Trump won't change despite Putin 'slap in face' - and why China doesn't mind Ukraine war | Michael Clarke Q&A

That's a wrap for another Michael Clarke Ukraine war Q&A.

You can watch it back at the top of the page - or scroll down to read our summaries of his best answers.

Since he first came to power in Russia in 2008, the control Vladimir Putin exerts over the federation has grown steadily tighter.

But how involved is the president in the detail of his "special operation" in Ukraine, one viewer asks. 

Does he decide which targets to strike or is he happy to let his generals get on with the job? 

Our expert says he's too involved.

"He shouldn't be, and in general he isn't, but he intervenes," says Clarke.

He believes normal procedures will see Putin setting the strategy and deciding with his advisers on broad goals, while his forces tell him what they can contribute.

But Russia's military focus in Ukraine doesn't look like it's a pure military strategy driven by a commander of the forces.

Clarke says:

"I'm astonished by the way the Russians keep changing the locus of their attack. They're attacking in one place, and then suddenly they were attacking somewhere else. And you think that's [Putin] changing his mind" 

He believes Putin interferes with changing the locus of their attack because he wants to be able to announce certain victories.

Clarke says a "competent commander with real control over the forces" would have pushed on to the fortress cities from the south without trying to take Bakhmut for over a year and without getting sidetracked in Lyman. 

But, he qualifies, this can't be proven objectively.

Once great enemies, Russia and China appear to have achieved a much better understanding since the start of the Ukraine war.

And China has not been shy about offering its own thoughts on the conflict.

It provided a 12-point plan for peace in 2023 - which Ukraine and the West rejected. 

It has also regularly criticised Western sanctions imposed on Moscow. 

But one viewer asks whether it is time for China to be asked to step up and help achieve a deal that could end the conflict? And how much interest does it have in doing so?  

Michael Clarke says the war in Ukraine is bad for the world economy, which the Chinese are "intrinsic" to, but Beijing is willing to live with the conflict in the short terms for two reasons.

"One is that they they like the idea that this is splitting NATO. That suits them. This is breaking up the present system. 

"The international order is in a state of collapse. It's been broken on the anvil of Ukraine. The Chinese quite like that, for their own reasons."

"Their other short term reason is they don't want Russia to lose," Clarke says.

"They don't particularly want to see Putin triumphant, but they don't want to see Putin humiliated. 

"And they don't want to see Putin so humiliated that there's a revolution in Russia and Russia becomes deeply unstable."

Alongside the US, the European Union is another major power bloc that could exert some influence on the Ukraine-Russia war. 

One viewer wonders whether it's time for the EU to implement a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

A no-fly zone over Ukraine would mean that military forces - specifically NATO forces - would engage directly with any Russian planes spotted in those skies and shoot at them if necessary.

Military analyst Michael Clarke says it's NATO - not the EU - that would be able to enforce such a move.

He says a no-fly zone could work "in theory" as part of a series of measures to protect Ukraine's sovereignty as part of a peace deal.

The issue, Clarke says, is that he believes such a peace deal - and therefore a reassurance force for Ukraine - is close to being announced.

"In a month's time, I think I'll either be proved spectacularly wrong or quietly right. Smugly," he says.

'Russia would go berserk'

Playing devil's advocate, Clarke says there might be a no-fly zone "if there is some mileage in a ceasefire" and if Ukraine's European allies can assemble a reassurance force.

"The Russians would go berserk. They'd call it an act of war. 

"But what the Europeans would be doing would be flying inside the airspace of a friend at the friend's request, to help them against an external aggressor."

The nuclear arms deal might yet be in the balance, but one agreement Trump did announce this week was with India, which he says will avoid buying Russian oil as a result.

"This will help END THE WAR in Ukraine," the US president said in a social media post.

Is that actually going to happen? Early signs from India suggest Russian oil imports will not end immediately.  

But Michael Clarke says previous attempts to limit India's oil purchases from Russia have certainly had an effect.

Trump previously sanctioned Russian oil giants Rosneft and Lukoil, from which India was buying oil.

The Indians were taking about two million barrels a day before Trump's announcement, Clarke says. 

As a result, India has gone from that to one million barrels a day within six months, which was "still a fair bit", he adds.

Trump then threatened 50% tariffs on India, which he promised to reduce to 15% if it would stop buying Russian oil.

The deal both sides have cut gives India about 8 or 10 weeks from now, but they cannot close new contracts after that. 

"So it looks as if they're going to come down to about half a million barrels a day," says Clarke.

Clark summarises:

"I give America some credit. I don't like the way they use tariffs but in this particular case, with sanctioning Rosneft and Lukoil, it has had an effect on India's support for the war and a little bit of an effect on China, and it is contributing to the lack of revenue which the Russians are now having to struggle with."

The New Start Treaty, an agreement signed in 2010 between the US and Russia to limit the number of nuclear arms on each side, is due to expire on Thursday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed in September that the treaty could ‍be informally extended for another year, but as of Wednesday, US President Donald Trump had not responded. 

So, asks one viewer, what comes next?

Michael Clarke says the expiration probably won't make much practical difference in the short term, because both sides don't have any plans to increase their numbers.

New Start maintained a limit of around 1,500 nuclear weapons, and total stockpiles of around 5,000 weapons, on each side, he says.

"That probably won't change, because that picture is relatively stable and it suits them both. 

"In the height of the Cold War between them, they had 70,000 nuclear weapons of all shapes and sizes."

"10,000 is enough to blow the world up - but it's a comfort to know they can't do it seven times over," Clarke adds.

The US has given no indication of renewing the treaty but might make a sudden decision "right up to midnight tonight", Clarke says.

He adds...

"Generally speaking, the Russians are always trying to make gestures to bring themselves back in from the cold, to make themselves acceptable again to the Western world. 

"On this one, sheer pragmatism says if they're offering a rollover of an essential treaty, take it. Then you've got a year to sort out what we might be able to do about some of the other things."

"Conceptually, today is a big day to the end of the best regime for war limitation that the world has seen," Clarke concludes.

Several viewers have been asking about Ukraine's response to Russian strikes, with a specific mention of longer-range missiles like the Flamingo.

This is the colloquial name for the FP-5s, given because initial versions were pink, due to a factory error. 

In August, Volodymyr Zelenskyy described it as Ukraine's most successful missile.

Michael Clarke says Kyiv does not want to target Russia's energy infrastructure as this could be considered a war crime on the Russian population.

Instead, Ukraine has targeted Russia's oil refining capacity, which it has done "very successfully" so far, Clarke notes.

"They're going after the refineries in order to create shortages, which they have of petrol," he explains.

"By going after the refined capacity, they affect just the Russian economy. They don't really directly impact the price of oil because that would upset the Americans.

"Russia has increased petrol prices considerably by 15-20% inside a year. And they look as if they're going up further. 

"They've had to stop exporting any refined petrol because they just don't have enough of it. And so that's been the Ukrainian response."

While NATO chief Mark Rutte was in Ukraine, he visited a heating plant Russia is said to have struck with missiles - that's despite Donald Trump claiming Putin agreed to spare energy infrastructure while Ukraine copes with a brutal winter with temperatures as low as -30C. 

Trump is apparently "unsurprised" by the strike. 

But will the US president take any action in response? 

Our military analyst doesn't think so.

"President Trump will just say what he said," Clarke says.

Nevertheless, he considers it remarkable that Trump even made the effort to try to arrange a ceasefire.

Clarke says it was the only example over the past 15 or 16 phone calls Trump and Putin had where Trump asked Putin for something and not the other way around - which led to a back and forth about the terms.

The Russian president's counterproposal was an energy ceasefire until last Monday, which only applied to Kyiv, not the rest of the country.

Trump claimed in turn that it was in fact for the whole country for a week, which was again denied by Putin.

According to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Russia then used the factual ceasefire of 48 hours to stockpile everything it fired towards Ukraine over the next 48 hours.

'They've got a complete map of the system'

Clarke also makes an observation about why the effect on Ukraine's energy infrastructure has been so profound.

"The Ukrainian power system is the old Soviet system, so the Russians know where everything is," he said. 

"So they've got a complete map of the system because nothing has been built since 1991.

"Second thing is that, because it's the old Soviet system, it's very centralised.

"So you knock out certain key stations and you knock out enormous areas of conurbations in the west."

The notion that Ukraine would have to give something up to end the war that Russia started has existed ever since US President Donald Trump started trying to kick start a peace deal. 

NATO chief Mark Rutte - who has developed a reputation as a so-called "Trump whisperer" - seemed to emphasise the point on Tuesday during a visit to Kyiv when he warned ending the conflict will require tough choices.

One viewer wonders whether this could mean Ukraine being expected to withdraw from the Donbas - a contested region crucial to Zelenskyy due to its "fortress cities".

"I don't think so," our military analyst Michael Clarke says.

"There was nothing in that [Rutte's] statement that I saw which indicated any softening of his line, and he was bound to say that sort of thing. 

"Privately he might be saying to them 'You're going to have to give a bit more', but if he is saying that I don't think they'll accept it."

Clarke adds: "The only possibility I could think of is that maybe Rutte might have made some off-the-cuff comment that he wanted to be picked up by the White House, to show that he is doing all he can to support American thinking about the peace negotiations."

Tune in to the live stream above to watch along - we'll also bring you text updates right here.

And if you get any ideas, feel free to submit last-minute questions in the box above.