nuclear-news

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

Epstein, Israel, ISIS, Palantir

Caitlin Johnstone, Jun 06, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/epstein-israel-isis-palantir?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=165336332&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Amid the inevitable giant ego clash between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, Musk tweeted that the president “is in the Epstein files,” saying “That is the real reason they have not been made public.”

As we have discussed previously, it is a known fact that Trump is on the Epstein flight logs and has been obstructing the release of the Epstein files. It is also a known fact that Jeffrey Epstein worked with Israeli intelligence and was running a sexual blackmail operation, and that Trump has been bending over backwards to give Israel everything it wants while stomping out American free speech that is critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

“I’ve known Jeff [Epstein] for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump said in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

There’s no reason to take seriously anything Elon Musk says during a textbook case of narcissistic collapse, but for the record if anyone in Washington is likely to have been blackmailed by Epstein it’s Donald John Trump.

Israel has admitted to arming ISIS-linked gangs as proxy forces in Gaza, throwing some cold water on the fuzzbrained narrative that the west is backing Israel to help defeat Islamic extremism. Israel is backing these forces in order to sow chaos and strife with the goal of advancing its ethnic cleansing objectives in the Palestinian territory.

❖

Lately whenever I talk about Israel’s ethnic cleansing agenda I get Israel supporters telling me “They’re not doing ethnic cleansing! They’re just making the Palestinians leave Gaza because they don’t want them there!” Which is yet another reminder of how stupid Israel apologists are, because the forced mass expulsion of an undesired ethnic group is precisely the definition of ethnic cleansing.

I have this conversation every single day:

Me: Here’s evidence of Israel doing something evil.

Israel supporter: All Hamas has to do is surrender and release the hostages and this ends immediately.

Me: No that’s false, Israel is openly saying the slaughter will continue until all Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed from Gaza regardless of whether Hamas surrenders or the hostages are released. Here’s a pile of evidence showing that this is the case.

Israel supporter: Yeah well that’s what happens when you start a war you can’t win. Next time don’t do terrorism.

Me: You were just claiming Hamas can end this at any time by making different decisions. Now that you know Hamas is powerless to stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing atrocities you have pivoted to saying all Palestinians deserve mass murder and ethnic cleansing. Sounds like you’ll just support Israel no matter what it does regardless of facts or morality.

Israel supporter: ANTISEMITE ANTISEMITE ANTISEMITE ANTISEMITE

❖

I keep meaning to talk about how the Trump administration is reportedly granting oligarch Peter Thiel’s odious company Palantir a central role in a massive authoritarian expansion in government surveillance powers which would see American data compiled and tracked across multiple government agencies.

For those who don’t know, Palantir is a CIA-backed surveillance and data mining tech company with longstanding ties to both the US intelligence cartel and to Israel, and has already been playing a crucial role in both the US empire’s sprawling surveillance network and Israeli atrocities against Palestinians.

This is being framed by the political/media class as a Trump policy, but it’s obviously a US empire policy. These sweeping surveillance powers are intended to remain in place long after Trump is gone, regardless of who happens to be in office.

We are being asked to believe that individuals becoming violently radicalized by the ongoing genocide in Gaza is of greater concern than the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

No. That isn’t going to happen.

Perhaps the best way to stop people from committing acts of violence in response to the genocide in Gaza would be to cease actively fucking facilitating the fucking genocide in Gaza.

Palestine supporters: Here’s a video that just came out showing Israel massacring Palestinian civilians again.

Israel supporters: Okay, so, two thousand years ago…

❖

The world waking up to Israel’s depravity reminds me of the moment I first saw how nasty and abusive my ex was. That first glimpse when I finally let myself see the sadism and ill will he had for me was the beginning of the end.

Maybe the world is beginning its own moment of clarity.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

US Vetoes UN Resolution Calling for a Ceasefire in Gaza

 the new Trump administration used its veto power to block a Gaza ceasefire resolution on behalf of Israel.

The US was the only member of the 15-member Security Council that didn’t vote in favor of the resolution

by Dave DeCamp June 4, 2025,https://news.antiwar.com/2025/06/04/us-vetoes-un-resolution-calling-for-a-ceasefire-in-gaza/

The US on Wednesday vetoed a resolution at the UN Security Council that called for an “immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza, the release of Israeli captives, and the unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid into the besieged Palestinian territory.

The US was the only member of the 15-member Security Council that didn’t vote in favor of the ceasefire. The resolution was introduced by the 10 non-permanent members of the Council: Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Panama, Pakistan, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Slovenia.

“We believe this text reflects the consensus shared by all Council members that the war in Gaza has to come to an immediate halt, all hostages must be immediately and unconditionally released, and civilians in Gaza must not starve and must have full and unimpeded access to aid,” the 10 nations said in a joint statement.

The US and the four other permanent members — Russia, China, the UK, and France — all have veto power on the Security Council. The Biden administration vetoed several Gaza-related resolutions at the Security Council, but Wednesday’s vote marked the first time the new Trump administration used its veto power to block a Gaza ceasefire resolution on behalf of Israel.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said in a post on X after the vote that he wanted to thank President Trump and the “US administration for standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel and vetoing this one-sided resolution in the UN Security Council.”

Dorothy Shea, the acting US ambassador to the UN, said that “any product that undermines our close ally Israel’s security is a nonstarter.” She also claimed the resolution would hurt diplomatic efforts that have failed to make progress due to Israel’s refusal to end its genocidal war by committing to a permanent ceasefire.

“The United States has been clear we would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza,” Shea said. “This resolution would undermine diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire that reflects the realities on the ground, and embolden Hamas.”

June 8, 2025 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)’s Nuclear Weapons Programs Slated for 53% Increase

To help pay for this, nonproliferation and cleanup programs are being cut by 5%, science by 14%, cybersecurity and emergency response by 25%, and energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by 74%.

the NNSA’s Total Weapons Activities. If passed by the Senate as well, so-called reconciliation could cut more than $800 billion from Medicaid and terminate environmental justice and climate change initiatives.

 June 3, 2025,   Jay Coghlan,  https://nukewatch.org/nnsa-nuclear-weapons-programs-slated-for-53-percent-increase/

Santa Fe, NM – Topline budget figures for the Department of Energy (DOE) have been released under the headline of “Unleashing a Golden Era of Energy Dominance and Energy Innovation and Protecting the Nation.” But as a baseline, 65% of the Department’s proposed $46 billion budget is earmarked for its semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In turn, more than 80% of NNSA’s proposed FY 2026 funding is for its nuclear weapons research and production programs, with a 25% funding increase over FY 2025.

But that is not all. The Trump Administration is adding another $4.8 billion from so-called “reconciliation” funding, bringing NNSA’s “Total Weapons Activities” to just under $30 billion. Taken together, this is a 53% increase above FY 2025 for NNSA’s nuclear weapons research and production programs. To help pay for this, nonproliferation and cleanup programs are being cut by 5%, science by 14%, cybersecurity and emergency response by 25%, and energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by 74%.

According to DOE’s “Budget in Brief”:

“The FY 2026 Budget Request [for NNSA’s nuclear weapons programs] funds execution of six simultaneous warhead modernization programs, including the warhead for the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) and the B61-13 variant, while coordinating with DoD to plan for future systems; [and] continue restoring and refurbishing production capability, including the capability to produce 80 pits per year as close to 2030 as possible…”

What this means is six “Life Extension Programs” or “Modifications” that are extending the service lives of existing nuclear weapons by decades while giving them new military capabilities. This includes a new nuclear warhead for a new Sea-Launched Cruise Missile, a class of nuclear weapons that George H. Bush retired at the end of the Cold War. It also includes a new ~300 kiloton variant of the B61 gravity bomb (the Hiroshima bomb was ~16 kiloton). In contrast, warhead dismantlements are at their lowest rate since the end of the Cold War.

In addition, it means the pending production of the first new design nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War. First on deck is the W87-1 warhead for the new, budget-busting Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile. The second new design is the sub-launched W93 warhead, which is primarily for the United Kingdom. Key to their production is the expanded manufacturing of plutonium pits, the fissile cores of nuclear weapons. According to congressional testimony, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) will produce W87-1 pits and the Savannah River Site (SRS) W93 pits.

The Los Alamos Lab currently claims that it will demonstrate the “capability” to produce at least 30 pits per year by 2028, delayed from the statutory requirement to physically produce 30 pits in 2026. SRS’ plutonium pit facility is on track to cost ~$20 billion (the new World Trade Center cost less than $5 billion). Production of at least 50 pits per year at SRS is unlikely any time before 2035, which could prompt LANL into “surge” production of more pits. The independent Government Accountability Office has repeatedly stated that NNSA does not have credible cost estimates for pit production, its most expensive program ever. The DOE and NNSA and its predecessors have been on the GAO’s “High Risk List” for project mismanagement and waste of taxpayers’ dollars since 1991.

Further, the need for expanded plutonium pit production to begin with is not clear. In 2006 independent experts concluded that pits last at least a century (their average age is now around 42). NNSA has avoided new pit life studies since then. There are already at least 15,000 existing pits stored at the agency’s Pantex Plant near Amarillo, TX. In addition, new design nuclear weapons cannot be full scale tested because of the international testing moratorium, thereby perhaps eroding confidence in the stockpile. Or new designs could prompt the US to resume testing which would have severe international proliferation consequences.

The House of Representatives recently passed the huge budget reconciliation bill that adds money to the NNSA’s Total Weapons Activities. If passed by the Senate as well, so-called reconciliation could cut more than $800 billion from Medicaid and terminate environmental justice and climate change initiatives. Military spending would increase to around $1 trillion per year while domestic programs are crippled. Finally, as much as $4 trillion in tax cuts for the ultra-rich could be put into place.

Jay Coghlan, Director of Nuclear Watch, commented, “More nuclear weapons won’t give us more security as our nation is being hollowed out. We are approaching the 80th anniversaries of the atomic bombings. It is way past time for the nuclear weapons powers to honor their obligations under the 1970 NonProliferation Treaty to negotiate verifiable nuclear disarmament instead of keeping nuclear weapons forever.”

Sources:

     DOE’s FY 2026 “Budget in Brief” at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/doe-fy-2026-bib-v4.pdf

     DOE’s FY 2026 “Appropriation Summary” at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/doe-fy-2026-budget-approps-summary-v1.pdf

Release of the full FY 2026 budget justification is not yet scheduled. By law the annual Congressional Budget Requests are due the first Monday every February.

Nuclear Watch New Mexico was a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit that forced the NNSA to complete a nationwide programmatic environmental impact statement on expanded plutonium pit production. The public has an opportunity to submit “scoping” comments on issues that should be included. Comments should be emailed to PitPEIS@nnsa.doe.gov by July 14. For more please see www.nukewatch.org

June 8, 2025 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

The United States and Greenland, Part I: Episodes in Nuclear History 1947-1968

National Security Archive, 4 June 25

Greenland “Green Light”: Danish PM’s Secret Acquiescence Encouraged U.S. Nuclear Deployments

Pentagon Approved Nuclear-Armed B-52 Flights Over Greenland

State Department: U.S. Can Do “Almost Anything, Literally, That We Want to in Greenland”

Danish Officials Worried About Danger of U.S. Nuclear Accidents

Washington, D.C., June 3, 2025 – The Trump administration’s intention to acquire Greenland, including possibly by force, has put a focus on the history of its strategic interest to U.S. policymakers. Today, the National Security Archive publishes the first of a two-part declassified document collection on the U.S. role in Greenland during the middle years of the Cold War, covering the decisions that led to the secret deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in the Danish territory in 1958 to the 1968 crash of a nuclear-armed B-52 bomber near Thule Air Base that left plutonium-laced debris scattered across miles of Arctic sea ice.[1]

The radioactive mess caused by the accident required a major clean-up and caused a serious controversy in U.S.-Denmark relations. The U.S. had never officially told Denmark that it was flying nuclear weapons over Greenland, although Danish officials suspected it; nor had the U.S. informed the Danes that it had once stored nuclear weapons in Greenland, although in 1957 they had received a tacit “green light” to do so from the Danish prime minister, according to documents included in today’s posting. But both the nuclear-armed overflights of Greenland and the storage of nuclear weapons there were in strong contradiction to Denmark’s declared non-nuclear policy. When the bomber crash exposed the overflights, Denmark tried to resolve the conflict by seeking a U.S. pledge that Greenland would be nuclear free.

This new publication revisits the nuclear and strategic history of the United States and Greenland as it emerged during the late 1940s through the crash in 1968, highlighting key declassified documents from the archival record, FOIA releases, the Digital National Security Archive (DNSA), and other sources. The analysis draws on the work of U.S. and Danish scholars who have written about the B-52 crash and the history of the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland during the Cold War, including revelations in the 1990s that prompted Danish experts to revisit the historical record.[2]

Part I, below, looks at U.S. strategic interests in Greenland in the early Cold War period, including Danish government acquiescence to the storage of nuclear weapons there, U.S. nuclear-armed airborne alert flights over Greenland, and the 1968 B-52 crash. Part II will document the aftermath of the accident, including the clean-up of contaminated ice, the U.S.-Denmark government nuclear policy settlement, and the failed search for lost nuclear weapons parts deep in the waters of North Star Bay.

Background

Greenland has been seen as an important strategic interest to United States defense officials and policymakers since World War II. After the fall of France in June 1940, the Nazis seized Denmark, and the Roosevelt administration feared that Germany would occupy Greenland, threatening Canada and the United States. In response, the U.S. insisted that Greenland was part of the Western Hemisphere and thus a territory that had to be “assimilated to the general hemispheric system of continental defense.” The U.S. began talks with Danish Ambassador Henrik Kauffmann, who was acting on his own authority as “leader of the Free Danes” and in defiance of the German occupiers. On 9 April 1941, Kauffmann signed an extraordinary agreement with Washington giving the United States almost unlimited access to build military facilities in Greenland and would remain valid as long as there were “dangers to the American continent,” after which the two parties could modify or terminate it. By the end of World War II, the U.S. had 17 military facilities in Greenland. After the liberation of Denmark from German rule, the Danish Parliament ratified the Kauffmann-U.S. agreement on 23 May 1945, but it assumed its early termination, with Denmark taking over Greenland’s defense.[3]

In 1946, the Truman administration gave brief consideration to buying Greenland because it continued to see it as important for U.S. security.[4] During 1947, with the U.S. beginning to define the Soviet Union as an adversary, defense officials saw Greenland as an important “primary base,” especially because they were unsure about long-term access to Iceland and the Azores.[5] Thus, maintaining U.S. access was an important concern, as exemplified in an early National Security Council report that U.S. bases in Greenland, along with Iceland and the Azores, were of “extreme importance” for any war “in the next 15 or 20 years.” For their part, Danish authorities had no interest in selling Greenland but sought to restore their nation’s sovereignty there; having joined NATO, they dropped their traditional neutrality approach and were more willing to accept a limited U.S. presence. In late 1949, the U.S. and Denmark opened what became drawn out negotiations over Greenland; during 1950, the U.S. even returned some facilities to Denmark, including Sandrestrom air base. But in late 1950, with Cold War tensions deepening, the Pentagon gave the negotiations greater priority, seeking an agreement that would let the U.S. develop a base at Thule as part of an air strategy designed to reach Soviet targets across the Arctic.[6]

In April 1951, the two countries reached an agreement on the “defense of Greenland” that superseded the 1941 treaty, confirmed Danish sovereignty, and delineated three “defense areas” for use by the United States, with additional areas subject to future negotiations. Under the agreement, each signatory would “take such measures as are necessary or appropriate to carry out expeditiously their respective and joint responsibilities in Greenland, in accordance with NATO plans.” Consistent with that broad guidance, the U.S. would be free to operate its bases as it saw fit, including the movement of “supplies,” and with no restrictions on its access to airspace over Greenland. With this agreement, Washington had achieved its overriding security goals in Greenland. To move the agreement through Parliament, the Danish government emphasized its defensive character, although the negotiators and top officials understood that U.S. objectives went beyond that.[7]

In 1955, a few years after the 1951 agreement, the Joint Chiefs of Staff tried to revive interest in purchasing Greenland to ensure U.S. control over the strategically important territory and without having to rely on an agreement with another government. But the JCS proposal never found traction in high levels of the Eisenhower administration. The State Department saw no point to it, since the United States was already “permitted to do almost anything, literally, that we want to in Greenland.” The 1951 agreement stayed in place for decades. Denmark and the United States finally modified it in 2004, limiting the “defense area” to Thule Air Base and taking “Greenland Home Rule” more fully into account.

Nuclear Issues

When the U.S. negotiated the 1951 agreement, nuclear deployments were not an active consideration in official thinking about a role for U.S. bases for Greenland. Yet by 1957, when U.S. government agencies, including the State Department, became interested in deploying nuclear bombs at Thule, they used the agreement’s open-ended language to justify such actions. According to an August 1957 letter signed by Deputy Under Secretary of State Robert Murphy, the Agreement was “sufficiently broad to permit the use of facilities in Greenland for the introduction and storage of [nuclear] weapons.” The problem was to determine whether Danish leaders would see it that way.

without consulting the Danish Government, Murphy thought it best to seek the advice of the U.S. ambassador, former Nebraska Governor Val Peterson. Peterson recommended bringing the question to Danish authorities and, having received the Department’s approval, in mid-November 1957 he asked Prime Minister Hans Christian Hansen if he wished to be informed about nuclear deployments. By way of reply, Hansen handed Peterson a “vague and indefinite” paper that U.S. and Danish officials interpreted as a virtual “green light” for the deployments. Hansen raised no objections, asked for no information, and tacitly accepted the U.S. government’s loose interpretation of the 1951 agreement. He insisted, however, that the U.S. treat his response as secret because he recognized how dangerous it was for domestic politics, where anti-nuclear sentiment was strong, and for Denmark’s relations with the Soviet Union, which would have strongly objected.[8]

When Prime Minister Hansen tacitly approved the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Greenland, he was initiating what Danish scholar Thorsten Borring Olesen has characterized as a “double standard” nuclear policy. On the one hand, in a May 1957 address, Hansen had stated that the government would not receive nuclear weapons “under the present conditions.” Thus, Denmark abstained from NATO nuclear storage and sharing plans as they developed in the following years. On the other hand, the Danish leadership treated Greenland differently with respect to nuclear weapons even though, as of 1953, it was no longer a colony but a county represented in Parliament. This double standard was not necessarily a preference for Denmark’s leaders but they felt constrained by the need to accommodate U.S. policy goals in Greenland. Thus, by keeping their Greenland policy secret, Hansen and his successors kept relations with Washington on an even keel while avoiding domestic political crises and pressure from the Soviet Union.[9]

In 1958, the Strategic Air Command deployed nuclear weapons in Greenland, the details of which were disclosed in a declassified SAC history requested by Hans Kristensen, then with the Nautilus Institute. According to Kristensen’s research and the Danish study of “Greenland During the Cold War,” during 1958 the U.S. deployed four nuclear weapons in Greenland—two Mark 6 atomic bombs and two MK 36 thermonuclear bombs as well as 15 non-nuclear components. That SAC kept bombs there for less than a year suggests that it did not have a clear reason to continue storing them in Greenland. Nevertheless, the U.S. kept nuclear air defense weapons at Thule: 48 nuclear weapons were available for Nike-Hercules air missiles through mid-1965. There may also have been a deployment of nuclear weapons for Falcon air-to-air missiles through 1965, but their numbers are unknown.[10]

Airborne Alert and the January 1968 Crash

If it had only been an issue of the U.S. storing nuclear weapons on the ground in Greenland for a few years, the matter might have been kept under wraps for years. But the crash of a U.S. Air Force B-52 on 21 January 1968 near Thule Air Base exposed another nuclear secret and caused serious difficulties in U.S.-Denmark relations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………


The Documents………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2025-06-03/united-states-and-greenland-part-i-episodes-nuclear-history?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1b16b82b-2b4e-4a93-9ceb-91f5cda9b942

June 8, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, history | Leave a comment

Opposition to Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station sea defence plans lodged

 Campaign group Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) has filed a legal claim
over plans for additional coastal flood defences at Sizewell C Nuclear
Power Station, which were omitted from the original planning application
and which the group says could negatively impact local wildlife. The claim
comes after it emerged that developer Sizewell C Ltd had committed to
potentially building additional flood barriers which weren’t included in
the power station’s development consent order. TASC has raised concerns
that the construction of the additional barriers could disrupt nearby
protected areas of wildlife and says other less invasive flood defence
options were not pursued.

 Leigh Day 5th June 2025, https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2025-news/opposition-to-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-sea-defence-plans-lodged/

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Revulsion for Israel surges worldwide, new survey finds

Ali Abunimah Rights and Accountability 4 June 2025, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/revulsion-israel-surges-worldwide-new-survey-finds

Twenty months into its livestreamed and accelerating genocide in Gaza, it would hardly be controversial to conclude that Israel is one of the world’s most hated countries.

But a new global survey from the US-based Pew Research Center indicates just how unpopular it has become, especially in the North American and European states where Tel Aviv has always drawn its main sources of financial, military and political support.

“In 20 of the 24 countries surveyed, around half of adults or more have an unfavorable view of Israel,” Pew reported on 3 June. “Around three-quarters or more hold this view in Australia, Greece, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Turkey.”

Pew says it last asked the question in 10 of the countries included in its new survey in 2013. “In seven of these countries, the share of adults with a negative view of Israel has increased significantly.”

Israel was most unpopular in Turkey, with 93 percent of respondents viewing it unfavorably. Turkey was the only country in the immediate region of Palestine to be surveyed by Pew.

Among European publics surveyed, Israel was viewed most negatively in the Netherlands (78 percent), a remarkable fact in a country whose governments have traditionally been staunchly pro-Israel.

Even in Hungary – whose leader Viktor Orban welcomed Benjamin Netanyahu to Budapest earlier this year in spite of the international arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister – 53 percent of the public views Israel negatively.

Historic shift in US

In the United States – Israel’s biggest financier and arms supplier – 53 percent of those surveyed now have a negative view of Israel – an 11-point surge since 2022, according to Pew.

In recent years, surveys have consistently found that Israel is overwhelmingly unpopular with majorities of Democrats, younger Americans and people of color.

But it is an entirely new phenomenon for a majority of the US population overall to view Israel negatively.

The erosion of support for Israel in the United States – particularly among younger people – has long worried Israel and its lobby groups as a potential threat to long-term US support for Israel.

That likely explains why the Trump administration has focused its unconstitutional crackdown on free speech critical of Israel on college campuses, in an effort to scare the younger generation into line.

The turn to heavy-handed censorship, not just in the US but across Europe, is also an admission that efforts to equate disapproval of Israel’s crimes with anti-Semitism, or to burnish its brand with expensive PR campaigns, can do nothing against the horrific reality streamed daily from Gaza to peoples phones.

Break on the American right?

In many of the countries where it conducted surveys, Pew observes that “people who place themselves on the left have a more negative view of Israel than those on the right.”

But that ideological gap is most pronounced in the US, according to Pew, where “74 percent of liberals have a negative view of Israel, compared with 30 percent of conservatives.”

Still, in an April survey of Americans, Pew found a sharp rise in the number of Republican voters who view Israel unfavorably – from 27 percent to 37 percent – indicating that Israel is losing support across the political spectrum.

In recent years, there has been a notable new phenomenon of prominent right-wing commentators, like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Judge Andrew Napolitano, voicing skepticism and sometimes harsh criticism of Israel and US support for it that once seemed unthinkable.

The rise of Israel skeptics within the Trump administration and the US right more generally has reportedly led Netanyahu to confide in close aides that “that he misjudged the direction the US was taking on Israel and the broader Middle East,” Israel’s Ynet reported.

With notable standouts like Napolitano, a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights on moral grounds, the break in the pro-Israel consensus on the American right is driven more by disagreements about where Israel fits into an “America First” vision and a perception that Israel pushes for the US to engage in disastrous wars on its behalf.

To be sure, whatever ill feeling there may be in the White House toward Israel and its leader has not resulted in any US pressure on Israel to halt the genocide.

Israel’s reputation tanks in Europe

Public pressure does nevertheless seem to be having an effect in other Western countries, where staunchly pro-Israel governments are stepping up their criticism of Israel.

In May, France, the United Kingdom and Canada threatened Israel with unspecified “concrete actions” if it does not end its starvation siege of Gaza.

And just last week, Ireland became the first Western country and member of the EU to declare at the highest level that Israel is perpetrating genocide in Gaza.

The European Union is also “reviewing” its Association Agreement with Israel, amid growing calls to suspend the lucrative trade deal.

Given that the EU recently bragged about adopting its 17th sanctions “package” against Russia since 2022, these declarations about Israel appear woefully late and inadequate.

With Israel openly exterminating Palestinians, through relentless bombing and starvation, Brussels has yet to impose anything other than token sanctions on Tel Aviv.

And yet, there are signs of movement. Spain this week canceled a $310 million arms purchase from Israeli weapons company Rafael amid reported moves by Madrid “to reduce Spain’s reliance on Israeli defense technology in light of Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza.”

In Spain, according to Pew, 75 percent of the public holds a negative view of Israel.

These moves may be little and late, but they would likely not have happened at all without constant, vocal public outrage at Israel’s crimes and the complicity of European and other governments.

They are signs that public pressure and protest matter and are more important than ever to bring a halt to this genocide.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Israel, public opinion | Leave a comment

Dutch Parliament Says ‘Nyet’ To NATO Defense Spending Plan Amid Chaos Of Geert Wilders Pullout

Zero Hedge, by Tyler Durden, Wednesday, Jun 04, 2025

NATO aims for its members to spend at least 3.5% of their GDP on defense, but those dreams of NATO expansion – at a moment the proxy war in Ukraine is becoming dangerously close to entering hot war between the West and nuclear-armed Russia – are dying.

Dutch parliament on Tuesday slapped down a proposal to increase defense spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), key to NATO’s capability targets, in a non-binding motion.

While it doesn’t have legal force at this point, this makes clear parliament’s opinion, unleashing deeper tensions among NATO allies, and as the Trump White House exerts pressure to rapidly raise collective defense.

This comes at an ultra-sensitive political moment, given that as we reported earlier Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders pulled his Party for Freedom (PVV) out of the coalition that governs the Netherlands.

This sets up the likelihood of new elections after the man dubbed the “Dutch Donald Trump”, withdrew the PVV, related to immigration policy failure. 

According to the latest developments, Prime Minister Dick Schoof has just announced that he would offer his resignation from the Netherlands’ ruling coalition while continuing in a caretaker government, setting the stage for a likely snap election:……………………………………

………………………………………………………….In the background is the fact that Western populations are ‘war weary’ and don’t want to see escalation of NATO force strength in Ukraine. Trump himself is facing a revolt among conservative pundits on the American domestic front, as some European leaders, particularly Hungary’s Orban, are warning of a protracted conflict in Eastern Europe if the West and warring parties don’t climb down the escalation ladder soon. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/dutch-parliament-says-nyet-nato-defense-spending-plan-amid-chaos-geert-wilders-pullout

June 8, 2025 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

AUKUS has serious problems, Australia probably won’t receive any submarines: Malcolm Turnbull

Malcolm Turnbull, former Prime Minister of Australia, says that AUKUS wasn’t a very good deal for the country and that he thinks President Trump would love the deal as the U.S. would receive money without necessarily having to deliver anything in return.

Thu, Jun 5 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/06/05/aukus-has-serious-problems-likely-australia-will-not-receive-any-submarines.html

June 8, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA | Leave a comment

Will Russia’s Retaliation To Ukraine’s Strategic Drone Strikes Decisively End The Conflict?

Andrew Korybko, Jun 02, 2025, https://korybko.substack.com/p/will-russias-retaliation-to-ukraines

Tonight will be fateful for the conflict’s future.

Ukraine carried out strategic drone strikes on Sunday against several bases all across Russia that are known to house elements of its nuclear triad. This came a day before the second round of the newly resumed Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul and less than a week after Trump warned Putin that “bad things..REALLY BAD” might soon happen to Russia. It therefore can’t be ruled out that he knew about this and might have even discreetly signaled his approval in order to “force Russia into peace”.

Of course, it’s also possible that he was bluffing and the Biden-era CIA helped orchestrate this attack in advance without him every finding out so that Ukraine could either sabotage peace talks if he won and pressured Zelensky into them or coerce maximum concessions from Russia, but his ominous words still look bad. Whatever the extent of Trump’s knowledge may or may not be, Putin might once again climb the escalation ladder by dropping more Oreshniks on Ukraine, which could risk a rupture in their ties.

Seeing as how Trump is being left in the dark about the conflict by his closest advisors (not counting Witkoff) as proven by him misportraying Russia’s retaliatory strikes against Ukraine over the past week as unprovoked, he might react the same way to Russia’s inevitable retaliation. His ally Lindsey Graham already prepared legislation for imposing 500% tariffs on all Russian energy clients, which Trump might approve in response, and this could pair with ramping up armed aid to Ukraine in a major escalation.

Everything therefore depends on the form of Russia’s retaliation; the US’ response; and – if they’re not canceled as a result – the outcome of tomorrow’s talks in Istanbul. If the first two phases of this scenario sequence don’t spiral out of control, then it’ll all depend on whether Ukraine makes concessions to Russia after its retaliation; Russia makes concessions to Ukraine after the US’ response to Russia’s retaliation; or their talks are once again inconclusive. The first is by far the best outcome for Russia.

The second would suggest that Ukraine’s strategic drone strikes on Russia’s nuclear triad and the US’ response to its retaliation pressured Putin to compromise on his stated goals. These are Ukraine’s withdrawal from the entirety of the disputed regions, its demilitarization, denazification, and restoring its constitutional neutrality. Freezing the Line of Contact (LOC), even perhaps in exchange for some US sanctions relief and a resource-centric strategic partnership with it, could cede Russia’s strategic edge.

Not only might Ukraine rearm and reposition ahead of reinitiating hostilities on comparatively better terms, but uniformed Western troops might also flood into Ukraine, where they could then function as tripwires for manipulating Trump into “escalating to de-escalate” if they’re attacked by Russia. As for the third possibility, inconclusive talks, Trump might soon lose patience with Russia and thus “escalate to de-escalate” anyhow. He could always just walk away, however, but his recent posts suggest that he won’t.

Overall, Ukraine’s unprecedented provocation will escalate the conflict, but it’s unclear what will follow Russia’s inevitable retaliation. Russia will either coerce the concessions from Ukraine that Putin demands for peace; the US’ response to its retaliation will coerce concessions from Russia to Ukraine instead; or both will remain manageable and tomorrow’s talks will be inconclusive, thus likely only delaying the US’ seemingly inevitable escalated involvement. Tonight will therefore be fateful for the conflict’s future.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

RAY McGOVERN: Putin Would Not Rise to the Bait

June 4, 2025, https://consortiumnews.com/2025/06/04/ray-mcgovern-putin-would-not-rise-to-the-bait/

The black-eye given Russian security services will eventually heal while the artful destruction of a handful of bombers – like earlier high-profile, but misguided operations – will have zero effect on the war in Ukraine.

By Ray McGovern, Consortium News

Ukraine’s drone attacks on air bases deep inside Russia on Sunday were timed to provoke Russia into shunning the Russia-Ukraine talks set for the next day in Istanbul. Volodymyr Zelensky and his European puppeteers also may have thought they could provoke Vladimir Putin to escalate attacks on Ukraine to such a degree that the U.S. could not “walk away” from Ukraine without appearing cowardly.

The PR benefits of destroying Russian aircraft far from Ukraine was part of Kyiv’s calculus. It was a huge embarrassment and a tactical victory in a short-lived, narrow sense.

But the black-eye given Russian security services will eventually heal. Most important, the artful destruction of a handful of bombers – like earlier high-profile, but misguided operations – will have zero effect on the war in Ukraine.

Doing Diplomacy For Once

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio immediately after the drone attacks on the Russian air bases and the sabotage/destruction of two rail bridges in Russia earlier that day.

The Russian readout said that Secretary Rubio “conveyed sincere condolences on the civilian casualties from the rail infrastructure blasts in Russia’s Bryansk and Kursk regions.” This is a sign that Lavrov did not come in with accusatory guns blazing, so to speak.

It does seem certain that Lavrov asked Rubio whether he knew of the drone attacks beforehand. And what did President Trump know?

In my view, it is conceivable that neither had prior knowledge. When the drone operation was planned the geniuses working for Joe Biden were in charge of such things – the ones who destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines.

Most likely the U.S. was kept informed, but the operation itself bears the earmarks of the sabotage the British are so fond of carrying out – with particular lust after bridges.

They did so famously during World War II and they are quite good at it. Then, as now, such sabotage had little-to-no effect on the war – merely a transitory strengthening of their proverbial upper lip.

The Talks Went On, and Will Continue

Putin and Donald Trump wanted the negotiations in Istanbul to proceed, and those were their instructions to Lavrov and Rubio. They did, and with some tangible progress on small, but significant matters like the exchange of bodies. There was a highly important exchange of papers on the terms sought by each side, and a pledge to study them before the next meeting.

Bottom Line

The driving issue is bigger than Ukraine. Both Trump and Putin want improved U.S.-Russia relations. Other matters, including Ukraine, are secondary. As of now, at least, both sides seek a negotiated settlement to the war as the primary option.

And each side will do its best to avoid escalation and show a measured flexibility – and even patience – until such time as Ukraine’s army disintegrates.

It appears that this will happen soon. I believe that, at that point, Putin will be happy to supply as much lipstick as may be needed to conceal the pig of defeat for Ukraine-and-the-West.

Ray McGovern’s first portfolio as a C.I.A. analyst was Sino-Soviet relations. In 1963, their total trade was $220 MILLION; in 2023, $227 BILLION. Do the math.

June 7, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power will ruin France

Nuclear power will ruin France , by Laure Nouahlat, published by  Seuil , May 16, 2025, 224 p., 13.50 euros.

Neither the French population, nor any parliamentarian or senator had their say, as if nuclear power were democratically held above ground.


 Reporterre 16th May 2025,
https://reporterre.net/Le-nucleaire-va-ruiner-la-France

Despite the staggering cost of all-nuclear power, France is stuck in this impasse. Here are the excerpts from the investigative book ” 
 Nuclear Power Will Ruin France 
 .” Laure Noualhat dissects the mechanisms of this waste.

Is nuclear revival reasonable  ? According to Emmanuel Macron and many others, the nuclear ”  holy grail  “ would be the only solution to slow climate change and preserve our comfort. While the government is making savings at every turn, the sector seems to benefit from an unlimited budget.

It was announced Monday that the Cigéo nuclear waste disposal facility in Bure will cost up to €37.5 billion. To revive the industry, the bill will climb to at least €80 billion. As delays mount, these amounts are continually revised upwards. All this while EDF is already heavily in debt.

Where will the tens of billions of euros for these new EPRs  be found ? And the necessary investments in the existing fleet  ? It will be the State, that is, the taxpayer, who will pay.

This is what journalist Laure Noualhat demonstrates in her relentless investigative book, Nuclear Power Will Ruin France . The result of six months of investigation, it is published today in the Seuil- Reporterre collection and will be accompanied by a documentary broadcast on YouTube in early June. Through this extensive work, Reporterre is tackling a crucial issue for the future of the country, largely absent from public debate. Because these choices are made in total secrecy, Reporterre is shedding light on a subject that concerns us all.

Here are the previews of “ Nuclear  Power Will Ruin France ”: 

What were you doing on February 10, 2022  ? For the small world of energy, it was a memorable day. On that day, presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron stood behind a lectern under the immense tin roof of the General Electric plant in Belfort. His voice echoed like a cathedral. Behind him, GE teams had positioned a gigantic Arabelle turbine, 300 tons of gleaming steel lit as if it were an industrial museum piece.

A group of masked employees, all wearing the same electric blue construction jackets, listens learnedly to the president. Four years earlier, these women and men were part of Alstom’s energy division, the industrial flagship that former Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron had conscientiously dismantled during his time at the Ministry of Finance.

No matter, on this Thursday, February 10, the now President has just announced the ”  rebirth  “ of French nuclear power, boasted of national ”  sovereignty  “ and praised the merits of ”  planning  “ to address the challenges of the moment: reducing  our CO2 emissions by 55 % by 2050, ensuring France’s industrial development, and controlling the French people’s energy bill.

No law regulates presidential will

Regardless of the background—environmental, energy, nuclear, activist, industrial, or political—this speech hit the mark and is historic. With its delivery, President-candidate Macron has just rescued France from decades of uncertainty by relaunching the mass construction of nuclear reactors. Since its approval in 2003 by the National Assembly, the Flamanville EPR project has been mired in endless setbacks. In 2012, President Hollande chose a contrary path by enshrining in law the reduction of nuclear power’s share to 50  % of the electricity mix by 2025 (compared to 65-70  %) and to 30  % by 2030. In short, the socialist planned a slow phase-out of nuclear power, allowing for the preparation of the decommissioning of the oldest reactors, the ramp-up of renewables, and an unprecedented effort toward energy efficiency.

In February 2017, candidate Macron – a former minister under Hollande – took up this promise. 
” 
 I will maintain the framework of the energy transition law. I am therefore maintaining the 50 
 % target, 
 “ he confided to the 
WWF during a Facebook Live broadcast watched by 170,000 people and interviewed by… Pascal Canfin, who will join the President’s list for the 2019 European elections.

Five years later, facing General Electric employees, the Jupiterian president performed an about-face. Six 
EPR2s will emerge, he promises, built in pairs on three sites: in Penly in Normandy, in Gravelines in the North, and in Bugey in the Ain. And eight more will be under consideration. Neither the French population, nor any parliamentarian or senator had their say, as if nuclear power were democratically held above ground. Since this announcement, the program of the six EPR2s 
has still not been validated by any legal decision, much less by an ” 
 energy and climate programming law 
 ” ( 
PPE ), which should have been revised for the occasion.

To date, in 2025, no law governs the presidential will shaped by long years of lobbying (by associations such as Xavier Moreno’s Cérémé or Bernard Accoyer’s Nuclear Heritage & Climate, but also Voies du nucléaire or the French Nuclear Energy Society) since his arrival in power.

A colossal cost

Knocking down walls or hiding the misery, insulating here or repainting there, moving the pipes, changing the door… it’s difficult to ask a tradesman for a quote for work if you don’t know what you’re going to do. It’s the same with nuclear reactors.

As these lines are being written, in March 2025, three years after the Belfort speech, no one knows how much the  EPR2 will cost . This is normal: their detailed design has not been completed despite the 10.5 million hours of engineering already devoted to the project.

In February 2022, the government had put forward a construction cost of 51.7 billion (2020 euros). In 2023, 
EDF made two updates to the costing, noted by the Court of Auditors in its report on the 
EPR sector in January 2025: 
” 
 The overnight construction cost [as if the reactor were completed in a single night] of three pairs of 
EPR2s rose from 51.7 to 67.4 billion euros [2020 euros], an increase of 30 
 % under unchanged economic conditions and excluding the effect of inflation. 
 “ In 2023 euros, the bill reaches 80 billion. For comparison, this figure of 80 billion already represents four times the annual deficit of the Social Security…

June 7, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France, media, politics | Leave a comment

Ukrainian attack on Russian bombers shows how cheap drones could upset global security

The June 1 Spider Web operation likely marks the largest attack on a nuclear-armed state’s nuclear assets to date, one that was executed using laptop-sized drones.

While this represents an operational success for Ukraine, it is still unclear whether and how the drone attack will impact Russia’s conduct of the war. Some fear this operation could lead to a nuclear escalation

By Julien de Troullioud de Lanversin | June 5, 2025, https://thebulletin.org/2025/06/ukrainian-attack-on-russian-bombers-shows-how-cheap-drones-could-upset-global-security/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Drones%20attack%20on%20Russian%20bombers%20upset%20global%20security&utm_campaign=20250605%20Thursday%20Newsletter

On Sunday, social media started broadcasting videos of airfields shrouded with columns of smoke and parked airplanes on fire. These were not common airplanes but Russian strategic bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons virtually anywhere on the globe. Behind these attacks were small drones, like those used to capture scenic social media videos, remotely operated by Ukrainian pilots.

The day after, some Russian media and influential figures called for retaliation with nuclear strikes. On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly said in a phone call with President Donald Trump that he planned to retaliate against Ukraine for its surprise attack. According to a reading of the Russian nuclear doctrine, the Ukrainian attacks could technically prompt a nuclear retaliation by Russia.

This military operation is the latest illustration of how cheap, accessible drones are changing modern warfare. It also exposed another reality: Drones will wreak havoc on global stability if nobody controls their proliferation.

A turning point. Last week’s drone operation, which the Ukrainian military called “Operation Spider’s Web” and which was 18 months in the making, looked like it came straight out of a James Bond movie: More than a hundred first-person view drones were secretly shipped inside containers on commercial trucks sent toward locations deep inside Russian territory, nearby highly sensitive military airfields. With just a click from operators based in Ukraine, all containers’ roofs simultaneously opened, and drones navigated to their targets to unleash destruction. The number of aircraft damaged or destroyed is still unclear. (Ukrainian authorities claim 41 aircraft were destroyed.) What is certain, however, is that several of Russia’s most critical and advanced strategic nuclear-capable bombers were damaged.

The drones were likely “Osa” quadcopters, 13-15 inches in length and developed and assembled in Ukraine at a cost of around $600 to $1000 each, according to an early analysis of the attack by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Each drone likely carried an explosive payload of about 3.2 kilograms and detonated on impact with the targeted airplanes. To communicate with the drones, Ukrainian operators are believed to have used Russian mobile telecommunication networks, such as 4G and LTE connections. It is also likely that the drones were supported by artificial intelligence systems to give them autonomy in case the telecommunication with the operators would break, and to assist in precisely targeting identified weak spots on the airplanes.The drones were likely “Osa” quadcopters, 13-15 inches in length and developed and assembled in Ukraine at a cost of around $600 to $1000 each, according to an early analysis of the attack by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Each drone likely carried an explosive payload of about 3.2 kilograms and detonated on impact with the targeted airplanes. To communicate with the drones, Ukrainian operators are believed to have used Russian mobile telecommunication networks, such as 4G and LTE connections. It is also likely that the drones were supported by artificial intelligence systems to give them autonomy in case the telecommunication with the operators would break, and to assist in precisely targeting identified weak spots on the airplanes.

The June 1 Spider Web operation likely marks the largest attack on a nuclear-armed state’s nuclear assets to date, one that was executed using laptop-sized drones. It also stands as the most significant demonstration of drones’ ability to penetrate deeply into heavily defended territory with significant strategic impact. While this represents an operational success for Ukraine, it is still unclear whether and how the drone attack will impact Russia’s conduct of the war. Some fear this operation could lead to a nuclear escalation.

For decades, major powers have pursued so-called strategic stability, a situation in which nuclear adversaries are deterred from launching direct military attacks against one another due to their mutually destructive nuclear capabilities. States also realized that continuing to develop more weapons in a never-ending arms race was costly and increased the risks of conflicts. This is why they agreed to engage in arms control and arms reduction, while making sure to maintain strategic stability.

But this fragile balance between great powers has always been vulnerable to new and disruptive technologies such as microchips, precision-guided missiles, or cybertechnology. Drones, especially small and cheap ones, represent a unique challenge to this balance, one that often evades the grasp of major powers.

‘Cheap drone’ warfare. Drone technology is not new. It was already used during the Cold War and has been a hallmark of the war in Iraq, with its precision strikes in the middle of the desert. Military powers such as the United States, Russia, and China have long invested in and developed expensive, highly advanced drones for various missions. Enhanced by artificial intelligence and increasing autonomy, modern drones have already promised to transform warfare by enabling operations without risking human pilots and possibly transforming the decision-making of those using them.

Things took another turn in the 2010s.

Enabled by advances in microelectronics and battery technologies, smaller and cheaper drones started to be mass-produced for commercial purposes by companies like DJI and others. It did not take long for the military to adapt these drones for warfare purposes. Combined with cutting-edge telecommunication technology, these smaller drones could form intelligent swarms and offer real-time video feeds to their operators.

This time, the nuclear powers were not the only ones to engage in the arms race. Unlike other delivery systems, such as missiles or jet fighters that have significantly higher entry costs, smaller states and even non-state actors could acquire inexpensive drones and transform them into rudimentary but effective “air force” and delivery systems.

The simplicity of their acquisition, use, and diffusion into the hands of actors of various sizes around the globe is what makes cheap drones such a game-changer for modern warfare—and now also for global security.

These inexpensive drones enable smaller states to conduct effective asymmetric warfare against more powerful opponents. It is in great part thanks to its drone force that Ukraine has stood its ground against the world’s second-largest military since 2022. Reports indicate that small drones may have contributed to up to 70 percent of Russian equipment losses so far in the conflict—and this number is likely to become higher if the war continues, given Ukraine’s rapidly growing drone production capacity.

More crucially, cheap drones can be used to sabotage well-defended strategic assets. In what is often described as terrorist acts, Yemen’s Houthis have used drones to attack commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, thereby disrupting about 12 percent of global trade in 2024. Houthis’ drones also destroyed Saudi Arabia’s critical oil infrastructure, disrupting 5 percent of global oil supply in 2019.

But the most striking instance of their strategic reach remains the Ukrainian operation of June 1. This operation also foreshadows a dangerous shift in global stability.

Risk of escalation. Historically, only major nuclear powers had effective means to inflict damage on the nuclear capabilities of other major powers. And for most nuclear-armed states, an attack on their nuclear capabilities, even a conventional one, called for nuclear retaliation. To avoid nuclear escalation, nuclear powers have carefully crafted doctrines, strategies, and agreements between themselves to create predictability and increase strategic stability. But to a certain extent, this system of balance was not designed with the expectation that smaller actors could threaten critical nuclear assets of the nuclear-armed states.

Smaller states with no nuclear capabilities and less familiar with the game of strategic stability, like Ukraine, might not fully realize the direct or indirect risk of nuclear escalation that their drone operations could entail. More alarming, non-state actors could also potentially actively seek to initiate a nuclear escalation between nuclear adversaries with drone-enabled false flag operations.

Discussions around drone regulation in war often center around their ethical uses and their level of AI-powered autonomy, which are certainly crucial issues to tackle. But states must also recognize the highly disruptive impact that cheap and widely accessible drones can have not only on warfare but on global security and stability.

One way forward is to implement strict export control and purchase regulations on small drones, such as those implemented for small firearms. Such policies will inevitably collide with the booming industry and market of small, cheap drones that are increasingly popular for commercial purposes and leisure activities. But states will need to work on some form of control of drone export and weaponization, lest they are willing to risk more nuclear crises.

June 7, 2025 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Let’s not pretend nuclear works

  Funding the Future, Richard Murphy, June 6 2025, https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/06/06/lets-not-pretend-nuclear-works/

As the Public Accounts Committee has reported this week:

The retrieval of waste from ageing buildings at the most hazardous nuclear site in the UK is not happening quickly enough.

In its report on decommissioning Sellafield, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warns that the estimated £136bn cost of the project would rise even more if work is further delayed, while expressing scepticism as to whether or not recent signs of improvement in performance could represent another false dawn.

The PAC found in 2018 that government needed a firmer grip on Sellafield’s nuclear challenges, and now warns that not enough progress has been made in addressing its most significant hazards.

One building, the Magnox Swarf Storage Silo (MSSS), has been leaking radioactive water into the ground since 2018 – the PAC calculates, at current rates, enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool roughly every three years. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) accepts this leak is its “single biggest environmental issue”, but that the radioactive particles are “contained” in the soil and do not pose a risk to the public.

The PAC’s report finds that Sellafield Ltd has missed most of its annual targets for retrieving waste from several buildings on the site, including the MSSS. The PAC’s inquiry heard that the MSSS is the most hazardous building in the UK, and as a result of Sellafield Ltd’s underperformance will likely remain extremely hazardous for longer. The report seeks answers from Government on how it will hold the NDA and Sellafield Ltd to account in ameliorating the site’s greatest hazards.

Nuclear power created the most hazardous building in the UK.

The cost of nuclear cleanups is staggering.

And still, we pretend that nuclear power is a cost-effective way of generating power.

Who do those making this claim think are fooled by it?

June 7, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Zelensky Offers to Broker Peace Between Musk and Trump

KYIV (The Borowitz Report) 7 June 25

—In a bold attempt at high-stakes diplomacy, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offered on Friday to broker a peace deal between Elon Musk and Donald J. Trump.

“It is time for the fighting to stop,” Zelenskyy said to Musk and Trump. “And I am willing to make the ultimate sacrifice: sitting in the same room as the two of you.”

Addressing Trump, the Ukrainian declared, “Mr. President, Elon gave you 250 million dollars, and you haven’t said ‘thank you’ once.”

June 7, 2025 Posted by | culture and arts | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s dangerous new ‘gift’ to Washington

Striking Russia’s nuclear assets, Ukraine’s audacious operation newly imperils arms control and ensures that the war will drag on.

Aaron Maté, Jun 07, 2025

An audacious Ukrainian drone attack on four military bases across Russia, dubbed Operation Spider’s Web, handed Moscow one of its worst humiliations of the war. With a fleet of inexpensive drones hidden inside cargo trucks, Ukrainian intelligence penetrated deep inside Russian territory and caused significant damage to military aircraft, including long-range, nuclear-capable bombers. “The strike was a serious blow, and to suggest otherwise is self-delusion verging on sabotage,” wrote Rybar, a popular pro-Kremlin social media channel.

For Ukraine and its Western backers, the strikes reinforce their ability to inflict significant costs on Russia more than three years into an invasion that Kyiv was expected to lose within days — and bolster the case for continued US support. For Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, the images of smoldering Russian aircraft “help change the rhetoric in the US,” where it can no longer be said, as Donald Trump argued in their Oval Office showdown, that “Ukrainians are losing this war, and don’t have the cards.” Added former senior Zelensky aide Oleg Ustenko: “Trump said we don’t have the cards — this shows we do have the cards, and we can play them.”

Powerful elements in Washington would undoubtedly agree. By targeting part of Russia’s nuclear triad, “[s]ome officials said Ukraine’s drone attacks could be viewed as a gift to the United States,” the New York Times reported. Days after visiting Kyiv to promote his push for harsh sanctions on Russia’s trading partners, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham hailed Ukraine’s “ever-resourceful” effort “to successfully attack Russian bombers and military assets.”

As grateful proxy war sponsors like Graham illustrate, Ukraine had ample grounds to believe that it was handing the US a “gift.”…………………………………………………………………………..https://www.aaronmate.net/p/ukraines-dangerous-new-gift-to-washington?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=165354982&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

June 7, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »