Israeli Cabinet Approves 19 New Apartheid Colonies in Occupied West Bank.
“The ONLY reason Israel gets away with this naked thievery is US military and political support,” said one observer.
Brett Wilkins, Dec 21, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-19-new-settlements
Israel’s Cabinet on Sunday finalized approval of 19 new Jewish-only settler colonies in the illegally occupied West Bank, a move the apartheid state’s far-right finance minister said was aimed at thwarting Palestinian statehood.
Cabinet ministers approved the legalization of the previously unauthorized settler outposts throughout the occupied Palestinian territory, bringing the total number of new settlements in recent years to 69.
The move will bring the overall total number of exclusively or overwhelmingly Jewish settlements—which are illegal under international law—to more than 200, up from around 140 just three years ago.
Included in the new approval are two former settlements—Kadim and Ganim—that were evacuated in compliance with the now effectively repealed 2005 Disengagement Law, under which Israel dismantled all of its colonies in the Gaza Strip and four in the West Bank.
“This is righting a historic injustice of expulsion from 20 years ago,” Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—who is a settler—said on Sunday. “We are putting the brakes on the rise of a Palestinian terror state.”
Israel’s Cabinet on Sunday finalized approval of 19 new Jewish-only settler colonies in the illegally occupied West Bank, a move the apartheid state’s far-right finance minister said was aimed at thwarting Palestinian statehood.
Cabinet ministers approved the legalization of the previously unauthorized settler outposts throughout the occupied Palestinian territory, bringing the total number of new settlements in recent years to 69.
RECOMMENDED…
‘No More Military Aid for Netanyahu,’ Says Sanders as Israel Ramps Up West Bank Takeover
Trump Gaza Plan Condemned as ‘Concentration Camps Within a Mass Concentration Camp’
The move will bring the overall total number of exclusively or overwhelmingly Jewish settlements—which are illegal under international law—to more than 200, up from around 140 just three years ago.
Included in the new approval are two former settlements—Kadim and Ganim—that were evacuated in compliance with the now effectively repealed 2005 Disengagement Law, under which Israel dismantled all of its colonies in the Gaza Strip and four in the West Bank.
“This is righting a historic injustice of expulsion from 20 years ago,” Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—who is a settler—said on Sunday. “We are putting the brakes on the rise of a Palestinian terror state.”
Our people-powered journalism cannot survive without you
Your support allows Common Dreams to continue covering the stories and amplifying the voices that the corporate media never will. Make a tax-deductible year-end gift to ensure we can sustain the reporting needed to meet the challenges of 2026.
“We will continue to develop, build, and settle the inherited land of our ancestors, with faith in the righteousness of our path,” Smotrich added.
Following an earlier round of approval for the new settlements last week, Palestinian presidential spokesperson Nabil Abu Rudeineh said, “All Israeli settlement activity is illegal and constitutes a violation of international law and international legitimacy resolutions.”
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres earlier this month denounced Israel’s “relentless” settlement expansion.
Such colonization, said Guterres, “continues to fuel tensions, impede access by Palestinians to their land, and threaten the viability of a fully independent, democratic, contiguous, and sovereign Palestinian state.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials—some of whom, including Smotrich, deny the very existence of the Palestinian people—have vowed that such a state will not be established.
While Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—is under pressure from right-wing and far-right government officials, settlers, and others to annex all of the West Bank, US President Donald Trump recently said that “Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.”
Some doubted Trump’s threat, with Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) executive director Sarah Leah Whitson reacting to the new settlements’ approval by posting on X that “the ONLY reason Israel gets away with this naked thievery is US military and political support.”
Israel seized and occupied the West Bank including East Jerusalem along with Gaza in 1967, ethnically cleansing around 300,000 Palestinians. Many of these forcibly displaced people were survivors of the Nakba, the Jewish terror and ethnic cleansing campaign that saw more than 750,000 Palestinians flee or be forced from Palestine during the foundation of the modern state of Israel.
Since 1967, Israel has steadily seized more and more Palestinian land in the West Bank while building and expanding colonies there. Settlement population has increased exponentially from around 1,500 colonists in 1970 to roughly 140,000 at the time of the Oslo Accords in 1993—under which Israel agreed to halt new settlement activity—to around 770,000 today.
Settlers often attack Palestinians and their property, including in deadly pogroms, in order to terrorize them into leaving so their land can be stolen. Israeli colonists have also attacked Israel Defense Forces soldiers they view as standing in the way of their expansion.
In July 2024, the International Court of Justice—where Israel is currently facing a genocide case related to the Gaza war—found the occupation of Palestine to be an illegal form of apartheid that must be ended as soon as possible. The ICJ also ruled that Israeli settler colonization of the West Bank amounts to annexation, also a crime under international law. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an “occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
As the world’s attention focused on Gaza during the past two years, Israeli soldiers and settlers have killed at least 1,039 Palestinians—at least 225 of them children—in the West Bank. This year, at least 233 Palestinians, including at least 52 children, have been killed so far, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East.
On Saturday, Israeli occupation forces shot and killed two Palestinians in the northern West Bank, including a 16-year-old boy, Rayan Abu Muallah, who the Israel Defense Forces said was shot after he threw an object at its troops.
Nuclear power’s role in Japan is fading. The myths of reactor safety and energy needs can’t change that reality.
By Tadahiro Katsuta , Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 11th Dec 2025
On November 24, the Niigata Prefecture approved the partial restart of the seven-unit Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant—the world’s largest, with a 7,965-megawatt-electric capacity—the first time it would be operated since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident. The decision follows a series of efforts by the Japanese government to revive its nuclear industry since the Fukushima disaster led to the temporary shutdown of all its reactors.
In February, the Japanese government unveiled the country’s latest revised strategic energy plan with one significant shift: It no longer includes the commitment to “reduce dependence on nuclear power as much as possible.” Since the 2011 Fukushima accident, this objective has been reaffirmed in all three revisions preceding the 2022 plan. Its removal marks a clear departure from the government’s previously cautious stance on Japan’s nuclear policy.
Decommissioning work of the Fukushima Daiichi plant is still falling behind schedule, and there are no prospects for fully lifting the evacuation orders in the Fukushima Prefecture. This uncertainty surrounding post-accident Fukushima casts doubt on the government’s ability to manage another nuclear crisis. Meanwhile, the government’s plan actively promotes the “effective use” of plutonium through the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and the “usefulness” of nuclear power as a decarbonized power source in its newest plan.
The Japanese government had consistently maintained a strong policy of promoting nuclear power since the initial planning stage in the 1950s until the Fukushima accident. Its current position, therefore, comes as little surprise. But in the nearly 15 years since the accident, Japan’s energy structure and society have changed—and all evidence shows that nuclear power cannot simply be switched on again, despite what the government claims.
Displaced by renewable energy. As a result of new safety regulations that the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) established in 2012, nuclear power plants with inadequate accident prevention measures are still unable to operate.
Japan used to operate 54 commercial nuclear power plants before the Fukushima accident, but so far only 14 have obtained operating permits and resumed operations. This translated into nuclear power’s share of electricity supply dropping to just over 5 percent from the 29 percent before the accident. The government is seeking a 20-percent share by fiscal 2040 but has not presented any specific measures to achieve this goal.
Meanwhile, renewable energy has increased rapidly since the Fukushima accident, partially filling the vacuum of the shutdown reactors. Renewable energy now supplies 226 terawatt-hours of electricity—more than twice the 84 terawatt-hours supplied by nuclear power. And renewables will continue to dominate the electricity market with a target share of 40 to 50 percent by 2040, also more than double that of nuclear power……………..
While nuclear power lacks competitiveness in the electricity market, Japan’s electricity demand has already plateaued. Demand has decreased by more than 10 percent since 2010,[2] according to the latest figures. The government insists that electricity consumption will increase sharply over the next 10 years due to the growing demand in data centers and semiconductor factories. However, even if this happens, it will still result in a lower electricity demand compared to 2010.
Unlike France, Japan does not allow output adjustments for nuclear power generation, and being an island nation, it cannot export electricity overseas. Moreover, with a slowing economy and a shrinking population, electricity demand has already peaked. In a market that seeks to maximize profits by anticipating short-term electricity demand and avoiding excess power generation, nuclear power is not an attractive option.
Does Japan need MOX fuel?
……………………………………………..Power companies and the government have not disclosed what the cost will be for Japan of manufacturing this MOX fuel abroad and then importing it. But trade statistics indicate that the MOX fuel commissioned at a French reprocessing plant cost approximately $11,000 per kilogram of heavy metal (primarily plutonium and uranium), while uranium fuel imported from the United States cost approximately $1,000 per kilogram of heavy metal. In other words, MOX fuel is more than 10 times as expensive as imported non-reprocessed reactor fuel.[3]………………….
Does nuclear power mean fewer CO2 emissions?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..As spent nuclear fuel continues to accumulate in Japan, the government claims that it can be reduced by reprocessing. If so, the reduction cost can be estimated as ¥488 million ($3.3 million) per ton.[5] That’s an emission reduction cost per ton 300,000 times higher than for other mitigation measures indicated by the IPCC. Moreover, spent nuclear fuel does not disappear through reprocessing. Even at the end of a closed fuel cycle, the reprocessed and recycled used fuel will require permanent geological disposal, which comes with its own set of challenges. That’s particularly the case with MOX fuel, which generates high decay heat associated with plutonium and accumulated minor actinides.
Advocates of nuclear power argue that combining fast reactors and transmutation technology after reprocessing can reduce the volume of high-level radioactive waste. But, beyond their many scientific and economic challenges, those measures will not be available in time to solve the climate change crisis, which requires immediate solutions. The only way to stop the generation of spent nuclear fuel is to stop operating nuclear reactors in the first place.
The myth of nuclear power disappears. The Fukushima accident demonstrated—once again—that the claimed inherent safety of nuclear power is a myth. Japan’s reduced reliance on nuclear power since the accident has now also debunked a second myth—that the Japanese society needs nuclear energy. The government’s reversal of its passive stance in favor of a proactive nuclear power policy goes against the current facts. It should revise its energy plan accordingly.
Unfortunately, the new Japanese cabinet formed this October, like its predecessors, is sidestepping the many current and future challenges of nuclear power………………………… As long as the government continues to avoid confronting the difficult reality of nuclear power in Japan, the myth will go on. Until it doesn’t.
India’s Parliament approves bill to open civil nuclear power sector to private firms
DailyMail, By ASSOCIATED PRESS, 19 December 2025
NEW DELHI (AP) – India´s Parliament approved new legislation Thursday that enables opening the tightly controlled civil nuclear power sector to private companies.
The government termed it a major policy shift to speed up [?] clean energy expansion while the opposition political parties argued that it dilutes safety and liability safeguards.
The lower house of parliament passed the legislation Wednesday and the upper house on Thursday. It now needs the assent from the Indian president, which is a formality, to come into force.
………….. critics say it opens the door to risks, mainly health hazards, that could have long term consequences…………..
some are skeptical about India´s ambitions as the country´s nuclear sector is still very small, and negative public perceptions about the industry remain.
Opposition parties flagged concerns related to several provisions of the bill and urged the government to refer it to a parliamentary panel for examination. The government didn´t adhere to the request.
“The bill doesn´t have sufficient safeguards when it comes to mitigating the bad health of those impacted by living in areas closer to nuclear plants,” Ashok Mittal, a lawmaker from the opposition Aam Admi Party, told The Associated Press.
G. Sundarrajan, an anti-nuclear energy activist, called the bill a “disastrous law,” saying it takes away essential safeguards that are needed to make sure companies invest in safety and reduce the chances of a major disaster that can impact millions from occurring.
“It also provides little recourse for any Indian citizen to claim damages from nuclear companies even if they are affected by radiation leaks or suffer from any other health impact as a result of a nuclear plant in their region,” he said. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-15396015/Indias-Parliament-approves-bill-open-civil-nuclear-power-sector-private-firms.html
Israeli Ministers Wear Noose Pins to Symbolize Support for Killing Palestinians
The pins resemble the hostage pins that Israeli leaders have worn throughout the Gaza genocide.
By Sharon Zhang , Truthout, December 8, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/israeli-ministers-wear-noose-pins-to-symbolize-support-for-killing-palestinians/
Ultranationalist Israeli politicians, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, wore golden noose-shaped lapel pins to a meeting on Monday in order to show their “commitment” to advancing a widely condemned bill to mandate the death penalty for “terrorists” who kill Israelis.
The pins resemble the yellow ribbon pins that Israeli leaders have worn throughout their genocide to to acknowledge the Israeli captives held in Gaza.
Ben-Gvir boasted about the pins, worn by members of his Otzma Yehudit party, saying that they show the politicians’ “commitment to the demand for the death penalty for terrorists.”
The politicians were attending a hearing on a bill advancing through the Israeli Knesset that would ensure that those who kill Israelis “with the aim of harming the State of Israel” would be given the death penalty. Critics have noted that the bill is worded in such a way that it would effectively exclusively target Palestinians, in the latest instance of Israeli politicians advancing policies to further entrench Israel’s apartheid.
Ben-Gvir boasted that the nooses are “one of the options by which the law will enforce a death penalty for terrorists.” He seemed to relish in the idea of the death penalty, saying, “of course, there is the option of the gallows, the electric chair, and there is also the option of lethal injection,” Israeli media reported.
The bill, which passed a first reading last month, has been roundly condemned by human rights experts.
“Knesset members should be working to abolish the death penalty, not broadening its application. The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, and an irreversible denial of the right to life. It should not be imposed in any circumstances, let alone weaponized as a blatantly discriminatory tool of state-sanctioned killing, domination and oppression,” said Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International’s Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns director.
The bill comes amid “a drastic increase in the number of unlawful killings of Palestinians, including acts that amount to extrajudicial executions” since October 2023 and “a climate of incitement to violence against Palestinians as evidenced by the surge in state-backed settler attacks in the occupied West Bank,” Guevara Rosas said.
Indeed, Ben-Gvir also boasted about the deaths of Palestinians in Israeli custody under his watch. According to Israeli media, 110 Palestinians have died under his prison policies in the past two and a half years — a “record high,” Israeli outlet Walla reported. This is compared to 187 Palestinian detainees recorded killed in Israeli prisons between 1967 and 2007. The true toll may be far higher, as Israel obscures statistics on Palestinian prisoners and captives.
“This morning, I saw that it was published that under Itamar Ben-Gvir, 110 terrorists have died. They said there has never been anything like this since the state’s founding,” Ben Gvir boasted, while also denying that his policies were related to the killings.
Last month, the Israeli Medical Association said that its doctors would not participate in the executions, as that would force them to go back on their oath as doctors. “Our knowledge must not be used for purposes that do not promote health and welfare,” a representative of the group said.
Ben-Gvir claimed on Monday, however, that since that statement, “I have received a hundred calls from doctors saying, ‘Itamar, just tell me when.’”
Wait, What?!
Racket cartoons, by Daniel Medina, https://racketcartoons.substack.com/p/wait-what?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=549592&post_id=181841928&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email, Dec 17, 2025
After the devastating massacre at Bondi Beach on Sunday, Australia’s PM and leaders promised to tighten gun laws to help make sure it never happens again. As an American reading this, and hearing more than just “thoughts and prayers,” I sat at my desk and felt deeply sad. Our country is so dysfunctional that we cannot handle even the basics of governing, let alone face the leading cause of death for American children: firearms.
What stood out to me was how quickly Australia’s leaders responded and how they seemed to agree that the government should act after something so terrible. In the United States, mass shootings are often followed by sadness but no action. It can feel like we accept these deaths as normal instead of trying to prevent them. Seeing another country treat gun violence as a problem they can fix makes our inaction even harder to understand.
Reeves’s planning overhaul stalls as UK’s senior adviser leaves after four months.
Catherine Howard’s exit comes amid disagreements at top of government about how far to push deregulation agenda
Helena Horton and Kiran Stacey, Guardian, 14 Dec, 25
Rachel Reeves’s attempts to overhaul Britain’s planning laws have been dealt a blow after a senior lawyer whom she appointed as an adviser decided to leave the government after just four months.
Catherine Howard will leave the Treasury when her contract ends on 1 January, despite having been asked informally to stay on indefinitely.
Howard is understood to have warned the government against pushing ahead immediately with some of its more radical proposals to sweep aside planning regulations in an effort to encourage more infrastructure projects.
Her decision to leave the post comes amid disagreements at the top of government about how far to push its deregulation agenda, with some senior officials warning that Keir Starmer’s latest attempt to kickstart major building schemes could damage EU relations.
Disquiet is also growing among some Labour MPs, with 30 writing to the prime minister this week urging not to push ahead with some of his more radical planning reforms.
Howard said in a statement: “Over the past four months I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as the chancellor’s infrastructure and planning adviser, and in my time have had the ability to advise HM Treasury and help steer the important steps the government is taking to improve the planning system to support economic growth.
“I look forward to continuing my engagement with HM Treasury and government as I return to the private sector.”
Starmer and Reeves have put planning at the heart of their push for economic growth, which has so far struggled to gain traction, with figures released on Friday showing the economy shrank 0.1% in the three months to October……………………………………….
While in government she is understood to have disagreed with Starmer’s decision to announce he would fully adopt the recommendations of a review into building nuclear power stations more quickly, written by the economist John Fingleton.
Starmer said in a post-budget speech last week: “In addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I am asking the business secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy.”
Fingleton made a number of suggestions, including changing rules around protected species and increasing radiation limits for those living near or working in a nuclear power plant.
He suggested that infrastructure projects should pay a large, pre-agreed, upfront sum to government quango Natural England in lieu of protecting or replacing habitats lost to development.
His review also recommended making it more costly for individuals and charities to take judicial reviews against infrastructure projects……..
Howard believed Starmer should not have accepted his recommendations to rip up EU derived habitats laws before taking legal advice on whether they complied with legally binding nature targets and trading arrangements with the EU.
She was bringing forward concerns shared with government departments including the Cabinet Office and the environment department, which said the review could jeopardise trade with the EU and lead to widespread habitat destruction.
Those concerns are also shared by some Labour backbenchers.
Chris Hinchliff, Labour MP for North East Hertfordshire, has been leading a campaign against the review.
He said: “It’s time our Labour government stopped pitching nature as the enemy of a better life for ordinary people in this country and realised that, for the vast majority, it is a measure of it.”…………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/14/reevess-planning-overhaul-stalls-as-senior-adviser-quits-after-four-months
Ukraine wants West to pay for election.
Rt.com, 12 Dec, 2025
Kiev is ready to call a vote once its demands are met, Vladimir Zelensky’s top adviser has said.
Kiev is ready to hold an election, but only if a series of conditions are met, including Western funding of the vote, Mikhail Podoliak, a senior adviser to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, has said.
Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024, but he has refused to organize elections, citing martial law. Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump said Kiev should no longer use the ongoing conflict as an excuse for the delay.
Moscow has maintained that Zelensky has “lost his legitimate status,” which would undermine the legality of any peace deal signed with him.
Zelensky has claimed he was not trying to “cling to power,” declaring this week readiness for the elections, but insisting that Kiev needs help from the US and European countries “to ensure security” during a vote.
Podoliak expanded on the position on Friday, writing on X that Zelensky had called on parliament to prepare changes to the constitution and laws. Podoliak, however, added that three conditions must be met for a vote to go ahead……………………………………………….. https://www.rt.com/russia/629383-ukraine-elections-western-funding/
University of Michigan report: History shows advanced nuclear likely to have predictable negative consequences
A new University of Michigan report says that despite its promise as a clean, cheap energy source, advanced nuclear technologies could end up fueling—or exacerbating—social and environmental problems.
Michigan Public | By Sarah Cwiek December 14, 2025
The report, titled The Reactor Around the Corner: Understanding Advanced Nuclear Energy Futures, looks at historical examples of what happened when major new technologies touted as game-changers were introduced. It concludes that without “robust governance frameworks” in place, next-generation nuclear is likely to reinforce or even create problems that technology alone can’t fix.
According to the report, advanced nuclear reactors generally use novel fuel types for power generation, higher uranium enrichment levels, and alternative coolants. The most common and increasingly popular form of advanced nuclear reactors are small modular reactors, or SMRs.
SMRs are slightly smaller than conventional nuclear reactors, producing about a third of the electricity output of a conventional reactor. They’re attractive to governments and power providers due to their generally lower upfront construction costs and shorter construction times, and are often seen as a safer alternative to larger traditional nuclear infrastructure. However, the report notes that “the technology is at an early stage, and it is still unclear whether the SMR industry can fulfill its promises.”
Nonetheless, many SMR projects are either planned or about to come online, said Shobita Parthasarathy, a UM professor of public policy specializing in the history of technology, and one of the report’s authors. The planned reactors include two SMRs at the site of West Michigan’s Palisades nuclear plant — the first in the country to be revived after being decommissioned. Governor Gretchen Whitmer announced the project, which is backed by a $400 million investment from the U.S. Department of Energy and additional federal support, earlier this month.
“This historic investment will double Palisades’ capacity, provide more clean energy for Michigan homes and businesses, and protect 900 good-paying Michigan jobs,” Whitmer said in a statement. “(It) will lower energy costs, reaffirm Michigan’s clean energy leadership, and show the world that we are the best place to do business.”
Parthasarathy said looking at historical examples of other technologies touted as game-changers can be instructive. She said one concern the report highlights is that while nuclear energy may itself be considered “clean,” it can be used to power other industries or technologies that are far from it. And in the case of SMRs, she said that some tech companies have proposed building them alongside the massive data centers that fuel energy and water-hungry artificial intelligence.
And as for the promised economic boost, Parthasarathy said some skepticism is in order. “What we have found in our work is that those promises, at best, are very short-lived,” she said. “The jobs don’t last very long often. “
After analyzing historical examples of technologies that have parallels to advanced nuclear, the report found that its expansion likely “introduces — and in some cases reinforces — problems that technological solutions alone will not be able to fix.” And it suggests that the only way to head off those problems is to have “robust governance frameworks in place before the widespread implementation of SMRs.”
Parthasarathy noted that currently, those large scale frameworks don’t exist, nor do they seem likely to anytime soon. And she said that because of SMRs’ size — about that of a city block in some cases — they’re likely to show up in many community landscapes. “They’re going to be right next to us,” she said.
But Parthasarathy said that also presents an opportunity: because SMRs are so much smaller than traditional nuclear plants, it could give local residents a real chance to influence how these technologies are deployed. And her hope is that this report can help them do that.
The report “provides a guide to communities on what they should be thinking about intervening in and maybe mobilizing around,” Parthasarathy said. “[It] can empower citizens to ask detailed, sophisticated questions about the implications of nuclear power for them and their communities.”
Elections impossible under Zelensky’s ‘terrorist regime’ – exiled Ukrainian MP
Sat, 13 Dec 2025, https://www.sott.net/article/503481-Elections-impossible-under-Zelenskys-terrorist-regime-exiled-Ukrainian-MP
Presidential elections in Ukraine are impossible under the “terrorist regime” of Vladimir Zelensky and his cohort, exiled Ukrainian lawmaker Artyom Dmitruk has said.
Zelensky, whose presidential term expired over a year ago, has repeatedly refused to hold a new election, citing martial law – which was imposed after the conflict with Russia escalated in 2022 and has been regularly extended by parliament.
Earlier this week, Zelensky said he would hold an election within 90 days if Kiev’s Western backers can guarantee security. The shift came after US President Donald Trump accused the Ukrainian authorities of using the conflict as an excuse to delay elections, insisting that it’s time.
In a series of Telegram posts on Friday, Dmitruk argued that it is “completely pointless” to discuss elections now, calling Zelensky’s remarks “manipulation and hypocrisy” aimed at clinging to power.
“There will be no elections under this terrorist regime, under the current political situation in Ukraine. Under this regime, elections are impossible,” the exiled lawmaker wrote. “The political situation in Ukraine is vile and deceitful. Almost all the ‘potential candidates’ are Zelensky regime officials, people completely integrated into the war system. And at the head of this march – a parade of blood – is Zelensky himself.”
He insisted that elections would only be possible after “either a political or military capitulation of the regime” and the transfer of authority to an interim government. According to Dmitruk, Trump’s call to Zelensky was not really about elections: “It is a form of diplomatic signal… a polite, diplomatic way to show Zelensky the door.”
Dmitruk fled Ukraine in August 2024, claiming he received death threats from the country’s security services over his opposition to Zelensky’s persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Russia maintains that Zelensky is an illegitimate leader. President Vladimir Putin warned that it is “legally impossible” to conclude a peace deal with the current leadership due to Zelensky’s lack of a valid mandate.
According to Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, Zelensky’s sudden interest in elections is a ploy to secure a ceasefire – a proposal that Russia has rejected in favor of a permanent peace deal addressing the conflict’s underlying causes. Moscow has warned that Kiev would use any pause in the fighting to rearm and regroup.
Comment: There is more pressure on Zelensky to hold elections from various stakeholders while a peace deal is in the works. One way or another Zelensky will have to hold elections soon.
Trump’s ‘End of History’ Moment
History will thankfully go on once we see the end of them and the work of repairing the mess they are making begins.
December 13, 2025 , By Patrick Lawrence, ScheerPost, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/13/patrick-lawrence-trumps-end-of-history-moment/
The Trumpster is not yet finished his first year back in the White House, and I cannot imagine how our crumbling republic will survive three more years of this man-child and the misfits and miscreants with whom he has surrounded himself. And it occurs to me lately that neither I nor anyone else is supposed to imagine any kind of future — good, bad, in the middle — beyond Jan. 20, 2029, when President Trump will no longer be president. The future will not be the point by then. By then we are supposed to be living in an imaginary past that we won’t have to imagine because the imaginary past will be the actual present.
It is not quite three months since Trump issued an executive order designating “antifa,” the more or less fictitious “organization” of antifascists, a “domestic terrorist organization.” In the Trump White House’s rendering, antifa “explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities and our system of law.” To this end, it organizes and executes vast campaigns of violence. It coordinates all this across the country. It recruits and radicalizes young people, “then employs elaborate means and mechanisms to shield the identities of its operatives, conceal its funding sources and operations in an effort to frustrate law enforcement, and recruit additional members.”
I didn’t take the executive order containing this kind of language the least bit seriously when it was issued Sept. 22. Antifa, so far as I understand it, does not actually exist. It is a state of mind, or it signifies a shared set of political sentiments vaguely in the direction of traditional anarchism — a hyper-individualistic ultra-libertarianism when translated into the American context.
Trump’s executive order describing antifa as an organized terrorist organization reminded me of nothing so much as those flatfooted fogies back in the Cold War years who, nostalgic for a simpler time but understanding nothing, went on about “outside agitators” as the root of America’s ills.
I was wrong in one respect, maybe more, about Trump and his adjutants and what they have in mind. These people are not flatfooted. They know exactly what they are doing and they are moving swiftly to get it done. It is time to take seriously, I mean to say, the wall-to-wall unseriousness of the Trump regime’s plans for a nation it would be impossible to live in were it ever to come to be. The saving grace here is they cannot possibly create the America they have in mind. But they will, I have to add, make an unholy mess on their way to failing.
Three days after the antifa executive order, The White House made public a National Security Presidential Memorandum titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.” NSPM–7, as this document is known, is formally addressed to Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of state, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary.
This thing picks up where the one-page executive order leaves off. It cites various assassinations and attempted assassinations — Charlie Kirk, Brian Thompson, the United Healthcare chief executive, the two attempts on Trump’s life during his 2024 campaign — and fair enough, although casting political violence as terrorist violence is a sleight-of-hand too far. It is when NSPM–7 invokes recent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and “riots in Los Angeles and Portland” that you sense the trouble to come.
From the first of the document’s five sections:
This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically. Instead, it is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society. A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required.
What is required, it turns out, is an institutionalized surveillance operation that goes considerably beyond the Patriot Act. “This guidance,” Section 2 reads, “shall also include an identification of any behaviors, fact patterns, recurrent motivations, or other indicia common to organizations and entities that coordinate these acts in order to direct efforts to identify and prevent potential violent activity.”
And then NSPM–7 gets down to what the Trump regime is truly after:
Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
I am not letting the liberal wing of the ruling Late–Imperial War Party, commonly known as the Democrats, off the hook in this domestic terrorism business. Joe Biden banged on about this whenever it was politically expedient the whole of his discombobulated term, and we now witness the consequences of all his loose, opportunistic talk. In effect, Biden prefaced what the Trump regime is step-by-step codifying into law.
One of the more pernicious of the many objectionable features of NSPM–7 merits immediate note. This is the vagueness of its language. Whenever I see official documents of this kind my mind goes back to imperial China, whose mandarins were highly legalistic but kept written law purposely ambiguous so as to maximize the prerogatives of imperial power. A surfeit of laws, all of them to be interpreted in whatever way suited the throne.
As of last weekend we know how Pam Bondi, Trump’s patently fascistic AG, intends to interpret NSPM–7. This is by way of a Justice Department memorandum Ken Klippenstein, the exemplary investigative journalist, reported on (but did not actually publish in full) on Saturday, Dec. 6. This is Klippenstein’s exclusive. Here is the top of the piece he published in his Substack newsletter under the headline, “FBI Making List of American ‘Extremists,’ Leaked Memo Reveals:”
Attorney General Pam Bondi is ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism”… The target is those expressing “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti–Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti–Christianity.”
By way of defining all these domestic terrorism threats, Klippenstein reports, the DoJ memorandum cites “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.” As to enforcement, the memorandum authorizes the FBI to open a hotline by means of which ordinary Americans can report on other ordinary Americans, along with “a cash reward system” to go along with it. The agency is also to develop a legion of informants (“cooperators”); state and local governments are to be funded to develop their own programs in conformity with the DoJ’s directives. What the memorandum calls Joint Terrorism Task Forces are to “map the full network of culpable actors.”
This is more than what we now call an all-of-government surveillance and enforcement program that open-and-shut outlaws a variety of Constitutional rights. It is an all-of-society operation that prompts comparisons with regimes in history I never would have imagined summoning to mind in anything like this context. “Extremist viewpoints” are to be criminalized? I am an outlaw if I am critical of orthodox Christianity, if I am “hostile” to the nuclear family, to traditional morality and so on? Just how close to thought control does the Trump regime plan to sail?
Continue readingNuclear Notebook: The changing nuclear landscape in Europe
Bulletin, By Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, Eliana Johns, Mackenzie Knight-Boyle | December 10, 2025
Evolving nuclear weapons postures in Europe
Since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and invaded Ukraine in 2022, the rhetoric, prominence, operations, and infrastructures of nuclear weapons in Europe have changed considerably and, in many cases, increased. This trend is in sharp contrast with the two decades prior that—despite modernization programs—were dominated by efforts to reduce the numbers and role of nuclear weapons.
During this period, Russia has fielded several new nonstrategic nuclear weapons systems, increased military exercises, issued a long list of nuclear signals and threats, and upgraded its nuclear doctrine in a way that gives the impression that it has broadened the role of nuclear weapons and potentially lowered its nuclear threshold.
NATO, for its part, is also modernizing its nuclear forces and has further reacted by increasing its strategic bomber operations and nonstrategic nuclear posture, changing its strategic nuclear ballistic missile submarine operations, and talking more openly and assertively about the role and value of nuclear weapons.
Each side believes it has good reasons for beefing up the nuclear posture, but the combined effect is that the role and presence of nuclear weapons in Europe are increasing again after decades of efforts to curtail them. Unless the governments and parliaments of European countries increase efforts to halt this trend, the region is likely to descend further into growing nuclear weapons competition and posturing over the next decade.
In this Nuclear Notebook, we provide an overview with examples of how the nuclear postures in Europe are evolving, especially the infrastructures and operations. The overview is focused on nonstrategic nuclear weapons but also includes examples of how strategic nuclear forces are operated. The intention is to provide a factual resource for the public debate about the evolving role of nuclear weapons in Europe. As such, this notebook is not intended to be comprehensive but informative.
Nine countries currently operate nuclear forces in Europe: Belarus, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The latter has announced plans to acquire nonstrategic nuclear weapons (see Figure 1), and a tenth country (Türkiye) hosts nuclear weapons on its territory.
Nuclear developments involving the Russian Federation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Nuclear developments involving NATO………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The United Kingdom…………………………………………………………………………………..
France…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………….. copious references……………..https://thebulletin.org/premium/2025-12/the-changing-nuclear-landscape-in-europe/
US House passes $800mn aid package for Ukraine
New military assistance has been signed off on a month after Kiev was shaken by a major corruption scandal.
The US House of Representatives has passed a defense spending bill that would provide $800 million in military aid to Ukraine through 2027.
The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was approved 312-122 on Wednesday and will now advance to the Senate, where it is expected to receive bipartisan support, according to The Hill.
Some legislators objected to directing more taxpayers’ money to help Ukraine fight Russia. “I thought we were getting out of Ukraine. I don’t know why we still need to spend money there,” Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, said.
On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump slammed what he described as a “massive corruption situation” in Kiev, referring to the recently uncovered $100 million kickback scheme in the country’s energy sector, which heavily relies on Western aid.
Prosecutors named Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s longtime associate and former business partner Timur Mindich as the ringleader. Mindich fled the country to evade arrest after apparently being tipped off.
The scandal led to the resignation of two government ministers, and further anti-corruption raids prompted Zelensky to fire chief of staff Andrey Yermak last month.
Ukraine’s military procurement system has also been shaken by several graft and embezzlement scandals, one of which led to the resignation of Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov in 2023.
The bill was approved as Trump has been pressuring Ukraine to sign a peace deal with Russia, with some reports suggesting that he hopes to reach an agreement by Christmas.
Russia considers Western military cooperation with Ukraine one of the root causes of the conflict and has listed ending foreign weapons deliveries as a condition for a ceasefire. President Vladimir Putin has argued that otherwise, Ukraine would use the pause in the fighting to rearm and regroup, as he says happened when Ukraine refused to implement the 2014-2015 Minsk
Zelensky resists ceding Donbas, after abandoning it years ago
Zelensky objects to ceding the Donbas region under Trump’s peace plan. But when offered the chance to keep the region under a compromise with Russia, he adamantly refused.
Aaron Maté, Dec 13, 2025
Since the Trump administration began pressuring him to reach a peace deal with Russia last month, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has refused to cede any territory to Moscow. On Thursday, after a new round of salvos from President Trump, Zelensky appeared to leave some wiggle room. “The Russians want the whole of Donbas — we don’t accept that,” Zelensky told reporters. However, for the first time, he floated the idea of putting the issue to a national vote: “I believe that the Ukrainian people will answer this question. Whether in the form of elections or a referendum, the Ukrainian people must have a say.”
Any Ukrainian-administered referendum on the fate of the Donbas would exclude most of its population, who now live under Russian rule. While Zelensky insists that he will not reward what he sees as an illegal Russian land grab, the Ukrainian leader has squandered several opportunities to keep his borders intact. The February 2015 Minsk accords would have left the Donbas within Ukraine by granting it limited autonomy and abandoning Kyiv’s chances of joining NATO. Under the threat of ultra-nationalist violence, successive Ukrainian governments instead opted to retake Donbas by force and demonize the ethnic Russians who live there……………………………………………………………(Subscribers only) https://www.aaronmate.net/p/zelensky-resists-ceding-donbas-after?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=181439166&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Zelensky’s rush to elections is an effort to cling to power and keep the money flowing
Signing a peace deal that takes NATO off the table will kill his chance of re-election
Ian Proud, The Peacemonger, Dec 11, 2025
In a recent interview with Politico, President Trump said, ‘they’re (Ukraine’s government) using the war as an excuse not to hold an election.’
This is not a new criticism. Republican figures who have long opposed open-ended financial aid to Ukraine have often targeted Zelensky’s lack of a democratic mandate. This includes Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, a long-standing critic who once labelled Zelensky an ‘unelected dictator’ in a video prior to the US Presidential elections.
Always a slick media operator, Zelensky has responded to the US President’s criticism by offering to hold a plebiscite while Ukraine remains under martial law, if European states and the US can guarantee security. Mainstream media have, predictably, seized on this as further proof of Zelensky’s democratic credentials and his commitment to deliver peace under the most difficult circumstances of war.
However, only around 20% of Ukrainians favour an election prior to any peace deal, according to an August poll, compared to 75% who believe elections should happen after the war. Until recently, Zelensky used this data to shoot down critics who called him out as anti-democratic. Now, he’s willing to sidestep the will of his people and go to the polls while war is still raging.
Trump’s criticism doesn’t, in my eyes, represent a challenge to hold elections now, but first to sign a peace deal with Russia, paving the way for elections upon the cessation of martial law.
Right now, only, 20.3% of Ukrainians would vote for Zelensky, a drop of 4% since October polling, in the light of collapsing support for the war effort and the ongoing corruption scandal.
That still makes Zelensky the most popular candidate from a long list, his closest rival being former military commander Zaluzhny. Although the same poll suggests that a new political party headed by the current Ukrainian Ambassador to London would defeat Zelensky’s Servant of the People faction.
The New York Times’ recent investigation has shown Zelensky’s government has actively sabotaged oversight, allowing corruption to flourish. This story was eye-opening both for the depth of the investigation and its source – a newspaper that had hitherto backed the Ukrainian President’s endeavours to the hilt. Now, rather than sitting above the issue, blind to the activities of his closest political allies, Zelensky is increasingly viewed as an integral part of Ukraine’s corruption problem.
He may be gambling on running for the polls early to increase his dwindling chance of clinging on to power. Despite the logistical challenges, a vote under martial law might work in his favour.
………………………………………………………………………………. In a country as corrupt as Ukraine, anyone who seriously believes that Zelensky wouldn’t attempt to rig the vote in his favour is, I fear, worryingly naïve.
And holding elections under martial law would also allow the war train to keep rumbling forward, and the billions from Europe to keep flowing in
At no point since he rejected the draft Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022 has Zelensky appeared like he wanted to see the war conclude. High on promises from Joe Biden, Boris Johnson and others to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, greeted as a hero wherever he travelled, Zelensky watched the billions in foreign aid roll into his country, while his closest aides grew rich and purchased Bugattis and other hypercars that tool around Monaco, according to Donald Trump Jr in recent televised remarks.
All of Zelensky’s pronouncements since mid-2022 have sought to position himself as on the side of the angels, to situate President Putin as the aggressor, to keep western leaders at his back every step of the way, and to keep the money flowing.
A natural actor, he has a line for every occasion.
‘No one wants peace more than me.’
‘Putin doesn’t want peace.’
‘Putin refuses to talk to Ukraine.’
‘Only pressure on Russia will force Putin to make compromises.’
‘Ukraine can win!’
Yet for over two years, after a failed summer counter-offensive that the UK military helped to plan, it has been clear that Ukraine cannot win.
Even if you gave Ukraine the same amount of foreign funding that was provided in previous years, that would at best allow it to continue to lose slowly on the battlefield.
But fighting to the last Ukrainian appears a better bet politically, for Zelensky. A peace deal in which, at the very least, Ukraine gives up its aspiration to join NATO will be catastrophic politically for Zelensky, almost certainly ruining his chance of re-election. He knows it. Everyone in Ukraine knows it. And, of course, Putin knows it
Meanwhile, Russia can afford to wait it out…………………………………………………………. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/zelenskys-rush-to-elections-is-an?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=181320366&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Ontario’s Nuclear Folly
Ontario’s nuclear expansion a blunder of epic proportions
David Robertson, Canadian Dimension, December 9, 2025 https://watershedsentinel.ca/article/nuclear-folly/
The last time the nuclear industry got its way in Ontario, the province’s erstwhile publicly-owned electrical utility, Ontario Hydro, spent over two decades building 20 nuclear reactors.
It was a mashup of missed deadlines, cost overruns and a troubling pattern of declining nuclear performance. Even more troubling, the last generation of nuclear reactors forced Ontario Hydro to the edge of bankruptcy. It saddled the province with a mountain of nuclear debt that we are still paying off.
The Ford government is now repeating those costly mistakes in what amounts to the largest expansion of the nuclear industry in Canada’s history – risking a blunder of historic proportions.
Past debt due
In 1999, Ontario Hydro collapsed under the staggering weight of its nuclear debt. At the time, Hydro’s assets were valued at $17.2 billion, but its debt amounted to $38.1 billion. The government was faced with a stranded debt of $20.9 billion.
In response, the Province split Ontario Hydro into five separate organizations. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) took over the generating facilities (hydro, coal, gas, nuclear) and Hydro One (later privatized) the transmission grid. The debt was transferred to Ontario families through special charges on electricity bills and the tax system. It was the world’s largest nuclear bailout – one we are still paying for.
This is a $290 billion nuclear gamble.
Ontario Power Generation is now leading Ontario’s nuclear resurrection, following a series of government directives that put nuclear onto the fast-track while shouldering clean, cost-effective and safe renewables to the side of the road.
It is an astonishing coup. Without putting up their own money, and without bearing the financial risks, the nuclear industry has captured Ontario’s energy policy.
Even a few years ago this would have seemed impossible. Catastrophic accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima had severely tarnished the nuclear safety image. All around the world the cost overruns and lengthy build times of nuclear plants had chilled utility and government interest in new projects. In Europe only one nuclear plant has been built and come online since the late 1990s.
the nuclear industry to deliver electricity on time and on budget. It also demonstrated that nuclear reactors couldn’t provide affordable electricity. In fact, Ontario Hydro’s last public cost comparison (1999) revealed the cost of nuclear energy to be more than six times the cost of hydroelectricity.
Now it seems that all those hard lessons have been forgotten, as the Ford government launches a multipoint nuclear power offensive. It has passed legislation to ensure nuclear is Ontario’s energy priority. It has made commitments to build untested and costly small modular reactors. It has decided to refurbish antiquated nuclear plants when there is no business case to do so. And it has opened the public purse to the appetite of the nuclear industry.
Small modular reactor hype
There will be four new SMRs built at the Darlington nuclear location. Site preparation work is already underway on the first one, for which OPG has convinced the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to forego an environmental assessment.
SMRs are not small and they are not that modular. And they are also not that new. The designs have been kicking around for a long time, but no one wanted to build them and investors were loathe to put up their own money. The fate of SMRs changed when the industry convinced governments in Canada to develop a hype-heavy “SMR Roadmap,” followed by a federal “SMR Action Plan.” The plan includes a wide range of supports, from relaxing regulatory requirements through public relations efforts to absorbing the financial risks of an untried technology.
The Ford government is committing a colossal amount of money to its nuclear gamble
The World Nuclear Industry Status Review is an annual independent assessment of the global nuclear industry. In its 2022 review it concluded: “SMRs continue to hog the headlines in many countries, even though all evidence so far shows that they will likely face major economic challenges and not be competitive on the electricity market. Despite this evidence, nuclear advocates argue that these untested reactor designs are the solution to the nuclear industry’s woes.”
In the 2024 review, analysts note: “The gap between hype about [SMRs] and reality continues to grow. The nuclear industry and multiple governments are doubling down on investments in SMRs, both in monetary and political terms.”
Mortgaging our future
The Ford government is committing a colossal amount of money to its nuclear gamble, including $40 billion for refurbishments at 14 reactors, $20 billion for four SMRs at Darlington, $75 billion for Bruce C, and $156 billion for Port Hope.
That is a $290 billion nuclear gamble. If we add the $26 billion which is the official preliminary estimate for the deep geological repository of nuclear waste, then we are well beyond $300 billion.
Three hundred billion is an almost unthinkable amount of money. For most of us it’s hard to get a sense of what those funds could achieve.
Some examples:
• Provide every dwelling in Ontario with a free $20,000 heat pump and a free $20,000 rooftop solar system
• Replace half of the passenger vehicles in Ontario with a free electric vehicle
• Replace transit fares in Toronto for the next 300 years
• Provide every farm in Ontario with a free 10 kilowatt wind turbine
• Replace all the school buses in Ontario with new electric ones
Expensive nuclear plants produce expensive electricity and those costs are paid for through our taxes and electricity bills. It is already the case that nuclear is one of the most expensive energy options available. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, using data from the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and Lazard, has reported that the mid-point cost of new nuclear will be 24.4 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to solar with storage at 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.
There is a global energy transition underway. Renewable power generation capacity is expected to rise from 4,250 GW today to nearly 10,000 GW in 2030 – short of the tripling target set at COP28 but more than enough, in aggregate, to cover the growth in global electricity demand.
The Ford government is clearly on the wrong energy pathway.
David Robertson is a climate activist with Seniors for Climate Action Now. Excerpted with permission from the original at www.canadiandimension.com
1 This Month.
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (286)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
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 