In a single post, the president–elect told the world what the end of the Ukraine war might look like. And it is going to be a big diplomatic ask, to say the least.

“I am very pleased to nominate General Keith Kellogg to serve as Assistant to the President and Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social channel. “Together, we will secure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, and Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN!”

By appointing Keith Kellogg as his special envoy to Ukraine, Donald Trump has also chosen a very specific, pre-announced plan for the thorniest foreign policy issue on his plate.

Kellogg, Trump’s 80-year-old former national security advisor, has laid out his peace plan in some detail, writing for the America First policy institute in April.

It begins calling the war “an avoidable crisis that, due to the Biden Administration’s incompetent policies… has entangled America in an endless war.”

In short, a ceasefire will freeze the frontlines and both sides will be forced to the negotiating table. But it is in the longer details where it all gets complex.

Changing the US’ involvement

Kellogg spends most time berating Biden’s actions – saying that his administration gave too little lethal aid too late. He says Trump’s decision to give the first lethal aid to Ukraine in 2018 conveyed the strength needed to confront Putin, and that Trump’s soft approach to the Kremlin head – not demonizing him like Biden has – will enable him to strike a deal.

Kellogg says more weapons should have been given before the Russian invasion, and immediately afterwards, to enable Ukraine to win.

Kellogg says the United States doesn’t need involvement in another conflict, and its own stocks of weaponry have suffered from aiding Ukraine, leaving the country potentially exposed in any conflict with China over Taiwan. He says Ukraine’s NATO membership – in truth a very distant prospect, tentatively offered to Kyiv in symbolic solidarity – should be put on hold indefinitely, “in exchange for a comprehensive and verifiable peace deal with security guarantees.”

Foremost, the plan says it should become “a formal US policy to seek a ceasefire and negotiated settlement.”

It says future US aid – likely given as a loan – will be conditioned on Ukraine negotiating with Russia, and the US will arm Ukraine to the extent it can defend itself and stop any further Russian advances before and after any peace deal. This latter suggestion is perhaps dated by the fast Moscow advance underway in eastern Ukraine and the current high US level of aid already makes Kellogg uncomfortable.

Kellogg credits partially a 2023 article by Richard Haas and Charles Kupchan for some of the next ideas.

A freeze to the frontlines

The frontlines would be frozen by a ceasefire, and a demilitarized zone imposed. For agreeing to this, Russia would get limited sanctions relief, and full relief only when a peace deal is signed that is to Ukraine’s liking. A levy on Russian energy exports would pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Ukraine would not be asked to give up on reclaiming occupied territory, but it would agree to pursue it through diplomacy alone. It accepts “this would require a future diplomatic breakthrough which probably will not occur before Putin leaves office.”

It is fetchingly simple and swift in its approach. But it lacks an accommodation of what Moscow will demand and has used the diplomatic process for in the past: To cynically pursue military advances. The freezing of the frontlines will precipitate a very violent few months ahead as Moscow seeks to take as much ground as it can. The Kremlin has in the past ignored ceasefires and pursued its territorial objectives – often blankly denying that it is.

A demilitarized zone would likely need to be policed, possibly putting NATO troops, or soldiers from other non-aligned nations, in between the two sides. That will be hard to maintain and staff, to say the least. It would be enormous, spanning hundreds of miles of border, and a massive financial investment.

Arming Ukraine to the extent it can stop present and future Russian advances will also be tough. The plan notes the United States manufactures 14,000 155 artillery rounds a month, which Ukraine can use up in just 48 hours. Paradoxically, Kellogg wants the US to arm Ukraine more, yet also accepts they really can’t.

A change in values

Two lines provide a wider insight into the author’s thinking. He says that national security, the American First way, was about practical necessities.

“Biden replaced the Trump approach with a liberal internationalist one that promoted Western values, human rights, and democracy,” he writes. That is a pretty grim base from which to build a compromise on European security.

He adds that some critics of continued aid to Ukraine – in which he seems to include himself – are “worried about whether America’s vital strategic interests are at stake in the Ukraine War, the potential of the involvement of US military forces and whether America is engaged in a proxy war with Russia that could escalate into a nuclear conflict.”

These two sentences provide the ultimate backdrop for the deal proposed: That Ukraine’s war is about values we don’t need to perpetuate, and we should step back from Putin’s nuclear threat. It is the opposite of the current unity in which the West prioritizes the values of its own way of life and security, based on the lesson of the Thirties that appeased dictators don’t stop.

The plan presents Ukraine with a welcome chance for an end to the violence, at a time when it is losing on all fronts, and darkly short of basic manpower – a hurdle it may never overcome, and something in which Russia will likely always outpace it.

But it begins a process in which a wily and deceitful Putin will revel. Exploiting a ceasefire and Western weakness is his forte, the moment he has been waiting nearly three years for. The plan accepts Western fatigue, that its armament production cannot keep pace, and that its values are wasteful. It also makes little accommodation for what Russia will do to upset its vision.

It is a bleak compromise for a bleak war. But it may not end it and instead open a new chapter where Western unity and support begins to crumble, and Putin edges, both at the negotiating table and at the front, closer towards his goals.

Over 1,000 days of war, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned Kyiv’s Western allies of dire – potentially nuclear – consequences if they “escalate” the war by giving Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself.

Putin’s threats became even fiercer this month after the Biden administration finally gave Kyiv permission to launch longer-range American weapons at targets deep inside Russia. In response, Putin updated Russia’s nuclear doctrine and fired a new, nuclear-capable ballistic missile at Ukraine. The message was taken as a clear threat to Ukraine’s backers: Don’t test us.

But, nearly three years into the war, these developments have assumed a familiar rhythm. Each time Ukraine made a request – first asking for tanks, then fighter jets, then cluster munitions, then long-range weapons – its allies agonized over whether to grant it, fearing it would escalate the conflict and provoke a Russian response.

Each time, when the West finally accepted Ukraine’s requests, Russia’s most catastrophic threats did not materialize. What was taboo one week became normal the next.

Instead, they said the anxious reaction to Ukraine’s newly granted powers is another example of the Kremlin’s successful strategy of forcing the West to see the conflict on Russia’s terms, confusing each fresh attempt by Ukraine to resist Russian aggression as a major “escalation.”

Alongside the battlefields, the Kremlin has been engaged in a fight to force the West to argue from Russian premises rather than its own, and to “make decisions in that Kremlin-generation alternative reality that will allow Russia to win in the real world,” the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a think-tank, said in a report in March.

“The persistent Western debates and delays in Western military aid to Ukraine is a clear example of the Kremlin’s successful reflexive control strategy, which had committed the Western to self-deterrence despite routine Russian escalations of the war,” Stepanenko said.

This strategy could be seen in action on Thursday after Russia launched a large-scale attack targeting Ukraine’s power grid. Although Putin said the attack was “a response from our side” to the Biden administration’s decision on longer-range weapons, Russia has not needed a pretext for such strikes in the past.

The recent policy changes by Ukraine’s Western allies – which came after Russia involved some 11,000 North Korean troops in its war effort – “is not an escalation as the Kremlin is attempting to frame it,” Stepanenko said.

“Russia launched an unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine and had been routinely escalating the war to sustain its initiative on the battlefield. The approval of Ukraine’s use of long-range strike systems against Russia is finally allowing Ukraine to level out its capabilities,” she said.

‘Nonsense’ policies

The Biden administration sent US-made Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, to Ukraine earlier this year, but placed strict conditions on how they could be used: They could be fired at Russian targets in occupied Ukraine, but not on Russia’s own territory.

William Alberque, a former director of NATO’s Arms Control, Disarmament, and WMD Non-Proliferation Centre, said this policy made little sense – and was to Russia’s huge benefit.

“I’m sure the Russian commanders couldn’t believe their luck. ‘So if I set up my command headquarters here, they’ll blow me up, but if I set up a kilometer away, I’m fine? Really? Awesome!’”

In effect, this policy led to “the idea that Russia can kill anyone anywhere in Ukraine, but Ukraine can’t kill the troops that are actually attacking them if they’re across the border (in Russia).” This idea is “nonsense,” Alberque said.

Shifting red lines

Amid the anxious responses to last week’s developments, it is easy to forget that Ukraine has long launched home-grown drones at targets extremely deep in Russia – and that it had already fired Western weapons at territory the Kremlin considers its own. The decision to fire slightly longer-range Western weapons is a difference of degree, not of kind.

For more than a year, Kyiv has used British Storm Shadows to strike Crimea, which Russia has occupied since 2014. For months, Kyiv has been allowed to fire ATACMS at Russian targets in occupied Ukraine. By law, Russia considers these territories its own, and warned of dire consequences if Ukraine targeted them with Western weaponry.

Since May, Washington has also allowed Kyiv to use shorter-range American rockets to strike targets in Russia across the border from Ukraine’s northeastern Kharkiv region. Before President Joe Biden green-lighted that decision, Putin made similar nuclear threats, warning the move could lead to “serious consequences” for “small and densely populated countries.” It did not.

“Again and again, we prove that when you cross a fake red line – nothing really happens,” said Alberque. Still, he said the threats were enough to prevent the West from giving Ukraine what it needed to defend itself.

Although the threats have yet again intensified following last week’s developments, Albuquerque said there is little reason to suspect that this time really is different. The prospect of an incoming Donald Trump administration – long assumed to be Putin’s desired outcome – means Russia is even less likely than usual to make good on its threats.

“The (risk) that they’re suddenly going to do something that would risk actual intervention by the United States or by NATO allies – or would fundamentally change global attitudes towards the conflict – is relatively low,” said Alberque.

A Beijing court sentenced veteran Chinese state media journalist Dong Yuyu on Friday to seven years in prison for espionage, a family member told Reuters.

Former Guangming Daily editor and journalist Dong Yuyu, 62, was detained by police in Beijing in February 2022 while having lunch with a Japanese diplomat, according to a statement from the US National Press Club, and later charged with espionage.

There was a heavy police presence outside Beijing’s No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court, with at least seven police cars parked nearby. Reuters journalists were asked to leave the area.

A US diplomat told Reuters that they had been barred from attending the hearing.

Dong has been detained in a Beijing prison awaiting the verdict since a closed-court hearing in July 2023, the press club said in September.

He regularly had in-person exchanges with foreign diplomats from various embassies and journalists. The Japanese diplomat he met was also detained for several hours, triggering a strong complaint from the Japanese foreign ministry.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said at the time that the diplomat was engaged in activities “inconsistent with their capacity” in China. The diplomat was later released.

Dong participated in the prestigious Harvard Nieman Fellowship and was a visiting scholar and visiting professor at Keio University and Hokkaido University in Japan, according to a family statement in April 2023.

He joined the Communist Party-affiliated Guangming Daily in 1987 after graduating from Peking University law school, and was the deputy editor of its commentary section.

He had written opinion articles in Chinese media and liberal academic journals on topics from legal reforms to social issues, and co-edited a book promoting the rule of law in China. His articles advocated moderate reforms while avoiding direct criticism of Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

His family had initially kept news of his detention private in the hope that charges could be reduced or dropped but were notified in March 2023 that his case would be sent to trial, their statement said.

Multiple press freedom non-government organizations (NGO) have called for his release. An online petition for his release has collected over 700 signatures from journalists, academics and NGO workers.

“Dong Yuyu is a talented reporter and author whose work has long been respected by colleagues at home and abroad,” said Ann Marie Lipinski, curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. “We stand with many in hoping for his release and return to his family.”

The Australian writer and pro-democracy blogger Yang Hengjun was handed a suspended death sentence on espionage charges by a Beijing court in February.

Australia has warned travelers against drinking spirits made by a Laos distiller, following the deaths of six foreign tourists from suspected methanol poisoning in the Southeast Asian country.

The updated travel advice published Friday cited “serious safety concerns” over Laos’ Tiger-branded vodka and whisky in the wake of a mass poisoning earlier this month in the northern town of Vang Vieng, a popular backpacker destination.

“Lao authorities have issued an order prohibiting the sale and consumption of Tiger Vodka and Tiger Whisky due to their concerns about these products being a health risk,” the Australian advisory said.

“Be alert to the potential risks particularly with spirit-based drinks including cocktails.”

No reports of Laos’ apparent ban on the Tiger-branded spirits have been published in the country’s English-language state media. Warnings about the potentially fatal consequences of drinking tainted alcohol following the poisonings have come from foreign governments to their own citizens, not from Laos authorities.

Laos, an opaque communist state, tightly controls its media and remained silent on the deaths for more than a week before issuing its first statement. More than two weeks later, details surrounding the tourists’ deaths and how they became ill – including how widespread the poisonings are – remain scant, frustrating families and fellow travelers trying to piece together what happened in Vang Vieng.

Australians Bianca Jones and Holly Bowles, both 19; Danish nationals Anne-Sofie Orkild Coyman, 20, and Frela Vennervald Sorensen, 21; US citizen James Louis Hutson, 57; and British lawyer Simone White, 28, died from suspected methanol poisoning after drinking alcohol in Vang Vieng.

Earlier this week, eight Vietnamese staff members of a backpacker hostel where at least five of the victims had stayed were detained by local authorities, according to the state-affiliated Laotian Times.

Part of the investigation has focused on reports the tourists were offered free shots of alcohol at the Nana Backpacker Hostel.

The hostel manager and owner, who are also Vietnamese, were previously detained for questioning by police, according to the Associated Press. The manager had earlier said the two Australian women joined more than 100 guests for free shots at the hostel before leaving for a night out, but he denied that other guests had reported any issue, AP reported.

Many respondents described getting sick after drinking at multiple bars or hostels around the town.

Laos Tiger Vodka and Tiger Whisky are a brand of locally produced spirits that are cheap to buy and often used in mixed drinks and cocktails. The brand does not appear to have a public website and the vodka label says it is “distilled, blended and bottled in Laos”.

Methanol is an alcohol chemical commonly used in industrial solvents, cleaning products and fuel, though it can be added to alcoholic drinks either inadvertently through traditional brewing methods or deliberately to boost the volume of alcoholic drinks – usually in the pursuit of profit.

Just small amounts of methanol can cause blindness, nausea and vomiting, while drinking as little as 30 milliliters (1 ounce) can be lethal.

If not treated, fatality rates are reported to be 20% to 40%, depending on the concentration of the methanol and the amount ingested, according to medical charity Doctors Without Borders, which tracks cases of methanol poisoning globally.

British lawmakers are set to decide Friday whether to legalize assisted dying, a contentious proposal that would make the United Kingdom one of a small handful of nations to allow terminally ill people to end their lives.

An emotive debate Friday in Westminster is expected to last several hours, before a vote later in the day.

If passed, the bill will let people with a terminal condition and fewer than six months to live take a substance to end their lives as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves. Two doctors, followed by a High Court judge, would need to sign off on the choice.

The legislation would see Britain join a small collection of countries to push forward with the process. Canada, New Zealand, Spain and most of Australia allow assisted dying in some form, as do US states Oregon, Washington and California.

The vote is the culmination of a lengthy and occasionally painful debate in the country, which has seen high-profile figures dealing with terminal diagnoses become standard-bearers for the cause.

But it has sharply divided lawmakers, many of whom have labored to choose a side during an unusually strained week in Westminster, and the results of the vote appeared to be on a knife-edge. Members of Parliament have been given a free vote on the issue, meaning they can support either side according to their conscience, with no political ramifications.

In an open letter to MPs ahead of the vote, Esther Rantzen, a BBC TV presenter with advanced lung cancer who has become a prominent supporter of assisted dying, wrote: “Under our current criminal law the only choice for most people who are terminally ill, if they are facing an agonising death, is between suffering, Switzerland or suicide.” Rantzen has previously said she is herself considering using the Swiss assisted dying clinic Dignitas to end her life.

She urged MPs on all sides to vote on the issue. “This will probably not come before Parliament as an issue to debate for another decade,” she wrote. “How many more will be forced to suffer until then?”

But opponents have cited a variety of concerns with the bill, including their religious views, the strength of its safeguards, or the lack of time to consider its fineprint.

‘Parliament is tearing itself in two’

It is rare that British lawmakers are asked to decide for themselves on such an intimate issue, and many have struggled this week over how they will vote.

MPs will likely debate the issue for several hours. The vote, expected to immediately follow the debate, represents the major hurdle that the bill would need to pass to become law, though it would still be reviewed in the House of Lords and by a parliamentary committee.

Friday’s ballot in the House of Commons bears similarities to previous free votes concerning abortion and same-sex marriage. The prime minister, Keir Starmer, is expected to vote himself, but he hasn’t said which side he will support, insisting he wouldn’t want to influence lawmakers in either direction.

Proponents of the bill say assisted dying can bring dignity to terminal patients at the end of their lives, averting months of suffering and physical decline, and easing pressure on the country’s palliative, or end-of-life, services. Polling indicates that a comfortable majority of the public supports assisted dying.

In her open letter, Rantzen wrote: “The tragic truth is that no matter how excellent the palliative care is, it cannot prevent some kinds of suffering, fecal vomiting for example, or suffocating to death, or deep-rooted agony.”

But critics fear the bill’s guardrails are not stringent enough, and suggest patients could feel pressured to opt for an assisted death only to avoid becoming a burden on their families. Others have concerns that the bill has been sprung on MPs – hundreds of whom are in their first few months in the job following July’s election – without a thorough impact assessment or time to consider the proposal.

“I really believe that Labour got elected because the NHS is such a mess. … We’ve got to sort the NHS out before we go down this route,” she said. “Pressing ahead now is ignoring the imperative we’ve got to address the woefully underfunded palliative system.”

The proposed bill is broadly in line with the Oregon model, and does not go as far as Switzerland, the Netherlands and Canada, which allow assisted death in cases of suffering, not just for terminally ill people. It differs from euthanasia, the process in which another person deliberately ends someone’s life to relieve suffering.

It is currently a crime to help somebody die in England and Wales, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Performing euthanasia on a person, meanwhile, is considered murder or manslaughter.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been displaced multiple times from Israeli airstrikes across the Gaza Strip are now facing another threat – the arrival of harsh winter weather.

On Sunday, the first strong storm to hit Gaza this winter was felt in all parts of the enclave.

In a makeshift displacement camp near the sea in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza, thousands of families battled high tides, heavy winds and rainfall that damaged their nylon and plastic tents.

“It’s pointless!” one man shouted.

“We came here because the sea was our only protection. And now the sea is attacking us,” another said.

The wooden poles holding up the tents, barely anchored to the ground, shook with every gust of wind. Families shuffled around them in distress, worried they’d collapse.

The head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) warned Tuesday in a post on X that as winter comes, people in Gaza “need everything, but very little comes in.”

“Winter in Gaza means people will not only die because of air strikes, diseases or hunger. Winter in Gaza means more people will die shivering because of the cold, especially among the most vulnerable including older people + children,” Philippe Lazzarini said.

In October, the amount of aid entering Gaza hit the lowest level since Israel’s war in the enclave started, according to data compiled by the UN.

The average temperature in Gaza falls to between 10°C and 20°C (50F to 68F) in December, dipping a couple of degrees lower on average in January. The rainy season typically lasts from November to February, with January the wettest month.

The water that flooded into some tents in Deir al-Balah soaked everything inside, leaving blankets and carpets a tangled, dusty mess. Large plastic sheets which served as the floor sunk into the wet sand, leaving nothing between those sheltering inside and the bare ground.

“What will keep us warm tonight?” Mohammad Younis asked, as he picked up his wet clothes.

“We’re like beggars in front of the world, and nobody cares about us. I don’t know where I’ll sleep. I’ll end up sleeping in the sea,” he cried.

The tarpaulin serving as a roof on Younis’ tent is now torn, allowing water in.

In another makeshift tent flooded by the raging sea, a displaced family of 10 sat shivering while the mother, Um Fadi, cooked over a fire. When they were displaced from Rafah months ago, she said, they were forced to shelter on the beach because there was nowhere else to go.

“We’re trapped from all directions. From the sea, from the Israelis, from not having a home, from hunger,” she said.

Families ‘cold and at risk’

After a year of war following Hamas’ October 7 attacks on Israel, at least 1.9 million people – or about 90% of the population across the Gaza Strip – are internally displaced, according to the UN. Many have been displaced repeatedly, some 10 times or more, it added.

The Norwegian Refugee Council said in a recent report that Israel’s continued offensive has given Palestinians fewer options for shelter this year compared to last.

“This winter, as fewer buildings remain standing, many Palestinians are forced to live in tents and makeshift shelters that provide considerably less protection against cold wind and rain,” the report said.

As of September 2024, more than 200,000 housing units in Gaza had been destroyed and severely damaged, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which added that nearly 1 million people are in need of “winterization support.”

Tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians have sought shelter in Al-Mawasi in southern Gaza, designated a “humanitarian zone” by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Many are living in tents in an area with limited infrastructure or access to humanitarian aid.

In recent months, the coastal camp has been hit repeatedly by Israeli strikes, attacks the IDF says are targeting Hamas.

The tents are dilapidated after heavy rain and brutal winds.

As Sunday’s storm whipped through, people’s belongings were strewn along the beach, some having been swallowed up by the sea.

Most of the tents and makeshift shelters they rely on have been used for months and need replacement to withstand harsh winter conditions, he said.

“It is beyond imagination, knowing that they can barely survive regular weather with whatever they have… A lack of proper clothing, blankets and safe heating methods mean families will remain cold and at risk for many months,” he added. It’s a fear that haunts Um Fadi in Deir al-Balah every day.

“Tonight, we’re threatened by great danger. At any moment, the sea might engulf us. We don’t know what we will do,” she said.

Rain-soaked tents

In northern Gaza, the Israeli military is carrying out a widespread operation that has entered its second month. The bombardment has displaced up to 130,000 Palestinians since October 6, according to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the need for aid is acute.

Many have sought shelter in Yarmouk sports stadium in Gaza City, where decrepit tents made of white cloth turned brown on Sunday following an evening of heavy rain.

As in the seafront shelter, young children stood barefoot on the wet asphalt or waded through puddles, wearing barely enough to keep them warm, while their parents tried to repair the damaged tents.

Sami Salehi said he had fled “suffering, airstrikes, attacks and death” in the north, seeking shelter in Gaza City.

“This tent is made of cloth, so when water comes in, it goes everywhere. And we’re in a low-lying area, so even if the roof protects us, water will come from below,” he said.

After suffering an injury in an Israeli airstrike, Salehi said he thought he’d die, but was surprised to see that God had saved his life.

“I wish I died instead. Death is more honorable than this life.”

Taiwan President Lai Ching-te will visit Hawaii and the US territory of Guam during an upcoming trip to the Pacific, prompting condemnations from China, which could respond by staging a fresh round of military drills near the island democracy.

While on US soil, Lai is expected to “meet with old friends” and participate in closed-door discussions with think tanks, according to Taiwan’s official Central News Agency.

Taiwanese leaders have often used visits to diplomatic allies to make unofficial stopovers in the United States, which has remained Taiwan’s most important backer and arms supplier despite the lack of formal diplomatic relations.

The Taiwanese president’s upcoming trip has already drawn the ire of Beijing. A Chinese defense ministry spokesman told a press briefing on Thursday that the military would “resolutely crush any separatist attempt seeking Taiwan independence”.

“Political manipulation and provocation to seek ‘Taiwan independence’ are doomed to fail and can never stop the historical trend of China’s reunification,” spokesman Wu Qian added.

The Taiwan Affairs Office, a Chinese government agency responsible for cross-strait affairs, also labeled Lai’s visit as “a provocative act,” and called on the United States to “stop sending wrong signals to Taiwan’s independence forces.”

China’s ruling Communist party claims Taiwan as a part of its territory, despite having never controlled it, and has repeatedly ruled out the use of force to bring it under control. The Taiwanese government, meanwhile, emphasizes that it is a sovereign government and that the future of Taiwan can only be decided by its population of 23.5 million.

Karen Kuo, a spokeswoman from Taiwan’s presidential office, said Lai’s official visit to the three diplomatic allies is aimed at bolstering friendly relations with like-minded democracies, adding that maintaining regional peace and stability is the joint responsibility of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Risk of new China drills?

Lai’s visit to Hawaii comes as the leadership of the US, its most important protector, is in a state of transition with observers – and Taiwan – closely watching how the return of Donald Trump to the White House might impact relations with China.

Beijing openly loathes Lai and reacted with fury to his election earlier this year.

“[China hopes to] create an incident during the transition period in the United States to highlight its disregard to the Biden administration, and create pressure on the incoming Trump team by drawing a red line,” the official said.

Since the beginning of this year, Beijing has held two rounds of war games near Taiwan – one in May and another in October – both labelled as part of its “Joint Sword 2024” exercises.

In a statement on Wednesday, Taiwan’s defense ministry said any deliberate attempt to create tension in the Taiwan Strait would undermine peace and stability, which is not “the proper behavior of a responsible modern country.”

In April last year, Beijing launched three days of military drills in response to an unofficial visit to California by Lai’s predecessor Tsai Ing-wen.