UK Nuclear Plant Sizewell Continues Fundraising Before Election
- Banks offered to lend as much as £12.5 billion for Sizewell C
By Will Mathis, May 24, 2024
The developer of the UK’s Sizewell C nuclear power plant is pushing ahead to complete
financing for the project this year even as a looming election risks
complicating the timeline.
A group of banks offered to lend as much as
£12.5 billion ($15.9 billion) to help finance the plant in eastern
England, according to a person familiar with the matter. They include HSBC
Holdings Plc, NatWest Group Plc and Banco Santander SA, the person said.
Debt will play a role in a multibillion-pound funding effort that also
includes an ongoing effort to raise equity from private investors.
“The two main political parties are committed to Sizewell C and we are carrying
on with the capital raise, preparing for a final investment decision and
mobilizing teams on our site,” a spokesperson for Sizewell said,
declining to comment on the debt specifically.
HSBC and Santander declined to comment. NatWest didn’t immediately comment.
The government had vowed
to reach a final investment decision on the proposed 3.2-gigawatt Sizewell
C station in the current parliament, a process that was on track to
complete this summer. That means the final stage of the fund-raising
process could be among Labour leader Keir Starmer’s first acts if he
becomes prime minister. “Sizewell needs to move forward at pace,”
Starmer said during a visit to another nuclear plant last year. “New
nuclear has to be part of that mix.”
Bloomberg 23rd May 2024
Blinken lobbying for strikes on Russia – NYT
23 May 2024 , https://www.sott.net/article/491680-Blinken-lobbying-for-strikes-on-Russia-NYT
The top US diplomat wants Ukraine to be given permission to use American weapons beyond its borders
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is pushing the administration of President Joe Biden to allow Ukraine to attack targets deep inside Russia with American weapons, the New York Times reported on Thursday, referring to unnamed US officials.
The ban, according to the White House, was imposed out of concern that if US arms were used inside what Washington acknowledges as Russian territory it would trigger an escalation and potentially World War III. Blinken has been advocating for scrapping the restriction after making a “sobering” visit to Kiev earlier this month, the newspaper said, citing insider sources.
Ukrainian officials have claimed that being unable to target Russian forces across the border with American weapons led to the failure of its troops to prevent the recent Russian advances in Kharkov Region.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that the offensive is a response to months of Ukrainian artillery and drone attacks in Russia’s Belgorod Region and that a buffer zone is required to deprive Kiev of the capability to make such strikes. The Times said that Ukrainian weapons “don’t pack the power and speed of the American weapons.”
Kiev has launched a lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill to pressure the White House over the issue and has some allies among lawmakers. A group of representatives signed a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on Monday calling for the Ukrainian request to be granted.
During a hearing in Congress on Tuesday, Senator Michael McCaul displayed a map showing the strike range of ATACMS missiles – a weapon the US has donated to Ukraine – if Kiev were allowed to use them inside Russia. He called the outlined territory a “sanctuary zone” for Russian troops and accused the Biden administration of tying the hands of the Ukrainians behind their backs.
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has urged increased NATO involvement in the conflict and has argued that the West should not fear Russia’s reaction. Moscow believes that Zelensky’s goal is to trigger an escalation to maintain his position.
Russia is currently conducting a military drill to test its capability to use non-strategic nuclear weapons, which Putin ordered in response to hostile rhetoric by Western officials. One such remark identified by Moscow came from British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, who said earlier this month that Kiev “has the right” to use weapons donated by his nation to attack targets inside Russia.
Comment:
1) The above news was published the same day as Boris Johnson and British MPs met with representatives of the Azov Brigade. See Russia reacts to UK MPs applauding Ukrainian neo-Nazis On the occasion, Johnson gave a speech in which he made recommendation similar to those promoted by Anthony Blinken:
2) Regarding: “British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, who said earlier this month that Kiev “has the right” to use weapons donated by his nation to attack targets inside Russia.”
Indigenous opposition to nuclear waste being transported through their territory
Concerns growing surrounding nuclear waste management
Anishinabek, The voice of the Anishinabek nation. May 22, 2024, By Rick Garrick
FORT WILLIAM — Fort William’s Elysia Lone Elk is raising concerns about the transportation of nuclear materials through Northern Ontario if the proposed nuclear waste site near Ignace in Treaty #3 territory gets the go-ahead.
The Trans-Canada Hwy. was closed for about 20 hours in 2001 after a head-on collision between two transport trucks, one of which was transporting two canisters of radioactive material — iridium — about 25 kilometres east of Dryden, 105 kilometres west of Ignace. The collision resulted in “widespread destruction” and the deaths of four people, two from each vehicle, according to a news report. Officials from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission eventually arrived on site, found there was no leakage, and removed the canisters to a safe location.
“Water is life, it’s our most sacred resource,” Lone Elk says. “We need that to survive, animals need that to survive, and I don’t think we should be drilling underground and playing with aquifers with a very toxic harmful material that has a half-life beyond my conception of time.”
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has been following a process to select a site for Canada’s plan to safely manage used nuclear fuel long-term since 2010, and has since narrowed down the potential sites to two areas for Canada’s deep geological repository, the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area in northwestern Ontario, and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation-South Bruce area in southwestern Ontario. If the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area is selected as the site, nuclear materials would have to be transported across Northern Ontario to the site.
“If it’s so safe, then why are you even transporting it, just bury it where it is? We know how dangerous those highways can be,” Lone Elk says. “The fact that no one on the [potential transportation] corridor gets a say is a democratic problem, very frustrating.”
Lone Elk adds that the nuclear material would be transported across Northern Ontario for the operating life of the proposed deep geological repository. The NWMO states on their website that based on current projections of Canada’s inventory of used nuclear fuel, transportation is anticipated to take about 40 years to complete. The NWMO adds that they are exploring road and/or rail options for transporting used nuclear fuel to the deep geological repository.
“The (Fort William) Band Council has passed two resolutions, one focusing on the proximity principle and then the other one specifically outright stating we do not support nuclear fuel being transported through our traditional territory,” Lone Elk says. “We’re trusting their scientists, we’re trusting industry scientists, we’re trusting industry factors; so when does the First Nation get to participate with Indigenous knowledge?”
Fort William Chief Michele Solomon says Fort William passed two resolutions in the last four years opposing nuclear waste being brought into Fort William territory.
“I think that it’s fair to say we stand with other First Nations in Robinson Superior Treaty territory to say that there’s nothing that gives us comfort that there would be any safety with this being transported through our communities,” Solomon says. “We see the increase in accidents on the highways going through our homelands so we’re strongly opposed to it.”
Solomon adds that their community has not been consulted on this issue.
Based on how the community has responded to other possible threats to our homelands, the people have been strongly opposed to other things that have been proposed for our territory,” Solomon says. “If the government wants to proceed with this, then they need to consult with the rights holders of this territory. So if it needs to pass through Robinson Superior territory, you need to consult with all of those communities.”
Solomon says it is not enough for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to say that it is safe.
“I think there should be independent research done and that has not happened as far as I know,” Solomon says, noting that unhealthy things have been brought into her community’s airspace and waterways before. “So we are strongly opposed.”
The Assembly of First Nations is holding four Regional Dialogue Sessions: A Dialogue on the Transportation and Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel at locations across the country, including on May 22 at the Delta Hotels by Marriott in Thunder Bay.
--
Nuclear-free councils hit out at ‘mad delusion’ of new reactor
By Alan Hendry – alan.hendry@hnmedia.co.uk, 25 May 2024
Calls for a nuclear revival in Scotland – including the possibility of a new Dounreay reactor – have been dismissed as “folly” and a “mad delusion”.
Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs), a grouping of councils opposed to civil nuclear power, insisted that renewables “represent the only way forward to achieve a sustainable, net-zero future”.
The secretary of state for Scotland, Alister Jack, confirmed last week that he had asked the UK energy minister to plan for a new nuclear site north of the border as part of a nationwide strategy.
Dounreay had been put forward among the possible locations for a small modular reactor (SMR), a series of 10 power stations that engineering giant Rolls-Royce was planning to build by 2035.
Jamie Stone, the Liberal Democrat MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, was quick to press the case for Dounreay to be considered. After a conversation with the Scottish secretary, Mr Stone claimed there was “all to play for”.
Ross-shire Journal 25th May 2024
“Nuclear War: A Scenario”: An Absolute Must-Read
Jonathon Porritt, 24 May 24
Every single person of influence here in the UK (and globally) absolutely
ought to read Annie Jacobsen’s “Nuclear War: A Scenario”. We somehow
seem to have forgotten that we’re still living in a world which could be
entirely destroyed (by design or by accident) by a nuclear war. At any
point.
Even Putin’s occasional flourish of his “big nuclear stick”
seems to stir few fears – outside of a group of extraordinarily
well-informed security and defence experts. I suspect that may have been
Annie Jacobson’s motivation in writing “Nuclear War: A Scenario”.
How have we become so complacent? Why is nuclear disarmament the poor cousin of
any international security gathering – a ghost at every G20/G7 Summit?
Why will nuclear disarmament barely feature in the manifestos of the major
parties in the UK General Election – and, so much more importantly, in
the presidential campaigns of either Biden or Trump?
Jonathon Porritt 24th May 2024
Altman-Backed Oklo Sees Data Centers Boosting Nuclear Demand, (though OKLO design not yet approved)
Will Wade, Bloomberg News
Bloomberg) — A day after announcing a deal to provide nuclear energy to a data center, Oklo Inc. says it expects to sign additional contracts from the power-hungry industry.
About 80% of Oklo’s inbound inquiries are coming from data center operators, according to Jacob DeWitte, chief executive officer of the company that is backed by Sam Altman, CEO of the AI firm OpenAI Inc. It went public this month through a merger with Altman’s AltC Acquisition Corp.
Oklo agreed Thursday to deliver 100 megawatts of power to Wyoming Hyperscalar to run a data center campus. “This is just a scratch on the tip of an iceberg,” DeWitte said in an interview Friday at Bloomberg’s headquarters in New York. “There’s going to be a lot more.”
While utilities are racing to meet demand that’s forecast by some analysts to soar thanks to artificial intelligence and data centers, it will be years before Oklo can help meet that need. The Santa Clara, California-based company has yet to receive regulatory approval to build its reactor and DeWitte said it’s unlikely one will be in service before 2027.
Israel will not stop ‘this madness’ until we make it stop: UN rapporteur
May 25, 2024 more https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240525-israel-will-not-stop-this-madness-until-we-make-it-stop-un-rapporteur/
The UN’s special rapporteur on Palestine on Saturday urged member states to impose sanctions on Israel along with an arms embargo until it stops “this madness,” Anadolu reports.
“Let’s be clear. As the ICJ orders Israel to stop its offensive in Rafah, Israel intensifies its attacks on it,” Francesca Albanese said on X.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its latest ruling ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah, a city in southern Gaza where more than 1.5 million displaced Palestinians had sought refuge.
“The news I am receiving from the people trapped therein are terrifying,” she said.
“Be sure: Israel will not stop this madness until WE make it stop,” she added.
Albanese urged all UN member states to “impose #sanctions, arms embargo and suspend diplo/political relations with Israel till it ceases its assault.”
On Friday, the ICJ reaffirmed its previous orders and indicated further measures including, keeping the Rafah border crossing open and allowing access for investigators to the blockaded enclave.
Over 35,800 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, the vast majority being women and children, and nearly 80,300 others injured since October following an attack by Hamas.
More than seven months into the Israeli war, vast swathes of Gaza lay in ruins amid a crippling blockade of food, clean water and medicine.
Officials set up road closures around Sunnyside Community Hospital for radiation concerns
Le’Ana Freeman NonStop Local Digital Journalist, May 26, 2024, SUNNYSIDE, Wash. https://www.nbcrightnow.com/news/sunnyside-police-warn-public-to-avoid-sunnyside-hospital-for-radiation-concerns/article_f8308f6e-1ba9-11ef-98e3-af76c9eab7ef.html
Sunnyside Police have confirmed they are blocking off the Sunnyside Hospital area from Franklin Ave to East Edison Ave to continue decontamination efforts.
Officials are asking the public to avoid the area.
Officials have asked the public to avoid the Sunnyside Hospital area.
According to the Sunnyside Police Department, construction workers arrived at the Sunnyside Hospital and reported radiation exposure from a construction site out of town. The hospital is decontaminating the emergency room and patients.
Police ask the public to divert from the hospital and avoid the area for safety.
SNPs Stephen Flynn claims Labour ‘will divert £20bn of Scotland’s oil cash’ to build nuclear power plants in England
John Ferguson, Sunday Mail political editor, 25 May 24
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn has accused Labour of planning to divert £20billion of tax receipts from Scotland’s oil wealth to build nuclear power plants in England……………………………………………………………………… https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snps-stephen-flynn-claims-labour-32893362
Taxpayer contribution to Sizewell C nuclear plant could double
24 May, 2022 By Rob Hakimian https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/taxpayer-contribution-to-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-double-24-05-2022/
Construction of the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk could cost taxpayers more than double what the government has suggested, according to new research
Construction of Sizewell C has not yet been confirmed, with the planning decision having recently been pushed back to July.
However, with the UK set to lose all of its functional advanced gas-cooling reactor (AGR) nuclear plants by 2028, the government is keen to push through plans for new plants as it has made nuclear energy a crux point of its net zero strategy and energy security strategy. It has already committed £100M to Sizewell C and, crucially, agreed to use the regulated asset base (RAB) funding model to pay for it.
The RAB model, which has previously been used to fund Tideway and Heathrow Terminal 5, allows investors to recoup some of their money during the construction phase of the project through taxation. The taxpayer pays for the plant through monthly surcharge on their taxes before they reap the rewards. The government says that, while the taxpayer will have to pay the surcharge during construction, they will save £10 a month through this method once the plant is operational.
However, if a project suffers delays and cost increases, this means the risk falls on the shoulders of the taxpayer. As seen by continual delays and cost hikes on Hinkley Point C, nuclear plants are particularly susceptible.
In its own analysis of using the RAB model to fund Sizewell C, the government has said that over the course of the plant’s 13-17 years construction it will add an average surcharge of £1 per month to household bills. However, the University of Greenwich School of Business says that the government’s calculations are based on 2021 prices and do not account for inflation over the course of the next two decades as the plant is built.
Taking into account inflation, based on the Treasury’s target level of 2%, Greenwich Business School has determined that the cost could be up to £2.12 per month on average over the course of the construction time. However, this is a relatively conservative estimate, as inflation could be much greater than 2% over the course of the next 20 years.
The government’s calculation is based on the median expectations for the construction of Sizewell C, i.e. that it will take 15 years (midway between the projected 13-17 years) and cost £35bn (midway between the estimated £26.3bn and £43.8bn).
Greenwich Business School has also looked at the best and worse case scenarios, adding 2% inflation. If the construction were to only last 13 years and cost £26.3bn, the taxpayer would fork out an additional £148.20 over the course (an average of 95p per month). If it is to last 17 years and cost £43.8bn, the taxpayer will pay an additional £431.90 over the duration (an average of £2.12 per month).
This figure could be even higher if the project runs beyond 17 years, costs over £43.8bn and/or inflation rises by more than 2%, all of which are distinct possibilities.
The RAB model, which has previously been used to fund Tideway and Heathrow Terminal 5, allows investors to recoup some of their money during the construction phase of the project through taxation. The taxpayer pays for the plant through monthly surcharge on their taxes before they reap the rewards. The government says that, while the taxpayer will have to pay the surcharge during construction, they will save £10 a month through this method once the plant is operational.
This figure could be even higher if the project runs beyond 17 years, costs over £43.8bn and/or inflation rises by more than 2%, all of which are distinct possibilities.
Both the government’s and Greenwhich Business School’s calculations are based on illustrative figures. More accurate figures will be known once planning has been granted and investment partners found.
This presents another issue, as there are no clear investors champing at the bit. While the government is bullish about nuclear’s potential green benefits, many potential investors are uncertain of its environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials. Aviva Investors has even called out the government for not providing enough detail for a proper assessment on nuclear’s ESG potential.
University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy Stephen Thomas told NCE: “There are differences between Tideway and Sizewell C. One is scale: Tideway is said to be a huge project, but the cost is not much more than a 10th of what Sizewell C will be, so it will be a big strain on that market.
- You are here: Latest
Taxpayer contribution to Sizewell C nuclear plant could double
24 May, 2022 By Rob Hakimian
Construction of the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk could cost taxpayers more than double what the government has suggested, according to new research.
Construction of Sizewell C has not yet been confirmed, with the planning decision having recently been pushed back to July.
However, with the UK set to lose all of its functional advanced gas-cooling reactor (AGR) nuclear plants by 2028, the government is keen to push through plans for new plants as it has made nuclear energy a crux point of its net zero strategy and energy security strategy. It has already committed £100M to Sizewell C and, crucially, agreed to use the regulated asset base (RAB) funding model to pay for it.
The RAB model, which has previously been used to fund Tideway and Heathrow Terminal 5, allows investors to recoup some of their money during the construction phase of the project through taxation. The taxpayer pays for the plant through monthly surcharge on their taxes before they reap the rewards. The government says that, while the taxpayer will have to pay the surcharge during construction, they will save £10 a month through this method once the plant is operational.
However, if a project suffers delays and cost increases, this means the risk falls on the shoulders of the taxpayer. As seen by continual delays and cost hikes on Hinkley Point C, nuclear plants are particularly susceptible.
In its own analysis of using the RAB model to fund Sizewell C, the government has said that over the course of the plant’s 13-17 years construction it will add an average surcharge of £1 per month to household bills. However, the University of Greenwich School of Business says that the government’s calculations are based on 2021 prices and do not account for inflation over the course of the next two decades as the plant is built.
Taking into account inflation, based on the Treasury’s target level of 2%, Greenwich Business School has determined that the cost could be up to £2.12 per month on average over the course of the construction time. However, this is a relatively conservative estimate, as inflation could be much greater than 2% over the course of the next 20 years.
The government’s calculation is based on the median expectations for the construction of Sizewell C, i.e. that it will take 15 years (midway between the projected 13-17 years) and cost £35bn (midway between the estimated £26.3bn and £43.8bn).
Greenwich Business School has also looked at the best and worse case scenarios, adding 2% inflation. If the construction were to only last 13 years and cost £26.3bn, the taxpayer would fork out an additional £148.20 over the course (an average of 95p per month). If it is to last 17 years and cost £43.8bn, the taxpayer will pay an additional £431.90 over the duration (an average of £2.12 per month).
This figure could be even higher if the project runs beyond 17 years, costs over £43.8bn and/or inflation rises by more than 2%, all of which are distinct possibilities.
Both the government’s and Greenwhich Business School’s calculations are based on illustrative figures. More accurate figures will be known once planning has been granted and investment partners found.
This presents another issue, as there are no clear investors champing at the bit. While the government is bullish about nuclear’s potential green benefits, many potential investors are uncertain of its environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials. Aviva Investors has even called out the government for not providing enough detail for a proper assessment on nuclear’s ESG potential.
University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy Stephen Thomas told NCE: “There are differences between Tideway and Sizewell C. One is scale: Tideway is said to be a huge project, but the cost is not much more than a 10th of what Sizewell C will be, so it will be a big strain on that market.
“The second difference is that there is output to sell from Sizewell C. Thames Tideway gets its money by being there and providing a service; if it’s there and it’s not utterly failed then that’s it. Sizewell C has kilowatt hours to sell, and there are risks in that because you don’t know how reliable the plant is going to be, you don’t know what the running costs are going to be, you don’t know what the fuel costs are going to be. So there are risks involved in that.
“The RAB is a bit of an illusion, because the kilowatt hour costs that they will quote are based on whatever it costs to ensure investors make their agreed return, no matter how high the price. It will ignore the surcharge paid during the construction phase, which is a huge subsidy by consumers. It is a blank cheque signed by consumers. It’s a dreadful model.”
A Sizewell C spokesperson said: “The RAB model is a proven financing arrangement which has already been used to raise funds for more than £160bn of infrastructure. Applied to Sizewell C, it will bring the cost of finance down and deliver significant savings to consumers.”
A government spokesperson said: “We firmly stand by our assessment that a large-scale project funded under our Nuclear Act would add at most a few pounds a year to typical household energy bills during the early stages of construction, and on average about £1 a month during the full construction phase of the project.”
Ukraine war briefing: France flies nuclear-capable missile as Russia holds drills
Guardian, Warren Murray and agencies, Thu 23 May
- France has carried out its first test firing of an updated nuclear-capable missile, the ASMPA-R, designed to be launched by a Rafale fighter jet, according to the French defence minister, Sebastien Lecornu. It came a day after Russia said it began nuclear drills in its southern military district, which stretches from Russia into occupied Ukrainian territory. The announcement of Russian drills is partly directed at France after its president, Emmanuel Macron, said he would not rule out sending in troops on Ukraine’s side.
- Lecornu said the missile was fired without a warhead by a plane in an exercise “above national territory … at the end of a flight representing a nuclear air raid”. He congratulated “all the forces, [defence] ministry teams and industrial partners involved” in a “long-planned” operation. France plans to spend about 13% of its military budget over the coming years on its independent nuclear capability, including upgrading to next-generation air-launched missiles by 2035. ……………………………………..
- Russia said there were Ukrainian attacks on its Belgorod region across the border from Ukraine, and in the occupied eastern Ukrainian city of Lysychansk, killing up to three people.
- The Swedish government has announced additional military support to Ukraine totalling 75 billion crowns (US$7bn) over three years. Ukraine’s defence minister, Rustem Umerov, said Swedish-made weapons had “already proven themselves on the battlefield … Archers and CV-90s help Ukrainian defenders drive the enemy out of our land.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/23/ukraine-war-briefing-france-flies-nuclear-capable-missile-as-russia-holds-drills
In 1939 the Soviet Union ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact’
Nick Holdsworth in Moscow, The Telegraph, Sat, 18 Oct 2008 https://www.sott.net/article/491642-Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact
Stalin was ‘prepared to move more than a million Soviet troops to the German border to deter Hitler’s aggression just before the Second World War’
Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.
Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history, preventing Hitler’s pact with Stalin which gave him free rein to go to war with Germany’s other neighbours.
The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939.
The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin’s generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.
But the British and French side – briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals – did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after the foreign secretaries of the two countries, came on August 23 – just a week before Nazi Germany attacked Poland, thereby sparking the outbreak of the war. But it would never have happened if Stalin’s offer of a western alliance had been accepted, according to retired Russian foreign intelligence service Major General Lev Sotskov, who sorted the 700 pages of declassified documents.
“This was the final chance to slay the wolf, even after [British Conservative prime minister Neville] Chamberlain and the French had given up Czechoslovakia to German aggression the previous year in the Munich Agreement,” said Gen Sotskov, 75.
The Soviet offer – made by war minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army chief of general staff Boris Shaposhnikov – would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany’s borders in the event of war in the west, declassified minutes of the meeting show.
But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who lead the British delegation, told his Soviet counterparts that he authorised only to talk, not to make deals.
“Had the British, French and their European ally Poland, taken this offer seriously then together we could have put some 300 or more divisions into the field on two fronts against Germany – double the number Hitler had at the time,” said Gen Sotskov, who joined the Soviet intelligence service in 1956. “This was a chance to save the world or at least stop the wolf in its tracks.”
When asked what forces Britain itself could deploy in the west against possible Nazi aggression, Admiral Drax said there were just 16 combat ready divisions, leaving the Soviets bewildered by Britain’s lack of preparation for the looming conflict.
The Soviet attempt to secure an anti-Nazi alliance involving the British and the French is well known. But the extent to which Moscow was prepared to go has never before been revealed.
Simon Sebag Montefiore, best selling author of Young Stalin and Stalin: The Court of The Red Tsar, said it was apparent there were details in the declassified documents that were not known to western historians.
“The detail of Stalin’s offer underlines what is known; that the British and French may have lost a colossal opportunity in 1939 to prevent the German aggression which unleashed the Second World War. It shows that Stalin may have been more serious than we realised in offering this alliance.”
Professor Donald Cameron Watt, author of How War Came – widely seen as the definitive account of the last 12 months before war began – said the details were new, but said he was sceptical about the claim that they were spelled out during the meetings.
“There was no mention of this in any of the three contemporaneous diaries, two British and one French – including that of Drax,” he said. “I don’t myself believe the Russians were serious.”
The declassified archives – which cover the period from early 1938 until the outbreak of war in September 1939 – reveal that the Kremlin had known of the unprecedented pressure Britain and France put on Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler by surrendering the ethnic German Sudetenland region in 1938.
“At every stage of the appeasement process, from the earliest top secret meetings between the British and French, we understood exactly and in detail what was going on,” Gen Sotskov said.
“It was clear that appeasement would not stop with Czechoslovakia’s surrender of the Sudetenland and that neither the British nor the French would lift a finger when Hitler dismembered the rest of the country.”
Stalin’s sources, Gen Sotskov says, were Soviet foreign intelligence agents in Europe, but not London. “The documents do not reveal precisely who the agents were, but they were probably in Paris or Rome.”
Shortly before the notorious Munich Agreement of 1938 – in which Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, effectively gave Hitler the go-ahead to annexe the Sudetenland – Czechoslovakia’s President Eduard Benes was told in no uncertain terms not to invoke his country’s military treaty with the Soviet Union in the face of further German aggression.
“Chamberlain knew that Czechoslovakia had been given up for lost the day he returned from Munich in September 1938 waving a piece of paper with Hitler’s signature on it,” Gen Sotksov said.
The top secret discussions between the Anglo-French military delegation and the Soviets in August 1939 – five months after the Nazis marched into Czechoslovakia – suggest both desperation and impotence of the western powers in the face of Nazi aggression.
Poland, whose territory the vast Russian army would have had to cross to confront Germany, was firmly against such an alliance. Britain was doubtful about the efficacy of any Soviet forces because only the previous year, Stalin had purged thousands of top Red Army commanders.
The documents will be used by Russian historians to help explain and justify Stalin’s controversial pact with Hitler, which remains infamous as an example of diplomatic expediency.
“It was clear that the Soviet Union stood alone and had to turn to Germany and sign a non-aggression pact to gain some time to prepare ourselves for the conflict that was clearly coming,” said Gen Sotskov.
A desperate attempt by the French on August 21 to revive the talks was rebuffed, as secret Soviet-Nazi talks were already well advanced.
It was only two years later, following Hitler’s Blitzkreig attack on Russia in June 1941, that the alliance with the West which Stalin had sought finally came about – by which time France, Poland and much of the rest of Europe were already under German occupation.
Blinken Pushing To Let Ukraine Hit Russian Territory With US Weapons
Many members of Congress are also calling for President Biden to lift the ban, which risks a major escalation
by Dave DeCamp https://news.antiwar.com/2024/05/23/blinken-pushing-to-let-ukraine-hit-russian-territory-with-us-weapons/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is leading a push within the Biden administration to allow Ukraine to use US-provided missile systems and other weapons to hit Russian territory, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
The report said there is a “vigorous debate” within the administration in the wake of Russia’s new offensive in Kharkiv, which was launched from over the border in Russia’s Belgorod oblast.
It’s unclear how many other high-level officials agree with Blinken, but the pressure is growing on President Biden to lift the prohibition on Ukraine using US weapons on Russian territory, a ban that, according to the Times, is designed to “avoid World War III.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and many other members of Congress are also calling to lift the ban. Ultra-hawk Victoria Nuland, who left the State Department in March, appeared on ABC News this week to make the pitch for Ukraine to extend its use of US weapons to Russian territory.
“I think there’s also a question of whether we, the United States and our allies, ought to give them more help in hitting Russian bases, which heretofore we have not been willing to do,” Nuland said.
“I think if the attacks are coming directly from over the line in Russia, that those bases ought to be fair game, whether they are where missiles are being launched from or where they are where troops are being supplied from,” she added.
Moscow recently warned the UK that if Ukraine used British weapons on Russian territory, Russian forces would target UK military sites in Ukraine “and beyond.” The warning came after British Foreign Secretary David Cameron said Ukraine had the “right” to use British arms in attacks on Russia.
Russia is currently conducting tactical nuclear drills that it launched in response to provocative rhetoric from Western officials about sending troops to Ukraine. The Times report said that the US was also considering deploying troops for training, although Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown said there were “no plans” to do so at the moment.
Joe Biden’s Deceptive Declarations on Gaza are contradicted by his actions
Ralph Nader 24 May 24,
As the keynote speaker at Morehouse College in Atlanta last week, Joe Biden listened to the class Valedictorian’s call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The President nodded and applauded with others in the assembly. In contrast, he had just approved another billion dollars in killer weapons for the genocidal Netanyahu regime to blow up what’s left of the Death Camps in Gaza. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” declared his wife, Dr. Jill Biden months ago.
Countless times Joe Biden has publicly urged Netanyahu to allow the waiting trucks carrying – food, water, and medicine – blocked at the Egyptian and Israeli borders to deliver this humanitarian aid. But Biden declined to demand sanctions and an end to the Israeli military blocking hundreds of trucks, paid for by the U.S., into Gaza to help the dying population. He could have draped American flags over these trucks and dared the Israeli state terrorists to stop them. Biden showed lethal weakness from an unused position of great presidential power. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” implored his wife Dr. Jill Biden as thousands of children are being killed who could have been saved.
Biden asked early on that Netanyahu comply with international law. His government commits daily overt numerous war crimes targeting civilians, homes, schools, markets, hospitals and health clinics, ambulances, fleeing refugees, and even Mosques and Churches. The Israeli regime also violates the international law that requires the conquerors to protect the civilian population. Biden, Blinken and Austin have refused to condemn such “crimes against humanity,” halt arms shipments and thereby obey five federal laws prohibiting the U.S. from sending weapons to countries that are violating human rights or being used for offensive purposes.
When Biden took his oath of office, he swore to uphold the laws of the land. That oath requires action. His State Department, in a required compliance report this month to Congress, disgracefully punted. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” beseeched Dr. Jill Biden.
From the beginning, Biden has backed a two-state solution publicly and in private conversations with Netanyahu. These words support a peaceful settlement. Yet whether under Obama as vice president for eight years or since 2021, as president, Biden has not connected to any action advancing the two-state proposal. Worse, he has never called out Netanyahu, with consequences, for bragging year after year to his Likud Party that he has been supporting the Hamas regime and helping to fund it because Hamas, like Netanyahu, opposes a two-state solution.
Biden is still rejecting the recognition of a Palestinian state by 143 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. This week Spain, Norway and Ireland said they would recognize a Palestinian state. Biden bizarrely insists statehood be negotiated with Israel. He knows, of course, how many Israeli colonies (so-called settlements) exist in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel rejects outright any such Free Palestine. Weak Joe Biden is okay with that brutal occupation. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” says Dr. Jill Biden.
Joe Biden is always condemning anti-semitism against Jews, while he spends billions of dollars weaponizing Netanyahu’s violent anti-semitism against Arab semites in Palestine. This “other” anti-semitism has been violently inflicted, with very racist epithets, on defenseless, subjugated Palestinian families for over fifty-five years. The violence includes U.S. fighter planes bombing, ground troops smashing homes, and refugee camps, blowing up homes, imprisoning and torturing thousands of men, women and children, without charges, and hundreds of dictates, checkpoints, and other maddening harassments. (See the New York Times Magazine Sunday, May 19, 2024 piece “The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel”). Biden and Netanyahu are arm-in-arm anti-semites against Arabs. (See the “Anti-Semitism Against Arab and Jewish Americans” speech by Jim Zogby and DebatingTaboos.org).
Throughout his fifty-year political career, Biden has never said that “Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.” Only the overwhelmingly more powerful, occupying Israelis have this right, as he has repeated hundreds of times. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” advises Dr. Jill Biden.
Biden has expressed doubt about the Hamas Health Ministry’s fatality count in Gaza – itself a huge undercount. (See my column March 5, 2024 column: Stop the Worsening UNDERCOUNT of Palestinian Casualties in Gaza). His actions enabling the Israeli annihilations (“over the top” he once blurted) are moving the real fatality toll, especially with the Rafah invasion and starvation, to the fastest rate ever recorded in 21st century conflicts, according to experts. This includes the bloody, accelerating deaths of babies and children.
It’s the ongoing massacre of these little innocents – in their mother’s or father’s arms or in crumbling hospitals that led Dr. Jill Biden to admonish: “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”
Still, Joe Biden conveys weakness to Netanyahu, to Netanyahu’s Congress and its omnipresent “Israel-can-do-no-wrong” lobby. Being weak on such a high visibility and protested genocide in Gaza is bad for your re-election, Joe. Even though Der Führer Donald is worse. Look at the latest polls in the swing states! A true leader doesn’t zig and zag when innocent people are being killed. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”
European Investment Bank’s (EIB) financing for nuclear reactor construction remains off the agenda
By Paul Messad | Euractiv France, 24 May 24, https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eib-financing-for-nuclear-reactor-construction-remains-off-the-agenda/
Despite a leak of the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) roadmap containing nothing new or concrete on nuclear financing, the industry continues to hold out for new money from the bank to support its planned expansion.
“The European Investment Bank is open to financing for nuclear”, said Yves Desbazeilles, Director General of NuclearEurope, the Brussels-based association for the defence of nuclear power, responding to the leak in comments to CarbonPulse last week.
The EIB document, which outlines its planned work for 2023-2027, does mention that ‘R&D for small modular reactors (SMRs)’ will be supported by the EIB. Desbazeilles argued that the new document is an open door for “several other” options for EIB support, such as for reactor construction, but no such reference seems likely in the final text.
However, several industry observers have told Euractiv that the document’s references are no more significant than those in the current roadmap (2021-2025), which already mentions R&D support for nuclear fission and fusion but nothing on electricity generation.
Technology-neutral approach
The financing of nuclear power is a live topic in Brussels, mainly since the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, spoke positively about the technology at the Nuclear Summit (NES) in Brussels in March 2024. In recent months, the industry and several national governments have made a concerted push for EIB support for nuclear.
The EIB remains cautious about the prospect of financing nuclear energy.
The bank is the EU’s investment arm and between now and 2025, it plans to channel €1,000 billion into environmental and energy projects.
Within this framework, the bank is adopting a technology-neutral approach and is therefore not closed to supporting nuclear power, illustrated by a €145 million loan granted in December 2023 for safety operations in Romania.
However, irrespective of politics, investment in nuclear power is now less financially attractive than it was in the past.
Over the last 24 years, only €1 billion of EIB funds have been earmarked for nuclear power and only for parallel activities (R&D, safety, etc.). The last EIB investments in electricity generation occurred in 1987, for France’s two first Flamanville nuclear reactors.
Plant construction is where finance is most needed – installed nuclear capacity is set to triple between now and 2050 in Europe, including large and small reactors.
Profitability
The construction of reactors faces a severe problem regarding the prospects of EIB support: profitability.
Although it deploys public money, the EIB’s lending operations are intended to generate a return for the bank and the institution’s prestigious ‘AAA’ credit rating allows it to borrow on international markets at low interest rates.
To maintain this rating, the bank cannot lend where there is a significant risk that it will not get a return on the loan. Where the bank deploys riskier loans, it protects itself by seeking guarantees and demanding that the borrowers are financially solid.
While the solvency condition is more easily met when the applicant nuclear company, such as EDF in France, is state-owned, this provision is harder for start-ups and other private companies to satisfy.
Larger reactors built more recently have struggled with systematic cost overruns and delays. This has seriously tested the confidence of financiers, who worry that they will not get back their investments or that it will be too late.
This concern is despite expert arguments that the cost of future large reactors will fall by 20 to 30, as Europe will benefit from serially producing reactors again.
The business model for large reactors is well known, but for SMRs, “which have new applications, the models have yet to be invented”, Valérie Faudon, General Delegate of the French Nuclear Energy Society (SFEN), explained to Euractiv.
Ultimately, the risk of financing nuclear power remains high, as Thomas Ostros, Vice-President of the EIB, put it in mid-March during the Nuclear Energy Summit.
Le consensus
EIB loans must also be approved by national governments. Germany, Italy, Spain, and France have an important voice because of the significant capital they have subscribed to the bank.
As a result, France cannot rely on the support of the ten states members of the nuclear alliance alone, although it does enjoy the support of the institution’s president, Nadia Calvino of Spain. Italy has made positive noises to support SMR but has not yet provided concrete support for new EIB financing.
The EIB declined to comment on the leaked 2023-2027 roadmap.
[Edited by Donagh Cagney/Alice Taylor]
1 This Month
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conferenc
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (231)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
