Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 12 May 2025. © Richard Kemp

US diplomacy has potentially brought India and Pakistan back from the brink of what could easily have turned into a much wider and more violent conflict. For the time being at least – the ceasefire over the weekend, if it holds, is due to be followed up by more substantive negotiations.

On Saturday morning, a couple of hours before Pakistan’s air force launched missiles at Indian military bases, lieutenant general Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, the army spokesman, accused India of ‘pushing the whole region towards a dangerous war with its madness’.

In fact it is Pakistan’s madness that is responsible for the most ferocious conflict between the two countries since the war in 1971. India’s air strikes against terrorists were an entirely justified response to the April 22 slaughter of 26 civilians in Pahalgam, the most deadly attack on Indian civilians since the 2008 bomb and gun attacks in Mumbai.

Indian intelligence has linked the Pahalgam shootings to Lashkar-e-Taiba, an internationally proscribed terrorist group. LeT’s primary focus is on violently separating Kashmir from India to use as a base for the eventual conquest of India in order to force Islamic rule on the subcontinent, destroying Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity. It also has strong connections with Al Qaeda and has been implicated in global terrorist attacks including in the UK, US and the Middle East. LeT is a proxy of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency which funds and directs it.

Of course Pakistan denies that, claiming only to provide moral, political and diplomatic support to Kashmiri separatists. But some years ago, when working in British intelligence, I saw numerous reports confirming the ISI’s direct role with LeT and other jihadist groups, and the situation won’t have changed since then. Furthermore, Pakistan’s extensive use of a range of terrorist organisations as instruments of state policy is widely understood and has been admitted by Pakistani leaders. Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 7 May 2025. © Richard Kemp

In his first interview since leaving the White House, Joe Biden accused President Trump of appeasing Russia over Ukraine. Well, Biden certainly knows all about appeasement. It was the hallmark of his presidency and accounts for much of the instability in Europe and the Middle East today.

Before Putin invaded, Biden sent the worst possible signal, seeming to suggest that a ‘minor incursion’ might not be too big a deal. Then when the tanks rolled in he offered to evacuate the leader of the embattled country to safety. That would have been like Roosevelt flying Churchill out of Britain in 1940.

Zelensky’s response was: ‘The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.’ He got some of the ammunition but never enough, despite Biden’s claim in this interview that he had given Ukraine ‘everything they needed to provide for their independence’.

In reality his administration gave Ukraine just enough to enable them to defend against Russia but far from sufficient to achieve much more than prolonging the bloodbath. Biden may have treated Zelensky nicely in the White House but every plea for battle-winning weapons was met by months of procrastination and delay. That included tanks, ATACMS long-range missiles and F16 combat planes, all of which, if delivered rapidly and in sufficient quantities, could have turned the tide.

Furthermore, every offensive weapon that was provided was grudgingly handed over with the caveat that it couldn’t be used against targets on Russian soil, a restriction only partially eased late last year.

With Putin launching assault after assault from his side of the border, that really did force Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back. And it was all down to appeasement and fear in the White House in the face of never-ending bombast from the Kremlin.

Biden rejected Trump’s attacks on European Nato members freeloading on the US, fantastically claiming that ‘it saves us money Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 26 April 2025. © Richard Kemp

The death of Pope Francis brought Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky together face to face for the first time since their abortive meeting in the Oval Office in February. Both sides described their 15-minute discussion as productive, with Zelensky hailing it as potentially ‘historic’.

The French president Emmanuel Macron appeared to try to muscle in on the meeting but was sharply waved off by Trump. Perhaps no bad thing, as it is understood that the Europeans were involved in preparing Zelensky for the White House meeting that went so badly wrong.

Putin did not attend the funeral. He had met Francis three times in the years before he invaded Ukraine, but rejected the Pope’s offers to travel to Moscow since the conflict began. During the Second World War, one of Putin’s predecessors, Joseph Stalin, famously asked ‘How many divisions does the Pope have?’ It’s said that when Stalin’s wit reached the Vatican, Pius XII responded, ‘You can tell my son Joseph that he will meet my divisions in heaven.’

For Zelensky’s comments on his meeting with Trump to be even partially right, we may assume that Pope Francis’s celestial divisions intervened in Rome. On X, Zelensky wrote: ‘Good meeting. We discussed a lot one on one. Hoping for results on everything we covered. Protecting lives of our people. Full and unconditional ceasefire. Reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out.’

Following a meeting between the US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and Putin the previous day, Trump had said: ‘A good day in talks and meetings with Russia and Ukraine. They are very close to a deal, and the two sides should now meet, at very high levels, to “finish it off” … most major points are agreed to.’

If this also is right (we have heard such comments before), we may be at the closest point to achieving a full ceasefire in this war than at Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 19 April 2025. © Richard Kemp

Did Putin just blink first on Ukraine? Since taking office in January, Donald Trump has been demanding an end to hostilities. The US president proposed a full ceasefire which Ukraine accepted but Russia rejected, conditioning it on a halt in Ukraine’s mobilisation efforts and Western arms supplies.

Following complex negotiations between Washington and Moscow, on Friday the Americans indicated their frustrations, with both Trump and Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, threatening to walk away from brokering peace unless there were signs of progress in the coming days.

That must have rattled Putin because the next day, today, he announced a unilateral Easter truce.

This is a clear ploy to keep Trump’s attention and allow him to characteristically declare some kind of negotiating victory. Although Putin will not submit to any of Ukraine’s demands, in particular that of giving up the territory he has seized, he does want this war to end – for the time being at least.

The Russian economy is in dire straits and Moscow needs a lengthy pause in hostilities to begin to rebuild it. What is more, Russia can ill-afford the stronger sanctions that are currently under discussion between the US and European countries, with further talks expected on that in London next week.

Putin is also fearful of Trump. He knows well that Trump’s cajoling of Ukraine and what has appeared to some to be cosying up to Russia, are in fact merely negotiating tactics.

He also knows that the unpredictable figure in the White House is more than capable of turning on a dime – in any direction, and in a way that could be extremely damaging for Russia. From a wider perspective, Putin has recently lost significant influence in the Middle East with the fall of Assad’s regime in Syria. Putin can ill Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 3 April 2025. © Richard Kemp

A report in the New York Times this week suggests British soldiers have been operating in Ukraine since the start of the war. It describes heavily-armed, plain-clothed British ‘commandos’ escorting a Ukrainian general from Kyiv into Poland for onward travel to an American base in Germany not long after Russia invaded. Assuming this is accurate, those soldiers are likely to have been SAS troops. Whenever British diplomats or intelligence officers are stationed in danger zones, it is standard practice for them to be protected by the SAS, usually out of uniform, and they may also be assigned other tasks if necessary, including the sort of thing described in this article.

The same article goes on to say that the British had placed small teams of officers in Ukraine after the invasion, in contrast to the Americans, who would not allow any of their servicemen to be deployed in the country until much later in the war. Even then, they were restricted to Kyiv for the most part.

The US approach characterised President Joe Biden’s extreme caution over Ukraine, whereas the apparently more free-ranging British presence, albeit no doubt discreet, reflected Boris Johnson’s bullishness. This would have had considerable advantages, enabling our military advisers to gain greater confidence among Ukrainian commanders and leading to an increased ability to influence the course of the war. It would also have given our forces improved insight into the situation on the ground, beneficial in assessing what military assistance was required and how best it could be configured.

Such knowledge was useful to British decision makers and to our allies alike, with whom information and guidance would have been shared. No doubt such activity played a significant part also in helping our politicians and diplomats to rally support among some of the more equivocal national leaders. When he was prime minister, Rishi Sunak only admitted to small numbers of British soldiers being in Ukraine for diplomatic protection, medical training and unspecified other tasks. But the Germans blew the lid off the deployment of our forces to assist in operations involving Storm Shadow cruise missiles donated to Ukraine to fight the Russians.

In April last year, the Kremlin-controlled news agency RT released an intercepted phone conversation between two Luftwaffe generals discussing the British presence on the ground in Ukraine for Storm Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 20 March 2025. © Richard Kemp

President Trump is considering giving up US command of Nato, held by American generals since Dwight D Eisenhower became the first supreme commander 75 years ago. This has further shaken those already panicking about the prospect that Trump might be contemplating pulling out of the alliance altogether. They are right to panic about the state of Nato – but not because of Trump.

We hear never-ending boasts that Nato is the most successful defensive alliance in history. Perhaps it was once, although that was never really put to the test.

I and many other soldiers spent years of our lives manoeuvring armoured divisions across West Germany and rehearsing battles against the Soviet 3rd Shock Army as it rolled across the Inner German Border. It never came, but was that because Nato deterred it or it just didn’t intend to? Certainly Nato is no deterrent to Russian aggression today.

Look at Ukraine. It may not be a Nato member, but when Putin invaded, its defence became Nato’s number one priority. Innumerable summit speeches were packed with hard-charging rhetoric from Western leaders who promised to support Kyiv to the end, and fell over themselves to be filmed with President Zelensky in his besieged capital.

But Churchillian words never measured up to his dictum of ‘action this day’. Yes, lots of military aid poured into the battlefront, but never anything like enough to allow Ukraine to prevail. Putin must have been chuckling to himself and his sycophantic henchmen in the Kremlin, as his threats of escalation and nuclear war scared Nato leaders into stumbling procrastination. No tanks, no planes, no long-range missiles. Then when they eventually plucked up enough courage to gingerly send them, it was too late, too few, and too many restrictions on their use.

As a result it looks likely Ukraine will now end up settling with Russia on Putin’s terms, with 20 per cent of their sovereign territory in his hands.

Weakness provokes. Imagine a new scenario. Having licked his wounds from Ukraine, Putin stirs up the ethnic Russian population in the Baltic republics. Russian militias form in Latvia, take control of Russian population centres and then invite Russia in ‘for protection’. Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 11 March 2025. © Richard Kemp

Polling in Ukraine shows that most people now want the war to end with a peace deal, rather than fighting on to retrieve the land seized by Russia. Recent developments have proved to those who did not already know it, that there can be no victory without dramatically increased support from the US, which did not happen under Biden and is certainly not going to happen under Trump.

They know therefore that Ukraine will have to cede territory, a reality underscored yesterday by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Obviously not trusting Putin, whatever deal he might agree to, Ukrainians want a back-stop from the West. Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s chief of staff, said today that ‘Ukraine must be given security guarantees that lend credibility to a future ceasefire agreement.’ According to Trump, such guarantees will have to come from the Europeans. The Europeans are not in a position to give any guarantees whatsoever; and Starmer’s proposed peacekeeping force, if it were to happen, would certainly not supply them.

Yarmak also said that Europe must apply economic pressure to prevent Putin returning to the attack by sanctions and seizing frozen Russian assets. European sanctions would count for little without US support and it seems unlikely that governments would be bold enough to take control of frozen assets given the legal difficulties. In any case, despite the voluble rhetoric, they are desperate to get back to business as usual with the Kremlin. After all, since the war began, Europeans have collectively been paying more to Russia in oil and gas revenues than they have provided in financial aid to Ukraine.

Most Ukrainians may simply resign themselves to their fate: loss of 20 per cent of their territory and nothing to stop Putin surging back to the offensive after regrouping his armed forces and rebuilding his economy. But many will not. At the front line I have met several hardened Ukrainian commanders who told me they would never give up the fight against Russia, no matter what the politicians decide. In other circumstances this talk could be dismissed as mere braggadocio.

But such men and their followers in Ukraine today may have far greater power than their predecessors in global resistance movements ever dreamt of. For one thing Ukraine is awash with vast Continue reading →