On Ukraine – Australia well and truly brainwashed by the military-industrial-corporate-media complex — Nuclear Australia
It would be funny, if it were not so serious. The Australian media, in serious decline, has gone further down the drain lately – esprecially NewsCorpse. We might get bored with indordinate attention lavished on sporting heroes. We might laugh at the politicians’electioneering stunts – much baby-kissing, koala-hugging, tractor-driving, wearing of cowboy hats………… But the […]
On Ukraine – Australia well and truly brainwashed by the military-industrial-corporate-media complex — Nuclear Australia
Tons of Japanese nuclear waste may be destined for overseas disposal
April 17, 2022
TOKYO (Kyodo) — Japan’s nuclear power plants have over 57,000 tons of large equipment that have, or will in time, become radioactive industrial waste and may be destined to be disposed of overseas, a tally of electric power company data showed Saturday.
The scale of the would-be hazardous waste underscores the ongoing move within the government to reexamine a rule banning the exports of radioactive waste at a time when few municipalities are willing to accept such waste.
Creating an exception to the rule under the foreign exchange law would allow power companies to commission contractors overseas to dispose of certain types of large equipment on the condition they are recycled in the destination countries.
But critics say radioactive waste created in Japan should not be forced on other countries and that such waste should be recycled domestically by improving related disposal technology.
The tally showed nuclear power plants in the country had 57,230 tons of the large equipment, including those still in use, at the end of March.
The equipment in question comes in three types. Steam generators create steam used to generate electricity, while feedwater heaters heat the water that goes back into a reactor and casings are used to store or transport spent nuclear fuel.
For example, there are 37 used steam generators, weighing a total of 12,000 tons, according to the tally. Twenty-two generators, or 7,500 tons, remain at reactors to be decommissioned, while another 51 units, or 15,300 tons, are still in use.
The crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has 3,360 tons of spent nuclear fuel casings. But the industry ministry says it sees no scenario in which waste emerging from the plant’s decommissioning process would be disposed of overseas.
The tally did not include data on the Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. plant. Tohoku Electric Power Co. declined to provide data.
Decommissioning of nuclear reactors is expected to speed up from the mid-2020s in Japan, with an attendant increase in radioactive waste. Already, 24 commercial reactors are due to be decommissioned.
Radioactive waste is expected to be buried underground, depending on its pollution levels. But few disposal sites have been picked, leaving the handling of large reactor equipment, in particular, in limbo.
A steam generator is a large cylindrical metal object that is 20 meters long and weighs 300 tons. Because of its size, it cannot be easily cut up, encased in drums and buried.
Kansai Electric Power Co. has 21 generators stored away on its premises. “We are concerned about having little room left on our premises (at power plants) going forward as it would impact decommissioning work,” a company source said.
“It is virtually impossible to dispose of the waste domestically. The regulatory reconsideration is a gleam of hope for the waste issue that is at a dead-end,” the source added, expressing hope for overseas disposal.
One company the Japanese side is talking with about possible waste export is EnergySolutions Inc., a U.S. nuclear service company and a major player in the reactor decommissioning business.
The Utah-based company has processed over 60,000 tons of waste produced in reactor decommissioning in and outside of the United States.
A company official expressed confidence that it can process not just the three types of large reactor equipment under consideration for export, but other waste, such as metals from the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Tatsujiro Suzuki, a Nagasaki University professor, who served as an acting head of the government’s Atomic Energy Commission, is critical of the envisioned disposal of radioactive waste overseas.
“This is what you get when the state has failed to seriously discuss what to do with waste,” Suzuki said, warning that it is a slippery slope and could lead to an export of waste from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
“It is sheer irresponsibility when looked at from the principle that disposal must be done in one’s own country.”
First Supreme Court Argument in Class Action Lawsuit by Evacuees from Nuclear Power Plant Accident: about Accepting the State’s Responsibility.
April 15, 2022
On March 15, the Supreme Court Second Petty Bench (Chief Justice Hiroyuki Kanno) heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by residents who evacuated from Fukushima Prefecture to Chiba Prefecture following the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, seeking damages from the government and TEPCO. The Supreme Court is expected to render a unified judgment on the state’s responsibility by this summer. The Supreme Court is expected to render a unified judgment on the state’s responsibility this summer. The date of the judgment will be set at a later date.
This is the first time for the Supreme Court to hear arguments in class action lawsuits of the same type filed in various regions. The others are scheduled for May 22 in Gunma, May 25 in Fukushima, and May 16 in Ehime. At the high court stage, the court decisions in Chiba, Fukushima, and Ehime recognized the government’s responsibility, while Gunma denied it, leading to a split conclusion.
On May 15, the plaintiffs also made statements. Tetsuya Komaru, 92, who evacuated from Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture, to Chiba Prefecture and now lives in Yokohama, said, “My ancestral home, my house, fields, and forests were contaminated, and I lost everything I had built up over my life. I want the Supreme Court to clearly recognize the government’s responsibility without being beholden to the government.
In their arguments, the government argued that the government’s “long-term evaluation” of earthquake forecasts, which was a point of contention in the first and second trials, “was not considered a view that should be incorporated into nuclear power regulations at the time. As for tsunami countermeasures, the government argued that “even if countermeasures had been taken, the accident could not have been prevented because the tsunami was completely different from what had been anticipated.
The residents pointed out that “the long-term assessment is scientific knowledge with a rational basis. If the government, which has regulatory authority, had instructed TEPCO to take countermeasures and had constructed seawalls and made the reactor buildings watertight, the accident would likely have been avoided, they said.
Last month, the Supreme Court upheld a second trial ruling that ordered TEPCO to pay compensation in an amount that exceeded the “interim guidelines,” the government’s standard for compensation for all cases. A total of 1.43 billion yen was ordered to be paid to approximately 3,700 plaintiffs. (Keiichi Ozawa)
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/172043?fbclid=IwAR3SE8_GtEhXvlNpdcY5pfTGgP8C40qKOoRrToZqDhzOb5UunY2gXLLzM8s
Japan’s nuclear regulator to okay release of treated water from Fukushima plant
April 15, 2022
Japan’s nuclear regulator has largely approved a plan to release treated water from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean.
The plant suffered triple meltdowns in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster. Water is used to cool molten nuclear fuel. It mixes with rain and groundwater that flows into damaged reactor buildings.
The water is treated to remove most of the radioactive materials, but still contains radioactive tritium.
The Japanese government plans to dilute treated water that continues to accumulate at the plant to levels below national regulations and start releasing it from around spring 2023.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority has been inspecting the plan drawn up by plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company.
In 13 meetings since December, the NRA discussed the safety of the new facility to be built for the water release and the maximum concentration of radioactive tritium when it is released. It also considered how to respond in natural disasters and other emergencies, and the effect of radiation exposure on the surrounding environment and people.
At Friday’s meeting, an official of the NRA secretariat said there are no issues left that have not been discussed enough.
The NRA plans to put together a draft inspection document as early as next month that effectively indicates the plan’s approval.
TEPCO plans to start construction on a facility for diluting treated water and an undersea tunnel once the NRA approves the plan and the utility obtains consent from Fukushima Prefecture and local communities. TEPCO aims to complete the construction work by mid-April next year.
TEPCO has yet to convince and gain understanding from local fishers who are concerned about reputational damage from the release of treated water into the sea.
Japan severely breaches obligations under international law by persisting in discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into ocean
April 15, 2022
Japan is being extremely selfish and irresponsible by willfully clinging to its decision to release nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean in disregard of the strong opposition of the international community.
Its despicable act constitutes gross infringement of the legitimate rights and interests of its neighboring countries, severe breach of international justice and its obligations under international law, and major threat to the marine environment and the right to health of people around the world.
On April 13, 2021, the Japanese government unilaterally decided to dump a massive amount of nuclear-contaminated water from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) into the ocean despite doubts and opposition from home and abroad.
One year has passed since Japan announced the erroneous decision and the country still hasn’t realized how terrible a mistake it is. According to a plan recently released by TEPCO for the disposal of nuclear-contaminated water generated by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the country will soon begin official preparations for the release of the contaminated water and plans to begin long-term discharge of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean in the spring of 2023.
While Japan opted for the discharge of the contaminated water into the ocean, an option with the least economic cost to itself, it posed the biggest environmental health and safety risk to the world. What an act of selfish calculation!
Data from TEPCO showed that the contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear accident still contains many kinds of radionuclides with a long half-life even after secondary treatment.
Japan plans to release more than one million tons of nuclear-contaminated water over a period of 30 years. The amount it intends to discharge, the duration of the release, the sea area covered, and potential risks that can be generated by the activity are all unprecedented.
The decision has aroused deep concerns and strong opposition from all sectors of society even at home. About 180,000 people in Japan recently signed a petition against the decision to dump nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean. Several organizations in Japan, including the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations, have reiterated their opposition to the decision.
According to an article published on Fukushima Minpo, a newspaper based in Fukushima prefecture of Japan, the Japanese government should respect the opinions of its citizens, listen to the voices of local residents, and terminate the plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean.
As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident, the Convention on Nuclear Safety, and the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Japan has knowingly breached its obligations under international law.
It didn’t conduct full consultation with its neighboring countries and other stakeholders before announcing its decision to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean. After its announcement of the decision, many countries, including China, South Korea, Russia, and the Philippines, as well as relevant international institutions, have expressed concerns over the issue and raised doubts and concerns with the Japanese side over the legitimacy of the discharge of the nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean, the rationality of the discharge plan, the credibility of data about the nuclear contaminated water and the reliability of the equipment to purify the nuclear-contaminated water.
However, to this day, Japan has yet to give a full and credible explanation for its decision and serious responses to relevant doubts and concerns.
People in Japan’s neighboring countries and countries on the Pacific Rim have rights to health and life as well as the environment. Japan, on the other hand, wants to make short-term money at the expense of these rights.
The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council released a report urging that the Japanese government should face up to its responsibility for the disposal of nuclear-contaminated water.
In a joint statement, U.N. human rights experts said that Japan’s decision to release contaminated water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean is “particularly disappointing” and “very concerning”.
“The release of one million tons of contaminated water into the marine environment imposes considerable risks to the full enjoyment of human rights of concerned populations in and beyond the borders of Japan,” they said in the joint statement.
The international community has frequently expressed voices of justice, such as “The Pacific is not a dumping ground for radioactive waste water” and “keep our Pacific nuclear-free”. However, Japan has turned a deaf ear to all of them.
In this February, a technical working group of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) visited Japan for the first time and raised many questions to the Japanese side about its controversial plan to release radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. Evaluation of the disposal of the nuclear-contaminated water at the Fukushima nuclear power plant is still in progress.
Surprisingly, Japan has not only ignored the concerns of various parties over the discharge of its nuclear-contaminated wastewater, but preset results for the evaluation conducted by the IAEA technical working group. The country repeatedly concealed information and covered up the truth.
When doubts about its decision to dump radioactive water into the ocean poured in, the country made no attempt to reflect on the legitimacy of the decision and correct its mistake, but blamed those who doubted its decision for damaging its reputation.
The Japanese side should know that no matter what it does to whitewash the plan to release the nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean, it would only increase the international community’s concerns.
The disposal of the nuclear-contaminated water is never Japan’s private matter. Instead, it bears on the marine environment and public health of the whole world.
Japan should pay careful attention to and respond to the concerns of its neighboring countries and other members of the international community, stop pushing forward with preparations for the discharge of the nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean, and withdraw its erroneous decision, so as to avoid further damage to its credibility.
(Zhong Sheng is a pen name often used by People’s Daily to express its views on foreign policy and international affairs.)
Japan’s planned release of radioactive wastewater draws concern.
April 14, 2022
It’s been exactly one year since the Japanese government announced its decision to continuously release Fukushima’s radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. Concerns and protests were heard in #Japan and beyond. #nuclear#environment
Protests in various locations demanding withdrawal of ocean discharge of treated water from TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
April 13, 2022
On the 13th, one year after the government decided to discharge treated water from TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Okuma and Futaba, Fukushima Prefecture) into the ocean, protests were held in various locations, with participants calling for the withdrawal of the policy.
In front of the House of Representatives building in Nagata-cho, Tokyo, about 40 people participated in response to a call from the “Sayonara NPP 10 Million People Action Executive Committee” and other groups. Holding up banners, they shouted “Don’t pollute the sea in Fukushima” and “Listen to the voices of the people of Fukushima.
The participants made speeches in turn toward the Diet building. Taeko Fujimura, 67, a member of the National Trade Union Liaison Council, criticized the government and TEPCO, saying, “The government and TEPCO promised the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Federation that they would not discharge the waste into the ocean without their understanding, but they unilaterally decided on the policy and have not explained it in good faith to the public. No matter how much we dilute it with seawater, it is inevitable that a large amount of radioactive materials will spread into the ocean. There must be something more that can be done, such as finding a way to continue storing the radioactive materials instead of discharging them.
Toshihiro Inoue, 63, a member of the executive committee secretariat, said, “The government has forcibly decided on this policy, and even after a year, it has not withdrawn it in spite of opposition. The global environment must not be further destroyed by radioactive pollution. Let’s continue to raise our voices in opposition.
The executive committee held protests at more than 10 locations in Tokyo and eight prefectures in Saitama, Yamagata, Aichi, Osaka, Okayama, Fukuoka, and Kagoshima.
The environmental group FoE Japan also held an online press conference on the same day, calling for storage of the treated water in large tanks and solidification with cement. Don’t pollute the sea any more!” Chiyo Oda, co-chairperson of the “Citizens’ Council,” said, “Once released, it is irreversible. Artificially spreading radioactive materials will spread the effects of the accident and must not be tolerated. (Kenta Onozawa)
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/171455?rct=national&fbclid=IwAR3yz25OB-5W85giS7pp3nPYRVtzYjdQOFoIhsB92n7co9wkYzDe0nM8WoQ
Don’t discharge contaminated water into the sea! Nationwide simultaneous standing in Iwaki
April 13, 2022
On April 13, 2021, one year after the government decided on the disposal of contaminated water stored in tanks from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, in violation of its promise to the fishing industry that no disposal would take place without the understanding of all concerned parties, and ignoring the opposition and cautious opinions of 70% of the local government councils in Fukushima Prefecture and the opposition of many Fukushima residents One year has passed.
On April 13, “April 13 National Simultaneous Standing in Iwaki Against Discharge of Contaminated Water from Nuclear Power Plants into the Sea” was held near the entrance intersection of Aquamarine Fukushima at Onahama Port in Iwaki City.
Since last June, we have been calling for a monthly standing on the 13th of every month, “Don’t pollute the sea any more! Citizens’ Council”, which has been calling for standing on the 13th every month since June last year, started the event after noon with the slogan “Protect our hometown oceans! Protect our fisheries! Protect our children!” From 12:30 p.m., about 20 participants spoke against the discharge of contaminated water into the ocean from their respective standpoints.
Mr. Oda, the co-chairperson of the event, said, “One year has passed since the government’s decision on April 13 to discharge contaminated water into the ocean, so let’s not pollute the sea any more! He reported on the release of the “Appeal” and the citizens’ groups’ online joint press conference, and appealed, “We will continue to raise our voices to protect our precious daily lives. Mr. Yoneyama of the Citizens’ Council also spoke with the Citizens’ Circle to Monitor Nuclear Regulations, FoE Japan, an international environmental NGO, and Don’t Pollute the Sea Anymore! The report was based on the “Submission of a written request and negotiations with TEPCO and the government demanding the cessation of the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant” held on March 29 by four organizations: the Citizens’ Council of Japan, the Kansai Liaison Conference for the Evacuation Plan, and the Kansai Liaison Conference for the Evacuation Plan. The speaker appealed to the audience. Prefectural Councilor Furuichi also reported on how the Fukushima Prefectural Assembly continued to review the “petition for a cautious response to the application for prior consent regarding the ALPS process water discharge facility” submitted to the assembly, and stressed the significance of citizens’ continued opposition activities. Mr. Yuzuru Suzuki, professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo and former director of the Fisheries Experiment Station, also spoke about what would happen to fish if tritium and other contaminated water were to be released, saying that they are currently in the process of collecting data before the release of water. He expressed his determination that even if the release of contaminated water were to be forced, he would continue marine research to clarify the effects of radiation and force the cancellation of the project. After this, citizens continued to demonstrate their will by making one appeal after another.
The public comment on the draft review report will be held once the review meeting for the “Application for Approval of Changes to the Implementation Plan” for the basic design of the “ALPS process water” dilution and discharge system and related facilities, which TEPCO applied to the Nuclear Regulation Authority at the end of last year, is completed on March 15. After that, if Fukushima Prefecture, Okuma Town, and Futaba Town give their approval to the “Request for Prior Approval,” construction will begin in June.
The oceans of our hometown, the oceans of Japan, and the oceans of the world must not be further polluted by radiation.
Let’s not allow the construction of the discharge facility to start in June, and let’s spread our voices of opposition and our standing circle across the country and the world like a ripple to a giant wave in order to stop the discharge of radioactive materials one year later.
On May 13, together with standing, we will prepare and call for an action to demand the halt of the start of construction of the discharge facility.
Let us all protect the oceans of our hometown, the oceans of Japan, and the oceans of the world.
One year after the decision to discharge contaminated water into the ocean: Three videos on contaminated water from ALPS treatment released
April 13, 2022
On April 13, 2021, the government decided to release ALPS-treated contaminated water into the ocean.
The water stored in the tanks, once treated by ALPS, contains not only tritium but also residual radioactive materials such as cesium-134, cesium-137, strontium-90, iodine-129, and plutonium, exceeding the standard in about 70% of the cases. TEPCO has stated that it will conduct secondary treatment, but has not clarified which radioactive materials will ultimately remain and how much.
In August 2015, the government and TEPCO promised the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Federation that they would not carry out any disposal without the understanding of all concerned. After the decision to discharge the waste into the ocean, TEPCO President Kobayakawa stated, “We have no intention of reneging on our promise. However, despite the opposition of fishermen, consumers, and a wide range of citizens in and outside of Fukushima Prefecture, procedures are steadily underway to release the waste into the ocean.
Against this backdrop, FoE Japan has created a series of short videos to get people to think about the issue of discharging contaminated water from the ALPS process into the ocean. The videos pick up on various issues surrounding ALPS-treated contaminated water. What is contaminated water? What’s in it?” , “What is tritium?” , “What are the alternatives?” and “What do the people have to say?” (to be released) (each is less than 2 minutes and 20 seconds). Please take a look.
1 What is contaminated water? What is contained?
2 What is tritium?
3 What is the alternative?
Fukushima Thyroid Examination October 2021: 221 Surgically Confirmed as Thyroid Cancer Among 266 Cytology Suspected Cases
Overview
On October 15, 2021, the 43rd session of the Oversight Committee for the Fukushima Health Management Survey (FHMS) convened online and in Fukushima City, releasing a new set of results (data up to June 30, 2021) from the fourth and fifth rounds of the Thyroid Ultrasound Examination (TUE). The fifth-round data reported this time includes the confirmatory examination results. In addition, a corrected version of the results was released for the Age 25 Milestone Screening originally reported in July 2021.
The 43rd session was the first session of a new two-year term (August 2021-July 2023) for 18 committee members, including 6 new members. (Regrettably, a long-time committee member Fumiko Kasuga, who steadfastly advocated for release of more clinical information as well as inclusion of feedbacks from participants and their families, is no longer included.) A roster for the Thyroid Examination Evaluation Subcommittee was also released, but there was no change. It was revealed that there was no target date for the release of an interim summary for the third round.
At this time, an official English translation is available up to the 40th session of the Oversight Committee on the website for the Radiation Medical Science Center of the Fukushima Health Management Survey (RMSC/FHMS). The final results of the third round, released at the 39th session in August 2020, is finally available in English on pages 2-20 of this report.
Highlights
- The fourth round: 3 new cases diagnosed as suspicious or malignant, and 2 new surgical cases.
- The fifth round: 3 new cases diagnosed as suspicious or malignant, and 1 new surgical case
- Total number of suspected/confirmed thyroid cancer has increased by 6 to 266: 116 in the first round (including a single case of benign tumor), 71 in the second round, 31 in the third round, 36 in the fourth round, 3 in the fifth round, and 9 in Age 25 Milestone Screening.
- Total number of surgically confirmed thyroid cancer cases has increased by 3 to 221 (101 in the first round, 55 in the second round, 29 in the third round, 29 in the fourth round, 1 in the fifth round, and 6 in Age 25 Milestone Screening,
The latest overall results including the “unreported” and cancer registry cases
Please refer to the previous post regarding details of “unreported” cases and cancer registry data.
Official count, as reported in the summary document shown in the next section, is 266 suspected/confirmed and 221 surgically confirmed thyroid cancer cases. An addition of more recent “unreported” cases as well as “outside” cases discovered in cancer registry makes the count a little more complete with 325 cytologically suspected/confirmed and 264 surgically confirmed cancer cases. It should be noted that the actual number of cases is likely more than these as no exhaustive investigation has been and will be conducted by FMU to fully report all the cancer cases discovered outside the framework of the FHMS-TUE.
Summary on the current status of the TUE
A six-page summary of the first through fifth rounds as well as the Age 25 Milestone Screening, “The Status of the Thyroid Ultrasound Examination Results,” lists key findings from the primary and confirmatory examinations as well as the surgical information.
Below is an unofficial translation of this summary which is not officially translated.
#43 Status of the Thyroid Ultrasound Examination Results (October 15, 2021) by Yuri Hiranuma on Scribd
Extremely rare brain cancer appearing in people who attended a New Jersey school, close to former nuclear weapons fuel plant
94 former staff and students from Colonia High School in the Woodbridge Township School District have been stricken by the devastating diagnoses in recent years.
While the exact number of former faculty and staff diagnosed with glioblastoma is not precisely known, the cancer is exceedingly rare. According to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, glioblastoma has an incidence of 3.21 per 100,000
Nearly 100 people at this NJ school got brain tumors — a survivor demands answers, https://nypost.com/2022/04/14/why-nearly-100-people-at-nj-school-got-brain-tumors/?fbclid=IwAR1IItuf3UXbHuJAJr-gByHSGIgbgX1lZYsljrokhDTk6z1Dx77P5UMwrg4
By Andrew Court
A cancer survivor is vowing to untangle the twisted mystery of why almost 100 people associated with a New Jersey high school have developed “extremely” rare malignant brain tumors.
Al Lupiano is among the 94 former staff and students from Colonia High School in the Woodbridge Township School District who have been stricken by the devastating diagnoses in recent years.
“I will not rest until I have answers,” Lupiano, 50, declared in an interview with NJ.com and the Star-Ledger on Thursday. “I will uncover the truth.”
Among the others diagnosed with brain cancer was Lupiano’s younger sister, who passed away from the disease in February at the age of 44.
The devoted brother promised his sister on her deathbed that he would get to the bottom of what was causing the apparent cancer cluster at Colonia High. On Tuesday — after a public push by Lupiano — local officials approved an emergency probe of the school.
“There could be a real problem here, and our residents deserve to know if there are any dangers,” Woodbridge Mayor John McCormac said in a statement. “We’re all concerned, and we all want to get to the bottom of this. This is definitely not normal.”
Starting this weekend, various radiological assessments will be conducted across the school’s 28-acre campus, including the testing of indoor air samples for radon.
Lupiano was diagnosed with a brain tumor back in the late 1990s, at the age of 27. He went on to recover from the disease.
Last year, his wife — who also attended Colonia — was diagnosed with a rare brain tumor. On the exact same day, Lupiano’s younger sister, Angela DeCillis, another alumna of Colonia, learned that she too had brain cancer.
After his sister’s death in February, Lupiano became convinced of a link between the Colonia campus and the brain cancers that he, his wife and his sister had developed. Last month, he started a Facebook group asking locals whether they knew of any other people associated with the school who had been stricken by similar diagnoses.
In less than six weeks, Lupiano says, he has gathered the names of 94 people connected with the school who have developed brain tumors.
The disturbing development became headline news this week after CBS News took it national. A subsequent TikTok video discussing the medical mystery has also racked up more than 2.2 million viral views in just 24 hours.
The vast majority of those who have developed brain tumors “graduated between 1975 and 2000, although outliers have come as recently as a 2014 graduate,” according to the Star-Ledger.
The diagnoses include “several types of primary brain tumors, including cancerous forms like glioblastoma and noncancerous yet debilitating masses such as acoustic neuromas, haemangioblastomas and meningiomas.”
“To find something like this … is a significant discovery,” Dr. Sumul Raval, one of New Jersey’s top neuro-oncologists, told the outlet. “Normally speaking, you don’t get radiation in a high school … unless something is going on in that area that we don’t know,” Raval added, calling for an immediate investigation.
The viral TikTok video discussing the purported cancer cluster was posted Wednesday by popular personality Dr. Joe Whittington.
Whittington — a board-certified MD in California — claimed several of the brain tumors developed by ex-Colonia High staff and students are glioblastoma multiforme — an aggressive cancer which spreads to brain tissue.
While the exact number of former faculty and staff diagnosed with glioblastoma is not precisely known, the cancer is exceedingly rare. According to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, glioblastoma has an incidence of 3.21 per 100,000.
Meanwhile, the TikTok video sparked panic and a range of conspiracy-theory style comments, with people claiming mold, toxic waste, asbestos and nearby cellphone towers could all be causing the cluster.
Lupiano also spoke with CBS News on Thursday, saying he now believes ionizing radiation must be responsible for the health issues.
“What I find alarming is there’s truly only one environmental link to primary brain tumors, and that’s ionizing radiation,” he declared. “It’s not contaminated water. It’s not air. It’s not something in soil. It’s not something done to us due to bad habits.”
The school was built back in 1967 on acres of empty land, with McCormac telling the news network he is stumped as to what could be causing the cancers.
Lupiano alleges that some contaminated soil was removed from the site when it closed down in 1967 — the same year Colonia High School was built. He now wonders whether some of that soil ended up on the school grounds.CBS2
He has reached out to the state Department of Health, Department of Environmental Protection and the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry for help — which is reportedly still in the “early stages,” according to the CBS News report.
Lupiano told NJ Spotlight News that the school is located less than 12 miles from the Middlesex Sampling Plant — a site that was used, under the direction of the Manhattan Project, to crush, dry, store, package and ship uranium ore for the development of the atomic bomb.
He alleges that some contaminated soil was removed from the site when it closed down in 1967 — the same year Colonia High School was built. Lupiano is wondering whether some of that soil ended up on the school grounds.
Today, Colonia enrolls approximately 1,300 students, with many said to be “anxious” about the possible cancer cluster.
“We are looking at possible things that we can do between the town and school, and they said they will look at anything we come up with,” McCormac said. at top https://nypost.com/2022/04/14/why-nearly-100-people-at-nj-school-got-brain-tumors/?fbclid=IwAR1IItuf3UXbHuJAJr-gByHSGIgbgX1lZYsljrokhDTk6z1Dx77P5UMwrg4
In Ukraine, with the blessing of the Western countries, those who are in favor of a negotiation have been eliminated – Jacques Baud
Retired Swiss Military-Intelligence Officer. Is it possible to actually know what has been and is going on in Ukraine? Jacques Baud, The Unz Review 02 Apr 2022
” ……………………………. Conclusions. As an ex-intelligence professional, the first thing that strikes me is the total absence of Western intelligence services in accurately representing the situation over the past year. In fact, it seems that throughout the Western world intelligence services have been overwhelmed by the politicians. The problem is that it is the politicians who decide — the best intelligence service in the world is useless if the decision-maker does not listen. This is what has happened during this crisis.
That said, while a few intelligence services had a very accurate and rational picture of the situation, others clearly had the same picture as that propagated by our media. The problem is that, from experience, I have found them to be extremely bad at the analytical level — doctrinaire, they lack the intellectual and political independence necessary to assess a situation with military “quality.”
Second, it seems that in some European countries, politicians have deliberately responded ideologically to the situation. That is why this crisis has been irrational from the beginning. It should be noted that all the documents that were presented to the public during this crisis were presented by politicians based on commercial sources.
Some Western politicians obviously wanted there to be a conflict. In the United States, the attack scenarios presented by Anthony Blinken to the UN Security Council were only the product of the imagination of a Tiger Team working for him — he did exactly as Donald Rumsfeld did in 2002, who “bypassed” the CIA and other intelligence services that were much less assertive about Iraqi chemical weapons.
The dramatic developments we are witnessing today have causes that we knew about but refused to see:
- on the strategic level, the expansion of NATO (which we have not dealt with here);
- on the political level, the Western refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements;
- and operationally, the continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.
In other words, we can naturally deplore and condemn the Russian attack. But WE (that is: the United States, France and the European Union in the lead) have created the conditions for a conflict to break out. We show compassion for the Ukrainian people and the two million refugees. That is fine. But if we had had a modicum of compassion for the same number of refugees from the Ukrainian populations of Donbass massacred by their own government and who sought refuge in Russia for eight years, none of this would probably have happened.
Whether the term “genocide” applies to the abuses suffered by the people of Donbass is an open question. The term is generally reserved for cases of greater magnitude (Holocaust, etc.). But the definition given by the Genocide Convention is probably broad enough to apply to this case.
Clearly, this conflict has led us into hysteria. Sanctions seem to have become the preferred tool of our foreign policies. If we had insisted that Ukraine abide by the Minsk Agreements, which we had negotiated and endorsed, none of this would have happened. Vladimir Putin’s condemnation is also ours. There is no point in whining afterwards — we should have acted earlier. However, neither Emmanuel Macron (as guarantor and member of the UN Security Council), nor Olaf Scholz, nor Volodymyr Zelensky have respected their commitments. In the end, the real defeat is that of those who have no voice.
The European Union was unable to promote the implementation of the Minsk agreements — on the contrary, it did not react when Ukraine was bombing its own population in the Donbass. Had it done so, Vladimir Putin would not have needed to react. Absent from the diplomatic phase, the EU distinguished itself by fueling the conflict. On February 27, the Ukrainian government agreed to enter into negotiations with Russia. But a few hours later, the European Union voted a budget of 450 million euros to supply arms to the Ukraine, adding fuel to the fire. From then on, the Ukrainians felt that they did not need to reach an agreement. The resistance of the Azov militia in Mariupol even led to a boost of 500 million euros for weapons.
In Ukraine, with the blessing of the Western countries, those who are in favor of a negotiation have been eliminated.This is the case of Denis Kireyev, one of the Ukrainian negotiators, assassinated on March 5 by the Ukrainian secret service (SBU) because he was too favorable to Russia and was considered a traitor. The same fate befell Dmitry Demyanenko, former deputy head of the SBU’s main directorate for Kiev and its region, who was assassinated on March 10 because he was too favorable to an agreement with Russia — he was shot by the Mirotvorets (“Peacemaker”) militia. This militia is associated with the Mirotvorets website, which lists the “enemies of Ukraine,” with their personal data, addresses and telephone numbers, so that they can be harassed or even eliminated; a practice that is punishable in many countries, but not in the Ukraine. The UN and some European countries have demanded the closure of this site — but that demand was refused by the Rada [Ukrainian parliament].
In the end, the price will be high, but Vladimir Putin will likely achieve the goals he set for himself. We have pushed him into the arms of China. His ties with Beijing have solidified. China is emerging as a mediator in the conflict. The Americans have to ask Venezuela and Iran for oil to get out of the energy impasse they have put themselves in — and the United States has to piteously backtrack on the sanctions imposed on its enemies.
Western ministers who seek to collapse the Russian economy and make the Russian people suffer, or even call for the assassination of Putin, show (even if they have partially reversed the form of their words, but not the substance!) that our leaders are no better than those we hate — sanctioning Russian athletes in the Para-Olympic Games or Russian artists has nothing to do with fighting Putin.
What makes the conflict in Ukraine more blameworthy than our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya? What sanctions have we adopted against those who deliberately lied to the international community in order to wage unjust, unjustified and murderous wars? Have we adopted a single sanction against the countries, companies or politicians who are supplying weapons to the conflict in Yemen, considered to be the “worst humanitarian disaster in the world?”
To ask the question is to answer it… and the answer is not pretty.
About the author
Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations. As a UN expert on rule of law and security institutions, he designed and led the first multidimensional UN intelligence unit in the Sudan. He has worked for the African Union and was for 5 years responsible for the fight, at NATO, against the proliferation of small arms. He was involved in discussions with the highest Russian military and intelligence officials just after the fall of the USSR. Within NATO, he followed the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and later participated in programs to assist the Ukraine. He is the author of several books on intelligence, war and terrorism, in particular Le Détournement published by SIGEST, Gouverner par les fake news, L’affaire Navalny. His latest book is Poutine, maître du jeu? published by Max Milo.
This article appears through the gracious courtesy of Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement, Paris. more https://www.sott.net/article/466340-Retired-Swiss-Military-Intelligence-Officer-Is-it-Possible-to-Actually-Know-What-Has-Been-And-is-Going-on-in-Ukraine
Recent history sheds light on the Ukraine situation . Part Three- Denazification
Retired Swiss Military-Intelligence Officer. Is it possible to actually know what has been and is going on in Ukraine?
Jacques Baud, The Unz Review 02 Apr 2022
”………………………………………………………………….. Denazification
In cities like Kharkov, Mariupol and Odessa, the Ukrainian defense is provided by the paramilitary militias. They know that the objective of “denazification” is aimed primarily at them. For an attacker in an urbanized area, civilians are a problem. This is why Russia is seeking to create humanitarian corridors to empty cities of civilians and leave only the militias, to fight them more easily.
Conversely, these militias seek to keep civilians in the cities from evacuating in order to dissuade the Russian army from fighting there. This is why they are reluctant to implement these corridors and do everything to ensure that Russian efforts are unsuccessful — they use the civilian population as “human shields.” Videos showing civilians trying to leave Mariupol and beaten up by fighters of the Azov regiment are of course carefully censored by the Western media.
On Facebook, the Azov group was considered in the same category as the Islamic State [ISIS] and subject to the platform’s “policy on dangerous individuals and organizations.” It was therefore forbidden to glorify its activities, and “posts” that were favorable to it were systematically banned. But on February 24, Facebook changed its policy and allowed posts favorable to the militia. In the same spirit, in March, the platform authorized, in the former Eastern countries, calls for the murder of Russian soldiers and leaders. So much for the values that inspire our leaders.
Our media propagate a romantic image of popular resistance by the Ukrainian people. It is this image that led the European Union to finance the distribution of arms to the civilian population. In my capacity as head of peacekeeping at the UN, I worked on the issue of civilian protection. We found that violence against civilians occurred in very specific contexts. In particular, when weapons are abundant and there are no command structures.
These command structures are the essence of armies: their function is to channel the use of force towards an objective. By arming citizens in a haphazard manner, as is currently the case, the EU is turning them into combatants, with the consequential effect of making them potential targets. Moreover, without command, without operational goals, the distribution of arms leads inevitably to settling of scores, banditry and actions that are more deadly than effective. War becomes a matter of emotions. Force becomes violence. This is what happened in Tawarga (Libya) from 11 to 13 August 2011, where 30,000 black Africans were massacred with weapons parachuted (illegally) by France. By the way, the British Royal Institute for Strategic Studies (RUSI) does not see any added value in these arms deliveries.
Moreover, by delivering arms to a country at war, one exposes oneself to being considered a belligerent. The Russian strikes of March 13, 2022, against the Mykolayev air base follow Russian warnings that arms shipments would be treated as hostile targets.
The EU is repeating the disastrous experience of the Third Reich in the final hours of the Battle of Berlin.War must be left to the military and when one side has lost, it must be admitted. And if there is to be resistance, it must be led and structured. But we are doing exactly the opposite — we are pushing citizens to go and fight, and at the same time, Facebook authorizes calls for the murder of Russian soldiers and leaders. So much for the values that inspire us.
Some intelligence services see this irresponsible decision as a way to use the Ukrainian population as cannon fodder to fight Vladimir Putin’s Russia. It would have been better to engage in negotiations and thus obtain guarantees for the civilian population than to add fuel to the fire. It is easy to be combative with the blood of others.
4. The Maternity Hospital At Mariupol
It is important to understand beforehand that it is not the Ukrainian army that is defending Mariupol, but the Azov militia, composed of foreign mercenaries.
In its March 7, 2022 summary of the situation, the Russian UN mission in New York stated that “Residents report that Ukrainian armed forces expelled staff from the Mariupol city birth hospital No. 1 and set up a firing post inside the facility.” On March 8, the independent Russian media Lenta.ru, publishedthe testimony of civilians from Mariupol who told that the maternity hospital was taken over by the militia of the Azov regiment, and who drove out the civilian occupants by threatening them with their weapons. They confirmed the statements of the Russian ambassador a few hours earlier.
The hospital in Mariupol occupies a dominant position, perfectly suited for the installation of anti-tank weapons and for observation. On 9 March, Russian forces struck the building. According to CNN, 17 people were wounded, but the images do not show any casualties in the building and there is no evidence that the victims mentioned are related to this strike. There is talk of children, but in reality, there is nothing. This does not prevent the leaders of the EU from seeing this as a war crime. And this allows Zelensky to call for a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
In reality, we do not know exactly what happened. But the sequence of events tends to confirm that Russian forces struck a position of the Azov regiment and that the maternity ward was then free of civilians.
The problem is that the paramilitary militias that defend the cities are encouraged by the international community not to respect the rules of war. It seems that the Ukrainians have replayed the scenario of the Kuwait City maternity hospital in 1990, which was totally staged by the firm Hill & Knowlton for $10.7 million in order to convince the United Nations Security Council to intervene in Iraq for Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
Western politicians have accepted civilian strikes in the Donbass for eight years without adopting any sanctions against the Ukrainian government. We have long since entered a dynamic where Western politicians have agreed to sacrifice international law towards their goal of weakening Russia………………. more https://www.sott.net/article/466340-Retired-Swiss-Military-Intelligence-Officer-Is-it-Possible-to-Actually-Know-What-Has-Been-And-is-Going-on-in-Ukraine
Recent history sheds light on the Ukraine situation . Part Two Outbreak of war.
Retired Swiss Military-Intelligence Officer. Is it possible to actually know what has been and is going on in Ukraine?
Jacques Baud, The Unz Review, 04 Apr 2022
Part Two: The War
As a former head of analysis of Warsaw Pact forces in the Swiss strategic intelligence service, I observe with sadness — but not astonishment — that our services are no longer able to understand the military situation in Ukraine. The self-proclaimed “experts” who parade on our TV screens tirelessly relay the same information modulated by the claim that Russia — and Vladimir Putin — is irrational. Let’s take a step back.
1. The Outbreak Of War
Since November 2021, the Americans have been constantly threatening a Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, the Ukrainians at first did not seem to agree. Why not?
We have to go back to March 24, 2021. On that day, Volodymyr Zelensky issued a decree for the recapture of the Crimea, and began to deploy his forces to the south of the country. At the same time, several NATO exercises were conducted between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, accompanied by a significant increase in reconnaissance flights along the Russian border. Russia then conducted several exercises to test the operational readiness of its troops and to show that it was following the evolution of the situation.
Things calmed down until October-November with the end of the ZAPAD 21 exercises, whose troop movements were interpreted as a reinforcement for an offensive against Ukraine. However, even the Ukrainian authorities refuted the idea of Russian preparations for a war, and Oleksiy Reznikov, Ukrainian Minister of Defense, states that there had been no change on its border since the spring.
In violation of the Minsk Agreements, Ukraine was conducting air operations in Donbass using drones, including at least one strike against a fuel depot in Donetsk in October 2021. The American press noted this, but not the Europeans; and no one condemned these violations.
In February 2022, events came to a head. On February 7, during his visit to Moscow, Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed to Vladimir Putin his commitment to the Minsk Agreements, a commitment he would repeat after his meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky the next day. But on February 11, in Berlin, after nine hours of work, the meeting of political advisors to the leaders of the “Normandy format” ended without any concrete result: the Ukrainians still refused to apply the Minsk Agreements, apparently under pressure from the United States. Vladimir Putin noted that Macron had made empty promises and that the West was not ready to enforce the agreements, the same opposition to a settlement it had exhibited for eight years.
Ukrainian preparations in the contact zone continued. The Russian Parliament became alarmed; and on February 15 it asked Vladimir Putin to recognize the independence of the Republics, which he initially refused to do.
On 17 February, President Joe Biden announced that Russia would attack Ukraine in the next few days. How did he know this? It is a mystery. But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the population of Donbass had increased dramatically, as the daily reports of the OSCE observers show. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacted or intervened. It would be said later that this was Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries have deliberately kept silent about the massacre of the Donbass population, knowing that this would provoke a Russian intervention.
At the same time, there were reports of sabotage in the Donbass. On 18 January, Donbass fighters intercepted saboteurs, who spoke Polish and were equipped with Western equipment and who were seeking to create chemical incidents in Gorlivka. They could have been CIA mercenaries, led or “advised” by Americans and composed of Ukrainian or European fighters, to carry out sabotage actions in the Donbass Republics.
In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knew that the Ukrainians had begun intense shelling the civilian population of Donbass, forcing Vladimir Putin to make a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem, or to stand by and watch the Russian-speaking people of Donbass being crushed.
If he decided to intervene, Putin could invoke the international obligation of “Responsibility To Protect” (R2P). But he knew that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention would trigger a storm of sanctions. Therefore, whether Russian intervention were limited to the Donbass or went further to put pressure on the West over the status of the Ukraine, the price to pay would be the same. This is what he explained in his speech on February 21. On that day, he agreed to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Donbass Republics and, at the same time, he signed friendship and assistance treaties with them.
The Ukrainian artillery bombardment of the Donbass population continued, and, on 23 February, the two Republics asked for military assistance from Russia. On 24 February, Vladimir Putin invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for mutual military assistance in the framework of a defensive alliance.
In order to make the Russian intervention seem totally illegal in the eyes of the public, Western powers deliberately hid the fact that the war actually started on February 16. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as some Russian and European intelligence services were well aware.
In his speech of February 24, Vladimir Putin stated the two objectives of his operation: “demilitarize” and “denazify” the Ukraine. So, it was not a question of taking over Ukraine, nor even, presumably, of occupying it; and certainly not of destroying it.
From then on, our knowledge of the course of the operation is limited: the Russians have excellent security for their operations (OPSEC) and the details of their planning are not known. But fairly quickly, the course of the operation allows us to understand how the strategic objectives were translated on the operational level.
Demilitarization:
- ground destruction of Ukrainian aviation, air defense systems and reconnaissance assets;
- neutralization of command and intelligence structures (C3I), as well as the main logistical routes in the depth of the territory;
- encirclement of the bulk of the Ukrainian army massed in the southeast of the country.
- destruction or neutralization of volunteer battalions operating in the cities of Odessa, Kharkov, and Mariupol, as well as in various facilities in the territory.
Denazification:
2. Demilitarization
The Russian offensive was carried out in a very “classic” manner. Initially — as the Israelis had done in 1967 — with the destruction on the ground of the air force in the very first hours. Then, we witnessed a simultaneous progression along several axes according to the principle of “flowing water”: advance everywhere where resistance was weak and leave the cities (very demanding in terms of troops) for later. In the north, the Chernobyl power plant was occupied immediately to prevent acts of sabotage. The images of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers guarding the plant togetherare of course not shown.
The idea that Russia is trying to take over Kiev, the capital, to eliminate Zelensky, comes typically from the West. But Vladimir Putin never intended to shoot or topple Zelensky. Instead, Russia seeks to keep him in power by pushing him to negotiate, by surrounding Kiev. The Russians want to obtain the neutrality of Ukraine.
Many Western commentators were surprised that the Russians continued to seek a negotiated solution while conducting military operations. The explanation lies in the Russian strategic outlook since the Soviet era. For the West, war begins when politics ends. However, the Russian approach follows a Clausewitzian inspiration: war is the continuity of politics and one can move fluidly from one to the other, even during combat. This allows one to create pressure on the adversary and push him to negotiate.
From an operational point of view, the Russian offensive was an example of previous military action and planning: in six days, the Russians seized a territory as large as the United Kingdom, with a speed of advance greater than what the Wehrmacht had achieved in 1940.
The bulk of the Ukrainian army was deployed in the south of the country in preparation for a major operation against the Donbass. This is why Russian forces were able to encircle it from the beginning of March in the “cauldron” between Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and Severodonetsk, with a thrust from the East through Kharkov and another from the South from Crimea. Troops from the Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) Republics are complementing the Russian forces with a push from the East.
At this stage, Russian forces are slowly tightening the noose, but are no longer under any time pressure or schedule. Their demilitarization goal is all but achieved and the remaining Ukrainian forces no longer have an operational and strategic command structure.
The “slowdown” that our “experts” attribute to poor logistics is only the consequence of having achieved their objectives. Russia does not want to engage in an occupation of the entire Ukrainian territory. In fact, it appears that Russia is trying to limit its advance to the linguistic border of the country…………………………… more https://www.sott.net/article/466340-Retired-Swiss-Military-Intelligence-Officer-Is-it-Possible-to-Actually-Know-What-Has-Been-And-is-Going-on-in-Ukraine
Recent history sheds light on the Ukraine situation . Part One
Retired Swiss Military-Intelligence Officer. Is it possible to actually know what has been and is going on in Ukraine?
The integration of these paramilitary forces into the Ukrainian National Guard was not at all accompanied by a “denazification,” as some claim.
Among the many examples, that of the Azov Regiment’s insignia is instructive.
Jacques Baud
The Unz Review 02 Apr 2022 I Just recently I came across perhaps the clearest and most reasonable account of what has been going on in Ukraine. Its importance comes due to the fact that its author, Jacques Baud, a retired colonel in the Swiss intelligence service, was variously a highly placed, major participant in NATO training operations in Ukraine. Over the years, he also had extensive dealings with his Russian counterparts. His long essay first appeared (in French) at the respected Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement. A literal translation appeared at The Postil (April 1, 2022). I have gone back to the original French and edited the article down some and rendered it, I hope, in more idiomatic English. I do not think in editing it I have damaged Baud’s fascinating account. For in a real sense, what he has done is “to let the cat out of the bag.” — Boyd D. Cathay
Part One: The Road To War
For years, from Mali to Afghanistan, I have worked for peace and risked my life for it. It is therefore not a question of justifying war, but of understanding what led us to it.
Let’s try to examine the roots of the Ukrainian conflict. It starts with those who for the last eight years have been talking about “separatists” or “independentists” from Donbass. This is a misnomer. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in May 2014, were not referendums of “independence” (независимость), as some unscrupulous journalists have claimed, but referendums of “self-determination” or “autonomy” (самостоятельность). The qualifier “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.
In fact, these Republics were not seeking to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language — because the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the American-sponsored overthrow of [the democratically-elected] President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 that made Russian an official language in Ukraine. A bit like if German putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland.
This decision caused a storm in the Russian-speaking population. The result was fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which was carried out beginning in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and some horrific massacres of the Russian population (in Odessa and Mariupol, the most notable).
At this stage, too rigid and engrossed in a doctrinaire approach to operations, the Ukrainian general staff subdued the enemy but without managing to actually prevail. The war waged by the autonomists consisted in highly mobile operations conducted with light means. With a more flexible and less doctrinaire approach, the rebels were able to exploit the inertia of Ukrainian forces to repeatedly “trap” them.
In 2014, when I was at NATO, I was responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we were trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels, to see if Moscow was involved. The information we received then came almost entirely from Polish intelligence services and did not “fit” with the information coming from the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] — and despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.
The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what pushed the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Agreements.
But just after signing the Minsk 1 Agreements, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive “anti-terrorist operation” (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against the Donbass. Poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat in Debaltsevo, which forced them to engage in the Minsk 2 Agreements.
It is essential to recall here that Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements did not provide for the separation or independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Agreements (there are very few who actually have) will note that it is written that the status of the Republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the Republics, for an internal solution within Ukraine.
That is why, since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded the implementation of the Minsk Agreements while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter of Ukraine. On the other side, the West — led by France — systematically tried to replace Minsk Agreements with the “Normandy format,” which put Russians and Ukrainians face-to-face. However, let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23-24 February 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass before then. For example, the U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.
n October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), confessed that only 56 Russian fighters had been observed in the Donbass. This was exactly comparable to the Swiss who went to fight in Bosnia on weekends, in the 1990s, or the French who go to fight in Ukraine today.
The Ukrainian army was then in a deplorable state. In October 2018, after four years of war, the chief Ukrainian military prosecutor, Anatoly Matios, stated that Ukraine had lost 2,700 men in the Donbass: 891 from illnesses, 318 from road accidents, 177 from other accidents, 175 from poisonings (alcohol, drugs), 172 from careless handling of weapons, 101 from breaches of security regulations, 228 from murders and 615 from suicides.
In fact, the Ukrainian army was undermined by the corruption of its cadres and no longer enjoyed the support of the population. According to a British Home Office report, in the March/April 2014 recall of reservists, 70 percent did not show up for the first session, 80 percent for the second, 90 percent for the third, and 95 percent for the fourth. In October/November 2017, 70% of conscripts did not show up for the “Fall 2017” recall campaign. This is not counting suicides and desertions (often over to the autonomists), which reached up to 30 percent of the workforce in the ATO area. Young Ukrainians refused to go and fight in the Donbass and preferred emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the demographic deficit of the country.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense then turned to NATO to help make its armed forces more “attractive.” Having already worked on similar projects within the framework of the United Nations, I was asked by NATO to participate in a program to restore the image of the Ukrainian armed forces. But this is a long-term process and the Ukrainians wanted to move quickly.
So, to compensate for the lack of soldiers, the Ukrainian government resorted to paramilitary militias. In 2020, they constituted about 40 percent of the Ukrainian forces and numbered about 102,000 men, according to Reuters. They were armed, financed and trained by the United States, Great Britain, Canada and France. There were more than 19 nationalities.
These militias had been operating in the Donbass since 2014, with Western support. Even if one can argue about the term “Nazi,” the fact remains that these militias are violent, convey a nauseating ideology and are virulently anti-Semitic…[and] are composed of fanatical and brutal individuals. The best known of these is the Azov Regiment, whose emblem is reminiscent of the 2nd SS Das Reich Panzer Division, which is revered in the Ukraine for liberating Kharkov from the Soviets in 1943, before carrying out the 1944 Oradour-sur-Glane massacre in France.
The characterization of the Ukrainian paramilitaries as “Nazis” or “neo-Nazis” is considered Russian propaganda. But that’s not the view of the Times of Israel, or the West Point Academy’s Center for Counterterrorism. In 2014, Newsweek magazine seemed to associate them more with… the Islamic State. Take your pick!
So, the West supported and continued to arm militias that have been guilty of numerous crimes against civilian populations since 2014: rape, torture and massacres…
The integration of these paramilitary forces into the Ukrainian National Guard was not at all accompanied by a “denazification,” as some claim.
Among the many examples, that of the Azov Regiment’s insignia is instructive: see above
In 2022, very schematically, the Ukrainian armed forces fighting the Russian offensive were organized as:
- The Army, subordinated to the Ministry of Defense. It is organized into 3 army corps and composed of maneuver formations (tanks, heavy artillery, missiles, etc.).
- The National Guard, which depends on the Ministry of the Interior and is organized into 5 territorial commands.
The National Guard is therefore a territorial defense force that is not part of the Ukrainian army. It includes paramilitary militias, called “volunteer battalions” (добровольчі батальйоні), also known by the evocative name of “reprisal battalions,” and composed of infantry. Primarily trained for urban combat, they now defend cities such as Kharkov, Mariupol, Odessa, Kiev, etc……. more https://www.sott.net/article/466340-Retired-Swiss-Military-Intelligence-Officer-Is-it-Possible-to-Actually-Know-What-Has-Been-And-is-Going-on-in-Ukraine
-
Archives
- February 2026 (228)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 