On Feb. 14, our Coalition made our case against SMRs to the MLAs on the Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship committee of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. Our presentation used the best scientific analysis to critique the “advanced” SMRs for development in New Brunswick. CRED-NB core member Susan O’Donnell presented on behalf of the Coalition. Our written presentation in English is HERE (and HERE in French). The video of the session is on YouTube, HERE. Check out the video to learn more about the SMR plans and what our elected representatives have to say about them.
There were 13 presentations over two days. Other presentations to watch for are, on Feb. 14: J.P. Sapinski, M.V. Ramana. On Feb. 15: Gordon Edwards, Chief Hugh Akagi + Chief Ron Tremblay + Kim Reeder, and Louise Comeau + Moe Quershi. Each has a one-hour time slot, with 20 minutes by presenters followed by 40 minutes of Q&A with the MLAs on the committee. The full schedule of presentations is HERE. The link to the video archive is HERE(scroll through or search to find the webcast archive from Feb. 14 and 15).
*on Thursday, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research released the report from the SMR study:
Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) has approved draft legislation to extend the operating life of the country’s nuclear power reactors beyond 60 years. It also approved an amendment to the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law to remove the rule specifying the operational periods of reactors.
Nuclear power to get ‘green’ status as Britain races EU to hit net zero. Move is part of a bid to unlock billions of pounds of funding for more power stations. Nuclear power projects such as Sizewell C in Suffolk will be granted so-called “green” status under plans by Jeremy Hunt to unlock billions of pounds in funding for the industry. The Chancellor is expected to announce the change within weeks as part of a broader shake-up of the UK’s financial rules on green energy.
It would see nuclear power projects classed as “green” or “sustainable” investments, clearing the way for more institutional investors and environment-focused funds to back them. There are also hopes that the Treasury could fund new power plants with money raised through the Government’s green gilts and green savings bonds. Generating nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide, [ if you ignore the total nuclear fuel chain] so the sector is seen as a key plank of Britain’s plans to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
A recent review by former energy minister and Tory MP Chris Skidmore said that supporting the construction of more nuclear reactors was a “no regrets” option. However, the sector has faced difficulties portraying itself as environmentally friendly in the past because of concerns about nuclear waste, water usage, and the remote but catastrophic risk of nuclear accidents. Top fund managers such as Legal & General and Aviva have previously expressed caution about the green credentials of nuclear, with Aviva chairman George Culmer last year saying there was an “ongoing debate”.
The European Commission has tabled long-awaited rules defining the circumstances under which hydrogen can be labelled as coming from “renewable” energy sources. Last minute, Paris also won recognition for low-carbon hydrogen produced from nuclear electricity.
……. the European Commission has been working on a set of rules to ensure green hydrogen uses only “additional” sources of renewable electricity.
After more than a year of delay due to intense lobbying from Paris and Berlin, the EU executive finally adopted those rules on Friday evening (10 February), according to documents obtained by EURACTIV.
……….. France scored a major victory.
For months, French politicians have lobbied Brussels to hammer the point that green hydrogen should also come from low-carbon nuclear electricity, not just renewables.
………………………… “this goes in the direction of pro-nuclear countries as well as those hostile to imports,” confirms Mikaa Mered, a lecturer on hydrogen markets, diplomacy and geopolitics at Sciences Po in Paris………………………………………….
The actual texts, seen by EURACTIV, have yet to be officially published in the EU’s register of delegated acts. However, last-minute changes are not expected.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., is introducing a resolution in the House on Thursday that calls on the Biden administration to end U.S. military and financial aid to Ukraine — while also urging all involved to secure a peace agreement after nearly a year of war in the region.
The resolution, the “Ukraine Fatigue Resolution” is being introduced by Gaetz and 10 co-sponsors and calls for the U.S. to “end its military and financial aid to Ukraine and urges all combatants to reach a peace agreement.”
The resolution notes that since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. has been the top contributor to the Ukrainian war effort, with more than $110 billion in financial, military, and humanitarian aid to the U.S. ally. It includes more than $27.4 billion in security assistance.
In January the U.S. announced additional security assistance, including approval by President Biden of 31 Abrams M1 tanks to Ukraine. On top of that, reports suggest another $2 billion could be in the pipeline.
The resolution lists the enormous amount of equipment that the U.S. has provided to the country since the beginning of the conflict. It also cites Pentagon officials who have said the munitions have “severely depleted United States stockpiles, weakening United States readiness in the event of conflict.”
It also claims that by providing assistance, the U.S. is inadvertently contributing to civilian casualties, and notes U.S. estimates that 40,000 civilians had died in the conflict.
Concern about the continued U.S. funding of the war has grown among a subset o f Republicans as the conflict has dragged on, with lawmakers highlighting issues at home that could use additional funding
Gaetz, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. has been the top contributor to what he called an “everlasting conflict.”
“America is in a state of managed decline, and it will exacerbate if we continue to hemorrhage taxpayer dollars toward a foreign war,” he said. We must suspend all foreign aid for the War in Ukraine and demand that all combatants in this conflict reach a peace agreement immediately.”
The co-sponsors on the resolution include Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Paul Gosae, R-Ariz., Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., Thomas Massie, R-Ky., Mary Miller, R-Ill., Barry Moore, R-Ala., Ralph Norman, R-S.C. and Matt Rosendale, R-Mont.
Gaetz had taken aim at both parties for the additional funding for Ukraine earlier this week on the House floor, asking if there was a limit to the funding the U.S. was prepared to provide.
“How much more for Ukraine? Is there any limit?” he asked on the House floor. “Which billionth dollar really kicks in the door? Which redline we set will we not later cross?”
Republican leadership had broadly remained in favor of funding the war effort. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said in December said that “providing assistance for Ukrainians to defeat the Russians is the No. 1 priority for the United States right now according to most Republicans.”
However, in October House Leader Kevin McCarthy was more cautious, saying that Republicans wouldn’t write a “blank check” for Ukraine.
Rarified (hot) air in halls of power is filled with propaganda
Fortunately, the gallery was under a mandatory code of silence, for it was hard not to emit a gasp of incredulity when the Westinghouse executive announced that his company had been “smashing production records” around the world.
Westinghouse has indeed broken some things: the law, and the bank for starters. But production records? He also mentioned that nuclear was “clean, reliable, dependable power” the very things it is not.
Last month I rushed through the august halls of the British parliament in Westminster, on my way to a briefing on small modular reactors for Members of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee.
Running late though I was, it was tempting to slow down and take in all the historic portraits and portals as I hurried down flagstoned hallways, through heavy oak doors and finally into the richly carpeted committee room. But the albeit fleeting impression all of this left was of a world completely isolated from the reality of the daily struggles most of us endure. The rarified air was almost suffocating.
This became even more apparent as, unwillingly gagged, I listened to testimony from executives representing Westinghouse, Bechtel and Rolls Royce. One unsubstantiated sound bite after another tumbled from the mouths of these corporate executives, all serving their rich agenda of vested interests (read shareholders and profits).
But the questions they faced, at least from the Conservative nuclear cheerleaders present, were mainly mild softballs. Give us the soundbite, they urged. What do we need to tell the government to do to make all this happen?
Even Labour MP, Beth Winter, while challenging them on the obvious detriments of small modular, or any, reactors — time and cost — given, as she pointed out, climate change is very much here now, politely did not expose their utter hypocrisy. It was, after all, not a room in which arguing was on the agenda.
The Rolls Royce response was to trot out the “we need to do everything” mantra, which is what nuclear companies have to say in order for their technology to stand any chance at all. In reality, it is clear that choosing nuclear cancels out renewables. Meanwhile, Rolls Royce has pocketed — and presumably invested — £250 million (around $302 million US) with which it has done precisely nothing. But that’s the government’s fault, the company says. We just need to get in a room and get things done.
Fortunately, the gallery was under a mandatory code of silence, for it was hard not to emit a gasp of incredulity when the Westinghouse executive announced that his company had been “smashing production records” around the world.
Westinghouse has indeed broken some things: the law, and the bank for starters. But production records? He also mentioned that nuclear was “clean, reliable, dependable power” the very things it is not.
All of this was both a reminder of, and an eye-opener to, exactly the kind of false propaganda our elected officials are continuously exposed to, and swallow whole-heartedly. This is who they listen to: the corporate elite, in the United States bearing gifts as well, often in the form of generous campaign contributions. The politicians bought literally and figuratively by the major corporations, including nuclear power companies, dwell in an echo chamber filled with hot air. It’s not reality.
What was happening in that room in Westminster was also utterly pointless. Sitting there listening to 90 minutes of valuable time squandered in the stubborn pursuit of learning something more about a completely futile technology that has zero applicability to the climate or the immediate jobs crisis, it struck me that this was yet another symptom of humanity’s general malaise.
Or is it something worse than that? Being hell bent on wasting time and money talking about something entirely irrelevant no matter what the empirical evidence that should dismiss the continued use of nuclear power out of hand, must surely be a sign of some kind of madness?…………………………………….more https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/02/12/signs-of-madness/
s Australia becoming “more dependent” on the United States following the signing of the Aukus pact, or will the alliance make the country a safer place?
The Cabinet formally adopted a policy on Friday that will allow for the operation of nuclear reactors beyond their current 60-year limit alongside the building of new units to replace aging ones as part of efforts to cut carbon emissions while ensuring adequate national energy supply.
The government’s “green transformation” [whaaa..aat?] policy features extensive use of nuclear power along with renewable energy and marks a major policy shift for the country, which suffered a devastating nuclear disaster in 2011. The Cabinet decision follows a meeting in late December at which the policy was agreed upon.
The government also plans to raise about ¥20 trillion ($152 billion) through the issuance of green transformation bonds to boost investment in decarbonization projects, as it estimates public and private investment of over ¥150 trillion will be necessary over the next 10 years……… (Subscribers only]https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/02/10/national/reactor-limit-extended//
There are several upcoming opportunities for Central Coast residents to comment on the future of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. They come amid the ongoing debate over how, and if, the plant’s life should be extended.
The plant near Avila Beach was scheduled to close in 2024 and 2025, until the California legislature voted last year to try to delay that deadline. They authorized a $1.4 billion loan to the plant’s operator, utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), to go through the process of extending Diablo’s life until 2030…….
David Weisman is with the nonprofit Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, which describes itself as a nuclear watchdog group. He’s an avid speaker at all the various hearings and public comment opportunities related to Diablo Canyon.
“As with everything Diablo, the devil is always in the details, and those remain extraordinarily complex. They involve a multiple number of agencies both at the state level and clearly at the federal level. It falls upon certain advocacy organizations to have to take on this rather enormous task of parsing through all the different parts of this picture that have to come together to make the governor’s dream a reality,” Weisman said.
The most recent big news about Diablo has to do with PG&E’s application to renew its federal license. The utility can’t continue to operate the plant without a license renewal from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
After the legislature passed the bill to try to extend Diablo’s life, Pacific Gas & Electric asked the NRC to reconsider an old application to renew the plant which they submitted in 2009. PG&E withdrew that application in 2018 after deciding they would be decommissioning the plant, and no longer needed to renew the license.
In January, the NRC rejected that request to reuse the old renewal application, meaning PG&E now has to submit a new one — a lengthy process that will likely happen later this year. The denial was met with praise from those advocating for more scrutiny on the extension process, including Weisman himself.
“Quite clearly, the plant has been on a downgraded situation, on a glide path to closure. And maintenance has been allowed to lapse, and equipment purchases, capital improvements have been deferred. So the NRC in this case is quite right in asserting, ‘The plant you’d like us to review is not in the state it was when we last did that.'”
However, Weisman said of the NRC, “they are also capable of granting exemptions as they see fit.”
……………… Weisman acknowledges the climate and energy concerns, but said the public has not seen enough data to conclude that keeping Diablo Canyon open is the way to address them.
……. “Finally, if we do a cost comparison analysis, is it cost effective to actually continue the operation of Diablo Canyon? Something you would have hoped the legislators would have had in front of them on the night they voted on this bill at 1:07 in the morning — but they didn’t,” Weisman said.
“They’re not splitting atoms just for fun. This is a company that’s been twice bankrupt in as many decades, a convicted a corporate felon [for] obstruction of justice, wildfire incidents, pipeline explosions at San Bruno. I would say we should all be aware, and pay attention and follow the money,” he said.
As one stands back from all of this, it become very clear that Canberra has completely ignored Malcolm Fraser’s vital warning that, “Giving America the power to say when Australia goes to war is the most dangerous position that Australia can bear”.
Any shooting war with China will very likely be a war that has ultimately been provoked by Washington to serve US interests. It is equally likely that the US will deafen us all with a propaganda onslaught
Australia has been persuaded, enticed and strongarmed into taking gravely dangerous decisions. But Australia is a sovereign state and its fingerprints are, ultimately, all over the formation of its terrible abdication of national independence.
We need to pay particular attention to a definitive insight advanced by Paul Keating: Taiwan is not a vital Australian interest. In fact, it is an entity that could help unravel decades of remarkable, positive development in Australia, if we allow this to happen.
We know that the US is now a deeply disturbed super-power. Last year, the respected American commentator, Tom Plate, writing in the South China Morning Post, emphasised the “unseemly primal lust” with which the US jumped into the Ukraine war converting a “regional crisis into an increasingly global one”. Plate added that only the US had been able to parlay “its exceptional brand of American exceptionalism into a preposterous permanent innocence”.
The profound dangers arising from Australia’s far too close association with Washington’s global-control agenda have been stressed for over 50 years, first by Gough Whitlam, as he became Prime Minister in 1972, and even more emphatically by his once arch-rival, (former Prime Minister) Malcolm Fraser, who published a lengthy book in 2014 arguing that, “[G]iving America the power to say when Australia goes to war is the most dangerous position that Australia can bear.” He added that, “If America [unilaterally] uses forces deployed out of Australia, how can an Australian Prime Minister say we are not involved?”
The former US Secretary of State, Colin Powell said, in 2004, that: “Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation”. Almost 20 years later, Taipei enjoys dwindling recognition, now in the low-teens, from a handful of smaller states. Beijing is recognised as the sole, ultimate sovereign of China (including Taiwan) by the vast majority of nation-states, some 170 of whom recently reaffirmed their commitment to this centrally important One China principle.
Keating stressed that Australia should not be drawn into a military engagement over Taiwan, “US-sponsored or otherwise”, and said Taiwan was “fundamentally a civil matter” for China. These comments, predictably, were not well received in Taipei. If anything, the distressed nature of this response implicitly confirmed the position Keating outlined. Taiwan has been an intrinsic part of China for over 300 years, at least, since well before the French Revolution and the creation of the US and long before Australia was first settled by Europeans.
As for Japan’s leaders, Keating calls them the Bourbons of the Pacific – they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing, we’re still trying to find our security from Asia rather than in Asia. Furthermore, Professor Ravina, from the University of Texas, reminded us last year that, “Japan looks a lot like a one-party state” adding that, “the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has governed Japan almost exclusively since the end of World War II”. Declassified CIA documents, Ravina says, have confirmed that the LDP was covertly supported by the US “with millions of dollars” after it was established.
Japan is now avidly re-militarising at great expense, with a malevolent eye fixed on China yet again. Canberra has recklessly adopted Japan as a new primary military ally, despite the active veneration of Japan’s military history – which embodies an almost unparalleled record of military barbarism – by certain influential elite-factions.
Meanwhile, the current Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leadership in Taiwan refuses to endorse the One China principle (unlike the main opposition Kuomintang Party (KMT)) and it keeps testing how far it can push a pro-independence stance short of moving audaciously in that direction. This is combined with much mutual cross-strait political glaring – even as the economic coupling continues to deliver outstanding reciprocal benefits, year after year. Within the DPP, the more extreme faction is anxious to keep pushing the independence project. Any sort of candid negotiations with Beijing over this fraught relationship are simply off the agenda for the DPP. There is at least an even-chance that the DPP will retain power, at the expense of the KMT, at the next Presidential Election in January, 2024.
Although the US ritually claims it still supports the One China principle it does so within the context of persistent, Taiwan-separatist dog-whistling. This was highlighted in a recent Common Dreams article by the prominent peace activist, Joseph Gerson, who insisted that the US should “cease encouraging Taiwanese independence”.
Malcolm Fraser told the ABC, in 2014, that he saw no difference between the Abbott Coalition Government in Australia and the Labor Governments led by Rudd and Gillard in their misguided, excessively pro-Washington policy setting, when he criticised the way Gillard had put American troops into Darwin. Fraser also forcefully highlighted the acute danger posed to Australia by the presence of US spy-bases in Australia in his book – especially Pine Gap.
In 2018, Prime Minster Turnbull, flicked the switch to serious China-thumping over Huawei (without any “smoking gun” evidence, in Turnbull’s later, own words). Since then, we have witnessed the desperately ill-conceived, uncertain and hugely expensive AUKUS nuclear submarine decision and the latest agreement to station nuclear-capable US bombers near Darwin. Very recently, the new Labor Government in Canberra has eagerly announced a plan to acquire an expensive set of the latest mobile missiles from the US.
Arguably worst of all, is the shocking Force Posture Agreement (FPA), signed with the US in 2014 by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, which provides the legal basis for, as Bevan Ramsden recently revealed, “the comprehensive US militarisation of Australia, especially the Northern Territory, thus setting up Australia as a US forward base from which to launch its next war”.
Meanwhile, Australia and its mainstream media outlets have happily played host to diplomatically disgraceful, ongoing levels of China-threat war-drumming from the Japanese Ambassador in Canberra. John Menadue recently told us that, “The Japanese Embassy in Canberra is leading the anti-China campaign in Australia.” While Allan Behm wonders if this particular Ambassador, who describes himself a former spymaster, aspires “to be a legend in his own lunchtime”. One can be forgiven for wondering if this Canberra-based, Japanese campaign may be part of a wider US-shaped project to guard against any back-sliding on China-glaring, following the change of government last year in Australia.
Then there is the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), which maintains a constant focus on advancing the grand China Threat narrative. John Queripel recently argued persuasively that, when you follow the money you discover that ASPI is a “front for US propaganda”.
As one stands back from all of this, it become very clear that Canberra has completely ignored Malcolm Fraser’s vital warning that, “Giving America the power to say when Australia goes to war is the most dangerous position that Australia can bear”. And, in the course of doing so, they have made the severe geopolitical risk faced by Australia far worse. Canberra has now placed the essence of the decision on when Australia may go to war against China into the hands of the three least trustworthy, triggering-parties one can imagine: Washington, Tokyo and Taipei. In all three places, reckless Anti-Beijing elements enjoy inordinate influence.
What a catalogue of cringe-making, very expensive, immature belligerence Australia has racked-up. And let’s not forget that all of this, piled-on, antagonistic military activity and expenditure is primarily directed at Australia’s leading current and best-ever, long-term trading partner. It takes one’s breath away.
Any shooting war with China will very likely be a war that has ultimately been provoked by Washington to serve US interests. It is equally likely that the US will deafen us all with a propaganda onslaught claiming that any Beijing military action responding to provocations was unprovoked – and don’t dare think otherwise. Any such war will almost certainly visit extreme harm on the global economy and surely prove to be catastrophic for the Australian political-economy and devastating for Taiwan, just for starters. US arms suppliers can be expected to power onwards and upwards, however.
Australia has certainly been persuaded, enticed and strongarmed into taking the gravely dangerous decisions outlined above. But Australia is a sovereign state. It has agency. Australia’s fingerprints are, ultimately, all over the formation of this terrible abdication of national independence.
If matters are ever to be put right, we first must not forget that America is, as Professor Adam Tooze argues, addicted to greatness and haunted by its loss and it has crafted “an extraordinarily aggressive techno-military objective” to champion its superiority over China.
Next, we have to remember how, once-upon-a-time, 50 years ago, we began growing up as a sovereign state within Asia. We must recollect what we have been told so clearly by Whitlam and Fraser and avow that Australia’s national interest is our paramount concern. We can be entirely sure that Washington, Tokyo and Taipei are never going to tell us this: they will each work to advance their own dangerously tilted agendas.
Finally, we have to pay particular attention to the conclusive insight provided by Paul Keating: Taiwan is not a vital Australian interest. In fact, it is an entity that could very much help unravel decades of remarkable, positive development in Australia, if we allow this to happen.
‘Magnificent Seven’ suggestions sent to new Secretary of State 10th February 2023
On hearing the news that Grant Shapps has been appointed to head up Rishi Sunak’s new Energy Security and Net Zero Department, the Nuclear Free Local Authorities lost no time in sending him their ‘magnificent seven’ wish list of urgent priorities.
Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee, said:
“The new department is rightly called Energy Security and Net Zero. It is the NFLA’s belief that it can achieve both if it focuses on reducing energy demand through a UK-wide emergency programme of home insulation and energy efficiency measures and upon increasing generating capacity using the renewable technologies we have from the sustainable sources we find in nature, such as solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal, coupled with green hydrogen and other innovative storage solutions.
“We should also be investing in local, divested energy networks by encouraging households, communities, local authorities and energy co-operatives to become energy-independent by generating their own sustainable clean energy, rather that indulging in vast expenditure on large nuclear power plants that are reliant on overseas contractors, money, technology and uranium, and that leave behind the deadly costly legacy of radioactive waste and contaminated reactor buildings.
“The NFLA is calling on the British Government to abandon the nuclear nightmare. Every pound spent on the nuclear energy folly is a pound that could be redirected to creating a renewable energy future.”
Despite France’s efforts to overcome a months-long maintenance crisis of its troubled nuclear fleet, another reactor has been taken offline for most of the rest of this year.
The nine-month planned halt of Electricite de France SA’s Chinon-1 nuclear reactor raises questions about whether the state-backed nuclear operator will be a millstone around Europe’s neck next winter, too. France’s nuclear plants form a backbone of Europe’s integrated power system, and an outbreak of safety-related incidents and repair delays over the past year could not have hit at a worse time.
As a result, French nuclear generation slumped to the lowest in more than three decades in 2022, just as the region struggled with throttled gas shipments from Russia and soaring fuel and power prices. The hope was that EDF would get its fleet in order by the time the next winter comes around, with Europe likely to source even fewer gas supplies from Russia this year, and Germany putting its last remaining nuclear plants to rest in April.
However, Chinon-1 will only return to the grid by Oct. 30, after being halted early on Tuesday, according to the French utility. The lengthy outage is because the reactor needs extra heavy checks and upgrades for EDF to get permission to extend its life from 40 to 50 years, it said.
Maintenance is Weighing on French Power Production
Total amount of power generated by nuclear power plants in France [graph on original]
The risk is that recent improvements in generation will be short-lived, especially if further disruptions pop up over the course of the year. Fresh maintenance this month is likely to curb output to historically low levels, with eight other reactors due to be taken off the system.
At the moment, the world’s biggest nuclear-plant operator has only 44 reactors available out of 56. Normally, those units could generate more than two-thirds of France’s electricity needs.
About a quarter of Europe’s electricity is produced by nuclear reactors in thirteen countries. But with France typically contributing more than half of the total, getting its reactors back up to speed will form a key part of how Europe guarantees its energy security for years to come.
Spain’s Energy Ministry has again denied Berkeley Energia permission to build a uranium mine near Salamanca. In making the ruling, the ministry referred to a statement from its previous rejection, which said the Nuclear Safety Council had expressed concerns over “poor reliability and high uncertainty of the safety analyses of the radioactive site.” Full Story: Reuters (2/7) https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/spain-sticks-with-decision-block-berkeleys-uranium-mine-2023-02-07/
On February 16, 2022, a full week before Putin sent combat troops into Ukraine, the Ukrainian Army began the heavy bombardment of the area (in east Ukraine) occupied by mainly ethnic Russians. Officials from the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were located in the vicinity at the time and kept a record of the shelling as it took place. What the OSCE discovered was that the bombardment dramatically intensified as the week went on until it reached a peak on February 19, when a total of 2,026 artillery strikes were recorded. Keep in mind, the Ukrainian Army was, in fact, shelling civilian areas along the Line of Contact that were occupied by other Ukrainians.
We want to emphasize that the officials from the OSCE were operating in their professional capacity gathering first-hand evidence of shelling in the area. What their data shows is that Ukrainian Forces were bombing and killing their own people.This has all been documented and has not been challenged.
So, the question we must all ask ourselves is this: Is the bombardment and slaughter of one’s own people an ‘act of war’?
We think it is.And if we are right, then we must logically assume that the war began before the Russian invasion (which was launched a full week later) We must also assume that Russia’s alleged “unprovoked aggression” was not unprovoked at all but was the appropriate humanitarian response to the deliberate killing of civilians. In order to argue that the Russian invasion was ‘not provoked’, we would have to say that firing over 4,000 artillery shells into towns and neighborhoods where women and children live, is not a provocation? Who will defend that point of view?
No one, because it’s absurd. The killing of civilians in the Donbas was a clear provocation, a provocation that was aimed at goading Russia into a war. And –as we said earlier– the OSCE had monitors on the ground who provided full documentation of the shelling as it took place, which is as close to ironclad, eyewitness testimony as you’re going to get.
This, of course, is a major break with the “official narrative” which identifies Russia as the perpetrator of hostilities. But, as we’ve shown, that simply isn’t the case. The official narrative is wrong. Even so, it might not surprise you to know that most of the mainstream media completely omitted any coverage of the OSCE’s fact-finding activities in east Ukraine. The one exception to was Reuters that published a deliberately opaque account published on February 18 titled “Russia voices alarm over sharp increase of Donbass shelling”. Here’s an excerpt:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov voiced alarm on Friday over a sharp increase in shelling in eastern Ukraine and accused the OSCE special monitoring mission of glossing over what he said were Ukrainian violations of the peace process….
Washington and its allies have raised fears that the upsurge in violence in the Donbass could form part of a Russian pretext to invade Ukraine. Tensions are already high over a Russian military buildup to the north, east and south of Ukraine.
“We are very concerned by the reports of recent days – yesterday and the day before there was a sharp increase in shelling using weapons that are prohibited under the Minsk agreements,” Lavrov said, referring to peace accords aimed at ending the conflict. “So far we are seeing the special monitoring mission is doing its best to smooth over all questions that point to the blame of Ukraine’s armed forces,” he told a news conference.
Ukraine’s military on Friday denied violating the Minsk peace process and accused Moscow of waging an information war to say that Kyiv was shelling civilians, allegations it said were lies and designed to provoke it.” (Russia voices alarm over sharp increase of Donbass shelling, Reuters)
Notice the clever way that Reuters frames its coverage so that the claims of the Ukrainian military are given as much credibility as the claims of the Russian Foreign Minister. What Reuters fails to point out is that the OSCE’s report verifies Lavrov’s version of events while disproving the claims of the Ukrainians. It is the job of a journalist to make the distinction between fact and fiction but, once again, we see how agenda-driven news is not meant to inform but to mislead.
The point we are trying to make is simple: The war in Ukraine was not launched by a tyrannical Russian leader (Putin) bent on rebuilding the Soviet Empire. That narrative is a fraud that was cobbled together by neocon spin-meisters trying to build public support for a war with Russia. The facts I am presenting here can be identified on a map where the actual explosions took place and were then recorded by officials whose job was to fulfill that very task. Can you see the difference between the two? In one case, the storyline rests on speculation, conjecture and psychobabble; while in the other, the storyline is linked to actual events that took place on the ground and were catalogued by trained professionals in the field. In which version of events do you have more confidence?
Bottom line: Russia did not start the war in Ukraine. That is a fake narrative. The responsibility lies with the Ukrainian Army and their leaders in Kiev.
And here’s something else that is typically excluded in the media’s selective coverage. Before Putin sent his tanks across the border into Ukraine, he invoked United Nations Article 51 which provides a legal justification for military intervention. Of course, the United States has done this numerous times to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy to its numerous military interventions. But, in this case, you can see where the so-called Responsibility To Protect (R2P) could actually be justified, after all, by most estimates, the Ukrainian army has killed over 14,000 ethnic Russians since the US-backed coup 8 years ago. If ever there was a situation in which a defensive military operation could be justified, this was it. But that still doesn’t fully explain why Putin invoked UN Article 51. For that, we turn to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who explained it like this:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin, citing Article 51 as his authority, ordered what he called a “special military operation”…. under Article 51, there can be no doubt as to the legitimacy of Russia’s contention that the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass had been subjected to a brutal eight-year-long bombardment that had killed thousands of people.… Moreover, Russia claims to have documentary proof that the Ukrainian Army was preparing for a massive military incursion into the Donbass which was pre-empted by the Russian-led “special military operation.” [OSCE figures show an increase of government shelling of the area in the days before Russia moved in.]
..The bottom line is that Russia has set forth a cognizable claim under the doctrine of anticipatory collective self-defense, devised originally by the U.S. and NATO, as it applies to Article 51 which is predicated on fact, not fiction.
While it might be in vogue for people, organizations, and governments in the West to embrace the knee-jerk conclusion that Russia’s military intervention constitutes a wanton violation of the United Nations Charter and, as such, constitutes an illegal war of aggression, the uncomfortable truth is that, of all the claims made regarding the legality of pre-emption under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine is on solid legal ground.” (“Russia, Ukraine & the Law of War: Crime of Aggression”, Consortium News)
Here’s a bit more background from an article by foreign policy analyst Danial Kovalik:
“One must begin this discussion by accepting the fact that there was already a war happening in Ukraine for the eight years preceding the Russian military incursion in February 2022. And, this war by the government in Kiev… claimed the lives of around 14,000 people, many of them children, and displaced around 1.5 million more … The government in Kiev, and especially its neo-Nazi battalions, carried out attacks against these peoples … precisely because of their ethnicity. ..
While the UN Charter prohibits unilateral acts of war, it also provides, in Article 51, that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense… ” And this right of self-defense has been interpreted to permit countries to respond, not only to actual armed attacks, but also to the threat of imminent attack.
In light of the above, it is my assessment.. that Russia had a right to act in its own self-defense by intervening in Ukraine, which had become a proxy of the US and NATO for an assault – not only on Russian ethnics within Ukraine – but also upon Russia itself.” (“Why Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is legal under international law”, RT)
So, has anyone in the western media reported on the fact that Putin invoked UN Article 51 before he launched the Special Military Operation?
No, they haven’t, because to do so, would be an admission that Putin’s military operation complies with international law. Instead, the media continues to spread the fiction that ‘Hitler-Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet empire’, a claim for which there is not a scintilla of evidence. Keep in mind, Putin’s operation does not involve the toppling of a foreign government to install a Moscow-backed stooge, or the arming and training a foreign military that will be used as proxies to fight a geopolitical rival, or the stuffing a country with state-of-the-art weaponry to achieve his own narrow strategic objectives, or perpetrating terrorist acts of industrial sabotage (Nord-Stream 2) to prevent the economic integration of Asia and Europe. No, Putin hasn’t engaged in any of these things. But Washington certainly has, because Washington isn’t constrained by international law. In Washington’s eyes, international law is merely an inconvenience that is dismissively shrugged off whenever unilateral action is required. But Putin is not nearly as cavalier about such matters, in fact, he has a long history of playing by the rules because he believes the rules help to strengthen everyone’s security. And, he’s right; they do.
And that’s why he invoked Article 51 before he sent the troops to help the people in the Donbas. He felt he had a moral obligation to lend them his assistance but wanted his actions to comply with international law. We think he achieved both.
Here’s something else you will never see in the western media. You’ll never see the actual text of Putin’s security demands that were made a full 2 months before the war broke out. And, the reason you won’t see them, is because his demands were legitimate, reasonable and necessary. All Putin wanted was basic assurances that NATO was not planning to put its bases, armies and missile sites on Russia’s border. In other words, he was doing the same thing that all responsible leaders do to defend the safety and security of their own people.
Here are a few critical excerpts from the text of Putin’s proposal to the US and NATO: [on original]………………………….
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what Putin was worried about. He was worried about NATO expansion and, in particular, the emergence of a hostile military alliance backed by Washington-groomed Nazis occupying territory on his western flank. Was that unreasonable of him? Should he have embraced these US-backed Russophobes and allowed them to place their missiles on his border? Would that have been the prudent thing to do?
So, what can we deduce from Putin’s list of demands?
First, we can deduce that he is not trying to reconstruct the Soviet empire as the MSM relentlessly insists. The list focuses exclusively on security-related demands, nothing else.
Second, it proves that the war could have easily been avoided had Zelensky simply maintained the status quo and formally announced that Ukraine would remain neutral. In fact, Zelensky actually agreed to neutrality in negotiations with Moscow in March, but Washington prevented the Ukrainian president from going through with the deal which means that the Biden administration is largely responsible for the ongoing conflict. (RT published an article today stating clearly that an agreement had been reached between Russia and Ukraine in March but the deal was intentionally scuttled by the US and UK. Washington wanted a war.)
Third, it shows that Putin is a reasonable leader whose demands should have been eagerly accepted. Was it unreasonable of Putin to ask that “The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and… military alliances.. in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security”? Was it unreasonable for him the ask that “The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories”?
Where exactly are the “unreasonable demands” that Putin supposedly made?
There aren’t any. Putin made no demands that the US wouldn’t have made if ‘the shoe was on the other foot.’
Forth, it proves that the war is not a struggle for Ukrainian liberation or democracy. That’s hogwash. It is a war that is aimed at “weakening” Russia and eventually removing Putin from power. Those are the overriding goals. What that means is that Ukrainian soldiers are not dying for their country, they are dying for an elitist dream to expand NATO, crush Russia, encircle China, and extend US hegemony for another century. Ukraine is merely the battlefield on which the Great Power struggle is being fought.
There are number points we are trying to make in this article:
Who started the war? Answer– Ukraine started the war
Was the Russian invasion a violation of international law? Answer– No, the Russian invasion should be approved under United Nations Article 51
Could the war have been avoided if Ukraine declared neutrality and met Putin’s reasonable demands? Answer– Yes, the war could have been avoided
The last point deals with the Minsk Treaty and how the dishonesty of western leaders is going to effect the final settlement in Ukraine. I am convinced that neither Washington nor the NATO allies have any idea of how severely international relations have been decimated by the Minsk betrayal. In a world where legally binding agreements can be breezily discarded in the name of political expediency, the only way to settle disputes is through brute force. Did anyone in Germany, France or Washington think about this before they acted? (But, first, some background on Minsk.)
The aim of the Minsk agreement was to end the fighting between the Ukrainian army and ethnic Russians in the Donbas region of Ukraine. It was the responsibility of the four participants in the treaty– Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine– to ensure that both sides followed the terms of the deal. But in December, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview with a German magazine, that there was never any intention of implementing the deal, instead, the plan was to use the time to make Ukraine stronger in order to prepare for a war with Russia. So, clearly, from the very beginning, the United States intended to provoke a war with Russia.
On September 5, 2014, Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia all signed Minsk, but the treaty failed and the fighting resumed. On February 12, 2015, Minsk 2 was signed, but that failed, as well. Please, watch this short segment on You Tube by Amit Sengupta who gives a brief rundown of Minsk and its implications: (I transcribed the piece myself and any mistakes are mine.) …………………. [Transcription on original]
There’s no way to overstate the importance of the Minsk betrayal or the impact it’s going to have on the final settlement in Ukraine. When trust is lost, nations can only ensure their security through brute force. What that means is that Russia must expand its perimeter as far as is necessary to ensure that it will remain beyond the enemy’s range of fire. (Putin, Lavrov and Medvedev have already indicated that they plan to do just that.) Second, the new perimeter must be permanently fortified with combat troops and lethal weaponry that are kept on hairtrigger alert. When treaties become vehicles for political opportunism, then nations must accept a permanent state of war. This is the world that Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko and the US created by opting to use ‘the cornerstone of international relations’ (Treaties) to advance their own narrow warmongering objectives.
We just wonder if anyone in Washington realizes whet the fu** they’ve done?
nuclear-news 