Europe could be on the hook for $160 billion to keep Ukraine afloat.

Belgium is holding the line on using Russia’s frozen assets for now, which leaves Europe obligated to keep the lights on and the war going
Ian Proud, Dec 04, 2025, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/europe-could-be-on-the-hook-for-160?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=180637110&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Below my article of yesterday in Responsible Statecraft on the issue of the spuriously named ‘reparations loan’ to Ukraine. Since going to print, the European Central Bank has come out to torpedo the Commission’s expropriation of $140 bn in immobilised Russian assets to fund the Ukrainian war effort. This should come as no surprise, as Christine Lagarde pointed out the risks at the October European Council meeting, and Bart de Wever leaned heavily on her advice in his subsequent remarks to the media.
Not surprisingly, western mainstream pro-war hacks have come out a-howling at this outrage. The eternally moronic Anders Aslund questioning the ECB’s right to have an opinion on European financial assistance to Ukraine. Bill Browder simply suggesting Europe should expropriate the funds anyway, even though they are housed in Belgium, and the Belgians won’t permit it.You can see why he made so much money in Russia in the nineties. Less clear which clown in Whitehall decided he should be knighted.
The level of idiocy is truly off the charts. And the clamour now is so loud simply because Ukraine will shortly run out of money, Europe will need to tip more money into the bottomless pit at Bankova, and they may well have to use funds from national budgets (even if it is packaged up as common EU debt).
Meanwhile, Belgian police have raied the premises of hte former EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, arresting her on suspicion of fraud at the College of Europe. Who is surprised that yet another unelected, unaccountable EU apparatchik is on the make?
Perhaps that’s why the Commission is so desperate to support the corrupt regime in Kyiv, as they are kindred spirits. More likely, they are merely stupid and have no self-awareness. Ursula von der Leyen seems to be carrying on regardless, as if nothing is untowards. driving towards the cliff edge at breakneck speed with her and Kaja Kallas’ feet firmly on the accelerator pedal. You couldn’t make it up….
I hope you find the article interesting.
Even if war ended tomorrow, Europe could be on the hook for 135 billion euros (nearly $160 billion) over the next two years to keep Ukraine afloat. Brussels does not appear to have a plan B up its sleeve.
I first warned in September 2024 that using immobilized Russian assets to fund war fighting in Ukraine would disincentivize Russia from suing for peace. Nothing has changed since then. Russia maintains the battlefield advantage, has the financial reserves, extremely low levels of debt by Western standards, and can afford to keep fighting, despite the human cost. Putin is self-evidently waiting the Europeans out, knowing they will run out of money before he does.
For now, his strategy appears to be working, because Ukraine has no money and Europe — unwilling to see Ukraine pushed into an unfavorable peace — is groaning under the obligation to find an answer. In May I also reported that “Ukraine is already asking for more money to continue fighting into 2026, a sure sign that President Volodmyr Zelensky has no plans to end the war.”
At that time, the likely cost of war fighting for another year was estimated at around $43.3 billion. The bill has since gone up to $63 billion in 2026 and, according to the IMF, $136.6 billion over the next four years.
Europe simply does not have this level of funding freely available. As a result, European political leaders are descending into panic mode as the chicken of Ukraine’s enormous budget shortfall comes home to roost.
That chicken, to quote the prime minister of Belgium, Bart de Wever, in remarks after the October European council meeting, is the $140 billion in immobilized Russian assets that the European Commission would like to use to back a “reparations loan” to Ukraine. Self-evidently, this money isn’t intended for reparations, but rather to soak up Ukraine’s expected deficits going forward.
All of the money would be pumped into Ukraine’s treasury to meet day to day expenses, with the defense bill alone costing $172 million every day right now, compared to $140 million per day one year ago. And on the basis that Ukraine’s budget estimates only ever go up and not down, that money won’t last forever.
At this point, one might be tempted to think that Ukraine’s vast defense spending, which accounts for around 63% of the Ukrainian government’s budget, will fall away if the war ends this year, in response to President Trump’s peace initiative. But such an assumption is, I fear, misplaced. Europe has been pressuring the U.S. not to cap the size of Ukraine’s near one million strong army in any peace deal. In a best-case scenario, Ukraine might decide in a graduated way to reduce the size of its army over time. But that would still leave a large budget black hole for some years to come. Yet a large army won’t pay for itself and the Europeans will be left to pay the bill.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Belgians are saying “non” to the use of immobilized assets in its country to fund Ukraine’s fiscal deficit. Prime Minister de Wever claims that doing so will derail U.S.-led efforts to bring the near four-year long war to a close, by disincentivizing Russia from settling, which takes us back to the point I made 15 months ago.
However, the deeper issue for Belgium is a fear that sanctioning the expropriation of Russian sovereign assets on shaky legal ground would shred its financial reputation and scare off investors from the developing world. Belgium-based Euroclear, where the immobilized Russian assets are held, has a stock of $4 trillion in sovereign assets from around the globe. Starting to eat the chicken of these assets, as Belgium’s prime minister puts it, by essentially lending those assets to Ukraine, could “damage Belgium’s reputation as a reliable financial hub and erode trust in the euro and the EU financial system.”
Predictably, that has led to a storm of protest from other European states that are piling increasing pressure on Belgium to relent and so free up the monies for Ukraine’s cause. But as de Wever has pointed out on numerous occasions, those European states, for example, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, are not offering to unleash immobilized Russian assets in their jurisdictions and so share the financial risk. Nor are they willing to back the loan of assets held in Belgium with guarantees to repay a proportion of the cost, should Russia mount a successful legal challenge after the war ends. So, for now, Belgium is holding out and blocking the loan, with few signs that it will back down.
As a result, the matter has been kicked back to December for a final decision buying time for the Eurocrats in Brussels to sway their recalcitrant Belgian hosts. If agreement cannot be reached, Ukraine faces the prospect of running out of money to fight, on the basis that it is locked out of access to Western capital markets, given its moratorium on the repayment of debt.
That leaves the European Commission in the position of possibly having to raise capital on the markets to make a non-repayable grant to Ukraine to cover its financing needs in 2026.
How did we end up here? Since 2024, Western sponsors of the war in Ukraine have progressively shifted from offering free cash to loans, most notably the last big G7 loan of $50 billion that was agreed in June of 2024. But with Ukraine’s national debt to GDP having risen from 49% in 2021 to 109% now, piling more debt on the war-ravaged country may literally equate to killing Ukraine with kindness.
The reparations loan was clearly intended as a means to make Russia pay so that neither Ukraine, nor Europe, had to. Efforts to find off-budget means to pay for the war in Ukraine have always been “an unseemly quest for alternatives to western taxpayers funding.” Put simply, cash-strapped European governments can’t easily afford to give Ukraine their own money at a time when their governments face rising political headwinds at home from nationalist parties.
Mainstream European political leaders have remained implacably set against the idea of bringing the senseless war in Ukraine to a much-needed close. They will pay the price for this at the polls in the coming years, as the big fiscal chicken of war spending pecks away at their legitimacy at home. This is all the more depressing for having been so utterly predictable.
Israeli army shells east of Gaza Strip, detonates buildings despite ceasefire.
November 30, 2025 , https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251130-israeli-army-shells-east-of-gaza-strip-detonates-buildings-despite-ceasefire/
The Israeli army carried out airstrikes and home demolitions in the military-controlled yellow zone across the Gaza Strip early Sunday, Anadolu reports.
Israeli aircraft struck several areas in Rafah, while naval vessels fired shells toward the city’s coastline, local sources and witnesses told Anadolu.
Israel’s military vehicles stationed near the Morag Axis, norx`theast of Rafah, conducted sweeping operations and heavy gunfire in the area.
Israeli artillery shelled eastern Khan Younis, and helicopters launched fire on buildings amid home detonations in the area, according to witnesses.
An Israeli airstrike hit east of Al-Bureij refugee camp in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza, an Anadolu correspondent said.
In the northern Gaza Strip, the Israeli strikes targeted eastern Gaza City, and intense gunfire from Israeli helicopters was reported from eastern Jabalia.
There were no immediate reports of casualties.
Israel continues to violate the ceasefire agreement it signed with the Palestinian group Hamas, having committed nearly 500 violations and killed 354 Palestinians since Oct. 10, according to the Gaza government figures.
Since October 2023, the Israeli army has killed more than 70,000 people in Gaza, mostly women and children, and injured nearly 171,000 people in the over two-year war that has left much of the enclave in ruins.
The looming missile crisis in the Arctic
Bulletin, By Vladimir Marakhonov | December 4, 2025
By invading Ukraine in 2014 and then again in 2022, Russia has created devastating strains in the global balance of power. It also opened new frontiers of tension, some visible to the naked eye and others harder to discern, yet all highly unpleasant for Moscow.
Ukraine’s spectacular attack in June on Russian bombers at air bases in northern and western Russia, using cheap drones, has revealed new threats to Russia’s strategic capabilities and forced it to redeploy its bombers to Far East bases. The recent decisions by Finland and Sweden to join NATO and defense cooperation agreements between the Nordic countries and the United States have also put Russia’s Northern Fleet naval forces at risk. These forces can’t be easily relocated, increasing the risk of a missile crisis in Northwest Russia, near the Barents Sea. Simply put, a variety of military agreements now give the United States the ability to quickly deploy missiles in Norway and Finland that could reach Russia’s Northern Fleet and other strategic assets in a matter of minutes.
Any decision to make such a deployment could create a Cuban Missile Crisis situation between NATO and Russia that could lead to war.
Russia’s Northern naval bases. Russia’s fleet of nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines—an important part of Russia’s nuclear triad—is roughly equally divided between the Northern Fleet (in the Arctic Ocean) and the Pacific Fleet. Historically, the Northern Fleet’s bases have had a serious strategic vulnerability due to geographic and climatic features of the Russian part of the Barents Sea, where they are located. These bases are concentrated in the Murmansk region on the Kola Peninsula, the northwestern-most part of Russia. The region is bordered by Norway to the northwest, Finland to the west, the Barents Sea to the northeast, the White Sea to the southeast, and only a narrow strip connecting to mainland Russia to the southwest.
Moving these naval bases further east is hardly possible because the Gulf Stream keeps only a limited area of the Barents Sea from freezing all year round, approximately up to Cape Svyatoy Nos, located west of the entrance to the White Sea. Everything located further east freezes in winter, although the extent and duration of the seasonal freezing vary each year, and sea ice is declining in the Barents Sea due to surface warming in the Gulf Stream. Therefore, the most convenient bays for Russia to base its fleet are located west of the Kola Bay, on the shores closest to Norway and Finland…………………………………..
Cold War restraint is over. During World War II and the post-war years, the entire Russian Northern Fleet infrastructure was built around Murmansk, which was Russia’s only ice-free northern port with good connections to the railway system. At the time, this proximity to Finland and Norway was of little importance. But with strengthened Nordic-US military ties and the development of short-range missiles, the Northern Fleet’s location became a real danger for both sides as missiles could be rapidly moved around and loaded on ships and submarines.
Finland maintained its neutral status throughout the Cold War and was bound to the Soviet Union by several international treaties. Norway—which had joined NATO in 1949 but had numerous overlapping interests with Russia in the Barents Sea—voluntarily imposed restrictions on NATO ground forces and NATO air flights in the Finnmark area east of the Porsanger fjord, which borders Russia. This self-imposed restraint helped Norway to sign a maritime border demarcation agreement with Russia in 2010 on terms that some Russian experts considered favorable to Oslo. Hawks in Russia even accused then-President Dmitriy Medvedev of betraying Russian interests after he signed the treaty.[1] But perhaps one of the benefits for Russia was the continuation of Norway’s border policy of restraint, which Oslo had observed until May, when it started easing these restrictions on NATO training, and September, when it allowed a US Air Force Global Hawk remotely-operated surveillance drone to fly over Finnmark, raising some concerns………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The deployment by the United States of advanced short-range ballistic missile systems to Norway’s Finnmark or Finland’s Lapland regions could lead to a crisis that resembles the 1962 Cuban missile crisis—this time, however, in the opposite way. Should Russia detect the presence of US missiles in these regions, the tensions would more certainly soar, with Moscow probably issuing a warning to Washington to immediately remove these missiles or else risk being attacked.
The defense cooperation agreements that the United States signed with the Northern European countries have certainly advanced US security interests. But their implementation could lead to a more dangerous situation in which conventional forces—not limited by any agreements—may alter the effective balance of strategic forces in the region………………………https://thebulletin.org/2025/12/the-looming-missile-crisis-in-the-arctic/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Ukraine%20s%20Energoatom%2C%20Holtec%20International%2C%20and%20the%20US%20retreat%20from%20fighting%20corruption%20abroad&utm_campaign=20251201%20Monday%20Newsletter%20%28Copy%29
First strike on small, unarmed boat off Venezuela, not second, makes Trump and Hegseth war criminals.

Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL , 3 Dac 25, substack.com/@waltzlotow
Some sensible US congresspersons, government officials, pundits and others are furious over reports Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a second strike on a mysterious little boat off Venezuela September 1 that killed 2 hapless souls clinging to the US inflicted wreckage.
They correctly point out that bombing survivors of a wrecked boat is against the Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual. “Persons who have been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck, such that they are no longer capable of fighting, out of combat. “It would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack.”
Hegseth initially denied there was a second bombing killing the survivors, invoking the Trumpian charge “fake news.” Under intense criticism Pete pivoted admitting it happened but only after he’d left the room following the first strike, giving him plausible deniability. Then, despicably, he blamed the fatal order on Adm. Frank M. Bradley, the commander of US Special Operations Command. Hegseth didn’t condemn Bradley for ordering the second strike. He praised him saying he’s “got his back.”
The second strike on survivors upset congressional Republicans and Democrats enough to consider investigating it as a possible war crime. What that implies is that the 22 boats sunk, killing over 80 unidentified soles is OK as long as the US does not bomb survivors clinging to the wreckage of America’s dastardly war crimes. That first boat obliterated September 1 was a war crime repeated 21 times in 3 months,
Hegseth, Trump and every officer involved in these strikes are war criminals. Every serviceman ordered to commit these dastardly crimes should refuse those orders. Recently 6 morally centered congresspersons publicly implored all service members to do just that, no doubt with the illegal Trump/Hegseth boat obliterations in mind. Trump’s response? Maybe these congresspersons should be executed.
Focusing on the murder of survivors clinging to wreckage detracts from the monumental war crimes Trump commits nearly every day of his presidency.
By providing the bombs that have killed over 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza, bombing Somalia over 100 times this year, bombing imaginary Iranian nuclear sites, and most recently sending 22 small unarmed boats with 83 innocents down to Davy Jones Locker, Trump and Hegseth deserve indictment and prosecution for directing the most murderous administration in America’s 250 years.
Microsoft Faces Reckoning for Assisting Israel’s Genocide in Gaza.

The tech giant could face legal liability for aiding and abetting “atrocity crimes” in Palestine, legal groups say.
By Mike Ludwig , Truthout, December 3, 2025
head of its annual shareholders meeting on December 5, Microsoft is coming under mounting pressure to reconsider its relationship with the Israeli military, which has used the tech giant’s products to carry out the genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank.
In an open letter to the company released on Tuesday, December 2, an international coalition of legal aid groups said Microsoft and its executives potentially face legal liability for “aiding and abetting … atrocity crimes” committed by the Israeli military against Palestinian civilians.
“Over the last few months, it has become exceedingly clear that Microsoft’s services and technologies have been used to violate Palestinian human rights, and shareholders should be aware of just how much this opens up the company to legal liability,” said Eric Sype, U.S. national organizer at 7amleh–The Arab Center for Social Media Advancement, in a statement on December 2.
Microsoft provides “major services” to other Israeli ground, air, and naval forces despite widespread agreement among experts that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, according to the legal aid groups. The letter lists multiple examples, including Mamram, the Israeli military’s central computing system and “weapons platform” that assisted the assault on Gaza with AI support and cloud services. Microsoft provided “rapid support” to Mamram during the initial months of the genocide to keep systems from crashing, according to the letter.
As Truthout has reported, products provided by Big Tech are so integral to Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine that the mass killings and near-total destruction of infrastructure in Gaza are often described as “the first AI-powered genocide.”
By providing technology services to the Israeli government, Microsoft has exposed both the company and its leadership to “wide-ranging criminal and civil legal liability” both internationally and within domestic courts in the United States and European Union, the legal aid groups say.
“The EU dimension is devastatingly critical here — significant infrastructure powering Israel’s military targeting is hosted and processed in Europe, including by Microsoft,” …………………………………………………………………………… https://truthout.org/articles/microsoft-faces-reckoning-for-assisting-israels-genocide-in-gaza/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=19a0adacba-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_12_03_10_02_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-0614adc67f-650192793
Towards a transparent and responsible management of radioactive waste

Ottawa, December 4, 2025, www.ccnr.org/release_radwaste_transport_2025.pdf
Bloc Québécois spokesperson for the Environment and Climate Change, Patrick Bonin, held a press conference on December 2 on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, alongside Lance Haymond, Chief of the Kebaowek First Nation, Lisa Robinson, Chief of the Wolf Lake First Nation, and representatives of several environmental and anti-radioactive-pollution groups to co-sign a letter along with more than 80 environmental associations, elected officials, trade unions, and First Nations representatives in Ontario, Quebec and the Rest of Canada, calling for a moratorium on the transport of radioactive waste over public roads and bridges to the Chalk River site located beside the Ottawa River. [See the letter in English and French at www.ccnr.org/letter_e_f_2025.pdf ]
The signatories are calling on the federal government to ban, among other things, all imports of radioactive waste from other countries, including disused medical sources, expired tritium light sources, and irradiated nuclear fuel.
They are also calling on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to conduct a strategic assessment of the transport of high-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste on public roads.
Quotes:
Ginette Charbonneau, spokesperson for the Coalition Against Radioactive Pollution, deplores the fact that “it is irresponsible to transport all radioactive waste under federal jurisdiction to Chalk River. It is doubly dangerous to transport the waste twice: once for temporary storage at Chalk River and a second time to its final destination.”
Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., president of the Nuclear Watchdog Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, states that “The Age of Nuclear Waste is just beginning. It’s time to stop and think. First, we must stop moving the waste. This only increases the costs and the risks without solving the problem. Second, we must think of the need for three things – justfiication, notification, and consultation – before moving any of this dangerous human-made cancer-causing material over public roads and bridges.”
Jean-Pierre Finet of the Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (Alliance of Environmental Organizations on Energy) states, “We wholeheartedly support the call for a moratorium on the transport and importation of waste and the request for a strategic environmental assessment. We believe that Chalk River must cease to be our government’s nuclear waste dump.”“
“In 2017, Ottawa residents were denied a regional environmental impact assessment of radioactive wastes accumulating alongside the Ottawa River. Given all the proposed waste transfers underway and yet to be implemented, a strategic assessment is more urgent than ever,” explains Dr. Ole Hendrickson of the Ottawa River Institute.
“The government is willing to accept unacceptable risks, to silence affected nations, and to operate without any transparency or accountability,” says Lance Haymond, Chief of the Kebaowek First Nation. “We have learned long ago: Silence is Consent. We will not be silent.”
Lisa Robinson, Chief of the Wolf Lake First Nation, Canada, says, “We are all calling on Canada to do better with the nuclear situation in storage and transportation, and we call on all Canadian to insist on complete accountability for the tens of billions of dollars of public money that is being spent by those hired to manage these indestructible radioactive wastes.”
Contacts :
English
Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Montreal
– ccnr@web.ca 514-839-7214
Ole Hendrickson, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, Ottawa
– oleqhendrickson@gmail.com 613-735-4876
Brennain Lloyd, Northwatch, We the Nuclear Free North, North Bay, Ontario
– brennain@onlink.net 705-493-9650
French/English
Ginette Charbonneau Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive Oka (Québec)
– ginettech@hotmail.ca 514=246-6439
Jean-Pierre Finet, Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie, Montréal
– pierre.finet@gmail.com 514-515-1957
Eva Schacherl, Council of Canadians – Ottawa
– evaschacherl@gmail.com 613-316-9450
Article: Transferts de déchets radioactifs à Chalk River | Le Bloc québécois reçoit de
nombreux appuis et ravive son appel à un moratoire | La Presse
Watch the press conference : Le Bloc demande un moratoire sur le transport de matières nucléaires | À la une | CPAC.ca
Link to the letter:letter_e_f_2025.pdf
Signatories of the letter…………………………………………………………………….
What’s behind the massive death toll in floods across Southeast Asia –and why it should serve as a warning.
Regional experts warn that without rapid cuts in fossil-fuel emissions and serious investment in resilience
– from restoring forests to enforcing planning rules – disasters like this year’s may become regular rather than rare.
Independent 4th Dec 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/sri-lanka-indonesia-thailand-floods-deaths-storm-cyclone-b2877788.html
PostBlock
1 What’s behind the massive death toll in floods across Southeast Asia –and why it should serve as a warning.
Set featured image
37 words, 1 minute read time.
Last edited 13 minutes ago.
StatusDraft
PublishImmediately
Slug1-whats-behind-the-massive-death-toll-in-floods-across-southeast-asia-and-why-it-should-serve-as-a-warning
AuthorChristina Macpherson
DiscussionOpenMove to trash
Improve with AI
Write Brief (Beta)Show issues & suggestions
Optimize Title
Based on your post content and SEO best practices.Generate title options
Get Featured Image
Based on your post content.Generate image
Get Feedback
Get feedback on content structure.Generate feedback
Available Requests
14
Access
AccessEveryoneAnyone subscribed (2.1K)Paid subscribers only (0)
Excerpt
Categories
Search Categories1Arclight’s Vision1 NUCLEAR ISSUESbusiness and costsemploymentmarketingclimate changeculture and artsENERGYrenewabledecentralisedenergy storageenvironmentoceanswaterhealthchildrenpsychology – mental healthradiationsocial effectswomenhistoryindigenous issuesLegaldeaths by radiationlegalmarketing of nuclearmediainvestigative journalismWikileaksopposition to nuclearPERSONAL STORIESpoliticspsychology and cultureTrump – personalitypublic opinionUSA election 2024USA elections 2016politics internationalReligion and ethicssafetyincidentssecrets,lies and civil libertiescivil libertiesspinbusterEducationtechnologyreprocessingSmall Modular Nuclear Reactorsspace travelUraniumwastes- plutoniumdecommission reactorweapons and warAtrocitiesdepleted uraniumWomen2 WORLDANTARCTICAARCTICASIABurmaChinaIndiaIndonesiaJapan- Fukushima 2011Fukushima 2012Fukushima 2013Fukushima 2014Fukushima 2015Fukushima 2016Fukushima continuingMalaysiaMongoliaNorth KoreaPakistanSouth KoreaTaiwanTurkeyVietnamEUROPEBelarusBulgariaDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceIrelandItalyKazakhstanKyrgyzstanRussiaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUkraineMIDDLE EASTAfghanistanEgyptGazaIranIraqIsraelJordanLibyaSaudi ArabiaSyriaTurkeyUnited Arab EmiratesNORTH AMERICACanadaUSAelection USA 2020OCEANIANew ZealandPhilippinesSOUTH AMERICABrazilACTIONAFRICAKenyaMalawiMaliNamibiaNigerNigeriaSomaliaSouth AfricaAtrocitiesAUSTRALIAChristina’s notesChristina’s themesculture and artsEventsFuk 2022Fuk 2023Fukushima 2017Fukushima 2018fukushima 2019Fukushima 2020Fukushima 2021generalglobal warmingHumour (God we need it)NuclearRARE EARTHSthoriumReferenceReference archivesresources – printResources -audiovicualWeekly NewsletterWorldWorld NuclearYouTubeAdd Category
Tags

Regional experts warn that without rapid cuts in fossil-fuel emissions and serious investment in resilience
– from restoring forests to enforcing planning rules – disasters like this year’s may become regular rather than rare.
Independent 4th Dec 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/sri-lanka-indonesia-thailand-floods-deaths-storm-cyclone-b2877788.html
On Becoming The First Species To Go Extinct From Politeness
Caitlin Johnstone, 4 Dec 25, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/on-becoming-the-first-species-to?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=180748045&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
We’re on track to become the first species to go extinct due to politeness. Gonna follow the dinosaurs out the door because it was too uncomfortable and confrontational to tell a few billionaires and empire managers to fuck off.
As Howard Zinn put it:
“As soon as you say the topic is civil disobedience, you are saying our problem is civil disobedience. That is not our problem…. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is the numbers of people all over the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. And our problem is that scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where the schoolboys march off dutifully in a line to war. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world, in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”
Or as Utah Phillips put it, “The earth is not dying, it is being killed. And the people who are killing it have names and addresses.”They have names and addresses, but we don’t stop them. We let them wave armageddon weapons around for global power agendas and let them destroy our biosphere for profit, and who knows where they’re headed with all this AI stuff with zero regulations or accountability. They just get to play games with the lives of every organism on this planet, completely unimpeded.
We don’t allow this for any good reason. We just don’t want to be rude. Stopping them would feel like a bit much, you know? A bit too much shrill woke-policing. Nobody likes a humorless scold.
What a ridiculous reason for the world to end.
I like to think about the Fermi paradox sometimes. You know, the apparent contradiction between the fact that we can’t detect any signs of extraterrestrial life in our galaxy and the fact that the Drake equation suggests we should be seeing some due to the sheer number of stars in the Milky Way.
People have come up with all kinds of theories to resolve this paradox. Maybe the ETs are keeping signs of their existence hidden from us for some reason. Maybe there has been life on other planets many times throughout our galaxy’s history, but whenever life advances up to a certain level of intelligence it always self-destructs by cannibalizing its own biosphere or annihilating itself with nuclear weapons.
One theory I like to contemplate is the possibility that there is life on other planets and that those life forms will one day evolve high levels of intelligence, but we’re not seeing any signs of extraterrestrial technology because humans are the first life forms to arrive at this stage.
Isn’t that trippy to imagine? If WE’RE the grown-ups here? If we are the eldest sibling in our galactic family? The aliens never came to rescue us with technologies from a civilization millions of years more advanced than ours because there ARE no civilizations more advanced than ours. We got here first.
Imagine how silly it would be if we went extinct due to politeness, and then other civilizations came here millions of years later and found out that’s what happened to their galaxy’s firstborn intelligent life. If they showed up and found a bunch of ruins on a poisoned planet, with a sign that says “Sorry, we tried to stay alive but we didn’t feel entitled enough to make Sam Altman stop being a dick.”
What an embarrassment that would be. We’d be the laughing stock of the Milky Way. Whole insults would be made out of us.
“Someone needs to put a stop to this nonsense, but I don’t want to make a scene.”
“Ah, quit being such a little homo sapien!”
What a dopey legacy for a species to leave behind.
Let’s turn things around before it comes to that, shall we?
Russia Dangles Business Ties To U.S. at Europe’s Expense. Kremlin pitched White House on investments and industry to end war – today’s Wall Street Journal

American and Russian business leaders were quietly anticipating that Witkoff and Dmitriev would deliver, positioning their companies to profit from peace.
2 Dec 2025 By Drew Hinshaw, Benoit Faucon , Rebecca Ballhaus , Thomas Grove and Joe Parkinson
Three powerful businessmen— two Americans and a Russian—hunched over a laptop in Miami Beach, ostensibly to draw up a plan to end Russia’s long and deadly war with Ukraine.
But the full scope of their project went much further, according to people familiar with the talks. They were privately charting a path to bring Russia’s $2 trillion economy in from the cold—with American businesses first in line to beat European competitors to the dividends.
At his waterfront estate, billionaire developer-turned-special envoy Steve Witkoff was hosting Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign-wealth fund and Vladimir Putin’s handpicked negotiator, who had largely shaped the document they were revising on the screen. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, had arrived from his nearby home on an island known as the “Billionaire Bunker.”
Dmitriev was pushing a plan for U.S. companies to tap the roughly $300 billion of Russian central bank assets, frozen in Europe, for U.S.-Russian investment projects and a U.S.-led reconstruction of Ukraine. U.S. and Russian companies could join to exploit the vast mineral wealth in the Arctic. There were no limits to what two longtime adversaries could achieve, Dmitriev had argued: Their rival space industries, which raced one another during the Cold War, could even pursue a joint mission to Mars with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
For the Kremlin, the Miami talks were the culmination of a strategy, hatched before Trump’s inauguration, to bypass the traditional U.S. national security apparatus and convince the administration to view Russia not as a military threat but as a land of bountiful opportunity, according to Western security officials. By dangling multibillion-dollar rareearth and energy deals, Moscow could reshape the economic map of Europe—while driving a wedge between America and its traditional allies.
Dmitriev, a Goldman Sachs alumnus, had found receptive partners in Witkoff—Trump’s longtime golfing partner—and Kushner, whose investment fund, Affinity Partners, drew billion-dollar investments from the Arab monarchies whose conflict with Israel he had helped mediate.
The two businessmen shared President Trump’s longheld approach to geopolitics. If generations of diplomats viewed the post-Soviet challenges of Eastern Europe as a Gordian knot to be painstakingly unraveled, the president envisioned an easy fix: The borders matter less than the business. In the 1980s, he had offered to personally negotiate a swift end to the Cold War while building what he told Soviet diplomats would be a Trump Tower across the street from the Kremlin, with their Communist regime as a business partner.
“Russia has so many vast resources, vast expanses of land,” Witkoff told The Wall Street Journal, describing at length his hopes that Russia, Ukraine and America would all become business partners. “If we do all that, and everybody’s prospering and they’re all a part of it, and there’s upside for everybody, that’s going to naturally be a bulwark against future conflicts there. Because everybody’s thriving.”
Red lines
When a version of the 28point plan leaked earlier this month, it drew immediate protests. Leaders in Europe and Ukraine complained it reflected mostly Russian talking points and bulldozed through nearly all of Kyiv’s red lines. They weren’t assuaged even after administration officials assured them that the plan wasn’t set in stone, worried that Russia— after violently redrawing European borders—was being rewarded with commercial opportunities.
As Western leaders convened to digest the plan, Poland’s prime minister Donald Tusk offered a pithy summary: “We know this is not about peace. It’s about business.”
For many in the Trump White House, that blurring of business and geopolitics is a feature, not a bug. Key presidential advisers see an opportunity for American investors to snap up lucrative deals in a new postwar Russia and become the commercial guarantors of peace. In conversations with Witkoff and Kushner, Russia has been clear it would prefer U.S. businesses to step in, not rivals from European states whose leaders have “talked a lot of trash” about the peace efforts, one of these people said: “It’s Trump’s ‘Art of the Deal’ to say, ‘Look, I’m settling this thing and there’s huge economic benefits for doing that for America, right?’” A question for history will be whether Putin entertained this approach in the interest of ending the war, or as a ploy to pacify the U.S. while prolonging a conflict he believes is his place in history to slowly, ineluctably win.
Trusted friends
One sign that he may be serious is that some of his mosttrusted friends, sanctioned billionaires from his St. Petersburg hometown—Gennady Timchenko, Yuri Kovalchuk and the Rotenberg brothers, Boris and Arkady—have sent representatives to quietly meet American companies to explore rare-earth mining and energy deals, according to people familiar with the meetings and European security officials. That includes reviving the giant Nord Stream pipeline, sabotaged by Ukrainian tactical divers, and under European Union sanctions.
Earlier this year, Exxon Mobil met with Russia’s biggest state energy company, Rosneft, to discuss returning to the massive Sakhalin gas project if Moscow and Washington gave the green light.
Elsewhere, a cast of businessmen close to the Trump administration have been looking to position themselves as new economic links between the U.S. and Russia.
Gentry Beach, a college friend of Donald Trump Jr. and campaign donor to his father, has been in talks to acquire a stake in a Russian Arctic gas project if it is released from sanctions. Another Trump donor, Stephen P. Lynch, paid $600,000 this year to a lobbyist close to Trump Jr. who is helping him seek a Treasury Department license to buy the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from a Russian state-owned company.
There is no evidence that Witkoff, the White House or Kushner are briefed on these efforts or coordinating them. A person familiar with Witkoff’s thinking said the envoy is confident that any settlement with Russia would benefit America broadly, not just a handful of investors.
Witkoff, who hasn’t traveled to Ukraine this year, is set to visit Russia for the sixth time this week and will again meet Putin. He insisted he isn’t playing favorites. “Ukrainians have fought heroically for their independence,” said Witkoff, who has tried to inspire Ukrainian officials with the idea of soldiers disarming to earn Silicon Valley-scale salaries operating American built AI data centers. “It is now time to consolidate what they have achieved through diplomacy,” he said.
‘Both sides’
“The Trump administration has gathered input from both the Ukrainians and Russians to formulate a peace deal that can stop the killing and bring this war to a close,” said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. “As the President said, his national security team has made great progress over the past week, and the agreement will continue to be fine-tuned following conversations with officials from both sides.”
As Witkoff pursued talks with Dmitriev over nine months, some agencies inside the Trump administration had a limited view of his dealings with Moscow.
In the lead-up to an August summit in Alaska between Trump and Putin, Witkoff and Dmitriev discussed a prisoner exchange that would have been the largest bilateral swap in their countries’ history. The Central Intelligence Agency, which traditionally manages prisoner trades with Russia, wasn’t fully briefed on that proposed exchange. Nor was the State Department’s office for unjustly imprisoned Americans. The CIA didn’t return requests for comment. The State Department referred questions to the White House.
Career officials overseeing sanctions at the Treasury Department have at times learned details of Witkoff’s meetings with Moscow from their British counterparts.
In the days after Alaska, a European intelligence agency distributed a hard-copy report in a manila envelope to some of the continent’s most senior national security officials, who were shocked by the contents: Inside were details of the commercial and economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic.
Witkoff has worked closely with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But the special envoy for Ukraine, former Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, has all but been frozen out of serious talks, and said he is leaving.
To understand the administration’s Russia negotiations, The Wall Street Journal spoke to dozens of officials, diplomats, and former and current intelligence officers from the U.S., Russia and Europe, and American lobbyists and investors close to the administration.
The picture that emerges is a remarkable story of business leaders working outside the traditional lines of diplomacy to cement a peace agreement with business deals.
‘ We keep on knocking at the door and coming up with ideas.’
Witkoff was just weeks into his new job as President Trump’s Russia and Ukraine negotiator when his office asked the Treasury Department for help allowing a sanctioned Russian businessman to visit Washington.
Kirill Dmitriev, an investment banker with degrees from Harvard and Stanford, spoke Witkoff’s preferred language: business. He had invited Witkoff to Moscow in February and escorted him into a three-hour meeting with Putin to discuss the Ukraine war. But Dmitriev was persona non grata in the U.S, blocked by the Treasury in 2022 for his role leading his country’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, which it called a “slush fund for Vladimir Putin.”
Trump had told Witkoff he wanted the war to end and the administration was willing to take the risk of welcoming Putin’s emissary to Washington. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had questions about the unique request, but ultimately signed off.
Dmitriev arrived at the White House on April 2 and presented a list of multibilliondollar business projects the two governments could pursue together. At one point, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Dmitriev that Putin needed to demonstrate he was serious about peace. But Dmitriev felt his businesslike rapport was breaking through. “We can transition i n v e s t m e n t trust into a political role,” he said in an unpublished interview that month.
In April, Dmitriev welcomed Witkoff to the St. Petersburg presidential library for another three-hour meeting with Putin. Witkoff took his own notes, relying on a Kremlin translator, then briefed the White House from the U.S. Embassy. That same month, European national security advisers planned to meet Witkoff in London to integrate him into their peace process. But he was busy with his other portfolio— negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza—and couldn’t make it. Afterward, one European official asked Witkoff to start speaking with allies over the secure fixed line Europe’s heads of state use to conduct sensitive diplomatic conversations. Witkoff demurred, as he traveled too much to use the cumbersome system.
Dmitriev and Witkoff meanwhile were chatting regularly by phone about increasingly ambitious proposals. The U.S. and Russia were discussing major agreements on oil-andgas exploration and Arctic transportation, Dmitriev told the Journal. “We believe that the U.S. and Russia can cooperate basically on everything in the Arctic,” he said. “If a solution is found in Ukraine, U.S. economic cooperation can be a foundation for our relationship going forward.”
Into position
American and Russian business leaders were quietly anticipating that Witkoff and Dmitriev would deliver, positioning their companies to profit from peace.
Exxon, billionaire investor Todd Boehly and others have explored buying assets owned by Lukoil, Russia’s second-largest oil producer. The U.S. sanctioned Lukoil in October to increase pressure on Moscow, prompting the company to put its overseas assets up for sale. Elliott Investment Management eyed buying a stake in a pipeline that carries Russian natural gas into Europe.
More recently, Kremlin–linked businessmen Timchenko, Kovalchuk and the Rotenbergs have been offering U.S. counterparts gas concessions in the Sea of Okhotsk, as well as potentially four other locations, according to a European security official and a person familiar with the talks. Russia has also mentioned rare-earth mining opportunities near the massive nickel mines of Norilsk and in as many as six other Siberian locations that are still unexploited, these people said.
Beach, Trump Jr.’s college friend, was in talks to acquire 9.9% of an Arctic LNG project with Novatek, Russia’s secondlargest natural gas producer— which is partly owned by Timchenko — if the U.S. and U.K. remove sanctions on it, according to drafts of contracts reviewed by the Journal.
In a statement, Beach said that partnering with Novatek would “strongly benefit any company committed to advancing American energy leadership,” and that his company, America First Global, “actively seeks investment opportunities that strengthen American interests around the world.” He said he “has never worked with Steve Witkoff” but is “extremely grateful” for the efforts Witkoff and others are making to end the war in Ukraine. Trump Jr. has told people he isn’t doing business with Beach.Lynch, the Miami-based investor, had been asking the U.S. government to allow him to bid on the sabotaged Nord Stream Pipeline 2 if it came up for auction in a Swiss bankruptcy proceeding. Lynch, who in 2022 was given a license by Treasury to complete the acquisition of the Swiss subsidiary of Russia’s Sberbank, had been seeking a license for the pipeline since the Biden administration, but in April dialed up his lobbying efforts by hiring Ches McDowell, a friend of Trump Jr. He would pay Mc-Dowell’s firm $600,000 over the next six months. Lynch’s representatives reached out to Witkoff for a meeting.
The road to Miami
On Aug. 6, Witkoff flew to Moscow, at Putin’s invitation, for a meeting prepared only a few days in advance. Dmitriev walked him through Zaryadye Park overlooking the Moskva River, then escorted him to the Kremlin for another three-hour session with Russia’s leader. Putin mentioned wanting to meet with Trump personally. He gave Witkoff a medal, the Order of Lenin, to pass to a CIA deputy director whose mentally unwell son was killed fighting for Russia in Ukraine.
The next day, Witkoff dialed into a videoconference with officials and heads of state from top European allies, and explained the outlines of what he understood to be Putin’s offer. If Ukraine would surrender the remaining roughly 20% of Donetsk province that Russia had failed to conquer, Moscow would forfeit its claim to Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces. The European officials were confused. Did Putin mean he would withdraw his troops from Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, as Witkoff was suggesting? Or, more likely, was Putin merely promising to not conquer the thousands of square miles of those two provinces that, after years of bloody fighting, remained in Ukrainian hands? Either way, Ukraine was skeptical about the value of a promise from Putin.
Witkoff wanted to strike while the iron was hot and hold a summit without delay. Dmitriev was optimistic Witkoff had taken Russia’s sensitivities on board: “We believe Steve Witkoff and the Trump team are doing a great job to understand the Russian position to end the conflict,” he told the Journal, a few days before.
Failed summit
The Aug. 15 summit fell apart almost as soon as it began. Witkoff, Rubio, and Trump arrived on Air Force One, meeting Putin, his longtime adviser Yuri Ushakov, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Putin launched into a 1,000-year history lecture on the unity of the Russian and Ukrainian people. The two sides canceled a lunch and an afternoon session where they were meant to check through their other issues, like the exchange of prisoners. Witkoff left uncertain where things stood, but hopeful talks would accelerate soon.
In October, President Zelensky flew to Washington, hoping to secure long-range, U.S.made Tomahawk cruise missiles. His military wanted to cripple Russian refineries, pushing Moscow to negotiate on better terms. By the time Zelensky arrived, Trump had spoken to Putin and decided not to offer the Tomahawks. Witkoff encouraged Ukrainian officials to try another tack: They should ask Trump for a 10-year tariff exemption. It would supercharge their economy, he said. “I’m in the deal settlement business. That’s why I’m here,” he told the Journal. “We keep on knocking at the door and coming up with ideas.”
The New Officer Class: How Silicon Valley Executives Were Sworn Directly into the Heart of the U.S. Army

These officers are now positioned to advise the Army on its technological future – defining requirements and strategy – while their own companies compete for, and hold, massive contracts to fulfill those very needs. This grants Palantir, Meta, and OpenAI an unparalleled level of insider influence, effectively allowing them to shape the market they dominate.
A strategic analysis of Detachment 201 and the unprecedented fusion of corporate and military power
1 December 2025 Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-new-officer-class-how-silicon-valley-executives-were-sworn-directly-into-the-heart-of-the-u-s-army/
In a move that formalises the military-industrial complex for the digital age, the U.S. Army has quietly sworn a group of powerful tech executives directly into its ranks as high-ranking officers. The creation of “Detachment 201,” a new reserve unit, and the direct commissioning of leaders from Palantir, Meta, and OpenAI to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, marks a fundamental shift in how national security is conceived and who wields influence within the Pentagon. This is not a consulting agreement; it is a structural integration that blurs the line between corporate profit and national interest, with profound implications for the future of war, artificial intelligence, and democratic oversight.
The Who and What of Detachment 201
Established in June 2025, Detachment 201 – its name a reference to the HTTP “201 Created” status code – is designed to embed Silicon Valley’s innovation culture directly into the Army’s procurement and strategic planning processes. The executives, appointed as part of the “Executive Innovation Corps,” were chosen for their specific corporate expertise.
The following details the key figures and their corporate ties:
Name, Corporate Role, Notable Corporate-Military Ties
- Shyam Sankar Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Palantir Palantir holds a $759 million Army AI contract; Sankar was a key recruiter for the unit.
- Andrew “Boz” Bosworth CTO of Meta Meta has partnered with defence contractor Anduril on augmented reality products for soldiers.
- Kevin Weil Chief Product Officer of OpenAI OpenAI holds a $200 million contract with the Pentagon for “frontier AI” for national security.
- Bob McGrew Former OpenAI research lead; advisor to Thinking Machines Lab Brings deep expertise in advanced AI models to strategic military projects .
The conditions of their service are notably different from those of a traditional military officer:
- Rank: Directly commissioned as Lieutenant Colonel (O-5).
- Training: No standard basic training required, though they must pass physical fitness tests and marksmanship training.
- Service Commitment: A minimal commitment of 120 hours per year, with the option to perform duties remotely.
- Stated Role: To provide high-level advice on “broader conceptual things” like talent management and applying technology to make the force “leaner, smarter, and more lethal.”
The Implications: A Web of Influence and Control
This initiative is far more than a symbolic gesture. It creates a series of structural conflicts and strategic shifts that demand public scrutiny.
The Blurring of Corporate and National Interest
The Army has stated that “firewalls” are in place to prevent conflicts of interest. However, this claim is difficult to reconcile with the reality of the appointments. These officers are now positioned to advise the Army on its technological future – defining requirements and strategy – while their own companies compete for, and hold, massive contracts to fulfill those very needs. This grants Palantir, Meta, and OpenAI an unparalleled level of insider influence, effectively allowing them to shape the market they dominate.
The Accelerated Militarisation of AI
The explicit goal is to leverage these companies’ expertise to increase the “lethality” of the force. This partnership accelerates the integration of AI into warfare, from AI-powered battlefield management systems to technologies for “soldier optimisation.” The ethical consequences are already visible: OpenAI has loosened its previous policies against military work to pursue government contracts, demonstrating how the pursuit of profit and patriotism can jointly override earlier ethical commitments.
The Architecture of “Silent” Algorithmic Control
This partnership has been framed as an act of “silent patriotism,” where service is rendered through code and algorithms. This embeds a new form of control within national security. When the power of frontier AI is combined with the vast surveillance and data analysis capabilities of companies like Meta and Palantir, it creates an infrastructure for social and battlefield control that is both pervasive and difficult to scrutinise. The executives, now in uniform, become the architects of this system.
A “Cosplay” Command and its Cultural Cost
The appointments have been criticised as “cosplay” and have raised concerns about a two-tiered military system. The image of wealthy tech elites receiving high rank without the traditional burdens and sacrifices of military service is deeply demoralising to career soldiers. It risks cementing a public perception of a privileged and unaccountable tech elite wielding undue power, both in the commercial and military spheres.
Conclusion: An Unaccountable Fusion
Detachment 201 is not a temporary experiment. An Army spokesperson stated this is being done “ahead of wartime so that we can prepare and deter,” a clear signal that this is a long-term preparatory move for a perceived future conflict. It represents the culmination of the military-industrial complex, evolving into a tech-military complex where the same companies that influence public discourse and social life are also directly shaping the tools of war.
This fusion occurs with minimal public debate and oversight, creating a self-reinforcing loop of influence, procurement, and strategy that operates largely in the shadows. The question is no longer if Silicon Valley will shape the future of warfare, but whether anyone outside of this new officer class will have a say in how it is done.
“Kill Them All” Controversy Explodes: Denied Order, War-Crime Alarms and a White House Scramble to Throw Others Under the Bus
By: Joshua Scheer, 2 Dec 25, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/02/kill-them-all-controversy-explodes-denied-order-war-crime-alarms-and-a-white-house-scramble-to-throw-others-under-the-bus/
He has a lot of things to do?! Are you kidding me? This is what a leader of the Department of War looks like? Shirking his responsibility and trying to get out of what amounted to a war crime. Needless to say, what a way to throw someone under the bus to save your own skin. He did say he approved of the action, so …
Also, to respond to Pete H. about “fake stories” and that we’re attacking heroes — no, SIR, we are after you. You are not a hero; you are a fool who, like many before you, has been given a position that you dismiss.
More from him here: “It was exploded in fire or smoke. You can’t see anything,” the Pentagon head said. “You got digital … this is called the fog of war.”
The fog of war does not protect this, Pete, and ultimately it won’t protect you or your boss for your release of drug kingpins and the murder of “drug-running” fishermen.
Here is Pete at the Cabinet meeting today:
As reported by The Hill, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said, “This administration has a long history of asking people to do things that are reckless or lawless, and then throwing them under the bus and shifting blame. And there’s no doubt that that seems to be what’s happening here.”
With my congressman Ted Lieu adding: “I served on active duty as a JAG [judge advocate general] for four years, and then an additional 21 years in the reserves, and let me be very clear: Killing shipwrecked survivors is a war crime.”
No doubt that’s what’s happening. Jason Crow is one of the Democrats who asked members of the armed forces not to follow illegal orders — and now we know why. For more on that read Soldiers Must Disobey Unlawful Orders Under Trump — It’s Their Legal Duty, by Marjorie Cohn. Discussing things like the My Lai Massacre and such.
Here is former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall on MSNBC, first noting that there was a report — denied by the White House — of a verbal order to “kill them all.” He went on to say this is a “textbook example of a war crime,” adding that after WWII, the U.S put on trial and executed a U-boat commander for similar actions, and that the treatment of shipwrecked sailors is clearly laid out in the manual. Here is that show:
I end with this, from a previously unreported 2016 video reported by CNN, with Pete Hegseth saying that the U.S. military “won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief,” and describing the refusal of illegal commands as part of the military’s ethos and standards.
Of course, his tone has changed quite a bit, hasn’t it? Please stand up, Pete, and leave. Here is that whole video. It’s long but maybe a good way to see how he has morphed over the years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eUE4OQ2QV0
A line crossed, a standard shattered

3 December 2025 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/a-line-crossed-a-standard-shattered/
In the stark, unforgiving waters of the Caribbean, the United States crossed a line from which it will be difficult to return.
That line was crossed with two chilling words allegedly spoken by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth – “kill everybody” – followed by the deliberate execution of two unarmed survivors clinging to the wreckage of a suspected narcotics vessel they had just been fired upon.
This was not tough policy.
It was not “self-defence,” as the White House claimed in a statement so threadbare it insulted the intelligence of the nation and the world.
By every moral and legal standard the United States once professed to champion, it was a summary execution.
It was murder.
Let us dismantle the fiction immediately. “Self-defense” implies an imminent threat. A person clinging to splintered wood in open water, after their vessel has been destroyed, presents no such threat. They are combatants rendered hors de combat – out of combat. The Law of Armed Conflict, the Rules of Engagement drilled into every service member, and the fundamental tenets of humanity all scream the same command: you do not fire on the helpless. This was not a split-second decision in a hot firefight; it was a deliberate order from the highest level of the Pentagon to kill defenseless individuals.
Secretary Hegseth, a figure whose previous commentary has often glorified a cartoonish, hyper-aggressive vision of American power, seems to have mistaken the U.S. military for a personal vengeance squad. The mission was interdiction. By all accounts, it was successful – the boat was stopped. The suspects were in the water. At that point, the lawful options are clear: capture and detain, or if logistically impossible, leave them to be retrieved by their own forces or coastal authorities. The one unthinkable, illegal option is to become judge, jury, and executioner from an office in the Pentagon.
The damage here is catastrophic, and it unfolds in layers.
First, it is a deep moral stain. It announces to the world that under this administration, America has abandoned the principle that even its enemies possess an inherent dignity and a right to surrender. America has done the very thing they have historically accused rogue states and terrorists of doing.
Second, it is a tactical and strategic disaster. Every potential adversary, from naval militias to guerrilla forces, now has a potent new recruitment pitch: “The Americans will show you no mercy. They will kill you even if you surrender. Fight to the death.” It endangers every U.S. service member in future engagements, stripping them of the legal and ethical shield that the rules of war are meant to provide.
Third, it shreds the credibility of the U.S. military as a professional institution. The military chain of command exists precisely to prevent such barbarism. The fact that this order was reportedly given, and reportedly followed, suggests a terrifying corrosion of legal and ethical training. Who transmitted the order? Who pulled the trigger? They, too, bear responsibility, but the paramount guilt lies with the Secretary who allegedly issued a manifestly unlawful command.
If talk in Washington is correct, this is not a scandal about policy differences; it is about the crime of murder. Secretary Hegseth is unfit for his office and must be immediately relieved of duty. Furthermore, a full, independent criminal investigation – not an internal Pentagon review – must be convened. If the facts are as reported, he must be charged accordingly.
To do anything less is to become complicit. It is to declare that the United States now stands for the law of the sea only when it is convenient, and for the law of the jungle when it is not. America’s strength has never flowed from ruthlessness, but from their unwavering claim to a higher standard. That standard has not just been compromised; in those bloody waters, it was deliberately and fatally sunk. America must recover it, and that process begins with holding Pete Hegseth accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
International tribunal finds Israel guilty of genocide, ecocide, and the forced starvation of the Palestinians in Gaza.

Mondoweiss, By Marianne Dhenin November 27, 2025
The International People’s Tribunal on Palestine held in Barcelona presented striking evidence of Israel’s forced starvation of the Palestinian people and the deliberate destruction of food security in Gaza.
The International People’s Tribunal on Palestine convened on November 22 and 23 in Barcelona. The event brought together organizers, human rights advocates, and legal experts and offered a platform for survivors of the ongoing assault on Gaza to present evidence of Israel’s international crimes. After two days of testimony, jurors returned their verdict: Israel, the United States, and other Western powers are guilty of the crimes of genocide, ecocide, and the forced starvation of the Palestinian people.
“The mass killings, deliberate starvation, systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, environmental devastation, and the targeting of hospitals, shelters, schools, and places of refuge were carried out as a matter of state policy, and with full knowledge of their fatal consequences,” said head juror Ceren Uysal, reading from the verdict as the tribunal closed.
Hosted by the International League of Peoples’ Struggle, International People’s Front, and People’s Coalition of Food Sovereignty (PCFS), the tribunal offered a quasi-judicial platform for advocates and survivors of Israel’s ongoing genocide to present evidence and legal arguments related to the crimes committed against the Palestinian people. It follows in a tradition of popular forums seeking justice and accountability where institutions have failed to provide it, including previous tribunals on recent crimes in Gaza.
It came as Israel continues to commit violence in Palestine. Israel has violated the U.S.-brokered ceasefire in effect since October 10, 2025, at least 497 times, killing more than 340 people, according to the Gaza Government Media Office. On November 17, the United Nations Security Council endorsed President Donald Trump’s plan for an international force that he will lead to oversee the continued occupation of Gaza, drawing condemnation from legal experts and rights groups, who argue the plan violates Palestine’s right to self-determination and will fail to protect Palestinians.
Against this backdrop, the International People’s Tribunal repudiated the status quo. It offered striking evidence for Israel’s guilt, particularly for the forced starvation of the Palestinian people and the undermining of their food security. “The strategy of using food as a weapon has been going on for a long time in Palestine and Lebanon, but now it is intensified,” Razan Zuayter, PCFS global co-chairperson, told Mondoweiss. Zuayter also chairs the Arab Group for the Protection of Nature (APN), which endorsed the tribunal.
Over the course of the two-day event, more than a dozen witnesses made this case. Farmers testified that Israeli forces had razed their lands, uprooting trees, killing livestock, and blackening the soil. One witness, who testified anonymously for fear of reprisal, described an attack Israeli forces committed on their land in May 2024. “A group of bulldozers and tanks attacked our area and destroyed a set of chicken farms for meat and egg production,” they said. “The stench of death and foul odors spread throughout the place, forcing us to flee.”
Musheir El Farra wept on the stand on November 23, recounting Israeli attacks on his hometown of Khan Younis that killed more than 200 members of his extended family. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://mondoweiss.net/2025/11/international-tribunal-finds-israel-guilty-of-genocide-ecocide-and-the-forced-starvation-of-the-palestinians-in-gaza/
No Quarter: The White House’s New ‘War’ Lets the President Kill First — and Pardon Drug Lords Later
December 2, 2025, By: Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/02/no-quarter-the-white-houses-new-war-lets-the-president-kill-first-and-pardon-drug-lords-later/
With the president claiming that we are in an armed conflict with the cartels — and with the AP reporting from a memo it obtained from the administration — the bar is being set incredibly low so that any president can create an “enemy” out of anyone.
Here is some of what the memo said from the AP: “The President determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations… The United States has now reached a critical point where we must use force in self-defense and defense of others against the ongoing attacks by these designated terrorist organizations.”
The AP also reported the backlash from a number of people, including Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, with him saying, “I can’t imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water,” and Schmitt added, “That is clearly unlawful.” He also noted that “it has been clear for well over a century that you may not declare what’s called ‘no quarter’ — take no survivors, kill everyone.”
Because of this, right now in Washington the call is for a war-crimes investigation. With the hypocrisy on full display, no matter your political leanings, it is a joke that our President props up a narco-trafficking, unapologetic strongman and yet is willing to go to war with a country he disagrees with politically. The drug war is not needed — its cost, both human and financial, is obscene — and it is much cheaper and more humane to treat drugs as addiction and disease.
But drugs, in this case, are just a pretext for bombing your rivals and enemies. In 2015, we spent 25 billion on the war on drugs, and that was ten years ago; to keep our healthcare subsidies it would have cost 32 billion. This doesn’t seem like a real choice; we just love a good war.
One of those calling for investigation is Virginia Senator Tim Kaine saying on CBS Face the Nation Sunday, “If that reporting is true, it’s a clear violation of the DoD’s own laws of war, as well as international laws about the way you treat people who are in that circumstance,”
He also spoke about his time in Central America and asked the same important question: What’s this really about — the oil? He went on to discuss the hypocritical pardoning actual drug kingpins:
And, needless to say, the offensive duplicitous double standard on full display pardoning of drug kingpin Juan Orlando Hernández proves that this administration only cares about “armed conflicts” with its chosen enemies. It certainly doesn’t care about the threat posed by massive drug traffickers such as this man — whom they have now effectively allowed back into the business. As Hernández himself once said: “[Let’s] stuff the drugs right up the noses of the gringos.”
I will add here, but not diverge: Kaine brought up the fact that oil is a motivating factor. Here is a member of Congress explaining that point, as reported by Common Dreams:
US Rep. María Salazar (R-Fla.) said there were three reasons why “we need to go in” to the South American country. The first, she said, is that “Venezuela, for the American oil companies, will be a field day.”
Progressives on the Hill point out that we have heard this before regarding our invasion of Iraq, which at the time we were told would cost $50 billion and be paid for by oil profits — yet, as of a report from Harvard, it has become a $3 trillion war.
To swing back to today and the current war crimes the White House is standing by the strike. “Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday.
“This administration has designated these narco-terrorists as foreign terrorist organizations,” she continued. “The president has the right to take them out if they are threatening the United States of America, if they are bringing illegal narcotics that are killing our citizens at a record rate, which is what they are doing.”
You can watch her whole press conference here:
Leavitt also said that Hegseth had discussions with members of Congress who were concerned about both the strike and the potential war-crime implications. However, he quickly pivoted to posting memes about the situation — one of which I’ve included below. Needless to say, this behavior is typical of this administration: do whatever they want, defend the action, try to calm people down, and then do whatever they want again.
This “leader” needs to be at a tribunal to answer for killing survivors of this attack — there’s not much more to say. It’s clear that $1 trillion for the military is far too much. We have to ask these questions because if we keep flooding the military with money, we have to justify it — and that justification can lead to actions like this, killing whomever is deemed an enemy. Honestly, we are living in 1984. We’ve been heading down this road for a while, but it has never been so clear.
I remember this quote from the show the west wing discussing war crimes and tribunals and such, “All wars are crimes“
Trump’s buried complicity in lost US proxy war against Russia.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL 2 Dec 25
Trump boasted he’d end the war destroying Ukraine in one day if re-elected. He claimed it was all Biden’s war that Trump had nothing to do with. If only Trump had been reelected in 2020, he claims, there would have been no war gutting Ukraine as a functioning state with tens of millions fled, dead, deserted, injured. The US wouldn’t have squandered over $180 billion to achieve this dubious Biden achievement.
Trump, like every world leader, gets to make history but not rewrite history. Joe Biden was president when Russia launched its Special Military Operation to liberate the Donbas Ukrainians from destruction by Kyiv and keep NATO missiles off Russia’s borders. Biden essentially triggered that totally unnecessary war now in the final stages of Ukraine’s collapse. Biden also sabotaged the peace deal nearly achieved two month in that would have ended the war with no new lost Ukrainian territory.
That will get Biden history’s everlasting condemnation. But Trump also deserves history’s condemnation for ramping up the conditions that led to war under successor Biden. During his first term from 2017 to 2021 Trump kept alive long standing US dream of bringing Ukraine into NATO, a red line Russia warned America not to cross for over a decade prior. Trump authorized repeated NATO military exercises in Ukraine, which effectively made Ukraine a de facto NATO member. Trump allowed new NATO bases in Poland and Romania, adding to Russian angst over NATO encroachment.
Trump reversed a sensible Obama policy of not arming the Kyiv government to complete its destruction of Donbas Ukrainian separatists. In his 4 years Trump oversaw a fourfold increase of Kyiv military might. Had Trump simply reversed senseless US expansion of NATO beginning under Bill Clinton in 1999, and forced Germany, France and UK to honor the Minsk Agreements granting regional autonomy to Donbas Ukrainians, Biden may not have had the conditions or momentum to provoke the February 2022 Russian invasion.
Trump pretends he’s the White Knight bringing peace to a Ukraine wrecked solely by Biden’s perfidy. He should own up to his first term complicity and make peace to atone for his own sins destroying Ukraine as well as those of Joe Biden.
-
Archives
- January 2026 (138)
- 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


