Venezuela and the colonial enterprise
By Ben Laycock | 11 December 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/venezuela-and-the-colonial-enterprise,20471
When small nations resist the United States, democracy becomes a game of pressure, writes Ben Laycock.
U.S. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP claims his belligerence towards Nicolás Maduro is in the noble cause of restoring democracy to Venezuela, but history shows us that the U.S. is no friend of democracy in Latin America.
The U.S. is renowned for interfering in the democratic process in every single country south of the border of America. It is common knowledge that it is nigh on impossible to maintain power in any Latin American democracy if the U.S. decides it is time for you to go.
The way the world economy works like this rich countries make products that poor countries need, like technology. To afford those products, poor countries must offer something the rich folks need. This is usually minerals or fossil fuels. If the rich folks don’t like the way you run your country, basically, if you don’t run your country the way they tell you to, they use their immense economic power to cripple your economy by cutting off the most vital thing you need, finance. The rich folks control the money supply. They turn off the tap. Your country goes broke, the people get angry and throw you out. The U.S.-backed mob get in, the tap is turned on again. The anger of the masses subsides, the status quo returns, without a shot being fired, all perfectly democratic.
A nation cannot maintain its independence via democratic means if the powers-that-be object to that independence, as they so often do.
The only way to maintain your independence is to suspend normal democratic rights and be prepared to defend your country via military means. If you take this drastic course of action, you will face the approbation of the entire “democratic” world. You will no longer be seen as a legitimate state. That is when they really turn the screws, imposing an economic blockade on your struggling little country. This forces you to turn to less popular regimes for life support, thus placing you firmly in the enemy camp, ripe for full-scale military invasion.
The U.S. imposed an extremely strict economic blockade on Cuba in 1962. That blockade is ongoing, the longest economic blockade in history. No company that trades with Cuba can trade with the U.S., full stop.
But only a fool would think these actions have anything to do with democracy. Here in the rich world, democracy is a game we play. If we are losing the game, that’s when things get serious. The USA is going through the painful process of shedding long-held notions of democracy at this very moment.
Donald Trump’s best friends are not leaders of democracies: Mohamed Bin Salman, his present best friend, is a Prince. Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf states are monarchies, ruled by kings. His other bosom buddy is Benjamin Netanyahu, a man who runs a brutal military dictatorship over many of his subjects, divided along racial lines. Israel reserves democratic rights for Jews only, plus a small minority of arabs that they neglected to exterminate long ago (something they have come to regret). The rest of their subjects are subject to military dictatorship. All Jewish people are allowed to vote, no matter where they live in Palestine. Arabs citizens are allowed to vote unless they live in Gaza or the West Bank. There are 9.5 million citizens in Israel (this includes Jewish settlers in the West Bank), two million of them are Arabs. Until recently, there were over two million people living in Gaza. (The I.D.F. is going to extraordinary lengths to reduce that number). There are 2.5 million people living in the West Bank. That makes a total population under Israeli control of 14 million, 9.5 million of whom have the right to vote, the other 4.5 million are living in an extremely brutal military dictatorship, and have been for generations.
So we can say that the land of Israel is 63 per cent democracy and 37 per cent military dictatorship.
This is not so different to how Australia was run until quite recently.
Our nation began as a military dictatorship. Eventually, the invaders and settlers were allowed to vote, while the indigenous population continued to be ruled by a brutal military dictatorship right up until 1967. The “blackfullas” were seen as the enemy, to be shot on sight. The last recorded massacre was the Conniston Massacre in 1928. It is a rule of thumb for any self-respecting colonising power to keep the local indigenous population out of the democratic process until you have reduced their numbers to the point where they no longer pose a threat to your idea of “civilisation.”
A colonial enterprise must reduce the ratio of locals to interlopers. This is achieved by two simultaneous methods: Reducing the population of locals via extermination, whilst flooding the place with immigrants from “the home country.”
When Captain Cook arrived in Australia, there were around one million blackfullas. This number was swiftly and efficiently reduced to a far more manageable size. In Tasmania, the number of full-blood blackfullas was reduced to zero. In Victoria, it was reduced to three. Yet it still took nearly 200 years before the interlopers felt safe enough to grant the last indigenous remnants their democratic rights.
To return to Palestine. The interlopers arrived en masse around 1947-8. They immediately set about adjusting the ratio of locals to invaders (following the colonial textbook to the letter) via a campaign of mass terror. The Zionists expelled over one million Palestinians from their homes, at gunpoint, with nothing more than they could carry on their backs. They then blew up their homes and planted booby traps so they could never return. This is how the state of Israel was founded, on ethnic cleansing. Since that time, some 80 years ago, the Palestinians have lived under brutal military rule, but until now, there has been little attempt to get rid of them altogether. That policy has changed. The Arab Palestinian cohort is growing faster than the Jews. Partly because the Arabs are outbreeding the Jews about 3-1, well done team! But also because Israel is no longer such a popular place to come and live, for obvious reasons. The Israeli regime is aware that it cannot maintain a Jewish state once the Arab population approaches parity. So they are now talking about expelling the Arabs from the Israeli enclave, as well as from Gaza and the West Bank. In their eyes, this would reduce the threat of violence that is putting off potential immigrants, whilst freeing up new lands to give them, problem solved!
Schemes of Bankruptcy: The United Nations, Funding Dues and Human Rights
Increasingly shrivelled and shrunken, the UN’s far from negligible role in seeking to conserve peace, flawed as it can be, or distributing aid and protecting human rights, risks vanishing into history.
11 December 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/schemes-of-bankruptcy-the-united-nations-funding-dues-and-human-rights/
The United Nations, in turning 80, has been berated, dismissed and libelled. In September, US President Donald Trump took a hearty swipe at the body’s alleged impotence. “What is the purpose of the United Nations?” he posed to gathered world leaders. All it seemed to do was “write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words and empty words don’t solve war.” Never once did he consider that many of the wars he has allegedly ended have not so much reached their pacific terminus as having gone into simmering storage.
While harsh geopolitics has become violently fashionable and sneery of international law, an organisation whose existence depends on solidarity, support and cooperation from its often uncooperative Member States, is seeing itself slide into what has been described as a “worsening liquidity crisis.” The crisis was given much stimulus by the organisation’s US$135 million deficit as it entered 2025. By September’s end, it had collected a mockingly inadequate 66.2 per cent of the year’s assessments.
In October, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, in speaking to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly responsible for the entity’s budget, warned that the organisation was facing a “race to bankruptcy” unless Member States forked out their dues. Last year, arrears totalled US$760 million. With the need to return credits worth US$300 million to Member States at the start of 2026, some 10 per cent of the budget would be emptied. “Any delays in collections early in the year [2026] will force us to reduce spending even more … and then potentially face the prospect of returning US$600 million in 2027, or about 20 per cent of the budget.”
While discussing finances can induce a coma, some preliminary discussion about the structure of contributions to the UN is necessary. Assessed or mandatory contributions for 2025, measured by the “capacity to pay” formula, comprised the regular budget of the organisation covering administrative and operational costs (approximately $US3.7 billion); funding for international tribunals ($US43 million); the Capital Master Plan covering the renovation of the UN headquarters in New York; and peacekeeping operations (US$5.4 billion). Voluntary contributions are self-explanatory enough, comprising optional donations from Member States and various other entities for humanitarian and development agencies, in addition to sustaining the broader UN system.
States discharging their obligations in making contributions to the regular budget receive proud mention in the Honour Roll of the UN. Those not doing so risk losing their vote in the organisation if their financial lethargy continues for two years or more after the due date of contributions – not that this injunction has been well observed. The United States remains famously tardy, and under Trump, boisterously so. As the body’s primary contributor to the regular budget – assessed as 22 per cent in 2025 – and 26 per cent to the peacekeeping budget, this is particularly galling.
Since January, the current administration has savaged funding to various UN bodies. On his first day of office, the President signed an executive order withdrawing his country from the World Health Organization due to its “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”
The UN Human Rights Council was the next fashioned target, with February’s withdrawal from the body justified on the basis that it had “protected human rights abusers by allowing them to use the organization to shield themselves from scrutiny”. In sympathy for Israel, funding was also frozen to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), citing the allegation that employees had been “involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel.”
Revealing its crass, impulsive philistinism, the Trump administration proceeded to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in July. “UNESCO,” declared State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, “works to advance divisive social and cultural causes and maintains an outsized focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, a globalist, ideological agenda for international development at odds with our America First foreign policy.” Amidst all of this, the parochial agenda was made clear: UNESCO, in admitting Palestine as a Member State was “highly problematic, contrary to US policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization.”
Washington has been singular in this regard only in terms of scale. China and Russia are also conspicuous in being late with their contributions while other Member States have simply pared back their UN contributions for reasons of defence and domestic expenditure. War mongering is proving catching, while peacemaking, despite the boasts of the US President, is falling out of vogue. A most conspicuous area to suffer has been human rights.
In October 2025, the International Service for Human Rights identified an ongoing campaign to defund the UN human rights agenda being waged in the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee. In a report using material gathered from 37 diplomats, UN officials and experts, along with data analysis of UN documents and the organisation’s budget from 2019 to 2024, the ISHR identified a campaign of “coordinated obstruction” by Member States steered by China and Russia. Coupled with Washington and Beijing’s “failure to pay their assessments in full and on time (respectively)”, the UN’s means of funding and implementing its human rights programs has been stymied.
Most to suffer has been the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which finds itself $90 million short of what it needs for 2025. Some 300 jobs have already been shed by the organisation. “Our resources have been slashed, along with funding for human rights organisations, including at the grassroots level, around the world,” warns UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk. “We are in survival mode.”
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), responsible for humanitarian aid and crisis, has had to resort to the beggar bowl. Facing its own budgetary razor, the body is seeking US$23 billion as a matter of immediacy, with the hope that it will save 87 million lives. “Ultimately, in 2026,” the body announced on December 8, “the aim is to raise a total of US$33 billion to support 135 million people through 23 country operations and six plans for refugees and migrants.”
While wobbly, scarred by imperfections and marked by contentiousness, an organisation built from the ashes of murderous global conflict in 1945 risks becoming the very model of impotence Trump claims and no doubt wishes it to be. In this, he can count on a number of countries, friendly or adversarial to the US. Increasingly shrivelled and shrunken, the UN’s far from negligible role in seeking to conserve peace, flawed as it can be, or distributing aid and protecting human rights, risks vanishing into history.
Zelensky’s rush to elections is an effort to cling to power and keep the money flowing
Signing a peace deal that takes NATO off the table will kill his chance of re-election
Ian Proud, The Peacemonger, Dec 11, 2025
In a recent interview with Politico, President Trump said, ‘they’re (Ukraine’s government) using the war as an excuse not to hold an election.’
This is not a new criticism. Republican figures who have long opposed open-ended financial aid to Ukraine have often targeted Zelensky’s lack of a democratic mandate. This includes Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, a long-standing critic who once labelled Zelensky an ‘unelected dictator’ in a video prior to the US Presidential elections.
Always a slick media operator, Zelensky has responded to the US President’s criticism by offering to hold a plebiscite while Ukraine remains under martial law, if European states and the US can guarantee security. Mainstream media have, predictably, seized on this as further proof of Zelensky’s democratic credentials and his commitment to deliver peace under the most difficult circumstances of war.
However, only around 20% of Ukrainians favour an election prior to any peace deal, according to an August poll, compared to 75% who believe elections should happen after the war. Until recently, Zelensky used this data to shoot down critics who called him out as anti-democratic. Now, he’s willing to sidestep the will of his people and go to the polls while war is still raging.
Trump’s criticism doesn’t, in my eyes, represent a challenge to hold elections now, but first to sign a peace deal with Russia, paving the way for elections upon the cessation of martial law.
Right now, only, 20.3% of Ukrainians would vote for Zelensky, a drop of 4% since October polling, in the light of collapsing support for the war effort and the ongoing corruption scandal.
That still makes Zelensky the most popular candidate from a long list, his closest rival being former military commander Zaluzhny. Although the same poll suggests that a new political party headed by the current Ukrainian Ambassador to London would defeat Zelensky’s Servant of the People faction.
The New York Times’ recent investigation has shown Zelensky’s government has actively sabotaged oversight, allowing corruption to flourish. This story was eye-opening both for the depth of the investigation and its source – a newspaper that had hitherto backed the Ukrainian President’s endeavours to the hilt. Now, rather than sitting above the issue, blind to the activities of his closest political allies, Zelensky is increasingly viewed as an integral part of Ukraine’s corruption problem.
He may be gambling on running for the polls early to increase his dwindling chance of clinging on to power. Despite the logistical challenges, a vote under martial law might work in his favour.
………………………………………………………………………………. In a country as corrupt as Ukraine, anyone who seriously believes that Zelensky wouldn’t attempt to rig the vote in his favour is, I fear, worryingly naïve.
And holding elections under martial law would also allow the war train to keep rumbling forward, and the billions from Europe to keep flowing in
At no point since he rejected the draft Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022 has Zelensky appeared like he wanted to see the war conclude. High on promises from Joe Biden, Boris Johnson and others to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, greeted as a hero wherever he travelled, Zelensky watched the billions in foreign aid roll into his country, while his closest aides grew rich and purchased Bugattis and other hypercars that tool around Monaco, according to Donald Trump Jr in recent televised remarks.
All of Zelensky’s pronouncements since mid-2022 have sought to position himself as on the side of the angels, to situate President Putin as the aggressor, to keep western leaders at his back every step of the way, and to keep the money flowing.
A natural actor, he has a line for every occasion.
‘No one wants peace more than me.’
‘Putin doesn’t want peace.’
‘Putin refuses to talk to Ukraine.’
‘Only pressure on Russia will force Putin to make compromises.’
‘Ukraine can win!’
Yet for over two years, after a failed summer counter-offensive that the UK military helped to plan, it has been clear that Ukraine cannot win.
Even if you gave Ukraine the same amount of foreign funding that was provided in previous years, that would at best allow it to continue to lose slowly on the battlefield.
But fighting to the last Ukrainian appears a better bet politically, for Zelensky. A peace deal in which, at the very least, Ukraine gives up its aspiration to join NATO will be catastrophic politically for Zelensky, almost certainly ruining his chance of re-election. He knows it. Everyone in Ukraine knows it. And, of course, Putin knows it
Meanwhile, Russia can afford to wait it out…………………………………………………………. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/zelenskys-rush-to-elections-is-an?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=181320366&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Nuclear power? Its account is (almost) OK
In France, it has been decided that widespread electrification will mean a nuclear revival. But the feasibility and viability of this revival are questionable. Technically, industrially… and also economically and financially. Laure Noualhat delivers a damning indictment of the cost of nuclear power for the coming years and envisions France defaulting on its debt due to this investment choice. A provocative statement designed to shock: intrigued, the public might be inclined to watch her documentary, ”
Nuclear Power Will Ruin France, ” or read her book of the same name to discover figures recently validated by the Court of Auditors. Perhaps even underestimated.
Science involving nuclear power is nothing but the ruin of the state.
This new nuclear perspective rests on a risky gamble, devoid of any studies or clearly established facts. The long-awaited third multi-year energy program (PPE) has not yet been published, but the decision is already considered final:
three pairs of EPR2 reactors have been announced, with four more expected to follow. And the current dithering at the highest levels of government will not allow for the swift publication in the Official Journal of the implementing decrees for the corresponding laws passed in 2019 and 2021, relating to renewable energies and nuclear power. While the second PPE was largely dominated by the question of the pace of reducing the share of nuclear energy in electricity production, this third version intends to prioritize nuclear power, while curbing the development of wind and solar power.
Plans drawn up without much detail regarding the financial arrangements. A vague understanding of the economic impact of such investments in France. This is the general observation, which is hardly reassuring given the sums involved.
Aside from the future design and construction of new reactors ( whose final design is not yet complete ), the nuclear sector faces expenses related, for example, to the annual operating costs of the existing fleet. While considered minor compared to the initial investment and expected to decrease continuously, these costs are actually increasing each year for an aging fleet due to so-called “refurbishment” investments and safety upgrades (the “major overhaul” plan). These are all bills to be paid, essential for ensuring the fleet’s operation beyond 40 or 50 years and beyond, and considerably larger than initially anticipated.
This is clearly considered in the numerous reports conducted by the Court of Auditors (CC) on EDF (
2012 report ,
updated in 2014 ,
2021 report ). Given the difficulty of extracting the precise elements for a comprehensive analysis of the situation from EDF’s financial reports, the Court’s reports prove to be a valuable journalistic contribution. Valuable, but still incomplete. The Court of Auditors itself admits that the reports are systematically produced with little cooperation from the national company: the CC emphasizes that projections sometimes had to be established “without EDF’s data,” disregarding “hidden costs,” “concealed amounts,” and “difficult calculations,” despite the various accounting methods that are always prone to significantly altering the evolution of the different parameters.
So much so that the CC finally admits to having to put forward the figures ‘with caution’, not without difficulty since EDF is playing with the withholding of sensitive information…………….
From this murky situation, Laure Noualhat takes on the almost sacred mission of reconstructing the future burden of nuclear power in France. And, in addition to the costs of the EPR2 reactors, it turns out that costs are also rising through operating expenses, maintenance investments, the cost of future expenses (decommissioning, waste and spent fuel management), changes in the fleet’s production, the level of economic lease payments…
This interview returns to the investment problems raised, the growing financial consequences of this technology, deemed totally unreasonable by Laure Noualhat.
Published in the Reporterre media collection , the bias with which the book could be accused easily falls away: the figures are corroborated by the Court of Auditors itself.
The goal would therefore be to find €200-250 billion, a conservative estimate reconstructed by Laure Noualhat. This is equivalent to the investment costs for the construction of the 58 existing civilian reactors (€106 billion in 2018; the two reactors at Fessenheim have since been shut down ). However, the national electricity provider remains heavily indebted (by approximately €54 billion) and cannot claim to finance the new nuclear program on its own. Furthermore, the cost has increased by 100% since the announcement in 2019 (the initial estimate was €52.7 billion). Undoubtedly, all of this will require guarantees from the State.
However, there is nothing very attractive about it for investors given the hypothetical financial returns which could be considered insufficient over a period running from the construction phase to the operation phase, i.e. more than 60 years.
The costs of existing reactors will increase, particularly in the event of generic defects, combined with the risks associated with the aging of the fleet that will inevitably come to light. This growth will be difficult to control and anticipate. Therefore, given the significant investments it may require, this issue has become urgent, as it will severely impact the budget.
The risk of insufficient performance of the nuclear fleet is among the most critical in the group’s risk assessment. It is directly affected by the occurrence of generic faults, which can reduce fleet availability while they are being addressed. This risk has been assigned the highest impact level and a control level ranging from medium to low.
It’s an open secret that all this is because the premature aging of internal materials and components has been known since 1986. The Energy Regulatory Commission itself noted that EDF believed that with the aging of the fleet, generic hazard problems would become more structural: this was the case during the episode of stress corrosion cracking discovered quite by chance, and there is reason to fear that others will occur.
Indeed. Just recently, an ASNR meeting revealed that new cracks measuring 2 to 3 millimeters had been detected and confirmed at the Civaux nuclear power plant on reactor 2 (1450 MW). The piping of the affected RRA circuit (the primary circuit under normal operating conditions) has reportedly already been dismantled and sent for analysis, suggesting that the cracks were detected well before this announcement. This specter of renewed stress corrosion cracking raises concerns about the technical and technological control of this accelerated aging process under irradiation and extreme operating conditions (temperature, pressure).
An already outdated figure
The Court of Auditors’ investigation into EDF is far from over. A new
report was just published at the end of September 2025. The findings are alarming: EDF faces a massive investment challenge of €460 billion over 15 years…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Protected like few others, supported by the political class, the nuclear sector deviates from certain minimal procedures in terms of accounting and transparent financing. It is decidedly not subject to any of the economic rules that prevail in other industrial sectors.
The aim of this investigation, led by Laure Noualhat, was to shed more light on the expenses generated by undebated political decisions. Mission accomplished.
Will these colossal investments put an end to the new nuclear program in France? https://homonuclearus.fr/nucleaire-compte-presque-bon/?utm_source=Homo+nuclearus&utm_campaign=3e0276f781-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_02_12_08_27_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_338d2a581d-3e0276f781-433658419
Oil and gas industries join with nuclear to fight renewable energy.
For decades oil, gas and coal backers were locked in a rivalry with nuclear interests, competing for shares of America’s energy grid; but today many on both of those sides have teamed up to counter the rise of renewable power.
Bloomberg Businessweek previously reported on how the
backers of a politically connected nuclear startup are working, at times covertly, to neutralize the industry’s chief regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Many of the nuclear industry’s most energetic backers are simultaneously engaged in efforts to kill the competition—wind and solar.
Bloomberg 9th Dec 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-12-09/nuclear-energy-fossil-fuel-interests-join-forces-against-renewable-energy
Search for UK fusion plant engineering partner to restart in 1-2 years after failed first attempt
09 Dec, 2025 By Thomas Johnson
The procurement for an engineering partner to construct the UK’s Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (Step) fusion power plant will resume “in a year or two” after a failed first attempt, but the choice of a construction partner is imminent.
……………………..
The government launched a competition to select engineering and construction partners for the prototype fusion energy plant in Nottinghamshire in May last year, with the contracts rumoured to be worth close to £10bn. Then in January, the shortlist for both partners was revealed.
The shortlisted organisations for Step’s engineering partner were:
- Celestial JV: consisting of Eni UK Limited as the lead member and AtkinsRéalis, Jacobs Clean Energy (now Amentum), Westinghouse and Tokamak Energy as other members.
- Phoenix Fusion Limited: consisting of Cavendish Nuclear as the lead member, KBR and Assystem Energy and Infrastructure as other members.
Engineering procurement hits the wall
Despite announcing the two-consortia shortlist, the project recently divulged that the process of selecting the engineering partner had broken down, with the approach being taken as being deemed “not suitable”…………………………………………………………..
Speaking at the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) annual conference on 4 December, UKIFS chief executive Paul Methven stated procurement for the engineering partner would resume “in a year or two”……………………………………………………………… https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/search-for-uk-fusion-plant-engineering-partner-to-restart-in-1-2-years-after-failed-first-attempt-09-12-2025/
Sizewell C sea defences at centre of High Court challenge
A campaign group against the project is due to raise concerns about flooding and rising sea levels.
Jasmine Oak, 10th Dec 2025, https://www.hellorayo.co.uk/greatest-hits/norfolk/news/sizewell-c-sea-defences-at-centre-of-high-court-challenge
A campaign group opposing the Sizewell C nuclear power station is due to challenge the government in the High Court over concerns about flooding and sea level rise.
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) will appear in court today (Tuesday, the 9th December), when a judge will decide whether the group can proceed to a full judicial review against the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband.
The legal challenge focuses on two additional sea defences that Sizewell C Ltd has committed to installing but were not included in the original planning application for the project.
Chris Wilson, from Together Against Sizewell C, said the hearing is a “permission hearing where the judge will decide whether we can go to a full judicial review”.
He said the group discovered at the end of 2024 that Sizewell C Ltd had committed to the Office for Nuclear Regulation to install additional coastal defences to prevent flooding in extreme sea-level rise scenarios.
“What we subsequently found out was that these additional sea defences had been known about by EDF, who put in the planning application for Sizewell C,” he said.
“They’ve known about them since 2015, and in 2017 they’d actually carried out an assessment for the platform height for Sizewell C, which is particularly relevant for flood protection.”
What’s the importance of these defences not being reviewed?
Mr Wilson said the approved platform height of 7.3 metres meant that, in an extreme sea level rise scenario caused by climate change, additional flood defences would be required.
He said these defences were not part of the original Development Consent Order (DCO) and had therefore not been assessed for their environmental or community impact.
“Sizewell C has been approved and got DCO approval to be built, but it doesn’t include these additional sea defences,” he said.
“That means they’ve never been assessed as to their environmental impact or impact on other places, like RSPB Minsmere or the village of Sizewell.”
According to Mr Wilson, one of the proposed sea defences could extend around 500 metres across the land.
Infrastructure across Suffolk
He also raised concerns about the concentration of energy infrastructure in east Suffolk.
“To have 30% of the whole nation’s energy infrastructure in one small area of Suffolk, with the wind farm infrastructure and Sizewell C, it doesn’t provide security of supply in our mind,” he said.
“It just seems to be a big target for someone who wants to disrupt us.”
Mr Wilson said the cumulative impact of ongoing and planned developments was already affecting the area.
“The area of outstanding natural beauty has long been recognised as a very special place, and it’s just been decimated by all the works going on at the moment,” he said.
He added that further infrastructure, including a proposed water pipeline, could disrupt residents’ lives and damage the local tourism economy.
Chris Wilson also expressed concern for future generations. He said decisions taken now would have long-term consequences in Suffolk and beyond.
He warned that delaying scrutiny of the additional sea defences could leave those in the future facing greater environmental damage, higher financial costs and fewer options. He said any infrastructure with a lifespan stretching into the next century should be fully assessed for climate change impacts from the outset, arguing that failure to do so risks passing the burden of unresolved problems, including coastal erosion and flood protection, onto people not yet born.”
What they want to see
TASC argues the Secretary of State should reconsider or amend the project’s consent order to allow for public scrutiny of the defences before construction continues.
Mr Wilson said the group wants the government to “actually listen to those that have raised concerns and have an objective review” of whether Sizewell C is needed.
He said: “If it was determined it was, which I don’t think it would be, there are other options. We’ve got renewables plus storage that could meet the requirement quicker and cheaper.”
Government response
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has previously said Sizewell C would provide secure, low-carbon electricity for millions of homes once operational.
The High Court will decide on Tuesday whether TASC can proceed to a full judicial review of the government’s decision.
Mr Wilson said he hoped the judge would allow the challenge to continue.
“I just hope that the judge can see the validity of our arguments and that we get a full judicial review hearing,” he said.
Danger of letting AI into the nuclear weapons chain of command
Peter Kuznick on the new National Security Strategy
ACURA, December 9, 2025
ACURA’s James W. Carden spoke this week with Peter Kuznick, professor of history and director of the award-winning Nuclear Studies Institute at American University.
JC: I’d like to start with your thoughts about the new National Security Strategy (NSS). It seems to me that there was some good stuff and some not-so-good stuff in there. I’m curious to get your overall take and then maybe we can drill down a little bit….
PK: The thing about it is that the Trump administration is quite schizophrenic. They’ve got bonafide neocons and then they’ve got the MAGA base, which wants to not only avoid Forever Wars, but wants to avoid overseas involvements.
It is very concerned about what’s going on in the Caribbean now, and very concerned about Trump’s blind support for Israel……………………………………………………………………………..
the overall picture is that the US is going to maintain its hegemony. What it wants is empire on the cheap. So Trump says, we want the Europeans and the Asians to spend 5% of GDP on their militaries so that the US doesn’t have all that responsibility.
Even though the NSS criticizes NATO and criticizes the Europeans over Ukraine. Trump, I think, sincerely, would like to end the war in Ukraine, not only to get the Nobel Peace Prize that he so covets. But Trump does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, no matter what he does in terms of Ukraine or for the other conflicts that he says he settled……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
JC: The other parts of the NSS that stuck out at me was the reference to the Golden Dome and the references to AI which were sort of like, this is something that we need to harness and encourage. I look at AI and see something on the order of a nuclear danger. In other words, I think our policy towards AI should be non-proliferation, stop feeding this beast. What do you think?
PK: Yes, I agree that we need strict regulation of AI. If you leave this in the hands of the tech bros and the billionaires, it could be a disaster. I mean, one of the things that I’m glad is that there seems to be some recognition to not let AI into the chain of command when it comes to nuclear command and control. As you know, we’ve averted several World War III scenarios because there were human beings in the chain who intervened to stop launching retaliatory strikes based on faulty radar intelligence. (see, for eg., https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/19919-national-security-archive-doc-21-william-odom)
So AI worries me a lot. And the Golden Dome is another loony idea because it’s so much easier to overwhelm these missile defense systems with decoys, you can’t shoot ’em all down. We say it’s hitting a bullet with a bullet, but it’s hitting a bullet and all these decoys too. Also, it is a waste, another waste of more than a couple hundred billion dollars, and then the cost overruns always skyrocket. So it’s a fantasy. It’s an illusion just like it was when Reagan proposed Star Wars, it’s an illusion now…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://usrussiaaccord.org/acura-exclusive-peter-kuznick-on-the-new-national-security-strategy/
Tony Blair’s digital ID dream, brought to you by Keir Starmer
Why is Britain’s PM set on introducing such a wildly unpopular policy as digital ID? Parliament debated the issue last night after a petition against the policy was signed by three million people. It’s a policy that has done the improbable job of uniting Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson and Zack Polanski in opposition to the idea. In today’s column, Carole Cadwalladr joins the dots between Starmer’s policy and the Tony Blair Institute – and argues that the whole thing is a “techno-authoritarian’s wet dream”.
If Keir Starmer’s digital ID is the question, Tony Blair is the answer
The government’s wildly unpopular new policy is backed by Britain’s wildly unpopular former PM. It’s also a techno-authoritarian’s wet dream, argues Carole Cadwalladr
We live in polarising times. Britain is a nation united only by the occasional sporting fixture and intermittent bursts of outrage at the BBC. Yet somehow, Keir Starmer has achieved the impossible: he has announced new legislation so wildly unpopular that it has hit a mythical political g-spot, uniting not only Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn, but even more miraculously, it’s brought together Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana.
The issue at stake is digital ID. And if it has so far passed you by, it’s not because you’ve failed to pay attention, it’s because digital ID is a political ghost, a phantom that appeared from nowhere and now looks set to haunt what remains of Starmer’s credibility.
This is a policy that wasn’t in the Labour Party’s manifesto, that no party faithful campaigned for and that no voters were told about on the doorstep. Instead, after some brief ground softening by pet journalists in friendly newspapers, it appeared out of almost nowhere in late September.
Last week, the Office of Budget Responsibility calculated that it would cost £1.8bn over the next three years (a figure rejected by the government, who also couldn’t point to any savings). And yesterday evening, parliament debated the issue, not because the government had tabled it but because it had no choice: it had been forced to hold a ‘Westminster Hall’ debate, triggered by a petition signed by nearly three million people.
The obvious question is why? Why is Starmer pinning his political reputation on such a manifestly unpopular policy? When he announced it, he claimed it would stop illegal immigration by putting an end to illegal work, an argument so hopeless that even he’s abandoned it (people who employ illegal immigrants being the least obvious demographic to abide by any new rules).
Instead he’s tweeted a series of increasingly desperate reasons, all of which have been comprehensively ratioed (ie comments vastly outnumbering shares) and community noted (fact-checked by users).
I wish there was a more complicated reason behind Starmer’s kamikaze moves. But there’s a perfectly straightforward explanation behind all of this: Tony Blair.
The Nerve has mapped the political landscape to illustrate who’s for digital ID and who’s against it. And what our research shows is a web of influence that radiates out from Tony Blair’s Institute for Global Change. In the ‘for’ camp is a grab bag of people who are mostly associated with Blair. And against it…is everyone else.
The pro-Digital ID list includes William Hague who authors reports, for which he’s presumably being paid, with Tony Blair for TBI, including one on Digital ID – a report forgot to mention in his tweet claiming the concept is simply ‘common sense’.
There are also historic allies like Peter Mandelson and those in Blair’s grace and favour, including various Labour proteges in key cabinet positions, Peter Kyle, Wes Streeting and publications that include the Times and the Observer.
This list of those against includes not just Farage, Corbyn and Sultana but also Zack Polanski, Ed Davey and Boris Johnson.
The fight has only just begun, but digital ID is already shaping up to resemble less a policy than a suicide vest Tony Blair has strapped to Starmer’s back.
Digital ID is Blair’s pet policy. Cut it in half and you’ll find the letters T-O-N-Y running through the middle. It’s lodged deep in Blair’s political psyche – his obsession with a national ID card goes back to the 90s – but it’s also now the basis for a technology that is a surveillance capitalist’s wet dream.
“The £260m Larry Ellison has put into Tony Blair’s institute is an extraordinary amount of money. It dwarves the budget and expenditure of other UK think tanks“
And while it may look like a 90s throwback, it cleaves closely to the 21st century business goals of Blair’s billionaire patron. That billionaire patron is Larry Ellison, the man who’s backed Blair’s ‘Institute for Global Change’ to the tune of £260m.
We chose to launch the Nerve with an investigation into Starmer, Blair and Ellison because if Larry Ellison is the eminence grise behind Blair, Blair is the eminence grise behind Starmer.
Ellison, the founder of Oracle, has emerged as one of the most powerful of the broligarchs, close to both Trump and Netanyahu. He’s poised to take over American TikTok with Rupert Murdoch, while his son has bought Paramount and installed a right-wing commentator as the head of CBS News. He’s also the most powerful man in Britain that most people have never heard of.
The £260m he’s put into Tony Blair’s institute is an extraordinary amount of money by British standards. It dwarves the budget and expenditure of other UK think tanks. Digital ID is only the latest policy that’s been incubated in the steel and glass central London offices that seemingly operate a revolving door between TBI and the Starmer government, all closely align with Ellison’s.
Nor is TBI Ellison’s only UK venture. He’s also funded the Ellison Institute of Technology, a research institute at Oxford University that includes the life sciences, and a nationwide centralised database that incorporates health and other data that could have huge research possibilities.
Data is the raw fuel of AI foundation models and our personal data, the most intimate facts about us, is the most valuable data of all. (Especially to a man like Ellison who’s obsessed with ageing and is funding health research that he hopes will extend human life, including importantly his own.) Some of the worst companies on the planet will seek to exploit that data and digital ID is an irreversible step: a genie that once out of the bottle, is never going back.
It’s the techno-authoritarian possibilities of a centralised database that’s alarmed both the libertarian wing of the Conservative and Reform parties, spearheaded by David Davis, but also tech and press freedom organisations, including the Electronic Freedom Foundation, Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch and Article 19. It’s not hyperbole to say that creating a centralised database is what the Stasi would do because it is exactly what they did.
One doesn’t have to speculate about Ellison’s views on mass data collection and what it means for surveillance: he’s already said all the quiet parts out loud. “Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times,” he has said. “And if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behaviour because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”
Tony Blair is an undeclared lobbyist. Ellison is his client. And TBI is an influencing machine whose tentacles spread across both the political and media establishments: if you read any article about digital ID that doesn’t include the Blair/Ellison connection, ask yourself why.
Carole Cadwalladr is an award-winning investigative journalist and co-founder of the Nerve, a new platform for fearless, independent journalism.
Russia says it awaits an answer from the US on New START as nuclear treaty ticks down.
By Guy Faulconbridge and Lucy Papachristou, December 10, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russia-says-it-awaits-an-answer-us-new-start-nuclear-treaty-ticks-down-2025-12-10/
- Summary
- New START expires on February 5
- Russia awaits an answer from US, top official says
- Putin has proposed keeping the treaty’s limits
- Trump has said it is a good idea
MOSCOW, Dec 10 (Reuters) – Russia on Wednesday said it was still awaiting a formal answer from Washington on President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to jointly stick to the last remaining Russian-U.S. arms control treaty, which expires in less than two months.
New START, which runs out on February 5, caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the United States and Russia can deploy, and the deployment of land- and submarine-based missiles and bombers to deliver them.
Putin in September offered to voluntarily maintain for one year the limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons set out in the treaty, whose initials stand for the (New) Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
Trump said in October it sounded “like a good idea.”
“We have less than 100 days left before the expiry of New START,” said Sergei Shoigu, the secretary of Russia’s powerful Security Council, which is like a modern-day politburo of Russia’s most powerful officials.
“We are waiting for a response,” Shoigu told reporters during a visit to Hanoi. He added that Moscow’s proposal was an opportunity to halt the “destructive movement” that currently existed in nuclear arms control.
NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL IN PERIL
Russia and the U.S. together have more than 10,000 nuclear warheads, or 87% of the global inventory of nuclear weapons. China is the world’s third largest nuclear power with about 600 warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists, opens new tab.
The arms control treaties between Moscow and Washington were born out of fear of nuclear war after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Greater transparency about the opponent’s arsenal was intended to reduce the scope for misunderstanding and slow the arms race.
U.S. AND RUSSIA EYE CHINA’S NUCLEAR ARSENAL
Now, with all major nuclear powers seeking to modernise their arsenals, and Russia and the West at strategic loggerheads for over a decade – not least over the enlargement of NATO and Moscow’s war in Ukraine – the treaties have almost all crumbled away. Each side blames the other.
In the new U.S. National Security Strategy, opens new tab, the Trump administration says it wants to “reestablish strategic stability with Russia” – shorthand for reopening discussions on strategic nuclear arms control.
Rose Gottemoeller, who was chief U.S. negotiator for New START, said in an article for The Arms Control Association this month that it would be beneficial for Washington to implement the treaty along with Moscow.
“For the United States, the benefit of this move would be buying more time to decide what to do about the ongoing Chinese buildup without having to worry simultaneously about new Russian deployments,” Gottemoeller said.
THE NEXT WARS WERE ALWAYS HERE: How Post 9/11 Law and the Monroe Doctrine Converged in the Caribbean.
December 9, 2025 By Michelle Ellner, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/09/the-next-wars-were-always-here-how-post-9-11-law-and-the-monroe-doctrine-converged-in-the-caribbean/
The first U.S. missiles that struck the boats in the Caribbean in early September 2025 were described by Washington as a “counter-narcotics operation,” a sterile phrase meant to dull the violence of incinerating human beings in an instant. Then came the second strike, this time on survivors already struggling to stay afloat. Once the details emerged, however, the official story began to fall apart.
Local fishermen contradicted U.S. claims. Relatives of those killed have said the men were not cartel operatives at all, but fishermen, divers, and small-scale couriers. Relatives in Trinidad and Venezuela told regional reporters their loved ones were unarmed and had no connection to Tren de Aragua, describing them instead as fathers and sons who worked the sea to support their families. Some called the U.S. narrative “impossible” and “a lie,” insisting the men were being demonized after their deaths. U.N. experts called the killings “extrajudicial.” Maritime workers noted what everyone in the region already knows: the route near Venezuela’s waters is not a fentanyl corridor into the United States. Yet the administration clung to its story, insisting these men were “narcoterrorists,” long after the facts had unraveled. Because in Washington’s post 9/11 playbook, fear is a tool. Fear is the architecture of modern American war.
The U.S. did not emerge from the Iraq War into peace or reflection. It emerged into normalization. The legal theories invented and abused after 9/11 – elastic self-defense, limitless definitions of terrorism, enemy combatants, global strike authority – did not fade. They became the backbone of a permanent war machine. These justifications supported drone wars in Pakistan, airstrikes in Yemen and Somalia, the destruction of Libya, special operations in Syria, and yet another military return to Iraq. And behind every expansion of this global battlefield was a U.S. weapons industry that grew richer with each intervention, lobbying for policies that kept the country in a constant state of conflict. What we are seeing today in the Caribbean is not an isolated action; it is the extension of a militarized imperial model that treats entire regions as expendable.
The next wars were always there because we never confronted the political and economic system that made endless wars a profitable cornerstone of U.S. power.
A Post-9/11 Legal Framework Built for Endless War
The Trump administration has advanced several overlapping legal arguments to justify the strikes, and together they reveal a post-9/11 framework that stretches executive power far beyond its intended limits.
According to detailed reporting in The Washington Post, a classified Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo argues that the United States is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with so-called narcoterrorist organizations. Under this theory, the strikes qualify as part of an ongoing armed conflict rather than a new “war” requiring congressional authorization. This framing alone is unprecedented: drug-trafficking groups are criminal networks, not organized armed groups targeting the U.S.
A second pillar of the memo, described by lawmakers to the Wall Street Journal, claims that once the president designates a cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, it becomes a lawful military target. But terrorism designations have never created war powers. They are financial and sanctions tools, not authorizations for lethal force. As Sen. Andy Kim put it, using an FTO label as a “kinetic justification” is something “that has never been done before.”
The OLC memo also invokes Article II, claiming the president can order strikes as part of his commander-in-chief authority. Yet this argument depends on a second unsupported premise: that the boats posed a threat significant enough to justify self-defense. Even internal government lawyers questioned this. As one person familiar with the deliberations told The Washington Post, “There is no actual threat justifying self-defense — there are not organized armed groups seeking to kill Americans.”
At the same time, the administration has publicly insisted that these operations do not rise to the level of “hostilities” that would trigger the War Powers Resolution because U.S. military personnel were never placed at risk. By the administration’s own logic, that means the people on the boats were not engaged in hostilities and therefore were not combatants under any accepted legal standard, making the claim of a wartime self-defense strike impossible to reconcile with U.S. or international law.
Under international law, executing people outside a genuine armed conflict is an extrajudicial killing. Nothing about these strikes meets the legal threshold for war. Because the people on the boats were not lawful combatants, the operation risks violating both international law and U.S. criminal law, including statutes on murder at sea, a concern reportedly underscored by Admiral Alvin Holsey’s early resignation.
The memo goes further still, invoking “collective self-defense” on behalf of regional partners. But key regional partners, including Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico, have publicly criticized the strikes and said they were not consulted, undermining the very premise of “collective” defense.
This internal contradiction is one reason lawmakers across both parties have called the reasoning incoherent. As Sen. Chris Van Hollen put it, “This is a memo where the decision was made, and someone was told to come up with a justification for the decision.”
And beneath all of this lies the most dangerous element: the memo’s logic has no geographic limits. If the administration claims it is in an armed conflict with a designated “narcoterrorist” group, then, by its own theory, lethal force could be used wherever members of that group are found. The same framework that justifies strikes near Venezuela could, in principle, be invoked in a U.S. city if the administration claimed a cartel “cell” existed there.
If Trump truly believes he leads “the most transparent administration in history,” then releasing the memo should be automatic. The American people have the right to know what legal theory is being used to justify killing people in their name.
For decades, OLC memos have been used not simply as legal advice but as the internal architecture that allows presidents to expand their war-making power. The Bush torture memos treated torture as lawful by redefining the word “torture” itself, calling it “enhanced interrogation,” thereby enabling years of CIA black-site operations and abusive interrogations. The Libya War Powers memo argued that bombing Libya did not constitute “hostilities,” allowing the administration to continue military action without congressional approval. Targeted-killing memos, including those related to drone strikes on U.S. citizens abroad, constructed a legal theory that lethal force could be used outside traditional battlefields, without trial, based on executive determinations alone. In each case, the memo did not merely interpret the law; it reshaped the boundaries of presidential war powers, often without public debate or congressional authorization.
The American people have the right to know what “legal theory” is being used to justify killing people in their name. Congress needs it to conduct oversight. Service members need it to understand the legality of the orders they receive. And the international community needs clarity on the standards the U.S. claims to follow. There is no legitimate reason for a president to hide the legal basis for lethal force, unless the argument collapses under scrutiny. A secret opinion cannot serve as the foundation for an open-ended military campaign in the Western Hemisphere.
The Older Foundation: A 200-Year-Old Doctrine of Control
If the legal foundation comes from the post-9/11 era, the geopolitical foundation is older. Almost ancestral. For 200 years, the Monroe Doctrine has served as the permission slip for U.S. domination in Latin America.
The Trump administration went even further by openly reviving and expanding it through what officials called a “Trump Corollary,” which reframed the entire Western Hemisphere as a U.S. “defense perimeter” and justified increased military operations under the language of counter-narcotics, migration control, and regional stability. In this framework, Latin America is no longer treated as a diplomatic neighbor but as a security zone where Washington can act unilaterally.
Venezuela, with its vast oil reserves, sovereign political project, and refusal to submit to U.S. pressure, has long been marked as a target. Sanctions softened the terrain. Disinformation hardened public opinion. And now, military strikes near its waters test how far Washington can push without triggering public revolt at home. The term “narcoterrorism” is simply the newest mask on a very old doctrine.
The strikes in the Caribbean are not isolated. They are the predictable intersection of two forces: a post-9/11 legal regime that allows war to expand without congressional approval, and a 200-year-old imperial doctrine that treats Latin America as a zone of control rather than a community of sovereign nations. Together, they form the logic that justifies today’s violence near Venezuela.
The Label that Opened the Door
After 9/11, every administration learned the same lesson: if you label something “terrorism,” the public will let you do almost anything. Now, this logic is being used everywhere. The cruel, decades-long blockade on Cuba is justified by claiming that the island is a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Mass surveillance, border militarization, endless sanctions, all wrapped in the language of “counterterrorism.” And now, to authorize military action in the Caribbean, they simply take the word “narco” and attach it to the word “terrorism.” The label does all the work. The danger is not confined to foreign policy: after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the same elastic definition of “terrorism” is now being used domestically to justify crackdowns on NGOs the administration claims are inciting “anti-American” political violence.
The only reason Trump has not launched a full-scale attack on Venezuela is that he is still testing the ground, testing resistance inside Venezuela, testing Congress, testing the media, and testing us. He knows nearly 70% of people in the United States oppose a war with Venezuela. He knows he cannot sell another Iraq. So he is probing, pushing, looking for the line we will not let him cross.
We are that line.
If we do not challenge the lie now, if we do not demand release of the memo, if we stay silent, “narcoterrorism” becomes the new “weapons of mass destruction.” If we allow this test case to go unanswered, the next strike will be a war. We are the only ones who can stop him. And history is watching to see whether we learned anything from the last twenty years of fear, deception, and violence.
Because the next wars were always here, looming. We just need the clarity to see them and the force to stop them before they begin.
Across the world we are marking 5 years since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons became international law.
11 Dec 25, https://www.icanw.org/resources_for_5_years_since_the_nuclear_ban_went_into_effect
There are so many ways the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is making a difference:
Making nuclear weapons illegal and illegitimate
The treaty has closed the legal gap! Nuclear weapons are now banned under international law. It has also reinforced the nuclear taboo by creating a new international norm that nuclear weapons can never be used because of the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental harm they cause. TPNW states have condemned nuclear threats unequivocally and have encouraged other states to do the same – for example, through the G20. The TPNW is the first multilateral treaty to prohibit nuclear threats. It has solidified the international consensus that nuclear threats are inadmissible.
Demanding nuclear justice
Prior to the TPNW’s entry into force, there were few opportunities for states to discuss victim assistance and environmental remediation in a multilateral setting and in a focused way. The Treaty has brought the fight for nuclear justice to the fore and provided an important forum for communities affected by the use and testing of nuclear weapons to discuss their ongoing needs.
Cutting financial support for nuclear weapons manufacture, development and production
Hundreds of banks, pension funds and other financial institutions have pledged never to finance nuclear-weapon-producing companies on the basis that such weapons are now prohibited under international law.
Providing a rallying place for those who demand an end to nuclear weapons forever
Representatives of hundreds of non-government organisations, along with parliamentarians, mayors, religious leaders and academics, have attended each of the TPNW meetings of states parties. New actors have become involved.
Read more about how the TPNW has changed the world
Action Ideas: What can I do?
Nuclear weapons affect all of us, so it’s up to all of us to push back against the threats and absurd concept that they provide any security whatsoever. This anniversary is an opportunity to celebrate that the global majority of countries have signed onto the Treaty.
Ways to show your support………………………………………………………………..
Ontario’s Nuclear Folly
Ontario’s nuclear expansion a blunder of epic proportions
David Robertson, Canadian Dimension, December 9, 2025 https://watershedsentinel.ca/article/nuclear-folly/
The last time the nuclear industry got its way in Ontario, the province’s erstwhile publicly-owned electrical utility, Ontario Hydro, spent over two decades building 20 nuclear reactors.
It was a mashup of missed deadlines, cost overruns and a troubling pattern of declining nuclear performance. Even more troubling, the last generation of nuclear reactors forced Ontario Hydro to the edge of bankruptcy. It saddled the province with a mountain of nuclear debt that we are still paying off.
The Ford government is now repeating those costly mistakes in what amounts to the largest expansion of the nuclear industry in Canada’s history – risking a blunder of historic proportions.
Past debt due
In 1999, Ontario Hydro collapsed under the staggering weight of its nuclear debt. At the time, Hydro’s assets were valued at $17.2 billion, but its debt amounted to $38.1 billion. The government was faced with a stranded debt of $20.9 billion.
In response, the Province split Ontario Hydro into five separate organizations. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) took over the generating facilities (hydro, coal, gas, nuclear) and Hydro One (later privatized) the transmission grid. The debt was transferred to Ontario families through special charges on electricity bills and the tax system. It was the world’s largest nuclear bailout – one we are still paying for.
This is a $290 billion nuclear gamble.
Ontario Power Generation is now leading Ontario’s nuclear resurrection, following a series of government directives that put nuclear onto the fast-track while shouldering clean, cost-effective and safe renewables to the side of the road.
It is an astonishing coup. Without putting up their own money, and without bearing the financial risks, the nuclear industry has captured Ontario’s energy policy.
Even a few years ago this would have seemed impossible. Catastrophic accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima had severely tarnished the nuclear safety image. All around the world the cost overruns and lengthy build times of nuclear plants had chilled utility and government interest in new projects. In Europe only one nuclear plant has been built and come online since the late 1990s.
the nuclear industry to deliver electricity on time and on budget. It also demonstrated that nuclear reactors couldn’t provide affordable electricity. In fact, Ontario Hydro’s last public cost comparison (1999) revealed the cost of nuclear energy to be more than six times the cost of hydroelectricity.
Now it seems that all those hard lessons have been forgotten, as the Ford government launches a multipoint nuclear power offensive. It has passed legislation to ensure nuclear is Ontario’s energy priority. It has made commitments to build untested and costly small modular reactors. It has decided to refurbish antiquated nuclear plants when there is no business case to do so. And it has opened the public purse to the appetite of the nuclear industry.
Small modular reactor hype
There will be four new SMRs built at the Darlington nuclear location. Site preparation work is already underway on the first one, for which OPG has convinced the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to forego an environmental assessment.
SMRs are not small and they are not that modular. And they are also not that new. The designs have been kicking around for a long time, but no one wanted to build them and investors were loathe to put up their own money. The fate of SMRs changed when the industry convinced governments in Canada to develop a hype-heavy “SMR Roadmap,” followed by a federal “SMR Action Plan.” The plan includes a wide range of supports, from relaxing regulatory requirements through public relations efforts to absorbing the financial risks of an untried technology.
The Ford government is committing a colossal amount of money to its nuclear gamble
The World Nuclear Industry Status Review is an annual independent assessment of the global nuclear industry. In its 2022 review it concluded: “SMRs continue to hog the headlines in many countries, even though all evidence so far shows that they will likely face major economic challenges and not be competitive on the electricity market. Despite this evidence, nuclear advocates argue that these untested reactor designs are the solution to the nuclear industry’s woes.”
In the 2024 review, analysts note: “The gap between hype about [SMRs] and reality continues to grow. The nuclear industry and multiple governments are doubling down on investments in SMRs, both in monetary and political terms.”
Mortgaging our future
The Ford government is committing a colossal amount of money to its nuclear gamble, including $40 billion for refurbishments at 14 reactors, $20 billion for four SMRs at Darlington, $75 billion for Bruce C, and $156 billion for Port Hope.
That is a $290 billion nuclear gamble. If we add the $26 billion which is the official preliminary estimate for the deep geological repository of nuclear waste, then we are well beyond $300 billion.
Three hundred billion is an almost unthinkable amount of money. For most of us it’s hard to get a sense of what those funds could achieve.
Some examples:
• Provide every dwelling in Ontario with a free $20,000 heat pump and a free $20,000 rooftop solar system
• Replace half of the passenger vehicles in Ontario with a free electric vehicle
• Replace transit fares in Toronto for the next 300 years
• Provide every farm in Ontario with a free 10 kilowatt wind turbine
• Replace all the school buses in Ontario with new electric ones
Expensive nuclear plants produce expensive electricity and those costs are paid for through our taxes and electricity bills. It is already the case that nuclear is one of the most expensive energy options available. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, using data from the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and Lazard, has reported that the mid-point cost of new nuclear will be 24.4 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to solar with storage at 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.
There is a global energy transition underway. Renewable power generation capacity is expected to rise from 4,250 GW today to nearly 10,000 GW in 2030 – short of the tripling target set at COP28 but more than enough, in aggregate, to cover the growth in global electricity demand.
The Ford government is clearly on the wrong energy pathway.
David Robertson is a climate activist with Seniors for Climate Action Now. Excerpted with permission from the original at www.canadiandimension.com
New York Times Wants The US Military Built Up For War With China.
Caitlin Johnstone, Dec 10, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/new-york-times-wants-the-us-military?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=181225843&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Just as the United States hits its first official trillion-dollar annual military budget, the New York Times editorial board has published an article which argues that the US is going to need to increase military funding to prepare for a major war with China.
The article is titled “Overmatched: Why the U.S. Military Must Reinvent Itself,” and to be clear it is an editorial, not an op-ed, meaning it represents the position of the newspaper itself rather than solely that of the authors.
This will come as no surprise to anyone who knows that The New York Times has supported every American war throughout its entire history, because The New York Times is a war propaganda firm disguised as a news outlet. But it is surprising how brazen they are about it in this particular case.
The article opens with graphics I saw one commenter describe as “Mussolini-core” because of their conspicuously fascistic aesthetic, accompanied by three lines of text in all-caps which reads as follows:
“AMERICA’S MILITARY HAS DEFENDED THE FREE WORLD FOR 80 YEARS.
OUR DOMINANCE IS FADING.
RIVALS KNOW THIS AND ARE BUILDING TO DEFEAT US.”
The narrative that the US war machine has “defended the free world” during its period of post-world war global dominance is itself insane empire propaganda. Washington has abused, tyrannized and starved the world at levels unrivaled by any other power during that period while spearheading the theft of hundreds of trillions of dollars from the global south via imperialist extraction. The US empire has not been defending any “free world”, it has been actively obstructing its emergence.
The actual text of the article opens with another whopper, with the first sentence reading, “President Xi Jinping of China has ordered his armed forces to be ready to seize Taiwan by 2027.”
This is straight-up state propaganda. The New York Times editorial board is here uncritically parroting a completely unsubstantiated claim the US intelligence cartel has been making for years, which Xi Jinping explicitly denies. While it is Beijing’s official position that Taiwan will eventually be reunited with the mainland, not one shred of evidence has ever been presented to the public for the 2027 timeline. It’s a US government assertion being reported as verified fact by the nation’s “paper of record”.
And it doesn’t get any better from there. The Times cites a Pentagon assessment that the US would lose a hot war with China over Taiwan as evidence of “a decades-long decline in America’s ability to win a long war with a major power,” arguing that this is a major problem because “a strong America has been crucial to a world in which freedom and prosperity are far more common than at nearly any other point in human history.”
“This is the first of a series of editorials examining what’s gone wrong with the U.S. military — technologically, bureaucratically, culturally, politically and strategically — and how we can create a relevant and effective force that can deter wars whenever possible and win them wherever necessary,” The New York Times tells us.
The Times argues that the US needs to reshape its military to defeat China in a war, or to win a war with Russia if they attack a NATO member, saying “Evidence suggests that Moscow may already be testing ways to do this, including by cutting the undersea cables on which NATO forces depend.”
The “evidence” the Times cites for this claim is a hyperlink to a January article titled “Norway Seizes Russian-Crewed Ship Suspected of Cutting an Undersea Cable,” completely ignoring the fact that Norway released that ship shortly thereafter when it was unable to find any evidence linking it to the event, and completely ignoring reports that US and European intelligence had concluded that the undersea cable damage was the result of an accident rather than sabotage.
And then, of course, comes the call for more military funding.
“In the short term, the transformation of the American military may require additional spending, primarily to rebuild our industrial base. As a share of the economy, defense spending today — about 3.4 percent of G.D.P. — remains near its lowest level in more than 80 years, even after Mr. Trump’s recent increases,” the Times writes, adding that US allies should also be pressured to ramp up spending on the war machine.
“A more secure world will almost certainly require more military commitment from allies like Canada, Japan and Europe, which have long relied on American taxpayers to bankroll their protection,” the authors write, saying “China’s industrial capacity can only be met by pooling the resources of allies and partners around the world to balance and contain Beijing’s increasing influence.”
Of course the idea that perhaps the United States should avoid fighting a hot war with China right off the coast of its own mainland never enters the discussion. The suggestion that it’s insane to support waging full-scale wars with nuclear-armed great powers to secure US planetary domination never comes up. It’s just taken as a given that pouring wealth and resources into preparations for a nuclear-age world war is the only normal option on the table.
But that’s the New York Times for you. It’s been run by the same family since the late 1800s and it’s been advancing the information interests of rich and powerful imperialists ever since. It’s a militarist smut rag that somehow found its way into unearned respectability, and it deserves to be treated as such. The sooner it ceases to exist, the better.
Japan inspects nuclear sites as seismologists warn of another large quake.
Authorities assessed the damage from Monday’s 7.5-magnitude earthquake, amid warnings of aftershocks and a potentially larger tremblor in the coming days.
Nuclear facilities were inspected in Japan on Tuesday as
authorities assessed the damage from a 7.5-magnitude earthquake, amid
warnings of aftershocks and a potentially larger tremblor in the coming
days. As cleanup operations began, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi told
reporters that an emergency task force was formed to urgently assess
damage, according to The Associated Press. “We are putting people’s
lives first and doing everything we can,” she said……………………………………………………………..
Japanese officials found “no abnormalities” at Fukushima, the International Atomic Energy Agency said early Tuesday.
But as inspections were carried out on other nuclear sites, the country’s Nuclear Regulation Authority said in a statement that nearly 120 gallons of water spilled from a fuel cooling system at a nuclear fuel processing plant in the city of Aomori near the epicenter of Monday’s earthquake……………………….
NBC News 9th Dec 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/japan-earthquake-nuclear-sites-damage-injuries-emergency-rcna248160
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (127)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 