With Britain’s credibility in Kyiv unparalleled, we are best-placed to raise the question of how this war might end, with an eye to Russia’s stability and re-integration into the international system.
Delivering the right vehicle cannot be premised on the idea that non-EU states are merely satellites of Brussels.
It seldom occurs to this author that the best way to deal with fashionable absurdities is to laugh at them, and trust in the public’s common sense.
In the public imagination, his vague nuclear threats suggest intercontinental strikes against western cities. But suppose they mean something else.
Ministers should remember that Russian cultural and sporting stars aren’t responsible for the actions of their government.
It should remain a long-term aim but ensuring that we can generate the energy we need without a reliance on overseas sources should come first.
The situation will fester, which will pose major challenges for statecraft, and for the stability both of Ukraine and of surrounding areas.
Is the British public remotedly prepared for possible cyber attacks aimed at our national infrastructure?
NATO must stand united against Russia’s desire to restore Soviet hegemony.
Judicial review is clearly more intrusive than it was. But it is the checks and balances which protect us in a liberal democracy.
The consequences for the international order have been debated for decades, but, in contrast, little attention has been paid to this area.
The country’s Prime Minister is a classic cakeist – berating the EU on the one hand, but not seeking to leave on the other.
Putin’s Russia is closer to home – remember the Salisbury attack – and Islamist extremism is already here.
The conflict in Afghanistan isn’t just about ideas, and can’t be insulated from its geographic environment.
Sensing blood, the vultures are circling: ISIS is active already, and not only in the remoter parts of country.