Big Tech’s Debate Over “Open” and “Safe” AI Leaves Corporate Power Unquestioned
Techno-optimism turns this hierarchy into a story of liberation, presenting corporate technologies as neutral instruments of progress while concealing who owns them and who bears their costs.
September 2, 2026, By Tim Scott
Two seemingly contradictory letters emerging from the AI industry point toward the same future.
On July 24, 2026, an initial coalition of 25 technology companies and organizations, including NVIDIA, Microsoft, and Meta, released the Open Weights and American AI Leadership letter, calling for wider adoption of AI models that institutions can download and modify. By August 3, more than 270 companies and organizations had signed, spanning Big Tech, venture capital, investment management, and the defense and security industries. Four days after Open Weights’ release, another letter, Pacing the Frontier, organized by employees of frontier AI companies with support from two AI-policy nonprofits, drew more than 1,300 signatures. It warned that leading companies may be close to automating AI research, accelerating development beyond society’s ability to understand or control the resulting AI systems.
The letters seem to argue for opposite futures. One presents wider access and fewer restrictions as the route to security and prosperity. The other asks the U.S. government to support an international effort to slow frontier development before competitive pressures make coordinated restraint impossible.
But they address different levels of the industry. Open Weights seeks to deepen AI’s already pervasive presence by making customizable models easier to embed throughout the economy and public life. Pacing the Frontier proposes government-backed management of frontier AI, the industry’s term for its most advanced and broadly capable models. That framework could make the small circle of companies building these systems indispensable to defining the dangers and writing the rules meant to restrain them.
Read together, the letters point toward a two-tier arrangement. AI becomes entrenched across society while ownership of its most powerful systems, infrastructure, and governance remains concentrated at the top. Their connection requires no secret agreement. It lies in what both take for granted: AI development will continue, public institutions will finance and adopt it, and private ownership and corporate power will remain intact.
The letters leave out harder questions: Who will own AI and decide its direction? How will it be used in surveillance and war, and how will it reshape work and deepen inequality? Whose lives and futures will be valued, and does the public have any right to limit or refuse a technology presented as inevitable? Beneath the language of openness and safety lie deeper a general agreement over corporate power, military dominance, elite rule, and the authoritarian currents shaping Silicon Valley’s vision of the future.
Open Weights Are Not Open Source
An AI model is the underlying system that generates answers, predictions, images, or other outputs. Its “weights” are the billions of numerical settings developed from patterns in training data. Releasing those weights allows organizations with computing power and expertise to download, run, and modify the model rather than use it only through a company-controlled service such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude.
Researchers can examine these models, test their weaknesses, and build specialized tools, while organizations can run them locally rather than send sensitive information to a commercial service. Yet proprietary, company-controlled services such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude are not inherently safer: their operators can keep flaws from public scrutiny, monitor how people use them, impose restrictions, raise prices, or withdraw access.
But releasing a model’s weights does not by itself make the AI system open source. Under the Open Source Initiative’s definition, open-source AI must provide the necessary materials and the legal freedom to use, study, modify, and share the system for any purpose. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The Ideology Behind the Two-Tier System
Both letters treat AI’s advance as inevitable, leaving the public to adapt and government to manage its deployment. That technological determinism merges with Silicon Valley solutionism: questions about ownership, labor, surveillance, military power, and the right to refuse AI shrink into matters of design and oversight. Within that shared premise, Open Weights gives institutions greater freedom to deploy AI, while Pacing the Frontier places corporate laboratories, experts, and officials at the center of determining whether and when AI development poses an unacceptable danger. The public remains a population to manage rather than a political force empowered to decide whether and how the technology should be developed and used……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Despite their differences, these ideological currents converge around the pursuit of ever-more-powerful AI. Accelerationists seek more computing power, faster deployment, and fewer restraints, convinced that technological growth will produce abundance and solve social problems. Longtermist safety frameworks may urge greater control over the pace of development, but they often leave that underlying project and its private corporate ownership and direction unquestioned. In the framework developed by Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres, these visions share a tendency to centralize power, elevate technical elites as humanity’s guardians, and invoke “safety” or universal benefit while pushing out of view the exploitation, discrimination, and environmental destruction already affecting dispossessed peoples.
They trace transhumanism, singularitarianism, longtermism, and related ideologies to Anglo-American eugenics. In their account, transhumanism recast improving the “human stock” as creating enhanced or “posthuman” beings. The language shifted from compulsory breeding to innovation and personal choice, but the sorting logic endured: ideas about race, intelligence, productivity, able-bodiedness, and capacity for enhancement continue to shape whose lives and futures are valued. Eugenics has not disappeared. It has been updated for an age in which powerful elites imagine redesigning humanity through technologies that reproduce existing hierarchies.
Techno-optimism turns this hierarchy into a story of liberation, presenting corporate technologies as neutral instruments of progress while concealing who owns them and who bears their costs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
None of this means every signer or developer endorses the Trump administration or shares the ideological commitments described here. The point is structural: both letters operate within a political order built around private infrastructure, concentrated wealth, U.S. geopolitical dominance, and interstate competition for AI-enabled military and technological superiority. The race (especially between the United States and China) to develop AI for weapons, intelligence, surveillance, cyberwarfare, logistics, and military planning turns continued expansion into a national-security imperative and makes restraint appear to be strategic surrender. Open weights accelerate diffusion, frontier-safety governance can legitimize control by insiders, and public institutions supply the money, data, infrastructure, legitimacy, and users. AI spreads throughout society, but ownership, power, and wealth remain concentrated. https://scheerpost.com/2026/09/02/big-techs-debate-over-open-and-safe-ai-leaves-corporate-power-unquestioned/
Great British Energy -Nuclear (GBE-N) reveals £20bn SMR TP Contract forecast breakdown after saying it didn’t have budget details
Tom Pashby, Sep 03, 2026, https://tompashby.substack.com/p/gbe-n-reveals-20bn-smr-tp-contract?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6735486&post_id=213980624&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has admitted it does have a breakdown of the forecast £20bn initial estimate for its small modular reactor (SMR) technical partner contract (TP Contract), despite having previously said it didn’t have details of the budget.
GBE-N is the UK Government’s body responsible for building the UK’s first government-supported SMRs. Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected by GBE-N to built three of its SMRs at the Wylfa nuclear site in North Wales.
In May, GBE-N announced it had awarded Rolls-Royce SMR stage 1 of the SMR TP Contract. It said: “The forecast Stage 1 price of the TP Contract is £359,000,000. This forecast price may change.
“The forecast Stage 2 price of the TP Contract is approximately £8,168,000,000. This forecast price is indicative only as the pricing mechanism for Stage 2 remains subject to negotiation during Stage 1.”
Taken together, that placed the forecast cost of the total TP Contract at £8,527,000,000. It is worth noting that the TP Contract does not capture the full cost of GBE-N’s Wylfa SMR project.
The contract award announcement also said: “The estimated total value within the tender notice for the two-stage TP Contract was £20,000,000,000 excluding VAT. This value was indicative only and based upon GBE-N’s initial understanding of the potential costs of developing a first of a kind technology.
“This estimated total value was based on the fact that in the tender notice GBE-N reserved the right to make up to four awards, although GBE-N also reserved the right to award three, two or only one contract(s). GBE-N has ultimately decided to award only one TP Contract and the contract award notice value reflects this.”
Given that the notes say GBE-N had an initial estimated £20bn for the TP Contract, and that it reserved the right to make up to four awards, it could reasonably be assumed that it had estimated each contract would have a value of £5bn. However, this was unclear.
Via the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, GBE-N was asked to provide a breakdown of the £20bn figure.
In response, New Civil Engineer revealed that GBE-N said: “Following reasonable and proportionate searches of our records, we confirm that Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) does not hold the information you have requested.”
20 Working Days challenged this response via a request for an internal review and GBE-N chief financial officer Neil Cooper responded to say that upon further inspection, the organisation did have a breakdown of the figure.
“In our original decision, we concluded that GBE-N does not hold the information requested,” Cooper said.
He went on to say that, following the internal review, GBE-N concluded that it “does hold information within the scope of your request.
“Our review has found that our original decision did not identify this information because it sits within a document whose predominant purpose is not to explain the calculation of the £20bn figure and which was therefore not considered to fall within the scope of your request.
“We consider it was reasonable to have concluded initially that the document did not contain information within the scope of your request. On further review, however, we are satisfied that it does, and we have therefore continued to assess whether the information we hold is disclosable under the EIR (Environmental Information Regulations).”
However, he added: “Our review has concluded that the information held by GBE-N should be withheld from disclosure under the exceptions in Regulation 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and Regulation 12(5)(b) (The course of justice and inquiries) of the EIR.”
He went on to explain this further, saying: “We are withholding the requested information in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, which permits a public authority to refuse to disclose information to the extent that disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.
“The information you have requested includes inter alia vendor cost estimates, government funding assumptions, the approach to negotiation strategies, and assessments of vendor capability relating to the Small Modular Reactor Technology Selection Process.
“Much of this information was obtained through confidential market engagement, and the information is identified as being market-sensitive.”
Cooper did find that he was able to provide an explanation for the £20bn figure without releasing internal documents.
“Although we have concluded that the information that you have requested is exempt from disclosure, we have set out below an explanation of how the £20bn figure was derived,” he said.
“The £20bn estimated total value in the Contract Notice of 2023 was an indicative, best-estimate at the time figure, published to meet the legal requirement to state the total potential value of the contract award including all options on the number of sites and technology providers.
“It was arrived at on an objective basis reflecting GBE-N’s understanding at the time, and anticipating a procurement capable of supporting up to two small modular reactor projects (broadly £10bn per project), across the whole life of a project, from early development through to commercial operation.”
It is unclear whether a single SMR ‘project’ would cover the three Rolls-Royce SMRs which are proposed for the Wylfa site, or whether that would mean a single reactor.
Cooper continued: “Because the technology is first-of-a-kind and yet to be developed, the estimate necessarily carried significant uncertainty, as the Contract Notice made clear.
“The detailed assumptions underpinning the figure comprise commercially sensitive vendor cost information and funding and negotiating assumptions obtained through confidential market engagement, and to the extent that they fall within the scope of your request these are withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR for the reasons set out in this response.”
GBE-N was approached for comment.
Trump rules out nuclear weapons against Iran, weighs limited Strait of Hormuz strikes
[your]NEWS, Mon, 31 Aug 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/508207-Trump-rules-out-nuclear-weapons-against-Iran-weighs-limited-Strait-of-Hormuz-strikes
President Donald Trump said nuclear weapons are unnecessary because Iran has been “totally defeated militarily,” while his administration considers limited conventional strikes aimed at protecting U.S. forces and commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
President Donald Trump said Monday that he has ruled out using nuclear weapons against Iran, even as the White House weighs additional conventional military action around the Strait of Hormuz following renewed clashes between U.S. and Iranian forces.
Trump addressed the nuclear question while speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, where he was asked whether he would exclude such an escalation from the ongoing conflict.
“Well, I would never say. That, but the answer is yes, I ruled out.I ruled it out there’s no reason for it.”
The president argued that Iran’s conventional military losses made the use of nuclear weapons unnecessary.
“What a stupid question that is. Actually, here they are. They’re totally defeated militarily. So now I defeat him, and now I should use a nuclear weapon on top of them. What a stupid question.”
Trump’s comments came as his administration considers a different form of escalation focused specifically on protecting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
According to Axios, the president is weighing a resumption of limited strikes following an exchange of gunfire between American and Iranian forces over the weekend.
One U.S. official told the outlet that the contemplated operations would be intended to reduce the threat of Iranian attacks against oil tankers, U.S. Navy vessels and Air Force aircraft operating in the region. The potential strikes would therefore be narrower in scope than a major offensive against Iran and would focus on protecting military assets and commercial navigation through the strategic waterway.
The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the central flashpoints in the U.S.-Iran conflict because of its importance to international oil shipments and the continuing danger posed to vessels operating there. Any sustained Iranian attacks on tankers or U.S. military forces could prompt additional American action even as Trump says the administration sees no reason to consider nuclear weapons.
The White House emphasized that the president continues to retain broad military flexibility:
“The President retains all options at his disposal. The Iranians want to make a deal, but they are always a day late and a dollar short.”
That statement leaves open the possibility of additional conventional strikes while simultaneously suggesting Washington believes negotiations remain possible.
Trump’s position therefore separates two questions surrounding the conflict:
On nuclear weapons, he gave an explicit answer that he had ruled them out and argued Iran’s military condition did not justify such an extraordinary escalation.
On conventional force, however, the administration continues evaluating whether further strikes are necessary to protect American personnel and commercial shipping.
The possible Strait of Hormuz operation would be designed around those immediate security concerns rather than the use of substantially more destructive weapons. Trump’s remarks also suggest the administration believes Iran has already suffered significant military setbacks but remains capable of threatening ships and aircraft in the region.
That distinction could shape the next phase of U.S. operations, with Washington continuing targeted military action against specific threats while attempting to avoid an escalation to nuclear warfare.
For now, Trump has publicly closed the door on using nuclear weapons against Iran while leaving conventional military options available if Tehran continues threatening U.S. forces or shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
AUKUS makes Australia a nuclear target, top experts warn
Rob Harris, September 3, 2026 —https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/aukus-makes-australia-a-nuclear-target-top-experts-warn-20260902-p60tnk.html
Australia is significantly more likely to be dragged into a destructive conflict with China — and potentially targeted with nuclear weapons — under the AUKUS security pact, two former senior national security figures have warned.
Michael Keating, a former Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary, and former public servant Jon Stanford argue that the federal government’s current defence posture has “sacrificed considerable sovereignty” to the United States while leaving the country uniquely vulnerable without a guaranteed security safety net.
The pair will front a crowd-funded public inquiry into the AUKUS submarine pact on Thursday, urging the federal government to immediately redesign its national strategy, cancel plans to acquire American Virginia-class and British-designed SSN AUKUS nuclear-powered attack submarines, and pivot to low-enriched uranium vessels sourced from France or South Korea.
Keating, the most senior public servant during the Hawke-Keating era, spent 11 years on the Secretaries Committee on National Security – including five years as chairman – while Stanford has extensive background in submarine research and defence policy.
“Under AUKUS, Australia’s security is under greater threat while it has become increasingly clear that we cannot rely on the US for our defence,” they write in their submission. “We are now in a situation where, because of the AUKUS strategy of integrated deterrence in defence of US regional primacy, Australia is more likely to be attacked, potentially with nuclear weapons”.
They cite prescient warnings from former French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who noted in 2021 that Australia had made a choice “to the detriment of sovereignty” and predicted it would discover later it had sacrificed both security and self-determination.
According to the submission, the policy of “integrated deterrence” and “pooled sovereignty” effectively converts Australian military facilities into forward operating locations for US forces without giving Canberra oversight or veto power.
They point out that unlike allies such as Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, Australia lacks a formal US security guarantee, such as NATO’s Article V.
Yet, by developing command and basing infrastructure – such as the US submarine squadron facilities at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia – Australia becomes a prime military target.
“If there is a war between the US and China, Australia will inevitably be involved … even if we do not provide military support,” the submission states, adding that escalating hostilities could leave Australia open to nuclear strikes.
Fronting the first day of the hearings in Canberra on Wednesday, former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo called for a deeper military integration with the US, agreeing that Australia could surrender sovereignty under the current AUKUS without gaining a meaningful say in decisions that could draw it into a war with China.
Pezzullo, a national security hawk and former senior public servant under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, was sacked by Labor in 2023 after confidential messages between him and Liberal Party powerbroker Scott Briggs were leaked to this masthead. The Australian Public Service Commission subsequently found he had breached the public service code of conduct on 14 occasions.
“If I was a Chinese war planner,” Pezzullo said, “I would flatten every single potential facility that might be used overnight by Americans flying in.”
He said facilities including Tindal, Stirling, North West Cape and Pine Gap could be targeted in such a conflict.
But Pezzullo said AUKUS’s nuclear-powered submarine program would transform Australia’s military options, giving the navy greater speed, endurance and reach while opening the way for a new generation of autonomous underwater systems.
Undersea warfare would be critical in any future conflict, from anti-submarine operations to intelligence gathering, he said.
At the same time, Pezzullo said Australia should not commit to fighting alongside the US in every future conflict.
“Alliances are political documents first and foremost,” he said, arguing that countries must retain the ability to make sovereign decisions when a conflict actually occurs.
But he said those political alliances needed military planning and preparation underneath them.
Australia, he said, could either try to remain outside a future US-China conflict and accept the consequences if Washington lost, or strengthen its alliance with the US in the hope that the combined deterrent would prevent war.
“The only choice would be whether we want to sit it out and hope for the best,” Pezzullo said. “I think that’s not plausible.”
The choice was whether to remain on the sidelines and accept the consequences if Washington lost, or deepen the alliance in the hope that Australian involvement would strengthen deterrence.
“I prefer that latter approach,” Pezzullo said. “The war machine is the thing that prevents the war.”
Hey Americans! Escape Debt By Going To War With Iran!
Caitlin Johnstone, Sep 03, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/hey-americans-escape-debt-by-going?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=213955094&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Today in dystopia, war pundits have begun suggesting that the US could recruit sufficient troops for a ground invasion of Iran by offering young Americans debt forgiveness in exchange for enlisting.
I guess it was only a matter of time.
In an article titled “The war with Iran will not be won through airstrikes, so what’s left?”, the Jerusalem Post’s AJ Jaff writes the following:
“Recruitment numbers are running below what a ground invasion of Iran would require. Estimates for a successful ground campaign against Iran’s 31 provincial commands and its Mosaic Defense Doctrine run between 750 thousand and 1.5 million American troops. The current active US Army stands at roughly 452 thousand. The math does not work, obviously.
“Based on American history, however, there is a path forward. Not conscription or a draft in a world war-era sense, but enlistment through a ‘debt forgiveness program.’
“The average American aged 18 to 34 carries more than $40 thousand in non-mortgage debt across student loans, credit card balances, auto loans, and personal loans, with some estimates go as high as $100 thousand.
“This is the cohort the Pentagon needs. A federally administered debt-forgiveness enlistment program that fully discharges student loan, credit card, and loan balances after 24 or 36 months of service, and extends the GI Bill, would produce voluntary enlistment at scale.”
“This is not theoretical.
“It is the American state doing what the American state has always done when it needed staff it could not otherwise generate. World War II offered the GI Bill. Vietnam offered college deferments. The post 9/11 wars offered signing bonuses and citizenship pathways. The Iran war will need to offer debt relief. The economics of the indebted American 20-and 30-something make this the most efficient conversion mechanism available to the Pentagon and the Trump administration.
“The moral reading on this is uncomfortable. But states generate the soldiers they need through the incentives that work on the population they have.”
In a Twitter essay on the same subject published earlier this month, AJ Jaff used more blunt language:
“When the choice is decades chained to $45,000+ in debt, or a few years of service that erases it and hands you a clean start, a huge share of desperate young people will take the offer. Not because they ‘support the war’. Because the debt was engineered into a cage, and service is the ONLY door out.”
The Jerusalem Post says that Jaff is a Canadian who currently serves as the head of security for an unnamed “multinational organization,” describing him in his author bio as “a retired officer of the Canadian Armed Forces and a recognized expert in international security, crisis management, and geopolitical risk.”
There isn’t much publicly available information about Jaff apart from this, and yet here he is being amplified by one of Israel’s largest English-language newspapers. So we can expect we’ll be seeing this idea pop up again elsewhere.
It’s just everything ugly about the US empire all rolled up in one neat little package, isn’t it? Struggling American citizens strapped with mountains of bills because they live in a dystopia which plunges people into debt for the privilege of living on the planet they were born on, desperately enlisting to go kill people in an imperialist war of aggression overseas in the hope of one day getting their heads above water financially.
It just might be the most American idea anyone has ever had.
IAEA concern over diesel supply for Zaporizhzhia generators
World Nuclear News 1st Sept 2026
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant has been relying on emergency diesel generators for more than 11 days, with the International Atomic Energy Agency raising concerns about fuel supplies if the loss of external power continues.
The plant, which has been under Russian military control since early March 2022, lost connection to its last operating external power line on 20 August.
Since then it has been relying on its fleet of emergency diesel generators to provide the power the plant needs, including for the pumps which cool the six reactors and their used fuel ponds.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team at the plant have been told that a planned delivery of diesel to the site in May had been postponed because of military activity. On Thursday and Friday, the IAEA said its experts observed the transfer of “several dozens of tonnes of diesel fuel from two different off-site locations near the ZNPP to the plant”.
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said: “The availability of diesel fuel is of paramount importance whenever a nuclear power plant loses off-site power, as is the ability to maintain uninterrupted logistical supply chains to and from the site. The current situation once again shows why reliable external power and secure supply routes are indispensable for nuclear safety and security. Without the restoration of off-site power or additional diesel fuel deliveries in the near future, the plant could face a station blackout within approximately ten days.”
According to the official Russian Tass news agency, the plant operators have said there is enough fuel for the diesel generators. “However, due to shelling of the access roads, it is currently impossible to replenish the reserves,” a spokeswoman is quoted as saying. It also quoted the Director General of Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom, Alexei Likhachev, as saying the fuel delivery operation would be organised “under any circumstances”, potentially with an IAEA escort.
The IAEA is seeking to arrange what would be a seventh localised ceasefire to allow repairs to take place to the external power line, which it said lost connection with the plant on 20 August “following military activity on the northern side of the Dnipro River”.
There have also continued to be incidents involving drones at, or near, the plant – with the IAEA saying it had been informed of a drone incident on 25 August near the cooling pond which injured two plant staff, and two more drone incidents the following day, one of which was in the area of the dry used nuclear fuel storage site……………..https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/iaea-concern-over-diesel-supply-for-zaporizhzhia-generators
THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE UKRAINIAN APOCALYPSE
by Gordonhahn August 31, 2026, https://gordonhahn.com/2026/08/31/the-four-horsemen-of-the-ukrainian-apocalypse/
There have been at least four great deceptions engineered and lost opportunities for ending Ukraine‘s violence intentionally foregone by the West. They are the causes of the ‚Putin’s unprovoked war in Ukraine and the imminent Ruin of Ukraine. The four horsemen of the Ukrainian apocaplypse are:
(1) the violation of the 21 February 2014 agreement to end the Maidan confrontation in Kiev;
(2) the West’s and Kiev’s insincere, indeed simulated participation in the Minsk 2 accords that could have ended the Ukrainian civil war from 2014-2022;
(3) the U.S. withdrawal of Joseph Biden’s December 2021 promise to Putin that the US and NATO would not deploy cruise missiles in Ukraine; and
(4) the West’s subversion of the Istanbul Russo-Ukrainian peace agreement initialed in April 2022. Let us stake each in turn.
The first horseman oft he Ukrainian apocalypse is the violation of February 21, 2014 agreement between Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the Ukrainian opposition of the Maidan to pull back both demonstrators and police and hold early presidential elections late in 2014. Instead of seeing this agreement through, the neofascist wing oft he Maidan opposition carried out a snipers‘ terrorist attack killing both demonstrators and Berkut security police leading to the violent overthrow of Yanukovych, who was blamed by the Maidan opposition and the West for the shootings. The West hailed the putsch as democratic “revolution of dignity“ and never mentioned the February agreement; one brokered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to then Polish Foreign Minister and agreement participant, Radek Sikorski. The Maidan regime was born of blood and a lie.
Russia responded by giving the West a taste of its own medicine by supporting separatist actors in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Kiev responded by declaring an “anti-terrorist operation“ that began the Ukrainian civil war, bringing Russian troops into Donbass to protect the pro-Russian separatists.
The second horseman of the Ukrainian apocalypse consists of the violations of the Russo-Ukrainian Minsk agreements. Ukraine never fulfilled any of its obligations under the agreement. It did not adopt statues on autonomy fort he Donbass regions nor did it negotiate directly with the Donbas rebels. Ukrainian troops, particularly the ultranationalist batallions routinely bombed civilian areas during the ‚ceasefire‘ agreement. This was nothing other than a Minsk Fake or Feint, which, as numerous Western and Ukrainian officials acknowledged, the Putin-Poroshenko Minsk ceasefire accords were used to buy time for building up Ukraine’s army for an assault on Crimea and Donbass. Thus, the civil war did not end but persisted, with Kiev inflicting more than 10,000 casualties on Donbass civilians in 2015-2021.
The third horseman of the Ukrainian apocalypse came with the U.S. violation of Joseph Biden’s December 2021 promise to Putin that the US and NATO would not deploy cruise missiles in Ukraine. Instead of holding tot hat promise made in a Biden-Putin phone call, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that the US was withdrawing that promise, opening up the possibility of deploying conventional and/or nuclear cruise missiles in Ukraine, with flight times to Moscow of minutes. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back, requiring Putin to undertake a military response to the Ukrainian crisis on 24 February 2022—the so-called “unprovoked and full-scale attack on Ukraine.“
The fourth and final horseman of the Ukrainian apocalypse is the Western scuttling of the March-April 2022 Russo-Ukrainian Istanbul process and agreement to end Russia’s incursion into Ukraine. Much has now been written about this, so I will not repeat the details here; I will only provide links to all the sources, confirming this (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1746596120971673766.html; see also https://x.com/i_katchanovski/status/1750362694949966291?s=51&t=n5DkcqsvQXNd3DfCRCwexQ; and https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=8229337113762769&set=a.117187214977840).
These and the key process these ‚horsemen‘ have been intended in the West to facilitate – NATO expansion – are the causes of “Putin’s unprovoked war on Ukraine“ and Ukraine’s apocalypse or Second Great Ruin. Make no mistake about it.
The Finnish President Made Some Surprisingly Solid Points About Russia
Andrew Korybko, Sep 03, 2026, https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-finnish-president-made-some-surprisingly
He argued that it’s not plotting to test NATO’s resolve, its resilience to immense hardships “should never be underestimated”, suggested that the conflict will end without Ukraine recovering its lost territories, praised the CIA chief for visiting Russia, and called for “someone in Europe” to follow suit.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb bucked the trend of fearmongering about Russia in his interview with Bild. Instead of claiming that it’s plotting to test NATO’s resolve like American media reported was the reason why the CIA chief recently paid an unannounced visit to Moscow, he described such talk as part of Russia’s “information warfare” against Europe. Stubb insisted that his intelligence doesn’t indicate any such plans and argued that Russia wouldn’t attack the world’s most powerful military bloc anyhow.
He also pointed to the unlikelihood of Russia “suddenly mobilizing” forces for a two-front conflict with Ukraine and NATO even though he still believes that a mobilization directed towards Ukraine will occur this fall despite United Russia Chairman Dmitry Medvedev recently denying that there’s any need to. Another of the surprisingly solid points that Stubb made about Russia had to do with its resilience to immense hardships and warned that this “should never be underestimated” by its foes.
He also suggested that Ukraine won’t recover its lost territories upon describing victory for it as simply “surviving, remaining independent, and remaining a sovereign state” but still urged its allies to continue supporting it for their unspecified sake of their own security. Wrapping everything up, Stubb praised the CIA chief’s recent unannounced visit to Moscow for expanding bilateral dialogue in “different formats”, which led to his clarion call for “someone in Europe” to “resume dialogue with Russia” too.
Stubb’s last point echoes what he intriguingly told local media a week prior about how “At some point, dialogue will have to be established on the European side, and perhaps the most important role in this will be played by countries that share a border with Russia.” This followed reports that Britain, France, and Germany – collectively known as the E3 – are preparing to resume dialogue with Russia. It was thus analyzed here that the E3 and the Intermarium might open up rival dialogues with Russia.
The Intermarium refers to the modern-day revival of interwar Poland’s vision of an anti-Soviet alliance between their country, the Baltic States, and Finland, all of which border Russia in the present. Therefore, the abovementioned analysis concluded that Stubb might lead the Intermarium’s dialogue with Russia since regional leader Poland’s government is irreparably divided between the conservative president and the liberal prime minister, which makes it unlikely to agree on this ultra-sensitive issue.
Stubb also expressed interest earlier this year in serving as the EU’s envoy for talks with Russia back when this role was first discussed among the bloc’s members, but the problem is that Putin suggested shortly thereafter that this should be “someone who has not badmouthed us”. As it turns out, Stubb was recently condemned by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as a terrorist for justifying Ukraine’s attacks against civilian infrastructure, which might disqualify him from this role.
At the same time, Putin might calculate that it’s better for dialogue to occur with Stubb if he initiates it on behalf of Finland, the Intermarium, or the EU as a whole than to rebuff him in that scenario, so the possibility of him entering into some sort of talks with Russia in the future can’t confidently be ruled out. While all EU leaders apart from Slovakia’s Robert Fico are adversarial to Russia, Stubb is the most pragmatic among them, so he might ultimately be tasked with this role or play it on his own initiative.
“Pink Corridor” to Explore Nuclear-Powered Transatlantic Container Shipping
Sep 3, 2026 by The Maritime Executive, https://maritime-executive.com/article/pink-corridor-to-explore-nuclear-powered-transatlantic-container-shipping
A new project focusing on the challenges of developing a so-called “pink corridor” for nuclear-powered transatlantic container shipping is taking shape. It will be led by Lloyd’s Register and A.P. Moller – Maersk working with the ports of Charleston, South Carolina, and Felixstowe in the UK to examine the security and safeguarding requirements for the theoretical deployment of a nuclear-powered containership route
It comes as the prospects of nuclear-powered commercial shipping continue to entice the industry and regulators. Earlier forays into nuclear power for commercial shipping failed to gain traction in the 1950s and early 1960s other than the U.S. demonstration project Atoms for Peace that resulted in the passenger-cargo ship NS Savannah. Japan experimented with nuclear propulsion and the Soviets built a ship, Sevmorput, that remains active, as the industry is reawakening to the potential from a new generation of small nuclear reactors.
Last week, US Secretary for Transportation Sean Duffy posted, highlighting the potential for nuclear propulsion. It came as the US Maritime Administration signed a new agreement with UK-based Core Power’ that envisioned a fleet of 50 nuclear-powered merchant vessels. MARAD also announced agreements with the Port of Long Beach, California, and the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas, to explore nuclear projects.
According to the organizers, the Pink Corridor aims to provide a structured basis for collaboration, helping stakeholders understand the practical requirements, gaps and future work needed before any potential nuclear maritime corridor could be considered. Centered on a conceptual nuclear-powered container ship, the Pink Corridor will examine the requirements for theoretical port access on the specified route. Lloyd’s, Maersk, and the ports will focus on key areas including ship security, safeguards, cyber resilience, emergency response, insurance regimes, and alignment between maritime and nuclear regulatory expectations.
Nick Gross, Global Containerships Segment Director, LR, highlights they are taking a practical, collaborative approach to explore the issues. “The partnership brings together industry-leading players across shipping, ports and classification, reflecting the growing interest in nuclear technology as a route to more sustainable maritime operations,” says Gross.
The work is expected to support broader maritime development under the US-UK Technology Prosperity Deal and its bilateral commitment to explore civil maritime nuclear applications, including the potential creation of a shipping corridor between the two nations.
The collaboration also builds on LR and Core Power’s 2024 regulatory assessment study, which was formalized with Maersk through a joint development project exploring the safety, operational, and regulatory requirements for applying advanced nuclear power to container shipping.
The outcomes of the initial phase of the Pink Corridor project will inform the scope of a potential second phase, including areas requiring further study across engineering, regulatory, legislative, security and safeguards frameworks for nuclear merchant ships.
Blykalla seeks state aid for second SMR plant
Wednesday, 2 September 2026,
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/blykalla-seeks-state-aid-for-second-smr-plant
Sweden’s Blykalla has applied for state support for its proposed small modular reactor power plant at Untra in the Tierp municipality, for which the company applied for governmental approval last week.
On 25 August, Blykalla submitted a proposal to the Swedish government for a nuclear power plant at Untra which would feature up to eight lead-cooled small modular reactors (SMRs) with a total capacity of up to 440 MWe. The application followed an earlier one, submitted in May, for a six-unit project in Norrsundet in the Gävle municipality, which is also in the same region of east central Sweden.
Blykalla has established Untra Nuclear Power AB as the licence holder and financing vehicle for the Untra plant, with strategic and financial investors expected to enter its ownership over time. Blykalla – through Untra Nuclear Power – has now applied for state support for the construction of the Untra plant, having applied in early June for government financing for its planned power plant in Norrsundet.
The Swedish state aid framework is designed to support new nuclear power through a state loan, a two-way contract for difference and a risk-sharing mechanism. The detailed terms of the state aid are agreed between the project company and the Swedish state, and any support would require approval by the European Commission in accordance with EU State aid rules. Negotiations on the terms of state support begin once the government decides to proceed with the application.
Following the receipt last week of Blykalla’s application to establish the nuclear power plant at Untra, the government has tasked the County Administrative Board in Uppsala County with preparing a proposal for a facility plan. This plan will guide how land and water areas should be used when establishing a nuclear facility. According to recent legislation, the government may approve an application if there is a valid facility plan for the facility in question. The proposed construction plan must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement and a plan description. This statement must include a description of the planning conditions and how the plan can be implemented. The plan must be submitted no later than 30 April 2027……………
Blykalla – formerly called LeadCold – is a spin-off from the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, where lead-cooled reactor systems have been under development since 1996. The company – founded in 2013 as a joint stock company – is developing the SEALER (Swedish Advanced Lead Reactor). The company’s goal is for its first 140 MWt/55 MWe SEALER-55 commercial reactor to be ready for operation in the early 2030s.
In October 2022, Sweden’s incoming centre-right coalition government adopted a positive stance towards nuclear energy. In November 2023, it unveiled a roadmap which envisages the construction of new nuclear generating capacity equivalent to at least two large-scale reactors (2,500 MWe) by 2035, with the equivalent capacity of up to 10 new large-scale reactors (which may include SMRs) coming online by 2045. A new act on state aid entered into force on 1 August 2025, since when interested companies have been able to apply for the aid.
So far, approval has been sought for nuclear facilities at five sites with a total output of up to 3,700 MWe. In addition, the government has received applications for financial support to build nuclear reactors at two additional locations, with seven projects applying for state aid.
A nuclear reactor is being installed a mile underground in Kansas
Deep Fission has just received safety approval from the US Department of Energy for a reactor design that it plans to install at the bottom of a deep hole
By Vanessa Bates Ramirez, New Scientist 2nd Sept 2026
Nuclear power start-up Deep Fission wants to put a reactor where no reactor has gone before: a mile underground. The California-based company received safety approval for its reactor design from the US Department of Energy earlier this month, and is preparing the site for its commercial pilot outside Parsons, a small city in south-east Kansas.
The company hopes that placing a reactor deep underground will cut installation and operational costs, particularly since the bedrock can provide natural containment and pressure for the reactor. This eliminates the need for a heavy-duty concrete containment dome like those that enclose conventional nuclear reactors, which account for a significant portion of their cost and the time it takes to build them. But independent engineers say it is unclear how successful the approach will be. ………………….(Subscribers only)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2587049-a-nuclear-reactor-is-being-installed-a-mile-underground-in-kansas/
US VASSALS BLOCK UKRAINE PEACE
Jeff Rich on why Britain and Europe cannot end the Ukraine war while Washington still sets the terms
Ian Proud, Sep 02, 2026
I sat down with historian Jeff Rich of The Burning Archive to discuss the seemingly intractable challenge of ending the war in Ukraine. Jeff spent 33 years as an Australian official before turning to global history. I spent 24 years as a British diplomat, including four and a half years at the British Embassy in Moscow after the Ukraine crisis began. We come at the problem from different directions but landed in the same place.
This is not a two-party war. It is a five-party war: Russia, Ukraine, the European Union, the United States and Britain. Each is trying to finish it on its own terms. None of them has built a peace process. That is why the search for a single “deal” keeps failing.
A single peace deal won’t be enough to settle four different conflicts at once, something I wrote about for Responsible Statecraft in June.
Jeff’s answer is similar to mine; a multi-treaty settlement.
He draws on the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 — the practical fact the catastrophe of the Thirty Year War was ended with several treaties, not one.
He also draws on the Cambodia settlement of the early 1990s. That war mixed a civil conflict, an East–West confrontation and a split inside the communist world.
The way out was a UN mandate and a UN transitional authority that gave China a face-saving off-ramp from the Khmer Rouge.
The parallel with Western sponsorship of the present Ukrainian government is uncomfortable, yet unavoidable. Peace for Ukraine will emerge from separate interlocking tracks: Russia–Ukraine terms to end the fighting; a deal on EU–Ukraine accession, which will be as complicated as ending the war; an agreement on the long-term Europe/UK relationship with Russia; neutrality for Ukraine in treaty form; and a long-term settlement between Washington and Moscow.
Hundreds learn about Sizewell careers at Lowestoft jobs fair.
Hundreds of people turned out to find out more about a once-in-a-generation
development on the east coast that will power up the region. Jobseekers are
now one step closer to new opportunities after a careers fair led to
apprenticeship interviews. Almost 300 people attended the Sizewell C jobs
fair in Lowestoft, where around 25 supply chain partners showcased roles
linked to the large-scale clean energy project.
East Anglian Daily Times 1st Sept 2026,
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/26511198.hundreds-learn-sizewell-careers-lowestoft-jobs-fair/
Reforming nuclear regulation
Innovation News Network, 2nd September 2026
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) explains how it is responding to government recommendations to reform the UK nuclear regulatory framework, and what this means in practice,……………………
The independent Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, commissioned by the Prime Minister, published its final report in November 2025, setting out 47 recommendations for reform of the nuclear regulatory framework. The government accepted all 47 in its implementation plan, Building Our Nuclear Nation, published in March 2026. ………………
The Taskforce’s central finding was that the UK’s nuclear regulatory framework had become more process-heavy than the actual risks warranted. Safety cases had grown in volume and complexity, regulatory interactions across multiple bodies were sometimes duplicated rather than coordinated. A tendency towards caution had taken hold.……………….
The Taskforce’s recommendation to establish a commission is the long-term solution to this issue. Until legislation can enact the commission, ONR has been designated as the interim lead regulator for the nuclear fission sector, with formal arrangements in place across what we have described as the ’super six’ regulatory bodies. We convened the inaugural Lead Nuclear Regulator Group meeting in early 2026, agreeing terms of reference and identifying priority projects for coordinated action. We are now focused on demonstrating the practical benefits of this approach through delivery on real projects…………………….
ONR Together will transform how we work, outlining the modernisation of processes, leveraging modern technology, and empowering us to make timely and proportionate decisions…………………
Bringing defence and civil nuclear regulation closer together
The government has committed to merging the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator into ONR……………….
International harmonisation
We are investing significantly in further strengthening our international collaboration – one of the areas with the greatest potential for practical benefit to the UK’s nuclear programme.
We are already working with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on collaborative design assessments, including for the BWRX-300 reactor. …………………………….
Building capacity for what lies ahead
All this reform work sits alongside a very significant expansion in the UK’s nuclear programme – Sizewell C, the Wylfa SMR project, Hinkley Point C, The Dreadnought submarine programme, the ongoing decommissioning of legacy nuclear sites……………………………………………………….. https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/reforming-nuclear-regulation/73452/
Taxpayers Must Not Be on the Hook for Bailing Out the AI Industry
If AI goes south, we should expect major pressures from the Trump administration for a debt- or taxpayer-funded bailout.
SCHEERPOST, September 3, 2026,By C.J. Polychroniou
Hundreds of billions of dollars are flooding the AI industry. Economist Gerald Epstein says this bubble could burst.
The U.S. economy is heading toward uncharted territory. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming business operations and all areas of finance, the national debt is on an unsustainable fiscal path, and most middle-income Americans cannot keep up with rising costs. Moreover, as hundreds of billions of dollars are flooding into artificial intelligence, there are serious concerns that an AI bubble could trigger another bailout with taxpayer money.
In the interview that follows, leading progressive economist Gerald Epstein, who initiated and directs the Game Changers project at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, talks about AI’s impact on finance and the bailout problem and how a transformative public finance strategy can revive democracy, promote equity and social justice, and build strong and sustainable communities. Epstein is professor of economics and founding co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute.
C.J. Polychroniou: AI is possibly the fastest-growing technology in history and is already reshaping the U.S. economy in innumerable ways as organizations of all kinds are deploying AI tools across every functional area. But there are many public concerns surrounding AI, including whether it is becoming “too big to fail.” If so, taxpayer money may be used yet again to bail out private companies and institutions from collapse. What are the dangers here?
Gerald Epstein: There are indeed many public concerns about the economic and financial implications of AI. But let me focus on AI’s impact on finance as there are legitimate fears that the government may be asked at some point to bail out the AI industry, especially given the close ties of the Trump administration to AI firms.
As Marc Jarsulic and I argue in our Game Changers policy analysis “No More Bailouts,” the AI investment boom is increasing the level of risk for AI-related firms. The reason is that for these investments to be profitable, AI revenue will need to grow substantially. But some financial analysts doubt that the revenue will materialize. For example, in Bain’s Technology Report 2025, it is estimated that capital expenditures of $500 billion per year would be required to cover anticipated AI demand. To fund this investment, annual AI revenue would need to increase to $2 trillion. However, after accounting for likely cost reductions at the AI firms, Bain’s research concluded that their annual revenues would fall $800 billion short of that mark.
In that context, some of the risks of the AI-led investment boom have been shifted to financial markets as the AI boom is relying increasingly on debt. The revenues of the tech monopolies are extraordinary, but they are insufficient to pay all the costs of data centers. In 2025, the capital expenditures of the top five hyperscalers were more than 30 percent of their total revenue. They are projected to rise to more than 40 percent by the end of 2026. This has forced these companies to turn to debt and equity markets for finance. In 2025, major tech hyperscalers alone issued $120 billion in debt, but the figure was pushed toward $175 billion in 2026 and is expected to rise to $300 billion annually in the coming years.
A distorted government response to an AI-bust is in the cards. A rational policy response to an AI bust would not include bailouts of AI-related firms or their creditors. The investment boom, and the debt that helps finance it, have been engineered by sophisticated actors aiming to dominate a potentially lucrative innovation. There is no ex ante (“before the event”) government safety net for financial bets of this kind. Caveat emptor (“let the buyer beware”) applies to the firms playing the AI domination game if it ever applied to anyone. Unfortunately, we cannot count on a rational response from the current administration. Extensive conflicts of interest and cronyism mean that government bailouts for insiders would be on the table. Hyperscalers and other AI-related firms have received extraordinary government support. The Trump administration has taken over 90 federal actions to help the AI industry, including executive orders easing permitting for massive data centers, federal support for AI exports and reducing regulatory barriers for the industry. The Trumpian transactional quid pro quo is apparent. Nvidia and Intel have given the government equity to curry favor. A number of major AI companies contributed several million dollars to Trump’s White House demolition — a.k.a. his “ballroom” — fund. And AI firms continue to finance MAGA. This is business as usual for Trump.
If AI goes south, we should expect major pressures from the Trump administration for a debt- or taxpayer-funded bailout.
Bailout operations are a trademark of neoliberalism. That being said, what is the actual problem with bailouts, and how do we put an end to the bailout problem?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://scheerpost.com/2026/09/03/taxpayers-must-not-be-on-the-hook-for-bailing-out-the-ai-industry/
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (184)
- 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)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 