Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simonetta Di Pippo, Director of the Space Economy Evolution Lab, Bocconi University

In the 1960s, Frank Sinatra’s song Fly Me to the Moon became closely associated with the Apollo missions. The optimistic track was recorded in 1964, when US success against the Soviet Union in the Moon race was not assured.

Nevertheless, when the crew of the Apollo 11 mission landed first on the lunar surface in 1969, the Sinatra song became an appropriate tune for an era when, in the West, anything seemed possible.

In the 21st century, the exploration of the Moon will take a different form. Several countries want to go there and stay. The US, China and international partners on both sides have plans to establish permanent bases on the lunar surface – raising the possibility of conflict.

The bases will be located at the south pole of the Moon, which has valuable resources such as abundant water in the form of ice. This ice, locked up in permanently shadowed craters, could be turned into water for use by lunar bases and into rocket fuel to support ongoing exploration and the people living there. The Moon may also have valuable minerals, such as rare earth metals, that countries may want to extract.

But such resources will be limited, as are suitable sites for landing and building lunar bases. The potential for conflict between nations in space is not beyond the realms of possibility.

However, there are measures that can be taken to ensure that the future is a cooperative one. So a song as optimistic as Fly Me To The Moon could serve as the soundtrack to this new age in exploration, just as it did in the 1960s and 70s.

International treaties could be the solution, together with a willingness of countries to operate responsibly. The outer space treaty of 1967 says that space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, or by means of use or occupation. At the same time, article I of the treaty considers space as a global common, and states that the exploration and use of space is for all nations, including its resources.

A vital question is whether the Moon’s water ice be used without some level of appropriation.

Moon agreement

The Artemis accords, a set of guidelines initiated by the US, is a bottom-up attempt to establish a common behaviour. Section 10 of the Artemis accords says that the “extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty”.

It also proposes the use of temporary “safety zones” around operations to extract resources. Signatories to the Artemis accords must provide notification of their activities to other nations and commit to coordinating to avoid harmful interference.

However, these safety zones are highly controversial because they could be seen as a breach of the outer space treaty’s non-appropriation principles, to say the least. To some, these zones could create de facto ownership rights over space resources.

As of now, 56 countries have signed the Artemis accords. Thailand and Senegal have signed the US-led accords and are also involved in China’s lunar base project. As such, these nations provide a bridge between the two programmes and hope for collaboration.

The Moon agreement, adopted in 1979 by the UN, also governs how Earth’s natural satellite should be used. There are a lot of interesting features in this treaty, including a call for transparency, with requirements for states to share information about their lunar activities, and an international effort to manage lunar resources.

The aim is to build confidence between signatories to the agreement. Like the outer space treaty, it strictly prohibits the national appropriation of space resources.

A major impediment is that neither China, nor the US nor the Russian Federation have signed up. However, in my view, the Moon agreement provides the best framework for the future – without further treaties or accords. Nations just need to use it. And if one or two articles need a change, they should be changed.

New era

The world is standing on the verge of a new age in lunar exploration. Whether the US or China arrive there first, there is a new will to establish a permanent presence on Earth’s natural satellite. China, along with about ten countries, is planning a base called the ILRS (International Lunar Research Station). Nasa, meanwhile, is developing a lunar station called Artemis Base Camp.

These will take some time to build, but nations are already off the starting blocks. Nasa’s Artemis II mission, which will carry four astronauts on a flyby of the Moon, is set to launch in February 2026. On September 24 this year, the US space agency also announced a new class of astronauts who are likely to fly on future missions to the lunar surface.

These developments show that there is the potential for a more equitable future in space than the one we have experienced in the past. I couldn’t help notice, for example, that of the 10 newly selected astronauts, 60% are women, which is a first.

China recently completed a test of its crewed lunar lander, Lanyue. Its ILRS lunar base project has signed up nations without a long track record in human space exploration.

So how can countries ensure that they capitalise on the promise of a cooperative future in space and avoid transferring existing rivalries – and inequities – beyond Earth’s boundaries?

Replicating the wild west on the Moon, where the first person to arrive claims the the land, is not an option in the 21st century. Humans will all be “terrestrials” when they land on the Moon, regardless of national flags.

Space can be a platform for diplomacy as well as conflict. It can also be a tool for socio-economic development. These are powerful incentives for humankind to act as partners on the final frontier.

Expanding humanity’s footprint beyond Earth is the biggest challenge of this century and beyond. So a global effort to explore outer space collaboratively and peacefully is not only possible, but mandatory.

Simonetta Di Pippo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How spacefaring nations could avoid conflict on the Moon – https://theconversation.com/how-spacefaring-nations-could-avoid-conflict-on-the-moon-267125

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nada Saadaoui, PhD Candidate in English Literature, University of Cumbria

Jane Austen’s novels are often remembered for their wit, romance and sharp social critique. Yet they are also profoundly geographical works: cities, seaside resorts, country estates and naval towns structure the possibilities and limitations of her heroines’ lives.

In Austen’s world, place equals power. Where a woman could walk, who she might encounter and how her movements were constrained often determined the course of her story. Tracing Austen’s fictional geographies – from Bath’s promenades to Brighton’s dangers, Portsmouth’s naval streets and the expansive grounds of Pemberley – reveals how these locations shaped women’s freedoms, reputations and choices.

For Catherine Morland in Northanger Abbey (1817), Bath is both exciting and bewildering. She is “about to be launched into all the difficulties and dangers of a six weeks’ residence in Bath”. The phrase parodies gothic terror while also capturing Catherine’s unpreparedness for the subtler hazards of urban sociability: flattery, pretence and manipulation.

Her early walks are tentative. She dutifully accompanies Mrs Allen to the Pump Room, where they “paraded up and down for an hour … looking at everybody and speaking to no one”. The scene highlights both the possibilities and frustrations of urban walking: exposure to fashionable society without any guarantee of genuine connection.

This article is part of a series commemorating the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth. Despite having published only six books, she is one of the best-known authors in history. These articles explore the legacy and life of this incredible writer.

Anne Elliot in Persuasion (1817) moves through Bath with greater clarity. Where Catherine mistakes politeness for affection, Anne recognises the city as a site of display and competition. For her, Bath represents confinement. She longs for the lawns and groves of Kellynch Hall, where she once walked freely: “She disliked Bath, and did not think it agreed with her; and Bath was to be her home.”

Bath’s crowded rooms and choreographed promenades stand in stark contrast to the restorative rural landscapes Anne loves. Through both heroines, Austen portrays the city as a stage on which women must learn to navigate visibility, reputation and choice.

Brighton: risk, display and reputation

If Bath is a space of display, Brighton brims with danger. As a fashionable seaside resort, it promised excitement and opportunity, but for young women it carried real risk.

In Pride and Prejudice (1813), 15-year-old Lydia Bennet imagines Brighton as paradise: “In Lydia’s imagination, a visit to Brighton comprised every possibility of earthly happiness … the streets of that gay bathing-place covered with officers.”

Lydia’s giddy enthusiasm blinds her to danger, and the fantasy ends in disaster. Allowed too much freedom, she elopes with a cad, Wickham, disgracing her family. Yet after the marriage is hastily arranged, she boasts: “I only hope they may have half my good luck. They must all go to Brighton. That is the place to get husbands.”

Lydia’s naïve pride underscores Austen’s critique of Brighton as a site of social peril. This negative portrayal was not accidental: Brighton was strongly associated with the Prince Regent and his notorious lifestyle, whose extravagance Austen quietly mocked, despite him being a big fan. In her writing, the resort embodies a world of unregulated freedom and moral laxity – a place where allure could swiftly lead to ruin.

Portsmouth: naval life and restricted mobility

In Mansfield Park(1814), Fanny Price’s return to her family home in Portsmouth reveals another urban geography, shaped not by leisure but precarity.

This naval town, sustained by war and colonial trade, is crowded, noisy and unstable. Unlike the protected grounds of Mansfield, where walking fosters reflection, Portsmouth’s streets are chaotic and male-dominated, exposing women to scrutiny and risk.

Fanny recoils at her new surroundings: “The men appeared to her all coarse, the women all pert, everybody under-bred.” Walking here is not liberating but “strange, awkward, and distressing״.

When Henry Crawford suggests going for a walk with Fanny, it is treated as rare and functional. Mrs Price admits her daughters “did not often get out” unless “they had some errands in the town”. Henry, wealthy and male, strolls without restriction. Fanny and her sister Susan, by contrast, can only walk under supervision.

Austen uses Portsmouth to highlight how class, gender and geography intersect to restrict women’s mobility and reinforce inequality.

Pemberley: moral geography and possibility

By contrast, the countryside walks at Pemberley in Pride and Prejudice offer Elizabeth Bennet a landscape of harmony and possibility.

Austen describes “a large, handsome stone building, standing well on rising ground״, surrounded by woods, streams and “great variety of ground”. Elizabeth and her aunt and uncle gradually ascend through “a beautiful wood stretching over a wide extent” before their first view of the house. This prompts her famous reflection: “She had never seen a place for which nature had done more … At that moment she felt that to be mistress of Pemberley might be something!”

Unlike the artificial grandeur of other estates, Pemberley harmonises with its natural setting, reflecting Darcy’s character. Its “natural importance” conveys authenticity rather than display. Walking here is exploratory and expansive, offering shifting perspectives that mirror Elizabeth’s changing emotions.

Pemberley becomes moral geography: a space whose openness and balance anticipate a union founded on respect, responsibility and freedom.

Across her fiction, Austen maps women’s lives through the spaces they inhabit and traverse. Bath exposes the pressures of visibility, Brighton the risks of temptation, Portsmouth the limits of mobility and Pemberley the possibilities of harmony. Walking, whether through crowded assembly rooms, along seaside promenades or across open parkland, becomes a measure of female agency.

Austen’s mapped worlds remind us that geography is never neutral. It shapes choices, relationships and power. Her novels continue to resonate because they ask a question still urgent today: where, and how freely, can women move?

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Nada Saadaoui does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How Jane Austen’s landscapes mapped women’s lives – https://theconversation.com/how-jane-austens-landscapes-mapped-womens-lives-266878

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Oliver Gingrich, Programme Lead BA (Hons) Animation, University of Greenwich

A film adaptation of Roald Dahl’s classic children’s book The Twits has been promised for more than two decades. The Netflix animation plays to the strengths of the beloved classic, while adapting it to present times. Dark humour, many pranks, twists and turns ensure an enjoyable visual feast.

The film was written, directed and produced by the Oscar-nominated film-maker Phil Johnston, also known for his animated films Wreck-it Ralph (2012) and Zootopia (2016). The Twits is a fast-paced, whirlwind animation that speaks to audiences of all ages.

In this contemporary adaptation, the vindictive Mr and Mrs Twit (Johnny Vegas and Margo Martindale) are joint owners of the dilapidated amusement park Twitlandia. In a reinterpretation from the original plot, the park is now located in America, and its attractions include rides made out of toilets. The derelict rides are powered by the Muggle-Wumps – colourful monkey-like creatures that are held prisoner by the Twits.

The Twits spread their spite towards each other all over their hometown. When Twitlandia gets shut down by the police, they choose to take revenge on the city. Their evil scheming is uncovered by two unlikely heroes, orphans Beesha (Maitreyi Ramakrishnan) and Bupsie (Ryan Anderson Lopez), who set out to unmask the Twits and free the Muggle-Wumps from their misery.

The story leans on the original while reimagining it for global audiences, combining Dahl’s dark humour with a contemporary tale of public deceit. The Twits remain as intransigently nasty and detestable as in the original book, in keeping with Dahl’s fairytale juxtaposition of good versus evil.

Animation artistry

Some critics have taken issue with the Americanisation of the plot. But from an animation perspective, the film’s craftsmanship and collaborative 3D animation expertise still warrant recognition.

The environment design is complex and visually eclectic. The lighting design, meanwhile, is successfully atmospheric and supports the moody and dark twilight present throughout most of the story world.

Though it has been created through CGI, at first glance the film looks like a stop-motion production. The texture of the animation appears almost realistic if not quite painterly, with an aesthetic reminiscent of the 2014 stop-motion film, Box Trolls. The character designs make original use of what is known as shape language – the effective use of simple shapes in character design to communicate both personality and emotion to the viewer.

A fast-paced story like The Twits would be difficult to tell other than through CGI animation. Set pieces such as a city sinking in hot dog grease, a house being displaced by an angry mob and the magic of the Muggle-Wumps require a wealth of technical animation skills.

The magic of animated feature films stems from a substantial team effort. And a successful animation team requires a supportive ecosystem to thrive. The talent list for this film includes more than 350 highly technically skilled artists across cinematography and layout, 3D modelling, art direction, 3D character design, rigging, 3D environment design, 3D lighting, sound, rendering and other fields.

The Twits was produced by the British animation company Jellyfish Pictures before its animation studio closed its doors forever earlier this year. Against the backdrop of a volatile animation industry landscape, it remains important to ensure a favourable climate for animation companies in the UK through continued access to funding, tax breaks and support for skills development in animation practices.

The UK has a longstanding history in children’s animation from the Woodentops in the 1950s to the many iterations of Noddy’s adventures, to Aardman Animation’s many successes, most notably Wallace and Gromit. The UK remains a leading global centre for children’s animation. It is therefore no surprise that the UK was at the heart of the animation pipeline for The Twits.

Animation UK estimates the UK Animation industry’s value at £1.7 billion, with a workforce of 16,000 and over 800 animation production companies. While there are economic challenges, the sector continues to be fuelled by a diverse, highly skilled workforce in which 93% hold a degree. Regional centres such as the University of Greenwich or the National Centre for Computer Animation provide animation degrees across 2D and 3D animation, in support of a talent pool for animated features such as The Twits.

As an international co-production, The Twits points to the fast-paced changes and challenges the animation industry is experiencing globally. But despite such economic headwinds, The Twits is a case in point for just what a labour of love an animated feature film is.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Oliver Gingrich receives funding from Arts and Humanities Research Council.

Min Young Oh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Twits: new Netflix adaptation brings Roald Dahl’s magic to life – https://theconversation.com/the-twits-new-netflix-adaptation-brings-roald-dahls-magic-to-life-267759

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alice Vernon, Lecturer in Creative Writing and 19th-Century Literature, Aberystwyth University

In 1874, renowned chemist Sir William Crookes sat in a darkened room, eyes fixed on a curtain over an alcove. The curtain twitched, and out came a glowing ghost of a young woman, dressed in a white shroud. He was entranced.

But the ghost was fake, and his involvement in séances nearly ruined his career. The lesson wasn’t learned, however, and Crookes, like thousands after him, continued to search for evidence of spirits.

The popularity of the Victorian séance, and its associated pseudo-religion Spiritualism, spread rapidly across the world. From small parlours hushed with the hopes of the recently bereaved, to grand concert halls, audiences were eager for a spooky spectacle.

Ghost-hunting remains an immensely popular cultural interest. Platforms such as YouTube and TikTok are now awash with amateur investigators trudging through abandoned buildings and well-known haunted houses in order to capture evidence.

I’ve spent the last few years researching the social history of ghost-hunting for my new book, Ghosted: A History of Ghost-Hunting, and Why We Keep Looking, to examine ghosts from the perspective of the living. Why do we continue to cling to the hope of finding definite proof of a spectral afterlife?

The active investigation of ghosts became an international phenomenon in 1848, when young sisters Kate and Mary Fox popularised a knocking code to communicate with the ghost that allegedly haunted their farmhouse in Hydesville, New York.

Five years later, it was estimated that they had amassed $500,000 (equivalent to almost £15,000,000 today). Spiritualism spread across the world, particularly to the UK, France and Australia. It was helped along by grief in the aftermath of the American civil war and, in the beginning of the 20th century, the mass bereavement of the first world war.

People turned to Spiritualism and ghost-hunting for fame and fortune, but also for genuine hope and an overwhelming need for evidence that death was not the end.

Rise of the sceptic

In direct parallel with Spiritualism, however, rose sceptics keen to seek out the truth of ghosts. The most vehement critics of Spiritualism were magicians, who felt that mediums were trying to copy their trade but from a morally reprehensible approach. At least a magician’s audience knew they were deliberately being deceived.

The famous illusionist Harry Houdini, for instance, often bitterly argued with his close friend and ardent Spiritualist, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, about the fraudulent practice of mediums.

With the rise of modern scientific laboratories and the development of portable sound and image recording devices in the 20th century, ghost hunting became an increasingly popular and sensationalised hobby. Harry Price, psychical researcher, author and professional hobbyist, used ghost-hunting to create a cult of personality for himself, sniffing out any interesting haunting that could potentially lead to publicity.

But it was also Harry Price who brought ghost-hunting to the media as a form of entertainment. In 1936 he did a live BBC radio broadcast from a haunted house.

Price’s broadcast is the forgotten precursor for ghost-hunting as we know it today. Reality TV shows mimic the format of his 1936 broadcast, with examples such as Most Haunted gaining a loyal following since it began airing on Living TV in 2002. While no longer produced for television, the Most Haunted crew continue to film and post new episodes on their YouTube channel.

It’s also a clear influence for international copies such as Ukraine’s Bytva ekstrasensov and New Zealand’s Ghost Hunt. Social media, too, has changed the way we ghost hunt. It has allowed for amateur groups and investigators to gain an immense audience across various platforms.

But ghost-hunting is also rife with competition as groups and investigators seek to outdo each other for the best evidence. For many, this means coming armed with Ghostbusters-style tools. These can include flashing gadgets and sensors, including electromagnetic field detectors, high-tech sound recorders and even motion-activated LED cat toys.

It’s all in a bid to gain the most “scientific” evidence and, therefore, popularity and respect among their peers. It seems that the more scientific we claim to be in the search for ghosts, the more we allow pseudo-scientific theories to encroach on the hunt.

It’s not about proof, it’s about people

Yet we never give up. This is what fascinated me when I undertook my research. I wanted to know why, after centuries, we’re no closer to achieving conclusive evidence for the paranormal, but ghost-hunting is more popular than ever before.

I even went on a couple of ghost hunts myself to try to figure out this conundrum. The answer, I think, is that ghost-hunting isn’t for scientific discovery at all. It’s for social connection, revealing more about the living than the dead.

I had one of the most fun experiences of my life while on a ghost hunt. Despite being a sceptic, I was drawn into the search, but also to the way it allowed me to connect with new people and with the history of the haunted building itself.

What I’ve learned through my research and experiences is that ghost-hunting is about us, the living, more than the ghosts we try to find. Ghost-hunting, done ethically, is a crucial social activity. It allows us to process grief, to analyse our fears of death and to explore what it means to be alive.

Alice Vernon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why we keep hunting ghosts – and what it says about us – https://theconversation.com/why-we-keep-hunting-ghosts-and-what-it-says-about-us-267173

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Gorard, Professor of Education and Public Policy, Durham University

All secondary-age school pupils in year eight (aged 12 and 13) in England will be required by the government to take a reading test. The declared purpose is to help drive up reading standards so that “everyone can thrive”. Is this additional test a good idea?

Although the results of the tests will not be published, they will be provided to families and to Ofsted (the body responsible for school inspections in England). The existence of the tests may therefore encourage secondary schools to devote more attention to improving reading.

The average levels of reading are high among young people in England, according to international tests. There was a small decline in scores following the pandemic, but this happened nearly everywhere.

The major concern should be for a minority of pupils who arrive at secondary school without the level of literacy needed for school and everyday life. This means that they are unable to access the wider curriculum. Low literacy at this stage is linked to lower exam results when children reach their GCSEs.

Primary schools tend to emphasise literacy and numeracy, but secondary schools introduce separate subject disciplines, many of which are almost impossible to understand without the ability to read fluently. Basic literacy should be a minimal threshold expectation for school attendance.

It is also vital for everyday and later life as a citizen. If the test means that secondary schools will focus even more on these “catch-up” pupils, then so far so good.

A few problems

However, any test involves a cost, as well as the curriculum time devoted to preparing for it. If schools do not prepare for it, then the test will merely provide a snapshot without changing anything.

It will highlight the lower achievement of children from groups we already know come to school with a disadvantage: those with special educational needs and disabilities, and those from poorer backgrounds.

Read more:
Poorer pupils do worse at school – here’s how to reduce the attainment gap

Tests also cause anxiety for some students. And they may not be accurate measures of what was intended. For example, summer-born children, who may start primary school when they are barely four, tend to score lower on reading tests without being behind the expected level for their actual age.

This “summer-born effect” persists well into secondary school. So will the new reading test be calibrated by age? If so, how?

It will be really hard to get everyone to pass this test. Even for the primary phonics screening test, taken in year one, the target is only that 90% of pupils pass. But it is precisely the other 10%, plus a few more (including home-schooled and hospitalised children), that this new test should be aimed at.

Otherwise the results given to Ofsted will just be a summary of the levels of poverty and learning challenges – special educational needs – of the pupil intake to any school. And my research shows that Ofsted is poor at separating context and raw test scores.

The way forward?

If this proposed new secondary school test is meant to be high stakes and to provoke a positive reaction from schools, then why not have it earlier, for a younger age group? Reading is something best learnt young. Perhaps in year four, when there are still two years to prepare for the transition to secondary school – but primary schools may not welcome another test in an already crowded phase.

Either way, a desire to help is not enough. Schools and teachers must know how to help that last 10% or so of children who struggle with reading, cost effectively and efficiently. There is a growing body of robust evidence on how best to improve literacy for struggling readers – but also a proliferation of less useful approaches promoted by advocates, salespeople, and those with a vested interest.

So, in addition to this new test, the government could do more to help schools judge the quality of evidence for or against specific literacy approaches. This would mean that schools use the limited time and resources they have to help children with their reading making use of the most effective ways to get results. They should not simply rely on organisations or commentators who present a collection of evidence without considering the quality of the underlying research.

Stephen Gorard receives funding from Economic and Social Research Council, and Department for Education, to conduct work in this general area.

– ref. Will England’s new reading test for secondary pupils be useful? – https://theconversation.com/will-englands-new-reading-test-for-secondary-pupils-be-useful-267678

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

Within 24 hours last week Donald Trump performed yet another pivot in his approach to the Russian war against Ukraine. It’s become a familiar pattern of behaviour with the US president. First he expresses anger and frustration with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. Then he threatens severe consequences.

And finally – usually after some contact with the Russian president – he finds some imaginary silver lining that, in his considered view alone, justifies backing down and essentially dancing to the Russian dictator’s tune again.

The latest iteration of his by now very predictable sequence of events has unfolded as follows. Back in September, while he was still busy pushing his ultimately unsuccessful campaign to be awarded the Nobel peace prize, the US president began to envisage a Ukrainian victory against Russia. This, he said, would involve Kyiv reclaiming all territory lost to Russia’s aggression since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.

To make this happen, there was suddenly talk of US deliveries of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. Access to these missiles would enable strikes against Russian military assets and energy infrastructure far beyond the current reach of most of Ukraine’s weapons. Trump and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, spoke twice by telephone on October 11 and 12 to discuss the details. A deal was expected to be announced after they met in the White House on October 17.

Yet, the day before that meeting, Trump, apparently at the Kremlin’s request, took a phone call from Putin. Over the course of two hours of flattery and promises of reinvigorated trade relations, the Russian president managed to get Trump to back off his threat to supply Ukraine with Tomahawks.

This message was promptly delivered the following day to the Ukrainian delegation led by Zelensky. While clearly not as disastrous as their first encounter in the White House in February this year, Ukraine’s humiliation was clear.

Not only were Tomahawks taken off the table, but Kyiv and its European allies are essentially back to square one and the very real possibility of a deal between Putin and Trump. Or rather two deals to be hammered out by senior officials first and then sealed at another Trump-Putin summit in Budapest.

The first deal would likely be on the broader terms of a peace settlement. After the meeting, Trump posted on his social media channel that Russia and Ukraine should simply accept the current status quo and stop the fighting. With Trump thus appearing keen – again – to stop the fighting in Ukraine on the basis of a compromise between Russia and Ukraine means that Ukraine would lose as much as 20% of its internationally recognised territory. This is something that Kyiv and its European allies have repeatedly said is unacceptable.

The second deal would be on resetting relations between Washington and Moscow. This is something that Trump has been keen on for some time and suggests that more severe sanctions on Russia and its enablers, including India and China, are unlikely to be forthcoming any time soon.

Before Zelensky’s trip to Washington, there appeared to be some genuine hope that a ceasefire could be established as early as November. But Trump’s arrangements with Putin do not mention a ceasefire. Instead they make an end to the fighting conditional on a deal between the US and Russian presidents, which Zelensky is then simply expected to accept.

This will put further pressure on Ukraine, which suffers from daily attacks against critical infrastructure and is particularly harmful to the country’s economy and civilian population and foreshadows another difficult winter.

Russia continues its push for territory

So far, so bad for Ukraine. But this was not an accidental outcome that could have gone the other way, depending on the whims of Trump. Ever since the US president appeared to shift gear in his approach to the war in late September, the Kremlin carefully prepared the ground for a rapprochement between the two presidents – with a mixture of concern, threats and a good dose of flattery.

The goal of this rapprochement, however, is not a better peace deal for Russia. Putin surely knows this is unrealistic. Rather, it appears that the Kremlin’s main goal was buying itself more time to continue ground offensive in the Donbas.

This is best achieved by preventing the US from fully backing the position of Ukraine and its European allies. In this context, the choice of venue for a potentially deal-clinching summit between Trump and Putin is also interesting.

It will not be possible for Putin to travel to Budapest without flying through Nato airspace and through the airspace of countries that are at least candidate states for EU membership. This will put serious pressure on the EU and Nato to allow Putin passage or otherwise be seen as obstructing Trump’s peacemaking efforts – a narrative that the Kremlin has been peddling for some time, part of its strategy to disrupt the transatlantic relationship.

On the other hand, Trump’s latest turnaround – difficult as it may be for Kyiv to stomach – does not bring Ukraine closer to defeat. In Ukraine, mobilisation is in full swing and domestic arms production is increasing. Ukraine is further helped by the commitment of more than half of Nato’s member states to supply Kyiv with more US weapons.

There are three key takeaways from the diplomatic flurry over the past few weeks.

First, for all of Putin’s bluster, the threat of supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles clearly had an effect. Putin made a move to reach out to Trump, thereby exposing an obvious vulnerability on Russia’s part. Second, and this barely needed confirmation, Trump is not a dependable ally of Ukraine or within the transatlantic alliance. He clearly has not given up on the possibility of a US-Russia deal, including one concluded behind the back and at the expense of Ukraine and European allies.

Finally, Zelensky may be down again after his latest fruitless encounter with Trump, but Ukraine is definitely not out. After all, Trump was right that Russia is a bit of a paper tiger and Ukraine can still win this war, or at least negotiate an acceptable settlement. Until Europe steps up, the key to this remains in the White House.

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

Tetyana Malyarenko does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump’s heated White House meeting with Zelensky shows how well Putin is playing the US president – https://theconversation.com/trumps-heated-white-house-meeting-with-zelensky-shows-how-well-putin-is-playing-the-us-president-267760