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

NATO foreign ministers meeting ends with veritable declaration of war

NATO foreign ministers meeting ends with veritable declaration of war, more
Rick RozoffAnti-bellum

There is no transcript that includes the question-and-answer session that followed NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s comments. But they can be heard here. Excerpts from Stoltenberg’s closing statement are featured below.

That the NATO foreign ministers meeting was held in a member state bordering Belarus and Russia at this critical juncture is significant in its own right; that the main focus of the meeting was on Ukraine and Georgia and their “territorial integrity” is eerily reminiscent of statements and land claims last made in Europe in 1938-1939.

Stoltenberg;s comments about NATO not tolerating any nation establishing and maintaining a sphere of influence approaches the surreal given the Pentagon turning all of Europe except Belarus and Russia into satrapies under the NATO aegis. In denouncing the very prospect of Russia having any influence in nations that border it and that not long ago were part of the same country, Stoltenberg became demonstrably and uncharacteristically condemnatory and bellicose, pounding the podium repeatedly. In general, the NATO secretary general’s statements – diktat, ultimata and threats – over the past few weeks, reaching a crescendo at the Riga meeting, may well be the most inflammatory ones ever made by a NATO leader.

During the session with journalists a comment is made by a reporter that unless Bosnia is press-ganged into NATO “we will have Russian forces there.” Along with similar statements regarding Moldova, the war front is constantly expanding from the Baltic-to-Black Sea front further inland to the Balkans and elsewhere.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Safety fault in China’s European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) does not bode well for UK’s Hinkley Point C and Sizewell nuclear projects

The second EPR reactor at China’s Taishan nuclear power plant is about to enter into commercial operation.

Key safety components in the UK’s first new nuclear power station for 30 years may need to be redesigned and the project could be delayed after defects were detected at a similar reactor in China.

The £22 billion Hinkley Point C plant in Somerset is already well over budget and a decade late but the defects mean that the scheduled date for starting electricity generation, of June 2026, may have to be revised. The same power plant design is due to be used for another nuclear power station, Sizewell C in
Suffolk, which is planned but has not yet been approved.

An investigation is still under way into the cause of the problems with the plant in Taishan, in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong. It was shut down in August after reports of damage to fuel rods, which hold nuclear materials used to fuel the reactor.

The plant is operated by China General Nuclear Power Group and owned in partnership with the French state-controlled EDF, the two companies involved in building Hinkley Point C.

The Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity, a French association
created in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, said that a whistleblower had reported that a design flaw in the reactor pressure vessel could be the cause of the problem at Taishan. An industry source
told The Times that the investigation was likely to show that the pressure vessel was “demonstrably safe” but it might also show that design changes were needed.

Paul Dorfman, a nuclear expert at the University of Sussex, said: “If the news we are hearing from the Taishan EPR [European pressurised reactor] is right, then it’s beginning to look like there’s a potential generic fault with the key safety mechanism of the EPR reactor design itself. “If so, this is serious news for ongoing construction at Hinkley Point C and plans for Sizewell C.

 Times 1st Dec 2021

December 2, 2021 Posted by | China, safety | 2 Comments

The nuclear fuel chain – uranium mining to radioactive waste problem- European Commission to decide if it is ”green” and”sustainable”

The European Commission is preparing to settle whether nuclear and natural gas are “green” investments in an update to the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy expected next week, according to several sources.

The list will clarify whether nuclear energy generation, waste disposal or fuel supply can be classified as sustainable activities for investors, EU energy commissioner Kadri Simson told a nuclear conference in Paris on Tuesday. French economy minister Bruno Le Maire told the same conference he was convinced France could persuade Germany – which is phasing out its nuclear generation — to agree to including nuclear in the list.

 Montel 30th Nov 2021

December 2, 2021 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Urgent need to correct exaggerated claims about China’s nuclear arsenal and its intentions.

In the months ahead, as the Biden administration attempts to draft a new Nuclear Posture Review and Congress votes on a proposed $715 defense bill for FY 2022, we can expect to hear a lot more about China’s “breathtaking” nuclear buildup. If we are to reduce the risks of nuclear war and lower the costs of nuclear weapons procurement, we must challenge such assertions and provide a balanced, realistic assessment of Chinese developments. We must also urge Biden to work with Xi in developing the “guardrails” that both agree are necessary to avert catastrophe. 

Placing “Guardrails” on the US-China Nuclear Competition,   A failure to challenge inflated claims about China’s nuclear arsenal will have serious and painful consequences. The Nation By Michael T. Klare  , 1 Dec 21,

With the United States and China both speeding up the acquisition of new nuclear weapons, some analysts predicted that Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping would discuss limits on those munitions during their virtual summit on November 15. However, they barely touched on the matter, agreeing only that both sides should take steps to prevent the unintended escalation of future crises. As Biden told Xi during their three-hour exchange, the two sides need “commonsense guardrails to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict.” Yet no plans were made for negotiations leading to the adoption of such measures, so the US-China arms race will only gain further momentum.

Historically, talk of nuclear arms racing has applied almost exclusively to the United States and the Soviet Union, and now Russia. Indeed, the US and Russia still possess the overwhelming majority of the world’s nuclear warheads, along with its most advanced nuclear delivery systems. But now China—long a minor player in the nuclear arena—appears to be bolstering its capabilities, while the United States is developing new weapons with the Chinese, as well as the Russians, in mind. The risk of a war between the US and China has also been growing, especially due to tensions over Taiwan, increasing the danger of nuclear weapons use.

Fueling these dangerous trends is a steady stream of alarmist pronouncements by US officials about China’s nuclear buildup. The Chinese are engaged in a “remarkable expansion of [their] nuclear and strategic capabilities,” Adm. Charles A. Richard, commander of the US Strategic Command, told the House Armed Services Committee last April. As a result of these initiatives, “China is capable of executing any plausible nuclear employment strategy regionally now, and soon will be able to do so at intercontinental ranges.”

But while China is certainly undertaking the modernization of its relatively old and meager nuclear arsenal—as compared to those of Russia and the United States—it can hardly be described as undertaking a “remarkable expansion” of its arsenal nor is it capable of “executing any plausible nuclear employment strategy” in a US-China war. Yet these inflated claims by senior Pentagon officials are helping spur Congress—which doesn’t really require much nudging—to finance a vast expansion of America’s own nuclear capabilities.

A failure to challenge these inflated claims and to slow the burgeoning US-China nuclear competition will have serious and painful consequences for both sides. If nothing else, it will lead to the massive allocation of resources for nuclear weapons procurement, with no end in sight. Any hope of trimming the Pentagon’s proposed $1.7 trillion modernization of all three “legs” of the nuclear “triad”—intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and long-range strategic bombers—will disappear. And the emphasis on ever-more-capable conventional weapons, combined with new developments in cyber, space, and surveillance technology, will increase the likelihood that future crises trigger an unrestrained escalatory spiral terminating in nuclear annihilation.

Fortunately, the US-China nuclear arms race is still at a relatively early stage, at least when compared to the long-running US-Soviet/Russian competition. It is possible, then, to conceive of measures that might constrain this contest before it gathers additional momentum. Before considering such measures, however, we must possess a clear understanding of this dynamic and dispel various misconceptions regarding China’s nuclear capabilities.


For starters, bear in mind that China currently maintains a relatively modest nuclear arsenal. In its latest tally of world nuclear stockpiles, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) calculated that China possessed approximately 350 nuclear warheads—a bit more than the number deployed by France (290), but a very small fraction of the 5,550 warheads possessed by the US and the 6,375 by Russia. China has also chosen to limit its arsenal of nuclear delivery systems. According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), it has deployed only about 100 ICBMs and 48 SLBMs, compared to 400 ICBMs and 336 SLBMs in the US inventory. China also has a few dozen heavy bombers, but none with a range or nuclear payload comparable to the US B-2 and B-52 bombers.

That China maintains such a modest strategic arsenal has long provided confirmation for Beijing’s claim that it seeks nuclear armaments solely to implement a “minimum deterrence” posture—one that requires sufficient weapons to survive an enemy first strike and deliver intolerable damage on the attacker but not enough to conduct a disarming first strike on an adversary.

China’s arsenal has remained relatively unchanged for several decades, but now is being substantially modernized—allowing US military officials to claim that it is engaged in a major expansion along with a shift in its weapons employment doctrine. China’s nuclear arsenal is expanding at a“breathtaking” rate, Admiral Richard declared in August, and will soon achieve a “strategic breakout,” allowing Beijing to execute “any plausible nuclear strategy” it wishes to pursue……………

In sum, the evidence for a vast and rapid buildup in Chinese nuclear capabilities is underwhelming, to say the least. Also lacking is any indication that Beijing has abandoned its “minimum deterrence” strategy. What recent Chinese developments do suggest, however, is that Chinese officials fear that their existing nuclear force is becoming increasingly vulnerable to a first strike—sometimes called a “counterforce” strike—and so must be strengthened in order to safeguard its retaliatory capability.


In contrast to China, the United States has long maintained that its nuclear forces should be capable of many functions beyond just “minimum deterrence.” Current doctrine, as encapsulated in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of 2018, states that nuclear weapons could be employed in response to an overwhelming conventional, as well as a nuclear, attack on the United States; even a major cyber assault on the United States might justify such usage…………….

Under these circumstances, China’s nuclear buildup can largely be viewed as an attempt to overcome the vulnerabilities of its deterrence force, ensuring that enough of its weapons can survive an enemy first-strike assault and penetrate enemy defenses. This would explain both of the developments noted above: the replacement of single-warhead missiles with multiple-warhead variants and the construction of multiple silo holes in the desert.

By equipping their ICBMs and SLBMs with a number of independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVed missiles, in Pentagon-speak), the Chinese evidently hope to ensure that even if only a few of their weapons escape American missile defenses, those survivors will still be able to launch multiple warheads against US targets; likewise, by constructing hundreds of additional silos and moving their ICBMs from one to the other on a random basis, they can circumvent a US first strike. None of this, however, suggests an intent to acquire a US-style counterforce capability.

TAKING ACTION NOW As suggested by this analysis, China’s nuclear modernization does not pose the same sort of threat to the United States as US nuclear and conventional initiatives pose to China. True, China is capable of inflicting catastrophic damage on this country in the event of a nuclear war, but it does not appear to be seeking a first-strike or damage-limiting capacity akin to that possessed by the United States. Nevertheless, the danger of a US-China war is growing, and any major confrontation between US and Chinese forces could result in colossal losses on one or both sides, precipitating the early use of nuclear weapons. This is the perfect time, then, for the Biden administration to seek talks with Beijing aimed at eliminating or curtailing weapons developments that are placing both countries at greater risk.

The goal—at least in the early stages of such engagement—should not be the adoption of conventional arms control agreements, like those signed between the US and the USSR during the Cold War era. Rather, the two sides should engage in high-level talks aimed at identifying the greatest risks of precipitous or unintended escalation, and in devising strategies for minimizing those dangers. (Reportedly, the Biden administration has been considering the initiation of such talks with China, but there is no indication that formal plans have yet been made to proceed with this.)

Such high-level conversations—sometimes called “strategic stability” talks—could focus, for example, on the expected deployment on both sides of numerous hypersonic missiles aimed at each other’s high-value targets, and pursue ways to curtail their numbers or mode of employment, to minimize the risk of rapid escalation. Both sides could also agree to eschew cyberattacks on each other’s nuclear command-and-control systems, with the same goal in mind. Mutual restraints could also be crafted to reduce the danger of escalation during a crisis, for example through limitations on the scale of air and naval maneuvers in the area surrounding Taiwan.

In the months ahead, as the Biden administration attempts to draft a new Nuclear Posture Review and Congress votes on a proposed $715 defense bill for FY 2022, we can expect to hear a lot more about China’s “breathtaking” nuclear buildup. If we are to reduce the risks of nuclear war and lower the costs of nuclear weapons procurement, we must challenge such assertions and provide a balanced, realistic assessment of Chinese developments. We must also urge Biden to work with Xi in developing the “guardrails” that both agree are necessary to avert

Michael T. Klare, The Nation’s defense correspondent, is professor emeritus of peace and world-security studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C. Most recently, he is the author of All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | media, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why is so little attention paid to the fastest, cheapest, most effective action on climate – ENERGY SAVING?

Look how Fukushima inspired energy saving Andrew Fraser, 16 Nov 21 London SW19, UK
Gideon Rachman (Opinion, November 16) was right to spell out the political as well as technical difficulties involved in delivering the COP commitment to net zero. However, to suggest that “geoengineering” solutions some of which were reminiscent of Jonathan Swift’s people of Balnibarbi (who sought to extract sunbeams from cucumbers) may provide the answers is surely to ignore more practical and affordable steps.

While there are undoubtedly exciting technical breakthroughs connected to renewables and the possibilities of “green” hydrogen, it is surprising that he and others have made so little mention of the capacity of governments to drive energy conservation programmes. Above all, these can make an immediate contribution while—literally—saving significant sums.

A good example came in Japan when — post the Fukushima disasters — a National setsuden (energy saving) campaign reduced consumption by over 20 per cent almost immediately. This involved completely sensible measures such as reducing the number of lifts operating in tall buildings, reducing air conditioning and allowing offices to operate at slightly higher temperatures, and switching off shop lighting and neon advertising after stores had closed.

Why can’t the government lead a similar drive? The Heath government ran a successful advertising campaign during the three-day week in 1974 built around the slogan “SOS Switch Off Something, Now!” If the climate emergency is as serious as scientists all assert, the same urgency is needed on the demand as well as the supply side.  

This means we must seek to drive behavioural change alongside sensible conservation policies such as encouragement for home insulation.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Gordon Edwards discusses a Canadian documentary on the ”Nuclear Revival” and small nuclear reactors.

Gordon Edwards, 1 December 21, On November 24, 2021, APTN broadcast a half-hour TV documentary about High Level Nuclear Waste in Canada, with some extra attention paid to the new, unorthodox irradiated fuels that would result from the proposed new reactors called SMRs. Here is a link to the program, entitled Nuclear Revival: 

A couple of observations that crossed my mind while watching the report by Journalist Christopher Read –
(1) The fuel bundles should be thought of as CONTAINERS of the actual radioactive wastes, which are locked up inside those solid bundles.  There are many different radioactive elements (all of them human-made, most of them not found in unspoiled nature) that can escape from the fuel bundles as gases, liquids or solids. They all have different chemical and biological properties but they are all cancer-causing elements and can damage genetic materials like DNA molecules.

Even though the fuel bundles may not move an inch from where they have been emplaced, these other materials can leak out or leach out and find their way to the environment of living things. Time is on their side!! Damaged fuel bundles are analogous to a broken bottle – the container is still there, but the contents (some at least) have escaped.

(2) Concerning SMRs, even if these new nuclear reactors all worked very well, which is doubtful, they will be terribly expensive and very slow to reach a level of commercial deployment (and profitability) – at least 10 to 20 years – so they are too costly and too slow to respond to the climate crisis TODAY.

Solar and wind are much cheaper than nuclear, they are proven and can be quickly deployed, while energy efficiency measures are even cheaper and even faster to implement. We do not yet know how much progress can be made using these alternatives but clearly they should have the first priority – with nuclear as a wait-and-see backup possibility which very likely will not be needed at all (as in the case of Germany, which has phased out nuclear – nearly finished – and now is focussed on phasing out coal, using renewables and efficiency.)

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, spinbuster | 3 Comments

UK government secretive about its Net Zero strategy, especially on tax-payer funded projects like small nuclear power plants.

UK refuses to release document showing Net Zero Strategy CO2 savings, New Scientist, 1 December 2021, By Adam Vaughan

The UK government Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has turned down a freedom of information request that would allow independent scrutiny of its plan for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

The UK government has refused a freedom of information request to release a spreadsheet showing how much its landmark Net Zero Strategy will cut carbon emissions for individual measures, such as backing a new nuclear power station and fitting new electric car chargers.

Withholding the document smacks of “secrecy and subterfuge” and prevents the public from being able to interrogate the estimated impacts of the measures, says Ed Matthew at climate change think tank E3G.

The publication of the government’s Net Zero Strategy on 19 October was a key moment ahead of the COP26 climate summit, laying out in detail how the UK plans to reach its 2050 commitment to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years.

Previous government blueprints for decarbonisation, such as the 2020 10-point green plan and 2017 clean growth strategy, have spelled out estimates of exactly how much individual policies will cut emissions. But the Net Zero Strategy failed to provide any such breakdown, which observers said showed a lack of transparency that hampered independent scrutiny.

Government officials conceded that there was a spreadsheet containing all the figures, but said they wouldn’t release it. Now, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has refused a freedom of information request by New Scientist to publish the document. It declined the request on the grounds that it involves the disclosure of internal communications…………….

The strategy does show top-level estimates of how much emissions will change for different sectors, such as power, buildings and farming, between now and 2050. But it doesn’t break down individual measures, including backing new hydrogen production or developing new small nuclear plants, both of which will be supported by hundreds of millions of pounds in public funding.

“Ministers are behaving like a shady dealer asking customers to buy a product without seeing it first,” says John Sauven at Greenpeace UK. He is calling on BEIS to publish the spreadsheet: “The best thing would be for the government to release the numbers behind the plan and allow experts to kick the tyres on it”.

The document is likely to include estimates of how extensively various technologies will be employed and their impacts on greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. There may be a mismatch between what the government has committed to publicly, such as a Conservative party manifesto pledge to quadruple offshore wind capacity by 2030, and the estimates that are being withheld, for example………..

New Scientist has appealed the decision not to publish the document.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Global heating brings easier Arctic passage for Russia’s floating nuclear power plant to open up Arctic for more fossil fuel mining, more global heating.

 World’s first floating nuclear power plant fuels Russia’s Arctic ambitions Remote Siberian port lies at centre of plans to open up shipping and reach valuable resources © Nastassia Astrasheuskaya/FT | The Akademik Lomonosov nuclear power plant Share on twitter (opens new window) Share on facebook (opens new window) Share on linkedin (opens new window) Save Nastassia Astrasheuskaya in Pevek YESTERDAY  

  Moored off the small Arctic town of Pevek is the Akademik Lomonosov — the world’s first floating nuclear power plant and a sign of how President Vladimir Putin’s ambitions for Russia’s far east are taking shape. This port on the northern coast of Siberia was once notorious as a Soviet gulag. These days it is part of Moscow’s plan to open up a major shipping lane through the Arctic and bring natural resources within easier reach. Pevek’s harbour is only ice-free for four months a year but is intended to become a hub for commercial shipping on the so-called Northern Sea Route as climate change gradually eases the passage through the Arctic. And the power provided by the Akademik Lomonosov is intended to help Pevek become a gateway to Chukotka, a region close to Alaska and rich in gold, silver, copper, lithium and other metals…………

 Few in Pevek seem concerned by the nuclear reactor in the harbour. “Fear? We have none. Perhaps Russians are not afraid of anything any more. We have seen and lived through everything. We have to be optimistic,” said Igor Ranav, a locally born businessman. “We were told the plant is made with the latest technology and it is safe, and I hope so.” 

Development of the NSR is in the hands of Rosatom, the state nuclear corporation. As well as commissioning the Akademik Lomonosov, Rosatom is also in charge of nuclear-powered icebreakers that the company expects will help to open up year-round Arctic navigation by the middle of the decade. …………

Developing Chukotka along with the rest of the Arctic has long been a goal for Putin and Russia, which this week is hosting a plenary meeting of the Arctic Council, where the eight countries of the region are represented. “Russia should expand through the Arctic, as this is where it has its main mineral resources,” Putin said in 2017, when Russia first produced liquefied natural gas in the Arctic and exported it via the NSR.  ……………

By mid-century, the  Arctic and Antarctic Research Institut   expects ice levels to lose another two-thirds in the summer, and to halve in winter. The warming ocean is expected to help cut shipment cost. Less ice means fewer icebreakers and faster journeys.  
The warming ocean is expected to help cut shipment cost. Less ice means fewer icebreakers and faster journeys……………..

December 2, 2021 Posted by | climate change, Russia, technology | Leave a comment

9 top US nuclear no-proliferation experts write to Prime Minister Trudeau requesting a review of Canada’s planned nuclear reprocessing to recover plutonium.

 The latest of three open letters to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau from US non-proliferation. experts is copied below [on original] . The previous two letters are linked in footnotes #1 and #2. [on original]

In these three letters, a group of nine distinguished nuclear policy experts are asking for a top level Canadian government review of the nuclear weapons proliferation dangers associated
with the planned reprocessing of Canadian used nuclear fuel to recover the plutonium for use in a proposed new reactor in New Brunswick.

These nine experts have worked under six U.S. presidents: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama; and hold professorships at the Harvard Kennedy School, University of Maryland, Georgetown University, University of Texas at Austin, George Washington University, and Princeton University.

 CCNR 30th Nov 2021

December 2, 2021 Posted by | - plutonium, Canada, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Whistleblower explained the tank design problem that caused the shutdown at Taishan nuclear power station

Last July, in China, the Taishan nuclear power plant was shut down. A few weeks earlier, an incident had taken place in the only EPR plant in service in the world, designed jointly by the Chinese CGN and the French EDF.

At the end of November, perhaps finally an explanation: the incident was due to a fault in the design of the vessel, according to a major French association specializing in nuclear safety. The incident which led in July to the shutdown of a reactor at the EPR nuclear power plant in Taishan, in southern China, is believed to be due to a design flaw in the vessel, the French association CRIIRAD said on Saturday.

The Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD) would get its
information from a “whistleblower”. “This is a Frenchman who works in the nuclear industry, having access to very precise technical information on the situation of the Taishan 1 reactor core,” a CRIIRAD official told AFP.

Taishan is the only pressurized water reactor (EPR) plant in the world, with two reactors. Four other EPR reactors are under construction, all in Europe: one in Finland, one in France in Flamandville and two in England. It is a tank design problem that would be the cause of the incident in Taishan reported on June 14, 2021. This is a first explanation.

 TV5Monde 28th Nov 2021

December 2, 2021 Posted by | China, incidents | Leave a comment

Renewable energy growing at a fast pace, China and India leading the way.

Growth in renewable energy is set to hit an all-time record this year, but is still falling “well short” of what is necessary to slash planet-warming emissions, according to the International Energy Agency. The energy watchdog estimates that around 290 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity came online around the world in 2021 — enough electricity for approximately 200 million average US homes — according to a report published Wednesday.

By 2026, the agency predicts global renewable capacity will rise more than 60% from 2020 levels, an amount equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined, it said.

But to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, a goal many nations have set, renewables need a far bigger push. The current pace is being driven by China, which the agency says remains the global leader in renewable energy growth. The country is expected to reach 1200 GW of total wind and solar
capacity in 2026, four years sooner than its target date. Renewables are also being rapidly embraced in India, where they are projected to double new installations this year, in comparison to 2015-2020.

 FT 1st Dec 2021

December 2, 2021 Posted by | China, India, renewable | Leave a comment

NATO covers Russia’s entire western flank with troops, armor, missiles, nuclear arms: Putin pleads with U.S. partner not to expand NATO eastward – please — Anti-bellum

As though fourteen states in Eastern Europe have not been absorbed into NATO and been transformed into military outposts on or near Russia’s borders starting a few months before Putin became his nation’s leader.He almost certainly is obliquely alluding to – as candid or assertive as he allows himself to be – Ukraine, without embarrassing […]

NATO covers Russia’s entire western flank with troops, armor, missiles, nuclear arms: Putin pleads with U.S. partner not to expand NATO eastward – please — Anti-bellum

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

‘Deluge of plastic waste’: US is world’s biggest plastic polluter

‘Deluge of plastic waste’: US is world’s biggest plastic polluter

At 42m metric tons of plastic waste a year, the US generates more waste than all EU countries combined

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

President of Belarus – ready to host Russian nuclear weapons if NATO moves atomic bombs to Eastern Europe.

 The longtime president of Belarus said Tuesday that his country would be
ready to host Russian nuclear weapons if NATO moves U.S. atomic bombs from
Germany to Eastern Europe.

 Independent 30th Nov 2021

December 2, 2021 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment