nuclear-news

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

AUKUS is a global issue – don’t let Albanese sweep it under the carpet

7 November 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/aukus-is-a-global-issue-dont-let-albanese-sweep-it-under-the-carpet/

So easy to dismiss the AUKUS Public Inquiry. Apart from one feeble attempt to disparage it – by Jennifer Parker, in The Conversation, the mainstream media have pretty much left it alone, captive as they are, to the purportedly progressive and leftish Labor State and Federal governments. And it’s interesting that Ms Parker, of the, Defence and Security Institute, The University of Western Australia; UNSW,  so confidently dismisses the evidence of former Chief of the Defence Force, Inquiry Commissioner, Chris Barrie.

And weren’t the media lucky? They can have a party with the pleasant surprise of the Democrats trouncing Trump at the U.S. mid-term elections (even though Trump can make executive action havoc until the new Congress and Senate take over on 3rd January 2027). But the Australian media can rejoice about this and demonstrate their progressiveness, while ignoring the “trivial” AUKUS thing.

The Australian mainstream media is so busy toeing the line that Prime Minister Albanese has set up – be a small target – look what happened to Gough Whitlam, so busy that they’re becoming irrelevant.

The Albanese government has a huge advantage in the Parliament, with 94 MPs, and the lead in the Senate, but it chooses to become indistinguishable from the Opposition, when it comes to foreign policy. Everyone still bleats “Security” when there’s a risk of saying something slightly different from the USA’s mantras on relations with South East Asia and the Pacific. And here’s where AUKUS comes in.

The pretence is that AUKUS is for Australia’s security. Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.

In his introduction at the Press Club Luncheon, Garrett says that the Inquiry project goes to the heart of what kind of country we want to be.

The Inquiry was done with the love and concern of so many people, and all done without drawing on the public purse at all. Concerns include the question of radioactive waste. And above all, in the AUKUS decision-making, the government spurned any parliamentary oversight practices. The AUKUS agreement was announced with fanfare, but no scrutiny.

The Inquiry included an Impressive range of former parliamentarians and defence experts, who concluded that AUKUS is seriously flawed and unlikely to deliver security.

It means that at Stirling in Western Australia, 2000 US troops are to be housed at Australia’s expense. That’s just one part of the costs of the AUKUS agreement. There will be no recourse, no refunds, if things go wrong. There is also no costing made for storage of US radioactive waste. Neither USA or UK have waste facilities. There is no public understanding, no public consent. AUKUS legislation overrides existing legislation.

Chris Barrie explained that the AUKUS nuclear submarine plan is untenable. It would be madness for Australia to take on a great power like China. It makes no sense to build our defence policy around partnering the USA in a war against China.

Australia would be the only non-nuclear weapons state to operate nuclear powered submarines fuelled by weapons grade uranium. Australia has agreed to dispose of all radioactive wastes from the submarines. US subs could later carry nuclear weapons. We need to scrap the AUKUS submarine project now – and get the government to produce a comprehensive security strategy.We do need submarines. We must decide on what is the purpose of submarines. The Government should explain this – Australians should decide for ourselves, and have the submarines under Australian command and control. The test is whether we can say no – one of the hardest decisions a government has ever had to make.

Peter Garrett concluded that we need to share, and publicise the results of this inquiry. We need a Royal Commission into the AUKUS mess. End Pillar 2, suspend Stirling naval base and have an immediate audit of AUKUS.

Question time followed. It seemed to be a pretty widespread boycott of this Inquiry by the mainstream media. But there were exceptions – 9 News, the Sydney Morning Herald, and AAP. But overseas news media had noticed this Inquiry. And I thought that the most pertinent question came from Miriam Weber, from Politico, and the first woman to get a word in. Miriam Weber asked: “Do you have a plan to get the government to pay attention?”

And really, after all the work of so many people, including Defence experts, and former Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers from both Labor and Liberal – that is the big question.

Can this excellent Inquiry just sink and disappear under the weight of politicians and journalists deciding that their top priority is keeping their jobs? And as for the Labor Party, it’s sad to realise that the formerly anti-nuclear Anthony Albanese now has an unprecedented autocratic control over the Labor Party! The subject was carefully banned from discussion at the recent national Labor Conference in Adelaide! Is Labor going to continue to kowtow to this suppression of debate?

And here’s a bit of why I think that AUKUS is so very important:

Australia is the only continent which is governed by one single national government, and is a continent which has successfully resisted the commercial and military nuclear industry over decades, with both national and State legislation against it.

Australia has a really democratic political system, with compulsory voting, and preferential voting. It is run by an efficient, impartial and independent Electoral Commission.

Australia is part of South East Asia, and is a truly multicultural nation. It makes sense to maintain cordial relationships with our neighbours, even if we can differ on some individual matters. It does not make sense for Australians to see ourselves as some sort of Christian white outpost of USA and UK militarism, ready to be the frontline of battle against China.

Australia has a very considerable Chinese heritage, not always one to be proud of. Now we do have a proud and successful group of people with Chinese heritage – 5.5%of the population (compared with indigenous 2.5%). It is a disgrace and a shame that in the last few years, Australian education, particularly in universities, has downgraded the teaching of foreign languages and culture, especially Chinese. The industry-driven push for STEM education does have its role – we do need science education. But not as a definite campaign to stifle the humanities – which is what has happened to university funding.

In this tense, crisis-driven world, what is desperately needed is communication, negotiation, the reaching out for respectful understanding of other nations’ cultures, especially in the South East Asian neighbourhood. Trumpism will be over soon. How good it would be for Australia to dump its “cultural cringe” and take the lead in rejecting the USA-UK military-industrial-nuclear complex, by rejecting the AUKUS folly!

The USA seems to have only one big export industry – weaponry. Time for the world to stop buying the USA’s weapons and its philosophy of endless wars. Australia is poised to lead the way.

November 8, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, Christina's notes, politics international | Leave a comment

At last some Grrrr reflected in the media on the diabolic plan to bring Japan’s failed reactor wastes to Workington

By mariannewildart, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2026/11/06/at-last-some-grrrr-reflected-in-the-media-on-the-diabolic-plan-to-bring-japans-failed-reactor-wastes-to-workington/00

EXTRACTS from recent media coverage which are a break from the entirely uncritical and sickeningly celebratory tone of previous articles. –

Campaigners slam plans for toxic chemical plant near a primary school – https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/campaigners-slam-plans-toxic-chemical-plant-near-primary-school-despite-earlier

“ENVIRONMENTAL campaigners have slammed a council for backing plans for a toxic chemical plant near a primary school, despite an earlier warning that proposed new homes near a similar site could put residents’ safety at risk.

Cavendish Nuclear and Amentum (CNA) wants to build the facility at Port of Workington, Cumbria, to support the decommissioning of the Monju Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor, in Japan.

If the plans are approved, the company want to process radioactive sodium coolant from the plant, which would be located near Northside Primary School, into caustic soda.” Full article can be seen here: Morning Star 10th October 2026″

More than 900 people ‘oppose’ reactor clean-up – https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6y4x5z32p8no?at_ptr_name=facebook_page&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=1524FB90-D82D-11F1-85EB-D57521BD2CAF&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_origin=BBC_Cumbria&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign_type=owned

“Cumberland Council, which owns the port, said it would use £4.5m of Town Deal funding to prepare land at the port and neighbouring Oldside for wider development.

The plan involves bringing the coolant to Workington where it would be converted into sodium hydroxide, also known as caustic soda, which is used in cleaning products and manufacturing.” Full article can be read here:BBC News Cumbria 4th November 2026″

Dispute over Japan to Workington nuclear waste facility – News & Star

Radiation Free Lakeland “RFL believes Cumberland Council, as the port’s owner, should “put their constituents and neighbouring areas before the interests of the nuclear industry,” halting the plans “to bring volatile liquid sodium coolant” to Workington “from the failed Japanese Monju reactor. Campaigners raised concerns about the council’s celebration of the facility as an economic development opportunity for Workington given that it is also the landlord at the Port of Workington and the organisation responsible for deciding on its planning permission.” Full article at News and Star 5th November 2026 (paywall)

Please sign and share the petition to stop this plan

November 8, 2026 Posted by | media, UK | Leave a comment

Democrats, Please Take Note: Peace Is Good Politics

The message of voters is the same everywhere: diplomacy is safer, more effective, and trillions of dollars cheaper than war.

Voters across the United States were loud and clear on Tuesday in their historic drubbing of Trumpism. The election was a decisive rejection of Trump’s war on Iran and its staggering costs at home. While savoring their victory and the historic opportunity to restore America’s constitutional order, the Democrats should take the anti-war message of the election to heart, because they suffered the same verdict two years ago, when voters rejected the Biden administration’s wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Last week Israeli voters rejected Netanyahu’s reckless wars, and European voters are also rejecting parties that prolong the Ukraine War. The message of voters is the same everywhere: diplomacy is safer, more effective, and trillions of dollars cheaper than war.

On election night Trump conceded to Fox News, “I think a part of it was Iran.” The next day Vice President JD Vance was far blunter, posting on X: “The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night…. everyone knows why we lost.” In the AP Voter Poll, about 60 percent of voters said the decision to use military force against Iran was wrong, and about 90 percent called the cost of living a crucial or major factor in their vote.

The war and the cost of living were of course utterly intertwined. Gasoline prices, around $2.80 per gallon before the war began on February 28, had risen by about 55 percent by mid-May and reached a monthly average of $4.43 in September. The 10-year Treasury yield climbed from below 4 percent before the war to above 5 percent in the autumn, and the Pentagon sought more than $200 billion in supplemental war funding. Every family with a mortgage, a car loan or a credit card balance suffered from the war.

Voters everywhere are sending the same message: peace through diplomacy.

The first duty of the new Congress is to restore its constitutional authority over war and its power of the purse to ensure that US forces are not sent back into combat in Iran or anywhere else on the whim of a president and the behest of domestic or foreign lobbies. Trump must of course refrain from restarting the war, which was never remotely necessary or justified. Remember that on February 28, the day the US and Israel launched the war, Oman’s foreign minister, who was mediating the U.S.-Iran talks, had said that a deal was within reach.

The Democrats should not imagine that the anti-war lesson applies only to Republicans. Kamala Harris lost in 2024 because voters held the Biden administration responsible for the costs of its own wars. The energy shock that followed the escalation of the Ukraine war in 2022 drove up inflation, and gasoline topped $5 per gallon for the first time in June 2022. Biden twice rejected negotiations that could have ended the conflict: in December 2021, when his administration refused to negotiate on NATO enlargement in response to Russia’s draft security treaty, and in April 2022, when the Istanbul talks were abandoned at the behest of the US and UK.


The Gaza genocide also cost the Democrats directly. Among Americans who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 but not for Harris in 2024, 29 percent named ending Israel’s violence in Gaza as the main factor in their decision, the most frequently cited issue. The party’s voters have moved far ahead of its leaders. A New York Times/Siena poll in May 2026 found that roughly three-quarters of Democratic voters oppose US military and economic assistance to Israel.

Voters everywhere are sending the same message: peace through diplomacy. On October 27, after Israeli wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, Netanyahu lost his majority. Similarly, European leaders who have tied themselves to open-ended war in Ukraine are being rejected by the voters. Only 10 percent of Germans are satisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the lowest rating ever recorded for a German chancellor. Emmanuel Macron’s approval fell to 15 percent in October. In Bulgaria, Iliana Iotova, who favors dialogue with Moscow, won the presidency on November 1 with more than 58 percent of the vote.

A key upcoming key test for the Democrats will be Ukraine. They must stop their party’s typical Russia-bashing and instead support a diplomatic end to the war.

As a start, the Democrats should remember why the war started. In 1990 the United States assured Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch eastward.” The Clinton administration broke that promise. In 2008 the Bush administration pushed through the Bucharest declaration that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO,” despite Ambassador William Burns’s warning that this was the brightest of all red lines for Russia. In 2014 the United States backed the coup against Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, as the leaked Nuland-Pyatt call made clear. In April 2022, when negotiators in Istanbul came close to a peace agreement based on Ukrainian neutrality, the US and UK actually intervened to block the agreement. Today 75 percent of Ukrainians support negotiations with Russia to end the war.

The Democrats should not mistake their victory for a mandate to pursue their own wars.

In view of these causes of the war, I have recently set out a straightforward diplomatic framework for peace in Ukraine that would end the war. NATO would end its eastward expansion. Ukraine would adopt permanent neutrality on the model of Austria in 1955. An armistice line would be drawn, with both sides renouncing the use of force to change it. Ukraine would pursue membership in the European Union as a permanently neutral state. The Democrats should support such a diplomatic approach. It’s what can end the war, save Ukraine, and win the backing of both the Ukrainian and American people.

Most importantly, the Democrats should not mistake their victory for a mandate to pursue their own wars. The new Democratic majority should quickly reassert the constitutional authority of Congress over war and peace, champion a negotiated peace in Ukraine, end support for Israel’s wars, cut the military budget, and redirect the savings toward lowering the cost of living and repairing the public finances.

These positions are not only right but are good politics. For the Democrats to win the White House in 2028, they should become the party of peace. Better yet, both parties should become parties of peace and conduct the 2028 campaign on which party will best address America’s needs for decent jobs, affordability, healthcare, housing, a safe environment, and quality education.

November 8, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

10 November – WEBINAR – Nuclear Expansion, Major Projects, and the Environment: What’s at Stake for Communities and Rights-Holders?

Date & Time Nov 10, 2026 06:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney – https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_YDV2YXIMSAujAtKaA0cuVw#/registration


Canada is experiencing renewed interest in nuclear energy, with governments and industry looking to expand nuclear power generation and advance new projects across the country. But what does this growing interest mean for communities, Indigenous rights-holders, and the environment?

The webinar will examine different types of nuclear projects and their potential impacts on communities, opportunities for meaningful community and rights-holder participation, and how Bill C-39 and other federal legislative changes, including the Building Canada Act and Nuclear Safety and Control Act, could affect environmental oversight and public participation in project decision-making.

The discussion will also highlight opportunities for public engagement and ways communities can make their voices heard as nuclear development moves forward. Join us for a conversation with community organizers and environmental and Indigenous law experts Brennain Lloyd (Northwatch), Kerrie Blaise (Legal Advocates for Nature’s Defence), and Kim Reeder (Passamaquoddy Recognition Group) as we explore the implications of nuclear expansion and the changing regulatory landscape.

November 8, 2026 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

‘Operation Midas’ concludes: How Ukraine’s biggest corruption scandal shook Zelensky’s inner circle

RT, Thu, 05 Nov 2026 , https://www.sott.net/article/509330-Operation-Midas-concludes-How-Ukraines-biggest-corruption-scandal-shook-Zelenskys-inner-circle

Euros for UkraineA criminal group led by Vladimir Zelensky’s ‘wallet’ laundered $125 million over six years, investigators say

The pre-trial investigation into a major embezzlement scheme in Ukraine’s energy sector has been completed, the nation’s Western-backed anti-corruption agencies announced. Known as ‘Operation Midas’, the probe lasted for two years. It triggered one of the biggest corruption scandals involving Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s inner circle and cost several top officials their positions.

In a statement published on Wednesday, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) said a “high-level criminal organization” managed to build a “large-scale corruption scheme” and embezzle $111 million and €12 million from 2020-25.

The two agencies also said they “took measures to seize the assets of a criminal organization both in Ukraine and abroad,” adding that efforts to identify and seize the illegal assets are continuing.

How did it all begin?

The scandal first grabbed headlines in November 2025 when NABU raided Energoatom facilities and the homes of several senior officials and businessmen, including then-Justice Minister German Galushchenko and Timur Mindich– a longtime friend and financial backer of Zelensky, who the media has called the Ukrainian leader’s ‘wallet’.

Mindich fled the country shortly before the raid, along with another suspected mastermind behind the scheme, financier Aleksandr Zuckerman. Both men have been residing in Israel ever since. Ukrainian media reported in May 2026 that Mindich may have been tipped off about the probe by the former deputy head of SAPO, Andrey Sinyuk, who resigned shortly after formal charges were filed against the businessman and his associates.

How did the scheme work?

The scheme centered on Ukraine’s state nuclear energy monopoly, Energoatom, with officials demanding kickbacks of up to 15% from private contractors, according to Wednesday’s statement. Those who refused allegedly faced exclusion from lucrative government tenders – including the construction of protective infrastructure for power facilities amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The money was then laundered through a specially established office in Kiev and a network of shell companies abroad and offshore accounts. According to the NABU and SAPO statement, “various financial instruments, including cryptocurrency, securities and a foreign investment fund were used to launder funds.”

Was anyone arrested?

Around a dozen people have been named as the primary suspects in the case, according to Ukrainian media. Apart from Mindich (codenamed ‘Karlson’), Zuckerman (‘Sugarman’) and Galushchenko (‘Professor’ or ‘Sigismund’), the list also includes former Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov (‘Che Guevara’), former aide to the energy minister Igor Mironyuk (‘Rocket’), Energoatom’s former security chief Dmitry Basov (‘Tenor’), and people who ran the Kiev office used to launder the money.

NABU also confirmed that a “former deputy prime minister” and a “former minister of energy” were on the suspect list, without identifying them by name.

Five suspects were detained when the scandal first erupted in November 2025, with several subsequently released on bail. Chernyshov was also placed in pre-trial detention with a bail option, and Galushchenko was arrested in February 2026 while attempting to flee Ukraine. Mindich and Zuckerman remain on the run.

The fallout

Two weeks after the scandal erupted, NABU and SAPO raided the apartment of Zelensky’s then-chief of staff and close associate, Andrey Yermak.

Faced with allegations of involvement in the high-profile corruption scheme, Yermak resigned, although he denied any wrongdoing at the time. He was later charged in a separate money-laundering case connected to a luxury property development outside Kiev that he and Mindich reportedly co-ownedwith Zelensky.

The Ukrainian leader’s ‘wallet’ was also later revealed to be linked to a number of other schemes. Mindich had been secretly running Fire Point – a Ukrainian defense contractor personally touted by Zelensky abroad as a manufacturer of state-of-the-art weaponry. A permanent advisory board urged the Ukrainian Defense Ministry to cut all ties with the company, which it still has not officially done as of November 2026.

The ‘Energygate’ scandal was followed by a string of similar corruption scandals that prompted a major Ukrainian government reshuffle in early 2026.

Did Zelensky attempt to derail the probe?

In July 2025, when Operation Midas was already in full swing but not yet public, Zelensky sought to curb the independence of NABU and SAPO through legislation that would place both agencies under the authority of a prosecutor general who the Ukrainian leader could directly appoint.

Zelensky signed the controversial bill on the same day it was passed by parliament, triggering protests in Kiev and drawing criticism from Ukraine’s Western backers. Under EU pressure, lawmakers reversed the measure a week later.

In November 2025, Yermak allegedly ordered prosecutors to prepare charges against SAPO head Aleksandr Klimenko, before the Energygate scandal cost him his job. According to Ukrainskaya Pravda, Zelensky also personally summoned the heads of NABU and SAPO in the wake of the scandal, but “the conversation didn’t go anywhere.”

What did Zelensky say?

Zelensky tried to downplay the matter, saying Ukraine is no more corrupt than any other European nation and calling suggestions to the contrary “lies.”

“The fact that we are fighting it, I believe we are doing a great job,” he told the BBC in February 2026.

How did Ukraine’s backers react?

Kiev’s major Western backers have largely downplayed the issue, even trying to portray the corruption scandal as a positive development. European Commission spokesman Guillaume Mercier said the kickback scheme proves that Kiev is on the right path, and that the anti-corruption bodies “are in place and functioning.”

French President Emmanuel Macron held a joint press conference with Zelensky in Paris just weeks after the scandal erupted, saying it’s not France’s place to teach Ukraine how to fight corruption:

“Is it our role to give lessons to Ukraine, which has a scandal of this scale? I think that if everything is taking place within the framework of justice and the special procedures, then everything is fine.”

The president also accused Russia of being a “real dictatorship” precisely because it lacks similar corruption scandals.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called Zelensky to express his “expectation that Ukraine press ahead energetically with fighting corruption and further reforms.”

The embezzlement revelations hardly affected EU support for Kiev, as just a month after Energygate erupted, the bloc greenlit a €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan to cover Kiev’s budget for 2026-27. The scheme, financed through joint EU borrowing, would cost European taxpayers €3 billion annually.

What did Russia say?

Moscow was not surprised by the lack of reaction by Kiev’s European sponsors. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in December 2025:

“They don’t care where EU taxpayer money goes as long as they can keep using the Kiev regime as a battering ram against Russia. In this particular case, the eyes of the West are wide shut, as the saying goes. Maybe, there are some beneficiaries as well. I rule out nothing.”

The aftermath

Ukraine has been reeling from recurring corruption scandals ever since Energygate, with the nation’s anti-corruption authorities reporting major cases almost every month.

In July, senior Ukrainian diplomats were accused of siphoning off at least $1.28 million in Western aid.

In August, Zelensky had to fire a deputy head of his office over her suspected links to an alleged money-laundering scheme used to finance bail for Galushchenko.

In September, NABU reported that it uncovered an embezzlement scheme involving 60 Soviet-era Russian-made metro cars donated to Ukraine by Poland.The New York Times reported that month that Ukraine lost around $1.2 billion to fraud, waste, and mismanagement in military procurement in 2024 alone.

In October, a former head of a state-owned Ukrainian defense company was accused by NABU and SAPO of embezzling around $43 million through fake mediation deals linked to the export and import of military hardware.

Despite this, Western backers have continued to bankroll Kiev

The EU released €3.3 billion to Ukraine in September following a phone call between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Zelensky as Kiev sought to plug a $27 billion defense budget gap.

When Brussels refused to speed up payments to cover the deficit last month, Zelensky immediately lashed out at his Western backers, claiming they were not doing enough to assist Ukraine in the conflict with Russia.

Comment: The longer ‘the war’ lasts, the bolder and richer Zelensky and friends become. That EU willingly continues to finance the beast begs the question: Are there also EU kickbacks off the top? Add a couple of Bidens? War without end. Amen.

November 8, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

South Korea moves to join Iran War under US pressure

The National Assembly will vote next week on a decision to dispatch the overseas Cheonghae naval into waters adjacent to the Gulf of Oman.

Ju-Hyun Park, November 5 2026, https://breakthroughnews.org/2026/11/05/south-korea-moves-to-join-iran-war-under-us-pressure/

South Korea’s government has begun procedures to potentially join the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran.

On November 5, a vice-ministerial meeting affirmed a decision to expand the military capacities and operational area of the Cheonghae Unit, a blue-water naval force that has operated in the Gulf of Aden near the Red Sea as part of an “anti-piracy” mission since 2020.

The revised mandate of the Cheonghae Unit would double its deployment area up to the waters of the Arabian Sea south of Duqm, Oman. This would place Republic of Korea (ROK) naval units on the fringes of the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz – areas Iran has declared closed to foreign military vessels.

The proposal would further expand the Cheonghae Unit to include P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team, and unmanned mine-clearing equipment.

An ROK defense ministry official told Yonhap News Agency that the expansion is being undertaken “to protect our citizens and safeguard our economic interests,” adding that the Cheonghae Unit’s new mandate would include support for “efforts to restore freedom of navigation in international shipping routes.” The official added that maritime patrol aircraft would be “prohibited from monitoring Iranian territory, territorial waters, or the interior of the Strait of Hormuz.”

Per ROK law, the decision must now be approved by the Cabinet and President, followed by a vote in the National Assembly, South Korea’s parliament. The decision is expected to be made next week.

War by deception

Word of the ROK’s potential deployment to the Strait of Hormuz leaked in early September, following months of US pressure. Large protests attended by thousands swept the country, with the ROK’s major progressive forces presenting a united front against the war. On September 18, President Lee Jae Myung told media that his government had “ruled out” joining the war – but hinted that expanding the Cheonghae Unit’s deployment could be possible under the auspices of defending freedom of navigation.

While it was widely reported internationally that Lee had ruled out support for the war on Iran, progressive parties and anti-war organizations in the ROK continued to raise the alarm. Many pointed out that expanding the Cheonghae Unit to the Gulf of Oman or the Strait of Hormuz would violate Iran’s prior warnings that foreign military vessels in these areas would be treated as enemy combatants. Given the circumstances, these organizations accused President Lee of misleading the public and attempting to proceed towards war by deceptive means.

These warnings have proven to be prescient. The Lee administration’s claim to expand the Cheonghae Unit to protect freedom of navigation and commercial vessels is at odds with the details of the proposal. The new weaponry slated for addition to the Cheonghae Unit goes well beyond what would be required for a naval escort.

As the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, a progressive umbrella union organization representing over 1 million workers, put it: “If the true objective were merely to protect vessels, there would be no need for EOD teams, anti-submarine patrol aircraft, or mine-clearing equipment. These are military preparations unrelated to the protection of ships; they clearly reveal an intent to participate in an illegal war led by the United States.”

While the Lee administration is maintaining that it would uphold independent command of its troops, the Cheonghae Unit in fact operates as part of the US Naval Forces Central Command’s Combined Maritime Forces. One way or another, the potential deployment shows every indication of either directly or indirectly supporting US military operations.

The ROK Progressive Party, which holds four seats in the National Assembly, further pointed out that expanding Cheonghae Unit’s operational area amounts to a “deceptive, indirect deployment – a ploy to insert South Korea into the conflict,” adding that the waters from the Strait of Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman are “effectively a single theater of war…there is no buffer zone whatsoever between the two.”

The Party statement also criticized the illegality of the potential decision. The Cheonghae Unit’s legal basis for deployment under international law, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1816, limits its operational mandate to Somalian waters. Furthermore, Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the ROK’s Constitution renounces wars of aggression.

Under Washington’s pressure

For months, South Korea staved off US pressure to join the war.

In August, Trump suddenly announced the partial cancellation of Ulchi Freedom Shield, a major series of joint war drills held annually between the two governments. While citing his “very special relationship” with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Trump also delivered invectives against the ROK for its unwillingness to support aggression against Iran.

These demands have piled additional pressure on Seoul, which has also faced economic coercion under Trump’s tariff wars to deliver a massive $350 billion state-backed investment package into US industry. Lee’s domestic economic agenda is also being obstructed by the US military, and his government is in active dialogue with Washington to relocate the US Air Force Gwangju Base to make room for a proposed semiconductor manufacturing complex.

The US and ROK are also negotiating the return of the latter’s operational control (OPCON) over its own military. Recently, US Forces Korea Commander Xavier Brunson declared that the conditions for the transfer had changed, and hinted that a return of OPCON before the end of Lee’s administration in 2030 would be unlikely.

Given this context, it is likely that Lee’s proposed expansion of the Cheonghae Unit is an attempted maneuver to gain leverage in advancing his administration’s other goals vis-a-vis Washington. Lee would not be the first ROK leader to partake in US wars of aggression in the hope of advancing domestic pursuits. The ROK’s participation in the Vietnam War and the Second Gulf War were motivated by similar designs.

However, Iran today is nothing like the Vietnam of the 1960s or the Iraq of the 2000s. Iran has demonstrated formidable military capabilities that have forced the US into a halting campaign which it can neither win militarily nor exit without facing severe loss of prestige. Regarding Seoul’s potential participation, Tehran has been clear: any foreign military operating in the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, or the Persian Gulf will be regarded as an enemy and its units and economic interests will be targeted.

All this has compelled Lee’s government into contortions. Rather than straightforwardly backing the US war, Seoul is now engaged in a rather acrobatic performance that seeks to appease all sides. Technically, the ROK is meeting Washington’s demand, falling short of Tehran’s threshold for retaliation, and packaging it all in such a way that may avoid provoking a renewed wave of domestic outrage. Lee may believe this is the politically prudent thing to do. That illusion will rapidly fade if a single ROK casualty occurs.

November 8, 2026 Posted by | South Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

False Solutions and Feminist Climate Justice: Why Nuclear Power Cannot Deliver a Just Transition

An assessment of nuclear power against the principles of feminist climate justice

October 27, 2026, https://womengenderclimate.org/resources/why-nuclear-power-cannot-deliver-a-just-transition/

The WGC advocates for a feminist approach to climate justice that places human rights, gender equality, care, participation and ecological integrity at the centre. This means recognising that the climate emergency is rooted in economic models that treat people, ecosystems and natural resources as commodities to be exploited. A just transition is therefore not simply about replacing one energy source with another, but about transforming the systems that perpetuate exploitation and inequality. Moving beyond fossil fuels must not reproduce extractivism, environmental degradation, discrimination or unequal access to resources and decision-making. Climate action must instead advance more equitable societies, respect planetary boundaries and challenge colonial patterns of development.

Nuclear power is increasingly presented as a climate solution that can support the transition away from fossil fuels. However, claims that nuclear power is a low-carbon climate solution remain contested. Assessing its climate impacts requires considering the entire nuclear chain, including uranium mining, processing, enrichment, reactor construction, operation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste management, rather than focusing solely on emissions during electricity generation.

This paper assesses nuclear power against these principles of feminist climate justice. It argues that nuclear power perpetuates extractive development, diverts resources from people-centred climate solutions, exposes people and ecosystems to risks from radioactivity across its lifecycle, creates long-term burdens for future generations and reinforces militarised systems. Measured against the principles of a just transition, nuclear power is a false climate solution.

Read the brief

November 8, 2026 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Nuclear power is a false climate solution

November 6, 2026, by IPPNW, https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2026/11/06/nuclear-power-is-a-false-climate-solution/

In the run-up to the forthcoming COP31 World Climate Summit in Turkey, the Women and Gender Constituency (WGC)—one of the nine officially recognized non-party stakeholder groups of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—published a clear statement against the misrepresentation of nuclear energy as a climate solution.

Entitled “False solutions and feminist climate justice: why nuclear power cannot deliver a just transition,” the text presents a wealth of facts and argues against the “nuclear for climate” narrative from a feminist perspective.  The WGC advocates a feminist approach to climate justice that prioritizes human rights, gender equality, care, participation, and ecological integrity. Members and staff of IPPNW-Germany contributed to the content and arguments underpinning the statement.

Read the full statement.

November 8, 2026 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

AI apocalypse now?

Even more cynically, these companies may be hyping up the danger ahead of releasing their own cybersecurity products, thereby inflating a problem that only they can solve.

AI’s capacity to destroy humanity in a spectacular fashion in the future obscures the very real harms it is already causing now

New Internationalist, 5 November 2026
Decca Muldowney
turns a critical eye on industry-theatrics to examine the real and imagined world-destroying potential of AI.

In early September Jacob Coxon, a researcher with the AI company Anthropic, very publicly quit his job, sharing a dire warning about the supposed existential risks of the technology.

‘The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,’ he wrote on X. ‘No other human activity poses this level of danger.’ He blasted both Anthropic and its competitor, OpenAI, for not doing enough to prevent harm by AI.

Coxon was not the first to make such an extreme claim. Many in the cult-like inward-looking world of Silicon Valley have been expressing similar predictions of an AI-induced apocalypse in the last few years. Some of these ‘doomers’, like Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called ‘godfather of AI’, have made entire careers of it.

But this time the message cut through to the general public, sparking a debate across the world about the potential dangers of AI and whether it truly has the ability to kill us all. Shortly after Coxon’s pronouncement, Dario Amodei, the chief executive of Anthropic, published an essay calling for a global slowdown of AI development. Sam Altman, of OpenAI, followed suit. But why are the people building this technology calling for it to be better regulated? Why, if they truly believe it has world-ending capabilities, are they continuing to develop it? Why do they want to keep the public afraid?

Some believe these companies are engaged in a form of regulatory capture, by which private companies aim to direct and control the way regulation is applied to their industry, thereby foreclosing possibilities for companies that come after them while maximizing their own benefit. After all, despite Amodei’s warning, his company is moving ahead with its initial public offering (IPO), meaning the company will go public. Anthropic has a potential value of $2 trillion.

Even more cynically, these companies may be hyping up the danger ahead of releasing their own cybersecurity products, thereby inflating a problem that only they can solve

AI’s capacity to destroy humanity in a spectacular fashion in the future obscures the very real harms it is already causing now.

The Apocalypse ploy

The fears of AI ending our world – whether by turning on its creators or unleashing bioweapons – seem at first to be in direct contrast with the claims of AI ‘boosters’ that believe the technology will change our world for the better.

But a more helpful lens through which to understand this is ‘critihype’, coined by Virginia Tech professor Lee Vinsel, which describes negative discourse about technology that ‘retain[s] the picture of extraordinary change but focus[es] instead on negative problems and risks’.

But doomers and boomers can also be seen, counterintuitively, as ‘two sides of the same coin’, as tech critics Emily M Bender and Alex Hanna write in their book The AI Con: ‘the substance of the coin is the belief that the development of AI is inevitable and that resulting technology will be both autonomous and powerful, and ultimately beneficial, if we play our cards right. It’s only the faces of the coin that differ’.

What is clear is that the focus on AI’s capacity to destroy humanity in a spectacular and dramatic fashion in the future obscures the very real harms it is already causing now. Among the most pressing of these is its contribution to the climate crisis, a real and present danger that does threaten the entire planet – or at least its capacity to support life as we know it.

What is clear is that the focus on AI’s capacity to destroy humanity in a spectacular and dramatic fashion in the future obscures the very real harms it is already causing now. Among the most pressing of these is its contribution to the climate crisis, a real and present danger that does threaten the entire planet – or at least its capacity to support life as we know it………………………………….

Another arena in which AI is already causing distinct and severe harm is in modern warfare, particularly the determination of arms companies and governments to produce autonomous weapons.

Unmanned drones have already become normalized but now AI is being incorporated into targeting systems. The genocide in Gaza was proudly described in the Israeli press as the ‘first AI war’. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) used AI systems to locate targets in Gaza in real-time, killing thousands. The use of Palantir-built AI technology by the US-Israeli forces contributed to the killing of 150 school children in Minab, Iran. Here there is no need for grand stories about the end of the world – these children’s worlds were ended in a moment.

Techlash 2.0

There are some rays of light amid the doom. In the United States and beyond, previously pro-AI politicians have been pivoting after huge amounts of public backlash to the construction of data centres, which are proving to be deeply unpopular across the political spectrum. Between April and June this year, at least 45 data centre projects were delayed or blocked after local opposition, at a cost of $68 billion to the industry.

Similar fights against data centre construction are taking place in Uruguay, the Netherlands, Chile and beyond. Also in the US, fears around surveillance have solidified into a growing campaign against Flock cameras, AI-powered automatic license plate readers that are now widespread.

The AI doomers would like us to believe their apocalyptic visions, as long as we keep ignoring their present-day harms. They would like us to stay afraid, so that we do not organize. We should not allow them to dictate the terms of humanity’s future. https://newint.org/science-and-technology/2026/ai-apocalypse-now?utm_source=ni-email-whatcounts%20&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2026-11-06%20enews%20-%206%20november%20enews&utm_content=1%20NI%20Main%20List1%20-%20enews%20-%20International%20AND%20North%20America

November 8, 2026 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

Walt Zlotow – Trump kills loudly with bombs, Rubio kills quietly with sanctions

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 6 Nov 26, https://theaimn.net/trump-kills-loudly-with-bombs-rubio-kills-quietly-with-sanctions/

President Trump is once again publicly boasting about unleashing a massive bombing campaign to “destroy the rest of Iran”. Meanwhile, his fellow war criminal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is quietly killing Cubans with his ghoulish sanctions designed to force them to overthrow their government to place Cuba under Rubio’s control.

Installed as Trump’s Secretary of State in term two, Rubio was charged with overthrowing the Communist regime of Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel, a US goal since Fidel Castro overthrew American puppet leader Fulgencio Batista in 1959.


Rubio is the latest and worst in a long line of ghoulish US diplomates charged with destroying life for the Cuban people to force them to overthrow the Cuban government of a tiny country of 11 million peaceful peaple posing no threat to America whatsoever. In a bitter irony, had not Rubio’s parents immigrated frm Cuba to America 15 years before Marco was born, he and his family might be suffering under cruel, murderous US sanctions at this very moment.

Marco has ramped up Cuban santions to murderous levels. He’s cut off virtually all oil needed to sustain normal life. People are dying in hospitals due to energy shortages worsened by US cutoff of both Venezuelan and Mexican oil

While Marco kills silently in Cuba, his murderous, war criminal boss Trump still threatens military action to take Cuba by force. He’s had the Pentagon place military assets in the region for a potential attack. Only one thing has stopped Trump. He’s bogged down with his lost war on Iran as he prepares for a new attack after being pummeled during his 40 day war he launched February 28.

The current campaign to destroy life for the Cuban people in not new. Back in 1960 a secret State Dept. memo proposed making life so miserable for the Cuban people they would overthrow the new Castro government. It advocated “a line of action which, while adroit and inconspicuous as possible, denies money and supplies to Cuba, decreases wages, bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of the government.”

Not much has changed in 66 years…except that under Marco Rubio more Cubans are dying so Marco can realize his dream of becoming Potentate of Cuba.

November 8, 2026 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Last Night’s “Blue Wave” Means Nothing If We Don’t Stop The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing, pay their CEOs a combined salary of almost $100 million a year. They are literally making a killing off the killing of others.

The Pentagon is requesting an unprecedented $58.5 billion this year for an artificial intelligence program.

a mechanism to funnel billions of dollars into the pockets of weapons manufacturers, who make the very weapons that murder men, women, and children and destroy the planet.

November 4, 2026, Melissa Garriga, https://scheerpost.com/2026/11/04/last-nights-blue-wave-means-nothing-if-we-dont-stop-the-ndaa/

As taxpayers, we are funding our own endgame, but we don’t have to.

Last night’s election results proved that a majority of people in this country do not want war and genocide. Polling overwhelmingly showed that the war on Iran was one of the biggest motivating factors in voting. So why are we about to give the very people voters rejected an unprecedented $1.5 trillion budget to continue their reign of death and destruction? Why are we going to allow Congress to hand over the largest war budget in human history to weapons manufacturers and AI tech billionaires who work at the behest of known war criminals?

In the next few weeks, Congress is set to pass what should be viewed as the deadliest piece of legislation of our time – the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – or the country’s defense budget, as it is more commonly known. Its potential passage is setting U.S. taxpayers up to be the funders of their own demise by giving carte blanche to a department of war criminals and their humanity-destroying tech-fascist friends with an obscene 1.5 trillion-dollar treasure chest to control, murder, oppress, and destroy the planet as we know it.

Sounds a bit hyperbolic? Not if you look at their past and what they are openly saying now, as a prologue.

To understand why this war budget is a catastrophic time bomb, you first have to understand what it actually funds. Under the guise of providing national “security” and protecting “democracy,” the annual Pentagon budget does little of both. Instead, the budget, which consistently fails its financial audits, is a mechanism to funnel billions of dollars into the pockets of weapons manufacturers, who make the very weapons that murder men, women, and children and destroy the planet. Well over half of the discretionary budget each year goes directly to private contractors.

Between 2020 and 2024, the Pentagon designated roughly $2.4 trillion out of $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending to private industry. But hey, at least those private companies are providing much-needed jobs for America’s workforce, right? Well, not so fast.

According to the Climate and Community Institute, employment at military contractors has plummeted over the past three decades: from an estimated 3.2 million workers during the Reagan military-spending peak in the mid-1980s to 1.1 million workers in 2020. The drop occurred even as Pentagon budgets rose 22 percent over the same period. Meanwhile, the industry’s top recipients of military contracts, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing, pay their CEOs a combined salary of almost $100 million a year. They are literally making a killing off the killing of others.

And now, not only are we draining our pocketbooks for weapon company CEOs, but we are also subsidizing tech-overlords whose recent main objective is to move jobs and agency away from the working class to robots, as well as use that very technology to mass-surveil those who oppose it. The Pentagon is requesting an unprecedented $58.5 billion this year for an artificial intelligence program. This program is already responsible for the February 28 Minab School massacre that murdered at least 156 schoolchildren and staff.

Even more frightening, the money for that deadly program is set to go to the most insane lineup of anti-worker villains, including Sam “bad things should happen to benefit AI” Altman; Peter “if you’re evil, you’re not bad” Thiel; and Elon “AI will make jobs irrelevant” Musk. They’re openly telling us they don’t need humans anymore. Meanwhile, they are building their bunkers so that when the United States military finally plunders away all the resources around the world, they can survive.

Why are we handing the military $1.5 trillion to do all this? As it stands, U.S. taxpayers are already paying $116.43 million every hour for war and terror. That’s more than $4,000 in weapons and war costs for the average taxpayer last year alone. Both figures will likely double, since the Trump administration’s request is Biden’s already bloated $1 trillion. Meanwhile, nearly 30% of people have to finance groceries, and 45,000 people will likely die because they lack health insurance or access to affordable healthcare.

If you were watching a summer Blockbuster and the main characters were handing over their hard-earned money and essentially their trust to the person you know is going to assassinate them in the final act, you would be screaming at the screen, “Don’t do it!”

But that is exactly what is happening right now, and in fact, many are screaming.

Polls consistently show that Americans are moving away from a war-centric approach to foreign affairs. Almost two-thirds of people in the United States disapprove of Trump’s war on Iran, and 60% disapprove of the U.S. supported genocide in Gaza. Similarly, 59% of voters believe the proposed $1.5 trillion Department of Defense budget is too high, and 3 in 5 voters (58%) prefer directing government funds toward domestic priorities like healthcare rather than military or war spending.

The voices are there, but most of those with the power to stop it aren’t listening or are too invested in the war-industrial complex to care. Which begs the question: How can we even call ourselves a democracy, much less its defender, when we, the people, seem to have no agency outside of voting and the majority’s demands are ignored?

This administration, as did previous ones, proudly ignores what the majority is begging for: an end to the genocide in Gaza and the occupation of Palestine; an end to the war on Iran that was started for no reason and is currently sustained through the administration’s pompous arrogance; an end to ICE’s reign of terror across the United States; an end to the AI/data center boom that is chipping away at our humanity and livelihoods; and reinvestment into the things that will actually keep us safe, such as healthcare, housing, and climate justice.

Make no mistake, the 1.5 trillion dollars set to go to Pete Hegseth’s war department is not funding our security; it is funding our endgame and stealing from our lifelines. If passed, it will be nearly impossible to undo the damage that will come. We all must unite around this – healthcare workers, environmentalists, teachers, journalists, students, veterans- and make democracy actually work for the people before it’s too late. We have to let those we elected to work for us know that this is a red line that humanity cannot afford to cross.

History shows that public pressure can influence policies. Our collective voice can change this country’s trajectory – if we mobilize now. We don’t have to fund our endgame; we can say no. Join us in DC Nov. 10- 13 as we demand our country stop funding war and start funding life.

Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. She writes about the intersection of militarism and the human cost of war.

November 7, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | 1 Comment

The Iran war killed Trump’s Presidency: the Ukraine war will kill European mainstream governments

Europeans do not feel safer because of the war. They feel poorer.

Foreign policy starts and ends at home

Ian Proud

Donald Trump has just suffered a heavy defeat in the US midterms. Democrats have taken both houses. Some British media are calling it an earthquake. It was nothing of the sort. It was predictable from the moment the latest phase of the Iran war began in February.

Foreign policy starts and ends at home. Most citizens are completely uninterested in foreign policy until it directly hurts their interests. Trump has made Americans poorer and feel less safe. His foreign policy has come home to roost and it was always obvious that it would.

Trump faced a simple choice. Finish the Iran war early and look weak, or keep going and look incompetent. I’ve been saying it from the start. He chose the second option.

The Iranian state is still standing. Years of sanctions had already forced it to build a resistance economy. Its main response was to shut the Strait of Hormuz and, with the Houthis, disrupt the Bab al-Mandab and hit Saudi oil production. The result was a global economic shock that hit American gasoline prices and inflation across the board. Ordinary Americans could feel it in their wallets, and they saw no end in sight. Trump carried on talking about winning.

Most people barely think about foreign policy. They only notice it when it starts to hurt their prosperity or their sense of safety. This year, enough Americans made that connection to rout the Republican Party at the midterms. The Democrats campaigned mainly on the economy and that was enough.

Trump tried tariffs, sanctions, deals and threats. None of it fixed the basic problem created by the war. He is now a lame duck.

Foreign policy must serve a country’s core interests, or it fails. Those interests are always the same.

  • Is your border secure?
  • Are your people safe?
  • Is your country growing more prosperous?

Everything else is incidental. Values, feeling bad about Ukraine, in the final analysis, voters are uninterested.

Iran is thousands of miles from the United States. It does not threaten American territory. The idea that it poses an existential threat to ordinary Americans has never been credible. The war made Americans poorer. That is why it failed.

The same lesson applies in Europe. For nearly five years the mainstream parties have treated the war in Ukraine as a moral crusade that ordinary people must simply pay for. Most Europeans know little about Ukraine or Russia and care even less.

For a while governments managed consent with the daily carpet bombing of propaganda. That is now wearing thin.

Europeans do not feel safer because of the war. They feel poorer. Energy costs are high, industrial jobs are disappearing in Germany, debt is rising in Britain, and public services are strained in France.

When German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said she did not care what her voters thought and would put Ukrainians first, she epitomised where Europe has gone badly wrong; it lost sight of its core strategic interests.

Values and being kind to Ukraine aren’t core strategic interests.

The globalists got away for it for a few years but voters have now noticed.

Support across Western Europe is shifting toward parties that prioritise domestic priorities and interests. Germany has seen cost-of-living protests. France has protests over schools and services while money continues to flow to Ukraine. Britain has just sent another £10 billion to Ukraine while debt interest approaches £109 billion a year. Poland’s government is already nervous about the next elections and Tusk’s government tried to orchestrate a constitutional coup.

Ukraine is not a war of necessity for Britain, France, Germany or the rest of the EU. A war of necessity is one fought in self-defence when the country itself is attacked.

The Ukraine war is a war of choice.

The longer it continues without clear benefit to ordinary citizens, the harder it becomes to justify.

The European Commission, which faces no elections, makes the problem worse. National governments have handed key decisions to an unelected body in Brussels, then asked their own voters to pay the bill. That widens the democratic deficit.

Russia and China have handled their situations differently. Russians largely see the Ukraine war as a war of necessity. That makes political mobilisation easier, even though the human and economic costs are real.

Russia has also shielded its population from the worst economic effects better than Europe has. Unemployment is low, wages have risen, and the state has not faced the same fiscal strain. China has avoided major wars altogether. It has focused on long-term economic growth, industrial capacity and technological progress. It has not risked that progress to launch an invasion of Taiwan. China is playing the long game.

The difference is straightforward. Americans are getting poorer because of the Iran war. Europeans are getting poorer because of the Ukraine war (and the added pressure from the Iran war). Russians are not facing the same economic squeeze. Chinese leaders have so far refused to gamble their economic gains on war.

That is why the global centre of gravity continues to shift east.European mainstream parties now face a series of elections over the next three years. France, Poland, Germany and Britain are all on the calendar. Voters who link their falling living standards to foreign policy choices will punish the parties responsible just as American voters have punished Trump and the Republicans.

There is still time for mainstream parties in Europe to change course and put domestic conditions first. I see little sign that they will.

They are badly advised, reluctant to admit failure, and, in Europe’s case, structurally unable to coordinate a coherent strategy across 27 governments plus the Commission.

Wars are not won by committee (as I have pointed out countless times already).

Foreign policy always starts and ends at home. Trump has just learned that lesson the hard way. European leaders will learn the lesson next time their voters get to choose who they want in charge.

You can watch my monologue on this topic here:

November 7, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

NATO’s “Nordic model” brings Arctic confrontation closer to Russia’s nuclear bases

Western strategists envision a restructured NATO built around autonomous regional military clusters based on the “Nordic model”. From the Baltic Sea to the Arctic, the proposed model raises serious concerns about escalation control, nuclear deterrence, and European security.

Thursday, November 5, 2026, Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, https://infobrics.org/en/post/103458

As Washington shifts Europe’s conventional defense burden onto its allies, the Nordic countries are emerging as a blueprint for NATO’s future – raising questions about Arctic militarization, Russia’s nuclear deterrent, and regional escalation.

Last week, Finnish researcher Matti Pesu argued in Foreign Affairs that the Nordic countries offer a practical path forward for NATO. His proposal, typical as it is of many Western analyses, deserves some attention.

Finland and Sweden, the alliance’s newest members, have deepened defense coordination with Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. Joint air patrols, shared logistics, and intelligence sharing have reached unprecedented levels.

Pesu presents this “Nordic model” as a prototype for NATO 3.0: an alliance in which Europeans take primary responsibility for conventional defense while the United States retains nuclear deterrence and strategic leadership.

This is less about American “withdrawal” than burden-shifting: European states would supply more troops, equipment, infrastructure, and funding – while remaining under the American nuclear umbrella.

One could interpret this as the Europeanization of the costs and risks of “containing” Russia, without a corresponding Europeanization of strategic decision-making.

Pesu himself notes that Nordic military integration would advance the US National Security Strategy’s objective of maintaining favorable regional balances of power. The Nordic “cluster” thus serves wider American strategic goals.

The Arctic dimension carries particular weight: Pesu acknowledges that Finland allows American signals-intelligence aircraft to monitor the Kola Peninsula, where much of Russia’s sea-based nuclear deterrent is concentrated.

Finland’s accession has thus expanded the Alliance’s intelligence and operational access to areas central to Russia’s nuclear forces. From Moscow’s perspective, NATO surveillance and military infrastructure near the Kola Peninsula constitute a strategic threat.

I commented elsewhere on how the Gulf of Finland could become a flashpoint for new conflict between NATO and Moscow – following Finnish and Swedish accession. The same logic now extends into the High North.

Pesu further proposes that subregional “clusters” could act even if NATO itself is paralyzed: these groupings would offer a “hedge”, enabling frontline allies to respond together.

This raises questions about escalation control: if, say, Nordic, Baltic, or Black Sea clusters undertake coordinated operations independently, a confrontation might develop before the alliance as a whole has agreed on its political objectives. Larger members could then face pressure to support actions they never authorized.

Pesu outlines a strategy for organizing NATO’s entire frontier with Russia into interoperable military clusters: a Nordic-Arctic grouping in the northwest, a Baltic-Polish cluster in the center, and a Black Sea cluster in the southeast.


From a Russian strategic perspective, this could be perceived as the consolidation of a continuous NATO military frontier stretching from the Arctic to the Black Sea.

The danger is that it would institutionalize greater military integration along Russia’s western and northern periphery – while potentially allowing regional coalitions to act without NATO-wide political consensus.

Russia then would face not merely an enlarged NATO, but a network of interoperable clusters capable of coordinating airpower, missile systems, intelligence gathering, naval operations, and troop movements along multiple fronts.

A March 2026 SIPRI study explicitly warns that Nordic enlargement and new military capabilities could undermine crisis stability by bringing NATO’s precision-strike systems closer to Russian strategic assets.

Another SIPRI analysis identifies inadvertent escalation, including nuclear escalation, as a significant risk in Northern Europe. In a security dilemma, Moscow’s countermeasures could themselves provoke further NATO deployments, perpetuating an increasingly dangerous cycle.

The Greenland question exposes a deeper contradiction here: the September agreement between Washington, Copenhagen, and Nuuk basically expanded American military access – while (formally) recognizing Danish sovereignty.

Pesu treats this as an opportunity to restore cooperation. Yet Washington is simultaneously asking European allies to assume greater responsibility for their own security and asserting exceptional strategic interests in territories belonging to those allies.

The Nordic countries, it turns out, are being asked to strengthen their capacity to “deter Russia” while accommodating an American administration that has itself openly challenged the sovereignty of a NATO member.

In any case, the biggest omission in NATO 3.0 discussions such as this is any serious consideration of diplomacy. There is little attention to arms control, confidence-building measures, military-to-military communication, or negotiated regional security arrangements.

One may recall that Finland and Sweden were long associated with different forms of neutrality or military nonalignment. They are now being presented as models for a more deeply militarized NATO – and a more NATOized Europe, increasingly “encircling” Moscow.

The “Nordic model” is no longer simply “adapting” to NATO; NATO is actually being encouraged to adapt to the Nordic model.

This way, the Arctic itself is becoming integrated into the alliance’s broader confrontation framework. Moreover, conventional military operations in this region take place close to strategically important nuclear assets.

Consequently, the consequences of a miscalculation could be far greater than those of an ordinary regional conflict.

November 7, 2026 Posted by | ARCTIC, politics international | Leave a comment

Global stocks plunge as fears over US AI slowdown spread to Asia and Europe

BBC, Rachel Clun,, Osmond Chiaand, Nick Edser,Business reporters, 5 Nov 26

Global stock markets have tumbled after investors sold tech shares on fears that the US midterm elections would slow the development of artificial intelligence (AI).

The sell-off, which started in the US and then spread to Asia and Europe, has seen trillions of dollars wiped off the stock value of major tech firms.

In the US, the tech-heavy Nasdaq share index sank 5.5% on Thursday. Asian markets also saw hefty falls on Friday and European markets opened lower.

Investors are worried about tougher regulation of AI, after Democrat candidates opposed the data centres needed by the technology. The share falls also come on top of concerns about whether the huge amounts being spent on AI will pay off.

The sell-off in US stocks meant the so-called magnificent seven tech companies, including Apple, Nvidia and Tesla, shed a trillion dollars in value in a single trading day, with Nvidia shares sliding more than 9%.

Shares in Elon Musk’s companies SpaceX and Tesla also plunged, falling 8% and nearly 11% respectively and shaving more than $300bn off the firms’ market value.

Musk had spent nearly $450m backing Republican campaigns, including at least $45m in support of Ken Paxton for the Texas senate seat, but Texas turned blue in the Democratic tsunami on Tuesday.

The sharp fall in the Nasdaq meant it lost an estimated $2.5tn (£1.9tn) in market value. The index is now in what market watchers call correction territory, which is where an index or company value falls at least 10% below its recent high.

However, the huge gains seen by tech stocks in recent times – driven by the enthusiasm for AI – mean that even after Thursday’s fall, the Nasdaq is still higher than it was a year ago, and up about 4.6% from where it was at the start of this year.

The US sell-off spread into Asia on Friday. The Nikkei share index in Japan closed down 6% as shares in memory chip makers Kioxia and Tokyo Electron saw big falls.

In South Korea, the Kospi index plunged more than 8% at one point, triggering a so-called circuit breaker, a mechanism that temporarily halts trading to curb panic selling.

The Kospi eventually closed down 6%, with shares in chipmaker SK Hynix falling more than 10%.

European markets fell on Friday, although the declines were not as severe as the indexes contain fewer tech stocks. The UK’s FTSE 100 index fell nearly 2% while Germany’s Dax index was down 2.4%.

Dan Coatsworth, head of markets at AJ Bell, said investors were worried about the huge amounts of money being spent on AI with “no clear idea of when, or whether, there will be payback”.

“The midterm election result muddied the waters as the Democrats now have more influence and could slow down the pace of data centre roll-outs and look at new ways to regulate the sector,” he added.

“The AI story has all been about speed, and now there is a danger of it moving to a lower gear, and some of the wheels falling off.”

Pressure on data centres

Democrats in races across the US campaigned to slow the growth of data centres and AI, and there were dozens of measures on ballots around the country aimed at restricting the development of the hubs crucial for powering the technology.

They won both the US Senate and House of Representatives in the midterms, taking control of Congress for the rest of President Donald Trump’s presidency.

“Americans don’t want Big Tech oligarchs wrecking the environment, gutting jobs and threatening humanity’s future. NATIONAL DATA CENTER MORATORIUM NOW,” Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders said in a post on X on Thursday…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Some tech leaders have said they were caught off guard by the backlash against data centres in the midterms.

Some tech leaders have said they were caught off guard by the backlash against data centres in the midterms.

OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman said he believed everyone had been surprised by the reaction to data centres, and more work needed to be done to ensure communities were on board.

“A lot of our shift over the course of this year has really been to realise that from San Francisco trying to build infrastructure in Texas, Georgia, and other places, you can’t just tweet and say: ‘This is going to be good.’ You need to be in those communities,” Brockman said at the WSJ Tech conference in Napa, California.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmn04705rd8jo

November 7, 2026 Posted by | ASIA, business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Damaged Chernobyl nuclear site needs urgent funding, warns European development bank

Half a billion euros is required to fix the protective dome that was damaged by Russian attacks.

Politico, November 4, 2026 By Elena Giordano and Ben Makuch

BRUSSELS — The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development says it faces a €500 million shortfall for emergency repairs to the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine.

It warned that international funding is needed to avert a potential environmental disaster after damage from Russian attacks.

The EBRD is seeking the money to restore the giant steel structure built over the remains of Reactor 4, which exploded in 1986. Damaged by a Russian drone strike in February 2025, the structure — known as the New Safe Confinement — protects the reactor’s remains and allows radioactive material to be managed safely.

“It’s not a Ukrainian problem,” EBRD President Odile Renaud-Basso told POLITICO in an interview. “Everybody should feel concerned about nuclear safety globally.”

The EBRD is joint-owned by the European Union, the European Investment Bank and 77 other countries, including the U.S., China and Russia. It was originally set up to fund development in Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and is a major funder of nuclear safety.

While there is no immediate danger from Chernobyl, Renaud-Basso said the damage needs to be fixed before 2030. Without repairs, moisture could cause corrosion to the infrastructure beneath the protective arch, eventually making it much more difficult and expensive to manage the radioactive material.

She argued the repairs should not be seen as competing with other urgent demands for support to Ukraine, which is already struggling to repair energy infrastructure damaged by Russia’s invasion. Instead, governments should see it as an investment in international nuclear safety, with consequences extending beyond Ukraine’s borders.

“It’s very much also a question of trust,” she said. “When you see so many countries investing also in nuclear, you need to have the trust that when things happen, if things happen, there is a capacity to deal with them.”

The argument comes as a growing number of European countries consider nuclear energy as part of their future energy mix. Renaud-Basso said the need to maintain strong safety standards and demonstrate that the international community can respond to nuclear accidents remains essential.

………………………………A conference in Paris on Nov. 9, co-chaired by France, Ukraine and the EBRD, is intended to build momentum for further pledges. But securing the remaining money will take time.

…………………………The bank wants to have the necessary funding in place to award contracts and begin the main restoration work in 2028, as it estimates that the work itself will take around two years.

………….Looking beyond the G7

The EBRD is now hoping to broaden the group of contributors. Renaud-Basso pointed to European countries that have supported previous Chernobyl projects and G7 members that have yet to make contributions, as well as countries in the Gulf and elsewhere.

During the previous international fundraising effort to build the New Safe Confinement, around 46 countries contributed, she said.

Renaud-Basso said the bank remained optimistic that the international community would eventually find the money, but stressed that the issue could not be left unresolved………………….. https://www.politico.eu/article/damage-chernobyl-nuclear-site-urgent-funding-european-development-bank/

November 7, 2026 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment