nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Memory politics – a tragic military strategy in Ukraine

23 June 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/memory-politics-a-tragic-military-strategy-in-ukraine/

I came across the views of Marta Havryshko in a YouTube video on June 15th, in a lengthy audio essay.

What struck me about this speech, was that it comes from a Jewish Ukrainian woman, who is describing her own observations, living in Ukraine today. I also found the title of her speech very interesting – The tragedy of Memory Politics in Ukraine, Israel & the West. That’s because I cannot help noticing that in the prevailing commentaries on Ukraine, the commentators seem to have forgotten the complexity in Ukraine’s recent modern history.

Marta Havryshko is aware of this complex history. She has been living through the most recent part of it. She sees it from a Jewish perspective, and she is no fan of Putin’s Russia. But – she also brings her awareness of history to current affairs in Ukraine, and she is no fan of Volodymyr Zelensky either.

I tried to transcribe the entire 95 minutes of her speech. It is too long for an article, but I will include excerpts here, to illustrate her themes. She discusses Ukraine’s troubled history of anti-semitism, and the Nazi period in Ukraine. She focusses on Zelensky and the current accepted views on Ukraine’s history – the apparent forgetting of the facts in that history, as Ukrainian extreme nationalism now flourishes.

Marta describes her childhood, and education in Ukraine. She learned at school the history of Soviet Russia’s oppression of Ukrainians, and of the heroic freedom fighters who resisted the Russians:

“I was was raised on this nationalistic myth about glorious fighters, members of the Ukraine underground movement the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and the organisation of Ukraine nationalists. We learned all these patriotic songs. Our family gatherings involved histories about Soviet repressions and actually, the house that my parents built was on the territory on the land that was seized by Soviets in 1939. Some of my family were involved on the ground in the Ukrainian nationalist movement and they were oppressed. Some of them were booted in prison and some of them were sent to Siberia. So I was raised in this highly nationalistic environment.

When I became a student at Lviv National University actually I met almost the same atmosphere. Lviv is a very nationalistic city with the biggest monument to Stepan Bandera (leader of the UPA). My home was close to Bandera street, and many streets had these partisan names.”

Marta explains how the memories of wartime events have now become confused, enmeshed into present day views and anti-Russian fervour.

“After 2014 this very western Ukraine nationalistic historical myth started to move eastward. After 2022 it became really the national myth promoted on the very national level. That’s why for example under President Zelensky we nowadays have streets named Bandera and Shukhevych (another UPA leader) in Kirik, home town of our president Zelensky.

This myth is cultivated in Ukraine in war time. Another dimension of this very troubling development in is that Nazi apologism is flourishing because many members of the Ukraine nationalists on the ground during the second world war were members of auxiliary police under German occupation and some of them occupied chief positions, so they were not just ordinary rank and file policemen – they were chiefs of police. Vasyl Levkovych, for example, is a very glorious figure in this nationalist pantheon. Those people nowadays are celebrated as freedom fighters and their direct participation in the holocaust is obscured, is marginalised and silenced and even denied.

At the holocaust memorial I was really shocked. I saw these fancy souvenir magazines with Daddy Bandera socks and Daddy Bandera bags. In one day I spent almost three hours in the city center and I saw an amount of different hate symbols like SS bolts, like black sun like Nazi eagles, like swastikas. I never saw in my life. in Western Europe, this concentration of these Nazi hate symbols. and the amount of different hate symbols – SS bolts, black sun, Nazi eagle, different combinations of swastikas. In Ukraine it’s so normalised – why? Because it’s a part of military culture nowadays. Those symbols are adopted primarily by military actors and by soldiers. The trust in Ukraine military is so high in Ukraine society – approximately more than 90% of Ukrainians nowadays trust Ukraine military. That’s why they just accept this.

Ukraine military nowadays is full of different far right groups. They are sponsored and they are celebrated as freedom fighters. In the Ukraine military we have overt Nazi apologists. For example we have the Niga named after the Nachtigall Battalion formed by the Germans and this battalion participated in the Nazi Barbarossa plan against Russia in 1941. From the documents of some participants of this unit we know that they participated in anti-Jewish pogroms.

Especially after 2022 so many neo-Nazis and far right groups neo-Nazis and far right groups were empowered and they openly promote their agenda. They openly celebrate Nazi units. Why? Because their ideology is.” Those guys are lesser evil because they fought our eternal enemy, meaning Russia. And they compare themselves with Nazis.So it’s not only Putin who compares them with Nazis, but that they themselves compare themselves with Nazis, and it’s ridiculous, it’s just crazy.”

Marta explains “memory politics” as a strategy, a weapon of war:

Those who are against military mobilisation are not a minority any more, Those who want to have peace with Russia, those who want to build a relationship with Russia on good terms, who don’t want to be engaged in eternal war with Russia, they are “bad Ukrainians” – you need to view Russia as the eternal enemy. For our children, this means only permanent war. With the anti-Russian project and narrative we will be in constant war with the superior angry and very powerful aggressor., in constant destruction.

We don’t want to spend our lives, sacrificing our life for what? – for our political elites. Ukraine is now a colonial client of the West, The West is deciding what money will go where, what laws will be adopted. In our fight against the Russian imperial state we are becoming a colony of Western imperialism. No-one is talking about this, because it’s a “good” empire.

We still have enormous casualties, and those casualties are hidden.

Memory politics is the main issue. They make movies etc about Russian atrocities but never about Ukrainian atrocities. Ukraine killed Ukrainian students in occupied Donbass, in Spring 2022. It was painful to see how many people denied it, and then justified it, blaming those students for “collaboration with Russia,” some were trying to present this as collateral damage.

The state is pouring so much money into commemorating this war. It’s about producing, inflicting emotions. First of all it’s always in both Ukrainian and English language, It’s for Western audiences, to inflict emotion, to inflict empathy, to present Ukraine as poor victim, to present a black and white picture when Ukraine is of course presented as the forces of good, and Russia as the forces of evil. Nothing of course about what happened to the people of Donbass in 2014, 2015, 2016 – always about guilt of Russia, bad Russia, crazy Putin, imperialism in Russian blood, and angels Ukraine.

So memory politics is a part of Ukraine war propaganda. Many intellectuals are engaged in this propaganda, and many receive grants from abroad. And it supports the Western agenda: Many many Western people – who discovered Ukraine only in February 2022 – see Ukraine as this angel, who was unjustifiably attacked, and is bleeding, and needs support to continue resistance. Nobody is asking those people kidnapped in the vans. Nobody asking those women, their sisters, their mothers, their wives – “Do they want to fight, to be sent to the meat-grinder against their will?” This myth of resilience, of this nation, who would rather die than live under Russian occupation. But this myth is produced by Zelensky propaganda. I must admit they’re doing a very good job in this, because Zelensky is very good at entertainment – it’s his profession.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Christina's notes, PERSONAL STORIES, politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Rising to the challenge – building a global majority against war and nuclear weapons

20 June 2026, https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/rising-challenge-building-global-majority-against-war-and-nuclear-weapons

Build peace, not a new nuclear Europe, says SOPHIE BOLT of CNDBuild peace, not a new nuclear Europe, says SOPHIE BOLT of CND

WE KNOW that the world is at a crossroads. Alongside huge increases in military spending, the threat of nuclear weapons being used in war is growing.

Attempts to turn whole countries’ economies towards war are being justified by the continued war on Ukraine, and perceived threats that this devastating conflict will spread across the continent. However, far from preventing war, this preparation for it risks dragging Europe into a war that could go nuclear.  

Since Russia lowered its nuclear-use threshold and placed nuclear weapons outside its territory in Belarus, it has now carried out successful test flights of new nuclear delivery systems, including the long-range, nuclear-powered Burevestnik missile which flew 14,000 kilometres.

A whole new generation of US nuclear weapons is now stationed at Nato bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and Britain.


This nuclear upgrade has taken place alongside further Nato expansion to incorporate Finland and Sweden. This has doubled the length of Nato’s borders with Russia.

In March, President Emmanuel Macron announced not only an increase in its nuclear weapons but also formalised his “nuclear sharing” arrangement, arguing that Russia was a threat to Europe.  

The new nuclear doctrine will mean nine other European countries being integrated into French nuclear operations.

This starts with nuclear exercises in preparation for French nuclear jets or nuclear-armed submarines are deployed to these countries’ military bases.

This French nuclear expansion is not to substitute for a withdrawal of US nuclear weapons. While the Trump administration is considering reducing some of its military contribution to Nato’s rapid response force, it is not withdrawing its nuclear B61-12 bombs.

In fact, Trump is in talks with European Nato states about expanding the number of countries hosting the nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets that can launch these bombs.

This means, that on top of this US nuclear expansion, French nuclear-armed jets could be deployed to at least another five European countries including Greece, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Poland. This would mean US and French nuclear weapons being deployed across Europe right up to Russia’s borders.


Alongside this nuclear escalation, debates are taking place about whether Germany should develop its own nuclear weapons. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has so far ruled it out. However, the government is taking a much more aggressive, leading role in European rearmament and has pledged to build Europe’s strongest army.

Last July it signed a treaty to increase nuclear co-operation with Britain. That same month Keir Starmer committed to expand Britain’s nuclear capability with 12 nuclear-capable fighter jets to strengthen Nato’s nuclear mission.

This acceleration of plans for nuclear expansion are only increasing tensions with Russia. Far from offering security to the populations of all these European states and the people of Ukraine, the war is yet again escalating, with the UN reporting that civilian casualties in Ukraine were the highest they have been since Russia’s illegal invasion in 2022.

Reports that European countries are considering restarting dialogue with Russia to end the war are welcome and absolutely vital. Only a diplomatic and political approach can create a sustainable security architecture that can ensure the long-term peace and prosperity for Europe, Ukraine and Russia.

This cannot be achieved by deploying troops from Nato countries into Ukraine, backed by the constant, looming threat of nuclear war. On the contrary, this will only prolong and escalate the crisis, and risk drawing Nato states into direct confrontation with Russia.

Central to this must be the withdrawal of all nuclear weapons in the region: getting the US weapons out of Europe and Russian weapons out of Belarus. Instead of pushing for more nuclear weapons, Britain and Europe should be supporting serious programmes to get rid of the world’s nuclear weapons.

We need co-ordinated action to make this happen. Opposition to war and nuclear weapons is growing. We take inspiration from the incredible demonstrations and strike actions building across Europe against militarism.  


WE KNOW that the world is at a crossroads. Alongside huge increases in military spending, the threat of nuclear weapons being used in war is growing.

Attempts to turn whole countries’ economies towards war are being justified by the continued war on Ukraine, and perceived threats that this devastating conflict will spread across the continent. However, far from preventing war, this preparation for it risks dragging Europe into a war that could go nuclear.  

Since Russia lowered its nuclear-use threshold and placed nuclear weapons outside its territory in Belarus, it has now carried out successful test flights of new nuclear delivery systems, including the long-range, nuclear-powered Burevestnik missile which flew 14,000 kilometres.

A whole new generation of US nuclear weapons is now stationed at Nato bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and Britain.

This nuclear upgrade has taken place alongside further Nato expansion to incorporate Finland and Sweden. This has doubled the length of Nato’s borders with Russia.

In March, President Emmanuel Macron announced not only an increase in its nuclear weapons but also formalised his “nuclear sharing” arrangement, arguing that Russia was a threat to Europe.  

The new nuclear doctrine will mean nine other European countries being integrated into French nuclear operations.

This starts with nuclear exercises in preparation for French nuclear jets or nuclear-armed submarines are deployed to these countries’ military bases.

This French nuclear expansion is not to substitute for a withdrawal of US nuclear weapons. While the Trump administration is considering reducing some of its military contribution to Nato’s rapid response force, it is not withdrawing its nuclear B61-12 bombs.

In fact, Trump is in talks with European Nato states about expanding the number of countries hosting the nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets that can launch these bombs.

This means, that on top of this US nuclear expansion, French nuclear-armed jets could be deployed to at least another five European countries including Greece, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Poland. This would mean US and French nuclear weapons being deployed across Europe right up to Russia’s borders.

Alongside this nuclear escalation, debates are taking place about whether Germany should develop its own nuclear weapons. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has so far ruled it out. However, the government is taking a much more aggressive, leading role in European rearmament and has pledged to build Europe’s strongest army.

Last July it signed a treaty to increase nuclear co-operation with Britain. That same month Keir Starmer committed to expand Britain’s nuclear capability with 12 nuclear-capable fighter jets to strengthen Nato’s nuclear mission.

This acceleration of plans for nuclear expansion are only increasing tensions with Russia. Far from offering security to the populations of all these European states and the people of Ukraine, the war is yet again escalating, with the UN reporting that civilian casualties in Ukraine were the highest they have been since Russia’s illegal invasion in 2022.

Reports that European countries are considering restarting dialogue with Russia to end the war are welcome and absolutely vital. Only a diplomatic and political approach can create a sustainable security architecture that can ensure the long-term peace and prosperity for Europe, Ukraine and Russia.

This cannot be achieved by deploying troops from Nato countries into Ukraine, backed by the constant, looming threat of nuclear war. On the contrary, this will only prolong and escalate the crisis, and risk drawing Nato states into direct confrontation with Russia.

Central to this must be the withdrawal of all nuclear weapons in the region: getting the US weapons out of Europe and Russian weapons out of Belarus. Instead of pushing for more nuclear weapons, Britain and Europe should be supporting serious programmes to get rid of the world’s nuclear weapons.

We need co-ordinated action to make this happen. Opposition to war and nuclear weapons is growing. We take inspiration from the incredible demonstrations and strike actions building across Europe against militarism.  

Here in Britain, opposition to Britain’s toxic military alliance with the US is growing. Seventy per cent oppose the war on Iran and over 60 per cent want US nuclear weapons out of this country.

Today, at this critical anti-war summit, we have a critical opportunity to redouble our efforts to halt this catastrophic drive to war. We all face the same interconnected crises of war, nuclear threats, climate breakdown, of worsening poverty and a rising far right.

Therefore, we must co-ordinate together to develop and win a majority in our countries for an alternative strategy to war and nuclear weapons. This must be rooted in human security and common security — prioritising diplomacy, global co-operation, conflict prevention, and investment in health, education, climate resilience, social care.

Co-ordinating and learning from our joint struggles, we can build a movement strong enough to halt the war drive and redirect these huge resources into securing the sustainable, peaceful future humanity so desperately needs.


Sophie Bolt is general secretary of CND. She is speaking at today’s Stop the War International Conference at Central Hall Westminster, Storey’s Gate, London SW1H 9NH on Saturday June 20. For more information visit stopwar.org.uk.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

This Is Why Trump Was Necessary

it is entirely conceivable that Israel, just like South Africa, will be globally ostracised and abandoned.

Trump was necessary. Necessary to strip away the niceties and reveal the true face of empire, to reveal its naked impunity, to showcase the war crimes in all their immoral bloodlust.

Nate Bear, Jun 19, 2026, https://www.donotpanic.news/p/this-is-why-trump-was-necessary

Iran has forced the US into one of the biggest strategic defeats in its short, violent and bloody history.

The memorandum of understanding with Iran, signed (symbolically or not), at Versailles yesterday, signalled, as I wrote earlier this week, that we’re witnessing the collapse of American hard power.

After it was signed, Trump made some extraordinary comments that wouldn’t have looked out of place in the handbook of anti-imperial critique, including that it’s not fair to tell Iran it can’t have missiles if all it’s neighbours have them and that it’s “common sense” that the country should be able to enrich uranium for energy. Trump also admitted oil reserves were running out and the world was approaching a depression, which slays the idea (an idea I never bought), that the US attack was a genius move to control the world’s oil and gas.

Iran has suffered some serious damage to its infrastructure as well as burying over 3,000 civilians, but it has checkmated the US strategically. And Trump has had to accept that. Iran’s ability to hit key regional infrastructure from deeply-buried missile cities, along with its ability to control the Strait, won the day. The US also appears to be reluctantly accepting some other realities. A few hours after the MoU was signed, after it was put to him that Israel wasn’t happy with the tentative deal, JD Vance said that Israel “is a country of nine million people that can’t just kill its way out of every national security problem.”

They read the polls, they see the way the wind is blowing, and they’re moving with it.

Israel of course is still a vital strategic outpost for empire, and it will not be abandoned yet. But there is absolutely a future in which the value of Israel to empire becomes less useful than the economic value empire can gain from a wider peace in the region, even if that peace runs counter to Israeli interests. And if Israel, not Iran or the resistance, comes to be seen as the main obstacle to this future, a position Trump and Vance appear to be moving towards, it is entirely conceivable that Israel, just like South Africa, will be globally ostracised and abandoned.

If this were to happen, the range of outcomes is extremely broad. Tensions between orthodox and secular Jews are already high in Israel, and you could reasonably argue that under conditions of global abandonment, civil war would break out. Before or after such a war, you might get a government run by Ben-Gvir and Jewish end-times fanatics who decide to fight the world and trigger a nuclear holocaust. Or the fanatics might lose, and you get a government which enters into international negotiations towards one state with equal rights for all. A former prime minister of Israel has, after all, just labelled Israeli actions in the West Bank ethnic cleansing.

I think we’re a long way from Israel ever giving up its colonial privileges. Civil war is a lot more likely than the negotiated end of the state, but we’re certainly a big step closer than we’ve ever been to whatever comes next for the genocidal colonial outpost.

Maybe this all seems too optimistic to you. And I hate to blow my own trumpet. But I was among the minority who predicted the start of the war before it started, who said Iran wouldn’t lose, that there’d be no regime change and no US victory via an air war was possible. When the ceasefire was announced I was among even fewer who said it would hold because the US was out of real options, while the consensus anti-imperial opinion said it was a ruse to buy time for a land invasion or other escalation.

And now, despite the calling off of talks in Geneva over the next stage of the process, my prediction, for what it’s worth, is that this won’t mean a return to war, and that in fact it will further the process of US-Israel estrangement, with Trump and Vance likely to see it as further confirmation that Israel, not Iran, is the impediment to peace.

Which is all to say, Trump was a necessary evil.

Of course we’ll never know if a Democrat as president would have launched an attack on Iran, but it would have come eventually. And given that an attack on Iran was inevitable, it was the best case scenario that it happened under Trump, an ideologically drifting narcissist without any real loyalties or attachments. A man motivated to protect his own personal financial interests above anything else (a number of which sit within the range of Iranian missiles). A man who was always going to be outmanoeuvred by a country led, literally, by men and women with PhDs, by philosophers, mystics and engineers. There were reports that in the process of negotiations, Iran drafted in the country’s top psychologists to craft messages to appeal to Trump’s ego and vainglorious personality. It appears to have worked.

From only ever acting retaliatorily, from closing the Strait of Hormuz to striking American bases and the oil and gas infrastructure of US proxies, to employing psychologists to sweet talk a narcissist, Iran bossed the process from day one.

And Israel knows it.

Its attacks on Lebanon are a final attempt to derail the process and regain some leverage over the negotiations. I don’t think it’ll work. We’re too far down the track. The Strait opens, the oil and gas starts flowing, or, with oil reserves at critical levels, we’re looking at a global depression. And Trump now appears motivated to avoid that, not least to protect his own wealth, above and beyond the objections of Israel. I don’t believe, as many still do, that the MoU, Trump’s comments and Vance’s criticisms of Israel, are all part of some drawn out psy-op before another attack on Iran.

This isn’t to give Trump any credit. It’s just to say empire isn’t omnipotent or strategically untouchable. You can, with the right war strategy, alongside favourable geography and propitious timing, force it to make concessions it doesn’t want to make.

Trump was necessary. Necessary to strip away the niceties and reveal the true face of empire, to reveal its naked impunity, to showcase the war crimes in all their immoral bloodlust. Yes, from Vietnam to Iraq to the so-called War on Terror, what Trump has shown us is nothing new, but through careful stage-management and competent administration, the myth of benign American empire has managed to endure. I’m not sure that myth will survive Trump. He’s also been necessary to reveal the limits of empire, to show it can be beaten, to expose its vulnerabilities, to detail its weaknesses.

Iran should have tied Gaza more closely to the MoU, as it has with Lebanon, but it has delivered a valuable blueprint in how to fight empire.

Trump has also been necessary to expose the plastic progressives, the liberal anti-Trump imperialists who, in their opposition to Trump’s deal with Iran, can only look like warmongering imperial psychopaths. From all those sharing memes on social media about surrender, from the Democrats and CNN talking heads decrying the deal, to Jimmy Fallon dragging Trump for giving Iran back the money the US stole, there is no articulation of an alternative to endlessly bombing Iran. There’s no anger from liberals over dead Iranians, or at the imperial state, at Zionism or the embedded death machinery that made this violence possible. No, they’re just embarrassed for empire. And they don’t want to recognise the limits of that empire.

With Israel still bombing Lebanon and oil reserves at critical thresholds, however, this is all far from over.

Iran has sketched out two futures for the US and it now has a decision to make: stand behind the deal which Trump has loudly proclaimed as necessary to save the world, and force Israel to stand down, or let Israel dictate the process, return to war and drag the world into an economic depression. Anything is still possible, of course, but I judge the latter extremely unlikely.

And Trump, in his egotism, venality and conceited self-interest, might just be the man for the moment.

What I do know is that those Iranian psychologists have some more work to do.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Words Matter: What does “De-Confliction” Even Mean?

The blind acceptance of confusing words and terms we don’t understand also dulls our thinking, dulls our reporting and plays into the hands of the governments, who are involved in this negotiation process, and who want to limit and control scrutin

The blind acceptance of confusing words and terms we don’t understand also dulls our thinking, dulls our reporting and plays into the hands of the governments, who are involved in this negotiation process, and who want to limit and control scrutiny. .

 June 22, 2026, Kathy Gannon Substack, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/22/words-matter-what-does-de-confliction-even-mean/

The statement that came out of the first day of meetings in Switzerland between Iran and the United States announced a number of committees or cells, including the “de-confliction” cell.

What does that even mean?

Merriam-Webster offers up one definition: “The coordination of flights, maneuvers, etc. between groups especially in areas where overlapping operations are occurring in order to reduce the risk of accidents or incidents.” Or the same dictionary offered up as an example of how it would be used: “Deconfliction is how friendly forces keep out of each other’s way,” John Bolton.

Now that’s even more confusing because according to the statement, this cell is between the parties, presumably Iran and the United States, as well as the Lebanese republic. Yet the statement went on to say this Deconfliction cell will be “facilitated by the mediators to ensure the adherence of the termination of the military operations in Lebanon as per the MoU.”

Yet neither Israel nor Hezbollah is part of this “deconfliction” cell, even though they are the ones carrying out military operations and as a result would seem critical to any termination of those operations.

Presumably even as the statement avoids saying it, and until now the reporting hasn’t cleared up the confusion, Iran would represent Hezbollah and America, Israel.

Presumably Iran would rein in Hezbollah and the United States would rein in Israel. That seems a big ask, likely more for Washington, than Tehran. Until now the U.S. has failed to stop Israel’s bombing campaign. The question then is: How is this cell that neither includes Israel or Hezbollah, going to “ensure the adherence of the termination of the military operations in Lebanon as per the MoU.”

It is a bit of a mystery how the Merriam Webster dictionary use of “deconfliction” applies to this conflict. Neither Israel nor Hezbollah fit the definition of “friendly forces.”

It’s also disappointing that, until now, news reports covering the statement have offered little to no understanding of this “deconfliction” cell, which is tasked with ending regional conflicts, a key component of the MoU, which must be settled before any peace deal is reached.

Many of the news reports have put quotes around the word “deconfliction” presumably because its definition is difficult to explain, vague or not understood, yet its official so it is used __ without explanation, but with quotes.

But Words Matter.

Words have meaning and the increasing readiness to use words and terms without explanation, or without calling out distortions makes us all less informed. It also distorts our understanding of events, of progress or failure.

It is no longer even clear who is responsible for success or failure and that is problematic because it allows those who negotiate in poor faith to deflect or avoid blame.

The blind acceptance of confusing words and terms we don’t understand also dulls our thinking, dulls our reporting and plays into the hands of the governments, who are involved in this negotiation process, and who want to limit and control scrutiny.

This MoU itself has often been defined by misleading, vague or confusing terminology. In the initial stages it was referred to as a peace agreement by mediators, who announced the MoU and repeated in news reports. It is not. It is not even an agreement.

It is simply a 60-day pause in fighting, while the thorny issues that have, until now, prevented a peace agreement are discussed with the hopes that it will eventually lead to a peace agreement.

As the pause and negotiations begin, it seems a a new wave of confusing, self-serving terminology is being used to obscure what work is being done, who is doing it, and whether real progress is occurring.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | spinbuster | Leave a comment

High French river temperatures expected to limit nuclear power output next week

By Forrest Crellin and Tristan Veyet,

 French state-owned ‌utility EDF warned on Thursday that three nuclear
plants face production curbs next week because of high temperatures on the
Rhone and Garonne rivers as France grapples with its second heatwave this
spring. Nuclear output in France has been relatively consistent this year
as production has continued to recover from lows hit several years ago, but
exceptional heatwaves at the end of the northern hemisphere spring have
raised water temperatures to ⁠levels that put reactors at risk of output
curtailment.

 Reuters 18th June 2026

, https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/high-french-river-temperatures-expected-limit-nuclear-power-output-next-week-2026-06-18/

June 23, 2026 Posted by | climate change, France | Leave a comment

Governments would have to foot the bill for nuclear shipping

‘Essentially, the government stands behind the operator with an open chequebook’No global liability framework in place, and getting one could take decadesFinance and insurance give nuclear a chicken-and-egg problem

Declan Bush, 19 Jun 2026,

Governments would have to foot the bill for nuclear shipping

  • ‘Essentially, the government stands behind the operator with an open chequebook’No global liability framework in place, and getting one could take decadesFinance and insurance give nuclear a chicken-and-egg problem

Governments will be on the hook for the potentially unlimited liability created by a nuclear incident at sea, Core Power’s annual nuclear conference was told. There are doubts they are keen to take such a burden on…………………… (Subscribers only) https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1157569/Governments-would-have-to-foot-the-bill-for-nuclear-shipping

June 23, 2026 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

A Turning Point: What the Iran MoU Reveals About the Limits of US Power

June 19, 2026, By Iqbal Jassat, https://www.palestinechronicle.com/a-turning-point-what-the-iran-mou-reveals-about-the-limits-of-us-power/

The lessons from Iran, if incorporated in the study of international relations, will be that the era in which Washington could dictate terms without consequence is steadily eroding.

Events at the G7 Summit in Evian were overshadowed by news of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This was hardly surprising since the story broke about America’s dramatic turnaround and widespread speculation about the details of the MoU, as well as the reasons for it.

It would be fair to say, thus, that the most significant outcome of the G7 Summit in Évian was not the signing of the MoU. It was the public collapse of the illusion that military superiority automatically translates into political victory.

For months, Washington and Tel Aviv insisted that Iran would eventually be forced to surrender. The language was harsh, pointed and uncompromising. Iran’s missile program would be destroyed. Its nuclear capabilities would be dismantled. Its regional alliances would be broken. Its leadership would face collapse under the combined weight of military pressure, sanctions and international isolation.

None of those objectives were achieved.

The contradiction became impossible to conceal when President Donald Trump stood before the world at the G7 and defended Iran’s right to retain conventional ballistic missiles.

The same missiles that had been presented as an existential threat suddenly became acceptable. The same missile program that justified war was transformed into a reality that Washington was prepared to live with.

Contrary to the wishful thinking of some political pundits, this was not a minor adjustment in policy. It was a public admission that the original objectives could not be achieved.

Absent from much Western reporting is the extent of this reversal. The final agreement contains no dismantling of Iran’s missile deterrent. It contains no regime change. It contains no surrender of Iran’s political system. It contains no disarmament of Iran’s regional allies. Even the nuclear issue was largely deferred into future negotiations rather than resolved through force.

The shock registered on the gaping mouths of G7 leaders as well as Israel’s war criminals was obvious, for the outcome exposed the enormous gap between public rhetoric and strategic reality.

For years, American foreign policy has been built around the assumption that economic pressure, military dominance and international isolation can force adversaries to comply with Washington’s demands. Iraq was supposed to demonstrate that reality. Libya was supposed to reinforce it. The sanctions architecture imposed on Iran was designed around the same logic.

The MoU signed by Trump at the G7, demonstrates the limits of that model.

Iran’s leadership calculated that surrender would be more dangerous than resistance. Despite suffering enormous military and economic damage, Tehran retained enough leverage to make continued escalation prohibitively expensive for its adversaries.

The critical factor was not military strength alone.

The Strait of Hormuz exposed a vulnerability that military planners could not bomb away. As energy markets reacted and global supply chains faced disruption, the economic consequences of a prolonged conflict became increasingly unacceptable. Oil prices surged. Shipping costs escalated. Insurance markets were shaken. European governments demanded an end to the crisis. Gulf states that had quietly supported pressure on Iran suddenly became advocates for de-escalation.

The beneficiaries of the original confrontation were clear. Arms manufacturers secured contracts. Security establishments expanded their authority. Lobbying organizations intensified demands for escalation. Media institutions repeated assumptions about inevitable Iranian defeat. A vast ecosystem of political and economic interests promoted the belief that only one outcome was possible.

Though the MoU demolished that narrative, the reaction from Israel was even more revealing. The Israeli political establishment expected the conflict to fundamentally alter the regional balance of power in its favor.

Instead, Netanyahu and his criminal gang of genocidaires found themselves confronting an agreement negotiated largely without their input and one that preserved many of Iran’s capabilities Israel had spent years attempting to eliminate.

The frustration expressed by them and echoed across the regime’s media was not simply about the agreement itself.

It reflected the recognition that military escalation had failed to produce the strategic transformation that had been promised.

This is why the agreement carries implications far beyond Iran, particularly for governments across the Global South who are expected to study the outcome closely.

Indeed, so will Russia and China. The lesson they will draw is not that America lacks power. The lesson is that American power now operates within constraints that did not exist during the unipolar era.

The lessons from Iran, if incorporated in the study of international relations, will be that the era in which Washington could dictate terms without consequence is steadily eroding.

The MoU therefore marks something larger than the end of a conflict. It marks another stage in the transition from a unipolar order to a multipolar one. The significance of the MoU lies not in what was announced. It lies in what was conceded.

The campaign to impose American terms concluded with Washington accepting realities it once declared unacceptable.

June 22, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Censored Lavrov article Politico refused to publish (FULL TEXT)

This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences

The Russian foreign minister has shared his views on NATO expansion and EU militarization, including in the nuclear sphere, and the threat this poses to global security

18 Jun, 2026 , https://www.rt.com/russia/641806-lavrov-censored-politico-article/

The pro-establishment, Brussels-based publication Politico Europe, owned by Germany’s Axel Springer SE, has refused to publish an exclusive article written by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Lavrov’s article was initially slated for publication in the Brussels-based Politico Europe, but due to a “last-minute decision by the outlet’s editorial team,” the publication was canceled, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

In the article, Russia’s highly experienced top diplomat outlined Moscow’s view of the Ukrainian conflict, Europe’s role in escalating the crisis, and the broader implications for global security. Lavrov accused European leaders of using diplomacy as a cover for NATO and EU expansion, while arguing that the West has sought to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian foothold. He also warned that the EU’s growing militarization, including discussions about nuclear deterrence and “strategic autonomy,” could increase the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Below is the full text of Lavrov’s article, as published on the Russian Foreign Ministry website:

Some reflections on resolving the Ukrainian crisis, Europe and global security

At a meeting in London on June 7, 2026, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, as well as Vladimir Zelensky, laid out five preconditions for Russia to secure a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. United Europe now presents this list of demands as the basis for dialogue with Moscow.

Background

More than two decades of negotiations with Europe, as part of the collective West, lead to only one conclusion: engaging Russia in dialogue has served as a diplomatic smokescreen for the geopolitical expansion of Western institutions, above all NATO and the European Union, eastwards, right up to Russia’s borders.

Europe’s complicity in fueling the Ukrainian crisis is undeniable. Together with the United States, European countries orchestrated the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004. To create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine, they spent years buying off politicians and entire parties, rewriting history and educational curricula, cultivating and nurturing Ukrainian nationalism, and going to great lengths to pull Ukraine away from Russia.

In 2013, the European Union outright rejected our proposal for a compromise on the association agreement – a deal Brussels had long been pressing Viktor Yanukovich to sign. It is worth recalling that Ukraine was offered unilateral market opening without reciprocal commitments – terms that would have proved incompatible with Kiev’s continued membership in the CIS free-trade zone. When Viktor Yanukovich requested a deferral, the Europeans incited street riots that swiftly escalated into a coup d’état in Kiev in February 2014.

Germany, France, and Poland then proved themselves to be equally treacherous. Having guaranteed that the agreement reached between the opposition and Viktor Yanukovich would be honored, they washed their hands of it the moment that same opposition, their own handiwork, took power. “Democracy,” they shrugged, “takes unexpected turns.”

Europe thereafter lent its backing to the new authorities. In Odessa on May 2, 2014, the burning alive of dozens of innocent supporters of closer ties with Russia did not draw a single word of condemnation from European capitals.

As co-guarantors of the 2015 Minsk Agreements, France and Germany effectively encouraged the Ukrainian regime to sabotage its own commitments. As Angela Merkel and François Hollande later conceded – after the special military operation had already begun – Kiev’s implementation of the Minsk Agreements, unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, was never genuinely intended. The objective, they admitted, was merely to buy time: to shore up the Armed Forces of Ukraine and flood them with Western weaponry.

Russia, for its part, explored every diplomatic avenue to defuse Europe’s security crisis. However, in January 2022, the United States and NATO rejected Russia’s proposal for legally binding mutual security guarantees. European NATO members actively endorsed that rebuff.

Following the launch of the special military operation, United Europe threw its support behind the British prime minister’s efforts to sabotage the Istanbul negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Boris Johnson’s appeal to Kiev – “don’t sign anything, just fight” – slammed the door on genuine diplomacy for the foreseeable future.

Current situation

So what has prompted European leaders to suddenly shift their rhetoric and start talking about negotiations, and what are they aiming to achieve with these statements? For instance, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has stated that the purpose of any dialogue with Russia is to dictate Europe’s terms. These include paying “reparations” to Ukraine; withdrawing troops from Transnistria and the South Caucasus; abolishing the “foreign agents” law; and accepting strict limits on the size of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces. In her framing, “there can be no just and lasting peace without accountability for Russia.” During the UN Security Council session on May 19, 2026, an EU representative made the point unequivocally: “Supporting Ukraine militarily does not contradict the pursuit of peace, but rather serves as a fundamental prerequisite for any credible, good-faith negotiations.”

Europe’s plan is to talk with Russia while simultaneously pressing ahead with a campaign of legal warfare orchestrated through the Council of Europe. Within this once-respected organization, an entire infrastructure is being assembled for the express purpose of “holding Russia accountable”: a Register of Damage, a Claims Commission, and a Special Tribunal.

The European Union has also given the green light to detaining merchant vessels on the high seas. Several incidents have already taken place in the Baltic and the Atlantic. At the same time, the West studiously averts its gaze from the terrorist acts of sabotage perpetrated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

The real objective of Europe’s leaders, then, is not to negotiate with Russia. It is to shore up the Zelensky regime and preserve it as a launchpad for continued confrontation against Russia. With this in mind, European leaders are scrambling to secure a ceasefire as quickly as possible and for one reason only: to prevent the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the battlefield. The plan is to “freeze” the conflict without addressing its root causes, and then rapidly deploy military contingents from the Anglo-French “coalition of the willing” onto Ukrainian soil.

It is widely known that European elites have invested their “political capital” in the confrontation with Russia, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into propping up the Kiev regime and ramping up the military budgets of EU member states and NATO. Europe now aims to achieve “defense readiness” against Russia by 2030. Until then, they mean to buy time by whatever means are available. In a strikingly candid remark this April, Belgium’s chief of staff put it bluntly: “We still have a few years. Thanks to the courage and blood of the Ukrainians, who are buying us that time.”

United Europe continues to dream of expansion. It intends to absorb Ukraine and Moldova while pulling Armenia into its sphere of influence. NATO has already expanded eastward, swallowing up Finland and Sweden. As for Ukraine, it is increasingly being eyed as the “striking fist” of a future European military force, independent of the United States and independent of NATO.

Risks to global security

This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences

Under the banner of “strategic autonomy,” Europe is witnessing a significant build-up of its military capabilities, including in the nuclear sphere. Paris’s intention to extend its “nuclear umbrella” to several EU and NATO member states is a source of deep concern. This will do nothing to strengthen the security of France itself or of the recipients of its so-called protection.

For all that, Europe’s political and military establishment continues to attribute aggressive plans to Russia – plans that, they claim, reach far beyond Ukraine. The Russian president has stated on numerous occasions that all of this is nonsense, provocation, and disinformation, aimed solely at extracting budget funds for the fight against Russia. That is scarcely the climate for substantive dialogue.

Russia’s position

As for negotiations, Vladimir Putin reiterated at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that Russia is not opposed to contacts with any party. We see Europe, however, as a party bent on Russia’s defeat – a stance the Europeans themselves openly avow. Dialogue with Europe, therefore, cannot be conducted as though it were an impartial third-party observer.

Russia would prefer to achieve the goals of the special military operation through diplomacy.

That requires reliably guaranteeing security along Russia’s western borders and ensuring respect and dignity for our citizens and compatriots, including the right to speak their native Russian language and practice the Orthodox Christian faith. Further military, political, and economic expansion by the West is unacceptable: it runs counter to the imperatives of a multipolar world.

European leaders should recognize that the model of regional security built in Europe over decades, ever since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, has been destroyed by their own hands. And it will never be restored. We must now move toward creating a continent-wide security architecture open to all Eurasian countries and reflective of today’s multipolar reality.

The principle of equal and indivisible security, trampled upon by the Euro-Atlanticists, can be embodied within a new Eurasian architecture. When the time is ripe, Europe too will be able to join this great effort.

The key point is that meaningful dialogue requires the restoration of trust, shattered by the anti-Russian actions of the West, and Europe as part of it, in the post-Cold War era. Trust can be recovered only through concrete steps that demonstrate a sincere commitment to moving away from using diplomacy as a cover for expansionist ambitions. Trust cannot be restored, nor can dialogue be resumed, through ultimatums such as the one issued to Russia in London on June 7, 2026.

P.S. It is noteworthy that the London ultimatum was unequivocally reaffirmed by the ambassadors of Britain, France, and Germany at the meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 11, 2026 – a meeting they had so insistently requested. That was the sole purpose of their visit to the ministry.

June 22, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

Switzerland heading towards referendum on construction of new nuclear plants

Euro News, By Gavin Blackburn,  18/06/2026 

“…… Switzerland’s parliament approved a divisive government plan to build new nuclear power stations on Thursday, overturning a 2018 ban and putting the country on course for a referendum.

The lower house of parliament joined the upper chamber in backing a government proposal to reverse the ban put in place following a referendum won by anti-nuclear campaigners in 2017.

… Both houses say authorisation for new nuclear plants can only be granted if the financing is secured.

A broad coalition of groups “will launch a referendum,” the Green Party said in a statement.

Greens president Lisa Mazzone said the parliament vote “sabotages the rapid development of renewable energies, climate protection and our energy sovereignty.”

The collection of signatures for a referendum would begin this month, the party said.

To trigger a referendum under Switzerland’s direct democracy system, 50,000 valid signatures must be collected within 100 days of publication of a new law, a hurdle the coalition is expected to clear.

………….The Swiss approved the gradual phase-out of nuclear power in the 2017 referendum, banning the construction of new power plants.

That law was the result of a long process initiated after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, which was triggered by a tsunami.

Switzerland continues to operate four nuclear reactors whose construction dates back to the 20th century.

Beznau 1, commissioned in 1969, is the oldest functioning nuclear reactor in Europe. It will cease operations in 2033, while Beznau 2, connected to the grid since 1971, will close a year earlier, in 2032.

Gosgen and Leibstadt began operating in 1979 and 1984, respectively. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/06/18/switzerland-heading-towards-referendum-on-construction-of-new-nuclear-plants

June 22, 2026 Posted by | politics, Sweden | Leave a comment

Who Would Take Iran’s Uranium?

Oil Price, By RFE/RL staff – Jun 18, 2026,

  • Kazakhstan has indicated it is willing to help store Iran’s enriched uranium if a broader international agreement is reached.
  • Iran remains reluctant to surrender its uranium stockpile because it views the material as leverage in negotiations with Washington.
  • Any transfer would face significant technical, political, and domestic challenges, including security concerns and public opposition in Kazakhstan.

As negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program continue, the fate of Tehran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium remains one of the most difficult issues to resolve.

Before US and Israeli air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimated that Iran possessed 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent. While not weapons-grade, the material is significantly close to the 90 percent enrichment level generally associated with the production of nuclear weapons.

The question now confronting negotiators is what should happen to that stockpile as part of a broader agreement between Tehran and Washington. In recent weeks, Kazakhstan has been mentioned as a possible third-party custodian………………………………. https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Who-Would-Take-Irans-Uranium.html

June 22, 2026 Posted by | Iran, Kazakhstan, Uranium | Leave a comment

Israelis Invaded Lebanon And Then Cried Victim When Their Soldiers Got Killed, And Other Notes

From all this melodramatic garment-rending and victim-LARPing you’d assume the four Israelis were killed in their beds in Tel Aviv, not traveling by tank through a foreign country they’d invaded.

Caitlin Johnstone, Jun 20, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/israelis-invaded-lebanon-and-then?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=202732431&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

In a move that surprised precisely zero people, Israel once again bombed the shit out of Lebanon while Netanyahu continued to insist that the IDF will continue its extensive occupation of Lebanese territory. Israel’s actions resulted in Tehran calling off scheduled peace talks with Washington, but now we’re seeing reports that Israel and Hezbollah have agreed to another ceasefire.

Israel pretty much never abides by its ceasefire agreements in Lebanon, but we’ll see what happens I guess.

One major factor in this new development may have been Iran’s threat to bomb Israel without warning if Trump doesn’t pressure Netanyahu to end the war in Lebanon, which we learned about from a recent report by Drop Site News.

President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have been creating viral content with tough talk about Israel’s need to make peace and stop killing people in Lebanon, but all that matters in this instance is action. Either they’re willing to exert the leverage they have over Israel to make sure this peace deal happens or they’re not. If Israel keeps sabotaging the agreement without suffering severe consequences from Washington, we may safely conclude that the Trump administration was all talk.

And in case anyone’s unclear, Trump will never deserve any “credit” for making peace with Iran, even if he does end up pushing Israel to comply with the deal. You don’t get praise for starting an unprovoked war of aggression and then losing. That’s not a thing.

Zionists are screaming bloody murder about Hezbollah killing a tank crew of four Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, with war propagandist Mark Levin taking to Twitter to say that “Israel will hit back very hard” and that “No MOU or final agreement will change who these terrorists are,” while Israel’s national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir proclaims “For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!”

From all this melodramatic garment-rending and victim-LARPing you’d assume the four Israelis were killed in their beds in Tel Aviv, not traveling by tank through a foreign country they’d invaded. As Ryan Grim put it, “I have never heard of a country invading a neighbor and then calling it unfair that their soldiers died in that invasion. I don’t think any other country ever even thought to make that complaint.”

Meanwhile instead of attacking Trump for failing to do enough to make peace, Democrats are calling him a weak little bitch for not continuing the war, and for agreeing to ensure $300 billion in reconstruction financing instead.

“Iran took Trump to the cleaners with this so-called understanding,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor on Thursday, adding, “Are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle prepared to send Iran $300 billion when economic needs are so severe here at home? That’s what Trump wants them to do.”

“With $300 billion, we could end homelessness, fund cancer research for 40 years, and give every child free pre-K for over 7 years. Instead, Trump is sending it to Iran,” tweeted Senator Amy Klobuchar.

“Here’s what this deal basically is: Iran makes zero concessions, and the United States lets Iran trade oil for free and commits to give them $300 billion in reparations,” said Senator Chris Murphy.

“Trump is touting a ‘deal’ that promises to lift all sanctions, allow Iran to export oil and potentially charge tolls, and hand over more than 300 billion dollars to that country,” said Senator Adam Schiff, adding that the deal “looks more like a surrender.”

These prominent Democrats make it sound like Trump is just taking $300 billion from the American taxpayer, when according to Reuters the financing for the deal “will be comprised entirely of private-sector funds.” Democrats are essentially running the same bogus “Obama gave Iran pallets of cash” attack that Republicans used to use when slamming the 2015 JCPOA.

More importantly, how revealing is it that these warmongering freaks are suddenly pretending care about how much $300 billion could do to help ordinary Americans? Whenever anyone tries to nudge the party an inch to the left on universal healthcare or whatever you see Democratic Party officials wagging their fingers at them telling them there’s no money for such pie-in-the-sky fantasies, but as soon as they get an opportunity to push for more war they’re out there saying they could use all that peace money to end homelessness. All of which will of course be right out the window when it comes time to vote for the next $1.5 trillion military budget.

Democrats are such obnoxious liars. Their sleaziness is exceeded only by Trump supporters claiming their president deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for losing a war he started.

Anyway, things are a mess. We’ll see how this all plays out.

June 22, 2026 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A flurry of nuclear developments in Sweden—state aid, SMR selections, legislation

Nuclear Newswire 18th June 2026

Within the span of two weeks, three Swedish companies—Blykalla, Studsvik, and Nordic Baseload Power—submitted applications to their country’s government for state aid for their respective new nuclear builds. Applications are handled by Sweden’s Ministry of Finance.

n early June, SMR developer Blykalla submitted its application to the Swedish government, followed by engineering services firm Studsvik on June 12. And on June 16, energy company Nordic Baseload Power became the latest to apply for financial support. Overall, the Swedish government has received four applications for state aid since last year.

In its efforts to spur nuclear power growth, the Swedish government last summer allowed companies to apply for financial aid in the form of government loans or two-way contracts. Under two-way contracts, the power plant operator and government agree on a deal that ensures a “minimum level of compensation protection by central government and setting an overcompensation cap for the company.” State aid is limited, however, for new nuclear power installed capacity of up to 5,000 MW.

Swedish officials welcomed the interest the state aid offer is receiving from companies…………………………………………………………………

Other Swedish news: The Riksdag, Sweden’s national parliament, has also weighed in on nuclear legislation this month. On June 11, lawmakers approved permitting legislation that streamlines the framework for extracting and processing uranium and other nuclear materials.

“A key aspect of the legislation is that the extraction and processing of uranium will now be treated in a manner consistent with other metals and minerals within Sweden’s overall permitting framework,” according to an announcement from District Metals, a Canada-based company with Swedish operations that welcomed the legislation.

“The amendments remove the requirement for a separate admissibility assessment under the Environmental Code and eliminate the requirement for municipal council consent for uranium extraction and processing projects, commonly referred to as the municipal veto,” the company stated.

In addition to the uranium regulatory legislation, the Riksdag also approved amendments that lifted bans on nuclear facilities in certain coastal areas and archipelagos. According to the Riksdag, these bans will be lifted on July 15. https://www.ans.org/news/2026-06-18/article-8133/new-sweden-developments/

June 22, 2026 Posted by | politics, Sweden | Leave a comment

Nato member Finland lifts its ban on nuclear weapons 

Finland has passed laws that lift a ban on nuclear weapons,


 Daily Mail 17th June 2026

The new legislation will allow nuclear arms to be imported, transported, supplied, and possessed on its territory as the Nordic nation confronts mounting security concerns over neighbouring Russia.

The new law overturns a decade-old restriction dating back to the 1987 Nuclear Energy Act, which prohibited nuclear weapons from being brought onto Finnish soil.

Under the new bill, which lawmakers voted by a margin of 125 to 61 on Wednesday, nuclear arms may now be moved freely in the name of national defence…………………………

The Social Democratic Party, the Greens and the Left Alliance, however, submitted a joint objection to the bill prior to the vote.

‘Of the opposition parties, the Social Democratic Party, the Greens and the Left Alliance propose rejecting the proposal,’ Hakkanen wrote in a previous X post………………….

The legislative change means Finland could, in theory, host NATO nuclear weapons in the future, potentially giving the alliance a stronger strategic presence close to Russia’s border………………………… https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15907881/Nato-member-Finland-lifts-ban-nuclear-weapons-huge-new-blow-Putin.html

June 22, 2026 Posted by | Finland, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Sweden’s Parliament approves reclassification of uranium mining

WNN 17 June 26

The Swedish Parliament has approved amendments to Swedish legislation that will streamline the permitting process for the extraction and processing of uranium, to treat it in a similar way to other metals and minerals. It has also approved a government-proposed amendment that will open up more coastal sites to potential nuclear power projects.

Tags

The parliament – the Riksdag – voted in favour of a government bill on 11 June proposing amendments to Sweden’s Nuclear Activities Act (1984:3) under which uranium mines are no longer to be considered as a “nuclear facility”. The bill also included an amendment to the Act on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Activities (2006:647) so that “extraction waste from a nuclear activity that concerns the extraction and processing of nuclear materials” is not considered a nuclear waste product.

With uranium mines no longer regulated as nuclear facilities, uranium extraction will no longer require explicit municipal consent. This creates a more predictable permitting framework which will facilitate future uranium mine development, according to Aura Energy, owner of the polymetallic Häggån deposit.

“The momentum in pro-nuclear legislation continues in Sweden, where the removal of the uranium mining ban in January 2026 has now been supplemented with the declassification of uranium mining as a nuclear facility………………………………………………………..

All the amendments will come into force on 15 July. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/parliament-approves-amendments-to-swedish-nuclear-law

June 22, 2026 Posted by | safety, Sweden | Leave a comment

Rachel Gilmour MP accuses Hinkley Point C of “bullying”


By Alex Parnham-Cope, 17 June 26, https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/26203304.rachel-gilmour-mp-accuses-hinkley-point-c-bullying/

A Somerset MP has accused Hinkley Point C of having a “bullying culture”, a lack of community engagement and “naïve” financial planning while questioning other nuclear industry leaders in parliament this month.

Tiverton and Minehead MP Rachel Gilmour made the comments as part of the Public Accounts Committee’s oral evidence session with industry leaders and government officials bosses on June 8.

The Liberal Democrat representative has since reshared video on social media of her comments in the committee earlier this week, June 15, and said that she’s met with EDF Europe’s chief executive and the nuclear regulator to raise her concerns.

In the oral evidence session, Rachel Gilmour MP claimed she was “inundated with whistleblowers and people who have great concerns about the bullying culture at Hinkley C, to such an extent that I had a meeting with Simone Rossi, the chief executive of EDF Europe, and the ONR [Office for Nuclear Regulation].”

She added: “The ONR felt that the situation was so bad that they had to put in extra scrutiny. I was joined by Whistleblowers UK in that.”

June 22, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries