2022 August 22 « nuclear-news

The only thing keeping US and China from war is running dangerously thin

Washington’s ambiguous Taiwan policies are edging towards conflict, but Beijing wants to exhaust peaceful options first.

A US policy at war with itself

What emerges from this amalgam of policy statements and positions is a US policy that is inherently at war with itself, unable to fully commit either to the finality of a “one China” policy or walk away from the sale of weapons to Taiwan. The US disguises this inherent inconsistency by referring to it as “strategic ambiguity.” The problem is this policy stew is neither strategic in vision, nor ambiguous.

radical departure from stated US policy by the Biden administration helped launch a Congressional trifecta of hubris-laced ignorance, which saw the dispatch of three consecutive delegations that threaten to propel China down the path toward a war with Taiwan it doesn’t want to wage, and which the world (including the US) is not prepared to suffer the consequences of.

Despite the clear evidence of a marked departure [by USA] from past policy regarding Taiwan and weapons sales, China continues to believe that there is a non-violent solution to the one China problem.

https://www.rt.com/news/561182-china-taiwan-us-war/ Scott Ritter, 22 Aug 22,

American relations with China in regards to Taiwan have been dictated by years of ambiguous statements and commitments. Now this rhetoric is breaking down and armed conflict seems closer than ever – but is Washington ready to fight over Taiwan, or capable of winning?

Assurances and commitments

Officially, US policy toward Taiwan is guided by three US-China Joint Communiques issued between 1972 and 1982, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, and the so-called “Six Assurances” issued in 1982. In the Shanghai Communique of 1972, China asserted that “the Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States,” declaring that “the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China,” that Taiwan is a province of China, and that “the liberation of Taiwan is China’s internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere.”

The US responded by acknowledging that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China,” something the US government did not challenge. The US also reaffirmed its interest “in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.”

Before that, on January 1, 1979, the US and China had issued a “Joint Communique of the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations” in which the US undertook to recognize “the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China,” noting that, within the context of that commitment, “the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.”

President Jimmy Carter, in announcing the communique, went out of his way to ensure the people of Taiwan “that normalization of relations between our country and the People’s Republic will not jeopardize the well-being of the people of Taiwan,” adding that “the people of our country will maintain our current commercial, cultural, trade, and other relations with Taiwan through nongovernmental means.”

Carter’s move to establish diplomatic relations with China did not sit well with many members of Congress, who responded by passing the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, in which it was declared that it is US policy “to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland,” and “to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.”

In this regard, the Taiwan Relations Act underscored that the US would “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States,” and “to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character.” Finally, the Act declared that the US would maintain the capacity “to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”

The emphasis on arms sales contained in the Taiwan Relations Act led to the third joint communiqué between the US and China, released on August 17, 1982, which sought to settle differences between the two nations regarding US arms sales to Taiwan. The communique was basically a quid-pro-quo agreement where China underscored that it maintained “a fundamental policy of striving for a peaceful reunification” with Taiwan, over which it claimed sovereignty. For its part, the US declared that it “understands and appreciates the Chinese policy of striving for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question,” and, with that in mind, the US declared that it did not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, and that it would gradually reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan while working for a final resolution to reunification.

To mollify Taiwanese concerns about the third communique, the US agreed to what have become known as “the Six Assurances” between the US and Taiwan. These are 1) the US has not set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan, 2) the US has not agreed to prior consultations with China about arms sales to Taiwan, 3) the US has not agreed to any mediation role between China and Taiwan, 4) the US has not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act, 5) the US has not taken a position regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan, and 6) that the US would never put pressure on Taiwan to negotiate with China.

There was an unwritten corollary to the third communique—an internal memorandum signed by President Ronald Reagan in which he declared that “the US willingness to reduce its arms sales to Taiwan is conditioned absolutely upon the continued commitment of China to the peaceful solution of the Taiwan-PRC [People’s Republic of China] differences,” adding that “it is essential that the quantity and quality of the arms provided Taiwan be conditioned entirely on the threat posed by the PRC.”

A US policy at war with itself

From the moment President Reagan issued the “Six Assurances,” US-China policy was strained over the issue of weapons sales, with China making the case that the US was not serious about either the peaceful reunification of Taiwan with China, or the elimination of arms sales to Taiwan. Arms sales increased exponentially from the Reagan administration to that of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, with the US providing Taipei F-16 fighters, Patriot surface-to-air missiles, and other advanced weapons. In 1997, House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited Taiwan as part of a Pacific tour that included China. Gingrich claims he told his Chinese hosts that, if China were to attack Taiwan, the US “will defend Taiwan. Period.”

In 2005, in response to US backsliding when it came to arms sales and Taiwan, China adopted legislation known as the “Anti-Secession Law” which stated firmly that Taiwan “is part of China.”

Continue reading →

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | China, politics international, USA | 2 Comments

America must consider the risk a war over Taiwan could go nuclear

The debate on confrontation with China ignores a crucial conversation about atomic weapons

MICHAEL AUSLIN, Ft.com 22 Aug 22,

The single most important question about a potential war over Taiwan between the United States and China is whether such a conflict could remain non-nuclear. Yet when President Joe Biden stated again in May that America would defend the island in the event of a Chinese attack, no one asked if that meant he was willing to risk a nuclear exchange with Beijing. If the fast-gelling opinion of Washington’s foreign policy elite is correct — that such a war is no longer simply possible but likely — then assessing such a risk needs to be at the forefront of every discussion.

Since the first use of atomic weapons nearly eight decades ago, no nuclear-armed power has ever fought another in a major conflict. During the cold war, America and the Soviet Union fought both direct and indirect proxy wars but avoided direct conventional conflict that could have escalated out of control. The reliability of America’s nuclear umbrella and promises of “extended deterrence” are regularly questioned by non-nuclear allies. It is also the reason that Nato was so circumspect in responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine earlier this year.

Once the cold war ended, many in the US assumed that the era of the Cuban Missile crisis and “duck and cover” was over, emphasised by the shutting of the fearsome Strategic Air Command in 1992. Nuclear weapons never went away of course, and SAC eventually morphed into US Strategic Command. Yet the fears that civilisation could end in billowing mushroom clouds rapidly abated as the country turned to another generation of wars in the Middle East and against global terrorism.

But policymakers and the US public can no longer ignore the fact that a new nuclear age has dawned. Vladimir Putin’s sabre-rattling in the early days of the Ukraine war revealed that nuclear-armed authoritarian aggressors may not be restrained. As Beijing considers Taiwan its sovereign territory, there can be no assurance that a conflict would remain conventional. Make no mistake about it, this would be no small clash. Control over Taiwan has been the primary foreign policy and strategic concern of the CCP since Mao Zedong took power in 1949.

…………………… War games are one thing but in the real world, as soon as one US missile hits Chinese territory, the question of escalation becomes critical. ………………………..

Any major clash would, in fact, be the first ballistic missile war between great powers. Americans long ago ceased any civil defence preparation and the public is entirely unprepared to come under missile attack. Such an escalation would put enormous pressure on US leaders to strike back even harder at Chinese targets, thus risking an all-out confrontation, with the urge to go nuclear growing with each new setback.

The implications of a Taiwan war are enormous, but no US leader should blithely commit to defending the island without understanding that a conflict with China could be like no other fought in history. How far the US is willing to go must be openly debated and the risks of action as well as inaction equally assessed. We must think the unthinkable or we might wind up paying a tragic price. https://www.ft.com/content/e919274c-f743-462f-83fe-80ac352036fd

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Zelensky warns “no more peace talks”, if Donetsk People’s Republic prosecutes captured Neo Nazi fighters for war crimes.

Zelensky warns against putting neo-Nazis on trial. Rt.com 22 Aug 22, Russia will “cut itself off” from talks if Azov fighters are prosecuted in Donbass, Ukrainian president insists.

There will be no more peace talks with Russia if captured Ukrainian Neo-Nazis are subjected to a “show trial,” the country’s President Vladimir Zelensky has claimed.

The authorities of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) have previously said that they are planning tribunals for suspected war crimes committed by Ukrainian troops, including members of the Azov Battalion, whose ranks include fighters with openly nationalist and neo-Nazi views………………

DPR head Denis Pushilin told TASS this month that “active preparations” for the proceedings were underway. “The first tribunal will most likely be held in Mariupol. It will be organized by the end of summer,” he said.

The peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have been stalled since spring………………… more https://www.rt.com/russia/561277-zelensky-talks-pow-trial/

Donbass had something to say about Zelensky’s ultimatum:

DPR head Denis Pushilin told Russia 24 TV:

“The data on 80 counts of crimes committed by the Azov has been collected, 23 people have been arrested and are in custody. So such statements by Zelensky will have no effect [on the trials].”

Nearly 2,500 Ukrainian soldiers surrendered to Russian and Donbass forces during the siege of the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol in May, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Digital damage: Is your online life polluting planet?

https://www.miragenews.com/digital-damage-is-your-online-life-polluting-840709/ Macquarie University/The Lighthouse Dr Jessica McLean is a Senior Lecturer in Human Geography in the Macquarie School of Social Sciences. 22 Aug 22

Shorter emails, camera-off Zoom calls and deleting old photos could reduce our digital carbon footprints – but sustainability expert Dr Jessica McLean says this is too big for individuals, and governments and organisations need to take responsibility.

Swapping digital meetings, shopping and even exercise classes for their in-person alternatives can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions by avoiding transport-related pollution, but the environmental impact of our digital lives is also surprisingly high, says Human Geographer Dr Jessica McLean.

We don’t often think about the various infrastructures required to do simple things like send an email or hold our photos – these digital things are stored in data centres that are often out of sight, out of mind,” says McLean, who is a Senior Lecturer in Human Geography at Macquarie University’s School of Social Sciences.

“If we think about it at all, we usually expect these services to be continual and think that there isn’t really a limit on those digital practices,” she says.

However, digital activity has a surprisingly high environmental impact, says McLean, who has recently published a book on the topic.

Along with the greenhouse gas emissions from substantial energy use by our personal computers, data centres and communication equipment, this impact also includes the water use and land impact from mining, building and distributing the metals and other materials that make up our vast global digital infrastructure.

High-impact digital activities

Many researchers have attempted to calculate the individual carbon footprints of various technologies, and these often focus on the energy used by servers, home wi-fi and computers and even a tiny share of the carbon emitted to construct data centre buildings.

Some of our greenhouse-gassiest digital activities include:

Emails: Professor Mike Berners-Lee calculated that a short email sent phone-to-phone over wifi equates to 0.3 grams of CO2, a short email sent laptop-to-laptop emits 17g of CO2 and a long email with attachment sent from laptop could produce 50g of CO2.
Digital hoarding: Data transfer and storage of thousands of photo, audio and video files, messages, emails and documents in an average US data centre emits around 0.2 tons of CO2 each year, for every 100 gigabyte of storage.
Binge-watching in High Definition: Just one hour of HD streaming a day emits 160kg of CO2 each year – but swap to Standard Definition video quality and that drops to around 8kg of CO2 annually.

Using super-computers: Australian astronomers each produce 15 kilotonnes of CO2 a year from super-computer work – more than their combined emissions from operating observatories, taking international flights and powering office buildings. However Dutch astronomers produce about 4 per cent of these emissions, as Netherlands national supercomputer uses 100 per cent renewable energy.
Artificial Intelligence: Training a large AI model emits 315 times more carbon than a round-the-world flight.

Beyond the individual

Deconstructing the many and varied impacts of our increasingly digital lives can be overwhelming.

Talking heads: Just one hour of videoconferencing can emit up to 1kg of CO2.

“There’s a lot to take in, and many of these figures will change depending on things like the use of renewable energy that is being taken up by some digital corporations and many individuals,” says McLean.

“This highlights the complexity of this challenge, showing that understanding and addressing digital sustainability goes beyond individual responsibilities, and is more fittingly held by governments and corporations.”

She says that the onus should be on governments to regulate a greater transparency on how digital corporations use energy, and to require regular reporting on sustainability targets.

Big tech continues to produce smartphones that are not designed to last.

“Most device manufacturers subscribe to a ‘planned obsolescence’ paradigm, rather than circular economy – for example, big tech continues to produce smartphones that are not designed to last.”

McLean’s recent research with Dr Sophia Maalsen (University of Sydney) and Dr Lisa Lake (UTS) found that while university students, staff and affiliates were concerned about the sustainability of digital technologies, there was a big gap between their intentions and actual practices of sustainability in their everyday digital lives.

“People expressed concern for the sustainability of their digital technologies, but they had limited opportunities to do anything substantive about this issue,” she says.

Digital ‘solutionism’ the wrong approach

Concepts like the paperless office, remote work and virtual conferences often come with a promise of lower environmental impacts – but McLean says these can be examples of ‘digital solutionism’.

E-harm: Digital activity has a surprisingly high environmental impact, says Dr Jessica McLean, who has recently published a book on the topic.

“It’s time to question whether being digital is always the most sustainable solution,” she says.

McLean says that our society is becoming increasingly entangled in the digital via the exponential growth of intensely data driven activities and devices, from the Internet of Things to Big Data and AI.

However, she points out that this digital immersion isn’t universal.

“There are uneven patterns and gaps in these digital affordances, both within Australia and across the Global South,” she says.

Her book, Changing Digital Geographies, explores alternatives to our current exponential digital growth, and its impact on our natural world.

“There are many alternatives for how we live digitally, from making decisions about what’s ‘good enough’ to changing the whole digital lifecycle and the way it is regulated,” she says.

“Individuals cannot be expected to resolve these issues, governments need to regulate and corporations need to act, to improve our digital future and make it sustainable.”

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, ENERGY, Reference, technology | Leave a comment

Civilian casualties in Ukraine-5,000? In Yemen-380,000? But Western Media tells a different story!

https://johnmenadue.com/deaths-in-ukraine-and-the-rest-the-media-is-ideologically-linked-to-one-side-of-the-war/, Pearls and Irritations, By Greg Bailey , Aug 22, 2022 Whilst resort to warfare must be strongly deprecated in virtually all circumstances, it is arguable that the media treatment of specific conflicts and the resulting casualties–both civilian and military–differs considerably from war to war and can easily break down into black and white categories, based on factors other than the war itself. The recourse to particular forms of categorisation tells us as much about the media itself as it does about the particular conflicts being reported upon.

Reportage of wars is undoubtably difficult, as the warring sides will consistently use propaganda to press their own innocence and outrage. Casualty figures and types of casualties–civilian or military–are always employed to push a particular line of guilt or innocence of one side or the other. Equally, those media outlets in countries not directly involved in any given conflict will tend towards a style of reporting guided by formal or informal international alliances or other factors, not necessarily by the actual available data from the theatre of war.

In the case of the Russia-Ukraine war the mainstream media, both print and electronic media, has been conspicuous in using human interest stories–focussing on one individual or a single family in Ukraine–to rouse the interests of those incapable or unwilling to canvas the larger picture. Particular individuals or families are focussed upon and a potted biography is given of their life situation before hostilities began, and what has been their subsequent fate. This is perhaps a consequence of the number of war correspondents on the ground, and their incapacity to source figures of casualties beyond the military forces and those directly involved in the fighting. However, the former are reported in non-mainstream media outlets. A BBC report gives the number of reported deaths in Ukraine as 10, 470 between 24/2-24/6/22, almost certainly understated, and there would have been many more since then. Of these between 3600 and 4700 were civilian deaths.

The civilian casualties in the Iraq war (185,000-208,000) and the war in Yemen (380, 000), as well as the Afghanistan war (70,000) are difficult to determine with any accuracy, but they certainly run into the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Similar is the situation in the on-going Israel-Palestine conflict between 2000 and 2014 where the casualties are overwhelmingly on the Palestinian side (approximately 7000 Palestinians and 1100 Israelis). These figures almost certainly understate the total casualties, yet such figures have rarely appeared in the mainstream media, focus being placed mainly on isolated incidents, especially those involving terrorist acts attributed to Islamic terrorist groups. And if they can show pictures of actual explosions and rockets being launched, or destroyed buildings, whilst important, this is primarily designed to convey a sense of horror in the viewer. The more long-term effects on casualties produced by destruction of various kinds of infrastructure, health services, and the resulting starvation tend to be played down, if mentioned at all.

What are we supposed to conclude through all of these figures? Is there a definite difference in the Australian media’s coverage of wars involving people in cultures which are somewhat like ours, as opposed to those with which we might seem to have a cultural clash? This is especially the case with Muslims and it would certainly be the same if we went to war with the Chinese. I suspect the attitude is also the same with our treatment of Russia, which has always had a bad press in the West.

The main issue here is that the media treat certain societies and countries as categories, whereas other societies, more familiar to us, can be broken down into individuals and groups with similar interests, demands and concerns as us. This is demonstrative of the major chasm still existing between the perception of third and first world cultures, and Muslim and non-Muslim cultures. Such a discrepancy in perception is pushed along by the mass media and prevents a much more nuanced view to be taken by the public of ongoing conflicts and the historical conditions that have given rise to them. Here, as signalled often in P&I, the American interventions in Eastern Europe since 1991 have done much to cause the present situation in Ukraine, but these have largely been ignored in the kind of press coverage the conflict has been given in the West.

What would impartial reporting produce and is it at all possible for it to occur? What is very obvious is that the strong sympathy accorded to Ukraine in the mainstream media in Australia and other Western countries has completely obscured the historical perspective telling us how these conflicts may have originated and how they might be prevented in the future. It is true that Ukraine is a distant horizon for most Australians, but it occupies a space in culture much closer to us than cultures in the Middle East and Central Asia. And whilst it is necessary to report as accurately as possible what is going on there, so should there be a consistent approach to the coverage of conflicts in non-European countries.

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, media, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australia and China policy- David Bradbury interviews strategy expert Hugh White

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

UN chief demands halt to “nuclear saber-rattling” at Ukrainian nuke plant

UN Secretary-General has demanded a halt to nuclear saber-rattling, saying the world is at a maximum moment of danger and all countries with nuclear weapons must make a commitment to no first-use

AP | United Nations August 23, 2022

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has demanded a halt to nuclear saber-rattling, saying the world is at a maximum moment of danger and all countries with nuclear weapons must make a commitment to no first-use.

The UN chief on Monday told the Security Council that the commitment to dialogue and reason that led to the recent deal restarting grain and fertiliser shipments from Ukraine and Russia must be applied to the critical situation at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant at Zaporizhzhia in southeastern Ukraine, where continued shelling and fighting in the area has raised fears of a nuclear catastrophe.

Saying humanity’s future is in our hands today, Guterres urged all countries to recommit to a world free of nuclear weapons and to spare no effort to come to the negotiating table to ease tensions and end the nuclear arms race, once and for all.

The secretary-general spoke at a council meeting organised by China, which holds the presidency this month, on promoting common security through dialogue and cooperation.

Across the world, Guterres said, collective security is being tested as never before, pointing to geopolitical divides, conflicts, military coups, invasions, lengthy wars and differences between the world’s great powers, including at this council.

He also cited challenges that were unimaginable to our predecessors — cyberwarfare, terrorism, and lethal autonomous weapons.

And the nuclear risk has climbed to its highest point in decades, Guterres warned.

The council meeting took place during the pandemic-delayed conference to review the 50-year-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which is considered the cornerstone of international disarmament efforts……………………………………………………… more https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/un-chief-demands-halt-to-nuclear-saber-rattling-at-ukrainian-nuke-plant-122082300082_1.html

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Finnish energy company to take Russia’s nuclear giant to court

Fennovoima, a Finnish energy company, announced it would launch several
arbitrations and other proceedings against various Rosatom entities on
Saturday, following the collapse of a nuclear power plant project in
Finland.

Fennovoima purchased the nuclear power plant from RAOS Project, a
subsidiary of the Russian Rosatom Group, in 2013. The estimated €7
billion Hanhikivi 1 project in northwestern Finland was set to be finished
by 2029. After delays in delivering technical and safety documents to
Finnish authorities, Fennovoima terminated the project at the start of May.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also made continuing impossible. Rosatom
denied any technical issues, claimed the work was proceeding as planned and
blamed the Finnish side for politicising the project. A bitter divorce made
compensation claims from both sides inevitable. Fennovoima is seeking
compensation amounting to €2 billion for: “damages arising out of the
delays and inability to deliver the project and related issues.”

Euractiv 22nd Aug 2022, https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/finnish-energy-company-to-take-russias-nuclear-giant-to-court/

Finnish energy company to take Russia’s nuclear giant to court

d Aug 2022

Finnish energy company to take Russia’s nuclear giant to court

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Finland, Legal | Leave a comment

The US Navy is looking at scrapping the ‘Big E,’ the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, at a private shipyard

Jake Epstein , Insider 22 Aug 22,

The US Navy is thinking about how best to scrap its first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise.
It is looking at sending it to a private shipyard given existing maintenance demands and challenges, a new report shows.
Washington state’s Puget Sound Naval Shipyard has historically handled disposing of nuclear-powered naval assets.

……………………………………….Washington state’s Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS & IMF) has historically managed the disposal of nuclear-powered ships, but a Naval Sea Systems Command spokesperson previously told Insider that other work could delay the process for years.

The Bremerton shipyard might not be able to even start work on scrapping the ex-Enterprise until sometime between 2030 and 2040, according to The Kitsap Sun, which first reported the plans.

…………………………… “The workforce of the public shipyards of the Navy has been under tremendous pressure to execute their primary mission of maintaining the operational fleet,” the report said, explaining that letting a private shipyard handle the scrapping work would keep the Navy yard “focused on high-priority fleet maintenance work and submarine inactivations.”…………………. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-considers-scrapping-first-nuclear-powered-carrier-private-shipyard-2022-8

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, wastes, weapons and war | Leave a comment

John Queripel: The blind side to western wars and western war crimes

https://johnmenadue.com/john-queripel-the-blind-side-to-western-wars-and-western-war-crimes/, Pearls and Irritations, By P&I Guest Writers , Aug 22, 2022

One of the ideas, central to the thought of the Swiss founder of Analytical Psychology Carl Jung, was the shadow side. This is the side of our personalities we find unattractive which we, as a means of defence, then project onto others.

Jung asserted, it is not only individuals, but whole cultures, which are inclined to do this. Thus, in the years preceding the Nazi takeover, Jung spoke of Germany, caught in a cult of intellectualism, denying primal forces, projecting their unacknowledged dark side on to ‘the other.’ Of course, we know that the Nazis rose to power exploiting this projection of darkness to others, be they Communists, Romanies, Jews or homosexuals. The end of that journey was mass extermination in such places as Auschwitz.

It is very comforting but deeply dangerous to project our own darkness onto others, whom we then demonise. Currently most of those things, dark and evil in world politics, are being projected on to Russia, in particular their leader, Vladimir Putin, understood as ‘megalomaniac,’ ‘tyrant,’ and ‘war-monger.’ He may indeed be these things, but projection of these forces on to him saves us having to face up to their presence in ourselves.

The West, so vociferous in their criticism of Putin, cannot front up to the reality that it has been equally criminal in invading a sovereign state on concocted excuses. Unable to convince the U.N. Security Council, over what, even at the time, was a highly dubious claim that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction,’ which the then U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair claimed could reign down on British cities within 40 minutes, the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ chose to go to war.

The resultant destruction was horrendous. Though figures vary greatly, the highly reputable medical journal, ‘The Lancet’ estimated there were 654,965 excess deaths in Iraq from the time of the 2003 invasion to mid-2006 only. In that year, 2006 alone, the U.N. estimates the number of innocent civilians killed as totalling 34,452. The most potent image of the destruction wrought by that war is found in images of Fallujah after the allies had finished their bombing. Putin and the Russians still have a long way to go to reach that level of death and destruction.

The calls mount for the Russian leader to be dragged before a War Crimes Tribunal, while everyone from international sporting bodies to businesses and banks is busy sanctioning Russia. Yet, the three world leaders responsible for the illegal war of 2003 have still not been held to account. Nor were those bodies, now declaring their abhorrence to war, imposing sanctions against the Western nations guilty of the same aggressive invasion of a sovereign state. Having, trashed the ‘rules based international order,’ of which it so loves to speak, did the West not suspect that one like Putin would profit from such?

It is comforting to project one’s shadow side on another, but Jung asserted, it comes back to bite in a highly destructive way.

John Queripel is a Newcastle-based theologian, author, and social commentator

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Religion and ethics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Zelensky ‘troubled’ as he questions inner circle’s loyalties – Erdogan

https://www.rt.com/news/561328-erdogan-zelensky-betrayal-cabinet-firings/ 22 Aug 22, The Ukrainian leader is surrounded by “people who deceive him a lot,” he allegedly told the Turkish president

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is concerned he is being taken advantage of by someone close to him, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, citing their conversation during the meeting in Lviv on Thursday.

Asked by a farmer about the Ukrainian leader’s “situation” on Monday during a visit to local vineyards, Erdogan claimed Zelensky was “very worried. There are people around him who deceive him a lot.”

Erdogan had not mentioned this confession during earlier public statements about the negotiations in western Ukraine, and he did not elaborate further on who Zelensky believed was deceiving him. The two men met with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and signed an agreement on restoring Ukrainian infrastructure destroyed during the conflict.

The Ukrainian president has been firing high-ranking members of his administration at a fast clip since Russia’s military operation began in February. Special forces commander Grigory Galagan was removed last month.

First Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Ruslan Demchenko was also let go last month, though for apparent health reasons, while Prosecutor General Irina Venediktova and Intelligence Bureau chief Ivan Bakanov were suspended and placed under investigation on suspicion of working with Russia.

Not content to merely behead the Ukrainian security service (SBU), Zelensky announced a personnel audit in the agency and fired several regional heads as well. He had apparently been planning to audit the SBU for some time, claiming that on February 24, the day Russia launched its offensive in the Donbass, some representatives of a law enforcement agency were “somewhere [else], instead of protecting their people.”

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

‘We should kill as many Russians as we can’ – Ukrainian envoy

Ukraine is doing its best to “kill as many Russians” as possible, the nation’s ambassador to Kazakhstan, Pyotr Vrublevsky, told local media outlets on Monday.

Speaking to a local blogger, Vrublevsky was asked to comment on the ongoing Ukraine conflict. “What can I say … We are trying to kill as many [Russians] as possible. The more Russians we kill now, the fewer our children will have to. That’s it,” he said………………………………………….. more https://www.rt.com/russia/561314-kill-russians-ukraine-ambassador/
—

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | civil liberties, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear news – week to 23 August

A bit of good news – Antibody “master key” discovery could neutralize all COVID variants.

Climate change- The Social, Cultural, and Economic Implications

Nuclear. A strange contradiction going on – with double messaging coming from the nuclear lobby and IAEA. We must bear in mind that the goal of the IAEA is to “assist its Member States, in the context of social and economic goals, in planning for and using nuclear science and technology for various peaceful purposes, including the generation of electricity, and facilitates the transfer of such technology and knowledge in a sustainable manner to developing Member States” – in other words – to promote nuclear power.

So -we are being told that the safe way towards climate action is nuclear power, and especially now , as we need to avoid Russian gas. (Apparently Russian uranium is OK. ) At the same time, the IAEA is warning that the presence of the Zaporizhia nuclear plant in a military zone is a threat to European, even global safety. So – nuclear reactors are safe, but in some circumstances, very unsafe.

The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a fraud as the nuclear Mafia continue to spend $billions on their nuclear arsenals

” The New Space Race is Going Nuclear”. As Threat of Militarisation Rises, International Community Races to Set Standards for Responsible Behaviour in Outer Space. (without much luck!)

Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the rest of the world – new research. ‘Off the charts’: Glaciers in Europe experience extreme melt.

UKRAINE.

Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant: Analysing safety of nuclear power in conflict zones. Is Ukraine ready for another Chernobyl-like catastrophe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGxQBeQp0FQ Ukraine nuclear accident fears heightened. IAEA reiterates need for all military action to stop near Zaporizhzya Nuclear PP. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Macron that Ukrainian shelling of Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant risks disaster. Russia agrees to allow investigators to inspect Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.
Ukraine using very advanced long range rockets to strike Russian air base in Crimea? Why Crimea matters. Russia shoots down Ukrainian drone over Crimea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6rwj_Qk6ws
Russian Military From Nuclear Plant Showing Signs Of Radiation Sickness – Paramedic.
Why Am I Banned in Ukraine?
War Propaganda About Ukraine Starting to Wear Thin.
Putin Claim U.S. Is Dragging Out War Isn’t Crazy, Military Expert Says.

PACIFIC ISLANDS. Pacific Alliance of Municipal Councils starts Petition against dumping nuclear wastewater in Pacific.

EUROPE. Europe Gutted Own Security to Funnel Kiev Weapons, Expert Says.

JAPAN. Kishida, ‘PM from Hiroshima’, is Shifting Japan’s Long-Standing Pro-Nuclear Weapons Posture. Fukushima Daiichi NPS Accident Compensation: Citizens are paying more while NPP operators have had their share reduced! Dumps and Museums, the Legacy of a Nuclear Disaster.

INDIA. Centres to be set up for people exposed to chemical, nuclear attacks,

RUSSIA. Russia admits that explosions in Crimea were the work of Ukrainian saboteurs.

GERMANY. Germany rules out delay to nuclear phaseout.

USA.

CIA spying on Assange “illegally” swept up US lawyers, journalists: Lawsuit.
US supports Ukraine attacking Crimea – Politico. US Deploys Its B-52 Nuclear Bombers At Russia’s Doorsteps As Tensions Soar Between Moscow & Washington. US launches nuclear-capable Minuteman III in routine test.
More tax-payer money to USA’s nuclear industry with INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2022.
Bill Gates’ nuclear startup wins $750M, loses sole fuel source .
Disarmament is the only cure for nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons: Demand action Nuclear waste ravaged their land. The Yakama Nation is on a quest to rescue it.
California nuclear power plant extension challenged in legislative proposal.

UK.

We must never forget the risks nuclear stations pose to us all in conflict situations.
Boris Johnson has secretly committed Britain to costly tax-payer funding for Sizewell nuclear plant . Sizewell C nuclear plant funding approved despite Tory split. The £billions cost of the Sizewell nuclear plan becomes an issue in the fight for the role of Prime Minister.
Expert forum Claverton Energy Group concludes that renewable energy +battery storage can meet UK’s needs – nuclear is not needed.
Nuclear Free Local Authorities support dry storage for safety at Hinkley plant.
Twelve months, one meeting – the complete lack of accountability on nuclear in Copeland.

FRANCE. Counting the cost of cracking at EDF’s nuclear reactors.

SINGAPORE, Singapore’s next prime minister warns U.S. and China may ‘sleepwalk into conflict’

MALAYSIA. Malaysia’s Mahathir says US seeking to provoke war in Taiwan.

SOUTH KOREA . Thousands of South Korean unionists protest US-South Korea war games.

PHILIPPINES. Nuclear power not a realistic option for the Philippines, given the seismic and other disaster risks.

SOUTH AFRICA. South Africa’s nuclear sector has failed its test: the Koeberg nuclear plant life extension.

PANAMA. Islanders in Latin America face relocation, because of climate change.

AUSTRALIA. Gem Romuld – ‘Reject the deadly logic of nuclear deterrence’. Richard Marles reaffirms Australia’s commitment to the one-China policy and ‘stabilising’ Canberra-Beijing relations.

August 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment