AG百家乐在线官网

Michael Clarke has finished answering another set of your questions.

Today's highlights include revealing answers about the Ukraine peace talks, Kyiv's latest battlefield tactics, and what we can learn about Trump and Vance after the US group chat security breach.

Check out the key points or scroll through this live page to recap his answers.

You can also watch back on YouTube below.

If you're inspired to submit a question for next time, you can still use the form at the top of the page.

To cut to the (possibly reassuring) chase here - no, it's not more likely.

That's because it wouldn't give Vladimir Putin much benefit, Clarke explains.

"Tactical nuclear weapons - to have any battlefield advantage, they'd need to use six or eight nuclear weapons to get any advantage of it in the battlefield," he says, explaining it's because Ukraine is "such a big place and the forces are dispersed".

"The taboo against using nuclear weapons, which has existed since 1945... does Putin want to go down in history as the man who broke it?

"And he wouldn't be breaking it with one weapon. He'd be breaking it thoroughly with half a dozen weapons, which would buy him almost no real battlefield advantage."

If that were the case, then he might "lose his ally in China", Clarke says. 

No sign of Russia gearing up to use nuclear weapons

Moreover, Clarke says he's been told there is no sign of an impending threat.

"My latest information from people who are in a position to know is that the Russians have not done anything to indicate that they are activating any of their nuclear forces, those tactical nuclear forces," he adds.

"It would take some time for them to get the system up and running - a couple of weeks - and nothing has happened which has indicated that they're any nearer to doing that than they were two years ago."

"Yes," Michael Clarke says. 

The longer peace talks go on, the more "it looks as if the Americans have been drawn in to the Russians' game", he says.

"And the Russians are really good at playing this game," he adds. 

He notes that the US looks out of its depth at present up against "really tough Russian negotiators" who "expect everything and give nothing until the very end of the process".

That being said, he notes the Trump administration could "turn on a sixpence".

Clarke says there are three possibilities:

1. Trump flips to putting "real pressure" on Russia;
2. He gives Russia what they want;
3. He'll move on (which Clarke thinks is most likely).

Watch: The latest Trump 100 episode on the US government's group chat security breach.

Years ago, you would have said no, Russia wouldn't really have come to China's aid, says Michael Clarke.

But things have changed.

The Russia-China relationship is very solid at the moment, Clarke says, even if it may not turn out to be in the long-term. 

"China is far more in control of the relationship than Russia. Russia is the weaker of the two by a long way," he adds.

"And it never used to be that way. I mean, all through the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s, Russia was the stronger power.

"But it isn't anymore."

The two countries are, however, pushed along with North Korea and Iran, and they help each other to undermine the West.

"So, yes, Russia, I think, would come to the aid of China to whatever extent it could, if we're talking about the next 20 odd years," Clarke says.

"The United States used to size its military on the basis that it had to be prepared to take on both simultaneously. It was like a two-power standard."

The US "doesn't really operate on that two-power standard anymore", Clarke adds.

It worries much more about China, he says.

"And yes, I mean, if the US found itself up against China in the 2030s and Russia was helping, then it would have to take on both," Clarke explains.

There's no legal reason why Putin can't have North Korean troops on Russian territory against the Kursk incursion, Michael Clarke explains.

"If he wants to bring an ally, that's fine... but it's exactly the same as the Ukrainians saying, we want to bring our allies into Ukraine to help," he adds. 

Therefore, any Russian complaints about Western troops on the ground in Ukraine are completely unfounded. 

"They have no legal basis to say that - they haven't got a leg to stand on - because if Ukraine asked for it and if allies agree to come to help defend it, that's the end of the matter," he says.

"That's what Putin stands for in world politics - double standards."

Watch - from December: ZelenAG百家乐在线官网y on North Korean troops in Ukraine

That's still unlikely, says Clarke, but it can't be ruled out.

In fact, he reckons there's a 40% chance.

"I was saying last week - nothing happens for decades, then decades happen in weeks," he says.

"Well, these are the weeks. These are the weeks in which decades are happening around us.

"And so, anything we say this week might look pretty old-fashioned next week, because things are changing so fast."

Nonetheless, as things stand, he believes it's less likely that European forces will end up on the ground in Ukraine. 

"But you can't rule it out," he adds.

Watch: What Ukraine says it needs from allies

And could Europe move away from US reliance?

It's not impossible, says Clarke, but there's still a way to go.

"You're talking about probably 2030, 2031, 2032," he says.

"If we really rearm now properly in the way that our leaders are saying we might... then we could make up for what the US provides, probably with a big push in maybe five years."

"You're not wrong in one sense", says Clarke.

He explains that there's a "significant chance" the force could end up in fire fights with Russian forces.

"Maybe just skirmishes, maybe a game of air power where aircraft are buzzing each other to keep them out of the way. 

"It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that if Western forces were in Ukraine, they will come up against Russian pressure at some point.

"If we were to do it, our leaders have to be brave, and we have to be prepared for our forces to not simply reassure without doing anything. 

"I think the chances are we will get pulled into some sort of demonstration of force."

Because of this, "we're still a long way" from the proposal getting anywhere near being ready at an operational level.

We move on to the battlefield in Ukraine now. 

Michael Clarke starts with Kursk, where he says there are still Ukrainian forces, and pushes back on Vladimir Putin's claims that Kyiv's troops are completely surrounded.

Despite that, they've been under tremendous Russian pressure, so Kyiv has been turning to other local fronts - including neighbouring Belgorod.  

"Belgorod is comparatively easy for the Ukrainians to put some pressure on, either with air attacks or with ground offensives," he explains.

"So they've tried to do that in order to counteract what they've lost in Kursk."

Here you can see the tiny portion of northern Belgorod that Ukraine has been attacking in recent days, just below the Kursk border...

As for how Russia had been unable to predict Ukrainian moves, Clarke says Moscow is stretched pretty thin and that their military intelligence isn't up to scratch. 

Additionally, "when the Ukrainians plan something, they plan it really quite well". 

Probably, but it depends on the terms of the deal, says Michael Clarke.

"The Russians are quite keen to do this because they want to get their stuff out," he says.

"At the moment, they can't get their stuff out of the Black Sea, because of the threat that the Ukrainians could pose to their ships."

There are two issues now on the table in talks, Clarke says.

These are: 

• energy facilities not being targeted;
• resurrecting the Black Sea deal.

They are both more to Russia's benefit than Ukraine's, Clarke says.

"It is a very, very limited ceasefire - which gets more limited every day - of the two elements that the Russians most want," he says.

"Because they're the two elements that actually benefit them more than they benefit the Ukrainians."

And with the US going for quick negotiations, in contrast to Russia's "running-the-clock-down" approach, Clarke says it looks like Moscow is "giving the American team a complete run-around".

"They're giving them a lesson in tough diplomacy, and there are none tougher than the Russians when it comes to negotiating something on the Black Sea," Clarke adds.

And don't overlook Turkey's role in this, he says, as they control the waterway connecting the Black Sea to the rest of the world.

What is this Black Sea deal?

Moscow is said to be keen to revive a UN-backed deal that allows Ukraine to export grain from its ports without being attacked, known as the Black Sea grain initiative.

The deal was negotiated in July 2022 between Turkey, the UN and Russia as a way of ensuring that Ukraine, one of the breadbaskets of the world, could keep exporting grain from its southern ports.

The deal also allowed for greater Russian agricultural exports, but Moscow pulled out of the initiative in July 2023 after accusing the West of reneging on this part of the agreement.

Scott is referring to the comments made by the vice president in the leaked Signal group chat.

Vance expressed his distaste for "bailing Europe out again" during conversations with top US officials about freeing up shipping lanes in the Red Sea.

"I think there's a lot of truth in that," Clarke says in response to Scott.

He adds that Donald Trump's closest circle are copying the president's own "Trumpist view of Europe, which is very negative indeed".

That view, Clarke says, "isn't based on a whole lot of fact, and it's not based on a whole lot of recent history".

"For the time being, the Trump leadership is very anti-European. And that's going to be pretty uncomfortable for the Europeans to deal with. But it is what it is."

However, Clarke adds that Europe is still "partly responsible for this situation" because Europe has been "complacent" over 20-30 years about its relationship with the US.