nuclear-news

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

German MPs snub Zelensky

Sat, 15 Jun 2024  https://www.sott.net/article/492290-German-MPs-snub-Zelensky—

Lawmakers from two German opposition parties, the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the new left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), refused to attend a speech by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in the Bundestag on Tuesday. Both parties have expressed opposition to Kiev’s policies, warning they will only lead to further bloodshed.

Zelensky’s speech was the second he has delivered to the German parliament since the start of the conflict with Russia, although it was the first address he has made in person, rather than via video link. The Ukrainian leader thanked Berlin for its support and called on the country to ensure Russian President Vladimir Putin “loses this war.” The outcome of the conflict should leave no doubt about “who had won,” he insisted.

The event, however, was boycotted by all BSW MPs and most AfD lawmakers. Four members of the right-wing party, which placed second with 16% of the vote in last week’s EU parliamentary elections, did attend Zelensky’s speech, calling it “basic courtesy,” though party leaders sharply criticized the Ukrainian leader ahead of the session.

“We refuse to listen to a speaker in a camouflage suit,”Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla said, referring to Zelensky’s habit of wearing the military-style clothes. The two politicians also stated that his term has “expired” and that he now only remains “a president of war and beggary.” Ukraine was due to hold presidential elections in March, but Zelensky cancelled the vote, citing martial law. His term formally expired in May.

Ukraine doesn’t need a “president of war” but a “president of peace, [who] is ready to negotiate,” the AfD parliamentary leaders said. The BSW, a party formed by the German left-wing icon Sahra Wagenknecht, also issued a statement ahead of the event, in which it announced a boycott of the speech.

Zelensky is promoting “very dangerous” escalation, the document warned, arguing that the Ukrainian leader was ready to risk a nuclear conflict to achieve his goals. Such policies “should not be honored with a special event in the German Bundestag,” the statement said. The BSW maintained that it condemned Moscow’s military operation against Kiev but still pointed to Russia’s readiness for peace negotiations.

The parliamentary snub drew strong criticism from the German political establishment. Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s office condemned it as a “lack of respect,” adding that the Social Democrat was “very disturbed but not surprised” by the development.

A member of the parliament’s defense committee, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, was quick to accuse both parties of doing Moscow’s bidding.

Russia has repeatedly stated that it is ready to engage in peace talks, as long as the situation on the ground is taken into account. In autumn 2022, four former Ukrainian regions joined Russia following a series of referendums. Kiev never recognized the vote, and continues to demand that Moscow withdraw its troops from all the territories Ukraine claims as its own, including Crimea, before any talks start.

Comment: The level of “disobedience” shown by most of the AfD and all of the BSW lawmakers is unthinkable in most other European parliaments who in few cases do not have even a single elected member that dare to deviate from the much touted support for the western war efforts in Ukraine. The two German parties gained 22.1 % (15.9 % and 6.2 % respectively) of the votes at the recent European elections and had their best results in area of the former East Germany. For Germany as a whole this leaves Zelensky with the backing of more than 75 %, so for now he has little to worry about when it comes to milking more aid money out of Germany.

June 17, 2024 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment

World leaders to gather in Swiss resort in attempt to forge Ukraine peace plan

More than 100 leaders at two-day conference to discuss Kyiv’s proposals to end war – but Russia and China absent

Comment: Two thumbs down. Without Russia and China, the rest is back patting and re-convincing the pre-convinced.

Lisa O’Carroll, The Guardian, Sat, 15 Jun 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/15/world-leaders-to-gather-in-swiss-resort-in-attempt-to-forge-ukraine-peace-plan

More than 100 leaders, including the US vice-president, Kamala Harris, and the presidents or heads of the EU, South American, Middle East and Asian countries, will gather in Switzerland on Saturday for one of the most ambitious attempts yet to forge a peace plan for Ukraine.

The summit comes as G7 leaders gathering in Italy clinch a new deal for a €50bn loan for Ukraine, securitised through use of the windfall profits from the interest on Russian central bank assets frozen by the EU and other western nations after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

The two-day peace conference, which will take place at the luxury Bürgenstock resort outside Lucerne, will discuss Kyiv’s proposed 10-point plan to end the war along with three other themes: the nuclear threat, food security and humanitarian needs in Ukraine.

It follows the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on Friday demanding that Kyiv cede more land, withdraw troops deeper inside its own country and drop its Nato bid in order for him to end his war in Ukraine – proposals that were rejected by Ukraine, the US and Nato.

A joint communique on Sunday is expected to centre on the importance of the UN principles on maintaining and respecting “sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

While this is not seen as advancing peace in itself, it is designed to “reduce the space for any unhelpful initiatives”, say those with knowledge of the conference.

This will be seen as a success for Volodymyr Zelenskiy who is aiming to build international support for his peace plan that includes a full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine and return to its 1991 post-Soviet borders.

Organisers of the peace summit played down China’s decision not to attend, a move that prompted Zelenskiy to accuse Beijing of helping Moscow undermine the meeting, which China’s foreign ministry denied.

Kyiv had been pushing hard for a Chinese delegation to attend the summit to give the conference further legitimacy and drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing.

There were also hopes that Saudi Arabia may attend after what Zelenskiy described as “productive and energetic” talks with the Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman on Wednesday.

Moscow has dismissed the meeting as futile.

China, which has close ties to Russia, said it would not attend because the conference did not meet its requirements, including the participation of Russia.

That dozens of leaders will be in Switzerland at a time when Ukraine is on the back foot militarily, and with talk of war fatigue growing, is an impressive feat, senior US figures said.

“It’s rather remarkable that there’s 100 countries showing up to a peace summit at which the main instigator of that conflict is not participating,” said Max Bergmann, a former US state department official.

“It’s a diplomatic masterstroke,” said Bergmann, who now heads the Europe, Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

William Courtney, a former US diplomat, called the Swiss outreach a “huge success”.

The summit follows several previous gatherings, including one in Saudi Arabia attended by 40 countries including China, which has been trying to enlist support for its own six-point peace plan.

As the summit approaches, China has intensified its outreach through meetings with visiting foreign dignitaries, phone calls and messages to foreign missions on China’s WeChat platform, diplomats told Reuters reporters.

But sources said organisers were not concerned, as there had been “no concretisation” of any Chinese diplomatic manoeuvres, with many global south countries, including Colombia, Chile, Argentina and Ecuador, attending on Saturday.

Others attending include Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines and Japan, while Malaysia and Cambodia, which have close ties to China, are not thought to be going.

June 17, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Switzerland | Leave a comment

G7 Leaders Agree To Provide Ukraine With $50 Billion Using Frozen Russian Assets

The step will mark a significant escalation in the economic war against Russia

by Dave DeCamp June 13, 2024

Group of Seven leaders agreed at a summit in Italy on Thursday to give Ukraine $50 billion using frozen Russian Central Bank assets, a step that marks a significant escalation in the economic war against Russia.

The plan is to provide the $50 billion to Ukraine by the end of the year in the form of a loan, which will be paid back using profits from the approximately $280 billion in frozen Russian assets held by the US and its allies.

The idea is seen as a compromise between the US and Europe, as President Biden wanted to steal all of the frozen Russian funds to give to Ukraine. But the vast majority of the money is held in Europe, and EU leaders were hesitant to do that.

Instead, the EU devised a separate plan to provide Ukraine with about $3 billion per year using the interest made by the Russian assets. Ukraine said that amount wasn’t enough, and the US proposed the $50 billion loan.

“This has been something that the United States has put a lot of energy and effort into,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters. “We see proceeds from these assets as a valuable source of resources for Ukraine at a moment when Russia continues to brutalize the country, not just through military action on the front but through the attempted destruction of its energy grid and its economic vitality.”

Russia has made clear it would view either plan as the theft of its sovereign funds and is preparing to retaliate. Stealing the money makes reconciliation between Russia and the West even less likely since lifting sanctions would mean having to give assets back to Moscow that have already been spent. The move will also reduce faith in the Western banking system and speed up global de-dollarization.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Proliferation warnings over enriched nuclear fuel for advanced reactors

BY JULIA ROBINSON, 13 JUNE 2024,  https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/proliferation-warnings-over-enriched-nuclear-fuel-for-advanced-reactors/4019621.article—

Governments and oth­ers promoting the use of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for nuclear power have not considered the po­tential terrorism risk that widespread adoption of this fuel creates, nuclear scientists have warned.

HALEU is a nuclear reactor fuel enriched with uranium-235 to between 5 and 20%. At 20% uranium-235 and above, the mix­ture is called highly-en­riched uranium (HEU) and it is internationally recognised that it can be employed in nuclear weapons.

Historically, HALEU use has been limited to research reactors, where it is used in small quantities, while commercial reactors typically use fuels with low enrichments, in the range of 3 to 5% uranium-235, which cannot sustain an explosive chain reaction.

However, new advanced reactors are being designed to run on HALEU – most favouring 19.75% uranium-235 HALEU – in the hope that these reactors will be smaller, more flexible and less expensive.

In the US, the Department of Energy (DOE) and US Department of Defense are providing funds for more than 10 reactor concepts, while the UK’s Civil Nuclear Roadmap, announced on 11 January, promised up to £300 million of investment specifically to develop HALEU fuel production.

However, in a policy forum in Science, experts in nuclear science and global security highlight that in many of the designs, the amount of HALEU needed is ‘hundreds to thousands of kilograms’, which may mean that a single reactor contains enough HALEU to make a nuclear weapon.

The authors said that estimates indicate that quantities ranging from several hundred kilograms to about a tonne of 19.75% HALEU could produce explosive yields similar to or greater than that of the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

If this is the case, they said, commercial­ising HALEU fuels without ensuring that the material is ‘appropriately protected against diversion by national governments or theft by terrorists would pose a serious threat to security’.

‘The time has come to review policies governing the use of this material,’ the authors write. ‘We recommend that the US Congress direct the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration to com­mission a fresh review of HALEU prolif­eration and security risks by US weapons laboratory experts.’

They also suggested that, according to the informa­tion available, a reasonable balance of the risks and benefits could be struck if enrichment of uranium-235 was restricted to 12% or less.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | safety, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Building Nuclear Power Is a Bridge Too Far for World’s Private Investors

  • Taxpayers seen needing to backstop construction costs and risk
  • Window on new nuclear power to mitigate climate change closing

Bloomberg, 14 June 24

The next generation of nuclear reactors will need to be financed by taxpayers because private investors aren’t willing to bear the risks associated with building new plants.

That was the warning from bankers at a meeting of industry and government officials in Prague this week. The Nuclear Energy Agency event underscored the hard decisions Western economies soon need to make to keep one of their biggest clean energy sources going. While the public have warmed to nuclear in recent years, spiraling project costs have made private equity cautious.

Officials have estimated that the world needs to spend $5 trillion to triple nuclear-power generation over the next 25 years. The problem is that years of delays and billion-dollar budget overruns at European and the US projects are spooking investors, and scores of reactors already running on borrowed time will need to be replaced. No private investors want to take on construction risks, said Simon Taylor, a financier at the Cambridge Nuclear Energy Centre.

“We’re at a critical juncture of in the history of nuclear energy,” said William Magwood, director general of the Nuclear Energy Agency. “We have to move quickly. Financing is critical.”

Earlier this year, Electricite de France SA said its nuclear project at Hinkley Point in the UK would cost as much as £10 billion ($13 billion) extra to build and take several years longer than planned. In the US, Southern Co.’s Vogtle nuclear facility came in more than $16 billion over budget and seven years behind schedule.

While some private capital has gone toward designing small modular reactors — factory-built units theoretically cheaper to build than traditional plants — those projects have also been plagued by delays pushing full commercialization years later than expected. That leaves nuclear advocates struggling for investor support with the technology at hand.

Can Small Nuclear Reactors Really Help The Climate?

Rothschild & Co.’s Steven Vaughan, an adviser for UK’s proposed Sizewell C nuclear plant, echoed the view that investors are wary of taking on exposure to construction risk.

Equity investment interest in Sizewell, currently owned by the UK government and minority stakeholder EDF, has been muted, with Centrica Plc suggesting it could become a stakeholder.

Compounding nuclear power project risks are the long life span of the assets and the uncertain development of electricity markets. Historically, nations alleviated that risk by building reactors themselves. That’s still the case in China and Russia — the two countries building the most plants………….

“There is a vast need for state involvement,” said Marcin Kaminski, risk manager building Poland’s first reactors at Polskie Elektrownie Jadrowe.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-14/building-nuclear-power-is-a-bridge-too-far-for-world-s-private-investors

June 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

UK Labour and Conservatives commit to nuclear power in manifesto

14th June, By Isaac Cooper @isaaccoopernews,  https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24386336.labour-conservatives-commit-nuclear-power-manifesto/

The Labour Party have pledged to ‘ensure the long-term security’ of the nuclear industry as part of their manifesto.

The party set out their plan for government in their manifesto launch on Thursday, June 13 which said that a Labour government would back nuclear power.

The manifesto also said that small modular reactors (SMRs), will play ‘an important role’ in helping the UK achieve ‘energy security’ and ‘clean power’ while securing ‘thousands of good, skilled jobs.’

An SMR in West Cumbria has been mooted for some time and has the support of Cumberland Council leader, Mark Fryer, but the official green light has yet to be light by national government.

The Conservatives have also backed nuclear power and the Tory candidate for Penrith and the Solway, Mark Jenkinson, said he ‘welcomed’ the party’s commitment to nuclear power.

The Green Party have pledged to ‘phase out’ nuclear power which they say is ‘unsafe’ and much more expensive than renewables.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

GAZA HORROR: UN FINDS ISRAELI FORCES GUILTY OF SEXUAL ABUSE AND TORTURE

JUNE 13TH, 2024, ROBERT INLAKESH,  https://www.mintpressnews.com/un-report-sexual-violence-gaza-strip/287600/

UN-mandated Independent International Commission of Inquiry has uncovered evidence of egregious sexual violence committed against Palestinian men and women in the Gaza Strip. This adds to a mounting series of reports indicating the issue is widespread and systematic.

The United Nations report, released on June 12 under a Human Rights Council resolution, revealed that Israeli forces “systematically targeted and subjected Palestinians to SGBV [Sexual and Gender-Based Violence] online and in person since October 7, including through forced public nudity, forced public stripping, sexualized torture and abuse, and sexual humiliation and harassment.

The report noted specific types of sexual violence perpetrated by Israeli soldiers targeting men and boys during ground operations and arrests. Soldiers took videos and photos of Palestinians after stripping them partially or fully naked. The captives were also “coerced to do physical movements while naked.”

Families of men and boys taken captive were made to watch as they were paraded in the street, either fully naked or in their underwear while being subjected to sexual harassment.

The commission concluded that the gender-based violence “directed at Palestinian women was intended to humiliate and degrade the Palestinian population as a whole.” The report asserted that “forced public stripping and nudity and other types of abuse by Israeli military personnel were either ordered or condoned.

“Sexual violence has been perpetrated throughout the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories] during evacuation processes, before or during arrest, at civilian homes and at a shelter for women and girls,” the report stated.

Sexual acts were carried out by force, including under threats, intimidation and other forms of duress, in inherently coercive circumstances due to the armed conflict and the presence of armed Israeli soldiers.”

In February, a UN panel of experts stated there was “credible evidence” of sexual violence against Palestinian women in both Gaza and the West Bank. This followed a UN report noting two cases of rape and various other cases of sexual abuse against Palestinian women.

“We might not know for a long time what the actual number of victims are,” said Reem Alsalem, the UN’s special rapporteur on violence against women and girls.

A recently released UNRWA report included testimony from a 34-year-old Palestinian woman detained in the Sde Teiman detention center, a makeshift interrogation facility for detainees seized from Gaza:

“They asked the soldiers to spit on me, saying ‘she is a b****, she is from Gaza.’ They were beating us as we moved and saying they would put pepper on our sensitive parts [genitals]. They pulled us, beat us, they took us in the bus to the Damon prison after five days. A male soldier took off our hijabs and they pinched us and touched our bodies, including our breasts. We were blindfolded and we were feeling them touching us, pushing our heads to the bus. We started to squeeze together to try to protect ourselves from the touching. They said ‘b****, b****.’ They told the soldiers to take off their shoes and slap our faces with them.”

The testimonies in the UNRWA report correlate with those collected by The New York Times in their recent expose on the Sde Teiman facility, which included allegations of rape, including with metal rods, and one male detainee dying after experiencing anal rape as a form of sexual torture.

Various other accusations of rape have been recorded, including those from Canadian physicians working in Gaza, with one claiming a woman was “raped for two days until she lost her ability to speak.” There has been no extensive investigation into the mountains of evidence and allegations of rape of Palestinians. In contrast, unsubstantiated Israeli government claims of a mass rape campaign on October 7 have received significant international attention.

The newly issued UN report allocated roughly 3,400 words to its section on the singular day of October 7 and approximately the same amount to its segment on crimes committed by Israeli Security Forces until December 31, 2023, in their Advanced Unedited version of the report. The section on crimes committed since October 7 is roughly the same in length but contains 65 footnotes, while the section on crimes committed on October 7 has only 24. The report drew strong conclusions about both Hamas and Israel.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | Atrocities | Leave a comment

Putin details Ukraine peace proposal


Theo Burman, Newsweek, Fri, 14 Jun 2024 https://www.sott.net/article/492265-Putin-details-Ukraine-peace-proposal

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday promised a ceasefire in Ukraine, provided that several conditions are met by Kyiv.

During a wide-ranging speech to foreign ministry officials, Putin stated that Russia would be ready to enter talks as soon as “tomorrow” to negotiate an end to conflict in Ukraine, provided that Ukrainian troops are withdrawn from several key regions. He also demanded that Ukraine give up all plans to join NATO, saying that the “moral responsibility for the continuation of bloodshed” would be on the West if the proposal was rejected.

Putin said: “I want to emphasize, it must be from the entire territory of these regions within their administrative borders as they existed at the time of their incorporation into Ukraine.

“As soon as Kyiv says they’re ready for such a decision and start the real withdrawal of forces from these regions and officially declare rejection of plans to join NATO, from our side, immediately, literally the same minute, will come an order to stop the fire and start negotiations.

“We will do it immediately. Obviously, we will guarantee the uninterrupted and safe withdrawal of Ukrainian forces.”

In order for the ceasefire to go through, Kyiv would need to withdraw troops from the Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Luhansk regions, effectively giving Moscow control.

Comment: Footage of the announcement: The essence of our proposal is not some kind of temporary truce or stop of fire, as the West wants, in order to restore losses, rearm the Kiev regime, and prepare it for a new offensive.

I repeat: we are not talking about freezing the conflict, but about its final but about its final completion. And I will say again: as soon as #Kiev agrees to a similar course of events proposed today, agrees to the complete withdrawal of its troops from the DPR and LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions and really begins this process, we are ready to to begin negotiations w/out delaying them.

I repeat, our principled position is the following: the neutral, non-aligned, non-nuclear status of #Ukraine, its demilitarization and denazification. Moreover, everyone generally agreed with these parameters during the Istanbul negotiations.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly said that he will continue to fight until all disputed regions of Ukraine have been liberated.

Ukraine has repeatedly lobbied to join NATO since before the escalation of the conflict. Putin has consistently branded the expansion of NATO, which admitted Finland into the organization in 2023, as a threat to Russian security and an escalation of tensions in the region.

Newsweek contacted Zelensky’s office for comment via email.

Putin also claimed that there was never an intention of Russian forces attacking Kiev directly, and that the original motive for the advance in 2022 was to force Ukraine to agree to a peace deal.

Russian media outlet Meduza reported that Putin was seeking a ceasefire beyond a “temporary truce”, and that peace negotiations would also require the lifting of Western sanctions on Russia, which have continued to damage the economy since the conflict began.

Putin said: “We would like such decisions — regarding the withdrawal of troops, non-aligned status, and starting a dialogue with Russia, on which the future existence of Ukraine depends — to be made independently in Kyiv, guided by the genuine national interests of the Ukrainian people. Not at the behest of the West. Although there are significant doubts about this.

“If Kyiv and Western capitals reject it, that is their choice, their political and moral responsibility for the continuation of bloodshed.”

Notably this occurs just a day or so after NATO announced its ‘readiness’ of 300,000 troops and their potential takeover of Europe, as well as Zelensky’s widely ridiculed ‘peace’ summit.

It also occurs amidst an unscheduled, ‘secret’ meeting of Prince William with MI6, the UK’s intelligence service for foreign operations; allegedly the last time he met with them was just prior to Russia’s SMO in Ukraine.

Rather than this being some kind of appeasement from Russia to NATO, one might suppose Putin is making one last ditch attempt to propose a resolution with the agreement-incapable West, before it is, yet again, forced to take extraordinary measures:

June 16, 2024 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why the West should take Russia’s nuclear threats more seriously.

Russian nuclear threats have returned to the forefront of the war in Ukraine, but
this time with a new feature: exercises involving tactical nuclear weapons.
These exercises come in response to Western powers signaling broader
support for Ukraine.

On April 29, for instance, French President Emmanuel
Macron reaffirmed his position that France remains open to sending ground
troops to Ukraine to bolster European security against Russian aggression.
Shortly after, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, David Cameron,
announced that the UK government would support Ukraine using UK-supplied
weapons against Russian territory.

In response, Russia characterized these
statements as a “completely new round of escalation of tension” and
announced on May 6 that it would conduct drills simulating the use of
tactical nuclear weapons, or—as Russia describes
them—“non-strategic” nuclear weapons. Although these drills
constitute a new kind of nuclear threat, they have been dismissed as not
credible by a growing number of European countries. But the fine line
between skepticism and complacency could pose significant risks for crisis
stability in Europe.

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 12th June 2024

https://thebulletin.org/2024/06/why-the-west-should-take-russias-nuclear-threats-more-seriously/

June 16, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Radiation could pose challenge to putting people on Mars

  • A solar storm that hit Earth also impacted Mars
  • Data showed how much radiation hit the planet’s surface
  • High levels of radiation could be risky for astronauts

Steph Whiteside JUN 14, 2024 

(NewsNation) — A massive solar storm that impacted Earth also affected Mars, and data suggests radiation levels on the red planet could pose a challenge to human exploration there.

A record-setting solar storm made the aurora borealis visible as far south as North Carolina, stunning people with a view of the dancing lights not usually seen in most of the U.S.

That same storm also hit Mars and also caused an aurora there. Data from NASA’s Odyssey and MAVEN (it stands for “Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution”) orbiters and the Curiosity rover showed what happened when solar flares hit the planet……………………………………………………

Data showed that radiation near Curiosity was around 8,100 micrograys, which is the equivalent of 30 chest X-rays. While that isn’t a deadly amount for a person, it’s also a lot more than someone would want to be exposed to, especially since astronauts on Mars would likely face multiple exposures like that.

Astronauts could also face visual distortions similar to Curiosity’s cameras, with many on the International Space Station describing seeing “fireworks” behind their eyes when they close them during a radiation storm.

So, what does this mean for future exploration?

Scientists say the data shows that shielding on Mars will have to be a serious concern for any crewed missions, raising the possibility that cliffside or lava tubes could play a role in such efforts. That could also impact agriculture on the planet. That would be a necessity because it takes nine months to travel to Mars, and astronauts would have to wait a minimum of three months on the planet before a suitable window to make a return trip.

There is likely to be more data for research as the sunspot that caused the previous storms has continued to show activity.  https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/radiation-challenge-people-mars/

June 16, 2024 Posted by | space travel | Leave a comment

The West has a 15-month opportunity for a new nuclear deal with Iran that precludes an Iranian Bomb

Bulletin, By Seyed Hossein Mousavian | June 11, 2024

The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted last week to censure Iran for failing to cooperate fully in the inspection regime set up under the 2015 nuclear deal to make Iran’s program more transparent and to set limits that would prevent redirection of nuclear material to make weapons. But the deal has failed for many reasons, not just Iran’s interference with IAEA inspectors.

Censure resolutions by the IAEA board are not legally binding but send a strong political and diplomatic message. The representative of Iran’s mission to the United Nations stated, “The decision of the Western countries was hasty and unwise, and it will undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on the process of diplomatic engagement and constructive cooperation.” Today, Iran may be only weeks away from having material for several nuclear weapons.  The new President and cabinet of Iran will be determined within the next two months.

The United States and Europe should try to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Iran’s new administration.

At the IAEA board meeting, China, Iran, and Russia issued a joint statement blaming the US for its “unlawful and unilateral withdrawal” from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (official known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) and the imposition of “unilateral and illegal sanctions” against Iran. The three countries wrote that “[s]hould the full implementation of the JCPOA be in place today, it would have alleviated the overwhelming majority of existing questions regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program on a mutually accepted basis. The IAEA Secretariat too would have had broader verification and monitoring means.”

The three countries confirmed their readiness to restore the agreement based on the text of a draft agreement initially circulated in August 2022 by European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell and blamed the United States and the European signatories to the 2015 deal for blocking the draft for “the sake of their own political considerations”.

The nuclear crisis with Iran began in 2003 when the world became aware that Iran was building a uranium enrichment plant. But the divergence between Iran and the West on nuclear issues started after the 1979 revolution in Iran. Now, 45 years later, a last chance is still open for a positive resolution……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The global powers still have an opportunity to engage Iran in a “New Nuclear Deal”: lifting nuclear sanctions in exchange for Iran’s full and permanent commitment to implementing comprehensive transparency measures in the JCPOA, which would grant the agency full visibility into Iran’s nuclear activities. It is the best option for staving off the Iranian Bomb.  https://thebulletin.org/2024/06/the-west-has-a-15-month-opportunity-for-a-new-nuclear-deal-with-iran-that-precludes-an-iranian-bomb/

June 16, 2024 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

‘Immense’ scale of Gaza killings amount to crime against humanity, UN inquiry says

Emma Farge, Wed 12 June 2024  https://uk.news.yahoo.com/news/immense-scale-gaza-killings-amount-070247585.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc290dC5uZXQv&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE8HPcr-FwxjYBWBJjOvPs18KXTim4RNcN-godsX5YX41fMC7lw_jrtVU1-MxuWmywfp-JHc32RWkZntx35DRzp2lMCfrDUJBO9ZfyUj4cQQq1esBhASwVICNpPKfwUP3lrA83XfKI-Wh39AA2ZFjDPO2WQdeLFwaXz4qUyEPAva

GENEVA (Reuters) – Both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes in the early stages of the Gaza war, a U.N. inquiry found on Wednesday, saying that Israel’s actions also constituted crimes against humanity because of the immense civilian losses.

The findings were from two parallel reports, one focusing on the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks and another on Israel’s military response, published by the U.N. Commission of Inquiry (COI), which has an unusually broad mandate to collect evidence and identify perpetrators of international crimes committed in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

Israel does not cooperate with the commission, which it says has an anti-Israel bias. The COI says Israel obstructs its work and prevented investigators from accessing both Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

Israel’s diplomatic mission to the U.N. in Geneva rejected the findings. “The COI has once again proven that its actions are all in the service of a narrow-led political agenda against Israel,” said Meirav Eilon Shahar, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva.

Hamas did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

By Israel’s count more than 1,200 people were killed and 250 taken hostage in the Oct. 7 cross-border attacks that sparked a military retaliation in Gaza that has since killed over 37,000 people, by Palestinian tallies.

The reports, which cover the conflict through to end-December, found that both sides committed war crimes including torture; murder or willful killing; outrages upon personal dignity; and inhuman or cruel treatment.

Israel also committed additional war crimes including starvation as a method of warfare, it said, saying Israel not only failed to provide essential supplies like food, water, shelter and medicine to Gazans but “acted to prevent the supply of those necessities by anyone else”.

Some of the war crimes such as murder also constituted crimes against humanity by Israel, the COI statement said, using a term reserved for the most serious international crimes knowingly committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians.

“The immense numbers of civilian casualties in Gaza and widespread destruction of civilian objects and infrastructure were the inevitable result of a strategy undertaken with intent to cause maximum damage, disregarding the principles of distinction, proportionality and adequate precautions,” the COI statement said.

Sometimes, the evidence gathered by such U.N.-mandated bodies has formed the basis for war crimes prosecutions and could be drawn on by the International Criminal Court.

MASS KILLINGS, SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND HUMILIATION

The COI’s findings are based on interviews with victims and witnesses, hundreds of submissions, satellite imagery, medical reports and verified open-source information.

Among the findings in the 59-page report on the Oct. 7 attacks, the commission verified four incidents of mass killings in public shelters which it said suggests militants had “standing operational instructions”. It also identified “a pattern of sexual violence” by Palestinian armed groups but could not independently verify reports of rape.

The longer 126-page Gaza report said Israel’s use of weapons such as MK84 guided bombs with a large destructive capacity in urban areas were incompatible with international humanitarian law “as they cannot adequately or accurately discriminate between the intended military targets and civilian objects”.

It also said Palestinian men and boys were subject to the crime against humanity of gender persecution, citing cases where victims were forced to strip naked in public in moves “intended to inflict severe humiliation”.

The findings will be discussed by the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva next week.

The COI composed of three independent experts including its chair South African former U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay was set up in 2021 by the Geneva council. Unusually, it has an open-ended mandate — a fact criticised by both Israel and some of its allies.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

Russia was ready to withdraw from southern Ukraine – Putin

 https://www.rt.com/russia/599297-putin-russia-kherson-zaporozhye-ukraine/ 13 June 24

Kiev could have retained sovereignty over two of its former regions if it had agreed to guarantee Moscow free land access to Crimea, the president has revealed

Russia was open to withdrawing its troops from Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions early in the Ukraine conflict on the condition that Kiev agreed to an uninterrupted land connection between Crimea and the mainland, President Vladimir Putin stated on Friday.

Speaking at a meeting with the country’s senior diplomats, Putin revealed that in early March 2022, as Russian troops were advancing into southern Ukraine, a senior foreign politician representing the West proposed mediating the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. While Putin did not name the leader, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev identified him as then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.

According to the Russian president, Bennett asked officials in Moscow at the time why Russian troops were operating in Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions, given that their stated goal was to help Donbass.

Bennett was told the decision to send Russian troops to those regions was made based on the plans drawn by the General Staff, which sought to bypass heavily fortified Ukrainian positions in Donbass, Putin explained. According to the Russian leader, when Bennett asked whether Russian troops would remain in Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions after the end of the conflict, Putin said he was open to the idea of pulling them back to their bases.

“I replied that, in general, I do not rule out that Ukraine will retain its sovereignty over these territories, provided that Russia will have a solid land connection to Crimea.”

Putin noted that to secure the guarantee, Moscow and Kiev would have to sign a legally binding “servitude” agreement, a property law that ties rights and obligations to the ownership or possession of land.

The deal would then have to be finalized with the involvement of the UN Security Council, as well as local citizens and the Russian public.

However, when Bennett traveled to Kiev to present Moscow’s proposal to the Ukrainian government, it was rejected, and the Israeli leader was branded a Russian sympathizer, Putin noted.

Now, this proposal is off the table, given that Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions, along with the two Donbass republics, voted to join Russia in public referendums in the fall of 2022, Putin stated. “There can be no talk of violating our national unity… This question is closed forever and beyond any debate.”

At the same time, Putin signaled that Moscow was ready for talks with Ukraine on the condition that Kiev fully withdraws its troops from Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions and abandons plans to join NATO. But the proposal has been rejected by Kiev, which insists upon returning the country to its 1991 borders.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

TODAY. G7 – and the juggernaut to the destruction of Ukraine rolls on – to the delight of weapons companies.

Cartoon from Sunday Telegraph

Well, well, ain’t it grand? The G7 will lend Ukraine $50 billion to help it buy weapons . Not that Ukraine will be expected to pay it back – it’s supposed to be repaid with profits earned from Russian assets in Europe. European companies want a share, especially European arms manufacturers. Some of the money will go to establishing weapons manufacture in Ukraine.

US President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement on 13 June aimed at strengthening Kyiv’s defence capabilities – a step towards “Ukraine’s eventual membership in the NATO alliance”

Is everyone swallowing this nonsense?

Putin is suggesting an immediate ceasefire, with Ukraine withdrawing its troops from the predominantly Russian-speaking four former oblasts of Ukraine that Russia currently occupies, and which Russia has integrated into the Russian Federation, and publicly abandons its quest to join NATO. Russia would retain Crimea. Numerous surveys have confirmed that the people of Crimea are content with their 2014 choice to join Russia. Ukraine, Russia, and the European powers previously agreed to a similar plan in 2014

Zelensky originally came to power on a campaign of peace, ensuring the autonomy of those four regions. His term of office has expired. He’s now operating on behalf of the USA, and running a regime that suppresses political parties, free speech and religious affiliation. It’s almost comical how Zelensky struts the world stage demanding more weapons, as Ukraine’s military suffers huge death toll, and draft-dodging abounds. Ukraine’s economy, agriculture, wrecked, – millions have emigrated, and many are hungry. And it’s becoming clear that Russia is winning.

The Peace Conference in Switzerland a farce – designed to bolster Zelensky as the great world “freedom leader?

The hypocrisy of the “Peace Conference” now going on in Switzerland – not attended by leaders of USA, China, Brazil. India – and of course, Russia not invited. The peace terms are limited to nuclear safety, food security (i.e. Ukraine’s ability to export its food by sea) and the return of Ukrainian children transferred to Russia. But Volodymr Zelensky insists on matters not included on the agenda – a complete Russian withdrawal to 1991 borders, payment of reparations, and punishment for what he says are Russian war crimes.

Not on Ukraine’s, NATO nations’, USA’s, radar is any question of considering Putin’s terms, or even talking to Putin.

It looks as if U.S. President Joe Biden is leading NATO by the nose, -with U.S weapons companies rejoicing, with the saintly Zelensky as glowing lead Field Marshal – pressing on to the complete destruction of Ukraine.

June 15, 2024 Posted by | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Putin Offers Reasonable Peace Terms to Ukraine; Zelenskiy Instantly Rejects Them; West Prepares for War.

OLIVER BOYD-BARRETT, JUN 14, 2024, https://oliverboydbarrett.substack.com/p/putin-offers-reasonable-peace-terms?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=305689&post_id=145649348&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=cqey&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Putin’s Conditions for Peace

At a meeting yesterday, June 13th, with the board of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Putin has laid out Russia’s condition for peace in the Ukraine conflict. Although Ukraine’s foreign minister has already rejected these conditions as “absurd,” they are clearly very significant. Ukraine’s rejection comes from the representative of a government whose legislative record includes a prohibition of any kind of negotiation with the current Russian government and whose only recently stated terms of settlement are a complete Russian withdrawal from all the territories that Russia has occupied, payment of reparations and punishment for alleged war crimes.

Putin’s terms, on the other hand, build on the Istanbul peace agreement of March 2022, drafts of which were endorsed by both Russian and Ukrainian signatories, but which were then undermined by Washington through the agency of former British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson who told Ukraine that NATO could not support the terms of the agreement, that Ukraine should fight on, and that NATO would supply all the weapons that Ukraine would need to win the war.

Well, here we are, over two years later. Ukraine has clearly not won the war. NATO weapons have not been sufficient for it to win the war. The Ukrainian army is showing some indications of collapse, as is the nation of Ukraine itself, still under the charge of a President whose legitimate (and, indeed, constitutionally permitted) term of office has now expired and who has refused to call elections that would almost certainly have replaced him.

Why? Because Ukraine has become a mere vassal to Washington, with very little agency over how to fight the war and no agency whatsover in how to fund it; it has lost well over half a million men, dead and wounded, on the battlefields; millions have fled; Ukraine’s recent mobilization is highly unpopular; the country is subject, on a very regular basis, to missile and drone attacks across the entire territory of Ukraine that are highly damaging in their consequences for what remains of Ukrainian industry and commerce; the country has lost 20% of its territory and a good deal more of its wealth; the regime has suppressed political parties it does not like, and any free speech it does not like, even worship it does not like.

If that was not enough let us not forget that Zelinskiy, considered by Scott Ritter to be an agent of Western intelligence, came to power on the back of financial support from a Ukrainian oligarch, promising a peaceful settlement of the conflict with Russia.

Putin is saying to Ukraine that it could achieve an immediate ceasefire if it withdraws all its troops from the four former oblasts of Ukraine that Russia currently occupies and which Russia has integrated into the Russian Federation, and publicly abandons its quest to join NATO. It is clear that Russia would expect to retain Crimea, whose governing body in 2014 sought integration into the Russian Federation for protection from a virulently anti-Russian coup regime in Kiev. All these territories are either predominantly Russian-speaking or have substantial populations of Russian-speakers and whose cultures (including, formerly, Russian language mass media) are significantly associated with that of Russia. There is very little evidence of resistance from the populations of these territories to Russian control and numerous surveys have confirmed that the people of Crimea are content with their 2014 choice.

Long ago, Ukraine rejected the possibility of a far more peaceful outcome to the conflict which had started out, primarily, as a conflict between two antagonistic peoples who had been cobbled together first, by the Soviet Union and then, by Kiev. That peaceful outcome would have been a de-concentration of central power in Kiev – a form of federalization if you will – that would have allowed what were then the People’s Republics of Luhansk and Dontetsk (formed in the immediate aftermath of the illegal, US-supported, US-funded, violent and anti-democratic coup d’etat of 2014) greater autonomy within the umbrella of Ukraine.

An arrangement along these lines was agreed by Ukraine, Russia and, through OSCE (The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), the European powers (notably Germany) in the so-called Minsk accords of 2014 and 2015, following defeat of Kiev by militia of the People’s Republics. These were never implemented. Both Ukrainian and European leaders are on record as saying that they never intended that Minsk should be implemented; that the intention of Kiev and Europe was to sign the Minsk accords simply to buy more time for Ukraine, with Western assistance, to rebuild its armed forces and to retake the People’s Republics. Indeed, the threat of imminent attack by Ukraine on the People’s Republics was one factor that compelled Putin to launch the Special Military Operation in February, 2022. Other factors included the rejection by the US to honor a commitment given Putin by Biden that the US would not establish nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and to enter into dialog about other such threats to Russian national security interests in Poland and Romania.

If Ukraine today withdraws from what it regards as Russian occupied territories and promises to forego efforts for membership of NATO, then an immediate ceasefire will come into effect. This would not be a “frozen conflict,” Putin has explained. It would be the start of a period of negotiations and in these negotiations Russia would still advance its other demands namely demilitarization of Ukraine, and its de-nazification, all this within a broader compass that would involve not just European but also other nations in discussions about the construction of, and guarantees for, a new European security architecture. On considering the outcome of the GT meeting (see below), I wonder whether Russian interests might actually be better served in the context of a complete victory, given that this would obviate, in the “dictation of terms” all questions of reparations and war crimes, and include the unfreezing and return of Russian assets in Europe and the US.

G7 Meeting

There have been at least two important outcomes of the G7 meeting that occurred in Apulia, Southern Italy, still in progress, from June 13 to June 15th. Significantly, Putin delivered his address (see above) to the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 13th. The meeting comes shortly before the so-called Swiss Peace Conference in Bürgenstock on June 15th and 16th, and ahead of the NATO Summit in Washington from July 9th to July 11th. It is relevant to note that the next meeting of the BRICS will be in October, in Kazan at which the agenda will include considerations of the admission of BRICS of over 30 countries that are interested in joining (which include Turkey, which would have to give up its membership of NATO were it to join), and the construction of an international financial order in which countries could trade freely outside the petrodollar zone (which BRICS member Saudi Arabia has just abandoned).

$50 Billion Loan for Ukraine

The New York Times report of July 14 specifies that the United States, the EU and other G7 countries plan to give Ukraine a $50 billion loan to help it buy weapons and begin to rebuild damaged infrastructure. The money will be repaid over time with the profits earned from Russian assets, some $300 billion, about two-thirds of which are in Europe. Interest on matured bonds is already creating a return of return, depending on the interest rate, of $3 billion to $4 billion a year. Rather than just providing Ukraine that relatively small yearly sum, the G7 countries have adopted the concept of loan. This could be provided to Ukraine by the end of this year. Ukraine’s current financial and military needs are estimated at about $100 billion a year.

The G7 countries have agreed to put up the money for the loan. At the moment, it seems that the European Union is prepared to put up half, about $25 billion to $30 billion, with the Americans and others putting up the rest. Since most of the assets are in Europe, the Europeans want to ensure that, as the proceeds are spent, European companies get a fair share, especially European arms manufacturers. Ukraine therefore will be the beneficiary of the profits from the Russian assets, but will not be responsible for repaying the loan.

Liability is expected to be shared among the countries that issue it. In effect, therefore, the collective West will use interest on Russian assets for the purposes of fighting and weaponizing the war, to pay off the country’s budgetary deficit (which might include, therefore, payments due on aid that Ukraine has so far received in the form of other loans from Western countries) and to pay for post-war reconstruction. This money would be lent to Ukraine but Ukraine would not be expected to pay it back because those countries through whom the loan is distributed will also guarantee it – in other words, would take responsibility of paying off the loan. My guess is that the ultimate intent is to pay it back, once again, by drawing on interest or on the frozen assets themselves.

The loan will go to Ukraine by the end of the year and will be used to support Ukraine militarily, including helping it establish arms factories on its territory; cover the country’s budgetary deficit; and in reconstruction of infrastructure. Disbursement is supposed to depend in part on Ukraine’s ability to use the money to good effect. We don’t yet know through which agencies the money will be disbursed and whether Ukraine would decide for itself how to use the money (surely not). Whether the legality of this procedure can be supported in countries whose financial industries are not held captive by Western politicians is questionable, as well as the willingness of third-party nations to park any assets of any kind in the countries or the financial institutions of the collective West.

Bilateral Security Agreement between US and Ukraine

US President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement on 13 June aimed at strengthening Kyiv’s defence capabilities. The United States is the 16th country with which Ukraine has signed a bilateral security agreement. The agreement has been promoted as a step towards “Ukraine’s eventual membership in the NATO alliance” (something which some representatives of NATO members have said would take up to thirty years) and as reaffirmation of US support for Kyiv. More specifically the agreement is intended to sustain significant military force and capabilities. It also states that the:

United States intends to provide long-term materiel, training, and advisory, technical, intelligence, security, defence-industrial, institutional, and other assistance to “develop Ukrainian security and defence forces that are capable of defending a sovereign, independent, democratic Ukraine and deterring future aggression.”

… in the event of an armed attack on Ukraine or the threat of such an attack, American and Ukrainian authorities will meet within 24 hours to consult and determine what extra defence necessities Ukraine has.

This latter is somewhat loose and probably meaningless language. The agreement falls well short of membership of NATO. It is time-limited and, even so, recognises that a future US president can withdraw from a security agreement with Ukraine since it does not provide for ratification by Congress.

Question about NATO membership

From before and during this conflict, the US and NATO, at least from 2008, have encouraged Ukraine to think that it can become a member of Ukraine or even be considered eligible for entry into a membership action plan (until recently a required step prior to membership). Yet this has been consistently refused. Membership of NATO was heavily promoted by Zelenskiy even though until 2014 majority opinion in Ukraine was firmly against this. Not only was the measure unpopular then and for many is still, but conditions of membership precluded Ukraine from joining, given that it is a country that is currently in a conflict. Many NATO members, wiser than the US, Germany, France and the UK, are reluctant to anger Russia over something – i.e. violation of Ukraine’s neutrality – that Russia has consistently argued is a Red Line for Russia.

But all NATO decisions are consensual. At NATO’s Bucharest summit later in 2008, member countries did not reach a consensus on Ukraine’s request.

In July 2023 NATO agreed to a new multi-year assistance programme to “facilitate the transition of the Ukrainian armed forces from Soviet-era to NATO standards and help rebuild Ukraine’s security and defence sector, covering critical needs like fuel, demining equipment, and medical supplies…and agreed to establish the new NATO-Ukraine Council. Allies also reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, and agreed to remove the requirement for a Membership Action Plan. This process in the past has effectively opened the door to membership. Yet membership has to be something on which all existing members must agree.

For a few years starting in 2010, Ukraine adopted a non-aligned status that was codified into law with Yanukovych as president, meaning it could not join military alliances. After the 2014 coup that ousted Yanukovych Ukraine scrapped the non-aligned status. Ukraine has since amended its constitution to explicitly spell out its desire to join NATO, and joining NATO remains the official policy of Ukraine.

Swiss Peace Conference: What is Victory

Ukraine

For Zelenskiy – and this is the position he has taken in advance of the Swiss co-called Peace Conference – the only acceptable peace terms are a complete Russian withdrawl to 1991 borders, payment of reparations, and punishment for what he says are Russian war crimes. We should note in passing that it seems that Zelenskiy’s own office has been at least as influential in determining the framework of this meeting as has the Swiss government, and that its most important objective has probably to do with providing a stage for the collective West and other world leaders’ endorsement of Zelenskiy as a legitimate leader of Ukraine.

160 countries were invited, 90 will attend. Those that will not attend include the US President (who is sending Vice President Kamala Harris and national security adviser Jake Sullivan), Russia (which was not invited; although there was talk of presenting Russia with the conclusions of the conference), China, Brazil nor I believe, India’s Prime Minister Modi. Of the 10 points in the Ukrainian government’s peace plan only three will be formally discussed: nuclear safety, food security (i.e. Ukraine’s ability to export its food by sea) and the return of Ukrainian children transferred to Russia. Zelenskiy’s other demands for complete Russian military withdrawal, war crimes trials, reparations for war damages, and security guarantees have all been omitted from the agenda.

In an article today in Responsible Statecraft, Anatol Lieven (Lieven) notes that a previous Western attempt to rally support in the Global South for Ukraine’s “peace plan” at a confidential meeting in Riyadh in December 2023 was snubbed by most invitees.

Lieven argues that “for Ukraine to recover any significant portion of the land it has lost to Russia now looks highly unlikely given the balance of military and economic strength between the two sides, and the complete failure of last year’s Ukrainian offensive”.

Ukraine’s demand for war crime trials (not to be discussed at the Swiss conference) now has to be set against the contributions of the US and EU to Israeli crimes in Gaza, including genocide, charges of which have now been endorsed, or on the path towards being endorsed, by (1) a United National investigative committee headed by the UN head of human rights (see article today by Andre Damon (Damon) – UN commission finds Israel guilty of “extermination,” “crimes against humanity,” killing Palestinians and Israeli hostages, (2) the International Criminal Court, and (3) the International Court of Justice. U.S. rejection of the right of the International Criminal Court to investigate and judge these crimes, and U.S. previous rejection of the jurisdiction of the ICC over American citizens has long subverted Washington’s moral authority or credibility in this area.

Russia

Putin has just told us what Russian strategy is. Ukraine can settle now by conceding what was always the obvious solution – the integration of the four oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zapporizhzhia and Kherson into the Russian Federation, and acceptance of Crimea (whose people specifically asked to be integrated into the Federation) as Russian. Long ago, Ukraine missed its chance, under Poroshenko and the threats to Poroshenko from Ukrainian Nazi militia such as Azov, simply to allow Luhansk and Donetsk greater autonomy within Ukraine. Ukraine has always been at least two nations – one looking towards the West, the other looking eastwards – governed by an over-centralized State.

Ukraine is nowhere near accepting Russian conditions. Zelenskiy has even legislated against the possibility that there could ever be negotiations with the current Putin-led Russian government. Putin has also indicated that Zelenskiy is an unacceptable interlocuter for Russia as he is illegitimate. Meantime, even as there are indications that the collective West is getting tired of Zelenskiy, of his erratic behavior and his ever strident demands, Zelenskiy is ever more dependent on the collective West for his own domestic security and perceived legitimacy. He is, in fact, an illegimate and unelected President, whose regime suppresses political parties, free speech and religious affiliation.

Assuming that neither that Zelenskiy nor the West show serious interest in Putin’s most recent statement of peace conditions, then I propose we should take Putin at his word, namely, that Russia will continue to fight and to move westwards until Ukraine is defeated and forced to accept terms. At this point it is not even certain that there would still be a Ukraine.

June 15, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »