Since its inaugural edition in 2011, the International Uranium Film Festival (IUFF) is trying to do its best to informing the general public about nuclear risks and consequences through films and open discussions, and to preparing the humus for a safer and more just world. The film festival founders and directores strongly share the view of the Nobel Laureates: „There is no greater obligation than to prevent the catastrophe of nuclear war.“
“There is no greater obligation than to prevent the catastrophe of nuclear war“
Rio de Janeiro / Berlin / Las Vegas – Amidst the global hype surrounding the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence, we are witnessing a new nuclear arms race and a rush to expand existing uranium mines and develop new ones in the US, Canada, Brazil, and other countries. This is the grim backdrop to the upcoming International Uranium Film Festival events next October 2026 in Düsseldorf & Berlin in Germany, and in Las Vegas in Nevada.
“Humanity stands at a defining moment in its history. More than eighty years after the dawn of the nuclear age, and at the threshold of the age of artificial intelligence, we are presented with an unprecedented challenge“, states in July 2026 signed „Rome Declaration“ of the Global Nobel Laureates Assembly on Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear War. „In the midst of a worsening nuclear arms race, we are embarking on an equally dangerous AI race. AI built into nuclear systems leaves little time for, or even replaces, human judgement in a crisis.“
The situation facing the world today is serious. Perhaps even more serious than during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. Back then, artificial intelligence was still pure fantasy. It did not yet exist. In October 1962, the decision for a nuclear attack still had to be made manually by the President. We were lucky. Neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev pushed the so called Red Button.
“About 20 years later, September 26, 1983, the „Red Button“ for the launch of nuclear weapons and the start of a nuclear war was in the hands of a Russian soldier: Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov of the Soviet Air Defense Forces. 44 years old Petrov was on duty, monitoring the early-warning satellite computer system at a secret command center near Moscow. Suddenly the system detected five U.S. Nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles attacking the Sovjet Union. The lieutenant colonel had about 20 minutes to—literally—push the “red button” and launch the counterattack before the US missiles struck Russia. But Petrov didn’t believe the computer. He suspected a technical error and decided to disobey the official protocol and reported the alert as a false alarm up the chain of command. In doing so, he saved humanity.
As we know now: Petrov was correct. The satellites had mistakenly interpreted the reflection of sunlight off the clouds as attacking missiles. The brave Russian soldier became „the man who saved the world“, because he didn’t trust his computer. Two well done and awarded movies tell Petrov’s heroic story: “The Man Who Saved the World“ by Peter Anthony and “The Red Button“ by Miroslaw Grubek and Ewa Pieta.
Just a year later — unaware of the events that took place in Russia in 1983 — Hollywood director James Cameron released a successful science-fiction war movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as “The Terminator.” While not everyone likes action movies and blockbusters, they have the potential to reach millions of people – and sometimes they’re prophetic and have a serious warning message for humanity.
In “The Terminator“, the US government and the Department of Defense handed over control of US defenses and nuclear weapons to Skynet—an artificial intelligence program— in order to save the planet. Skynet subsequently classified humanity as the greatest threat to the planet. Since nuclear war is the quickest way to kill millions of people, the AI system launched US nuclear missiles at Russia, prompting a Russian counterstrike. Only a few humans survived, facing a final war of extermination against robots.
The current hype surrounding artificial intelligence makes this catastrophic scenario possible today. In 2023, speaking at a press event in Los Angeles, Arnold Schwarzenegger said James Cameron’s 1984 science fiction has now become a reality. “Today, everyone is frightened of it, of where this is gonna go,” Schwarzenegger said about AI. “And in this movie, in ‘Terminator,’ we talk about the machines becoming self-aware and they take over… Now over the course of decades, it has become a reality. So it’s not any more fantasy or kind of futuristic. It is here today.“
Two years later, in 2025, during an interview with Rolling Stone, director James Cameron warned: „I do think there’s still a danger of a ‘Terminator’-style apocalypse where you put AI together with weapons systems, even up to the level of nuclear weapon systems, nuclear defense counterstrike, all that stuff,” Cameron said. “I feel like we’re at this cusp in human development where you’ve got the three existential threats: climate and our overall degradation of the natural world, nuclear weapons, and super-intelligence,” he added.
Also in 2025, the Nobel Laureate Assembly for the Prevention of Nuclear War stated in its Declaration to the world Leaders and the general public: „Our survival and the survival of future generations are at stake. There is no greater obligation than to prevent the catastrophe of nuclear war. The threat of nuclear war is indiscriminate.“
The Nobel laureates write further: „ We can’t reduce nuclear risk by working in academic or policy silos. The public must be part of the effort. Understanding that the lack of political will impedes the reduction of nuclear risks, we call on scientists, academics, civil society, and communities of faith to help create the necessary pressure on global leaders to implement nuclear risk reduction measures. Nuclear risk is not a challenge to be left to the future or passed to another generation. It is ours to confront and ours to reduce.“
Since its inaugural edition in 2011, the International Uranium Film Festival (IUFF) is trying to do its best to informing the general public about nuclear risks and consequences through films and open discussions, and to preparing the humus for a safer and more just world. The film festival founders and directores strongly share the view of the Nobel Laureates: „There is no greater obligation than to prevent the catastrophe of nuclear war.“
Attend the upcoming screenings of the Uranium Film Festival on October 11 in Berlin (Prenzlauer Berg, Lichtblick-Kino) and on October 16 in Düsseldorf (Bambi Filmstudio). The Las Vegas edition of the Uranium Film Festival is scheduled for October 16 and 17 at the University of Nevada (UNLV). Any support is welcome.
The war in Ukraine did not begin because nobody saw it coming. It began because too many people in Washington decided the warnings did not matter.
That is the argument of Professor Jonathan Haslam’s book, Hubris: The American Origins of Russia’s War Against Ukraine. After reading it, and after talking to him at length, I think the title is earned. Not because Russia bears no responsibility for launching a war. It does. But because the road to that war was paved, over three decades, by American policy after the Cold War — and by a Western inability to understand responses from Moscow that were, in fact, highly predictable.
Haslam did not set out to write a book about Ukraine. His publisher asked a simpler question: why, after the end of the Cold War, did things not get better?
The answer he found in the archives was not a mystery of Putin’s psychology. It was a record of American decisions.
Fear of being pushed out of Europe
The United States did not greet the Soviet collapse as an unalloyed gift. George H. W. Bush and his advisers feared that the rationale for American power in Europe would disappear with the enemy.
NATO had been the instrument that kept Washington in the European security order.
If that order no longer needed an American security umbrella, the United States might be edged out of a market and a political theatre it considered essential.
Haslam’s point is not that Europeans were clamouring to evict America. They were not.
It is that Washington acted as if they might — and concluded that NATO had to be preserved, then enlarged, then given a purpose beyond the defence of Western Europe.
When Bush floated the idea of expanding NATO’s remit globally, François Mitterrand’s reaction was blistering. The Soviet Union had just collapsed. Why expand the alliance’s mission across the planet?……………………………………………………..
NATO expansion appealed to migrant communities in the United States whose families had suffered under Soviet domination. It also appealed to a bureaucracy that, Haslam argues, had learned to need enemies………………….
The people who did know Russia were cut out. George Kennan — the architect of containment, no romantic about Moscow — opposed enlargement as a provocation that would end in confrontation……………………….
Strobe Talbott, Clinton’s own point man on the former Soviet Union, wrote that putting Ukraine on a NATO membership list was dangerous and would lead to conflict.
Haslam found that memorandum in the files. Read it now and the hair goes up on the back of the neck.
Almost everything Talbott feared came true…………………………………..
From the mid-1990s, Washington was already contemplating Ukraine as a future NATO member, even while selling Moscow the Partnership for Peace as something other than enlargement by another name. The Russians noticed the gap between the language of partnership and the practice of expansion.
They were meant to.
Or rather, they were not meant to be taken seriously when they did.
To Russian military planners, Ukraine and Crimea were not sentimental extras. They were part of the southern strategic depth of the state — as Canada or Mexico are to American security thinking, as Cuba was in 1962…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
None of this is an argument for Russian victory, or for pretending the invasion of 2022 was a policing action. It is an argument for ending the habit of describing a war as unprovoked while refusing to study the provocations that were obvious to every serious Russia specialist from Kennan onwards.
Haslam’s conclusion is the one many officials still cannot say in public: the United States did not start the fighting. It started the reasons for the fighting.
If that is even half right, then more weapons and more slogans will not substitute for a settlement. They will only prolong the economic cost and the human misery.
I have spent enough years on the Russia account, including in Moscow, to know how unpopular that message is in Whitehall. It remains no less true.
Policy built on the assumption that the other side will not respond is not moral clarity.
It is negligence with a press office.
Haslam’s book is the archival case for that view. Our conversation just scratches the surface of what is a meticulously researched work that should be essential reading for politicians, policy makers and pundits in the west.
Read Hubris.
Then ask why the people who were right in the 1990s were treated as old men who did not understand the new world — a world that has since delivered exactly the confrontation they described.
In the four months since the initial ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran, Fox News figures have continuously warmongered. Throughout the cycle of ceasefire violations and stalled peace talks, individuals on Fox have urged President Donald Trump to “decapitate and destroy this regime” and send Iran “back to the Stone Age,” and encouraged him to “send the SEALs in and blow something up just for grins.”
Media Matters studied 7 key shows on Fox News — which includes the network’s evening programming as well as some shows hosted by commentators whom Trump has praised or promoted during the Iran war — called for escalatory action in the war at least 252 times since the initial ceasefire agreement on April 7. The escalatory rhetoric on the network includes arguments for military strikes, ground invasions, regime change, arming Iranian citizens, or attacks on civilian infrastructure.
I invite you to check out this study to see how the data breaks down. You can find it here.
Also: Many right-wing figures promised an early and easy victory against Iran when the U.S. and Israel launched the war in February. Six months later, it seems very clear the Trump administration has fallen quite short of its objectives. Nonetheless, a set of especially sycophantic pundits — including Sean Hannity, CNN contributor Scott Jennings, and Benny Johnson — are claiming that Trump has already won the war.
Baud is careful to stress that understanding an adversary is not the same as endorsing them. Intelligence, he reminds us, comes from the Latin intelligere — to understand. Without that understanding, diplomacy becomes impossible and force becomes the only remaining instrument.
Colonel Jacques Baud, former Swiss strategic intelligence officer and author of The Russian Art of War: How the West led Ukraine to Defeat, has spent decades studying how different military cultures understand and wage war. His detailed, heavily referenced book — written early in the conflict — remains one of the clearest explanations of why Russia continues to hold the strategic advantage in Ukraine.
Baud’s central argument is simple but profound. During the Cold War, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact organised their forces around three interlocking levels of warfare: tactical, operational and strategic.
After 2001, Western armies largely abandoned the operational level as they shifted to counter-terrorism.
Fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan reduced war to a series of tactical engagements.
When the same mindset and equipment were transferred to Ukraine, the results were predictable.
Russia never made that shift. Its art of war remains built on the classic three levels.
Early in the Special Military Operation, deep operational thrusts toward Kyiv and Kherson were designed to create strategic pressure and force negotiations. When that phase ended, Russia adjusted — not by descending into pure tactics, but by systematically destroying Ukrainian forces while still linking tactical actions to operational and strategic goals.
Ukraine, trained and equipped largely by the West, has remained stuck at the tactical level.
This difference explains much of what we see on the battlefield. Russia’s objectives have been consistent: protect the population of the Donbas, prevent Ukrainian NATO membership, and secure a neutral buffer.
The Istanbul draft of March 2022 already reflected these goals, drawing on historical models of neutrality such as Austria in 1955 and Switzerland in 1815.
The West, by contrast, has never articulated clear, measurable political objectives beyond the vague slogans of “weakening Russia” and “supporting Ukraine.”
Without clear objectives, there can be no coherent strategy and no exit plan.
Industrial capacity reinforces the disparity. Russia’s state-influenced military-industrial complex can prioritise and scale production — whether of artillery shells, missiles or drones — with a flexibility that privatised Western industry lacks.
Lead times for systems such as Patriot missiles are measured in years.
Once Russia recognised the importance of drones, it moved from relative disadvantage to local superiority through industrial mobilisation.
Baud is careful to stress that understanding an adversary is not the same as endorsing them. Intelligence, he reminds us, comes from the Latin intelligere — to understand. Without that understanding, diplomacy becomes impossible and force becomes the only remaining instrument.
The tragedy is that a clearer grasp of Russian thinking in 2022 might have spared Ukraine much of the destruction that followed.
The conversation ends with a sober conclusion. Russia has a coherent political-military strategy underpinned by industry, energy and time.
The West and Ukraine are fighting a war by committee with no clear strategic destination.
In such conditions, the side that knows what it wants — and organises itself accordingly — almost always prevails.
In my conversation with Scott Horton about his landmark book Provoked: How Washington Started a New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine, one theme emerged with striking clarity: the Ukraine war that began in 2022 did not erupt from nowhere. It was the culmination of more than three decades of deliberate American choices.
Horton’s eight-hundred-page account is not a polemical rant but a meticulously documented timeline. Drawing on thousands of primary sources, he traces the story president by president—from George H.W. Bush through Clinton, the younger Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden.
The central argument is straightforward and devastating: successive U.S. administrations systematically dismantled the post-Cold War settlement, broke explicit assurances given to Moscow, and treated Russian security concerns with open contempt.
The most consequential early breach concerned NATO expansion.
During the negotiations over German reunification in 1990, James Baker, Helmut Kohl, Hans Dietrich Genscher, Robert Gates and others repeatedly assured Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch to the east.”
Those assurances were not casual asides. They formed the basis on which Gorbachev agreed to allow a reunified Germany to remain inside the alliance while Soviet troops were still stationed in the east.
Later State Department reviews under Warren Christopher quietly confirmed that the Russians had every reason to believe those promises were binding. Yet the Clinton administration proceeded with expansion anyway, first into Central Europe and later, under George W. Bush, into the Baltic states—leaving the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad stranded behind NATO lines.
Opposition to this course was widespread and bipartisan. With great prescience, George Kennan, the architect of containment, warned that the policy would produce a “devastating reaction” from Russia and that the very people dismissing those concerns would later claim the reaction proved their point.
Two-thirds of the Council on Foreign Relations opposed expansion. Career diplomats, military officers and even hardline hawks such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that Ukraine required a special neutral status—something resembling the Cold War Finland or Austria model—precisely to avoid a catastrophic collision.
Those voices were ignored.
The pattern continued.
The 2008 Bucharest Summit promised eventual membership to Ukraine and Georgia without a membership action plan or credible security guarantees—the “worst of all worlds,” as several analysts later described it.
Color revolutions, the deliberate sidelining of the Partnership for Peace, and the refusal to implement the Minsk agreements further eroded any residual trust.
When the same cohort of officials who had driven the policy under earlier administrations returned under Biden – most notably Daniel Fried – the trajectory accelerated toward open conflict.
Horton is careful not to justify Russia’s invasion. He simply insists that calling the attack “unprovoked” is an exercise in willful blindness.
The word itself, repeated endlessly by Western governments and media, seeks to close off inquiry rather than invite it.
Horton’s book reopens that inquiry with forensic detail—names, dates, cables, memoirs—leaving readers free to draw their own conclusions.
What makes Provoked essential is precisely this refusal to operate on the short time horizon of the daily news cycle.
Most public discussion still treats either 2014 or 2022 as year zero. Horton shows that the roots stretch back to the moment the Cold War ended, when a victorious America chose (to quote the title of Professor Jonathan Haslam’s also excellent book) hubris over restraint.
The result is a tragedy that was both foreseeable and avoidable.
I am taking the book with me on holiday.
It is heavy—literally and figuratively—but the weight is justified.
Anyone who wants to understand how we arrived at the present catastrophe, rather than simply recycle the slogans of the moment, should read it.
Nuclear energy was supposed to be our salvation, humanity’s chance to retool technology first conceived as a weapon of mass destruction into an engine of limitless prosperity. But even as the industry touted nuclear fission as an economic game-changer (never mind the astronomical startup costs), a safety paragon (never mind the spills at Chornobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima) and harmless fodder for an American comedy institution (never mind that glowing rod on Homer’s back or the three-eyed fish), there was no getting around the matter of what to do with all the toxic waste (never mind nuclear’s claimed green credentials).
The stagnant state of that dirty business brought Casey Carter, the director of the new avant-garde documentary called To Use a Mountain, back to his interview with a Washington state farmer who was part of a class-action lawsuit against the government over the release of radioactive material from the Hanford nuclear reservation – site of the world’s first full-scale plutonium production reactor. The farmer’s words still echo, despite ultimately being cut to fit the film’s 90-minute runtime. “He joked that nuclear power is the only faith-based energy because everyone always asks, ‘Do you believe in it?’” Carter says. “He was like, ‘You don’t have to believe in solar. It’s just a pretty good idea.’”
To Use a Mountain could exist as a coda to Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, showing how the Manhattan Project physicist’s fears about nuclear technology’s vast potential for devastation proved more justified than even he could have imagined. In particular, the film trains its lens on the passage of the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act – which, among other things, placed six rural communities across the US in a derby of sorts to become the permanent site for more than 90,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste.
The plan was for the waste to remain isolated for 10,000 years, and that humans would still be around to celebrate the Reagan-era edict as a triumph. But the affected communities are more inclined to believe there may be no one left to parcel out due credit once the waste leaches into groundwater, pollutes the air and contaminates the food chain. Ultimately, Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, about a two-hour drive from Las Vegas, was selected as the nuclear burial site, but after decades of scheming and development, legal challenges and obstruction from activists and prominent politicians such as Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the Yucca Mountain project was halted – leaving the US with no permanent repository for its nuclear waste. (In the meantime, the federal government pays utility companies tens of billions of dollars to hold on to their spent fuel until a place for it opens up.)
Carter’s documentary unspools like an art installation, steeped in mood and texture, as it urges viewers to reckon with the anxious state of play. Gone are the voice-of-God narrator, the talking-head experts and even basic chyrons; the subjects who appear on camera aren’t named until the film’s end credits. Instead, To Use a Mountain papier-maches reams of Department of Energy (DoE) surveys, analyses and internal memos on to contemporary footage of decaying storage sites and interviews with community members who speak to the personal and environmental damage those false starts have wrought. A sound bath that samples from salmon-rich rivers and one-room church worship only serves to further underscore the stakes.
It’s a prevailing sense of doom established in shaky handheld shots that search the sky for danger, then paid off in archival footage of Oppenheimer’s bomb going off beneath desolate US landscapes before giving way to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “I didn’t want to have a traditional journalistic conversation,” says Casey, stressing the importance of humanizing the communities and concerns that the energy department documents treat with clinical distance. “These people were written about, mapped and diagrammed in excruciating detail. The Department of Energy was looking at them through this purely utilitarian lens, just kinda scanning the American landscape and trying to figure out which place was disposable enough.”
Not surprisingly, the Department of Energy disposal list quickly homed in on sparsely populated rural communities that mining and farming industries had left behind. In some cases, those communities were largely made up of marginalized Black and brown people whose claims to the land date back generations. Advocates against the Yucca Mountain site argue that its designation as a DoE nuclear disposal ground disregards a US government treaty obligation to the Western Shoshone tribe. (“The treaty is the supreme law of the land under Article 6, Section 2 of the US Constitution,” Zabarte said in a follow-up email to the Guardian. “The Constitution is not a suggestion. It is law.”) The area’s history of seismic activity is another reason to be wary of Yucca’s structural integrity over the ensuing millennia.
With impressionistic flourish, the film traces the arc of the resistance. Among others, it follows Ian Zabarte – a Shoshone principal who has lost family members to radiation-related diseases connected to the government’s nuclear testing on tribal lands. As he goes from testifying on Capitol Hill as a young man to hiking the desolate area decades later, Zabarte never wavers in his belief that Yucca belongs to the Shoshone, arguing effectively that eminent domain is just racism by another name. “It’s heavy, it’s tragic and unfortunately it’s an all-too-familiar state of affairs,” Carter says. “The amazing thing was having these conversations and really gaining a deeper understanding of the duration, persistence and willpower within these communities.”
In one scene drawn from archival footage from Hanford, which was fully decommissioned in the 1980s and has since been described as “the most contaminated place in the western hemisphere”, the film lowers viewers into a disused storage tank that has been leaking contaminants into the groundwater system and threatening the Columbia River – a lifeline to Portland, Oregon; Boise, Idaho; and scores of communities in between.
“In traveling to these places, you realize each one of them has dealt with issues of environmental violence or racism even prior to being nominated as a potential nuclear waste storage facility,” Carter says. “It’s gut-wrenching to think about people encountering this level of treatment from their government. It really shows how much of this anger exists in many parts of rural America, not just Maga rural America. This film is just a tour of example after example.”
Carter’s stylistic confidence suggests he’s been at this auteur thing for a while. But the truth is, To Use a Mountain is his first attempt at an ambitious, feature-length people’s history. A double major in physics and photography, Carter went to grad school for architecture in hopes of “unifying my left and right brain”, he says. That thirst for scientifically driven aesthetics, combined with formative years spent in the shadow of Oak Ridge national laboratory in east Tennessee, which also figured prominently in the Manhattan Project, compelled Carter to devote six years to retracing the US government’s slog-footed effort to bury its nuclear shame. In hindsight, there’s no missing those signatures in the CAD images Carter uses to depict Yucca Mountain and other disposal-site candidates.
Doubtless, some audiences may be tempted to return the concerns raised in To Use a Mountain to the back burner – to file it under “not my problem” because the energy department hasn’t sized up their community or their local power plant hasn’t been designated a Superfund site yet. Never mind that just last month, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah were named as finalists for “nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses” – federal sites that would handle spent fuel and waste management. The DoE plans to pick three host states by the end of this year. Oppenheimer’s existential dread is roaring back to the fore.
If anything, Carter’s film is a reminder of how our unsolved nuclear problem connects to all the other existential threats that keep us doomscrolling through the night and calling on a higher power – God? The government? – to restore our faith that humanity can outlive the toxic waste it leaves behind. “When I started this film in the summer of 2018, Covid hadn’t happened,” Carter says. “War in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran hadn’t happened. Artificial intelligence hadn’t been invented yet. The big tech companies are advocating for microreactors to power datacenters. Even by taking this methodological approach to making the film, it’s still opened up to this kaleidoscope of impacts that touches on military history, the environmental impacts and human psychology and fear. There’s just a sprawling network of consequences associated with this material.”
To Use a Mountain is out in the US now with UK and Australia release dates to follow
Western media, by employing double standards, censorship, deceptive language, amplifying Israeli lies and dehumanizing Palestinians, facilitates the genocide in Gaza.
Chris Hedges ScheerPost
The Western media manufactures consent for genocide. It normalizes Israel’s decades-long military occupation and apartheid. It erases Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. It perpetuates the fallacy of Israeli victimhood. It betrays, discredits and demonizes the work of Palestinian journalists and media workers in Gaza, at least 220 of whom have been killed by Israel between Oct. 7, 2023, and August 2025. It supinely accepts draconian Israeli censorship. It acquiesces with tepid letters of protest at Israel’s refusal to allow foreign reporters in Gaza — an effort by Israel to mask its war crimes. It amplifies Israeli lies, from beheaded babies to widespread sexual assault of Israeli women on Oct. 7, to obfuscate the truth.
When writing about Gaza, verbs are in the passive tense. There is no subject. No one is accountable. Genocide, it seems, is an act of God. No different from an earthquake or tsunami. Clichés and opaque adjectives such as the “cycle of violence” or “clashes” distort and falsify reality.
“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought,” George Orwell warned.
Terms such as “genocide,” “atrocity,” “ethnic cleansing” and “occupied territories” magically disappear from media reports on Palestinians, whose resistance is routinely described as “savage” and “barbaric.” New York Times reporters are instructed by editors to avoid terms such as “Palestine,” “genocide,” “carnage,” “refugee camp,” “slaughter” and “massacre,” when referencing Palestinians.
The media slavishly regurgitates what Israel feeds it. Saturation bombing becomes “surgical air strikes.” Israel’s weaponization of famine becomes a “food shortage.” The killing of unarmed civilians — including children — becomes “clashes.” The hilltop fortress-like compounds of Jewish colonists becomes “neighborhoods.” Extrajudicial assassination of a journalist or a doctor becomes “died.”
Genocide, referred to as the “Israel-Hamas war” is justified as “self-defense,” part of the mantra of Israel’s “right to defend itself.” When schools, hospitals, clinics, ambulances, mosques, churches and other civilian targets are obliterated, they are labeled “Hamas command centers” or targeted because Hamas is “using civilians as human shields” — something Israel does routinely, when the army binds detained Palestinians and forces them to enter potentially booby-trapped buildings and tunnels ahead of Israeli troops.
When Israelis are held by Hamas, they are “hostages,” even if they serve in the military. When Palestinians — including children — are held without charges or trial and disappeared into Israeli detention centers, where torture is “widespread” and “systematic,” they are “prisoners.”
Missile attacks on tent cities or hospitals are blamed on Palestinian armed groups firing errant rockets. If Israel acknowledges the attacks — which very rarely happens — they are described as a “tragic mistake.”
Civil institutions in Gaza are characterized as “Hamas-run” to cast doubt on the veracity of what they report. The New York Times routinely qualifies announcements from the Gaza Health Ministry by noting it “does not distinguish between civilians and combatants,” masking the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians.
The result is some of the most convoluted writing in the history of journalism, including the Nov. 5, 2023 New York Times headline that reads: “Explosions Gazans Say Was Airstrike Leaves Many Casualties in Dense Neighborhood.”
“When Middle East Eye journalists Mohamed Salama and Ahmed Abu Aziz, along with Reuters photojournalist Hussam al-Masri, and freelancers Moaz Abu Taha, and Mariam Dagga — who had worked with several media outlets, including the Associated Press — were killed in a “double tap” strike — designed to kill first responders arriving to treat casualties from initial strikes — at Nasser Medical Complex, how did Western news agencies respond?” I asked in my column The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists.
“Israeli military says strikes on Gaza hospital targeted what it says was a Hamas camera,” the Associated Press reported.
“IDF claims hospital strike was aimed at Hamas camera,” announced CNN.
The camera belonged to Reuters, which said Israel was “fully aware” the news agency was filming from the hospital.
“When Al Jazeera correspondent Anas Al Sharif and three other journalists were killed on Aug. 10 in their media tent near Al Shifa Hospital, how was it reported in the Western press?” I asked.
“Israel Kills Al Jazeera Journalist It Says Was Hamas Leader,” Reuters titled its story, despite the fact al-Sharif was part of a Reuters team that won a 2024 Pulitzer Prize.
The German newspaper Bild, published a front page story headlined: “Terrorist disguised as a journalist killed in Gaza.”
‘Mainstream media failed to describe Israel’s repeated breaches of the ceasefire with the language of violation. Instead, the coverage followed the same patterns of rationalizing Israel’s attacks and uncritically parroting Israel’s claims to justify its actions. As Palestinians continued to be killed — during a ‘ceasefire’ — and the flow of aid did not reach the level of need or what was agreed to, Western media framed these flagrant violations as ‘tests’ or ‘challenges’ to a ‘shaky ceasefire.’ As leading human rights organizations like Amnesty International warned that the genocide was, in fact, not over, legacy media continued to frame it as a war with a ‘fragile ceasefire.’
Words matter. Words justify actions. If there is no genocide, if Israel is defending itself in a war, the U.S. and Israel’s European allies have the right to provide tens of billions of dollars in military aid. If this is a war begun by Hamas on Oct. 7 then it is possible to lament the obliteration of Gaza and mass slaughter by Israel as the regrettable result of the Hamas attack.
This corruption of language is designed, as Orwell noted, to defend the indefensible:
“Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements.“
Adam Johnson in “How to Sell a Genocide: The Media’s Complicity in the Destruction of Gaza,” examined over 12,000 articles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN.com, Politico, Axios, USA Today, and The Associated Press, along with 5,000 TV segments aired on CNN and MSNBC. His carefully researched book is a damning indictment of the “liberal” media’s justification of the genocide.“
CNN and The New York Times instructed their editors and journalists that attacks could only be attributed to Israel after confirmation from the IDF and GPS coordinates. Johnson quotes a source at CNN:
Whether it’s in the newsroom or in the field, we couldn’t credit anything to Israel unless we were held to this impossibly high bar of having to call it an “explosion,” until we geolocated the site of the explosion, sent the coordinates to the Israelis and asked them for comment.
You can see an interview with Johnson about his book at The Electronic Intifada here.
CNN journalists reporting on Israel and Palestine must submit their work for review to the network’s Jerusalem bureau prior to airing. The CNN bureau, like all news bureaus in Israel, is required to abide by restrictions imposed by Israeli military censors.
The very few Palestinians who appear on CNN and other legacy media outlets, are routinelyasked — usually before they are even permitted on air — if they “condemn” Hamas. Guests who express even tepid criticism of Israel are asked whether Israel “has a right to exist.”
No one is ever asked if they condemn Zionism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide or Israel’s 100 year war on Palestine. Nor are they asked if the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves — which under international law they do, including with weapons.
Our domesticated journalists and news organizations are, as Robert Fisk pointed out, “prisoners of the language of power.” They dutifully parrot the official lexicon. This makes them not only propagandists, but accomplices to genocide.
Those who protest the genocide, including students on university campuses — many of whom are Jewish — are smeared as “Hamas supporters” and “antisemites.” Journalists ferret out Zionist students, usually found esconced in campus Hillel houses, who claim to be “fearful for their safety,” because of the protests. The media pays little attention to the rise in anti-Muslim bigotry or the repression meted out to student protestors, which includes not only police brutality and 3,000 detainments and arrests, but suspensions, probations, expulsions, withholding of diplomas and the firing of sympathetic faculty.
Slogans which call for Palestinian liberation — including “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — along with the Palestinian flag, have been criminalized.
The message is clear: Jewish lives matter. Palestinian lives do not.
“The reports of UN agencies, of respected human rights monitors, of medical journals, and of professional medical personnel, are generally treated with respect and given prominence in the mainstream media,” writes the historian Rashid Khalidi in the introduction to Robin Anderson’s book, “The Complicit Lens: US Media Coverage of Israel’s Genocide in Gaza:”
“Not in this war: instead, if such sources are cited at all, equal media treatment is given to the outrageous slanders and calumnies against these organizations and individuals, smears that are produced in profusion by Israel’s legion of professional propagandists and its myriad of defenders in the US. Besides smearing critics of Israel’s genocide as supporters of Hamas or terrorist sympathizers, the main weapon in their arsenal of defamation is their systematic and outrageous misuse of the deadly accusation of antisemitism.”
The massive defections of readers and viewers from mainstream media to social media platforms that do not filter news through the Israel lobby, the U.S. government or corporations, are a stark indicator of the media’s bankruptcy. The response to these defections has been “platformicide” — the use of algorithms, shadow banning, restriction of live streaming capabilities and the closing of accounts by social media giants such as Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube and TikTok, to dramatically reduce the reach of reporting on Palestine.
This censorship is part of a coordinated effort to hide the horror of the genocide from the public.
By constantly referencing Oct. 7, the Western media decontextualizes the genocide. It ignores Israel’s 19-year siege of Gaza. Oct. 7 is characterized in the Western media as “unprovoked.” Israel’s massacres of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza in the winter of 2008 and 2009, along with its attacks on Gaza in 2012, 2014 and during the Great March of Return in 2018 and 2019 are ignored.
The 1948 Nakba — when European Zionists seized more than 78 percent of historic Palestine, violently expelled 750,000 Palestinians, destroyed more than 530 Palestinian villages and killed 15,000 Palestinians — is rarely referenced. Seventy percent of those driven from their homes in 1948 were forced into Gaza.
The Zionist project is predicated on fostering historical amnesia.
“Once Hamas was established as a brutal, terrorist group whose members gleefully tortured, dismembered, and beheaded babies without conscience, no further explanation was needed,” writes Anderson in her book. “The media simply avoided reporting Israel’s history of violence and as a result, establishment media also avoided the conditions of everyday life for Palestinians.”
The fiction that there is currently a ceasefire in Gaza — Israel has killed at least 1,286 Palestinians and injured 4,257 since it supposedly went into effect — has become the excuse used by Western media to turn its back on Gaza. This genocide denial has characterized the coverage since its inception. It masks not only Israel’s crimes, but Israel’s stated intention to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians from Gaza. It effectively neuters international law. And it makes a mockery of the profession of journalism.
When the last act of ethnic cleansing happens, Western media will, I am sure, continue to bombard us with Israeli agitprop, euphemisms and clichés.
A beautifully rendered animation from 1956 is the most effective anti-nuclear war message that hardly anyone has seen, writes Linda Pentz Gunter
Sometimes the most effective way to communicate the evils of nuclear war is also the most infinitely simple.
We have read books and reports and analyses about the horrors of the United States atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on August 6 and 9 respectively.
And we’ve been chilled by the dramatic films On The Beach (1959), Fail Safe (1964), The War Game (1966), The Day After (1983), Testament (1983) and Threads (1984), which depicted the horrors of a nuclear attack. Even US President Reagan was supposedly awoken to the imperative of nuclear disarmament after seeing The Day After. Sadly, he sabotaged those chances in the end by clinging to the ludicrous and ineffective Missile Defense System, nicknamed “Star Wars”
There are fewer nuclear weapons today — just over 12,000 — than during the height of the Cold War when there were more than 64,000, but still enough to destroy the world many times over. And instead of disarming, the major nuclear weapons nations are once again rearming as the world becomes ever more destabilized by wars, climate pressure and the fight for control of resources. Nuclear arsenals in the US, Russia and China are growing larger and more lethal.
But the suicide path our leaders are still taking us on was anticipated well before the feature films and television dramas warning us of the omnicidal outcome of nuclear war; and before the scientist Carl Sagan and colleagues introduced us in 1983 to the concept of nuclear winter, its inevitable aftermath.
Their story, and ours, is to be found in A Short Vision, a film released in 1956. It is six minutes of agonizingly moving and even visually beautiful animation made by a British couple on their kitchen table. The film has all but disappeared from memory and public discourse but is thankfully viewable on YouTube.
A Short Vision was made by Hungarian born artist and painter, Peter Foldes and his British wife Joan with sponsorship funds from the British Film Institute’s Experimental Film Fund. The eerie and frighteningly evocative score was the work of another Hungarian emigre, Matyas Seiber. The narration is by British actor James McKechnie.
It is that haunting music that sets the mood from the moment the film opens, as we see a sinister object flying across the landscape, a dark, silent, menacing shape, almost a precursor to the more modern stealth bomber or the UFOs of science fiction. It is never named by the narrator. Nor is the word “nuclear” ever spoken in the film.
Then we see a leopard pinning a deer. Both look up. “And the deer darted free from the tearing claws, and they both hid in fear,” relates the narrator. The object, referred to only as “it”, flies on. The scene is repeated with an owl and a rat also looking up before the rat, too, is released to flee.
More beautifully drawn images follow, of families sleeping peacefully as the object flies over the nighttime lights of a city. The ordinary citizens are sleeping, but those who could have prevented what’s to come are not. “But their leaders looked up, and their wise men looked up. But it was too late.”
By now we are more than half way through the film, the music has become even more spine-chilling, but we are still waiting in dread and anticipation of what is to come. And then it happens. The giant explosion and conflagration is rendered in hundreds of flickering abstract fragments of reds, oranges and yellows as the object explodes in a massive fireball billowing into a giant mushroom cloud. The faces of the leaders begin to bleed, then peel off and melt away, leaving only skeletons.
Everyone is destroyed — those who saw it, those who didn’t, the leopard, the owl, the rat and the deer.
“When it was all over there was nothing else left but a small flame,” the narrator tells us. We watch the flame flicker, then consume the object itself, now transformed into a small moth. Then it is gone “and the flame died.” The film closes with a black screen and the simple words “THE END”. Which, indeed, it is.
After being shown at the National Film Theatre in January 1956, A Short Vision was reviewed by The Times, which described the film as “a work of sombre imagination.” The headline called the film a “cartoon”, which is how it was generally described, but visually it is closer to art, a reminder of Peter Foldes’ roots as a painter. Indeed, in the same review, The Times said the film was “a series of powerful, static drawings dissolving to show the death and consumption of all living things at the explosion that brings about the end of the world.”
But it was the film’s journey to the United States that marked the most extraordinary chapter in its brief history. On May 27, 1956 it was screened by CBS on a popular prime time variety programme hosted by Ed Sullivan, who described his choice to show the film — seen then in black and white — as “a plea for peace”.
“If you have youngsters in the living room, tell them not to be alarmed at this ‘cause it’s a fantasy, the whole thing is animated,” Sullivan said, as if somehow the fact of it not being live action made it less traumatic viewing.
Instead, the power of the film’s simplicity is what makes it arguably more effective than the longer dramas that followed.
Indeed, a review in the Post-Standard, a Syracuse, New York daily newspaper, said the film “gains power through its very simplicity. Perhaps no other medium could convey the finality of such conflict.” The reviewer added that “It should be shown all over the world, particularly in Russia. It is the best argument for peace at any price that has been presented in a long time.”
Sadly, that imperative is still true (although perhaps without singling out Russia). After its US adventure and brief theatrical release, A Short Vision disappeared into ignominy. Instead, it should be compulsory viewing today, shown in as many venues as possible. Someone should screen it on the walls of the White House and the Kremlin.
The airing on Ed Sullivan’s show engendered such a huge and largely positive response that Sullivan showed the film again on June 10. This time, however, he admonished parents “who have youngsters in your living room, it is a harrowing experience for youngsters, so would you please take them out of the room.” (My husband Paul Gunter, seven at the time, remembers disobeying that command and peeking round the corner. He has never forgotten the film.)
A year after A Short Vision’s debut, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was born and, a year later, in 1958, thousands marched to Aldermaston to protest the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment there. But the arms race continued, escalating to a frightening pitch by the early 1980s.
On June 12, 1982, one million people rallied in Central Park in New York City to demand the abolition of nuclear weapons and an end to the arms race. CND marched again, bringing hundreds of thousands of protesters to Hyde Park in London in 1982 and 1983 with the same demands.
By then, Peter Foldes was dead, as were Seiber and McKechnie. But Joan Foldes, who remarried and moved to France, is still alive. She is 102. The extraordinary and powerful work she did with her husband sadly remains as resonant and important today as it was in 1956. I wonder what she makes of that?
There’s a powerful new documentary out called Earth’s Greatest Enemy by Abby Martin about the ecocidal abuses of the US war machine, and it addresses the most pressing existential hurdles we face as a species like nothing I’ve seen before.
The film breaks down how the US military has become the single most environmentally destructive institution on our planet by an extremely massive margin, walking the audience through the many ways the Pentagon and its global metastases have been churning out carbon emissions, pouring toxins into the air and water, wiping out precious ecosystems for gratuitous military bases, and pummeling our sea life with sonar and noise pollution, all while gleefully salivating at the prospect of plundering the resources which lay hidden beneath our planet’s rapidly thawing polar ice caps.
Martin skillfully ties the planet-devouring behavior of the US military to the global systems of capitalism and imperialism it was built to uphold. The viewer is left with a crystal clear picture of the ways ecocide, militarism and capitalism are inseparably intertwined, and an understanding that meaningfully opposing any of these malignancies necessarily entails opposing them all. The liberal fiction that one can be pro-environment while also supporting the US military is forcefully exposed for the absurdity that it is.
It’s a jarring film with extremely dark subject matter, but it also manages to be a work of transcendent beauty and optimism. A deep love of humans and all of earth’s creatures shines through in shot after shot, while slick editing and an inspired soundtrack allow the movie to zip along at a lively and entertaining pace. Martin concludes with a galvanizing call to use our outrage to loosen the empire’s already weakening grip on humanity’s collective consciousness, because our entire world depends on it.
Perhaps the most touching aspect of the documentary is the personal element Martin chose to bring in to her overarching narrative. She discusses how she and her husband (antiwar activist Mike Prysner, who co-directed the film) had their lives forever altered when they had kids and experienced a new level of urgency to help give rise to a brighter future. Their family of four becomes a microcosm of humanity’s struggle to liberate itself from the tyranny of the machine to create a better world for our children, and we see Martin’s love for her son and daughter reflected in a great tenderness for the world as a whole.
Anyway, I’ve never felt inclined to write a film review before so I don’t know if I’ve done a good job of encouraging people to watch this thing, but for my own audience I truly cannot recommend Earth’s Greatest Enemy enough. It’s available streaming on Apple TV, Prime Video, and Watermelon Pictures. Screening tour dates and further information can be found on the Earth’s Greatest Enemy website. Be sure to leave a review on Letterboxed or IMDB if you can.
The number of casualties in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war is rapidly approaching 1.5 million, with no resolution in sight … a staggering reality. Seeking to make what sense is possible of this catastrophic conflict, Richard Sakwa meticulously explores the origins, course, and consequences of the war in the sweeping context of global and domestic politics since 1945.
Sakwa’s balanced analysis centers on what he perceives as the five levels of the conflict: the dynamics of Ukrainian politics, the evolution of Russo-Ukrainian relations, the relationship between Russia and the West, broad changes in international politics, and the prospects for a viable and sustainable peace. In explaining―without endorsing―the logic behind actions on all sides, his goal is to contribute to a path toward that peace.
Reviews
“Sakwa offers a transcendent explanation for how the war in Ukraine fits into a decimated relationship between Russia and what he calls the US-led political West…. Even those who believe that the war grew out of a dance that Russia and the West did together, but that Russia’s choice in February 2022 is indefensible, will find much in the book to ponder and much in Sakwa’s hopes for the war’s outcome and future Russian-West relations to admire.” — Robert Legvold, Columbia University
“In this deeply researched book, Richard Sakwa displays a balance rare in Anglophone writing on the subject of the Russo-Ukrainian war…. Sakwa’s superb account should be read by all who want to understand the origins of this tragic, unnecessary conflict, and how it might be ended.” — Robert Skidelsky, University of Warwick
“Sakwa’s analysis advances the most articulated interpretation of the war through the lens of sovereign internationalism. A must-read for all those who want alternative explanations of the broader framework of the conflict, accompanied by detailed analysis of the course and consequences of the war.” — Marlene Laruelle, George Washington University
Nuclear films are both reflections of the zeitgeist in which they are made and shapers of it. They feed off of both popular and expert anxieties, while also helping to solidify the terms on which these anxieties are engaged. While some themes are apparently universal (how many ways are there to blunder into nuclear war), some feel very much of their particular time and place…………………………………………………………………………………………..
This list has a strong Anglophone bias, and with a few notable exceptions approaches the topic from largely American points of view. This is a reflection of its author’s limitations and the film’s relative accessibility to an American. Undoubtedly lists could (and should) be created from different cultural and national perspectives. The list is presented chronologically and can be thought of as an unfolding of the nuclear perspective from the early nuclear age to the present.
Godzilla
1954, Toho. Directed by Ishirō Honda. Released in the USA as Godzilla, King of the Monsters, in 1956. Inspired in part by the 1954 Castle Bravo fallout disaster, which killed a Japanese fisherman and led to a boycott on tuna in Japan, Godzilla (Gojira in the Japanese original) is a more complicated film than just “radioactive monster attacks Tokyo.”…………………………….
On the Beach
United Artists, 1959. Directed by Stanley Kramer. The premise of On the Beach, adapted from the 1957 novel by the British author Nevil Shute, is that a future global nuclear war using cobalt bombs has both eradicated most of human civilization and created a massive, deadly cloud of fallout that is gradually circulating the globe, killing all in its path. Those in the southern hemisphere are momentarily safe, but the cloud is coming……………..
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
1964, Columbia Pictures. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. Stanley Kubrick’s dark comedy about the risk of unauthorized and accidental nuclear war fundamentally altered the lexicon with which we talk about nuclear weapons…………………… . When Daniel Ellsberg, then still at RAND and having just completed a classified study into the command and control problems central to the plot, saw the film in theatres, he was amazed — it was, he wrote later, “essentially, a documentary.”
Fail Safe
1964, Columbia. Directed by Sidney Lumet. Fail Safe might be remembered as the film of mid-1960s nuclear anxiety had it not come out the same year as Dr. Strangelove and overlapped so significantly with its themes………… its management of tension has led to its retrospective status as a critical success.
The China Syndrome
1979, Columbia Pictures. Directed by James Bridges.The sole film specifically about nuclear power on this list, The China Syndrome is a taut thriller that was elevated into something even more by its historical moment. ………………………..The film would work on its own merits, but the fact that the film premiered less than two weeks before the Three Mile Island accident catapulted it to the position of prophecy—for better and for worse.
Barefoot Gen (Hadashi no Gen)
1983, Kyodo Eiga. Directed by Mori Masaki. Barefoot Gen, first a manga (Japanese comic book) published in 1976, is a fictionalized version of writer and illustrator Keiji Nakazawa’s experiences of being a six-year-old boy growing up in Hiroshima before, during, and after the atomic bombing.
The Day After
1983, ABC. Directed by Nicholas Meyer. This classic made-for-television movie about the run-up to nuclear war and its immediate aftermath ……………… The film is sometimes cited as a factor in Reagan’s willingness to initiate talks with the Soviet Union and initiate “the golden era of arms control.”
Testament
Paramount, 1983. Directed by Lynne Littman. Among the crowded field of “the day after nuclear war” films of the early 1980s, Testament stands out for its relative quiet, reasonableness, and lack of sensationalism. ………………………………..
WarGames
1983, MGM. Directed by John Badham. WarGames is simultaneously a very ridiculous film and a very intelligent one. A teenage computer hacker infiltrates a government mainframe that, unbeknownst to him, is actually an advanced supercomputer at NORAD run by a highly capable-but-flawed artificial intelligence. ………………with nuclear war, “the only winning move is not to play.”
Threads
BBC, 1984. Directed by Mick Jackson. Widely regarded as the darkest and most dismal of the “day after” genre,………………………………………………………..
When the Wind Blows
Recorded Releasing, 1986. Directed by Jimmy T. Murakami. This distinctly British animated film, adapted from a 1982 graphic novel of the same name by Raymond Briggs, follows an aging couple living in rural Sussex before, during, and after a nuclear war. Stereotypically British stiff upper lips, enhanced by blundering ignorance, keeps them in largely non-complaining good humor even as the world collapses around them. ………………………….
Oppenheimer
2023, Universal. Directed by Christopher Nolan. There have been several attempts to represent the complicated life of J. Robert Oppenheimer on film. Nolan’s is the most stylized and artistic, and it’s based on the best source material ………………………
A House of Dynamite
2025, Netflix. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow. This recent nuclear thriller depicts the 20 minutes between the detection of an unattributed missile launch heading towards the United States, and its arrival at its target……………….
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 13 July 26
It’s fitting Tribune commentator Bob Kustra would go all the way back to 1980’s “virulent anti-communist” Ronald Reagan to argue Reagan would have squandered another $175 billion to keep Ukraine destroying itself in America and NATO’s lost proxy war to weaken, isolate Russia from the European economy.
Kustra is clearly locked in virulent 1980’s anti-communist ideology that he’s transferred to non-communist Russia, ignoring 35 years of NATO expansion that doubled NATO membership to keep Russia isolated and fearing NATO’s nukes on its doorsteps. This was after the USSR vanished into the dustbin of history.
Kustra imagines Russia had nothing to fear from adding Ukraine to NATO, a red line of Russian security concern that Russian leader Putin had been warning the US and NATO about since 2007. Kustra has apparently erased the US promoted Ukraine coup in 2014 that toppled Russian leaning Ukraine President Victor Yanukovych, provoking a civil war in the Donbas that killed thousands of Russian leaning Ukrainians there. In Kustra’s worldview, Obama didn’t greenlight the coup, Trump didn’t gift Ukraine with hundreds of millions in weapons to polish off the Donbas separatists. and Biden didn’t ramp up NATO membership to Ukraine and tell Russia it was none of their damn business.
Claiming Reagan would still be arming the collapsing, failed Ukraine state is preposterous. Reagan spending $20 million in black market smuggling networks to inundate Poland with “1eaflets, posters, magazines, newspapers and radio break-ins” is a quantum leap away from funding a war with $175 billion that has near utterly destroyed Ukraine in their lost war the US provoked. As conservative as Reagan was. he was foremost a pragmatist in foreign affairs. He was out of office and battling mental decline when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 so everything Kustra offers is conjecture. But Reagan’s record argues strongly he’d never have engaged in the madness Obama, Trump in term one and Biden did to send Ukraine to the scrapheap of nations.
Bob Kustra knows better. So does the Chicago Tribune. Its readership deserves something a tad better than Bob Kustra’s ‘The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming.’
United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese shares stories of the immense suffering in Palestine and laments the gutting of international law in her new book, “When the World Sleeps”.
As the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza continues and international institutions face mounting questions over their ability—or willingness—to enforce international law, few voices have attracted as much global attention as Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. Praised by supporters for her uncompromising investigations and criticized by her opponents with equal intensity, Albanese has become one of the most prominent legal figures documenting allegations of apartheid, occupation, and genocide. In a wide-ranging conversation with Chris Hedges about her new book, When the World Sleeps, Albanese discusses the human stories behind her reporting, the treatment of Palestinian civilians and medical workers, the pressures she says have been brought against her personally, and why she believes the crisis in Gaza represents not only a regional tragedy but a profound test of the international legal order itself.
Throughout the conversation, Albanese also discusses the personal consequences of her work, from financial sanctions and frozen assets to the challenges of publishing her book in the United States. At the heart of the discussion is a question she believes the international community can no longer avoid: whether governments, institutions, and ordinary citizens will continue to remain passive in the face of mounting evidence of suffering—or act before, as her book’s title suggests, the world once again sleeps through another historic injustice.
You should read the full transcript below [on original]—and, even more importantly, the book itself—but one passage that particularly stood out was Albanese’s reflection on where power truly resides, what governments ultimately respond to, and the remarkably small number of people who control an extraordinary share of the world’s wealth. As we move toward what many fear could become an increasingly dystopian future, she argues this is not, as some dismissively claim, a conspiracy theory. It is a reality unfolding in real time.
Francesca Albanese said
“Yeah, I think those who have read the book, and then I’d like also to say a few words about how difficult it’s been to have this book made available to the US readership, because there has been such pressure from pro-Israel support groups against it. You guess why. Yeah, for me, Palestine has been a revealer. It’s not that all of a sudden, we woke up in a world that is dominated by the US, especially the world we are part of politically, militarily, strategically, the US is the dominant character here. And Israel is a sort of extension of it in the Middle East. It’s an extension of Western power and Western supremacy. I know that the Israelis do not like it, but I do also believe that they do not realize how instrumentalized they are because of interests that are above all of us. We tend to think in terms of states as the ultimate decision makers. We think of it in democracies. We think of it in dictatorships. But, in fact, I don’t think that states are the decision makers. States today, more than before, more than a few decades ago, respond to certain interests, economic, military and financial interests that are connected to the main power holders in this world. I mean, and there are numbers. What I’m saying may sound like conspiracy theories to people who might not know enough about the inequality of the world.
The Thomas Piketty Institute in its most recent inequality report mentions this data, which I found shocking, staggering, the fact that half of the world population retains altogether one third of the wealth which is retained by 50,000 people in the world. I repeat, 50,000 people in the world retain three times the wealth retained by half of the world population. How is it possible? Who are these? Clearly, they are not just individuals like you and I. They retain pockets of power. And it’s those connected to the extractive industry for the control of natural resources, those connected to securing the use of force, military power and surveillance, and those connected to financial transactions, corporations and banks and pension funds. So, these are the main powers with certain corporations like pharmaceuticals more influential than others, or those related to tourism for example. However, this is the brain power of those 50,000 people.”
SpaceX’s public offering has all of the hallmarks of a pump-and-dump scheme, using a “staggered lock-up” schedule that allows insiders to sell off shares much earlier than most other publicly traded firms—enabling them to cash out while the stock is still grossly overvalued. This gambit is also called a “bagholder” scheme, as retail investors are left holding a rapidly depreciating asset.
Elon Musk became—at least temporarily—the world’s first trillionaire on June 12 after his space, telecommunications and AI company SpaceX had the largest initial public offering in history. Initially priced at $135 per share for a valuation around $1.77 trillion, shares opened at $150 and peaked on June 16 at $225.64 (a valuation of nearly $3 trillion). The price spiked after Musk announced, before markets reopened on June 15, that he believes “SpaceX might be able to reach approximately $1T revenue in 2030” (CNBC, 6/15/26).
Since its June 16 peak, however, SpaceX’s share price has fallen, steadily declining until June 22 and settling around $160 since. Markets closed on Thursday, July 2, with a share price of $162.00.
SpaceX’s big slump coincided with a mass tech sell-off last week, prompted by mounting concerns that tech firms cannot generate the returns necessary to pay off the colossal debts financing massive AI infrastructure buildouts, especially as companies are beginning to rein in their spending on AI (404 Media, 6/24/26; TechCrunch, 6/24/26).
That was likely a surprise to viewers of CNBC, whose full-day IPO coverage pumped the stock by inviting sources with vested interests to celebrate Musk’s cult of personality and obfuscate the magical thinking behind the company’s projections.
All in on business-facing Grok
According to its own S-1 filing with the SEC, SpaceX anticipates that its greatest earnings potential does not come from the rocket business for which it is famous, but from selling AI to other businesses. The breathless CNBC discussions entirely omitted the dubious origins of SpaceX’s gargantuan estimate of its maximum potential revenue—a key investor metric known as total addressable market (TAM).
In its S-1 prospectus, SpaceX claims a TAM of $28.5 trillion, larger than the entire GDP of China.
The document separates this figure into SpaceX’s three sectors: space, connectivity and AI. Although the filing argues that space “represents the largest economic frontier in human history,” space makes up just $370 billion, or 1.3%, of SpaceX’s supposed TAM. Meanwhile, AI makes up $26.5 trillion, or 93%, the vast majority of which is for “enterprise applications.”
Enterprise AI is a broad category of business-oriented applications for firms looking to simplify and accelerate workflows, like converting text files into presentation formats, writing and debugging string code, and automating some sales, marketing, HR and IT functions. The most popular AI assistant by far is OpenAI’s ChatGPT, followed by Google’s Google Gemini and Anthropic’s Claude (TechCrunch, 6/16/26).
A closer reading of SpaceX’s S-1 filing reveals that its $22.7 trillion estimate for enterprise AI applications does not actually represent the TAM of the company’s enterprise AI, but is instead an estimate of the size of the entire digital economy—posing a hypothetical wherein xAI’s Grok Business and Grok Enterprise monopolize all digital commerce. It’s worth noting that xAI currently has extremely limited enterprise AI market share, with a March Enterprise Technology Research survey finding that just 7% of respondents use Grok (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/26).
Note also that subscriptions to xAI‘s consumer AI, SuperGrok, on X (labeled “consumer subscriptions” in the chart) alone make up $760 billion, or 2.7% of SpaceX’s TAM. That’s calculated
based on the global population of individuals aged 10 and over in 2025 … multiplied by the weighted average monthly subscription revenue of $12, resulting in an annualized market opportunity of approximately $760 billion.
So if every person on the planet over the age of 9 sends SpaceX $12 every month to use Grok, the X chatbot that spent four days last year calling itself MechaHitler and promoting the Great Replacement Theory, SpaceX will take in $760 billion per year. Sounds like a business plan!
SpaceX’s public offering has all of the hallmarks of a pump-and-dump scheme, using a “staggered lock-up” schedule that allows insiders to sell off shares much earlier than most other publicly traded firms—enabling them to cash out while the stock is still grossly overvalued. This gambit is also called a “bagholder” scheme, as retail investors are left holding a rapidly depreciating asset.
While most IPOs prevent insiders from selling shares for the first 180 days of public trading, SpaceX uses an expedited schedule that allows most insiders to sell much sooner—selling off overvalued shares to retail customers.
While this pump-and-dump began with retail consumers who bought shares on the first day of public trading, these massive wealth transfers are being thrust upon working people whether they like them or not, as Musk successfully negotiated new rules that fast-trackSpaceX’s inclusion in major index funds, including the Russell 1000 and NASDAQ funds—transferring rapidly devaluing stock from SpaceX insiders to working people’s retirement accounts.
But none of this was explored on CNBC the day of the SpaceX IPO launch. FAIR could find not a single guest or anchor that mentioned that “Elon Musk’s rocket company” valued the potential for SuperGrok X subscriptions at more than twice the total projected TAM for the space industry, nor that SpaceX’s TAM is based on a scenario in which business-facing Grok controls all e-commerce—and certainly not that the IPO would essentially serve as a massive wealth transfer from retail investors to SpaceX insiders.
‘You should have bought as much as you could’
Instead, in the hours leading up to SpaceX’s first trade, CNBC viewers were primed by Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernen (6/12/26) lamenting that orders were being snatched up by large institutional investors, and hoping that trades would begin at under $300 per share. He assured viewers that, although he’s nervous, “whenever we’ve worried about any of these great tech companies…wherever it was on opening day, you should have bought them as much as you could.”
The rest of the influential three-hour morning program was as much of a commercial for SpaceX as this opening scene. Squawk Box‘s guests included SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell (interviewed by Morning Call host Morgan Brennan), Elon Musk biographer Walter Isaacson, long-time Musk investor David George, head of financial technology research at Citizens Bank Devin Ryan, and venture capitalist and investor Ben Narasin.
All but one of these guests have vested interests or are members of Musk’s inner circle, and used their airtime to generate excitement around the stock by focusing on Musk as a visionary key man. Kernen, co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin and guest host Melissa Lee offered no pushback………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
‘A number so large it destroys your credibility’
This isn’t to say that CNBC’s coverage of SpaceX’s IPO was completely without critical perspectives: Squawk on the Street’s David Faber (6/12/26) spent much of his onscreen time grilling insider guests on whether they’ll sell early, and pushing back on vague, aspirational framing around the AI and space industries.
Faber repeatedly reminded his audience that the S-1 prospectus specifically sees most of SpaceX’s potential in enterprise AI. He skeptically took the projected $22.7 trillion TAM for enterprise AI as given, but pointed out that “it’s not clear” how SpaceX’s Grok could compete with other enterprise AI products:
It’s interesting, as much as we talk about SpaceX, as much as we hear Musk talking about space and then Starlink, the real opportunity in terms of addressing this enormous number is actually still the same opportunity that’s being sought after by Anthropic, and OpenAI, and Alphabet and others.
Squawk on the Street also featured the most critical guest by far, NYU business school professor Aswath Damodaran, who came closest to questioning the origin of the TAM of any host or guest on any of the programs:
When I read [the S-1], I thought Grok had written the prospectus, because we know AI is subject to hallucinations…. I don’t know if it’s a banker who wrote it, I would be embarrassed to even put that number out. I mean, it’s a big market. Why do you need to make up a number, a number so large it destroys your credibility?
But even in scrutinizing SpaceX’s prospects, or the true size of the enterprise AI market, Squawk on the Street’s criticism missed the bigger picture: SpaceX’s record-setting IPO is a pump-and-dump, and retail investments provide the exit liquidity for insiders looking to get out of a failing AI company.
Every day, dozens of guests representing various companies advertise their stock on CNBC for retail consumers, who trust the judgment of their favorite program hosts to give completely uncontentious interviews, essentially constituting a series of infomercials, rather than actual financial journalism. FAIR (3/18/09, 2/3/20) has criticized CNBC on this basis for decades.
So when CNBC invites SpaceX insiders with vested interests to pump the valuation of their stock on the air shortly before dumping it on retail consumers, it seems obvious why even the most critical host cannot alert his viewers to what is really going on: because CNBC’s reporting exists to boost stock, rather than protect consumers. https://fair.org/home/cnbc-helps-spacex-pull-off-trillion-dollar-pump-and-dump/
The New York Times, the US’s most powerful establishment news outlet, has reported on President Donald Trump’s “memorandum of understanding” with Iran from a pro-war and/or pro-Israel perspective. Why did Trump end the war without limiting Iran’s “nuclear program” and its support for “proxy forces,” or without conducting “regime” change? These are the questions that have preoccupied the paper of record’s news reporting.
As I’ve noted before (FAIR.org, 3/30/26), multiple Times employees are reporting from and currently living in Israel, despite Israel’s blanket censorship policies, not to mention its killing hundreds of journalists. Meanwhile, the paper has no reporters in Iran, a situation it blames on Iran’s press restrictions.
This editorial decision has no doubt contributed to the paper covering the memorandum from an Israeli perspective, which is not aligned with the 59% of the US adult population who say the US using military force in Iran was the wrong decision.
‘Frightening new reality’
Over its first article (6/14/26) published about the memorandum, the New YorkTimes headline read, “In Israel, Broad Discontent Even Before Deal’s Details Are Known.” The subhead noted that “Israelis across the political spectrum have said the agreement appears to leave fundamental security threats posed by Iran unaddressed.”
The piece, by Times Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner, uncritically granted anonymity to an “Israeli who had been briefed on the deal with Iran” to “discuss diplomacy.” They listed their “main problems” with the proposal: “no clear answers regarding the treatment of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, and not enough curbs on Iran’s nuclear program,” no “conditions for the collapse of the Iranian government” and “no clear mechanism for forcing Iran to halt its support for its proxy forces.”
One day later, the Times (6/15/26) published an article headlined “Israel Counts the Ways That Netanyahu’s Iran Strategy Failed.” Times Jerusalem bureau chief David M. Halbfinger and Tel Aviv staff writer Ronen Bergman noted that the agreement “omits some of the most important things Israel wanted.”
These “important things” included “to curb Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal” and “its funding of regional proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, who have attacked Israel with their own arsenals.” The deal “could help Iran bolster those proxies by easing sanctions, which would allow billions of dollars to flow into its bank accounts,” Halbfinger and Bergman added.
‘Catastrophic capitulation’
Three days later, Halbfinger published an article (6/18/26) headlined “Israel, Stunned by Trump’s Iran Deal, Sees It as a ‘Catastrophic Capitulation.’”
This time, Halbfinger wrote that:
Israel awoke to a frightening new reality on Thursday as it absorbed, with disbelief and largely in silence, the terms of President Trump’s preliminary agreement to end the war with Iran.
Halbfinger noted that “it accomplishes none of Israel’s war aims, analysts and officials said, and arguably leaves the country in worse shape on each of them.” Among those aims? “Regime change,” “ballistic missiles and proxy militias” and “Iran’s nuclear program,” listed Halbfinger.
Uncritically parroting Israeli government talking points that frame Israel as the victim is journalistic obfuscation at best: Israel privately lobbied to assassinate Iran’s lead negotiator and to “restart the war with a new round of strikes targeting the country’s oil infrastructure” (Capital and Empire, 5/28/26), and it insists it has the right to continue ethnically cleansing Lebanon.
One of the biggest challenges of his career’
One week after her first article about the memorandum was published, the Times’ Kershner wrote another article (6/21/26) headlined “Netanyahu Faces One of the Biggest Challenges of His Career.”
Her thesis was that Netanyahu “is fighting for his political survival” due to “the emergence of a peace deal that Israel is not a party to.” Kershner wrote that Netanyahu “has staked his career on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which Israel views as an existential threat.”
Kershner, like Halbfinger and Bergman, ignored the fact that Iran has upheld its promise not to build a nuclear weapon (Arms Control Association, 2/25). By contrast, Israel—not Iran—is the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, and the US remains the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in war.
Kershner wrote:
The agreement seeks to curtail Israel’s freedom of action in Lebanon, where the Israeli military has been fighting Hezbollah, the Iran-backed proxy militia on its doorstep. The deal makes no mention of curbing Iran’s ballistic missiles, which Iran has used to attack Israel and US Gulf allies during the wars. And it leaves the nuclear issue to be addressed in further negotiations.
Framing Israel’s killing of more than 4,100 people in Lebanon and displacement of 1.2 million since March (Drop Site News, 6/22/26), as “Israel’s freedom of action” insinuates that Israel is entitled to occupation and ethnic cleansing. And by noting that Iran has used its ballistic missiles “to attack Israel and US Gulf allies during the wars,” Kershner ignored which two countries attacked the other first, and which country used its ballistic missile arsenal to defend itself against further attacks (PBS, 6/18/26; Middle East Eye, 6/23/26).
‘A let down and reality check’
As for the Iranian perspective, the Times published an article (6/15/26) headlined “Many Iranians Express Relief Over Agreement to End the War.” The subhead read, “After enduring months of conflict, ordinary people in Iran were relieved to hear about the deal. Opposition groups were disappointed.”
The Times’ Farnaz Fassihi noted that:
Iranians expressed a range of emotions over the agreement to end a war that killed thousands across the region and brought enormous loss with no gain for millions of others.
Fassihi quoted just two sources based in Tehran, one of whom she interviewed by telephone, the other by text message. One asked, “What was the point of this war? What did it bring us exactly?” The other asked: “Is this REAL? Are they serious?”
Fassihi added that
for Iranian opposition groups and some members of the diaspora who had hoped the war would topple the Islamic Republic, the agreement was both a let down and a reality check.
Fassihi cited a social media post by Behnam Amini, a “monarchist political activist in Washington who has supported the war against Iran.”
Fassihi also noted:
In Iran, a minority within the hard-line political faction—those who ideologically favor destruction of Israel and war with the US by any means—unleashed fury at Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Gen. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the lead negotiator and speaker of parliament.
The piece was unable to quote a source that expressed explicit opposition to the US/Israel’s attacks on Iran—which suggests the limitations of the Times’ long-distance approach to covering Iranian opinion.
nuclear-news 