nuclear-news

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

The Apocalyptic President

a science fiction novel with a distinctly bizarre premise: that, at some future moment, thanks to the endless burning of fossil fuels, we humans would essentially threaten to burn ourselves off planet Earth. And when the voters of the world’s largest democracy heard that such a thing might, sooner or later, actually happen to us, they would respond by freely electing a genuine madman — who ran his second candidacy in 2024 on the all-too-bluntly apocalyptic slogan “drill, baby, drill” — to “lead” us into a literal hell on earth.

the American people elected as president, twice, a man who, as a businessman, had either four or more likely six bankruptcies to his name,

Our planet is melting in a climate broiler that we control and we’re not only not turning down the heat fast enough, but we Americans elected someone (twice!) determined to turn it up ever higher.

The Personification of an Imperial Power (and Planet) in Decline

 February 18, 2026 , By Tom Engelhardt, https://tomdispatch.com/the-apocalyptic-president/

Once upon a time, if you had described Donald Trump’s America to me (the second time around), I would have thought you mad as Alice in Wonderland‘s proverbial hatter — or, if you were a fiction writer, I would have considered your plot so ludicrous that, after reading a few pages, I would undoubtedly have tossed your book in the trash.

And yet here we are, not once (yes, all of us can make a mistake once, can’t we?) but twice! 


And the one thing you should take for granted is that Donald Trump in the White House a second time around is the all-too-literal personification of imperial decline. In fact, decline is hardly an adequate word for it. We just don’t happen to have another word or phrase that would describe him and his crew aptly enough in all their eerie strangeness. Yes, this country, even in the best of (imperial) times, certainly had its problems. (Remember the Vietnam War, for instance, or President “Tricky Dick” Nixon and the Watergate scandal.) Still, nothing was ever quite like this, was it? Never.

The First American King?


A literal Mad Hatter in command in Washington, D.C. Once upon a time, who would have believed it? In fact, if we could indeed travel into the past and I were able to take you back to 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, ending the Cold War, while China had not yet faintly “risen,” the world of that moment might essentially have been considered American property, lock, stock, and proverbial barrel.

This planet could have been thought of then as the property of just one great power — my country, of course — that, in imperial terms, had essentially been left alone on planet Earth in a fashion that might never have happened before in the history of humanity. And if I had then been able to see into our future and had tried to fill you in on the Trumpian world we’re now living through a mere three decades later, you would have quite literally laughed me off the planet (and, believe me, that’s putting it politely).


Truly, who could have ever (ever!) imagined this bizarre Trumpian era of ours in which the joker (in the worst sense of the term) in the ultimate deck of cards is indeed sitting in the White House. Yes, unbelievably enough, he was elected a second time in 2024 by a “sweeping,” “landslide,” “historic” 49.7% of American voters. It’s true, not even 50% of us voted to make him the first American king a second time around.


And if that made you chuckle just a little, well, stop doing so right now! Yes, what happened to us in Trumpian terms was and remains genuinely absurd. Still, given this deeply endangered world of ours, it should be anything but funny. Just imagine for a moment, a president who, before entering the White House, was essentially known for only one thing: being the host of the TV show The Apprentice (“You’re fired!”). Once upon a time, if you had described the (ir)reality we’re now living through, you would have been laughed not just out of the room but off this planet. You would, in short, have been fired.


In fact, if what we’re now experiencing were a novel, it would be considered to have the most ludicrous plot imaginable and, a few pages in, you would undoubtedly have tossed it into — yes, again! — the trash. (Unfortunately, it’s not just you or me but this planet itself that Donald Trump now threatens to toss into that garbage pail.)


So here we are in February 2026 and, like it or not, we’re all apprentices to one Donald J. Trump — oops, sorry, one President Donald J. Trump. And the ongoing TV show he emcees these days from the White House is undoubtedly the wackiest one in our history, as he fires not just everyone but everything that rubs him the wrong way from the Kennedy Center (gone!) to the East Wing of the White House (now rubble) to the U.S. Agency for International Development (once upon a time…).

One way to think about all of this is to go back in time and imagine that, long, long ago, Isaac Asimov or Ray Bradbury wrote a science fiction novel with a distinctly bizarre premise: that, at some future moment, thanks to the endless burning of fossil fuels, we humans would essentially threaten to burn ourselves off planet Earth. And when the voters of the world’s largest democracy heard that such a thing might, sooner or later, actually happen to us, they would respond by freely electing a genuine madman — who ran his second candidacy in 2024 on the all-too-bluntly apocalyptic slogan “drill, baby, drill” — to “lead” us into a literal hell on earth. Now, of course, that “president” is insisting that he be given the largest iced island on this planet, Greenland, that, were all its ice to melt (as indeed is already beginning to happen), could send global sea levels up by 23 feet and quite literally drown this world’s coastal cities. Imagine that!

And now, try to imagine this: in 2026, such terrible fiction is, in fact, our reality and one thing is guaranteed (excuse the colons inside colons but this is a strange, strange world to try to sum up): it’s only going to get worse in the three years to come before Donald Trump’s presidency is officially ended, if, of course, it ever does end. (As he typically said at one point last year, “Based on what I read, I guess I’m not allowed to run. So we’ll see what happens,” and he’s now talking about “nationalizing”  — think “Trumpifying” — our elections!)

Given him and everything that’s gone on so far in his second term in office, including the way he recently had Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accompany FBI agents to an election voting hub in Fulton County, Georgia, where they “seized hundreds of boxes containing ballots and other documents related to the 2020 election,” I wouldn’t count on anything Trumpian ending according to plan. Whew! That was one long sentence!  

Continue reading →

February 22, 2026 Posted by | climate change, USA | Leave a comment

China’s Retaliation: when will it happen?

And more appropriately, what form will it take?

Jerrys take on China, Feb 18, 2026, https://jerrygrey2002.substack.com/p/chinas-retaliation-when-will-it-happen?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1744413&post_id=188346536&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

A few comments about why China is like it is – first of all, in the last 45 years, there has been no invasions, despite what people like little Marco Rubio of the US and Richard Marles the Australian Defence Minister might say, China is not and does not pose a threat to any of these countries – Japan might think there is a threat, China does not agree, in fact the opposite is true, Japan poses a much larger threat to China than China has ever posed to Japan.

China is concerned about, and in fact does feel threatened by Japan’s military expansion because the last time it happened literally millions of Chinese were murdered by the Japanese. Australia’s defence minister, Marles, asks us to consider why China has the world’s largest military expansion but he’s wrong – we have to hope he’s wrong because he’s been misinformed and is too dim to check out for himself, but more likely he knows he’s lying about this as China spends considerably less money than the US, in terms of not only its population but its geographical size, it’s quite entitled to spend more cash, when on a per capita basis, the amount is tiny compared to the US, on a ratio to GDP, it’s smaller than the US, it’s one third or less than NATO has been required to spend in terms of percentage of GDP and there’s one more very important factor that the US with only two neighbouring countries doesn’t have – that is 14 neighbouring countries with a shared land border.

Here’s another thing. China was invaded when they were weak, the British did it, the Americans did it, the eight nations alliance did it, Britain carved up part of Burma and took away some of China, it carved up India and took away parts of China, the Russians carved up Mongolia and Heilongjiang, taking away parts of China, the Japanese invaded and occupied China for 14 years. The classic twists and mental gymnastics people like Marles make would have us believe that the hundreds of US bases around China are to prevent China from doing what they’ve NEVER done – going out to invade other countries.

He, and several pundits would like us all to believe is that the US is keeping the world safe from China by arming their neighbours, interfering in the Provinces, Regions and the SARs but the reality is, China is building a military that will defend Chinese people inside China and Chinese land that belongs to China now – it’s not looking to reclaim land back, except in disputed regions.

Those disputed regions include parts of Tibet that the British took away and gave to India, parts of the South China Seas that the Japanese took away and both the US and UK, at the end of the Second World War, agreed would come back to China. There’s one military base in Africa, which is in a region shared with many other countries, including the USA, Japan, France, Italy, Germany Spain and even Saudi Arabia. Taiwan is NOT one of these disputed regions – the entire world whether they recognise Beijing or Taipei as the capital, recognises that there is one China and Taiwan is part of it – anyone who suggests that Taiwan is a country is either a liar, deliberately misleading us, or is far too dim to read the Constitution of the Republic of China, which not only claims all of the Chinese Mainland, it also wants those disputed regions back too.

China has something else which its detractors hate to admit and will lie about – that’s a policy of non-interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation – when it invests in another nation, it doesn’t call for democracy or elections, it doesn’t even ask that Communism or Socialism are accepted, it doesn’t send military to protect its assets, it won’t send missionaries to convert their subjects and it won’t impose conditions that force countries to give up their national assets or utilities if they can’t make the payments – if that sounds familiar and if it’s because you’ve been hearing that China will do all of those things and, if you think they have, I’d implore you to find me an example of where it’s happened, outside of opinion pieces written by people who want you to believe they have, almost every incident where we can find any of these things alleged, will be speculative – they’ll tell us what China might do, what China could do, what China may be doing, is alleged to have done or suspected to be involved in.

We might find individual cases of rogue Chinese people, Chinese criminals even and they use these tiny individual examples to tell you that this is “what China does” when that person who has broken the law has usually already been punished by the time they report it in western media and, if they mention that at all, it’ll be after the third paragraph where most of us have stopped reading.

On the other hand, I can find literally hundreds of examples where the USA is doing these things, where the UK and France have done these things, where Germany, Belgium, even Spain and Portugal have done them.

So then some of the comments I have been getting relate to the Port in Darwin, the ports in Panama and the Pirelli saga in Italy. Just for some background here, Sinochem owns 37% of Pirelli, the big Italian tyre company which wants to expand into the USA, of course the US won’t allow that while China has such a controlling interest. The share of Sinochem hasn’t changed, the only change is that the board, and remember Sinochem had controlling interest being the largest single shareholder, has declared that Sinochem no longer has control, giving the board more autonomy, – Sinochem agreed to this, so this isn’t a situation where anything has been taken from China, merely an agreement that the board retains control which a Chinese corporation retains more shares.

Erich, one of my followers said this: “if China doesn’t protect its assets it will lose them like Pirelli in Italy, the Ports in Panama, etc. Maybe at some point China will start caring about these things.”

My response is that it’s not just Erich, it’s literally hundreds of people, probably thousands but many in my responses who are misunderstanding China. China cares very deeply about the assets its people and corporations invest in, particularly overseas, but it will not break international laws, or contractual Agreements in order to protect them from people or governments which do break laws.


China will react to this in the same way it reacts to every other illegal action against it, by negotiations, and where they fail, arbitration, it will, when all else fails, take the appropriate legal action, which might be appeals to the WTO and perhaps even the UN or more likely the local courts – it knows there will be no satisfaction from those appeals but they are the legal mechanisms open to Chinese corporation. China as a government participates in legal and lawful bodies and does not want to overthrow them, to do so, makes China another USA – so the actions China takes, which will definitely be retaliatory, will be legal, they can, and probably will reduce purchases from offending countries, and of course, they will be much more careful in the decisions when investing in those countries both of which are well within their legal rights.

What China will not do is: unilaterally sanction anyone, any country or even any organisation within the country, it will not militarily defend its assets, it will not interfere in the internal affairs of another country but there is no doubt in my mind that if any country persists and acts on threats to China’s investments, there will be repercussions, probably it’s best not to call them retaliations, they are simply normal responses to a situation of risk.

In Australia for example, if they persist with this challenge to the legal investments Landbridge has made, investments that are compliant in every way and even beneficial to the people of the Northern Territory in jobs and payroll taxes, as well as increased business going through it’s port and beneficial to the people of Australia in 4.5 million income tax paid last year, those are the people who will suffer – China will find other suppliers for the things Australia sends – so far, the only one which is not directly sourced elsewhere is iron ore and, if China stops buying that in any great quantity, it will kill Australia’s economy.

Just continuing to use Darwin Port as an example, it is a critical trade hub in Northern Australia, handling minerals, agriculture, and livestock, with 2,295 vessel visits recorded in 2024-25, marking a 31.07% increase on the previous year. Darwin serves as a key gateway to Asia, managing significant exports of manganese, titanium, iron ore, and livestock. Given that China is the major trading partner of Australia, a huge proportion, unfortunately, there’s no way I can find out, would be Chinese owned, flagged, operated or destined ships, they would be travelling between China and Darwin – that’s 44 ships a week, many of which will simply divert to other ports, or, if the asset has been seized they’re more likely to simply stop coming altogether – how can that possibly benefit the warehouses, the truckers, the waste management, the catering and hospitality venues that the sailors use, the customs brokers, the security and surveillance companies – there’s an entire eco-system of industries deriving their income from a well-operated port and Darwin, which is a small city will feel a very heavy impact from no Chinese ships arriving and departing there. There will also be a lot of farmers, miners and other suppliers using that port to ship to China – it will all stop.

So, to think China will just sit back and do nothing is wrong, they are very mindful that their investments are not just at risk but under threat – business leaders in China understand this and are already taking action – there’s an April 2024 KPMG report, that’s almost 2 years old now showing that China’s investments in Australia have declined from a peak in 2016, just after the Free Trade Agreement was signed to the lowest level since 2006. It’s well worth a read if you’re interested, the report defines all kinds of factors but fails to mention the obvious one – Australia simply doesn’t want Chinese investment, they feel threatened by perceptions given to them by media which are completely false.

In keeping with the maxim that one person’s loss is another’s gain, the vast majority of China’s Overseas Direct Investment is now going to One Belt One Road countries – these are safe destinations, they are countries that welcome trade with and investments from China. In the Western world, that’s not many countries. Leaders of Canada and the UK were recently in China seeking investment opportunities, in both cases, they returned to their home countries to media criticism. It remains to be seen how they will handle this but they, as leaders, and their business leaders all know the truth – the media is lying, a few politicians who are actually paid by Washington to further lie about China are losing influence. Some people will assume that I’m either exaggerating about this but the reality is there for all to see, if you don’t believe me, go look up who are the main funders of the Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). It states clearly on its website that it does not accept funds from governments. But then lists the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican movement, Hello Taiwan the National Democratic Institute and others, all of which are government funded and almost all of which can trace their funds back to Washington DC and congressionally approved expenditure.

The vast majority of the Non-US aligned world realises – there is no threat from China and, once again I reiterate something I’ve said many times, the people telling you China is a threat are more likely to damage your economy and your global standing than China ever will – China isn’t a threat, it’s those people telling you it is, who are.

February 22, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, China, politics international | Leave a comment

Rubio Declared a Return to Brutal Western Colonialism – and Europe applauded.

Old-school, white-man’s-burden colonialism is unapologetically back

Rubio used the Munich conference to lay bare the new reality: Washington will no longer pay lip service to being the nice guy or abiding by any red lines

 By Jonathan Cook Middle East Eye, 19 February 2026 

In Munich, the US announced its intent to crush all opposition to its permanent status as imperial top dog, even if that means destroying everything, and all of us, in the process.

S Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich Security Conference last weekend was another troubling declaration of intent by the Trump administration.

The explicit goal of US foreign policy, according to Rubio, is to resurrect the western colonial order that persisted for some five centuries until the Second World War.

Old-school, white-man’s-burden colonialism is unapologetically back.

In Rubio’s preposterous retelling, Europe’s colonisation of much of the planet, and the rape and pillage of its resources, was a glorious era of western exploration, innovation and creativity. The West brought a “superior” civilisation to backward peoples while maintaining global order.

Reflecting on the era before 1945, he observed: “The West had been expanding – its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers pouring out from its shores to cross oceans, settle new continents, build vast empires extending out across the globe.”

That course went into reverse 80 years ago: “The great western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprisings that would transform the world and drape the red hammer and sickle across vast swaths of the map in the years to come.”

According to Rubio, that decline was accelerated by what he dismissed as the “abstractions of international law”, established by the United Nations in the immediate postwar period. In the pursuit of what he derisively termed “a perfect world”, these new universal laws – ones that treated all humans as equal – served only to hamstring western colonialism.

Rubio neglected to mention that the purpose of international law was to prevent a return to the horrors of the Second World War: the extermination of civilians in death camps and the firebombing of European and Japanese cities.

During his speech, Rubio offered Europe the chance to join the Trump administration in reviving “The West’s age of dominance” to “Renew the greatest civilisation in human history.”

“What we want is a reinvigorated alliance that recognises that what has ailed our societies is not just a set of bad policies but a malaise of hopelessness and complacency. An alliance – the alliance that we want is one that is not paralysed into inaction by fear – fear of climate change, fear of war, fear of technology,” he said.

No peace, no order

Quite astonishingly, Rubio was greeted with enthusiastic applause throughout his speech from an audience comprising heads of state, politicians, diplomats and military officials. He is reported to have received a standing ovation from half of the attendees.

They seemed swept up in Rubio’s triumphalist account of empire, one utterly oblivious to the well-documented realities of “western domination” – not least its brutal colonial tyrannies, its industrial-scale genocides and the mass enslavement of native populations.

These were not unfortunate episodes or mistakes in the West’s imperial past. They were integral to it. They were the coercive means by which colonised peoples were stripped of their assets and labour to finance empire.

He also appeared blind to another downside of the colonial West, which was all too evident over those five centuries. Ruthless competition between European states, vying to be first to pillage resources in the Global South, led to endless wars in which Europeans, as well as the people they colonised, were killed.

Empire did not ensure order, let alone peace. Colonialism was about systematised theft – and, as the saying goes, there is rarely honour among thieves.

In the dog-eat-dog world that preceded international law, each colonial power was out for its own advancement against rivals. That culminated in two terrible wars in the first half of the 20th century that decimated Europe itself.

Because Rubio does not understand the past, his vision of the future is inevitably defective as well. Any attempt by the Trump administration to restore overt western colonial rule will prove suicidal. As we shall see, such a venture would spell doom for us all. In fact, we may already be well advanced on that path.

Imperial muscles

There are a number of glaring flaws in Rubio and the Trump administration’s thinking.

First, Rubio’s assertion that the West gave up colonialism some 80 years ago is flatly wrong. At the end of the Second World War, Europe’s physically battered and economically exhausted colonial powers passed the baton of empire to the US. Washington did not end colonialism. It rationalised and streamlined it.

Washington continued the European tradition of overthrowing nationalist leaders and installing weak, obedient clients in their stead.

It also seeded the globe with hundreds of US military bases to project hard power, while exploiting new globalising technologies to project soft power. Economic carrots and sticks, wielded largely out of view through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, incentivised submission to its diktats by non-western leaders.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Nuclear Armageddon

The biggest misdirection in Rubio’s remarks was his omission of the real reason the West abandoned overt colonialism after the Second World War and built international institutions such as the United Nations.

It was not an acceptance of defeat or decline by the US, but rather a recognition that, with the rapid development of nuclear arsenals by the superpowers in the wake of the war, a system capable of mediating the worst excesses of power had become a necessity.

It was the only hope of preventing reckless colonial competition and confrontation that could trigger a Third World War likely to spiral quickly into nuclear armageddon.

Nothing has changed over the past eight decades.

Russia and China still have large nuclear arsenals, and Moscow now has hypersonic missiles capable of carrying these warheads at unprecedented speeds.

There is still no failsafe mechanism to prevent misunderstandings from rapidly escalating into mutual attack.

Human nature has not changed since the 1940s – only the arrogance of a superpower determined to prevent great powers like China or Russia from ever ousting it from its imperial perch.

The threat of nuclear annihilation has not diminished. It has grown exponentially as limitations on global resources – those needed to sustain western consumption and endless “economic growth” – put ever greater pressure on the US to discard its mask as the guardian of superior values.

Rubio used the Munich conference to lay bare the new reality: Washington will no longer pay lip service to being the nice guy or abiding by any red lines.

The US is determined to crush all opposition to its permanent status as imperial top dog – even if it means destroying everything, and all of us, in the process. https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/us-rubio-declared-war-humanitys-future-and-europe-applauded

February 22, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Trump officials plan to build 5,000-person military base in Gaza, files show

Exclusive: approximately 350-acre compound planned as base for multinational force, according to records reviewed by the Guardian

Aram Roston and Cate Brown, Thu 19 Feb 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/19/trump-gaza-military-plan

The Trump administration is planning to build a 5,000-person military base in Gaza, sprawling more than 350 acres, according to Board of Peace contracting records reviewed by the Guardian.

The site is envisioned as a military operating base for a future International Stabilization Force (ISF), planned as a multinational military force composed of pledged troops. The ISF is part of the newly created Board of Peace which is meant to govern Gaza. The Board of Peace is chaired by Donald Trump and led in part by his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

The plans reviewed by the Guardian call for the phased construction of a military outpost that will eventually have a footprint of 1,400 metres by 1,100 metres, ringed by 26 trailer-mounted armored watch towers, a small arms range, bunkers, and a warehouse for military equipment for operations. The entire base will be encircled with barbed wire.

The fortification is planned for an arid stretch of flatlands in southern Gaza strewn with saltbush and white broom shrubs, and littered with twisted metal from years of Israeli bombardment. The Guardian has reviewed video of the area. A source close to the planning tells the Guardian that a small group of bidders – international construction companies with experience in war zones – have already been shown the area in a site visit.

The Indonesian government has reportedly offered to send up to 8,000 troops. Indonesia’s president was one of four south-east Asian leaders scheduled to attend an inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace in Washington DC on Thursday.

The UN security council authorized the Board of Peace to establish a temporary International Stabilization Force in Gaza. The ISF, according to the UN, will be tasked with securing Gaza’s border and maintaining peace within the area. It is also supposed to protect civilians, and train and support “vetted Palestinian police forces”.

It is unclear what the ISF’s rules of engagement would be if there is combat, renewed bombing by Israel, or attacks by Hamas. Nor is it clear what role the ISF is meant to play in disarming Hamas, an Israeli condition to proceed with Gaza’s reconstruction.

While more than 20 countries have signed up as members of the Board of Peace, much of the world has stayed away. Although it was set up with the UN’s approval, the organization’s charter appears to grant Trump permanent leadership and control.

“The Board of Peace is a kind of legal fiction, nominally with its own international legal personality separate from both the UN and the United States, but in reality it’s just an empty shell for the United States to use as it sees fit,” said Adil Haque, a professor of law at Rutgers University.

Experts say the funding and governance structures are murky, and several contractors have told the Guardian that conversations with US officials are often conducted on Signal rather than over government email.

The military base contracting document was issued by the Board of Peace, according to a person familiar with the process, and prepared with the help of US contracting officials.

The plans say there is to be a network of bunkers each 6 metres by 4 metres and 2.5 metres tall, with elaborate ventilation systems where soldiers can go for protection.

“The Contractor,” says the document, “shall conduct a geophysical survey of the site to identify any subterranean voids, tunnels, or large cavities per phase.” This provision is likely referencing the large network of tunnels Hamas has built in Gaza.

One section of the document describes a “Human Remains Protocol”. “If suspected human remains or cultural artifacts are discovered, all work in the immediate area must cease immediately, the area must be secured, and the Contracting Officer must be notified immediately for direction,” it says. The bodies of about 10,000 Palestinians are believed to be buried under the rubble in Gaza, according to Gaza’s civil defense agency.

It is unclear who owns the land where the military compound is set to be built, but much of the south Gaza area is currently under Israeli control. The UN estimates that at least 1.9 million Palestinians have been displaced during the war.

Diana Buttu, a Palestinian-Canadian lawyer and former peace negotiator, called building a military base on Palestinian land without the government’s approval an act of occupation. “Whose permission did they get to build that military base?”

Officials from US Central Command referred all questions about the military base to the Board of Peace.

A Trump administration official declined to discuss the military base contract: “As the President has said, no US boots will be on the ground. We’re not going to discuss leaked documents.”

February 22, 2026 Posted by | Gaza, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

The Veto May be the Weapon of Elimination in the Election of Next UN Chief.

the Trump administration is definitely conscious that they have the power to reshape the political culture of the organization if they find someone who aligns with their views”.

By Thalif Deen, February 17, 2026, https://www.globalissues.org/news/2026/02/17/42361

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 17 2026 (IPS) – As the campaign for the next Secretary-General gathers momentum – at a relatively slow pace – there is widespread speculation that any candidate running for the post of UN chief will have to abide by the dictates of a politically hostile White House or face a veto in the Security Council.

So far, there are only two declared candidates: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi from Argentina—with more candidates expected to join the race.

The winning candidate, who will take office in January 2027, will be elected by the 15-member Security Council and subsequently ratified by the 193-member General Assembly (UNGA).

Annalena Baerbock, the president of UNGA, said the selection process is already underway, and the interactive dialogues with candidates have been scheduled for the week of 20 April, where they will present their “vision statements”.

Meanwhile, the US has publicly declared its opposition to some of the basic goals in the UN’s socio-economic agenda, including gender empowerment and policies relating to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), while dismissing climate change as “a hoax” and a “giant scam.”
The Trump administration has also downplayed human rights and adherence to international laws—two concepts ingrained in the UN system.

In an interview with the New York Times last January, President Trump said he does not “need international law” to guide his actions, arguing that only his own “morality” and “mind” will constrain his global powers.

So, what would be the fate of any candidate— male or female—who advocates these UN goals? Will there be a battle of the vetoes – as it happened in a bygone era?

Richard Gowan, Program Director, Global Issues and Institutions, International Crisis Group (ICG), who oversees ICG’s work on geopolitics, global trends in conflict and multilateralism, told IPS nobody knows how this race will end.

Obviously UN-watchers will be tracking the initial candidates’ vision statements and public appearances over the coming months, he pointed out.

“But diplomats in New York have a suspicion that the veto powers in the Security Council may suddenly announce support for a new candidate at the last minute to circumvent the entire public process. There is a strong sense that the U.S., China and Russia don’t want to be boxed in by the General Assembly.”

There is also a scenario, he said, where the veto powers cannot agree on a candidate, and the Council ends up grinding out discussions of a candidate right through to December.

“UN officials have even done some contingency planning for what happens if there is not an agreed candidate on 1 January 2027. It is possible that the Security Council might ask Guterres to hang on for a few months, although I don’t think either diplomats or Guterres want that outcome.”

There are definitely a few senior UN officials and ambassadors in New York who wonder if the Council could call on them at the very last minute, said Gowan.

Thomas G. Weiss, Presidential Professor Emeritus, Political Science, and Director Emeritus, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center, told IPS it is hard to imagine anyone running for UNSG who would not run into a veto from Washington in a candidacy necessarily addressing the values of cooperation (multilateralism of any shape) as well as honestly discussing such issues as climate, gender (male or female), nuclear proliferation, Palestine, and sovereignty—all “hoaxes” or “con jobs” according to DJT (President Trump) and his junta.

Both the 1996 and 1981 elections, he said, provide “models.”

“The Chinese vetoes probably are the most relevant precedent for Washington going to the mat indefinitely until an “acceptable” candidate emerges. Let’s hope that person is as competent as the compromise of 1996, Kofi Annan”, he declared.

In 1981, Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, was backed by the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement and China. But his bid was blocked by a US veto.

In 1996, a second five-year term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was vetoed by the US – even though he received the support of 14 of 15 members in the Security Council.

In 1981, China cast a record 16 vetoes against Kurt Waldheim to prevent a third term, leading to his withdrawal and the selection of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar.

Meanwhile, there has been an intense campaign for a female UN chief, the first in the 81-year history of the UN. But the US has remained tight-lipped on the widely supported proposal.

The last 9 secretaries-general, all males, include:


António Guterres (Portugal), who took office in January 2017;
Ban Ki-moon (Republic of Korea), from January 2007 to December 2016;
Kofi A. Annan (Ghana), January 1997 to December 2006;
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), January 1992 to December 1996;
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru), January 1982 to December 1991;
Kurt Waldheim (Austria), January 1972 to December 1981;
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962), to December 1971;
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and
Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.

As for the U.S., said Gowan, “I don’t believe that Washington has settled on a candidate yet. But the Trump administration is definitely conscious that they have the power to reshape the political culture of the organization if they find someone who aligns with their views”.


A lot of UN members assume that the U.S. won’t accept a female Secretary-General but I think that Washington could back a woman if she was a strong social conservative and willing to make large cuts to the UN system, he argued.

Right now, there is not an obvious female candidate meeting those criteria, though. I think some candidates who could never align with the U.S. on things like development and diversity are already stepping out of the race.”

Meanwhile, there is a reason that Mia Mottley has gone from being the putative front runner to refocusing on domestic politics.

“I also think that all candidates recognize that they are going to have to talk a lot more about how they will advance the UN’s work on peace and security, which is a priority not only for the U.S. but a lot of member states.”

“That said, one senior UN diplomat recently told me that they cannot see Global South countries accepting another Western candidate after Guterres, regardless of gender. The non-Western members of the Security Council could create a blocking minority in the Security Council to keep candidates from U.S. allies out,” declared Gowan.

He said U.S. diplomats have told other veto powers that they will hold back on various reform proposals and cuts until they have their own candidate as Secretary-General.

A lot of UN members assume that the U.S. won’t accept a female Secretary-General but I think that Washington could back a woman if she was a strong social conservative and willing to make large cuts to the UN system, he argued.

IPS UN Bureau Report

February 22, 2026 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

The Israeli Government Installed and Maintained Security System at Epstein Apartment

Security equipment and alarms were installed by the Israeli government at a notorious Manhattan residence frequented by former PM Ehud Barak.

Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain, Feb 19, 2026 https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israeli-government-surveillance-epstein-apartment-66th-street-ehud-barak

The Israeli government installed security equipment and controlled access to a Manhattan apartment building managed by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a set of emails recently released by the Department of Justice. The equipment was installed starting in early 2016 at 301 E. 66th Street—the residence where former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak frequently stayed for stretches at a time.

The security operation at “Ehud’s apartment” was in place for at least two years, emails from the DOJ disclosure show, with officials from the Israeli permanent mission to the United Nations corresponding regularly with Epstein’s staff regarding security. The apartment was technically owned by a company connected to Epstein’s brother, Mark Epstein, but was effectively controlled by Jeffrey Epstein. Units in the building were frequently loaned out to Epstein’s contacts and used to house underage models.

Rafi Shlomo, then-director of protective service at the Israeli mission to the United Nations in New York and head of Barak’s security, corresponded with Epstein employees to arrange meetings to discuss security and coordinate installation of specialized surveillance equipment at the 66th Street residence. Shlomo personally controlled access to the apartment for guests and even conducted background checks on cleaners and Epstein’s employees.

Under Israeli law, former prime ministers and other high ranking officials typically receive security services after they leave office. According to the emails, Epstein personally approved the installation of the equipment and authorized meetings between his staff and Israeli security officials.

Ehud Barak and the Israeli mission to the United Nations did not respond to requests for comment.

At the time of Epstein’s death in 2019, Barak downplayed his connection to the disgraced financier, stating that while he had met with Epstein several times, he “didn’t support me or pay me.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently suggested that Epstein’s close ties to Barak, a longtime Labor Party official and rival of Netanyahu, undermine rather than strengthen the case for Epstein’s ties to Israel. “Jeffrey Epstein’s unusual close relationship with Ehud Barak doesn’t suggest Epstein worked for Israel. It proves the opposite,” Netanyahu said. “Stuck on his election loss from over two decades ago, Barak has for years obsessively attempted to undermine Israeli democracy by working with the anti-Zionist radical left in failed attempts to overthrow the elected Israeli government.”

A January 2016 email exchange between Barak’s wife, Nili Priell, and an Epstein employee—whose name is partially redacted but appears from other communications to be his longtime assistant Lesley Groff—discussed installing alarms and surveillance equipment at the residence, including six “sensors sticked to the windows,” and the ability to remotely control access to the premises. Priell informed Epstein’s staff that, “They can neutralize the system from far, before you need somebody to enter the appartment. the only thing to do is call Rafi from the consulate and let him know who and when is entering.”

The correspondence also indicated that the work done by the Israeli government was significant enough that it required Epstein to personally approve it. “Jeffrey says he does not mind holes in the walls and this is all just fine!” Groff wrote to Barak and Priell.

The mission was in regular touch with Epstein’s representatives over multiple visits by Barak and his wife throughout 2016 and 2017.

In a January 2017 email to Shlomo—with the subject line “Jeffrey Epstein RE Ehud’s apartment”—an Epstein assistant provided Israeli officials with a list of employees who would need access to the apartment, adding, “I understand from you already have a copy of her ID from awhile ago…she is the maid and has been going in and out of the apartment for a long time now!” A few weeks later, they wrote to Epstein himself that, “Rafi, the head of Ehud”s security, is asking if I could meet him at 4pm on Tues. 14th at his office (800 2nd Ave and 42nd) re Ehud’s apartment.” Epstein approved the meeting.


The correspondence continued throughout that year—in August an assistant for Epstein reached out again to Shlomo to inform him of yet another stay by Barak and his wife at the Epstein residence. By November 2017, Shlomo had been replaced by another Israeli official who managed security and surveillance for Barak.

Barak’s longtime aide Yoni Koren, who died in 2023, was another frequent guest at Epstein’s 66th Street apartment. Koren stayed at the apartment on multiple occasions—including in 2013, while he was still actively serving as “bureau chief” for the Israeli Ministry of Defense, according to calendars released by the House Oversight Committee investigation into Epstein and emails released by Distributed Denial of Secrets. Email correspondence from Barak’s inbox also showed Koren exchanging information with Epstein for a wire transfer, as previously reported by Drop Site.

New emails released by the Department of Justice showed that Koren continued to stay at Epstein’s apartment while receiving medical treatment in New York up until the second arrest and death of the financier in 2019.

February 22, 2026 Posted by | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

The challenges in projecting future global sea levels

It is well understood that human-caused climate change is causing sea
levels to rise around the world. Since 1901, global sea levels have risen
by at least 20cm – accelerating from around 1mm a year for much of the
20th century to 4mm a year over 2006-18.

Sea level rise has significant
environmental and social consequences, including coastal erosion, damage to
buildings and transport infrastructure, loss of livelihoods and ecosystems.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said it is
“virtually certain” that sea level will continue to rise during the
current century and beyond.

But what is less clear is exactly how quickly
sea levels could climb over the coming decades. This is largely due to
challenges in calculating the rate at which land ice in Antarctica – the
world’s largest store of frozen freshwater – could melt. In this
article, we unpack some of the reasons why projecting the speed and scale
of future sea level rise is difficult.

 Carbon Brief 17th Feb 2026, https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-challenges-in-projecting-future-global-sea-levels/

February 22, 2026 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Excruciating tropical disease can now be transmitted in most of Europe, study finds.

 An excruciatingly painful tropical disease called chikungunya can now be
transmitted by mosquitoes across most of Europe, a study has found. Higher
temperatures due to the climate crisis mean infections are now possible for
more than six months of the year in Spain, Greece and other southern
European countries, and for two months a year in south-east England.


Continuing global heating means it is only a matter of time before the
disease expands further northwards, the scientists said. The analysis is
the first to fully assess the effect of temperature on the incubation time
of the virus in the Asian tiger mosquito, which has invaded Europe in
recent decades. The study found the minimum temperature at which infections
could occur is 2.5C lower than previous, less robust, estimates,
representing a “quite shocking” difference, the researchers said.

 Guardian 18th Feb 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/feb/18/tropical-disease-chikungunya-transmitted-europe-study

February 22, 2026 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Epstein, Yermak and Zelensky

Comment: The primary recipient of Epstein blackmail information is Israel, the country that ‘produced Epstein’. It will remain ‘useful’ for decades.

At this stage, 25 of Epstein’s targets have negotiated with the federal prosecutor. They have paid substantial sums to avoid prosecution and to ensure their names are not published. In the first 3 million documents released, all references to them have been redacted, while those of their victims appear in full.


Thierry Meyssan, voltairenet.com, Tue, 17 Feb 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/504755-Epstein-Yermak-and-Zelensky

While Epstein may have seemed to enjoy committing his crimes, we must not forget that he worked for a secret service, Mossad. The horrors he perpetrated were primarily a means of blackmailing his associates. Although, for the moment, no Ukrainian figure has been directly implicated, numerous elements compel us to investigate who in Ukraine supplied children to the Epstein network.

The Epstein affair has shaken all developed nations. To summarize the facts: billionaire Jeffrey Epstein organized a network of informants for Mossad and the Franco-Swiss branch of the Rothschilds. In order to gain leverage over them, he gradually drew his targets (scientists, financiers, and politicians) into a series of increasingly atrocious games. Initially, he offered them extramarital affairs, then relationships with increasingly younger partners, and finally, he involved them in torture, murder, and cannibalism.People who rise to positions of power in society may feel the need to test the extent of their influence. They can only measure it by the magnitude of their transgressions, engaging in universally condemned practices with impunity.

This type of blackmail is not new. In France, we saw the Doucé affair (1990), and in Belgium, the Dutroux affair (1995-1996). The targets of this blackmail were never brought to light. A few names of prominent figures were merely mentioned, but the high-ranking criminals were never arrested. What is new in the Epstein case is that the US justice system has 9 million pages of documents, a third of which it has already released to the public.

The Doucé and Dutroux cases were blackmail schemes perpetrated by NATO intelligence services. Their targets were not limited to France and Belgium, but extended throughout the European Union. Those targeted were left unmolested and available for future operations.

At this stage, 25 of Epstein’s targets have negotiated with the federal prosecutor. They have paid substantial sums to avoid prosecution and to ensure their names are not published. In the first 3 million documents released, all references to them have been redacted, while those of their victims appear in full.

We don’t know how the US Department of Justice chose the order in which to release the documents it possesses. For the moment, they only implicate European figures and spare its targets in the United States. Perhaps this is a coincidence, perhaps it’s a way to destabilize allies while waiting for public opinion, disgusted, to tire of the situation.

We know, however, that former and current heads of state and government are implicated. Some have leaked economic, financial, or commercial data; others, political, military, or diplomatic secrets. All have committed acts that fall under criminal law and betrayed their country.Each time, unbeknownst to them,the recipient of this information was the State of Israel, or at least a faction within its government.

On a recurring basis, informants, some of whom were manipulated witnesses, others mentally ill and sometimes – much more rarely – genuine witnesses, denounced the participation of personalities in satanic cults.

To date, the only known head of state whose entourage practices black masses characteristic of this type of cult is the unelected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. For several years, appalling rumors have circulated about him without any possibility of verification. However, on January 31, Yulia Mendel, Zelensky’s former press secretary, revealed that his trusted confidant, Andriy Yermak, the former head of his now-disgraced administration, practices black masses [ 1 ] . He brought in Chabad magicians from Israel, Georgia, and Latin America. According to her, “Yermak burned herbs and collected bodily fluids to make dolls.” Within two weeks, the Ukrainian internet was flooded with caricatures and jokes about “Yermak the Magician,” who had predicted to Zelensky that Russia would never intervene in Ukraine. Under the pseudonym “Ali Baba”, Yermak was also at the head of a vast corruption network, revealed during Operation Midas [ 2 ] .

Since his suspension, Yermak has resumed his work as a lawyer. According to the Ukrainian press, he goes to the gym every morning and then to his office in the afternoon. Journalists, who follow him everywhere he goes, have observed him visiting the homes of Oleksandr Kamyshin, the director of the railways, and Rustem Umierov, secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, who is currently under investigation in the Midas case. Most notably, he visited Yevgen Korniychuk, the controversial former Minister of Justice who served as ambassador to Israel (2021-2023). Korniychuk is the son-in-law of Vasyl Onopenko, the president of the Supreme Court. Finally, Yermak’s lawyer, Ihor Fomin, and Yevgen Korniychuk went together to see Timur Mindich (Volodymyr Zelensky’s business associate, now a fugitive) in Herzliya (Israel) [ 3 ]

Among the third of Epstein’s known documents are several Ukrainian passports, but the Justice Department has redacted the names, addresses, and photos of the holders with whom Epstein associated. Furthermore, other documents attest that Epstein traveled to Kyiv several times and tasked the Frenchman Jean-Luc Brunel with shopping there. Brunel was the director of the modeling agencies Karin Models (Paris) and E=MC2 (Miami). He was indicted in France for pimping and had the good sense (like Epstein) to “commit suicide” in La Santé prison. Timur Mindichwas also the director of the Fire Point modeling agency (Kyiv). It remains unknown, however, how many young Ukrainian men and women fell victim to their schemes.

It is in this context that Mr. Volodymyr Vatras, a member of the Legal Commission of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament), submitted, on February 6, 2026, a draft reform of the Ukrainian Civil Code [ 4 ] .

Besides protecting the reputation of those prosecuted for corruption until their final conviction, this bill lowers the age of marriage to 14. Let’s be clear about what this means: consequently, any prosecution for child abduction or rape of children aged 14 to 18 will become impossible under other Ukrainian laws. The Ukrainian press is calling it “state-sponsored pedophilia” [ 5 ] . Many Ukrainians, citing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, have launched petitions against this regressive reform [ 6 ] . You still haven’t grasped what this means: this reform will be retroactive and will apply to all acts committed after 2014 (i.e., the Maidan coup). This reform abolishes the provisions of the Ukrainian Criminal Code against pedophilia [ 7 ] .

Do you know of any state in the world, today or in the past, that has retroactively lowered the marriage age? No, obviously not.

It is worth recalling that the Ukrainian government accuses Russia of abducting 900,000 children. Moscow, which disputes this figure, maintains that it did not capture them, but rather collected them from the battlefield and brought them to Russia to protect them from the war. To date, Ukraine has only released a list of 339 children whose names the Zelensky administration is demanding. Where are the thousands of others?

The answer lies somewhere in the still-secret 6 million pages of the Epstein case. Hunter Biden’s medical experiments on Ukrainian soldiers outraged you; the Zelensky clique’s abductions of Ukrainian children will make you sick.

Speaking before the Verkhovna Rada on February 11, MP Inna Sovsun declared:

“The standard that the members of the Law Commission are trying to pass, regarding marriage with 14-year-olds, is pure barbarity. It contradicts common sense and European standards. We don’t know how many other problems this code contains. Therefore, I join the demands of lawyers to remove the draft Civil Code from consideration, to examine it carefully again in committee, to discuss it in society, and only then to submit it to Parliament.”

Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and ideologue of the Servant of the People party (Zelensky’s party), was heavily involved both in drafting this Civil Code and in defending it before his assembly. He is a scientist and educator who has long worked with children. He, too, is implicated in the Midas case. But all the experts have pointed out that his statements do not correspond to the text as presented.Stefanchuk was in Washington last week. On February 7, he met with Riley M. Barnes, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Rights. He explained at length that no Ukrainian children had disappeared, but that 900,000 had been captured by Russia.

Back in Kyiv, Ruslan Stefanchuk faced a public outcry. He admitted that he could not, in its current form, submit the draft of the new Civil Code to a parliamentary vote. But the problem that this reform clumsily attempted to bury remained.

We currently know only a third of the Epstein case. When we have more information, we will need to inventory the information he possessed and examine how Israel used it.

References:…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

February 22, 2026 Posted by | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment