In Australia The Police Beat You Up For Opposing Genocide.
Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 10, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/in-australia-the-police-beat-you?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=187467234&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Australian authorities were fully aware that inviting Israel’s president for a visit was going to ignite unrest and furious opposition. They invited him anyway, and sent in the police to assault the protesters.
I saw a video of two cops pinning a kid in a keffiyeh face down on the ground and proceeding to punch him over and over again long after he’d been subdued.
I saw another video of police repeatedly punching a middle-aged man who was holding his hands in the air until he fell to the ground.
I saw another video of police repeatedly pepper spraying a demonstrator directly in the face as he was visibly complying with their demands to move and providing no resistance whatsoever.
I saw another video of police manhandling Muslim men who were literally on their knees praying, presenting no possible threat of any kind.
That’s right kids, welcome to Australia, where the government invites the head of a genocidal apartheid state for a happy cuddle party and then beats the shit out of anyone who opposes this.
It’s a testament to the courage and vitality of the pro-Palestine movement in Australia that people keep showing up to anti-genocide protests even as authorities do everything they can to create a chilling effect on them.
After all, this happens as the state of Queensland moves to make it illegal to utter the pro-Palestine phrases “from the river to the sea” or “globalise the intifada”, with violations punishable by two years in prison. This is easily the single most bat shit insane speech suppression legislation in Australian history, and that’s an extremely high bar.
To be clear, not one person sincerely believes that “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a genocidal or antisemitic statement. This is one of those many, many instances in which Israel supporters are pretending to believe something they do not actually believe in order to further outlaw criticism of Israel.
They’re trying to make it so that nobody feels comfortable opposing Israel’s abuses without first consulting with a lawyer about what exactly they are legally permitted to say in that moment, thereby throwing a chilling effect on pro-Palestine activism throughout the nation.
This comes weeks after the Australian government passed frightening new “hate speech” laws in the name of “combatting antisemitism” which will make it much easier to designate activist groups as “hate groups”. Australian officials have conspicuously refused to say that the new laws will not be used to ban groups for speech that is critical of Israel, which tells you all you need to know about the real intentions at work here.
This also comes as the state of New South Wales cracks down on protests with extreme aggression, banning protests in certain areas and seeking to outlaw the use of the phrase “globalise the intifada” to appease Australia’s obscenely powerful Israel lobby. Premier Chris Minns is presently defending the actions of the police he sent in to crack skulls at the Herzog protests on Monday.
Just two months ago a prominent member of the Australian Israel lobby publicly announced that he wants a total ban on pro-Palestine protests throughout the nation, and said it is criticism of Israel that is the problem, not just hatred toward Jews. Joel Burnie, Executive Manager of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), explicitly said that what he wants is “No more protests! No more protests!” in Australia.
“I for one as a Jewish leader will no long talk about antisemitism in isolation from Israel, because it’s the rhetoric and language on Israel that motivates the people to come and kill us,” Burnie said during a video conference, later adding that “ language on Israel invading all of our social spaces in Australia have made this country a very unsafe space and place for Jews.”
Increment by increment, Joel Burnie and his ilk have been getting their wish ever since. Australian civil rights are indeed being disintegrated to protect the information interests of a genocidal apartheid state.
Albanese v Albanese
Then there is the damning evidence of Anthony Albanese’s Italian namesake, Francesca Albanese, by now an expert and fearless forensic rapporteur on Gaza, genocide and Israel.
She bows to no president or prime minister and wears the onslaught of their wrath as a badge of honour.
A United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Albanese’s courageous reports have become a reliable touchstone for historians, academics, students, journalists, so-called ‘ordinary people’ humanitarians, intelligence personnel and key actors of all involved in the Gaza ‘Crime Scene.’
10 February 2026, Tess Lawrence, https://theaimn.net/albanese-v-albanese/
ALBANESE v ALBANESE
HERZOG, GENOCIDAL TERRORIST?
The Australian Government has rolled out the red carpet for Israel’s President Isaac Herzog, a carpet sodden in the blood of more than 71,000 people murdered in Gaza since the Hamas led terrorist invasion of October 7, 2023.
That audacious Hamas massacre and hostage taking of mostly civilians attending the Nova Festival, was a precision operation that easily penetrated Israel’s so-called invincible ‘iron dome’ in what was indisputably a monumental military embarrassment and collective security fail by all of Israel’s lauded security tiers as well as by self lauded ‘Mr Security’ himself, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, indicted on criminal charges in his own country and cited as a genocidal criminal, outside of it.
In an untidy and hasty attempt to assuage volatile community anger, unrest and widespread political dissent caused by Australia’s own security fail, the Bondi Beach Islamic State inspired terrorist attack on December 14, that also targeted Jews and others celebrating the festival – Hanukkah – Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese thought it wise to capitulate to a babel of political, religious and public dialects and invite a racist man of war to Australia, rather than a person of peace.
The notion that a visit by the rabid war mongering Herzog will help ameliorate swelling anti-semitism is preposterous. He may well bring comfort to some Australian jews and those who support Netanyahu’s fascist Far Reich but the reality is that not all Australian jews want this avowed genocidal terrorist to visit Australia or indeed for him to be deemed as representative of all jewish Australians, let alone jews in Israel. The constants protests and marches against Netanyahu in Israel atest to the latter.
Netanyahu’s Take On Nazism
Typically, jewish dissenters do not receive as much attention in both mainstream and indie media and endure all manner of toxic insult, including being branded by jewish Netanyahu supporters in the diaspora, as Hamas stooges, jewish traitors, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Hurled epithets of being ‘self-loathing jews’ have long worn thin as a horrified world – including horrified jews – are confronted with the ugly reality of Netanyahu’s latter day take on nazism and industrial strength ethnic cleansing.
Last month, a number of groups, the majority of them representing jewish organisations, wrote to Governor-General Sam Mostyn and Prime Minister Albanese, asking that Herzog’s invitation to visit Australia, be retracted:
Her Excellency the Honourable Ms Sam Mostyn AC
Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia
Government House
Dunrossil Drive
YARRALUMLA ACT 2600The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600Monday, 5 January 2026
Dear Governor-General and Prime Minister,
We write to urgently ask for the retraction of the Australian Government’s invitation to President Isaac Herzog of Israel.
This invitation risks violating Australia’s international obligations and exacerbating racism and antisemitism during an incredibly fragile moment.
President Herzog is not a neutral or ceremonial head of state. The UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded in September 2025 that Israeli President Isaac Herzog had “incited the commission of genocide and that Israeli authorities have failed to take action against them to punish this incitement.”
In October 2023, he publicly attributed collective responsibility to the civilian population of Gaza, stating: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not being involved – it’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up… And we will fight until we break their backbone.”
Herzog’s comments have been cited by international legal scholars and human rights organisations as normalising collective punishment, prohibited under international humanitarian law, and form part of the evidentiary context before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are clear. Article 1 imposes an obligation to prevent genocide that arises once a State becomes aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of a serious risk that genocide may be committed. Article III further prohibits not only genocide itself but also complicity, including conduct that knowingly aids, abets, or legitimises the commission or incitement of genocidal acts. The International Court of Justice’s provisional measures in South Africa v Israel place all States Parties on notice of a plausible risk of acts falling within the scope of the Convention. In these circumstances, proceeding with an official visit by President Isaac Herzog would expose Australia to credible claims that it has engaged in conduct inconsistent with its obligations under international law.
Herzog has been fully implicated in Israel’s military aggression. In December 2023 he was witnessed signing an artillery shell bound for Gaza and in 2024 he falsely denied Israeli responsibility for the illegal attacks using pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon, killing twelve people, including children, and wounding three thousand.
Facilitating this visit does nothing to support the healing of Jewish communities in Australia, following the horrific massacre in Bondi. Hosting a figure publicly associated with the continuation of the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and the ongoing occupation and displacement within Palestinian territories, risks further deepening divisions within a community already grappling with the harmful conflation of Zionism (a political ideology), Judaism (a religion), and Jewish identity and will further alienate our own community while increasing the risk of antisemitism. Publicly hosting this head of state risks exacerbating antisemitism by implicitly associating Jewish Australians with alleged war crimes over which they have no control.
Jewish communities are not united. Some, both religious and secular, are not Zionist or identify as anti-Zionist. Many fundamentally disagree with Israel’s brutal occupation and apartheid regime and are outspoken about the Gaza genocide and Australia’s complicity in it.
Mass protests must be expected if President Herzog arrives in Australia. Protests will include a very large contingent of Jewish participants, reflecting moral opposition to ongoing atrocities.
Official engagement in the face of such demonstrable community opposition would risk inflaming tensions, fracturing social cohesion, and undermining public safety. It would further undermine Australia’s credibility as a defender of international law and inflame anti-Palestinian racism by further dehumanising Palestinians. These consequences are foreseeable, preventable, and incompatible with Australia’s legal and moral responsibilities.
A principled decision to retract the invitation would affirm the Australian Government’s commitment to ethical values, international law and the protection of all communities from racism and antisemitism.
Yours sincerely,
Jewish Council of Australia
Jews for Palestine (WA)
Loud Jew Collective
Jews Against the Occupation ’48
Jewish Voices of Inner Sydney
Coalition of Women for Justice and Peace
Jewish Advocates for Understanding Antisemitism
Jews for Justice
Anti-Zionism Australia
Jews for a Free Palestine
Jewish Women 4 Peace Action Ready Group
Jews Who Do Not Support Netanyahu And Who Do Support
Two State Solution Don’t Get Equal Media Time
Typically, in mainstream and even indie media at times, the views of jews who support a two state solution for Palestine and Israel and who do NOT support Netanyahu, Herzog et al or their murderous genocidal implementation of a final solution to annihilate Palestine and Palestinians in this Holocaust 2, perpetrated by the Netanyahu Government, simply don’t get equal media time.
“Inviting a foreign head of state who is implicated in an ongoing genocide as a representative of the Jewish community is deeply offensive and risks entrenching the dangerous and antisemitic conflation between Jewish identity and the actions of the Israeli state. This does not make Jews safer. It does the opposite.” Sarah Schwartz, Executive Officer of the Jewish Council of Australia.
The Jewish Council of Australia
DIGNITY. EQUALITY. FREEDOM. FOR ALL.
‘The Jewish Council of Australia is an organisation of Jewish people in Australia who are committed to the Jewish values of tikkun olam (repairing the world), calling out injustice, challenging assumptions and promoting debate. We work towards ending antisemitism and all forms of racism and we support Palestinian freedom and justice.’
On January 28th, the Jewish Council of Australia issued a second statement condemning Herzog’s visit:
Read more: Albanese v AlbaneseJewish Council calls on Albanese to rescind Herzog invitation
28 January, 2026 / Media Release
The President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, has confirmed today that he will visit Australia from 8 to 12 February and will meet with members of the Australian Jewish community.
The Jewish Council of Australia as expressed outrage that the Albanese Government would fuel the flames of division by inviting Herzog to visit Australia, warning that his trip is completely inappropriate and offensive and will rightly spark mass protests.
President Isaac Herzog is directly implicated in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. He has made public statements, including that an “entire nation is responsible” for October 7, which have been cited by the International Court of Justice and other international bodies examining breaches of the Genocide Convention.
This should be a moment for collective mourning, reflection and care. It is not a moment to host the head of a state which has been found to have committed a genocide in Gaza.
“By inviting Herzog to visit, Albanese is using Jewish grief as a political prop and diplomatic backdrop,” said Sarah Schwartz, Executive Officer of the Jewish Council of Australia.
“Inviting a foreign head of state who is implicated in an ongoing genocide as a representative of the Jewish community is deeply offensive and risks entrenching the dangerous and antisemitic conflation between Jewish identity and the actions of the Israeli state. This does not make Jews safer. It does the opposite.”
Instead of proceeding with this visit, the Jewish Council urges the Government to pursue concrete actions, supported by over 60,000 Australians who have signed the Jewish Council’s petition, that address the root causes of violence, racism and impunity, and that uphold international law.
“Our safety will not come from aligning with Netanyahu or Trump,” said Schwartz. “It will come from dismantling racism, rejecting collective punishment, and standing consistently for human rights and justice for all.”
“Growing numbers of Jews in Australia and globally oppose the actions of the Israeli government and reject its attempts to speak in our name. We refuse to be ignored or silenced.”
“Conflating Judaism with the policies of a state accused of genocide and crimes against humanity erases our voice and fuels antisemitism rather than combating it.”
The last time I visited their website, 63,885 people had signed the JCA petition for Australians to unite against attempts to divide the community.
From the website:
”… Pitting Jewish safety against Palestinians, Muslims and migrant communities, and eroding all of our civil liberties, doesn’t make Jews safer. It makes the real fight against antisemitism harder… “
On January 30th, Medianet published a press release by The Jewish Council of Australia, the Australian National Imams Council and The Hind Rajab Foundation announcing that esteemed barrister Robert Richter KC had filed a formal legal complaint sent to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) alleging that “Herzog has incited genocide and aided and abetted war crimes, rendering him unfit to enter the country under Australian law.”
The 30 page submission warns that the visit of President Herzog is “highly infammatory.”
From the press release:
The groups are calling on the AFP to initiate a criminal investigation of Herzog under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The urgent request details a “sustained pattern of incitement and hate speech” by the President, specifically citing:
- The “Entire Nation” Declaration: Herzog’s October 2023 statement that there are no “uninvolved” civilians in Gaza, which the groups argue stripped 2.3 million people of their protected status under international humanitarian law and urged the IDF to treat the entire population as a military target.
- Famine Denial: Herzog’s August 2025 claims that images of starving Gazan children were “staged – a statement made while famine was setting in and which the brief describes as a “conscious effort to obscure war crimes.”
- Endorsement of Military Operations Involving War Crimes: A December 2023 visit to the Nahal Oz military base where Herzog reportedly “encouraged” troops 48 hours before the “wanton destruction” and “flattening” of the Palestinian town of Khuza’a.
The submission rejects any claim that Herzog has diplomatic immunity, citing the Nuremberg Principles and international law to argue that heads of state have no shield against charges of genocide or war crimes. The groups warn that if the government fails to act, it would signal “acquiescence to genocidal rhetoric.”
“If the Prime Minister of Israel is not permitted to visit Australia, the President should not be allowed to act as his surrogate,” the complaint states, referencing the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
Bilal Rauf, Senior Advisor, Australian National Imams Council (ANIC):
“In recent times, Australia’s social cohesion has been under threat. Now more than ever, it is incumbent upon all of us, particularly our political leaders, to seek to protect our social cohesion as a country and society and ensure that individuals who may inflame the situation by their very presence, are not permitted into our country. The proposed visit by the Israeli President Isaac Herzog, a highly controversial foreign head of state accused of serious international crimes, risks inflaming social tensions, undermining Australia’s hate-speech protections, and placing Australian communities at risk. ANIC calls on the Government, which has hurriedly passed laws in the name of social cohesion, to refuse or cancel any visa held by President Herzog. In pursuing this, among other outcomes, ANIC joins with the Jewish Council of Australia and the Hind Rajab Foundation, in pursuing the complaint.”
Dyab Abou Jahjah, Hind Rajab:
“When a head of state publicly denies civilian protection, dismisses famine, and encourages military operations marked by widespread civilian harm and destruction, those acts carry legal consequences everywhere. No country – including Australia – should become a safe haven for individuals credibly accused of inciting genocide or aiding and abetting war crimes. Australia has a duty to uphold the rule of law and protect its communities from such threats.”
Ohad Kozminsky, Executive Member, Jewish Council of Australia:
“President Herzog represents a state found to be committing genocide in Gaza. His presence in Australia would identify this state with Australian Jews, which risks exacerbating social division and endangering Australian Jewish communities. We stand firmly against all forms of racism, and President Herzog’s statements attributing collective guilt to an entire people are a textbook manifestation of anti-Palestinian racism and Israel’s ongoing campaign of dehumanisation.”
Francesca Albanese
Then there is the damning evidence of Anthony Albanese’s Italian namesake, Francesca Albanese, by now an expert and fearless forensic rapporteur on Gaza, genocide and Israel.
She bows to no president or prime minister and wears the onslaught of their wrath as a badge of honour.
A United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Albanese’s courageous reports have become a reliable touchstone for historians, academics, students, journalists, so-called ‘ordinary people’ humanitarians, intelligence personnel and key actors of all involved in the Gaza ‘Crime Scene.’
AIMN will publish some of her work in full, so readers can learn from the source herself, without filters and without selective reduction by we journalists.
You will come to understand why she is feared by both the Hamas led terrorist cohort in Gaza and Netanyahu and his Far Reich.
She exposes the atrocities of these murderous thugs without fear or favour and goes to war against genocide and perpetrators, weaponless and without flak jacket, armed only with her brief to bear witness for the world. For us. For them. For the least of us.
Palestine Action protesters found not guilty of Elbit burglary
“It shows how out of step this government is with public opinion, which is revulsed by the Government and Elbit’s complicity in genocide.”
Campaigners claim ‘huge blow’ to government after landmark prosecution of direct action group fails.
PHIL MILLER and DANIA AKKAD, 4 February 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-protesters-found-not-guilty-of-elbit-burglary/
- Update: Five out of the six defendants were granted bail late on Wednesday; a sixth defendant, Sam Corner, was not granted bail
- Defendants had to apply for bail because the prosecution will seek a retrial on charges where jury were unable to reach a verdict
Six Palestine Action protesters have been found not guilty of aggravated burglary at an Elbit weapons site near Bristol.
Zoe Rogers, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Jordan Devlin were also not convicted of any other charges by a jury at Woolwich Crown Court on Wednesday.
The group were on trial for a break-in at an Israeli-owned arms factory on 6 August 2024 at the height of the genocide in Gaza.
Keir Starmer’s Labour government only placed partial restrictions on arms exports to Israel the following month.
The activists spent 18 months on remand before their trial began in November 2025.
Jurors did not convict them of any charges despite the judge trying to limit defences available to the activists.
The jury could not reach verdicts on some charges, opening the door for the prosecution to seek a possible retrial and forcing the defence to apply for bail.
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries said the not guilty verdicts for the aggravated burglary charges were “a huge blow to government ministers who have tried to portray Palestine Action as a violent group to justify banning it under badly drafted terrorism legislation.
“Despite government efforts to prejudice this trial, citing the allegations of violence to justify treating Palestine Action as ‘terrorists’, as if they were already proved, the jury which heard the evidence has refused to find the defendants guilty of anything, not even criminal damage.
“It shows how out of step this government is with public opinion, which is revulsed by the Government and Elbit’s complicity in genocide.”
Woolwich Crown Court, hugging and crying.
Inside bail hearings were ongoing for the six with rulings expected before 3pm. Friends said they hoped they would be coming out today.
Moved to a patch of grass outside the court, several in the crowd shared a meal on paper plates and greeted an increasing number supporters who arrived by public transport.
“I’m so happy,” one supporter shouted.
A truck carrying prisoners passed by with an audible banging sound from inside. The crowd welped and started to cheer. One drummed.
A supporter acknowledged the truck probably didn’t hold the defendants. “We’re just excited,” they said.
UK ignores corruption scandals when awarding major military contracts.
Freedom of Information requests reveal Britain’s trade department collected “no information” about fines issued to UK military suppliers for corruption.
JOHN McEVOY, 4 February 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-ignores-corruption-scandals-when-awarding-major-military-contracts/
The Ministry of Defence is reportedly set to award a £2 billion contract to a consortium led by Raytheon UK despite major corruption and fraud violations recently levelled against its American parent company RTX.
The contract, which aims to modernise the army’s training infrastructure using “advanced simulation”, will be awarded through a competitive process in which Raytheon UK seeks to displace a rival bid led by Israel’s Elbit Systems UK.
RTX is already a major supplier to the UK Ministry of Defence, having completed integration trials for the Paveway precision-guided missile on the Typhoon aircraft in 2025.
The company says it has a “decades-long partnership with the British army”, and holds licences to export F-35 fighter jet components which are used by Israel.
Yet in 2024, RTX faced significant legal sanctions in the US relating to alleged bribery of foreign officials, defective pricing, and export control violations.
The company settled several federal investigations with overall penalties exceeding $950 million.
Crucially, Freedom of Information requests suggest that UK export-licensing authorities have taken no action in response to these developments.
The Department for Business and Trade and the Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) said in October 2025 they hold no internal correspondence, briefs, or risk assessments relating to the RTX enforcement actions.
This is despite the UK’s own guidelines for military export licences explicitly requiring ongoing assessment of risk of diversion, misuse, and breach of international humanitarian law.
The guidelines also direct authorities to consider exporter conduct and compliance history.
In response to further FOI requests, the Ministry of Defence also refused to clarify whether RTX’s enforcement actions abroad were internally discussed when deliberating the award of major contracts to the company.
This apparent inaction raises fundamental questions about whether systemic reassessment of exporter behaviour takes place when serious misconduct comes to light.
It also comes as the UK’s National Audit Office has found in a new report released last week that the defence ministry could “make significant savings” if it better managed losses from economic crimes, including procurement fraud.
The business and trade department and defence ministry did not respond to requests for comment about whether they consider foreign corruption scandals when awarding export licences or training contracts to firms.
Raytheon has been the subject of past enforcement controversies in Britain, with the company refusing to explain its activities to the government’s committees on arms export control in 2019 while arming Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen.
Its competitor for the army training contract, Elbit Systems, is also facing accusations of breaching business appointment rules while continuing to hold export licences granted by the ECJU.
Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) spokesperson Emily Apple told Declassified: “Time and again successive governments have lied, repeatedly telling us the UK has one of the most robust arms export control systems in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth”.
The business and trade department said: “The UK operates one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world.
“All export licensing decisions are made in line with our Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, and our assessments take all information relevant to the risk of diversion or misuse into account”.
Moog
The issue is not unique to RTX.
Another defence contractor, Moog Inc., resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) administrative order in October 2024 involving bribery by its Indian subsidiary.
The FCPA is a US federal law which makes it illegal for US persons or companies to bribe foreign government officials to gain a business advantage.
However, the ECJU also holds “no information” about any discussions relating to that FCPA order, according to the FOI documents seen by Declassified.
Together, the RTX and Moog cases represent the only publicly reported defence industry FCPA-related enforcement actions in 2024.
Moog currently holds UK licenses to export components for trainer aircraft used by the Israeli air force, and contributes to the global F-35 programme.
Public information raises further questions about how Moog’s compliance oversight function was structured during the period in which these violations allegedly occurred.
According to a LinkedIn profile, Moog’s compliance manager has had oversight of both Moog UK and Moog India since before 2020 — the period during which the company’s Indian subsidiary was later found by US authorities to have engaged in bribery of state officials.
“While the existence of a group-level compliance function does not itself imply wrongdoing, it underscores that Moog’s UK operations were not operating in isolation from wider corporate compliance arrangements at the time, and raises legitimate questions about how compliance risks were identified, escalated, and addressed across the group”, said Emily Apple from CAAT.
Despite these questions, Moog Wolverhampton has not been subject to an ECJU compliance visit since 2022, according to further FOI requests issued in November.
This is notable given that the site was inspected twice within a two-month period that year, a pattern potentially associated with follow-up or remedial reviews.
Yet the company’s sites in Britain have apparently not been revisited in the three years since, including after Moog’s US parent company agreed a major FCPA settlement in 2024.
Emily Apple added: “Whether it’s ignoring corruption scandals, or trampling over international law, it appears there are no limits to the steps the government is prepared to take to prioritise arms dealers’ profits. This is a system beyond reform. It is out of control, devoid of ethics and operating beyond the law”.
Moog and RTX did not respond to requests for comment.
The 24-site US military network in Britain worth £11 billion
America’s War Department owns more military and intelligence sites in Britain than the government has told parliament
MARK CURTIS, DECLASSIFIED UK, 3 February 2026
The US military owns 22 sites in Britain whose “replacement value” is $15.6bn (£11.4bn), according to a US War Department document found by Declassified UK.
This number of sites is larger than previously believed and more than UK governments have told parliament.
A US document published online identifies 16 of the US military’s locations in the UK and notes six “other sites” which are not specified. The document, published last year, outlines the US military’s “property portfolio” around the world as of September 2024.
Declassified has identified other locations in Britain that are likely to be hosting US military or intelligence personnel, bringing the total to at least 24.
This doesn’t cover the full scale of the US military presence in the UK, since it is believed that US military personnel are frequently, if not permanently, stationed at still more sites, such as the key Royal Navy bases at Coulport, Devonport and Faslane.
The 16 locations in Britain specified by the US War Department include the major US air bases at Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Croughton and Fairford but also lesser-known sites.
The smaller locations include a 35-acre US Air Force (USAF) site at RAF Bicester in Oxfordshire and a location said to comprise 35,397 square feet of buildings at RAF Oakhanger in Hampshire.
The document also notes US ownership of facilities at the top secret Fylingdales spy station in Yorkshire, where it possesses 5,860 square feet of building space.
Fylingdales is a joint enterprise between the US and UK and “provides a 24/7 missile warning and space surveillance capability for the UK and its allies”.
While most of the locations are operated by the USAF, the single site where the US Navy is said to be active is Lossiemouth near Inverness, the only location mentioned in Scotland.
A recent investigation by The Ferret found the US established a base there in May 2024, with the US navy helping to fund the construction of facilities for its Poseidon P8 anti-submarine spy and warplanes at the site.
The investigation also found the Scottish government was not consulted about stationing US aircraft at Lossiemouth.
Other US sites mentioned in the War Department document include a 736-acre ammunition storage location at RAF Welford in Berkshire and a “transmitter annex site” at RAF Barford St John in Oxfordshire.
These US sites stretch over 20 square miles, which is equivalent to around 11,500 football pitches, or an area larger than the city of Oxford.
Successive UK governments have failed to mention in parliament some of these 16 sites as being US military operating locations, such as RAF Oakhanger and RAF Bicester. The last time Oakhanger was mentioned in parliament was in November 1996.
More recently, in answer to a parliamentary question in February 2022, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) mentioned only eight sites from where US personnel were operating, along with “undisclosed locations”.
Two years earlier, in June 2020, a minister listed 11 bases which were “designated for use by the United States Visiting Forces” in the UK. This form of words appears to keep open the possibility that US personnel are also based elsewhere.
Where are the six other sites?
The US document specifies sites in Britain that are larger than ten acres or have a replacement value of over $10m (£7.3m)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-24-site-us-military-network-in-britain-worth-11-billion/
On the road to nuclear war
February 5, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/on-the-road-to-nuclear-war/
It’s 85 seconds to midnight. The collapse of the New START Treaty hasn’t helped but there is still time to turn things around, writes Lawrence S.Wittner
On January 27, 2026, the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of their famous “Doomsday Clock” to 85 seconds to midnight―the closest setting, since the appearance of the clock in 1946, to nuclear annihilation.
This grim appraisal has impressive evidence to support it.
The New Start Treaty, the last of the major nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties between the United States and Russia, expired on February 5, without any serious attempt to replace it. New Start’s demise enables both nations, which possess about 86 percent of the world’s 12,321 nuclear weapons, to move beyond the strict limits set by the treaty on the number of their strategic nuclear weapons (the most powerful, most devastating kind), thus enhancing the ability of their governments to reduce the world to a charred wasteland.
Actually, a nuclear arms race has been gathering steam for years, as nearly all the governments of the nine nuclear powers (which, in addition to Russia and the United States, include China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) scramble to upgrade existing weapons systems and add newer versions. China’s nuclear arsenal is the fastest-growing among them. “The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world . . . is coming to an end,” observed Hans Kristensen, a highly regarded expert on nuclear armament and disarmament. “Instead, we see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric, and the abandonment of arms control agreements.”
The U.S. government is currently immersed in a $1.7 trillion nuclear “modernization” program that President Donald Trump has championed and repeatedly lauded. As early as February 2018, he boasted that his administration was “creating a brand-new nuclear force. We’re gonna be so far ahead of everybody else in nuclear like you’ve never seen before.” In late October 2025, to facilitate the U.S. nuclear buildup, Trump ordered the Pentagon to prepare to resume U.S. nuclear weapons testing, which had ceased 33 years before. In line with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996, signed by 187 nations (including the United States), no nuclear power (other than the rogue nation of North Korea) has conducted explosive nuclear testing in over 25 years.
Another sign of the escalating nuclear danger is the revival of implicit and explicit threats to initiate nuclear war. Such threats, which declined with the end of the Cold War, have resurfaced in recent years. When angered by the policies of other nations, Donald Trump, Kim Jong Un, and Vladimir Putin have repeatedly and publicly threatened them with nuclear destruction. According to the U.S. government’s Voice of America, the Russian government, in the context of its invasion of Ukraine, issued 135 nuclear threats between February 2022 and December 17, 2024. Although some national security experts have discounted most Russian threats as manipulative rather than serious, in November 2022 Chinese leader Xi Jinping thought the matter serious enough to publicly chide his professed ally, Putin, for threatening to resort to nuclear arms in Ukraine.
Underlying this drift toward nuclear war are the growing conflicts among nations―conflicts that have significantly weakened international cooperation and the United Nations. As the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists put it, rather than heed past warnings of catastrophe, “Russia, China, the United States, and other major countries have instead become increasingly aggressive, adversarial, and nationalistic.” Consequently, “hard-won global understandings are collapsing, accelerating a winner-takes-all great power competition and undermining the international cooperation critical to reducing the risks of nuclear war.”
But this is not necessarily the end of the story―or of the world.
After all, much the same situation existed in the second half of the twentieth century, when conflicts among the great powers fueled a dangerous nuclear arms race that, at numerous junctures, threatened to spiral into full-scale nuclear war. And, in response, a massive grassroots campaign emerged to save the world from nuclear annihilation. Although that campaign did not succeed in banning the bomb, it did manage to curb the nuclear arms race, reduce the number of nuclear weapons by more than 80 percent, and prevent a much-feared nuclear catastrophe.
Furthermore, in the early twenty-first century, there have been new and important developments. The worldwide remnants of the nuclear disarmament movement regrouped as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and, joined by farsighted officials in smaller, non-nuclear nations, drew upon the United Nations to sponsor a series of antinuclear conferences. In 2017, by a vote of 122 to 1 (with 1 abstention), delegates at one of these UN conferences adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Although all nine nuclear powers strongly opposed the TPNW―which banned the use, threatened use, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, stationing, and installation of nuclear weapons―the treaty secured sufficient national backing to enter into force in January 2021. Thus far, it has been signed by 99 countries―a majority of the world’s nations.
In addition to the efficacy of public pressure for nuclear disarmament and the existence of a treaty banning nuclear weapons, at least one other factor points the way toward a non-nuclear future: the self-defeating nature—indeed, the insanity―of nuclear war. With even a single nuclear bomb capable of killing millions of people and leaving the desperate survivors crawling painfully through a burnt-out, radioactive hell, even a nuclear “victory” is a defeat. In the aftermath of a nuclear war, as Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev is believed to have said, “the survivors would envy the dead.” It’s a lesson that most people around the world have learned, although not perhaps the lunatics.
Lunatics, of course, exist, and some of them, unfortunately, govern modern nations and ignore international law.
Even so, although we are on the road to nuclear war, there is still time to take a deep breath, think about where we are going, and turn around.
Lawrence S. Wittner (https://www.lawrenceswittner.com/ ) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).
Iran’s Comprehensive Peace Proposal to the United States
The Middle East stands at a crossroads between endless war and comprehensive peace. A framework for peace does exist. Will the US finally seize it?
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Sybil Fares, Common Dreams, Feb 09, 2026
History occasionally presents moments when the truth about a conflict is stated plainly enough that it becomes impossible to ignore. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s February 7 address in Doha, Qatar (transcript here) should prove to be such a moment. His important and constructive remarks responded to the US call for comprehensive negotiations, and he laid out a sound proposal for peace across the Middle East.
Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for comprehensive negotiations: “If the Iranians want to meet, we’re ready.” He proposed for talks to include the nuclear issue, Iran’s military capabilities, and its support for proxy groups around the region. On its surface, this sounds like a serious and constructive proposal. The Middle East’s security crises are interconnected, and diplomacy that isolates nuclear issues from broader regional dynamics is unlikely to endure.
On February 7, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi’s responded to the United States’ proposal for a comprehensive peace. In his speech at the Al Jazeera Forum, the foreign minister addressed the root cause of regional instability – “Palestine… is the defining question of justice in West Asia and beyond” and he proposed a path forward.
The Foreign Minister’s statement is correct. The failure to resolve the issue of Palestinian statehood has indeed fueled every major regional conflict since 1948. The Arab-Israeli wars, the rise of anti-Israel militancy, the regional polarization, and the repeated cycles of violence, all derive from the failure to create a State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel. Gaza represents the most devastating chapter in this conflict, where Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine was followed by Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then by Israel’s genocide against the people of Gaza.
In his speech, Araghchi condemned Israel’s expansionist project “pursued under the banner of security.” He warned of the annexation of the West Bank, which Israeli government officials, as National Security Minister Ben Gvir, continually call for, and for which the Knesset has already passed a motion.
Araghchi also highlighted another fundamental dimension of Israeli strategy which is the pursuit of permanent military supremacy across the region. He said that Israel’s expansionist project requires that “neighboring countries be weakened—militarily, technologically, economically, and socially—so that the Israeli regime permanently enjoys the upper hand.” This is indeed the Clean Break doctrine of Prime Minister Netanyahu, dating back 30 years. It has been avidly supported by the US through 100 billion dollars in military assistance to Israel since 2000, diplomatic cover at the UN via repeated vetoes, and the consistent US rejection of accountability measures for Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law.
Israel’s impunity has destabilized the region, fueling arms races, proxy wars, and cycles of revenge. It has also corroded what remains of the international legal order. The abuse of international law by the US and Israel with much of Europe remaining silent, has gravely weakened the UN Charter, leaving the UN close to collapse.
In the concluding remarks of his speech, he offered the US a political solution and path forward. “The path to stability is clear: justice for Palestine, accountability for crimes, an end to occupation and apartheid, and a regional order built on sovereignty, equality, and cooperation. If the world wants peace, it must stop rewarding aggression. If the world wants stability, it must stop enabling expansionism.”
This is a valid and constructive response to Rubio’s call for comprehensive diplomacy…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/comprehensive-peace-plan-middle-east
These US states want polluters to pay for the rising insurance costs of climate disasters.
As climate disasters drive up the price of home insurance, three US states
are considering empowering their state prosecutors to sue major polluters
for their role in those rising costs.
Lawmakers in California, Hawaii and
New York have introduced measures which would authorize their attorneys
general to sue fossil fuel companies on behalf of residents whose insurance
premiums have soared amid climate disasters. “The cost of home insurance
in California is an absolute crisis,” said state senator Scott Wiener,
lead author of his state’s bill, speaking at a press conference
announcing the measure on Thursday.
“We know that the years ahead are
going to be dramatically more dangerous, tragically, when it comes to
climate disasters, and we can’t allow Californians, our residents, our
small businesses, to be left holding the bag.” The proposals aim to hold
the fossil fuel industry, the top contributor to global warming,
accountable for soaring insurance rates driven by climate-fueled extreme
weather.
Guardian 8th Feb 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/08/proposal-fossil-fuel-companies-insurance-costs
We’re being turned into an energy colony’: Argentina’s nuclear plan faces backlash over US interests
Gioia Claro and Denali DeGraf in Cerro Cóndor, Guardian, Argentina, 10 Feb 26
Push to restart uranium mining in Patagonia has sparked fears about the environmental impact and loss of sovereignty over key resources
On an outcrop above the Chubut River, one of the few to cut across the arid Patagonian steppe of southern Argentina, Sergio Pichiñán points across a wide swath of scrubland to colourful rock formations on a distant hillside.
“That’s where they dug for uranium before, and when the miners left, they left the mountain destroyed, the houses abandoned, and nobody ever studied the water,” he says, citing suspicions arising from cases of cancer and skin diseases in his community. “If they want to open this back up, we’re all pretty worried around here.”
Pichiñán lives in Cerro Cóndor, a hamlet with a sparse Indigenous Mapuche population due to the area’s harsh summers, cold winters and little rain. The National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) mined uranium here in the 1970s and it is now in focus as President Javier Milei aims to shift Argentina’s nuclear strategy.
The remote region sees few visitors, but in November, a delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency visited as part of an Integrated Uranium Production Cycle Review. Cerro Solo, adjacent to the shuttered mines, is one of CNEA’s largest proven uranium deposits, and restarting mining of the ore is the first step in Milei’s new nuclear plan.
The others are to develop small modular reactors, use them to power AI datacentres, export reactors and uranium, and partially privatise Nucleoeléctrica, the state-owned nuclear energy utility.
Yet the plan is facing fierce criticism from both pro- and anti-nuclear voices. Argentina’s non-military nuclear programme is 75 years old. It exports research reactors that produce isotopes for medical radiology and science, and its three nuclear plants – Atucha I and II and Embalse – provide about 5% of the country’s electricity.
Uranium production in Chubut declined in the 1980s, and the mines were closed in the 1990s; since another closed in Mendoza in 1997, Argentina has imported uranium, so many see restarting uranium extraction as a strategic move.
Adriana Serquis, a nuclear physicist, is not so sure. She was president of CNEA until 2024 and was recently elected to congress. She says: “The plan doesn’t seem oriented toward supplying our own plants, but rather exporting uranium directly to the US. It would appear the objective is to satisfy others’ needs while destroying our own capabilities.”
Dioxitek, a state-run subsidiary of CNEA, processes imported uranium into uranium dioxide for use in Argentina’s power stations, but signed a commitment in August last year with the US-based Nano Nuclear Energy to supply it with uranium hexafluoride. As Argentina’s reactors run on natural or low-enriched uranium oxide rather than uranium hexafluoride, it is likely that any uranium extracted in Argentina would be exported to the US rather than be used for local energy production.
In parallel, Nano Nuclear Energy signed a memorandum of understanding with the British-Argentinian company UrAmerica, which has large holdings in Chubut and plans to mine uranium. One of the stated goals of the agreement is “strengthening US energy security by sourcing materials for nuclear fuel from a reliable partner”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
All this comes in the context of Milei’s chainsaw-style dismemberment of public research and environmental protection agencies. “Milei took office with a potent discourse of stigmatising science and technology, and rapidly defamed them across the board, from CNEA to the National Water Institute to the National Weather Service to public universities,” Hurtado says. “It’s catastrophic.”
Trade unions claim that between 80% and 90% of CNEA workers receive salaries below the poverty line – increasing emigration and brain drain. In 2024, the country’s secretariat for innovation, science and technology only spent 7% of its allocated budget. Public universities have seen budgets slashed.
Partially privatising the public nuclear utility, Nucleoeléctrica, sets off other alarm bells. The plan, formally launched by the economy ministry in November, aims to sell 44% of the state company to a private investor. Although not holding an absolute majority, the buyer would have the largest stake, giving them decision-making control.
Demian Reidel, Milei’s lead on nuclear matters, was the chair of the council of presidential advisers until being appointed as head of Nucleoeléctrica, where he is now facing a scandal about the company’s procurement and alleged overpricing of service and software contracts……………………………………………………………………………………
Chubut has a broad-based and deeply entrenched grassroots anti-mining movement. A 2003 referendum on open-pit gold-mining received an 81% “no” vote, leading to a law prohibiting the practice throughout the province. In 2021, lawmakers tried to open the central steppe to mining but withdrew after protesters blocked highways, swarmed the capital and set fire to government buildings.
The anti-nuclear movement goes back to the 1980s, when a radioactive waste dump was proposed near Gastre, a remote village in central Chubut. After years of popular opposition scuttled the project, cities and towns across Patagonia passed anti-nuclear ordinances banning the presence or transit of nuclear materials.
Now, near the old mine sites in central Chubut, tens of thousands of tonnes of old uranium tailings sit behind only a chain-link fence and a sign that says “Restricted Area”.
Orlando Carriqueo, spokesperson for the Mapuche-Tehuelche parliament of Río Negro, an Indigenous organisation in another Patagonian province, says public opinion in the region is concerned about the consequences of uranium mining for fuel production and about waste management. “We’re being turned into an energy colony,” he says.
Reports by CNEA over the past three administrations show no radiation monitoring at the site. Less than a kilometre away, the Río Chubut flows past on its way to supply drinking water to the towns of Trelew, Gaiman and Rawson on the Atlantic coast.
Pichiñán, riding his horse past the abandoned mines, says he fears that future generations could be deluded by the same broken promises of the past. “What happened back then, when they told us we were going to be rich? Where’s all that wealth? Where are the people who were going to have work and money?” he asks.
“I don’t want my child to be 30, 40 years old one day and have to show them this kind of abandonment,” he says. “Whatever happens, we can’t let them do this.”
The CNEA declined to comment. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/feb/09/energy-colony-argentina-patagonia-uranium-nuclear-plan-backlash-over-us-interests
Collapsing Empire: US Bows To African Revolutionaries
Kit Klarenberg, Global Delinquents, Feb 09, 2026
On February 2nd, the BBC published an extraordinary report on how the Trump administration “has declared a stark policy shift” towards Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, the governments of which have sought to eradicate all ties to Western imperial powers, and forged the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). The independent bloc is a revolutionary enterprise, with the prospect further countries will follow its members’ lead. Washington is under no illusions about the new geopolitical realities unfolding in Africa.
The British state broadcaster records how Nick Checker, State Department African Affairs chief, is due to visit Mali to convey US “respect” for the country’s “sovereignty”, and chart a “new course” in relations, moving “past policy missteps.” Checker will also express optimism about future collaboration with AES, “on shared security and economic interests.” This is an absolutely unprecedented development. After military coups deposed the elected presidents of all three countries 2020 – 2023, the trio became Western pariahs.
France and the US initially aimed to isolate and undermine the military governments, halting “cooperation” projects in numerous fields. Meanwhile, the Economic Community of West African States, a neocolonial union of which all three were members, first imposed severe sanctions on Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, before its combined armed forces prepared to outright invade the latter in summer 2023. The three countries didn’t budge, and in fact welcomed Western isolation, forging new international partnerships and strengthening their ties. ECOWAS military action never came to pass.
In January 2025, the trio seceded from the union and created AES. Western-funded, London-based Amani Africa branded the move “the most significant crisis in West Africa’s regional integration since the founding of ECOWAS in 1975,” claiming it dealt “a significant blow to African…cooperation architecture.” Meanwhile, Burkina Faso’s leader Capt Ibrahim Traoré has become a media hate figure. A disparaging May 2025 Financial Times profile slammed him as a cynical opportunist leading a “Russia-backed junta”, and his supporters a “cult”.
As the BBC unwittingly explains, such antipathy towards Traoré stems from establishing himself “as a standard-bearer in resisting ‘imperialism’ and ‘neocolonialism’.” Via “vigorous social media promotion, he has gained huge support for this stance and personal popularity among young people across the continent and beyond,” ever since seizing office in September 2022. Far from just talk, Traoré and his fellow AES “junta” leaders have systematically neutralised malign Western influence locally, while pursuing left-wing economic policies for the good of their populations.
France and the US have proven markedly powerless to hamper, let alone reverse, this seismic progress…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/collapsing-empire-us-bows-to-african
If You Think Our Rulers Do Bad Things In Secret, Wait Til You See What They Do Out In The Open.
Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 09, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/if-you-think-our-rulers-do-bad-things?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=187345674&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
They launched a live-streamed genocide in full view of the entire world.
They’re openly targeting civilian populations with siege warfare in Iran and Cuba in full view of the entire world.
They openly kidnapped the president of a sovereign nation in full view of the entire world.
They deliberately provoked a horrific and dangerous proxy war in Ukraine in full view of the entire world.
They spent years actively backing Saudi Arabia’s monstrous genocidal atrocities in Yemen in full view of the entire world.
They’re plundering and exploiting the resources and labor of the global south in full view of the entire world.
They’re killing the biosphere we all depend on for their own enrichment in full view of the entire world.
They’re circling the globe with hundreds of military bases to secure planetary domination in full view of the entire world.
They engage in nuclear brinkmanship and wave around armageddon weapons like pistols in full view of the entire world.
People go homeless and die of exposure while billionaires buy private islands and choose the next president in full view of the entire world.
Weapons manufacturers lobby for wars and then profit from the death and destruction they cause in full view of the entire world.
The president of the United States has repeatedly admitted to being bought and owned by the world’s richest Israeli in full view of the entire world.
The US Treasury Secretary has been repeatedly admitting that the US deliberately sparked the violence and unrest in Iran by methodically immiserating the population via economic warfare, in full view of the entire world.
I keep seeing people freaking out and asking how it’s possible that the individuals in the Epstein files haven’t been arrested for their secret nefarious behavior. And I always want to ask them, mate, have you seen the nefarious behavior they’re engaging in right out in the open?
Pay attention to the Epstein files. Pay attention to what little we can learn about how these freaks conduct themselves behind closed doors. By all means, pay close attention to these things.
But don’t forget to also pay attention to the far greater evils they are inflicting in full view of the entire world.
Without an economic reset with Russia, a peace deal for Ukraine may render Britain and Europe weakened relics of a unipolar past.
the peace deal available to Ukraine and also to its European sponsors, will never be as good as the one available today.
It won’t be as good as the deal that was available to Ukraine in April 2022 in Istanbul.
Fighting on for another year will simply stack the advantages more in favour of Russia such that any final settlement just gets progressively worse.
Ian Proud, Feb 09, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/without-an-economic-reset-with-russia?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=187362231&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
In recent days, I have seen more mainstream media commentators claiming that a peace deal can’t be agreed without Ukraine. But that is a statement of the blindingly obvious.
Of course, Ukraine must agree to the terms of any agreement.
But Russia must also agree to the terms of any agreement, and it has been the exclusion of Russia from any direct dialogue on ending the war which has led to the war dragging on for almost four years.
It seems an obvious thing to say, although not obviously clear to mainstream pundits, but a peace deal has to be agreed by both Russia and Ukraine.
This is a war that will not end with a decisive military victory by either side, with either Ukraine or Russia capitulating, even if Russia emerges in a stronger position, which appears likely.
Ultimately, the contours of any peace deal will represent that which both sides can live with, in terms of how they present peace to their publics.
But its detailed terms will reflect the relative weight of both sides in the final negotiation.
The one certainty in any peace deal is that Ukraine will become militarily unaligned, with NATO membership taken permanently off the table, in return for which it receives security guarantees that both it, and Russia, can accept.
There is simply no scenario I can see in which Ukraine continues on its path to NATO membership.
Deadlock on this issue, which Russia will not back down from, will lead to the continuation of the war, with Russia in a progressively stronger position militarily and better able to navigate the economic impacts than Ukraine, which is already bankrupt.
Britain and European will increasingly struggle to give Ukraine the resources that it needs, not just to fight, but also to avoid a shocking economic meltdown.
Everything else is in the peace plan will be down to fine points of detail and white noise.
But, of course, the terms of the peace deal will reflect the relative weight of both sides in the negotiations.
And let’s be clear that Russia continues to hold the stronger hand of cards in negotiations.
Russia will end the war with the strategic advantage on the battlefield, their army the most battle hardened and well equipped that it has been since the end of World War II.
Their core aim, to prevent NATO expansion in Ukraine will decisively have been achieved.
Russia will have managed the economic consequences of war better than Ukraine and its western sponsors, in particular Europe.
Ukraine will end the war, wanting to maintain an army of 800,000 but without the money to do so without British and Europeans donations of aid that will become harder to secure as peace sets it.
It will have failed to land NATO membership and the prospects for joining the EU might not be as bright as the Ukrainian population would expect.
It will be functionally bankrupt and will need quickly to reintroduce itself to a healthy relationship with western financial markets, in order to stay afloat.
However, the peace deal available to Ukraine and also to its European sponsors, will never be as good as the one available today.
It won’t be as good as the deal that was available to Ukraine in April 2022 in Istanbul. Fighting on for another year will simply stack the advantages more in favour of Russia such that any final settlement just gets progressively worse.
So, what is at stake?
Both sides will sign an agreement when they are satisfied that it meets their respective needs.
For Ukraine, that means a guarantee of not being attacked in the future, possibly accelerated membership of the EU, and provisions to help invest in post-war reconstruction. These represent basic requirements for its stability as a state, though not a strategic victory.
For Russia, by far the biggest requirement is that Ukraine is never able to join NATO in the future, which on its own will represent a huge strategic victory over the west.
These are central issues.
However, for Russia and also for Europe and Ukraine, an end to war may not deliver a genuinely normalised and enduring peace unless there is a normalisation of economic relationships, including but not limited to the lifting of economic sanctions.
A continued state of economic warfare would simply risk pressing the pause button on military warfare, at a time of European rearmament.
There would be little to motivate Russia to stop fighting in the first place, or to reduce its military readiness significantly following any armistice, if it believed that its economy would continue to be squeezed by the west, even though it has successfully navigated the economic shock of war better than Europe in particular.
On economics in particular, Russia will be concerned about Ukraine within Europe pushing for a maintenance of economic warfare against Russia, as it has since 2014, and as the Poles and Baltic States, not the mention the Brits, have done for many years.
Russia will also undoubtedly want issues such as the widespread cancellation of Russia from the international arena reversed, borders reopened, and readmittance to international sporting and cultural events.
So, even though the USA is in pole position in bringing both sides together in the negotiation process, it will be decisions in Europe that dictate whether any peace sticks.
And that raises questions about the role that the EU plays in the negotiation process.
Read more: Without an economic reset with Russia, a peace deal for Ukraine may render Britain and Europe weakened relics of a unipolar past.Until now, the European Union and Britain have proved themselves singularly unwilling to enter into direct dialogue with Russia to end the war, adding to the sense that they are invested in its continuance.
Efforts in Europe to agree a lead negotiator with Russia have so far come to nothing.
It is therefore right that the US has mediated the talks between Russia and Ukraine, and for this President Trump must take the credit, as without initiative it would not have happened.
However, that poses risks, that the US will not be able to leverage EU policy towards Russia and include in any peace deal clauses that depend on European agreement.
And US leverage over Europe may have been weakened by its posture towards the future status of Greenland.
It does therefore make sense rationally for the Europeans to be introduced into the peace process at some stage.
Even if not in the main bilateral part of the talks between Russia and Ukraine, there may need to be a process in which the USA, perhaps directly with Europe, negotiates the contours of a unified economic off-ramp from a war that Ukraine and Russia have agreed bilaterally to bring to a halt.
Hitherto, the Europeans have been unable to coordinate on who this should be involved in negotiations, and the Russians clearly don’t want it to be Kaja Kallas, who has shown herself set against any peace deal to end the war, setting unrealistic conditions that she is not in a position to enforce on Russia.
Based on the evidence so far, the Europeans will need for the first time to reimagine their role as an external party to the conflict, having to date, positioned themselves directly as a party to the conflict, through military, political and financial support to Ukraine, and a stated strategy to defeat Russia.
That means both a commitment to integrate and support Ukraine into the Union and to normalise relations with Russia, both of which are more complex tasks that sending money to Ukraine to keep fighting.
This may prove almost as difficult a task as obtaining bilateral agreement between the combatants themselves to end the fighting, given the lack of clear and decisive leadership within Europe itself. It is hard to see Ursula von der Leyen playing the peace maker role. Will it be the leader or a group of leaders from Member States? And would it, in fact, make sense to include a small group of leaders, including from Central European States like Hungary, who have long opposed unconditional support for Ukraine and for the war? What role would Britain play, sitting outside of the EU, and having been one of the biggest advocates for the continuation of the war?
These are hugely complicated, and I am not confident that a decisive position will be reached soon, not least given the months it has taken already to discuss the basics of who might engage in direct dialogue with President Putin.
At the same time, the Europeans risk being even further sidelined in the process if they refuse to engage, which may force them to commit to a meaningful role in peace talks which they have hitherto ruled themselves out of.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the peace process is how it will finally be agreed and signed.
Zelensky has appeared for many months determined to sign off an any agreement through a direct meeting with President Putin.
It is entirely normal for Heads of State to meet to sign off landmark treaties and peace deals. After World War II, the surrender of both Germany and Japan was signed off by more junior figureheads, but Ukraine will not be surrendering.
It might not seem immediately obvious why Zelensky should want to meet Putin, having spent the whole war encouraging Russia’s isolation on the world stage.
Yet here the optics appear more about Zelensky’s desire to legitimise his role as President, in circumstances where he hasn’t faced an election since 2019.
Knowing that an end to the war will usher in Presidential elections in Ukraine, signing a peace deal may epitomise his desire to present himself to Ukrainian citizens as a peace maker, with one eye on boosting his popularity before elections.
I personally think that even if he meets Putin, Zelensky is probably still doomed to lose a future Presidential poll, because any deal he signs will be worse than the deal that was available to him in April 2022 in Istanbul.
Putin will also not want to give Zelensky a gift of free publicity and in any case will be concerned that Zelensky will simply try to pull a publicity stunt if he meets Putin. In any case, I don’t see such a hypothetical meeting taking place without Trump who wants to position himself as the ultimate peacemaker. And Putin will want to keep President Trump on side with one eye on a much bigger and more valuable to Russia reset in economic relations with America.
So, I don’t think Putin would see it in his interests to make not meeting Zelensky a red line issue, so long as Trump committed to making sure the choreography of the event was proper.
He will in any case know that he has a stronger claim to victory coming out of the war than Zelensky.
He will be seen by Russian people as the President who stared down NATO and prevented its expansion, weakening the perception of western hegemony among countries in the developing world, and sowing serious division within the European Union.
Zelensky, in the cold light of day, will be seen as the President who settled for a worse deal than that which was available to him in April 2022. And even if the prospect of EU membership is accelerated, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be allowed to join as an equal member and will have bankrupted and depopulated itself for the right to second class citizenship.
Both countries will have lost very large numbers of troops to death or injury. Russia will reach back into history to justify this on the basis of fending off an existential threat to its nation in the guise, not of Ukraine itself, but of the NATO military alliance.
Ukrainian leaders will have to explain why so many men and women died or were injured to bring about a less favourable peace to that which was available in Istanbul four years earlier, and that will be a harder case to make
But when it comes down to it, no one really wins in a war, and primarily ordinary working people suffer.
Which again serves as a reminder that wars are often judged in hindsight on their political aftermath.
The Second World War decisively signalled the end of the British Empire leaving only two in its place, the United States and the Soviet Union.
Ukraine will emerge from this war significantly weakened against a Russia that has renewed standing in the developing world. There is a significant chance that the Euro-integration project will have reached its high-water mark and, like the British Empire, will also go into decline.
The end of the war in Ukraine will decisively usher in a more multi-polar world, in which Europe and Britain are seen as weakened relics of a unipolar past.
Selective context: Why Isaac Herzog’s visit deepens Australia’s moral failure
It would be hard to imagine a more divisive guest in this country. The Jewish Council of Australia has expressed ‘outrage that the Albanese Government would fuel the flames of division by inviting Herzog to visit Australia, warning that his trip is completely inappropriate and offensive and will rightly spark mass protest’. Herzog, the Council said, ‘has played an active role in the ongoing destruction of Gaza, including the murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the displacement of millions’.
By Sue Wareham | 9 February 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/selective-context-why-isaac-herzogs-visit-deepens-australias-moral-failure,20660
Calls to ‘consider the context’ of President Herzog’s visit obscure Israel’s ban on dozens of NGOs in Gaza and the West Bank, writes Dr Sue Wareham.
AHEAD OF TODAY’S VISIT to Australia by Israeli President Isaac Herzog and the anticipated large protests against it, Foreign Minister Penny Wong asked us to ‘consider the context’ of the visit.
Part of that context is the horrific massacre of 15 Jewish Australians at Bondi in December and the deep sense of grief felt throughout Jewish communities and beyond.
However, the context also includes the destruction by Israel of practically every aspect of civilian society in Gaza, with over ten per cent of the population directly killed or injured since October 2023 and barely a soul alive who has not been traumatised in multiple ways, including bereavement, displacement, and deprivation of food, clean water, sanitation, shelter and other essentials.
Herzog is not an innocent bystander, as Israel’s breaches of international law in Gaza and the West Bank have become so commonplace as to be almost normalised. In September 2025, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory accused him of inciting genocide, citing his statement that “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”, made soon after Hamas’ brutal attacks of 7 October 2023. The entire Palestinian population has been punished ever since.
That collective punishment has deeply affected very many Palestinian Australians, as they grieve the loss of loved ones in Gaza, and have watched helplessly as remaining loved ones have faced deprivation, multiple displacements and a dire humanitarian situation.
Despite the “ceasefire” that began in early October 2025 (a ceasefire which appears to mean fewer bombs rather than no bombs), the collective punishment continues.
Israeli authorities have now de-registered and are effectively banning 37 international humanitarian organisations (INGOs) from operating in Gaza and the West Bank. Unless the organisations comply with Israeli demands to provide personal data on all their staff – in a context where over 500 humanitarian workers have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023 – they will have to withdraw from all the Occupied Palestinian Territory by the start of March.
This poses an impossible choice for INGOs — to either compromise staff safety or to abandon people who are in desperate need. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), as one of the affected agencies, has made the extremely painful decision that it will not comply with Israeli demands for staff information. MSF’s statement of 30 January said that ‘despite repeated efforts, it became evident in recent days that we were unable to build engagement with Israeli authorities on the concrete assurances [regarding staff safety] required’.
MSF states that if the agency is expelled from Gaza and the West Bank, ‘it would have a devastating impact, as Palestinians face a brutal winter amidst destroyed homes and urgent humanitarian needs’ with basic services including food, water, shelter, healthcare, fuel and livelihoods largely destroyed, and a health system that is ‘nearly non-functional’.
Oxfam’s assessment of 3 January is similar, stating that ‘Despite the ceasefire, humanitarian needs remain extreme’. The removal of these services would ‘close health facilities, halt food distributions, collapse shelter pipelines and cut off life-saving care’.
Oxfam noted that INGOs already operate according to strict compliance and due diligence standards.
Setting aside any moral imperative to provide aid for fellow humans who are suffering, Israel’s actions in banning INGO access violate the nation’s legal obligations, as the occupying force, to ensure the health and welfare of the civilian population.
They also violate the January 2024 International Court of Justice ruling that Israel ‘must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip’.
Far from complying with the law, Israel continues to actively block the delivery of essential aid to a population in urgent need, and is now enforcing INGO registration conditions that exceed routine oversight and undermine humanitarian neutrality and independence.
For the many Palestinian Australians and their loved ones in Gaza, Israel’s actions have devastating consequences. And yet their grief and distress are not part of Minister Wong’s selective “context” for the visit of President Herzog.
It would be hard to imagine a more divisive guest in this country. The Jewish Council of Australia has expressed ‘outrage that the Albanese Government would fuel the flames of division by inviting Herzog to visit Australia, warning that his trip is completely inappropriate and offensive and will rightly spark mass protest’. Herzog, the Council said, ‘has played an active role in the ongoing destruction of Gaza, including the murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the displacement of millions’.
Australia’s stance could have been very different. Apart from choosing our guests more sensitively and avoiding those accused of the most grievous crimes, Australia should long since have applied meaningful sanctions against Israeli individuals and the State of Israel itself.
Foreign Minister Wong has the power to determine that Israel’s ongoing deliberate obstruction of aid and its collective punishment of the Palestinian people meet the threshold of “serious violation or abuse” under Australia’s sanctions regime. She has chosen instead to insulate Israel from accountability, thus undermining the universality of international law and eroding Australia’s credibility as an independent nation.
The people of Palestine and their loved ones here pay a heavy price for Australia’s failure to act.
Sanctions against Israel are not likely to be announced in the coming days, but the need for them is only growing.
Residential proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer incidence in Massachusetts, USA (2000–2018)
18 December 2025, Springer Nature, Volume 24, article number 92, (2025)
“………………………………………. Results
Proximity to plants significantly increased cancer incidence, with risk declining by distance. At 2 km, females showed RRs of 1.52 (95% CI: 1.20–1.94) for ages 55–64, 2.00 (1.59–2.52) for 65–74, and 2.53 (1.98–3.22) for 75 + . Males showed RRs of 1.97 (1.57–2.48), 1.75 (1.42–2.16), and 1.63 (1.29–2.06), respectively. Cancer site-specific analyses showed significant associations for lung, prostate, breast, colorectal, bladder, melanoma, leukemia, thyroid, uterine, kidney, laryngeal, pancreatic, oral, esophageal, and Hodgkin lymphoma, with variation by sex and age. We estimated 10,815 female and 9,803 male cancer cases attributable to proximity, corresponding to attributable fractions of 4.1% (95% CI: 2.4–5.7%) and 3.5% (95% CI: 1.8–5.2%).
Conclusions
Residential proximity to nuclear plants in Massachusetts is associated with elevated cancer risks, particularly among older adults, underscoring the need for continued epidemiologic monitoring amid renewed interest in nuclear energy. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-025-01248-6
Trump is not threatening war on Iran over its nuclear program, but because it challenges U.S. dominance.
In short, it is about removing Iran from the strategic playing field, as it is the sole actor in the region that is powerful, influential, and beyond the United States’ direct control. The U.S. and Israel desperately want to remove that oppositional force.
So Trump is buying time by agreeing to talks that cannot succeed on the terms he and Rubio have laid down. He is likely to use that time to magnify the threat against the Iranian leadership in the vain hope that they will acquiesce to his demands.
The U.S. is once again threatening a war on Iran that could devastate the region. Trump knows Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but that has never been the point. It is about removing Iran as the only actor in the region beyond U.S. control.
By Mitchell Plitnick February 6, 2026, https://mondoweiss.net/2026/02/trump-is-not-threatening-war-on-iran-over-its-nuclear-program-but-because-it-challenges-u-s-dominance/
American and Iranian negotiators are meeting in Muscat to see if they can come to an agreement and avoid an American attack on Iran. The chances don’t look good.
There was some initial hope because Donald Trump agreed to hold talks at all. The buildup of American forces in the region and the frequent planning meetings with Israeli political and military officials gave the appearance of an unstoppable buildup to war.
But American allies Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman have been working hard to convince Trump not to attack Iran. They fear the potential backlash of an American attack on the Islamic Republic, believing that Iran is not likely to respond to an attack with the restraint they have shown in the past.
Israel is urging Trump to attack, as the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is the one entity that stands to benefit from the chaos that an attack on Iran could bring.
Indeed, Iran has warned that an attack this time will be met with a very different response than previous ones. Yet, paradoxically, it is the very fact that Iran is capable of a more damaging response than it has taken in the past that creates the impasse that is likely to derail negotiations.
What each side wants
Iran’s desires from any talks with the U.S. are straightforward: they want the U.S. to stop threatening to attack, and to lift the sanctions that have helped to cripple Iran’s economy.
But the United States has more complicated demands.
- The United States wants Iran to completely abandon nuclear power. This demand is not just about weaponry, but includes all civilian nuclear power under Iran’s control. No uranium at all can be enriched by Iran, regardless of whether it is for civilian or military purposes, and all enriched uranium Iran has must be handed over.
- The U.S. is demanding that Iran agree to limits dictated by Washington on the range and number of ballistic missiles it can possess.
- The U.S. is demanding that Iran end its support of any and all armed resistance groups in the region.
All of these demands are unreasonable. But the United States is holding a loaded gun to Iran’s head. The U.S. has moved a large carrier group into the waters near Iran, and between American and Israeli intelligence, they surely have a very clear map of where they want to strike to go along with the technical capability to essentially ignore Iran’s defenses.
But while Iran can do very little to shield itself from an American or Israeli attack, it is capable of responding to one. That is what the last two American demands are focused on, and it’s really the reason all of this is happening.
If the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran and Iran elects to respond with all of its capabilities—which it has not done in previous attacks—it has the ability to kill many American soldiers, severely disrupt oil production in the Gulf, or cause significant damage to Israel.
Iran can do this because it has a large battery of long-range ballistic missiles. It has already shown, last June, that it can hurt Israel, and that was an attack largely meant to be a warning.
Iran also backs various militias in the region, some large, like Ansar Allah in Yemen, others smaller. That means it can launch guerrilla attacks on American bases or other key sites in places like Iraq and Syria.
Iran can also target oil fields throughout the region, either with missiles or drones or with militia attacks. That’s a major reason Trump’s friends in the Gulf are reluctant to see him start a war.
The ability to do all of that gives Washington pause. Donald Trump likes it when he can do quick operations with little or no pushback, as he did recently in Venezuela or last year in Iran. Trump has carefully avoided situations where American soldiers might be killed. Iran might not let the U.S. off so easily this time around.
The reality behind U.S. demands
That brings us to why talks are so unlikely to succeed.
Iran has already made it clear it has no intention to negotiate on their support for groups throughout the region or on their ballistic missile arsenal. They understand that the reason the United States is trying to force them to agree to such measures is that it would leave Iran defenseless. Giving in to these demands would be tantamount to national suicide.
The Iranian leadership is more than happy to discuss the issue of nuclear power. As unfair as the terms might be, they might even be willing to reach a compromise that allows them to use nuclear power without enriching uranium themselves. That’s far from ideal, but Iran is facing a considerable threat.
But this holds little interest for the Trump administration. Despite American chest-thumping, they know that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, nor were they before the U.S. damaged so much of their nuclear infrastructure last year. Trump’s own intelligence corps confirmed that Iran was not actively seeking a nuclear weapon, just as it had affirmed that finding every year since 2007.
But none of this has ever been about an Iranian nuclear weapon. Rather, it has always been about pressuring the Islamic Republic either to fall or to radically change its behavior in the region. It has always been about getting Iran to stop supporting the Palestinian cause rhetorically and to stop arming Palestinian factions. It has always been about stopping Iran from supporting militias in the region that act outside of the American-run system, unlike those that are backed by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or other states in the region that are on good terms with Washington.
In short, it is about removing Iran from the strategic playing field, as it is the sole actor in the region that is powerful, influential, and beyond the United States’ direct control. The U.S. and Israel desperately want to remove that oppositional force.
Trump weighs the consequences of attacking Iran
Does Trump really want a war? That concern with Iran is a long-term U.S.-Israeli policy goal. What Donald Trump personally wants is always difficult to know. It can change from day to day, and is often based on a less-than-full understanding of the real world.
From all appearances, Trump felt emboldened by the American success in Venezuela. He kidnapped the head of state and his wife, and suffered no American casualties in doing so. The short-term political backlash, both in Latin America and in the U.S., was brief and minimal.
No doubt, he envisioned a similar success in Iran, when the protests there and the Iranian government’s brutal response helped to create what might have looked superficially like similar circumstances. Trump began issuing one threat after another, and while their frequency has been intermittent, they have not stopped.
But his friends in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, and elsewhere in the Mideast explained to Trump that the outcome in Iran would be very different from that in Venezuela. Iran has the capabilities we’ve already discussed here, but there are other key differences.
For one, Iran has a deep governmental infrastructure, and there is no one in it who is both capable of taking over from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and willing to compromise with Trump in the way Delcy Rodriguez has in Caracas. Despite the occasional protester in Iran calling out the name of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran, who was deposed in 1979, there is no infrastructure of support for him in Iran, and it would likely be impossible to simply install him without a full-scale invasion of the country.
So Trump is buying time by agreeing to talks that cannot succeed on the terms he and Rubio have laid down. He is likely to use that time to magnify the threat against the Iranian leadership in the vain hope that they will acquiesce to his demands.
But the primary purpose of that time is to continue to position American and Israeli forces to counter what they can anticipate of an Iranian response. That would mean not just the stationing of ships in striking distance of Iran, but also positioning whatever military assets they might have in countries like Iraq and Syria, as well as in other Gulf states, to counter guerrilla attacks by Iran-aligned militias and getting friendly states to agree to help with shooting down Iranian missiles and drones, as they did last year.
With Rubio and Benjamin Netanyahu pushing Trump toward a regime change war with Iran, and given the amount of bluster he has already put out there, it is hard to see Trump backing away from a war if Iran will not agree to compromise on its missiles and the militias it supports. And Iran is not about to do that.
The war that will ensue stands a good chance of toppling the Iranian government, but with nothing to replace it, the power vacuum that will surely follow will mean chaos not only for Iran but for the whole region. That isn’t really in Trump’s interests, and it certainly does not benefit his Gulf Arab allies.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, will have made the “neighborhood” that much more dangerous just as Israel’s election season begins to ramp up. While many Israelis have lost faith that “Mr. Security” can protect them after October 7, a heightened sense of danger to Israelis remains the atmosphere that is most favorable to Netanyahu electorally. It’s therefore no surprise that Israel is the one actor in the region that is pressing for this regime change war.
Averting that war will mean the Trump administration climbing down from its maximalist demands. There are indications that the U.S. is looking, at least,for an option that allows it to do that without appearing to have shied away from Iranian retaliation. But that remains an unlikely outcome, as hawks in Israel, Washington, and among the anti-regime exile Iranian community continue to urge an attack.
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
12 February – Webinar The Big Push: New Nuclear Projects in Canada
Thursday, February 12, 7 pm Eastern | 2nd of 4 sessions in the 2026 Nuclear Waste Online webinar series
Join a webinar on the push for new nuclear generation in Canada. Go to Northwatch.org to register or use the registration link https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ZfWOf1GITqSRIZX8CB-A9w
-
Archives
- February 2026 (115)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 