How open is the Strait of Hormuz?

We know one thing for sure about the MoU that the US and Iran have signed.

The US wants the Strait of Hormuz opened as quickly and fully as possible. If that happens, oil prices keep falling for a while and governments get a chance to replenish their strategic reserves. To keep oil flowing at the maximum rate in the 60 day negotiation period is what the US wants. 

At the end of 60 days, there is room for an extension. The US administration will keep talking so that oil prices are under control in the run up to the mid-term elections to the US Congress in November. 

Iran would like oil to flow as slowly as possible. The greater the pain to the global economy, the greater is Iran's leverage. Moreover, within the 60 day period Iran cannot charge tolls or fees. After 60 days, it feels it has the right to charge fees towards services rendered to the ships.

So the incentives for both sides are clear enough.

What is not clear is how far the Strait has opened. The priority is to get the estimated 1000 ships stranded during the conflict out at the earliest. The sailors on these ships have had a terrible time in the past 100 days. The middle portion of the Strait needs to be demined and that will take time. Ships can pass through routes close to Oman or those close to Iran. 

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has created a route close to Oman through which, they say, tankers stranded during the conflict are passing at a furious pace. Iran objects, saying all ships must pass only through its own designated routes.

Just how much is going through?

In normal times, 135 ships transit the Strait each day. Military analyst Larry Johnson provides data to show that on June 23, only 7-13 ships transited the Strait. On June 24, according to FT, an estimated 41 ships transited, 15 via the Iran route and 26 via the Oman route. That is a huge jump. 

And that jump is precisely what provoked the Iran missile attack yesterday on a ship using the Oman route. The IMO has since suspended its evacuation plan. So the Strait appears to be closed again for practical purposes. 

In return for opening the Hormuz, Iran gets some of its assets released and it gets a waiver of oil sanctions for 60 days. But it loses it leverage over the global economy and the US economy.  

The ceasefire period thus seems to be working to the advantage of the US. The Oman route is spoiling the show for Iran. Iran cannot allow a situation in which it does not control the flow of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Hence the Iranian attack on a tanker in the Oman area.  

Will the US construe that as a violation of the MoU? And how will it react if it does?

 

Vietnam war revisited: the architects knew it was a doomed expedition

Since the Iran conflict is getting branded as another Vietnam, an Economist article on the Vietnam war is worth reading.

In the war, 3 million Vietnamese were killed; over 50,000 American soldiers died. The US failed to overthrow the government of North Vietnam. Instead, it retreated ignominiously as North Vietnam overran South Vietnam and united the two parts.

Why did the US expend so much resources and lives over a decade on the war in Vietnam? The popular view is that the architects of the war- Kennedy, Johnson, McNamara and others- thought victory was attainable and were carried away by hubris.

Not at all, says the author of the article cited above:

America’s decision-makers were hardly experts on Vietnam and its history, but among themselves and behind closed doors they acknowledged that they were entering a deeply challenging environment, in which triumph was far from assured.

The extensive internal record is clear on this score. It shows the private misgivings of senior Washington officials throughout the years of heavy escalation. The sceptics included McNamara himself, and the two presidents he served: John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. From the time then-Congressman Kennedy visited Vietnam in 1951, during the height of the French-Indochina War, until his death in Dallas in 1963, he expressed doubts that Ho Chi Minh’s revolutionary nationalist cause could be subdued by military means. Johnson—who ordered the “Americanisation” of the conflict in 1965, involving the commitment of major ground forces and sustained air power in order to preserve a non-communist South Vietnam—regularly wondered if the struggle could be won, and indeed whether the outcome really mattered.

If that was indeed so, why did these gentlemen embark on the war and pursue it against all odds? The author provides a possible answer:

A key part of the answer is that for both men, maintaining the course, through escalation if necessary, offered the path of least immediate resistance. They and their advisers had offered repeated public affirmations of South Vietnam’s importance to American security, and of the certainty of ultimate success. It made sense that they would be tempted to hang on, in the hope that the new military measures would work. It was about credibility—their nation’s, their party’s, their own. 

Once you sell a story to the public, your best bet is to make the story happen.

We have to wonder: is the same mistake playing out in the Iran conflict now?

US has lost the war in Iran- Robert Kagan

Robert Kagan, US columnist and neoconservative, joins the chorus of voices that say that the US has lost the war in Iran.

The US cannot bring about the collapse of the Iran regime without extremely high costs. Kagan spells out these costs and argues that simply walking away seems the best option for Trump:

Unless the U.S. is prepared to engage in a full-scale ground and naval war to remove the current Iranian regime, and then to occupy Iran until a new government can take hold; unless it is prepared to risk the loss of warships convoying tankers through a contested strait; unless it is prepared to accept the devastating long-term damage to the region’s productive capacities likely to result from Iranian retaliation—walking away now could seem like the least bad option.

And walking away from the present situation is certainly defeat:

There will be no return to the status quo ante, no ultimate American triumph that will undo or overcome the harm done. The Strait of Hormuz will not be “open,” as it once was. With control of the strait, Iran emerges as the key player in the region and one of the key players in the world. The roles of China and Russia, as Iran’s allies, are strengthened; the role of the United States, substantially diminished

Far from being toppled or even weakened, the government in Iran is poised to emerge stronger and Iran will be a greater force in the world than in the past:

The power to close or control the flow of ships through the strait is greater and more immediate than the theoretical power of Iran’s nuclear program. This leverage will allow the leaders in Tehran to force nations to lift sanctions and normalize relations or face penalties. Israel will find itself more isolated than ever, as Iran grows richer, rearms, and preserves its options to go nuclear in the future. 

The question is how soon will President Trump bow to the reality and walk away. The longer the wait, the greater is the cost to the world economy.

IRGC navy chief was an expert in aysmmetrical warfare

 The IRGC naval chief, Ali Reza Tangsiri, who was reportedly killed in an Israeli strike was an expert in asymmetrical naval warfare.

The Guardian pays an unusual obit :

According to the US Treasury, which sanctioned him in 2019 and in 2023, Tangsiri oversaw the IRGC Navy’s testing of cruise missiles and sat on the board of a company that developed armed drones. Both weapons could now be used to maintain the current blockade of the strait.

A third weapon strongly supported by Tangsiri was fast boats – light, manoeuvrable craft that can threaten civilian shipping but also, he hoped, evade the defence systems of modern warships.

Last week, Tangsiri dared the US to launch a ground assault on Kharg Island, Iran’s principal hub for oil exports, pointing out the effect such a move would have on oil prices. On Monday, said in a media post that Iran had “prepared the graves of child-killing aggressors”.

Iran seems to have nurtured a crop of extremely talented military leaders. The talent pool is so wide that the killing of those at the helm is little cause for concern- they seem to get replaced by younger, even more highly motivated leaders. 

That should be a real worry for the US and Israel. 

Marco Rubio at Munich: the West versus the rest?

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's impassioned speech at the Munich security conference a few days ago lays out very clearly what the US thinks is wrong with the world and how it thinks it should be set right.

Rubio highlighted the three principal mistakes the West made in the post- War era.

First mistake: free trade

.....we embraced a dogmatic vision of free and unfettered trade, even as some nations protected their economies and subsidized their companies to systematically undercut ours – shuttering our plants, resulting in large parts of our societies being deindustrialized, shipping millions of working and middle-class jobs overseas, and handing control of our critical supply chains to both adversaries and rivals. 

Second mistake: climate change thesis

To appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people, even as our competitors exploit oil and coal and natural gas and anything else – not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own. 

Third mistake: opening the doors to immigration:

And in a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people. 

How to set the world right? Europe must follow America's lead in asserting the primacy of Western civilisation over the rest of the world. The centuries of colonialism before the WW2 were the era of Western greatness and it's time for the West to put aside the post-WW2 order in order to reclaim that dominance:

For five centuries, before the end of the Second World War, the West had been expanding – its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers pouring out from its shores to cross oceans, settle new continents, build vast empires extending out across the globe. 

But in 1945, for the first time since the age of Columbus, it was contracting.  Europe was in ruins.  Half of it lived behind an Iron Curtain and the rest looked like it would soon follow.  The great Western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprisings that would transform the world and drape the red hammer and sickle across vast swaths of the map in the years to come. 

Against that backdrop, then, as now, many came to believe that the West’s age of dominance had come to an end and that our future was destined to be a faint and feeble echo of our past.  But together, our predecessors recognized that decline was a choice, and it was a choice they refused to make.  This is what we did together once before, and this is what President Trump and the United States want to do again now, together with you. 

The troubling question for Europe is what the new colonial enterprise means for them. In the old days of colonialism, Europe called the shots. The partnership that Rubio now advocates is one in  which the US will hold the upper hand. As we have seen, all trade agreements the US has signed so far are tipped in favour of the US. And the US  expects Europe to defer to the US in matters that the US thinks are vital to itself, such as Greenland.

Many Europeans may well think that this order, unlike the earlier colonial era, is one in which they are at the receiving end of colonialism! 

Can Europe decouple from the US ?

One of the high points of Trump's present term is the way Europe has grovelled before him. The EU's resistance to Trump on Ukraine has been feeble. And on trade, it has signed a pact that allows the US to impose a tariff of 15 per cent so that Europe has the privilege of accessing the US market.

There is also the way Europe's leaders- Macron, Starmer, von der Leyen- have been treated by Trump. Europe's public is said to be seething but that has not influence government policy. 

Some Europeans are beginning to think the unthinkable: Europe must decouple from the US. Martin Sandbu, columnist of the FT says this must happen in three areas: trade, finance and defence.

On trade, Europe must reduce trade exposure to the US market below what the private sector is having now. How to do this? Reduce incentives for exports to the US and retaliate against US tariffs by imposing tariffs on the US, notably on their services exports. Both exports to and imports from the US must fall, so that Europe is less vulneable to American pressure.

On finance, Europe must stop exporting capital to the US- use regulation to acheive this.

On defence, Europe must become more self-sufficient- presumably by spending more.

Is it feasible? European reliance on the US defence shield is the key. The answer is not just the gradual removal of the shield. Europe has to rethink its relationship with Russia. As long as Europe believes Russia is a threat and assumes a hostile posture, it cannot rid itself of the American defence shield.

The trade and finance exposures are easier to correct. But they will certain entail economic costs in the medium-term. Europe will have to sacrifice growth and well-being. That is even more difficult than self-sufficiency in defence. 

When the US imposed tariffs of 39 per cent on Switzerland, the country's President rushed to the US to negotiate a lower tariff. She was rebuffed. Then, leading businessmen called on Trump with gifts and managed to get the tariff down to 15 per cent.

Switzerland has a per capita income slightly higher than that of America's $89,000. It is one of the richest countries in the world. Yet, the Swiss don't have it in them to stand up to the US if it means a drop in the standard of living. The same is true of the rest of Europe. Decades of dependence on US largesse for defence has got the continent used to a soft life.

Europe can decouple from the US only if it is willing to make a huge shift in foreign policy that reorients its relationship with Russia and China. One can't see that happening. 

How Trump shook up NATO in his first term as President

Jens Stoltenberg was Nato  secretary-general during Trump 1. The Guardian carries an excerpt from his forthcoming account of his time as Nato chief. It's a terrific read. It brings alive Trump's interactions with European leaders during his first term and how he read the riot act to them on stepping up their contributions to Nato- I didn't know the US contributed 80-90 per cent of Nato's budget!

In May 2017, Trump visited the Nato headquarters. It was a new building that he was to inaugurate. He didn't approve of the expenditure at all:

“Do you really need such a big headquarters?” he asked. “What do you need all these people for?”

I replied that while the organisation itself isn’t that large, member states’ delegations also use the building – it makes it easy to meet with security measures in place, and everyone uses the same cafeteria. I told Trump who had designed the headquarters: architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, who also designed the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago.

“I know those people. They’re extremely expensive,” Trump exclaimed. “I don’t understand why you chose those expensive architects. Extremely expensive!”

Later in 2018, Stoltenberg spoke over the phone. Again, Trump did some plain speaking:

Trump had recently met with Merkel, too, and told her things simply couldn’t carry on the way they were. “I said, ‘Angela, you have to cough up. You need to spend 2%.’ She said, ‘Maybe in 2030’ – and she laughed as she said it … She laughed!”

He said the United States was spending 4% of GDP on defence, and covered 80-90% of Nato’s expenses. “And we’re not doing it any more. We’re gonna pay what Germany pays.”

By the end of the call there was no mistaking Trump’s warning: “Look, if we leave, we leave. You need Nato, desperately. We don’t need Nato.”

Trump doesn't believe the US needs Nato; it is the Europeans who need it. And if they need it badly, they had better pay for it. Well, Trump has had the last laugh. Many Nato allies have met the 2 per cent target and the fresh target that Trump has set is 5 per cent.

U-turn on Ukraine?

President Trump stunned everybody with his remarks on Truth Social following his meeting with Ukrainian president Zelenskyy.

Trump wrote: 

“Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form…With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option. Why not?”.

Trump also called Russia a "paper tiger".

These remarks seem to mark a U-turn from his position after the Alaska Summit with President Putin last month. Trump had said at the time that Ukraine would have to accept loss of territory to Russia as part of any peace settlement.

Trump also said Nato was free to shoot down Russian planes that introduced into Nato airspace.

So, what's cooking?

Well, the key point is that Trump refuses to commit any American support for Ukraine's war with Russia. The Europeans are free to purchase arms from the US and give these to Ukraine- no more freebies from the US. The US will not be directly involved in the conflict. Moreoever, Trump refused to commit any support to Nato if it shot down Russia aircraft- any American intervention would depend on the circumstances.

We need to connect these positions with Trump's earlier exhortation to Europe to impose tariffs of 50 to 100 per cent on Chinese exports to the EU and to stop purchasing Russian oil and gas altogether. There's no way the Europeans can do that- their economies would be wrecked. Similarly, there's no way the Nato allies can wage war on Russia on their own. 

The Europeans have been urging Trump to get tough with Russia, impose more sanctions and to step up support for Ukraine. Trump is now telling them: if you think you can this war, go right ahead and fight the Russians, I'm not going to join you.

Trump's remarks amount to a dare and a taunt to Europe. As he made clear in his address to the UN earlier this week, he has very little regard for Europeans- he knows they will chicken out of a confronation with Russia sans American involvement. 

Brits grit their teeth over Trump's state visit

The UK laid out the red carpet for Donald Trump on his second state visit to the UK, the first one being in his first term.

It is a clear attempt by UK PM Keith Starmer to ensure the 'special relationship' endures, however much the UK may be uncomfortable with Trump's policies. The Guardian's columnist sums up the sentiments of many Brits:

No, it is not ideal. The era of shared values is ebbing fast. Keir Starmer did not need to play the state visit card so soon or so generously. He should have made Trump wait for the invitation, extracting a higher price for it, and offering hints that it might be offered in return for the right deal. But Starmer is not alone in struggling to read a president who is both unserious and utterly serious at the same time. All nations are still trying to work out how to respond.

What does UK want out of Trump now? Here goes:

Three things will matter in particular when Trump meets Starmer on Thursday for the political half of the visit: trade, the Middle East and Ukraine......On the Middle East, meanwhile, the immediate goal must be to prevent Trump exploding when Britain and others recognise Palestine next week.

So raison d’état says that pressure on Trump over Ukraine needs to come first. Russia’s threat to Europe is existential. Long term, the solution to that is in Europe’s own hands. The idea that the US should continue to be primarily responsible for Europe’s security 80 years after the second world war is now barely credible. But Starmer still needs to do whatever he can to press Trump to arm Ukraine more now.

Well, what better can you expect of a vassal state?

Trump- Putin Alaska meet triggers fury amongst Trump's critics

There was no deal, no announcement of ceasefire, no mention of any follow-up talks between the US and Russia. Yet President Trump gave the meeting a rating of 10 on 10 and expressed optimism about what would follow.

Why? Because the meeting helped reaffirm the long-standing personal relationshp between Trump and Putin. 

Trump stood at the mid-point of a red carpet and clapped his hands at Putin walked towards him after alighting from his plane. Trump received Putin with a warm handshake and then escorted him past a guard of honour to a podium. It was roses all the way

The equation between the two Presidents has long been a source of annoyance to neocons in the US and Europe. And, seeing the way the two got along, the neocons and Trump's critics in general are furious.

The Guardian's correspondent caught the mood very well in a priceless piece of reporting, never mind that the report oozes bile:

That was the moment he knew it was true love.

Donald Trump turned to gaze at Vladimir Putin as the Russian president publicly endorsed his view that, had Trump been president instead of Joe Biden, the war in Ukraine would never have happened.

“Today President Trump was saying that if he was president back then, there would be no war, and I’m quite sure that it would indeed be so,” Putin said. “I can confirm that.”

Vladimir, you complete me, Trump might have replied. To hell with all those Democrats, democrats, wokesters, fake news reporters and factcheckers. Here is a man who speaks my authoritarian alternative facts language.

......Trump, 79, purportedly the most powerful man in the world, literally rolled out the red carpet for a Russian dictator indicted for alleged war crimes over the abduction and transfer of thousands of Ukrainian children. Putin’s troops have also been accused of indiscriminate murder, rape and torture on an appalling scale.

In more than 100 countries, the 72-year-old would have been arrested the moment he set foot on the tarmac. In America, he was treated to a spontaneous burst of applause from the waiting Trump, who gave him a long, lingering handshake and a ride in “the Beast”, the presidential limousine.

Putin could be seen cackling on the back seat, looking like the cat who got the cream. As a former KGB man, did he leave behind a bug or two?

The reaction in the US has been hostile. FT reports:

Donald Trump returned to a political backlash in Washington over his handling of Vladimir Putin after failing to follow through on his threat of “severe consequences” if the Russian president refused to agree a ceasefire in Ukraine...

Europe continues to be in denial. The European Council has released a statement that says:

Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We welcome President Trump’s statement that the US is prepared to give security guarantees. The coalition of the willing is ready to play an active role. No limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine’s pathway to EU and Nato.

The latest news is that Zelenskyy will meet Trump on Monday at the White House. If all goes well, Trump, Zelenskyy and Putin will meet. 

Trump-Putin Alaska summit: the remarks the media did not hear

The UK's Sun has a terrific scoop on  the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska. 

The Sun got a forensic lip reader to transcribe what Trump and Putin were telling each other at a couple of places. There was no microphone to catch these remarks for the benefit of the media. Here is the Sun's account:

Putin looked relaxed as he walked down a red carpet towards Trump - giving the US leader a thumbs-up before greeting him with a warm handshake.

Trump begins clapping as Putin approaches and the American says: “Finally,” according to Hickling (the lip reader).

Hickling then said that as the pair shook hands Trump added: “You made it, fantastic to see you and appreciated."

The pair then appear to begin talking about Ukraine and the bringing the fighting to an end with a ceasefire.

Putin responds in English, saying: “Thank you — and you."

He also makes a pledge to Trump: "I am here to help you.”

Trump replies: “I’ll help you.”

Pointing towards Trump, Putin says: “All they need is to ask.”

Trump answers simply: “Okay.”

Putin continues: “I will bring it to a rest.”

Trump responds: “I hope it does.”

Turning towards the vehicle, Hickling said Trump smiles and says: “Come on, let’s get straight into the vehicle. We need to move forward, both giving it attention. I know this is serious, it’s quite long. What a journey it is.”

Trump salutes and says: “Thank you.”

On the podium, Trump says: “Thank you. Let’s shake hands — it gives a good impression.”

Putin nods in agreement, shakes his hand, and says: “Thank you.”

The pair then shared a moment alone in Trump’s presidential limo - known as The Beast - which drove them to the summit venue.

 They were then next seen when they posed for photos in front of the press to record the historic moment.

But the photocall descended into chaos when the journalists started shouting at Trump and the tyrant - who doesn't face that sort of opposition in Russia.

Hickling said that Trump noticed Putin wasn't happy with a question or remark made.

The American leans in to his aide, according to the lipreader, and whispers: “I'm uncomfortable, we need to move them quickly.”

Putin then makes a face after being on the receiving end of the aggressive questioning.

Hickling said the Russian tells a reporter: “You is ignorant.” 

Then, as he cups his hands to his mouth to shout above the chaos, he says again: “You are ignorant.”

The chemistry, as anybody can see, was pretty good. No wonder Trump gave the meeting at 10 on 10.

Why is Alaska the venue for the Trump-Putin Summit this week?

Putin has an ICC arrest warrant against himself. That obliges signatories to the ICC to arrest Putin if he is in their jurisdiction. Alaska is the US territory but the US is not a signatory to the ICC (nor is Russia). So the US is not under any legal obligation to arrest Putin although nothing prevents it from doing so.

But that can't be the whole explanation for the choice of Alaska. Putin does not attend the UNGA meetings in New York, presumably for fear of arrest. One reason given for the choce of Alaska is that it is within easy reach of Russia. At the narrowest point, it is a mere two miles away from Russian territory. At the likely venue for the summit, the distance is 88 kms. Russian subs with special forces will be prowling in the vicinity, ready to swing into action if required. In other words, Alaska is fairly safe for Putin.

The Guardian has a story that suggests mutual inconvenience is a factor in the choice of Alaska. The flying time for Putin is nine hours, for Trump it is eight hours. It is also a considerable distance away from Ukraine and its European allies. Further, Putin can fly directly from Russia into Alaska without having to overfly countries that are members of the ICC. 

Some suggest there is a symbolic significance to Putin's wanting to meet up in Alaska. Alaska was sold by Russia to the US for around $7 million in 1867. Which means that territories can jolly well exchange hands. And that would apply to Ukrainian territory currently under Russian control. 

How Pakistan upstaged India in forging ties with Trump

India's foreign policy establishment is in shock. In a matter of months, Indo-US ties have soured and Pak- US ties have soared. It is not clear how this has happened. 

First, the deterioration in Indo-US ties.

For Mr Trump, the aggravations from India's side are many. India is not willing to make certain concessions on trade, such as allowing entry of American agricultural and dairy products, so a trade deal has proved elusive over several months. India has refused to accept Mr Trump's line that it was he who mediated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after the skirmish last May. Mr Trump, we are told, is deeply miffed on that account. 

Then there is the business of oil purchases from Russia. Mr Trump and his colleagues say India along with China is financing the Russian war machine. But the point is that the sanctions on Russian oil apply only to the US and the EU. Other nations are not barred from buying Russian oil, they are subject to the price cap of $60. Very recently,  a new formula has been applied which causes the cap to fall to around $47. The US was okay with India's purchase of oil from Russia because it kept global oil prices from shooting up. Mr Trump's turnaround is extraordinary, to say the least.

The Economist notes:

This (a tariff of 50 per cent on Indian exports to the US) marks a striking change from Mr Trump’s first term, when the American president and Indian prime minister filled stadiums from Texas to Gujarat in celebration of a blossoming bond between the two countries. India clinched deals for defence equipment and tech usually reserved for NATO allies and some exemptions from sanctions on its dealings with Russia. A mutual disquiet about China’s rise lent the relationship urgency. As a result, India welcomed Mr Trump’s comeback. According to a poll in 2024 by the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank, 84% of Indians believed Mr Trump was good news for their own country—the highest among all 24 countries polled.

But despite Mr Modi’s outwardly friendly reception at the White House in February, one journalist briefed on the visit describes Indian diplomats as “stunned” by the “lack of respect” America’s president showed India’s prime minister behind closed doors.

Now for the improvement in Pak-US ties. FT has a detailed story on how it turned its relationship with the US around:

The newfound US admiration for Pakistan is partly the fruit of a charm offensive concocted by Pakistan’s senior generals, leveraging counterterrorism co-operation, outreach to business people close to Trump and deals covering energy, critical minerals and cryptocurrencies — all accompanied by a cascade of flattery for the White House.

 ....Pakistan’s turnaround was helped early on by what the US saw as an important arrest. In March Asim Malik, the head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency, delivered a high-value Isis-K operative who the US said was behind a 2021 bombing in Kabul that killed more than 180 people, including 13 US soldiers. His capture earned Pakistan Trump’s praise in his March State of the Union address, when the US president also lambasted India over high tariffs.

......World Liberty Financial, a Trump-backed cryptocurrency venture, signed a letter of intent with Pakistan’s crypto council in April, when its co-founders visited Pakistan. Zach Witkoff, the son of US special envoy Steve Witkoff, said during the trip that Pakistan had “trillions of dollars” of mineral wealth ripe for tokenisation.

....Islamabad also gave credit to Trump for brokering the truce with New Delhi — to the point of nominating the US president for the Nobel Peace Prize. Trading his khakis for a suit and tie this weekend, Munir again heaped praise on the US president when speaking to a group of Pakistani-Americans in Tampa.

Pakistan's stars are clearly on the ascendant.  At least in the immediate future, India has its task cut out in dealing with Mr Trump and the US.

Trump-Putin meet in Alaska: quote of the day

 FT columnist Gideon Rachman has a terrific line on the likely fate of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy at Alaska in his article today:

If you are not at the table, you're on the menu

What Europeans and Ukraine would like is an immediate cease-fire followed by negotiations on territory and other matters. That' a no-no for Putin. Russia has the upper hand in the conflict at the moment although gains in territory are slow in coming. Putin rightly views a cease-fire as an opportunity for Ukraine to recoup and renew the war at its convenience.

Putin has time and again made clear what his expectations are:

• Ukraine to recognise the four areas in the Donbas region over which Russia has substantial control today
• Ukraine to give up aspirations to join NATO 
• "De-nazification" and "de-militarisation" of Ukraine, which seems to mean regime change and a limited size of the military

Reflecting the current thinking in parts of the European establishment, Rachman contends that Ukraine would most likely have to  have make territorial concessions and eschew its goal of becoming a member of NATO:

Kyiv’s position that no territory can be ceded is principled — but also unrealistic as things currently stand. The critical distinction is between de facto and de jure concessions of territory. A legal recognition of Russia’s forcible annexation of Ukrainian territory is rightly unacceptable to Ukraine, the EU and the UK. But a de facto recognition of Russian occupation of some territory as a brutal reality — in the context of a broader peace deal — may be necessary. The Soviet Union’s annexation of the Baltic states after 1940 was never legally recognised by the US and most European countries. But it was a fact of life, until, eventually, the Baltic states regained their independence.

......Ukraine clearly cannot accept any military limits that might damage the country’s ability to defend itself. But if Kyiv is allowed to push on with its drive for EU membership then the question of Nato might be taken off the table for a while — particularly given that the political reality is that Nato membership for Ukraine seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future.

So, Ukraine gives up two out of the four territories claimed by Russia and stays out of NATO. Will that be enough for Putin? Putin has to give Trump a win and Trump would count a cessation of hostilities as one. What about US sanctions on Russia and NATO's push eastwards? Those are important goals for Putin. 

The meeting is happening because Russia found the proposals conveyed by Steve Witkoff acceptable. It is possible to optimistic about the outcome at Alaska.