AG°Ù¼ÒÀÖÔÚÏß¹ÙÍø

"Sadly, I think we're on the edge of a historic betrayal of historic proportions," says Michael Clarke.

"It looks as if Ukraine is going to lose close to 20% of its territory and the Western world is going to lose 100% of its political credibility.

"The Western world as a construct is dead. It's been sliding fast the last few years, but in recent weeks it's been the final nails in the coffin."

Clarke adds we're now living in a world of "new imperialism" with three great imperialist autocrats who all want to enlarge their countries.

"Vladimir Putin has been clear in where he wants to enlarge his country, Xi Jinping has made it very clear he wants to enlarge his country into Taiwan and the South China Sea, and Donald Trump is determined to enlarge his country," says Clarke.

"He's pretty serious about taking Greenland and about Panama and Canada."

Clarke adds Trump's vision is to bring together the three leaders at a "great conference to settle the world".

Clarke says Trump, alongside Putin and Xi, cares most about his own country and not Ukrainians, Palestinians, Taiwanese or NATO members.

"We're living in very dark days, I'm afraid."

"Firstly, there's not that many," Michael Clarke says of the looming mineral deal between the US and Ukraine. 

"The point of the deal... is that the US and Ukraine say we'll develop [the minerals] together," he says.

He says it doesn't include any military guarantees, but it effectively offers Ukraine implicit US security protections, as Washington will have a direct economic stake in the game. 

He notes that estimates of how much and where these minerals are is all based on the Soviet era. 

He also suggests that Volodymyr ZelenAG°Ù¼ÒÀÖÔÚÏß¹ÙÍøy didn't realise who he was selling to. 

"He didn't realise he was dealing with such a predatory leadership," he says.

Michael Clarke says Ukraine could carry on fighting with what it has.

He says: "If some really hopeless deal is forced on them with Russian sweeteners which reduces their ability to operate as a sovereign state then they might say 'why should we sign our own death warrant?' 

"It's hard to negotiate with someone who is trying to kill you.

"It is plausible they could keep on going but at some point, Ukraine has got to be brought into this deal and persuaded this is the best offer."

With the US seemingly no longer willing to act as Europe's security guarantee under the Trump administration, our next question ponders what this could mean for the continent.

Marlon asks if Europe's nuclear capability is enough of a deterrent to Russia if it decides to target Europe.

Michael Clarke says it is, pointing to the French and British nuclear capabilities as examples of European nations that could defend the continent if required. 

He says if Europe needed to "beef up" its nuclear capabilities, it could expand to having air delivered weapons.

Currently, nuclear weapons in a time of war would be fired via submarines, one of which is capable of delivering 40 warheads.

"We could supplement it with aircraft, like Typhoons or F-35s that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads."

Russia currently controls the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant - the largest in Europe - and previously held control of the Chernobyl disaster zone. 

So are they at risk? 

Michael Clarke says both sites are vulnerable. 

Ukraine and the West must make sure that proper engineers are able to access any occupied sites "depending on how a peace deal worked out", Clarke says. 

The international nuclear agencies are "very worried" about the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in particular, he says. 

Michael Clarke says there do "not necessarily" need to be physical defences at the border.

"It's probably more efficient to monitor the border by remote means," he says.

"This could be sensors, space-based imagery, satellites, drones.

"You can look after a border remotely without having physical barriers although Ukraine may want to have some minefields behind their part of the border.

"Minefields don't stop anyone crossing the border but they do slow them down and give the defender time to organise themselves."

Michael Clarke says Russia's ground forces have been rundown by the war in Ukraine and will need "three or four years" to regather.

But he says they are "still capable of intervening" even as they stand.

"They could take Moldova for sure - it wouldn't take very much," says Clarke.

"Three or four brigades would be sufficient to do the sort of operations we regard as threatening."

Looking at other areas of Russia's military, Clarke says the Black Sea naval fleet has been hit hard, although its North and Pacific fleets are still in good shape.

Russia's air force meanwhile is still "largely what it was" before the war began as it never fully committed itself to the conflict.

"They've held back, precisely because they fear Western air power, which is much stronger than Russian air power."

Clarke also says Russia's nuclear forces are generally modernised and refurbished.

What about the prospect of Vladimir Putin targeting another country after Ukraine? 

Security and defence analyst Michael Clarke says Moldova, Georgia and the Baltic states are most "vulnerable".

"There's already a Russian-speaking breakaway region in Moldova," he says, referring to Transnistria and noting Moscow has previously stationed troops there illegally. 

On Georgia, he says he thinks Russian forces could sweep in if pro-democracy protests continue to rival the pro-Moscow Georgia Dream party. 

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are also at risk, he notes. 

Vladimir Putin has previously said the Baltic states are part of Russia's natural empire, Clarke notes. 

On the first two, he fears Moscow could "excite the Russian-speaking minorities" and then smuggle in troops for something more serious. 

Lithuania, he notes, borders Putin ally Belarus and is also near the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. 

Military analyst Michael Clarke says he does not think the Russians will get an all out victory.

"Ukraine's American supplies will last for a few months yet and they're getting more supplies that have been promised from European partners," he says.

"The Russians have not been capable of making a breakthrough."

He says Russia has used up its army and is now behaving in a way "at variance with their doctrine".

"They're grinding forward and I don't see any prospect of the Russians being able to make a breakthrough," he adds.

"They could grab more territory but could they get to Odesa? I doubt it."

Our first question for Michael Clarke is about suggestions that a peacekeeping force could be deployed in Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

The Kremlin has labelled the idea "unacceptable", though Ukraine's allies, including Britain and France, have offered to commit troops if asked.

Clarke says the shape of a peacekeeping force would depend on the rubric of the peace negotiations.

"We have no idea what the mission would be," he says. "ZelenAG°Ù¼ÒÀÖÔÚÏß¹ÙÍøy said he'd need 110,000 troops to manage the entire border.

"You'd actually need 333,000 troops set aside for this, as you'd need other groups training and resting to replace other groups."

But Clarke points out that even without US support, peacekeeping forces can come from all over.

"UN peacekeeping troops come in all shapes and sizes," he adds. 

"A lot of Latin American countries commit troops, countries like Indonesia, India, China all have large armies.

"It would be possible if countries would be prepared to do it. But I'm not sure at the moment anybody would put their hand up to it as they don't know what the mission would be, and we won't know for some time."