It may be that future historians will list one of the causes of World War 3 as the vacillation of President Donald Trump during the spring and summer of 2025.

Did he, in particular, convince Lord Vladimir, the Impaler of Ukraine, that he was no more than a bombastic bully of smaller economies who would turn out to be a coward in a proper fight? After all, his only foray into military aggression came when the Iranian military had already been pounded into near submission. Might an aggressive and acquisitive enemy reasonably conclude that he could deploy a handful of nuclear weapons with impunity?

Provided we survive this brinkmanship, how will our leaders be viewed by future historians? Trump, certainly, as a bombast, a bear of little brain, the antithesis of the cuddly Pooh. Perhaps the harbinger of American economic woe. Putin as a megalomaniac, calculating in his rise to power and seemingly unchallengeable control of his nation. Also correctly understanding the reluctance of America to get seriously involved.

Arriving late to two world wars was quite telling. But then badly misjudging both the determination and resilience of Ukraine, secretly pre-armed with British anti-tank weaponry, and the slow, methodical unity of Western Europe when threatened.Putin also as the individual who impoverished the next generation of Russians, stripping the country of its money, the vigour of its youth and its influence in the World.

This foolish, foolish war has been the downfall of Russian ambition and at the same time the making of Ukraine as a nation and a modern western one at that, something that was previously in question. In a crisis, see an opportunity.

In Germany, Chancellor Merz, has seized the moment to improve the country’s military, finally moving on from the last war. No doubt, he has seen how this can energise his nation more generally, and even get the trains back to arriving on time.

In Britain, Sir Keir Starmer is also using the perceived threat of Russia to induce the British taxpayer to re-fund the military. Of course, our PM was already looking at multiple ways to re-invigorate our tired and complacent nation which suggests that he will be looked on favourably by chroniclers of the future, but only, of course, if he succeeds.

As for the other party leaders, it will be convenient to scapegoat Kemi Badenoch if the Conservatives are, as appears, in terminal decline. But the rot has been there for a long time, in extreme attitudes towards race and the economy, clashing fatally with those in the party who simply want a bit more pride in Britain and a more efficient state.

If I were to blame anyone it would be Margaret Thatcher, for being successful, and thereby convincing all who came after her that cutting public services such as education and health, coupled with bad-mouthing foreigners, was a strategy with a future.

All of the talk right now is of the irresistible rise of Nigel Farage. He, for one, appears convinced. He offers clean, simple (as they would see it) right wing policies while playing on a decade of political disillusion. He can already see his statue outside parliament, feted as the saviour of British values and the Nation, but I suggest that, to capitalise on this ennui, he needs our current leader to be a bit less decisive than we currently see. Of course, I could be wrong!