Hello from London,

If I were to hand out a prize for the canniest political operator of the year, then Gianni Infantino, the strongman-loving boss of FIFA, would be a real contender. In July the chief of football’s global governing body was in New York to celebrate the opening of a new FIFA office inside Trump Tower. Among the bigwigs present was Eric Trump, son of the president. Then, last week in Washington, before the draw for next year’s World Cup, Mr Infantino found a neatly craven way to please the president. What do you give the man denied the Nobel peace prize? A shiny facsimile, of course. Donald Trump thus became the inaugural winner of the FIFA peace prize, taking home both a big gold trophy and a gold medallion on a ribbon. 

There are other contenders for my award. One would be Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir, who somehow contrived to have a private lunch with Mr Trump at the White House, in June. His government was early in nominating Mr Trump for the Nobel. In the months since that lunch America has made an utterly unstrategic decision to pivot away from a close relationship with Pakistan’s vastly more powerful neighbour, India. At least two decades of smart American foreign policy towards India risk being undone. For Field Marshal Munir, this is the stuff of dreams.

Last, I’d give an honourable mention to Sir Keir Starmer. Britain’s prime minister struggles at home, but his management of the American president has also been close to exemplary. (You can watch our editor’s interview with Sir Keir, from last week’s The Insider show, or read our article about it.) Inviting Mr Trump to Britain for a special, second, state visit in September was a fine demonstration of the deployment of soft power by an old ally. Mr Trump clearly relished his time among the royals. As someone previously sceptical of the benefit of monarchy to Britain, I am close to being converted.

The Economist does bestow gongs of sorts each December, but not for individuals. We just published our choice of the word of 2025. Here’s a clue, if you’d like to guess: it’s an unappetising symbol of a messy year. And look out, soon, for our choice of the country of the year. We aren’t seeking out the nicest place in the world (sorry, Norway), but rather the spot that showed the greatest progress. Last year we celebrated how Bangladesh had toppled a tyrant, but also praised Poland, South Africa and Syria. 

And today we are crowning our choice of the best-performing economy of 2025. We’ve sized up the performance of 36 mostly rich countries, using five indicators. Which do you think came top? A clue: if you can remember last year’s winner, you won’t be far away.

Last week I asked for your views on the situation in Ukraine, amid signs of some Russian battlefield gains and continuing American efforts to broker a peace deal. I think I fairly summarise the vast majority of your comments by saying that you are as sceptical as I am about any deal with Vladimir Putin. Josselien Janssens puts it bluntly, saying Russia not only seeks to grab as much of Ukraine as it can, but “destabilising Europe [is] a key goal for Putin”. The crucial bit of missing information, she writes, is “how much his power base at home is dependent on a successful outcome of the Ukraine war”. My hunch, Josselien, is that Mr Putin does not feel vulnerable at home; thus his motivation for continuing the invasion is more that he is imagining his place in the history books. Archibald Patrick Newall , from Britain, is more optimistic than I am on this question. He argues that Mr Putin is exposed because of economic pressures, notably inflation, and because of attacks on Russia’s oil industry. In other words, he is more vulnerable than outsiders have dared to hope. I can only hope you are right.

For next week, please send me your nomination for the most improved country of 2025, with a short explanation why. Write to economisttoday@economist.com.