“Another Monroe Doctrine”: Journalists Warn U.S. Strikes on Venezuela Signal a New Era of Intervention
By Joshua Scheer, January 5, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/01/05/another-monroe-doctrine-journalists-warn-u-s-strikes-on-venezuela-signal-a-new-era-of-intervention/
ith reporting from the streets of Caracas and analysis from Vijay Prashad, BreakThrough News breaks down what’s unfolding in Venezuela — from local resistance to the United States’ emerging new Monroe Doctrine.
Venezuelan journalist Andreína Chávez Alava, reporting from Caracas, describes the aftermath of the U.S. strikes and the capture of President Maduro. According to her reporting, local communities are organizing, following guidance from authorities, and preparing to “resist in the streets” in a show of solidarity. Chávez characterizes the attack as “an illegal U.S. bombing against a civilian population” and frames it as part of a broader effort to force regime change and assert control over Venezuela’s political direction and oil resources. She also warns that the operation may mark the opening phase of a wider U.S. campaign in Latin America, referring to it as “another Monroe Doctrine,” and says she intends to “continue denouncing by every means necessary” what she views as an assault on Venezuela.
In an interview from Caracas, Venezuelan journalist Andrea Nach Chavez describes the aftermath of a pre-dawn U.S. military attack on Venezuela, reporting that strikes hit multiple locations, including residential areas—contradicting Washington’s claim that only military targets were struck. Chavez asserts that President Nicolás Maduro has been kidnapped by the United States, rejecting U.S. narratives of an arrest or lawful capture and calling for proof of life and his immediate return.
Chavez reports that crowds have gathered in the streets of Caracas, not in celebration—as some Western outlets have suggested—but in solidarity and outrage, denouncing the attack as an illegal act of war and a renewed attempt at regime change aimed at seizing control of Venezuela’s oil resources. She dismisses U.S. claims about democracy promotion and drug trafficking as long-standing pretexts for intervention.
The interview also addresses what Chavez describes as a coordinated campaign of psychological warfare and misinformation, particularly on social media, contrasting it with the Venezuelan government’s insistence that Maduro remains the country’s legitimate president and its call for popular and institutional resistance.
Contrary to portrayals of chaos, Chavez describes a population responding with calm vigilance: businesses largely closed, communities checking on one another, and people focused on securing essentials rather than celebrating political upheaval. She emphasizes that years of U.S. sanctions—especially the devastating measures imposed in 2017–2018 that crippled the oil industry and triggered a humanitarian crisis—have hardened Venezuela’s capacity for resilience and self-organization.
Chavez points to community-based food distribution programs and renewed domestic production as evidence that Venezuela has become less vulnerable to external pressure. She concludes by stressing the strength of the civilian-military alliance and the necessity of international solidarity from Latin America and the Global South, warning that the current assault signals a broader U.S. interventionist strategy rooted in a revived Monroe Doctrine. The interviewer underscores the critical role of independent and community journalists in countering Western media narratives and documenting events on the ground.
Vijay Prashad, Executive Director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research, offers his analysis of the U.S. strikes on Venezuela and the capture of President Maduro. In his view, the operation is driven by Washington’s long‑standing interest in controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves and weakening the Bolivarian Revolution. Prashad describes what he calls the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, placing the current actions within a broader historical pattern of U.S. intervention in Latin America. He also warns that Trump’s recent claim that the United States will “run Venezuela” could lead to what he characterizes as “a worse fiasco than Iraq.”
Prashad interprets Trump’s remarks not merely as bluster but as an implicit admission that Washington lacks a viable civilian proxy capable of governing Venezuela. He points to the political weakness and internal divisions of the U.S.-backed opposition—particularly the inability of figures like María Corina Machado to consolidate power—as well as the reconvening of Venezuela’s National Assembly, which complicates U.S. plans for a clean political handover.
Drawing on Trump’s past criticisms of the Iraq War, Prashad recalls Trump’s argument that the U.S. should have directly seized Iraq’s oil to finance the occupation. He notes that the legal groundwork for U.S. intervention in Venezuela predates Trump, tracing it to a 2015 Obama-era executive order that declared Venezuela a national security threat—an order Trump has expanded and weaponized.
While skeptical of the U.S. capacity to directly govern Venezuela—given catastrophic failures in Iraq and Afghanistan—Prashad warns that Trump’s rhetoric cannot be dismissed as harmless. Even limited intervention, he argues, could result in a debacle surpassing previous U.S. military disasters.
The discussion situates recent U.S. military strikes and electronic warfare operations in the Caribbean within a broader strategic doctrine. Prashad explains that Trump’s national security strategy revives the Monroe Doctrine, asserting unilateral U.S. dominance over the Western Hemisphere—a doctrine he describes as updated through a “Trump corollary” that justifies intervention by any means necessary. He likens recent operations to the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden, suggesting a similar strategy of overwhelming force combined with symbolic spectacle.
Prashad further argues that Venezuela is only one node in a larger destabilization strategy aimed at isolating Nicaragua and Cuba, while facilitating a regional political shift. He points to the decline of Latin America’s “pink tide” governments and the rise of an “angry tide” of right-wing regimes, warning that upcoming elections in countries like Brazil and Colombia could further consolidate this shift.
Addressing economic justifications for intervention, Prashad rebuts claims—such as those made by Stephen Miller—that Venezuelan oil constitutes stolen “American wealth.” He explains that the Chávez government did not nationalize oil outright, but instead asserted greater state control over surplus extraction through the 2001 hydrocarbons law. The framing of Venezuelan oil as inherently American, he notes, has long been central to U.S. policy, reinforced by figures like Rex Tillerson, the former ExxonMobil CEO and Trump’s secretary of state.
Prashad emphasizes that U.S. interest in Venezuela is not driven by domestic energy needs—since the U.S. is a major oil exporter—but by the desire to control global energy flows and prevent oil revenues from supporting left-wing governments or international solidarity efforts, such as aid to Haiti.
In closing, Prashad offers a personal reflection on President Maduro, describing him as a reluctant leader who inherited a historic crisis rather than seeking power. He cautions against sections of the left abandoning Maduro without reckoning with the broader structures of imperial power at play. The discussion concludes with a call to engage with Tricontinental’s research on hyperimperialism and the shifting political terrain of Latin America and the Global South.
HOW ONTARIO KEEPS THE TRUE COST OF NUCLEAR POWER OFF YOUR HYDRO BILL
Toronto Star, MARCO CHOWN OVED CLIMATE CHANGE REPORTER, 11 Jan 2026, https://www.pressreader.com/article/282007563777540
Electricity prices in Ontario have long proven to be politically toxic.
Rapid increases between 2009 and 2016 contributed to the downfall of the Liberal governments of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne.
Doug Ford and his Progressive Conservatives were elected on a pledge to bring hydro bills down, and the rapid increases have since ended — though it’s not because power is cheaper. The true costs are now invisible to the consumer.
For 15 years, Ontarians saw the cost of nuclear power on their hydro bills each month. Between 2002 and 2017, there was a line item called the “debt retirement charge” that enlisted every ratepayer to chip away at more than $20 billion in debt left over from the splitup of Ontario Hydro — debt largely run up by construction overruns at the Darlington nuclear plant, which was completed in 1993. The nuclear debt was removed from bills in 2018 — but it didn’t disappear. Instead, it was added onto the provincial books, where it is now considered part of the general public debt. As of last year, more than 30 years after Darlington went online, there was still $11.9 billion in debt remaining.
The province also brought in the Ontario Electricity Rebate, which subsidizes power bills with taxpayer dollars. While the rebate was introduced under McGuinty, Ford recently nearly doubled it — with an estimated price tag of $8.5 billion annually — to absorb an almost 30 per cent hike to the price of electricity.
The Ford government has blamed rate increases on the previous Liberal government’s Green Energy Act, which paid a premium for renewable energy in an effort to kickstart a domestic wind and solar industry. The domestic renewables manufacturing sector failed to take off in the face of competition from China, but more than 33,000 renewable projects remain on the grid at inflated prices on 20year contracts. Today, these legacy contracts have pushed the cost of solar power up to the point that it’s the highest among all types of generation in Ontario, when measured by kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity produced. Wind isn’t far behind.
But what the per kWh figures hide is that renewables make up such a small proportion of the energy production mix that they cannot be responsible for overall rate increases, according to a Star analysis of Ontario Energy Board and Independent Electricity System Operator data. Even though solar costs threeandahalf times more than nuclear per kWh, it only accounted for two per cent of the total cost of electricity in 2024 — too little to drive overall cost increases. Nuclear, by contrast, accounted for 56 per cent of Ontario’s total cost of electricity last year. And while the costs of legacy renewables are inflated, they’re fixed or even going down as their contracts expire and have been renewed at 30 per cent less than they were paid previously.
In contrast, nuclear costs keep going up. The refurbishment of the Pickering plant will cost three times more per kWh than the refurbishments of Darlington and four times more than Bruce. The costs of these refurbishments will start to be added to hydro bills when they return to service.
Because nuclear makes up such a large part of the electricity mix, even a little increase to the cost of nuclear will affect the price Ontarians pay for electricity — either via monthly bills or taxpayer funds.
Spending big on nuclear
Ontario is investing billions into reactors — even as the rest of the world turns to solar and wind. Is this the wrong bet?
Toronto Star, MARCO CHOWN OVED, 11 Jan 2026, https://www.pressreader.com/article/281865829856772
In the race to prepare for an electrified future of AI, data centres, EVs and heat pumps, Ontario has placed a big bet on nuclear.
With more than $73 billion committed to building new and refurbishing old reactors — and two more plants in the pipeline that could add tens of billions more — Ontario taxpayers are counting on nuclear energy to pay off for decades to come.
Widely hailed for its ability to provide massive amounts of stable, emissionsfree power that the province will need to electrify the economy, nuclear has emerged as a solution advocates say is crucial to avoid the worst effects of climate change — all while supporting a wellestablished local industry. A single nuclear plant can provide the same amount of power as tens of thousands of solar panels and wind turbines — even when the wind isn’t blowing, and the sun isn’t shining.
“Nuclear brings a set of attributes and characteristics that you really can’t find with any other generating source,” said Brendan Frank, Director of Policy and Strategy at Clean Prosperity, a climate policy think tank. It’s large scale, [?] clean and reliable with a small land footprint, he says. “There’s a lot to like about nuclear.”
But the promise of nuclear power is tempered by the potential for peril.
Critics say nuclear proponents have never been able to address existing reactors’ significant shortcomings, including decadelong construction timelines, consistently large cost overruns, and the tiny but nonzero risk of catastrophic accidents. The cost considerations alone risk undermining the fight against climate change by making clean power more expensive than burning fossil fuels.
“Baked right into the nuclear option is centralization, a reliance on technical elites, the need for longterm stewardship and paramilitary security, a low tolerance for failure, and the acceptance of uninsurable risks,” said Ralph Torrie, the head of research with Corporate Knights and a veteran energy analyst.
And unlike nuclear opponents of the 1980s, today’s critics have a ready alternative in renewable energy, which is being built at an unprecedented speed and scale all over the world. Last year, more than 90 per cent of new power brought online globally has been wind and solar. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry has been mired in a 25year decline with more reactors decommissioned than built, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Nuclear power is yesterday’s technology, the critics say.
“Every dollar we spend on new nuclear plants or reconditioning 20thcentury nuclear steam generators drives up the cost of building a sustainable energy system in Ontario and puts us further behind in the energy transition that is a defining feature of successful 21stcentury economies,” Torrie said.
In the search for climate solutions, the debate over nuclear power is particularly acute. For proponents, global warming cannot be addressed without a nuclear renaissance. For opponents, nuclear is a trap that diverts resources from better solutions while committing us for decades to a technology that has never lived up to its promises.
And Ontario has already picked its side.
“We’re doubling down on nuclear,” Energy Minister Stephen Lecce told the Star in an interview.
“If you care about jobs for Canadians, if you care about an ethical supply chain using a clean grid, not a coalfired grid, if you care about human rights, the rule of law, fundamental Canadian values, and the economic advantages for the workers, for the women and men who work in this province, then you will unapologetically defend and promote Ontario’s nuclear advantage, which is now an envy of the world.”
Why nuclear is considered a `very expensive’ option
This June, the province laid out a 25year road map for the electricity system that relies overwhelmingly on nuclear. It projects a massive 75 per cent increase in demand for power, the equivalent of adding fourandahalf Torontos to the grid. While there have been some investments in battery storage and hydro, most of this energy will come from refurbishing the existing fleet of reactors and building new ones, including one in Wesleyville — on the shore of Lake Ontario to the east of the existing Pickering and Darlington plants — that would be the world’s biggest nuclear plant. In doing so, the province would triple its nuclear generation, exceeding the entire electricity system’s output today.
“Ontario is putting a lot of eggs in a very expensive basket,” said David Pickup, an energy analyst at the Pembina Institute and the author of a report highlighting the risks of the province’s nuclear build out……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.pressreader.com/article/281865829856772
Here’s who really weaponizes children in the Russia-Ukraine conflict
As accusations of abductions resurface, it’s clear the West doesn’t care about facts on the ground if they contradict the narrative.
By Eva Bartlett, a Canadian independent journalist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years). 9 Jan, 2026 https://www.rt.com/news/630762-russia-ukraine-abducted-children/
For the last three years, Ukraine and concerted legacy media campaigns have been screaming that Russia has abducted, or forcibly displaced, thousands of Ukrainian children – even up to 1.5 million!
The accusations resurged in December, with a UN General Assembly vote on a draft resolution on the return of Ukrainian children.
During the meeting, Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa once again pushed claims that “at least 20,000 Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia,” in spite of the fact that months prior, during the June Istanbul talks, the Ukrainian side finally provided a list of the children it accuses Russia of abducting: 339 children, surprisingly far fewer than the number alleged for years.
The absence of over 19,500 on the list indeed leads to many questions, mainly: is Ukraine lying again? Recall that in 2022, the accusations by the (now former) Ukrainian ombudswoman, Lyudmila Denisova, about “sexual atrocities” allegedly committed by Russian soldiers, were revealed to be lies and propaganda. So much so that Denisova was sacked. But before her dismissal, legacy media and the UN all backed the lies.
Some recent accusations are that children were being sent to labor camps in Russia – “165 re-education camps where Ukrainian children are militarized and Russified” – or even of being sent to North Korea, as Katerina Rashevskaya of the Ukrainian Regional Center for Human Rights told the US Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs on December 3.
The footnotes of the claims made by Rashevskaya, instead of a source for the information, say “The Regional Human Rights Center can provide information upon request.” In other words, her sources are “trust me, bro.”
Regarding the North Korean camp in question, if two Russian teens were sent there, they’d potentially be made to enjoy water slides, basketball and volleyball courts, an arcade room, a rock climbing wall, art and performance halls, an archery range, a private beach, and hikes in the mountains.
Regarding the list of 339 children Ukraine says were abducted by Russia, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova remarked, “30 percent of the names on the list could not be verified, as most of those children were never in Russia, are now adults, or have already returned to their families. As for the Ukrainian children who are actually in our country, they are under state care in appropriate institutions. They are safe now; in many cases, their evacuation from combat zones saved their lives. Local children’s rights commissioners are now working to reunite them with their relatives.”
Just as legacy media has whitewashed the eight years of Ukraine’s war against Donbass civilians prior to Russia commencing its military operation in 2022, including the Ukrainian shelling which killed 250 children starting in 2014, media likewise ignore the children Russia says are missing.
During the talks in Istanbul, Zakharova noted, “the Russian side presented Ukraine with a list of 20 Russian children who are either currently in Ukraine or relocated from Ukraine to Western Europe, including to countries that endorsed this very statement. Now, the burden falls on these states to provide Russia with a substantive response regarding our ‘list of 20.’”
Over 500 Ukrainian orphans abused in Türkiye
Recently, Donbass-based journalist Christelle Néant wrote about a report published on a pro-Ukrainian website which broke the story of 510 Ukrainian children who had been evacuated by a Ukrainian oligarch in 2022 from Dnepropetrovsk to Türkiye, where the benevolent foundation which brought them there allegedly allowed its staff to beat the children, sexually assault them, and deny them food if they refused to perform on camera to raise funds for their lodging. These are just some of the reported violations of the orphans’ rights.
The details of the report show that the children suffered physically and psychologically. Additionally, two underage teens were impregnated by staff at the hotel they stayed in, with educators allegedly aware of the interactions.
According to Néant, the orphanage director’s response to the fact of one of the teens in her care becoming pregnant was to blame the girl: “This young girl comes from an asocial family. Well, this way of life is already inscribed in every cell, in the blood of these children.”
“In almost 10 years of work in Donbass,” Néant wrote, “I have conducted or filmed many humanitarian missions to orphanages in the region. And never ever have I heard a director make such vile remarks about one of the children in her care. Even the most difficult and recalcitrant were cared for with pedagogy, love, and patience.”
Ukraine hunting down children
In April 2023, Christelle Néant and I interviewed Artyomovsk civilians who had recently been rescued by Russian soldiers. In addition to being deliberately shelled by Ukrainian forces who knew they were sheltering in the basement of a residential building, the civilians we spoke to told us about Ukrainian military police hunting for children.
The evacuees told us some of these police went by the name ‘White Angels’, and were taking childrenaway without their consent or that of their parents.
Around that time, more reports came out about these abductions or attempted abductions, including an 11-year-old girl who spoke of how White Angels, who introduced themselves as military police, came to the basement she was sheltering in with a photo of her, looking for her, and saying they needed to take her away, because “Russia killed her mother.” According to the girl, her mother was alive and with her.
Reports of these abductions also emerged in Avdeyevka, Kupyansk, Slavyansk, Chasov Yar and Konstantinovka, as well as in Ukrainsk and Zhelannoye.
Néant wrote of a July 2023 conference on Ukraine’s crimes against the Donbass children, in which Liliya and her daughter Kira from Schastye, in the Lugansk People’s Republic, spoke.
They gave evidence of how, “at the start of the special military operation (when Ukraine controlled Schastye), around ten children were taken from a school in Schastye to western Ukraine by the headmistress of the school, on orders from Kiev, without informing their parents.”
The children were even forbidden to call their parents, Néant wrote, “But Kira knew her mother’s telephone number by heart and managed to call her to let her know that they were in Lviv and then Khoust. Thanks to Liliya’s determination to find her daughter, we discovered how Kiev ‘exports’ the children it abducts.” Ukraine had forged a new “original” birth certificate for Kira. The girl said she and the other children were to be sent to Poland.
Former SBU officer Vasily Prozorov spoke at the same conference, where he explained, according to Néant, “that one of his investigations had revealed that some of the children abducted by Ukraine are sent to pedophile networks in Great Britain, via a whole network of Ukrainian and British officials or former officials who work together. On the British side, members of MI6 and the Foreign Office are involved.”
Prozorov, she wrote, spoke of “another of his investigations on organizations registered in EU countries involved in ‘exporting’ children from Ukraine under the pretext of providing them with shelter. These organizations take unaccompanied Ukrainian children out of Ukraine. What happens to them afterwards is unknown.”
Evacuees from Kherson reject ‘abduction’ claims
In November 2022, in the southern Russian seaside city Anapa, I met numerous people displaced from Kherson who were being lodged in hotels and apartments in the city.
The first site I visited was a few minutes by taxi outside of the city, one of many hotels along the coast. The hotel director showing me around said they don’t call them refugees, “we call them guests of the building,” and spoke affectionately of them, how grateful they were to be there, far from any shelling. Just under 500 refugees had been living there since October, she told me.
No guards monitored the entrance/exit; the refugees walked around tidy grounds. But in any case, I asked about their freedom of movement, or lack thereof.
“They move freely, of course. We don’t prohibit them from going out. Many aren’t here now because they’re in town, looking for jobs, getting documents. Children are at school.”
With my hired translator, I spoke with two Kherson women, a young mother and her own mother, to hear their stories.
“We were living with explosions at night, it was very scary, not only for myself, but for my children and for my grandchildren,” the older woman said. “When you go to bed, you don’t know if you will get out of bed in the morning. We were forced to leave.”
I asked who was shelling them. “Word of mouth transmits very clearly, and people around us spoke about it. We were bombed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Russian soldiers protected us.”
The younger woman said she used to speak with the Russian soldiers there. “They are friendly. We wanted to hug them, because we felt protected. They helped us, gave us humanitarian aid, brought it to the house.”
Some minutes’ taxi ride away, I visited an apartment complex that could have served tourists in summer. There, fifty buildings housed around 1,500 refugees who had also arrived in October, mostly from Kherson Region.
My translator and I walked around, passing playgrounds, a pharmacy, a library, a swimming pool, a gym, a small petting zoo with peacocks, and a kindergarten. Near a playground, I spoke with a mother sitting on a bench with two of her four children.
“In the early days, there was bombing. We spent two and a half weeks in the basement. It was unbearable, the children were very afraid.” One of her daughters became ill. “She had acute inflammation of the lower jaw, we think due to hypothermia. We took her to Simferopol and she had surgery.”
In Anapa, she said, her children had full medical examinations. “We were helped by the mayor of the city of Anapa. We are grateful for everything.”
I mentioned that according to Western media, she and her family were kidnapped by Russia. She replied that her husband’s parents had demanded to see the children, having been told that children were being separated from their parents in Russia.
“His mother called three days in a row, saying, ‘Where are the children?’ We answered, ‘They went to the cinema. They’re playing, etc.’ She said, ‘Show me the children, they say that they took your children from you.’”
Details matter
Whereas legacy media continue to push the “Evil Russia child kidnapper” narrative, there is ample evidence that Ukraine is guilty of doing precisely what it accuses Russia of. The is also a significant absence of evidence regarding the ‘20,000 kidnapped children’ claims still being pushed.
Will media investigate the reports of abuse of Ukrainian children in Türkiye? Surely not. It wouldn’t suit their scripted anti-Russia bias.
The Coalition of the Willing has achieved nothing
‘we agreed to finalise binding commitments setting out our approach to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. These may include, military capabilities, intelligence and so on.’
In diplomatic parlance, agreeing to finalise commitments that may include basically means that nothing has been agreed.
What the declaration does achieve is to commit European nations to paying Ukraine to maintain an army of 800,000 personnel after the war ends which, by the way, is significantly higher than the total number of armed forces personnel of Germany, France and Britain combined.
Time to be more direct in telling Zelensky what he should do
Ian Proud, Jan 13, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/the-coalition-of-the-willing-has?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=184
The war in Ukraine happened because western nations insisted that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO but were never willing to fight to guarantee that right.
That reality has never changed. Last week’s latest Summit of the Coalition of the Willing confirmed that it will not change any time soon.
The only countries that appear remotely willing to deploy troops to Ukraine in a vague and most certainly limited way are the British and French.
Both would need parliamentary approval which can’t be guaranteed. Reform Leader Nigel Farage has already come out to say that he wouldn’t back a vote to deploy British troops to Ukraine because we simply don’t have enough men or equipment, a point recently reinforced by General (ret’d) Sir richard Shirreff.
Even though Keir Starmer has the parliamentary numbers to pass any future vote on deploying British troops, it would almost certainly damage his already catastrophic polling numbers.
Macron is clinging on to his political life and would probably face a tougher tussle to get his parliament to approve the French sending their troops to Ukraine, potentially leaving the UK on its own.
In any case, it is completely obvious that Russia won’t agree to any deployment in Ukraine by NATO troops. This shows once again that western leaders have learned absolutely nothing over the past decade. It will never be possible to insist that Russia sues for peace under terms which is has long made clear are unacceptable at a time when it was winning on the battlefield, and European nations refuse to fight with their own troops.
Hawkish British journalist Edward Lucas, with whom I disagree on most things, summed it up well in an opinion in the Times Newspaper when he said
We are promising forces we do not have, to enforce a ceasefire that does not exist, under a plan that has yet to be drawn up, endorsed by a superpower (read the US) that is no longer our ally, to deter an adversary that has far greater willpower than we do.’
President Putin has shown an absolute determination not to back down until his core aims, namely to prevent NATO expansion, are achieved. And as I have said many times, the west can’t win a war by committee.
All of these pointless Coalition of the Willing meetings happen in circumstances where Europe refuses to talk to Russia upon whom an end to the war depends. Peace will only break out after Ukraine and Russia sign a deal, and the west appears deliberately to be doing everything possible to ensure that Russia never signs.
Instead, we entertain Zelensky with hugs and handshakes, reassuring him that we will do anything he wants for as long as he needs, only to offer insufficient help all of the time.
And, as Zelensky is in any case unelected, not likely to win elections in Ukraine as and when they happen, overseeing a corrupt regime that is adopting increasingly repressive tactics to keep a losing war going, it is not in his interest to see the war anyway.
His calculus continues to be that, if he clings on for long enough, the west will finally be dragged into a direct war with Russia. So, he’s happy to drag out an endless cycle of death by committee in which European leaders never agree to give him exactly what he wants and he uses that as a pretext not to settle.
Zelensky went on from Paris to Cyprus where, among other things, he has been pushing for more sanctions against Russia. At no point since 2014 have sanctions looked remotely likely to work against Russia, for reasons I have outlined many times.
The European Commission is now planning its twentieth round of sanctions to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the war on 24 February 2026. So with peace talks ongoing, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas as always are doing their bit to ensure that nothing gets agreed.
None of this brings the war any closer to an end nor does it provide any security guarantees to Ukraine. As always, the biggest security guarantee should be the offer by European allies to intervene militarily in Ukraine should Russia decide to reinvade after any future peace deal.
But that was not agreed in Paris. Instead, the Paris Declaration said, ‘we agreed to finalise binding commitments setting out our approach to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. These may include, military capabilities, intelligence and so on.’
In diplomatic parlance, agreeing to finalise commitments that may include basically means that nothing has been agreed.
The declaration also said:
We stand ready to commit to a system of politically and legally binding guarantees. However, the final communique gave individual countries opt outs from those guarantees by saying that any guarantees would be, ‘in accordance with our respective legal and constitutional arrangements’.
So, again, in diplomatic parlance, what this means is that some coalition members may be able to opt out of the security guarantees if they decide that their domestic framework does not allow for such an arrangement, thinking here in particular of Hungary, Italy and Spain, for example.
What the declaration does achieve is to commit European nations to paying Ukraine to maintain an army of 800,000 personnel after the war ends which, by the way, is significantly higher than the total number of armed forces personnel of Germany, France and Britain combined.
Even though these are Ukrainian troops, not European, Russia will undoubtedly see EU funding of a large Ukrainian army on its border as a form of NATO lite. Which, of course, Zelensky would welcome.’
So the process of holding near weekly Coalition of the Willing summits is entirely pointless, though perhaps that is the point. Since 2022, western leaders have been completely unable to say no to Zelensky, either through guilt or stupidity, or both.
Yet at some point, if only for their own political survival, Starmer and others will have to politely decline to offer more support and make it clear to Zelensky that he has no choice but to sue for peace. To me, at least, the European offer to Zelensky follows these lines:
Ukraine cannot join NATO (sorry we lied to you about that) but you can join the European Union and we will help you make the reforms you need to do so.
You will get significant investment when the war ends that boosts your economy. As your people return home, we believe Ukraine has potential to grow quickly and reconstruct.
However, it may still be many years before you receive EU subsidies on the level of other European Members, and you possibly may not receive them at all.
And you will have to become financially sustainable, including meeting the EU’s fiscal deficit like other EU member states.
I’m afraid that means that you won’t be able to maintain an army of 800,000 people at Europe’s expense (sorry we reassured you that you could).
But, as a European Union member you would have a security guarantee by virtue of your membership of this community, even though only Macron’s France has said it would send you troops (je m’excuse).
You should also be aware that Europe sees benefit in a normalised economic relationship with Russia, that includes purchasing cheap Russian energy. We can’t go on buying massively expensive US LNG just to avoid hurting your feelings.
Sanctions may have been a policy or war, but they won’t be a policy of peace, and you will need to accept that we will drop them too.
We have now reached the limit of the financial support that we can provide to you so we have reached the point of now or never in your signing a peace deal.
That requires you to make hard choices about de facto recognition of land on the lines of the peace deal that the US is trying right now to finalise with Russia.
Without that, he will simply continue this charade of endless pointless Summits and the war will drag Europe even further into the mire.
That’s a lot to take in and we’ve already apologised enough as it is. Look, we lied to you okay, but everyone makes mistakes.
Somehow, though, I predict the Europeans will continue to drift in circles. I wonder where the next Coalition of the Willing Summit will be? I hope it’s soon, as Zelensky might actually have to spend some time inside of Ukraine if there’s a delay. And he likes it in Europe as it’s the only place where everyone seems to love him.
Is the U.S. preparing to install another Shah to run Iran as a U.S. puppet?
13 January 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Walt Zlotow , West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, https://theaimn.net/is-the-u-s-preparing-to-install-another-shah-to-run-iran-as-a-u-s-puppet/
Nationwide anti-government protests are wracking Iran with over 500 killed and 10,000 detained. The U.S. political establishment is ecstatic about the possibility of regime change of the hated Iranian Islamic government which in 1979 toppled the American puppet Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (the Shah of Iran) the U.S. installed in 1953.
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi pounced on this statement by former US Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo that implied both the US and Israel are involved in fomenting the protest:
“The Iranian regime is in trouble. Bringing in mercenaries is its last best hope. Riots in dozens of cities. 47 years of this regime; POTUS 47. Coincidence? Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”
Araghchi responded:
“According to the US Government, Iran is ‘delusional’ for assessing that Israel and the US are fueling violent riots in our country. There is only one problem: President Trump’s own former CIA Director has openly and unashamedly highlighted what Mossad and its American enablers are really up to.”
Araghchi is well aware of historical precedence for US regime change in Iran. Seventy-three years ago the US joined Britain’s Operation TP-Ajax, the US-British coup that deposed Iran’s legitimate ruler Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Brits conceived the coup in 1952 and presented it to ‘Give ‘Em Hell’ Harry Truman, who literally told the Brits to go to hell.
A year later newbie Prez Ike greenlighted TP-AJAX to allow Britain to grab back its Iranian oil monopoly nationalized by elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh. For Ike, it was a chance to make his bones as a stanch anti-communist, due to Mosaddegh’s unwillingness to crush Iranian communist influence. Leading this first official CIA coup against a foreign leader who wouldn’t do our bidding was TR’s grandson Kermit Roosevelt Jr., following a family tradition of senseless and bellicose militarism.
Our handpicked successor was Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, son of the first Pahlavi monarch Reza Shah Pahlavi. His reluctance and indecision almost wrecked Uncle Sam’s best laid plans, but our CIA Iranian operatives, masquerading as commies, shed enough blood to turn the tide against Mosaddegh. The Shah ruled Iran for another 26 years, with his CIA trained secret police killing thousands who dared speak out against his tyrannical rule.
And guess who has jumped into the current chaos in Iran… Reza Pahlavi, the US-based son of Iran’s ousted Shah whom the US installed after deposing Mosaddegh in 1953. Pahlavi praised the protests as “magnificent” and urged Iranian to plan more targeted actions “to seize and hold city centers.” He’s likely salivating at a chance to reclaim his father’s rule in Iran to once again do America’s bidding. Back then it was to protect British, US oil interests and counter communist influence in Iran. If installed today Pahlavi would complete both Israel and America’s decade’s long goal of weakening, destabilizing Iran to cement Israel’s Middle East hegemony.
Maybe the US has nothing to do with current unrest that may topple the Iranian regime. But based on US regime change history with Iran and numerous other countries, it would not surprise if the US was all in aiding it.
Who is to blame for blocking a new ‘golden era’ for nuclear power?
It is not the regulators or we so-called ‘blockers’ who are the main impediment to nuclear. It is the systemic failure of the nuclear industry to produce viable projects such as the much-hyped but non-existent Small Nuclear Reactors; its predictable inability to prevent cost overruns or to meet deadlines; let alone its lack of credible ideas to deal adequately with risk, safety and the management of its dangerous and interminable wastes. Nuclear is an industry that is bound to fail
7 January 2026, https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/who-is-to-blame-for-blocking-nuclear-power/
Andrew Blowers tackles this question in the January edition of Regional Life magazine
The mantra that nuclear technology ‘is essential for achieving national security, energy security and Net Zero targets’ proclaimed by the Government’s Nuclear Regulatory Task Force has become the unequivocal, if deeply flawed, basis for government policy. The Government has pledged to ‘turbo-charge the build-out of new nuclear power stations and enter a ‘golden era’ of nuclear power.
Standing in its way are ‘gold-plated’ regulations and community groups like BANNG committed to protecting local environments, ecology and human health. The Task Force Review report just published (December) asserts, entirely without supporting evidence, that ‘The primary barrier’ to revitalising nuclear’s role is ‘systemic failure within the regulatory framework’.
So, here we have a familiar confrontation between energy and economic growth on the one side and environmental protection on the other. We have been here before. Every decade or so a new nuclear revival is promised but, after much huffing and puffing very little materialises. At the beginning of the century Tony Blair declared new nuclear was back ‘with a vengeance. In 2011 eight sites, including Bradwell, were declared ‘potentially suitable’ for new nuclear power plants.
In the event, only one, Hinkley Point, materialised and has become notorious for being too late, promised for 2017 but unlikely to power up until the next decade. Its cost overruns have become legendary. According to the Government, the culprits are environmental regulations and campaign groups who insist that previously agreed audio fish deterrents (AFDs) must be installed to help save millions of fish from becoming entrained and entrapped in the colossal intake and outflow pipes going into the Severn estuary. The developer has prevaricated, proposing cheaper but environmentally destructive methods of abatement. Politicians, including Sir Keir Starmer, have mindlessly mocked the ADF as a ‘fish disco’. It makes one wonder how they might deride oysters from the Blackwater if they stood in the way of nuclear power at Bradwell.
It is not the regulators or we so-called ‘blockers’ who are the main impediment to nuclear. It is the systemic failure of the nuclear industry to produce viable projects such as the much-hyped but non-existent Small Nuclear Reactors; its predictable inability to prevent cost overruns or to meet deadlines; let alone its lack of credible ideas to deal adequately with risk, safety and the management of its dangerous and interminable wastes. Nuclear is an industry that is bound to fail.
Meanwhile the importance of regulations imposed by independent regulators designed to protect people and the environment cannot be overstressed. And the essential role of community groups and councils in seeking to ensure the environmental protection and health and wellbeing of the places they represent is something to be cherished, not denigrated. It is a pity the Government does not see it that way.
7 January 2026
Andrew Blowers tackles this question in the January edition of Regional Life magazine
The mantra that nuclear technology ‘is essential for achieving national security, energy security and Net Zero targets’ proclaimed by the Government’s Nuclear Regulatory Task Force has become the unequivocal, if deeply flawed, basis for government policy. The Government has pledged to ‘turbo-charge the build-out of new nuclear power stations and enter a ‘golden era’ of nuclear power.
Standing in its way are ‘gold-plated’ regulations and community groups like BANNG committed to protecting local environments, ecology and human health. The Task Force Review report just published (December) asserts, entirely without supporting evidence, that ‘The primary barrier’ to revitalising nuclear’s role is ‘systemic failure within the regulatory framework’.
So, here we have a familiar confrontation between energy and economic growth on the one side and environmental protection on the other. We have been here before. Every decade or so a new nuclear revival is promised but, after much huffing and puffing very little materialises. At the beginning of the century Tony Blair declared new nuclear was back ‘with a vengeance. In 2011 eight sites, including Bradwell, were declared ‘potentially suitable’ for new nuclear power plants.
In the event, only one, Hinkley Point, materialised and has become notorious for being too late, promised for 2017 but unlikely to power up until the next decade. Its cost overruns have become legendary. According to the Government, the culprits are environmental regulations and campaign groups who insist that previously agreed audio fish deterrents (AFDs) must be installed to help save millions of fish from becoming entrained and entrapped in the colossal intake and outflow pipes going into the Severn estuary. The developer has prevaricated, proposing cheaper but environmentally destructive methods of abatement. Politicians, including Sir Keir Starmer, have mindlessly mocked the ADF as a ‘fish disco’. It makes one wonder how they might deride oysters from the Blackwater if they stood in the way of nuclear power at Bradwell.
It is not the regulators or we so-called ‘blockers’ who are the main impediment to nuclear. It is the systemic failure of the nuclear industry to produce viable projects such as the much-hyped but non-existent Small Nuclear Reactors; its predictable inability to prevent cost overruns or to meet deadlines; let alone its lack of credible ideas to deal adequately with risk, safety and the management of its dangerous and interminable wastes. Nuclear is an industry that is bound to fail.
Meanwhile the importance of regulations imposed by independent regulators designed to protect people and the environment cannot be overstressed. And the essential role of community groups and councils in seeking to ensure the environmental protection and health and wellbeing of the places they represent is something to be cherished, not denigrated. It is a pity the Government does not see it that way.
Top 15 US Billionaires Gained Nearly $1 Trillion in Wealth in Trump’s First Year.
The US has 935 billionaires, roughly a dozen of whom have jobs within the Trump administration.
By Sharon Zhang , Truthout, January 7, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/top-15-us-billionaires-gained-nearly-1-trillion-in-wealth-in-trumps-first-year/
new analysis finds that the richest 15 billionaires in the U.S. saw their wealth skyrocket by nearly $1 trillion in the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, which also contained one of the single largest cuts to welfare benefits in U.S. history.
The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) report, citing data from Forbes, has found that U.S. billionaires’ assets surged by a whopping 21 percent in 2025.
The 935 billionaires in the U.S. now control $8.1 trillion in wealth, the analysis found — nearly double the amount of wealth held by the bottom 50 percent of Americans, which comprises over 170 million people. Roughly a dozen of these billionaires work in the Trump administration.
The very richest billionaires saw the biggest gains. The top 15 richest people in the U.S. gained 33 percent in wealth last year, with their wealth skyrocketing from $2.4 trillion to $3.2 trillion — a gain of roughly $800 billion, IPS found.
A significant portion of this gain was driven by the wealth accumulation of one person: Elon Musk, the richest man on earth. In 2025, Musk’s wealth rose from $421 billion to $726 billion, a gain of $305 billion.
With this amount of money, Musk could singlehandedly pay for Republicans’ newly enacted cuts to Medicare for the next decade, estimated to cost $536 billion. He could fund health benefits for tens of millions of Americans and still be left with nearly $200 billion to spare.
IPS points out that Musk’s net worth has increased by 2,800 percent since 2020, when he was valued at just under $25 billion.
Other billionaires and billionaire families saw gains of tens of billions of dollars last year, including Google cofounder Larry Page, Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison, and the Walton family.
“The affordability crisis is hitting ordinary Americans particularly hard as we head into the new year, but not everyone is feeling the pain: billionaires are raking in staggering profits off the backs of ordinary workers,” said Chuck Collins, who directs IPS’s Program on Inequality and the Common Good.
Regular Americans are indeed struggling. At the end of 2025, polls were already finding that an affordability crisis was spreading across the U.S., with roughly 30 percent of Americans saying they skipped medical care in the past year due to cost, according to surveys by Politico and GQR for The Century Foundation.
This is slated to become far worse as Republicans’ cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies kick in this year. Last week, on New Year’s Day, Affordable Care Act subsidies for tens of millions of Americans expired overnight, causing premiums to double on average as a result of cuts to the Republican budget bill. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 16 million people will lose their health care benefits altogether due to the Medicaid and ACA cuts.
These cuts were enacted to pay for a massive tax cut for billionaires and the rest of the top richest Americans. The CBO estimated that the richest Americans would see a gain of $12,000 each year as a result of the bill, while the poorest 10 percent would see their wealth decrease by $1,600 yearly on average.
“It’s not just that U.S. billionaires are entering 2026 with record-breaking increases in extreme wealth: it’s that they are also paying far less in taxes compared to the huge amount of wealth they amass. Average taxpayers like you and I pay income tax at triple the rate of the wealthiest Americans,” said Omar Ocampo, inequality researcher for IPS, in a statement. “Not only are a small number of Americans holding more wealth than the rest of America, but they’re also not paying their fair share in taxes.”
‘We’ll Hit Them Very Hard’: Trump Threatens Iran Again as Protest Death Toll Rises
Critics pointed out that Trump has often endorsed violence against protesters when they opposed him.
Stephen Prager, Common Dreams, Jan 08, 2026
President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to attack Iran on Thursday in response to its government’s increasingly violent crackdown on ongoing protests.
“If they start killing people, which they tend to do during their riots—they have lots of riots—if they do it, we’re going to hit them very hard,” he said.
Addressing the Iranian people, he added: “You must stand up for your right to freedom. There is nothing like freedom. You are a brave people. It’s a shame what’s happening to your country.”
The Norway-based Iran Human Rights (IHR) reported on Thursday that Iranian security forces have killed at least 45 protesters since demonstrations against the regime began in late December. Wednesday was the bloodiest day yet, with 13 people reportedly killed.
On Thursday, Iranian authorities shut down internet access for the population, which has limited the flow of information in and out of the country.
The protests kicked off in response to the sudden collapse in the value of Iran’s currency, the rial, which exacerbated the country’s already spiraling cost-of-living crisis, heightening inflation and putting many basic goods out of reach for many Iranians.
This economic crisis has been shifted into hyperdrive since Trump returned to office last year and re-implemented his “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran, including more severe economic sanctions and a 12-day war in June during which the US struck several Iranian nuclear sites. Over the past year, the average cost of food has increased by 70%, while the cost of medicine has increased by 50%……………………………………..
Iran has blamed the unrest on “interference in Iran’s internal affairs” by the United States. The nation’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has urged authorities to exhibit the “utmost restraint” in handling protesters. But earlier this week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini said “rioters” must be “put in their place,” while a top judge accused demonstrators of being agents of the US and Israel.
The latest swell of protests began after Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince and son of Iran’s former US-backed shah, called for demonstrators to take to the streets. On Thursday, Pahlavi, who has lived most of his life in the US after the royal family was run out of Iran during the 1979 revolution, met with Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog.
On Thursday, Iranian authorities shut down internet access for the population, which has limited the flow of information in and out of the country.
The protests kicked off in response to the sudden collapse in the value of Iran’s currency, the rial, which exacerbated the country’s already spiraling cost-of-living crisis, heightening inflation and putting many basic goods out of reach for many Iranians.
This economic crisis has been shifted into hyperdrive since Trump returned to office last year and re-implemented his “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran, including more severe economic sanctions and a 12-day war in June during which the US struck several Iranian nuclear sites. Over the past year, the average cost of food has increased by 70%, while the cost of medicine has increased by 50%.
The rial has lost 95% of its value since 2018, when Trump withdrew the US from the nuclear agreement with Iran, which included sanctions relief.
Last Friday, just one day before he bombed Venezuela as part of an operation to overthrow its leader Nicolás Maduro and seize the nation’s oil reserves, Trump wrote on Truth Social that “if Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”
On Tuesday, US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a leading proponent of regime change, warned Iran’s leaders that “if you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life—Donald J. Trump is going to kill you.” Just days before, Graham said that Iran’s “weakened” state was thanks in part to Trump’s efforts to “economically isolate” the country.
Iran has blamed the unrest on “interference in Iran’s internal affairs” by the United States. The nation’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has urged authorities to exhibit the “utmost restraint” in handling protesters. But earlier this week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini said “rioters” must be “put in their place,” while a top judge accused demonstrators of being agents of the US and Israel.
The latest swell of protests began after Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince and son of Iran’s former US-backed shah, called for demonstrators to take to the streets. On Thursday, Pahlavi, who has lived most of his life in the US after the royal family was run out of Iran during the 1979 revolution, met with Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog.
Critics pointed out that Trump has often endorsed violence against protesters when they opposed him. Just a day before he issued his latest threat, he defended a federal immigration agent who fatally shot an unarmed mother in Minneapolis, while members of his administration falsely described her as a “domestic terrorist.”
He has previously advocated for the US military to be deployed to use force against protesters and threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell peaceful protests, including the No Kings demonstrators who mobilized nationwide in October. https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-hit-iran-protests
Why the coalition should be willing to say no to Zelensky
But they won’t, as they are unable to agree on anything useful
Ian Proud, Jan 09, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/why-the-coalition-should-be-willing?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=183930866&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The latest in a line series of self-congratulatory Coalition of the Willing Summits in Paris, only confirmed that no one is willing to fight Russia on Ukraine’s behalf.
So, well dressed western leaders posed for the cameras and agreed nothing that would bring the war in Ukraine any closer to an end.
Zelensky doesn’t seem to mind, though, as it’s not in his interests to settle.
The Americans appear to be growing increasingly reluctant to get involved. leaving European tax payers to foot the billl.
In this video I outline what European leaders should say to Zelensky as the best offer on the table for Ukraine. Though I don’t expect them to do so as they are incapable of rational analysis and, in any case, unable to make a decision on anything useful.
Former SNC-Lavalin CEO stripped of his licence, fined $75K over corruption breaches.
MONTREAL — Quebec’s engineering order says it has revoked the professional licence of former SNC Lavalin CEO Jacques Lamarre and fined him $75,000 after finding him guilty of corruption last year.
In a ruling Wednesday, the society’s disciplinary council said the penalties stem from breaches during his tenure at the helm of the Montreal-based engineering firm, now known as AtkinsRéalis Group Inc., between 2001 and 2009.
Those transgressions include payment of financial benefits to obtain contracts in Libya, with some $2 million going to its ruling family — largely for expenses racked up in Canada in 2008 by Saadi Gadhafi, son of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
The tribunal also found Lamarre guilty in August of “collusion and corruption” in relation to SNC’s political financing activities in Montreal, where it sought to win contracts in exchange for party payoffs.
Lamarre says he was disappointed with the decision but does not plan to appeal.
Licence revocation is the most serious sanction the professional order can impose, but Lamarre had already announced his retirement last summer.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 7, 2026.
Companies in this story: (TSX:ATRL)
The Canadian Press
New owners of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories have extensive nuclear weapons connections.
| By hendricksonjones on January 10, 2026, https://concernedcitizens.net/2026/01/10/new-owners-of-canadian-nuclear-laboratories-have-extensive-nuclear-weapons-connections/ |
Nuclear weapons are an existential threat to life on Earth and need to be abolished.
Concerned Citizens and other civil society groups are concerned about the nuclear weapons connections of US-based multinational corporations contracted to operate Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. Some new facilities being built or proposed at Chalk River Laboratories are aimed at handling tritium and plutonium, both of which are key ingredients in nuclear warheads.
The current owner/operator of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, “Nuclear Laboratory Partners of Canada,” assumed ownership in December 2025 under a 6-year, multibillion dollar contract with the Government of Canada. It consists of three US-based corporations: BWXT, Amentum, and Battelle. A fourth corporation, Kinectrics, was recently acquired by BWXT.
Here is what Perplexity Pro told us about nuclear weapons connections of BWXT, Amentum and Batelle.
BWXT
BWXT has significant connections to U.S. nuclear weapons programs through its work with government agencies and defense contracts.bwxt+1
Key Contracts
BWXT manages high-consequence nuclear operations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. In 2025, it secured a $1.5 billion contract from NNSA to build a uranium enrichment facility for defense applications, including tritium production—a key component in nuclear weapons.reuters+2
Naval and Defense Roles
The company manufactures nuclear reactor components for U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers, including Virginia-class and Columbia-class vessels, under multi-billion-dollar contracts like a $2.6 billion award in 2025. BWXT holds licenses for depleted uranium fabrication for defense and has handled highly enriched uranium from down-blended nuclear weapon cores.reddit+3
Historical Context
BWXT was previously involved in tritium production for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Subsidiaries like Nuclear Fuel Services support these government programs.dontbankonthebomb+1
Amentum
Amentum has substantial nuclear weapons connections through U.S. and UK defense contracts for weapons facilities, plutonium processing, tritium operations, and national security sites.amentum+2
U.S. Weapons Complex
Amentum manages the Pantex Plant (nuclear weapons assembly/disassembly) and Y-12 National Security Complex (uranium components for weapons) under a $28 billion NNSA contract via NPOne JV. It supports Los Alamos plutonium facilities, Savannah River pit production, and naval nuclear propulsion for ballistic missile submarines.amentum+3
Plutonium and Remediation
The company decommissions plutonium-contaminated facilities at U.S. sites like Hanford’s Plutonium Finishing Plant and UK’s Low Level Waste Repository, plus Portsmouth uranium enrichment for weapons.amentum+2
UK AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment)Involvement
Amentum serves as Delivery Partner for AWE’s Enriched Uranium Components Programme at Aldermaston, handling enriched uranium for UK nuclear warheads, decommissioning gloveboxes, and program management.amentum+2
Battelle
Battelle Memorial Institute has deep historical and ongoing connections to nuclear weapons programs, including direct contributions to the Manhattan Project and management of key NNSA national laboratories involved in weapons research.battelle+2
Manhattan Project Role
During World War II, 400 Battelle researchers fabricated plutonium from uranium for atomic bomb cores. This work positioned Battelle as a leader in nuclear research, including extruding uranium fuel for early reactors at Oak Ridge.wikipedia+2
National Labs Management
Battelle manages or co-manages eight DOE national labs central to nuclear security, such as Los Alamos National Laboratory (plutonium pits for weapons via Triad National Security, LLC), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Savannah River National Laboratory (nuclear materials management). These labs support stockpile stewardship, pit production, and nuclear deterrence under NNSA.battelle+4
Additional Ties
Battelle developed nuclear fuel rods for naval reactors like the USS Nautilus and provided Environment, Health and Safety support at Pantex Plant, the primary site for weapons assembly/disassembly. It oversees chemical weapons demilitarization and biodefense tied to nuclear security missions.battelle+3
References:
Candid Imperialism: Trump, Racketeering and Venezuelan Oil
11 January 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/candid-imperialism-trump-racketeering-and-venezuelan-oil/
It usually takes archival digging, the golden gaffe, an ill-considered remark and occasional spells of candour by those in power, to admit that the United States has, in common with other imperial powers, brutal ambitions. An example of the latter was General Smedley Butler who, at his death in 1940, had become the most decorated Marine in US history. After retiring from active service, he was frank about what his role had been. Professing to being a “racketeer” and “gangster for capitalism,” he went on to explain how: “I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Boys to collect revenues in. I helped the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street.” That was just a selection.
With President Donald Trump in power, we do not need a Butler to give the game away or expose any frightful cabal. The empire is out of the closet, bolshie, bright and more thieving than ever. While the Donroe Doctrine is intended to reprise the Monroe Doctrine, it offers nothing more than imperial rapacity, seizure under pretext. The January 9 meeting with two dozen oil executives at the White House to discuss the fate of the Venezuelan oil market showed Trump to be in full flight as cocky pip and proud procurer of corporate thieving under the cover of government protection.
Representatives from such veteran behemoths as ExxonMobil and Chevron were present to listen to calls from the president that they invest handsomely in modernising and tidying up Venezuela’s tattered oil infrastructure. Problems with the oil itself – heavy, hard to refine and packed with sulphur, not to mention the questionable number of proven reserves – did not blight the conversation. “American companies will have the opportunity to rebuild Venezuela’s rotting energy infrastructure and eventually increase oil production to levels never seen before,” he crowed at the start of the meeting. Our giant oil companies will be spending at least $100 billion of their money.” In the course of this merry investment, Venezuela would “be very successful, and the people of the United States are going to be big beneficiaries.”
The choice of companies involved in the venture would, however, not be determined by free market wiles or any invisible hand. “We are going to be making the decision as to which oil companies can go in, which we will allow to go in.” They would mostly be American, naturally. Forget the Venezuelans, he insisted. “You’re dealing with us directly. You’re not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don’t want you to deal with Venezuela.”
Jeffery Hilderbrand of the oil and gas producer Hilcorp Energy and noted Trump donor, was all salivation and gratitude. He was also pleased with the implausible alibi Trump had offered for controlling and pilfering Venezuelan oil for American interests: finding imagined enemies who might do the same thing. “Thank you for your great, tremendous leadership in protecting the interests in the Western Hemisphere,” he sighed with oleaginous gratitude. “The message that you have sent to China and our enemies to stay out of our backyard is absolutely fantastic… Hilcorp is fully committed and ready to go to rebuilding the infrastructure in Venezuela.”
CEO Bill Armstrong, of the Armstrong Oil and Gas company, also smacked his lips at the plunderous prospects. “We are ready to go to Venezuela,” he declared. “In real estate terms, it is prime real estate. And it’s like West Palm about 50 years ago. Very ripe.” Fracking executive and Trump supporter, Harold Hamm, was tickled by the possibility of adventure, seeing Venezuela as little more than a playground to roam and in and profit from. “It excites me as an explorationist.” The country was “exciting” with its abundant reserves, posing “challenges and the industry knows how to handle that.”
Chevron, which already has a presence in the country in partnership with the state-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA accounting for 240,000 barrels per day, expects to bolster its production by 50% over the next 18 to 24 months. Those at Repsol are dreaming of tripling the current daily production of 45,000 barrels over the next few years, provided the conditions are appropriate.
Not all the oil companies expressed the same level of glowing confidence. Naked plunder comes with its challenges and logistical tangles, not least the touchy issue of Venezuelan sovereignty. Exxon CEO Darren Woods was, for instance, concerned that much will have to be done to make Venezuela an appropriate recipient of capital. One way was to ensure that whoever was in control in Caracas would be eternally reliable and amenable to US oil interests. “We have had our assets seized there twice and so you can imagine to re-enter a third time would require some pretty significant changes from what we’ve historically seen and what is currently the state.” As things stood, given “legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place,” Venezuela was “ininvestable.”
That same day, Trump further confirmed the choking of Venezuela by signing an Executive Order to prevent “the seizure of Venezuelan oil revenue that could undermine critical US efforts to ensure economic stability in Venezuela.” The Order prohibits US courts from seizing revenue collected from Venezuelan oil and relevant holds in US Treasury accounts. The customary, absurd justifications follow: to lose control of such funds would “empower malign actors like Iran and Hezbollah while weakening efforts to bring peace, prosperity, and stability to the Venezuelan people and to the Western Hemisphere as a whole.” Were these funds to be tampered with, US objectives to stem “the influx of illegal aliens and disrupting the flood of illicit narcotics” would be compromised.
As for those befuddled figures of the Venezuela opposition thinking that much of their country’s oil revenue will find its way into the coffers of Caracas, they should best think again. “Putting America first,” as the Order makes clear, means just that. The Venezuelan people don’t count, except as props in tawdry oratory.
“Condemning US imperialism for its illegal invasion and violation of sovereignty”
Over the weekend, 56 groups across the country marched to condemn the United States and to demonstrate solidarity with Venezuela, Palestine, and anti-imperialists…
North Korea News, Reporter Lee Seung-hyun , 2026.01.10
Actions condemning the US’s illegal invasion of Venezuela continued across the country over the weekend.
Fifty-six civic groups, including the Joint Action to Stop Trump Threats (preliminary), the National People’s Action, and the Independent Unification and Peace Solidarity, held a “Citizens’ March Condemning the US for Illegal Invasion and Sovereignty Violation” in front of KT in Gwanghwamun, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 10th. The march continued through the city center, through Jongno, Gwanghwamun, and finally to the US Embassy.
Citizens who gathered in front of KT in Gwanghwamun, braving the bad weather of heavy snow, cold waves, and strong winds, chanted in one voice: △ Condemn Trump, a war criminal who aims to plunder resources and change the regime; △ Immediately release President Maduro, who has been illegally kidnapped; △ Stop the tyranny and war of aggression of US imperialism.
Yang Kyung-soo, chairman of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, said, “The tariff war waged by the United States against the world last year shows that the economic order that guaranteed the limitless greed of capital through neoliberalism is over, and that the history of the United States, which boasted sole global hegemony based on neoliberalism and powerful military power, and that the hegemony of the United States are also coming to an end,” adding, “The same goes for the US’s acts of aggression in Venezuela.”
He also mentioned that President Trump signed a proclamation on the 7th (local time) withdrawing from 66 international organizations, including 31 UN agencies and 35 non-UN agencies, and said, “This means that the United States, which is leaving behind both the universal value of responding to the climate crisis and the value of human rights, which are common values for all of humanity, can no longer lead the world order.” He emphasized, “We must stand together with the people of the world who oppose war and the United States, and with the people who love peace, to create a new world where peace, equality, and independence are guaranteed.”
Lee Eun-jung, standing representative of the National Women’s Solidarity, fiercely criticized, “The wars and military interventions the United States has waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria over the past several decades were organized violence by an imperialist state to protect its oil and resource hegemony.” She also strongly criticized, “The United States’ invasion of Venezuela and the arrest of President Maduro and his wife are also clear violations of sovereignty, theft of resources, and a declaration of colonial rule.”
However, times have changed, and the people of the world will not accept the war that the United States wages for its own interests and greed as its destiny, and will never be isolated, he said, raising his voice, saying, “The awakened people of the world will fight together against the imperialist United States that carries out barbaric and illegal invasions and violations of sovereignty
Pastor Hong Deok-jin of the National Council of Clergy Justice and Peace said, “The airstrike on Caracas, Venezuela and the forcible repatriation of the national leader by the Trump administration in the United States on January 3rd is not a simple military action, but an act of neo-imperialism that tramples on the sovereignty of a country and shakes the foundations of international law, and a direct challenge to peace-loving people around the world.” He demanded, “The United States must cease all military operations and withdraw its troops immediately.”
He also emphasized that “the international community must not tolerate U.S. violence,” and that “we must reject Pax Americana, which is dominated by the logic of great power, and we must mobilize all international means to stand in solidarity so that only the self-determination of the Venezuelan people can determine the future of their land.”
He urged the South Korean government to declare its principle of opposing war of aggression rather than worrying about what the United States thinks.
Palestine Peace Solidarity activist Hana said that although Palestine, Venezuela, and Korea are geographically distant, they are closely linked in the criminal plans of the United States and imperialism, and emphasized that “the struggles of the Venezuelan and Palestinian people, who are at the forefront of the fight against imperialism, should also be at the center of the anti-imperialist movement in Korea.”
He pointed out that the US’s support of Israel as a proxy agent in the Middle East to control oil flow and prices is similar to the imperialist greed to maintain hegemony by dominating resources.
He pointed out that since October 2023, Israel has indiscriminately killed at least 72,000 Palestinians by pouring more bombs into the Gaza Strip, an area half the size of Seoul, than the bombs dropped during World War II. He also pointed out that the US has vetoed eight UN resolutions demanding an end to genocide and has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid, making them the main culprits of genocide.
In addition, the government urged Dana Petroleum, which is 100% owned by Korea National Oil Corporation, to stop its complicity in colonial plunder, saying that it is conducting gas exploration activities in the western part of the Leviathan gas field near the Gaza Strip by paying a license fee of 20.4 billion won to the Israeli government.
Citizens’ actions condemning the US war of aggression were also held in Busan (Busan Station Plaza), Daegu and Gyeongbuk (in front of CGV Daegu Hanil), Daejeon (in front of Ian Kyungwon on Euneungjeong Street), and Jeju (in front of the Jeju City Hall Civil Affairs Office) that afternoon.
Whitewashing U.S. barbarism by smearing Russia and China
Finian Cunningham, January 10, 2026, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/01/10/whitewashing-us-barbarism-by-smearing-russia-and-china/
The Western media are doing what they usually do: minimizing and covering up the criminal aggression of the United States.
Trump’s blatantly illegal military attack on Venezuela, the kidnapping of its president, the murder of foreign nationals, and theft of the country’s vast oil resources are not being called out for the litany of grave crimes that such actions constitute. The aggression that the U.S. has carried out is the Nuremberg standard of “supreme crime”.
Yet the U.S. and European corporate-controlled news media fail to report or comment on all this. Britain’s BBC has banned its journalists from using the word “kidnap”.
Instead of a forthright condemnation of Trump’s multiple violations of the UN Charter and international law, the Western media have sought to distract with spurious smearing of Russia and China.
The New York Times, the US so-called paper of record, claimed: “President Trump’s audacious nighttime raid in Venezuela sent a message: If you’re strong enough, you can attack a country, topple its leader and perhaps get access to the resources you’re after. The leaders of China and Russia, who have long shared a vision that divides the world into spheres of influence dominated by major powers, will be drawing their own conclusions.”
How’s that for diversion of public attention? The United States has just committed war crimes and brought the whole international order into disrepute in the most flagrant way, and yet the New York Times endeavors to focus concern on what Russia and China might allegedly do.
The Daily Beast and the Guardian both used the line, “the Putinization of US foreign policy.”
They claim that Trump is now “emulating” Russian President Vladimir Putin.
These Western media outlets are trying to minimize U.S. criminality by making a false equivalence with Russia and China.
So, it is postulated, Trump is repeating what Russia’s Putin has done in Ukraine, while China’s leader, Xi Jinping, is now going to follow through with an invasion of Taiwan.
The Western media distortion is contradicted by Moscow and Beijing, vehemently condemning U.S. aggression towards Venezuela and the violation of the UN Charter.
The only person Trump is emulating is every previous U.S. president. All of them have repeatedly invaded countries in Latin America and all around the world to overthrow governments and steal natural resources.
The criminal record of the United States is incomparable with that of any other nation. Since the Second World War alone, the U.S. has launched regime-change operations in as many as 100 foreign nations and waged countless illegal wars and proxy conflicts on every continent.
During the past eight decades of this “American exceptionalism” of mayhem and barbarism, the Western media have covered up the criminality by peddling pretexts such as the Cold War, defending the free world from communism, protecting human rights, promoting democracy, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, and so on.
The prelude to the latest aggression against Venezuela involved five months of the U.S. and Western media laundering Trump’s absurd claims about combating narcoterrorism. Now that the criminal aggression has taken place, the baseless war propaganda has been dutifully dropped as Trump boasts of taking over the country’s oil industry.
The naked imperialism of the United States stands exposed for the whole world to see. But instead of shouting that the emperor has no clothes, the servile Western media must distract from their own propaganda complicity by diverting the narrative to claim that Trump is emulating Putin and Xi, or that Russia and China are supposedly relishing the prospect of an alleged free hand in their “spheres of influence”.
This is sheer conjuring by the Western media. Russia is involved in Ukraine because of a proxy war that the U.S.-led NATO bloc has provoked over several decades. As for China, Taiwan is a sovereign part of its territory under international law. Tensions have been incited by relentless U.S. interference in China’s internal affairs, primarily by selling massive weapons shipments to Taiwan.
Moscow and Beijing have repeatedly advocated respect for the UN Charter and a peaceful multipolar world order based on abiding by international law.
It is the United States and its lackey Western partners who have corroded international law and unleashed chaos by pursuing their imperialist objectives and violating countries at will.
Trump is essentially no different from every other preceding U.S. president in his presumption that might is right and resort to gunboat diplomacy. Previous presidents were politically obliged to use cynical pretexts to cover up the criminality. And the Western media, as a controlled propaganda system, always obliged with peddling the cover stories.
Trump is fast-moving to open barbarism and dispensing with fig leaf excuses. It’s raw imperialist violence. The lackey media are in a quandary. The ugly truth is obvious. But they can’t report that. So a conjuring trick is used to cover their abject complicity. Smear Russia and China.
Finian Cunningham is coauthor of Killing Democracy: Western Imperialism’s Legacy of Regime Change and Media Manipulation
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 