an end?

Last week was one of realpolitik, Trump-style. Greenland was sorted, the ‘New Gaza’ unveiled, and all that was left was Ukraine and Russia. Donald Trump went from Davos back to the US but ordered his special envoys to Abu Dhabi, armed with the president’s formula for ending the war in Europe, to get a deal to stop the killing and destruction. As the envoys from the US, Russia and Ukraine opened the talks on Friday in the capital of the United Arab Emirates, none of the pre-signalling indicated that a breakthrough was in the offing. Two days were allotted for the meetings, in the expectation that it wouldn’t just be a round-robin of the same, familiar arguments.

Venezuela has been on tenterhooks for weeks, waiting as the United States gathers an armada of warships. The world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, looks likely to arrive in the Caribbean from the Mediterranean early next week to join the assortment of destroyers, frigates, amphibious assault vessels and a nuclear-powered submarine.  No one seems to know exactly what this magnificent display of American naval firepower is all about. Has it been sent to destroy the cocaine smuggling networks in Venezuela, or topple President Nicolas Maduro, the egregious leader of that poor country? Or is its purpose to remind the Latin American region that the US under Donald Trump could come in guns a-blazing whenever it wants?

Keeping abreast of President Trump’s changing moods has never been so challenging, especially for Volodymyr Zelensky, his Ukrainian counterpart. Judging by reports emerging of their meeting last Friday in the Oval Office, Trump made it clear in somewhat candid language that Zelensky should give up the eastern Donbas region of his country or face destruction by Russia. Gone was the sunny prediction made by Trump only three weeks or so earlier that if Zelensky pursued the war with Russia, backed by Europe and Nato, he could win a famous victory and drive the Russians out of all the occupied territories.

Donald Trump has been doing his homework. Much has been written about Russia’s war economy, painting the picture that the military-industrial infrastructure is booming. But Trump is discovering that the war in Ukraine has wrecked Russia’s finances, and made any prospect of a straightforward return to a civilian economy unlikely. It has taken Trump a long time, but he has come round to the view repeated endlessly by European leaders: provided military and economic support for Kyiv is maintained, Putin at some stage will be forced to call it quits. If that backing is not guaranteed, the Russian president will continue to believe that aggression pays.

The Trump-Putin summit in Alaska could be the flop of the century or turn out to be the first step towards negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine and eventually an end to the war. The White House has been trying to downgrade expectations of any breakthrough and has described the meeting on Friday as an opportunity for President Trump to listen to President Putin’s pitch and assess whether the Russian leader actually wants peace or not. Trump says he will be able to do this within two minutes. While it might be sensible to lower expectations, always a favourite ploy of political leaders, the Anchorage summit might just be different. First of all, Putin asked for it, and secondly, he has hanging over his head Trump’s threats to ratchet up economic sanctions.

A border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia which goes back more than a century has once again erupted in fatal clashes, leading to diplomatic alarm and appeals for international help. There has long been a schism between the two countries over an arbitrarily-drawn, 817-kilometre border conceived by the French in 1907. The present confrontation began in May, when a Cambodian soldier was killed during an exchange of fire between Thai and Cambodian troops in a border region known as the Emerald Triangle because it also shares a frontier with Laos. Despite attempts to prevent escalation, tensions continued to rise.

President Trump has already warned Tehran that he’ll be back if Iran tries to revive and advance its nuclear programme, following the strikes by B-2 stealth bombers. Judging by the comments of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Trump may find himself with this dilemma sooner than he thinks. Iran could return to enriching uranium in ‘a matter of months’, according to Rafael Mariano Grossi, IAEA’s director-general, in an interview with CBS News at the weekend. However, a number of questions need to be asked before the B-2s take off again from their Whiteman Air Force base in Missouri.

Donald Trump likes to see himself as the Great Negotiator but on this occasion Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, appears to have outplayed him. Since April, the Israeli leader had been pressurising Trump and his White House aides to give him the green light for a large-scale attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. While Netanyahu was reassured by his military advisers that Israel could go it alone to target Iran’s four nuclear sites, he wanted not just US backing but also American firepower to achieve what Trump and his predecessors all agreed on: that Iran must never be allowed to build a nuclear bomb. However, Trump entered the White House for his second term on a no-war ticket.

Speaking to reporters on his Middle East diplomatic tour, Donald Trump hinted at what could be his biggest foreign policy achievement to date. A nuclear deal with Iran is ‘close’, he said. Tehran has ‘sort of’ agreed to curbing its suspected clandestine atomic weapons programme. The US and Iran have now had four rounds of indirect negotiations in Oman, and although the content has remained confidential, the atmosphere between the two sides has been candid but amicable, raising expectations that a deal to stop Tehran ‘breaking out’ and building a nuclear bomb could be brokered diplomatically without the need for Trump to resort to military force.

President Donald Trump was in a generous mood on the first day of his Middle East tour, announcing the lifting of sanctions against Syria and offering a similar gesture to Iran, though with strict conditions. The decision to end sanctions on Syria came as a surprise and was greeted with applause by his audience in Riyadh. Trump said he had been asked by the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Turkey to consider lifting sanctions to help the new government in Damascus which took over after the ousting of President Bashar al-Assad on 8 December last year.  To underline the changed strategy by the Trump administration, the US president will meet with President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the new Syrian leader, in Saudi Arabia today.

Mike Waltz, the national security adviser, is set to lose his job over what came to be called Signalgate. He was the one who set up the ‘Houthi PC small group’ and either he or a member of his staff in error invited Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic magazine, to participate. Goldberg blew the whistle after the raids had taken place. Others in the group included Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary, who obliged with all the operational data such as airstrike timings and particular aircraft to be involved, Vice President JD Vance, Marco Rubio, secretary of state, John Ratcliffe, CIA director, and Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence.  Waltz has been selected to take the wrap.

The moment the Senate confirmed Pete Hegseth, President Trump’s nomination for defence secretary, the Pentagon community knew it was in trouble. One horrified defence official said at the time: ‘He may have been educated at Princeton and Harvard, but does he know anything about running a huge organisation like the Pentagon? No, he doesn’t.’ As both Trump and Hegseth have said in recent days, the Pentagon establishment was against this controversial appointment from the beginning and have claimed this is why the defence department is going through its current turmoil, with summary sackings, accusations of intimidation and unauthorised leaks to sympathetic, ‘establishment’ newspapers. There is a degree of truth in this. Hegseth, aged 45, was not a popular choice.