There is invariably so much in the public domain about the war in Ukraine, with comprehensive media coverage, that further comment seems to be superfluous. But last week’s flurry of high level diplomatic activity was remarkable because it could signal a potentially significant change of strategy by the West.

This diplomacy involved a joint visit to Kyiv by UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and his US counterpart Antony Blinken followed soon after by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s talks with President Biden on a separate visit to Washington.

From what I have learnt, the principal issue for discussion was how to respond to President Zelensky’s repeated request to use within Russia itself the long-range missiles now being supplied to Ukraine by the US and UK. This includes the British-made Storm Shadow missiles that can hit targets up to 155 miles from their launch sites and therefore from Ukraine deep into Russian territory. Reportedly, the talks also covered, inter alia, the deep concern of both sides about Iran and North Korea providing weapons, including ballistic missiles, to Russia.

To date, the US and UK have not given Ukraine permission to use long-range missiles inside Russia, for fear of retaliation and escalation to a wider conflict and use by Putin of nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, the UK had previously said that Ukraine had a clear right generally to use British-provided weapons for “self-defence”.

Now, the Ukrainian president has made it clear that it is essential to strike targets inside Russia with long-range missiles in order to try to stop the launching of its own missiles against Ukraine. He has stressed that - despite the prolongation of Russia’s unjustified and brutal war and the high cost in blood and treasure to Ukraine’s long-suffering people - the country was surviving economically and in other ways with, for example, the resumption of lucrative grain exports through the Bosphorous after taking back control of the Black Sea. But it needed more air defence and long-range missile capability to protect its people and infrastructure.

Although, previously, it has been stipulated that weaponry supplied by NATO countries should be used for Ukraine’s self-defence against Russian aggression but only within Ukrainian territory, now the circumstances of the war have changed. Not only has Ukraine mounted a cross-border incursion into Russian territory but it is also looking to counter Moscow’s increased bombardment of Ukraine. Such bombardment is happening constantly day and night with missiles launched from deep within Russian territory - especially against civilian targets and infrastructure - and Ukraine wants to attack the bases from which these missiles are fired. Zelensky has claimed that during the course of one night last week Russia launched more than seventy Iranian-made drones at Ukraine.

In what have been described as his most hawkish comments ever, Russian leader Vladimir Putin has strongly warned both the US and UK as suppliers of long-range missiles that NATO would be considered to be “participating directly” in the war in Ukraine if restrictions were lifted on using such missiles to strike targets inside Russian territory.

Since Russia sees this as an escalation, it could claim the right to defend itself against perceived NATO aggression, with the implication that nuclear weapons might be used in response and that that would set off a wider world war the consequences of which are seen as too terrible to contemplate.

But analysts are doubtful whether this is, in fact, another of Putin’s so-called red lines which he would act upon. However, he has separately shown hostility by expelling six British diplomats who have been accused of spying. This has been rejected by Britain as completely baseless. Western countries’ judgement appears to be that his threats of retaliation are directed at a weak outgoing US administration and a new British PM who is yet to find his feet - and both have brushed off such threats and reiterated their support for Ukraine.

After his Washington trip, the British prime minister publicly called his talks with Biden productive; but, at the time of writing, there has been no announcement of a decision to allow Ukraine to fire long-range missiles into Russia. However, reportedly, there will be further discussion of the issue - both bilaterally and at the UN General Assembly high-level General Debate on September 24 in New York.

Meanwhile, at this fragile moment in global affairs, there has been endless expert analysis of these developments in Ukraine, the perilous situation in the Middle East and other world trouble spots.

One of the most prominent and best military analysts in the US, retired four-star general Jack Keane, has warned that the West is in a “dangerous situation” and on “a pathway” to World War Three. He has been speaking specifically about current joint military drills and naval and air exercises between Russia and China on a scale not seen for decades. He said that a hugely significant geopolitical change globally during the last few years has been the level of cooperation between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – not least militarily.

The strategic choice for Western countries is either to accept illegal behaviour on the world stage or stand up for and defend the rules-based international order of respect for sovereignty and internationally recognised borders, human rights and the rule of law, and freedoms under democratic governments including freedom of navigation.

So, clearly, the conflict with Russia is not just about Ukraine itself but about protecting these ideals and values in a wider peaceful world and deterring Putin from other such adventures. Thus, carving up Ukraine in order to appease him and secure peace would almost certainly encourage more of the same as he picked off other countries in the region.

As a ruthless and authoritarian leader apparently only interested in power, no one can predict Putin’s next move after he has clearly lost the plot as far as Ukraine is concerned. But most commentators judge that even he would baulk at the prospect of taking on directly the full force of NATO with its tremendous power and the political will to confront him. Furthermore, many people hope that his comparative military failure in Ukraine - as the Red Army has shown itself to be far from invincible - will finally bring him and his collaborators to their senses and end this pointless and unnecessary war.

Active Pope belies his age

As far as I have been able to see, there has been relatively little reporting in the media of The Pope’s recent visit to the Asia-Pacific region. He returned to Rome at the weekend after a gruelling 12-day tour of four different countries – Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Singapore. This meant travelling from one of the world’s poorest countries (East Timor) to one of the richest in the shape of Singapore.

Despite his relatively advanced age (nearly 88 years old) and defying health concerns, he was said to have shown vitality and enthusiasm in connecting with believers and promoting inter-faith harmony so that, according to reports, this overseas visit, which is the longest so far in his eleven year papacy, was judged to have been a success.

Having found it interesting to do some research into what seemed an unlikely tour, it was revealing to learn that Pope Francis, who was elected in 2013, is comfortable travelling while being surrounded by huge crowds and revelling in communicating with people and comforting them. It is said that he has always emphasized the importance of “evangelization” for any Catholic, but that in many parts of the world one of the difficulties is to separate ideas of that and the work of missionaries from notions of colonization.

So, as a Pope who does not shun the limelight, he is said to be almost rejuvenated by the masses who come to see him. Despite slowing down physically because of various medical ailments – respiratory and abdominal problems and impaired mobility – he seems to have had a new lease of life in dealing with a packed agenda on this most recent trip.

All this will explain why he pushes himself to the extent that he agreed to such a long and punishing itinerary, not least when in three of the countries he visited – Indonesia, Singapore and Papua New Guinea – Catholics are in a minority, though Singapore was for many years a strategic regional hub for the Catholic Church.

Supporters say Pope Francis possesses huge stamina and a passion to pursue a tireless mission to reach out to others and to set an example. There is apparently evidence that Catholicism is shrinking in its heartland of Europe while its authority has been eroding as the number of Catholics declines, partly because of the endless shocking revelations about child abuse. Thus, the evidence suggests that the Pope’s mission has evolved over the years beyond spreading the gospel to focusing also on social justice and charitable endeavours together with doing good work generally – including supporting people regardless of their faith as well as working towards inter-faith harmony and respecting other faiths, both of which the Pope has talked about for many years.

This explains, in part, his action during his trip of kissing the hand of the grand Imam of the major mosque in Istanbul and why he was welcomed warmly by people in the Muslim majority countries he visited. Interestingly, he has also shown himself to be a champion of the poor and voiceless by railing against multinational companies that exploit poor countries for their natural resources without properly compensating the local population and taking care of the environment.

So, according to all reports, this Asia-Pacific tour by Pope Francis combined preaching the gospel with a display of how he feels the Church should engage not only with Catholics but with other faiths too. Some traditionalists say, however, that his spirit of outreach may have gone too far. In the longer term only time will. But, as already mentioned, Pope Francis’s visit to the Asia-Pacific region has been regarded as a success as he preached the gospel of love and supported people of other faiths as well as his own.

Hurricane season at its peak

After living in The Bahamas for more than 25 years, one is wary of the dangers of “putting mouth” on something. But is it just possible that we may escape a major hurricane this year?

We are told by the US National Weather Service that the hurricane season in the Caribbean reaches a peak in August and September. In recent years, both Hurricane ‘Matthew’ in 2016 (late September), which was the most powerful storm of that year, and the deadly ‘Dorian’ in 2019 (early September), which was reputed to be the worst cyclone ever to strike the islands of The Bahamas, were said to be testament to that. But a quick check now, in the second half of September, with the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) indicates that currently there are no active storms in the North Atlantic, Caribbean Sea or Gulf of Mexico.

What has been named tropical depression Gordon is lurking somewhere over the mid-Atlantic and the National Hurricane Center is issuing advisories about it. But there is no indication it may develop in to something more serious. So, we have got through August safely and the experts say nothing else is around, even though we were told by the pundits in advance that this year we should expect and prepare for a very active hurricane season.

It is said that by the end of October many people feel confident that the hurricane season is over even though officially it lasts until November 30. Thus, while hiding behind all the appropriate disclaimers, dare I suggest that, with little over a month to go, the odds must be improving daily that, despite those dire predictions, we shall indeed be spared the wrath of Mother Nature in 2024.