nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Moscow reveals potential timeline for trilateral Ukraine talks

Negotiations between Russian, Ukrainian, and US representatives could begin in October, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said

13 Sep, 2026, https://www.rt.com/russia/645646-moscow-reveals-potential-timeline-trilateral-ukraine-talks/ 

Trilateral talks between Russian, Ukrainian, and US representatives could begin in October, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

Speaking to reporters on Sunday, the official stated that Moscow “does not rule out such a possibility.”

“We’re specifically talking about the foreseeable future. That is, presumably of course, October,” Peskov clarified.

Earlier this week, the Kremlin spokesman stated that Moscow hopes “for a restart of negotiations between three parties – Russia, Ukraine, and America.”

The trilateral format was last used in Geneva in February, following two earlier rounds in Abu Dhabi. However, the talks later stalled without any significant breakthroughs, as the US shifted its focus to its war against Iran.

Peskov’s recent comments have followed a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy by US President Donald Trump’s special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who held a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow last week before visiting Kiev for talks with Vladimir Zelensky.

The Kremlin described the discussions with the US negotiators as constructive and “extremely candid,” while Witkoff said that progress had been made toward scheduling a three-way meeting. The potential resumption of talks in this format was also among the topics Putin and Trump discussed by phone on Tuesday, according to Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov.

At around the same time, Zelensky suggested that the next round of trilateral negotiations could take place in the UAE, Türkiye, Switzerland, or another country as early as September or October.

Moscow has repeatedly said it remains open to diplomacy, as long as the root causes of the conflict are addressed and the new realities on the ground are respected. Ukraine has in turn ruled out making territorial concessions to Russia.

September 16, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Erdogan hints at larger nuclear partnership with Russia, unsettling Turkey’s allies

rfi, 12/09/2026

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is signalling a move to expand nuclear power cooperation with Russia, just as his country’s first Russian-built nuclear station prepares to go live later this year. The deepening partnership is likely to unsettle Turkey’s western allies.

On the sidelines of a recent gathering of regional leaders in Kyrgyzstan, Erdogan told his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, that Russia and Turkey “will take steps together to open some new power plants, along with the opening of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant”.

The Akkuyu nuclear power plant, built by Russia’s state nuclear company Rosatom on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast, is due to go online later this year.

Erdogan’s announcement comes amid strained ties with Russia, as the Turkish leader has deepened relations with United States President Donald Trump.

Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, head of the Ankara office of US think tank the German Marshall Fund, describes Erdogan’s move as a “gesture” to Putin.

“Although Turkey is competing with Russia geopolitically, and although Turkey is firmly anchored in NATO and is improving its relationship with the United States, it does not intend to sever all ties with Russia,” Unluhisarcikli explained.

“Indeed, Turkey sees the Turkey-Russia relationship as a long-term strategic one. And this is, by the way, consistent with Turkey’s balancing act.”………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.rfi.fr/en/podcasts/international-report/20260912-erdogan-hints-at-larger-nuclear-partnership-with-russia-unsettling-turkey-s-allies

September 16, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Turkey | Leave a comment

Poland First: Why More Poles Are Turning Against Ukraine and the EU

“Poland first” here does not mean indifference to Russian power. It means refusing to pretend that every demand from Kyiv or every directive from the Commission is automatically a Polish interest.

(and how Radek Sikorski doesn’t have the cojones to defy Anne Applebaum)

In conversation with Dr Mike Krupa

Ian Proud, Sep 12, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/poland-first-why-more-poles-are-turning?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=215255902&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

In 2022 Poland was Ukraine’s most important European ally. Polish families opened their homes to refugees. The state sent weapons and money. Four years on, that story is breaking. In conversation with historian and Do Rzeczy columnist Dr Mike Krupa, the question is no longer whether Polish support has cooled. It is how far the backlash now affects issues beyond the war itself including Ukraine’s future and Poland’s continued EU membership.

Mike makes the case for a Poland first approach. Ordinary Poles, he says, were told that arming Ukraine, hosting refugees and following Brussels was an act of national self-defence. Many no longer believe it.

They see a long war they cannot end, a bill they are still paying, and a political class more fluent in the language of European solidarity than in the language of Polish interest.

Nowhere is that class more visible than in Radosław Sikorski. Poland’s foreign minister talks as if Warsaw were still the engine of the Ukraine war and the conscience of Europe. The unkind version, and it is widely whispered in Warsaw, is that Sikorski does not have the cojones to take a step that has not first been cleared by his wife. Anne Applebaum. She is one of the most connected Atlanticist voices in the English-speaking world, and the Sikorski–Applebaum household is less a marriage than a transatlantic foreign-policy firm.

Whether the joke is fair is almost beside the point. It sticks because Poles can see the product: a foreign ministry that sounds more at home in Washington and Brussels than in provincial Poland. And it is ironic given Sikorski’s remarks in 2014 that were secretly caught on tape, that the US Poland relationship was worthless and that “we’ll get in conflict with the Germans, Russians and we’ll think that everything is super, because we gave the Americans a blow job. Losers. Complete losers.”

History has come back into the room. The 2026 rupture between Warsaw and Kyiv did not come from nowhere. When President Zelenskyy honoured a unit as “Heroes of the UPA”, he touched the rawest nerve in Polish memory: the Volhynia massacres. For most Poles the UPA is not a footnote in someone else’s independence struggle. It is the organisation that murdered their grandparents. President Karol Nawrocki’s decision to strip Zelenskyy of the Order of the White Eagle was not a diplomatic tantrum. It was an attempt to speak for a public that felt insulted.

That public is also tired. Support for Ukrainian refugees has fallen. Sympathy has hardened into irritation. Farmers have already shown what happens when Ukrainian produce and EU rules collide with Polish livelihoods. Krupa’s point is that this is not a fringe mood. It is running ahead of the Tusk government, which still talks as if the Ukraine war is winnable and a defining Polish priority.

The more uncomfortable claim is the second one. Krupa sees the EU as a constraint on Polish sovereignty and prospertiy. In his telling, Warsaw has outsourced strategy to Brussels, Berlin and Washington, then wondered why Polish priorities are often ignored. A country on NATO’s eastern flank that cannot define its own end-state in the war is not a frontline success. It is a frontline client.

“Poland first” here does not mean indifference to Russian power. It means refusing to pretend that every demand from Kyiv or every directive from the Commission is automatically a Polish interest.

I have written before that Poland’s Janus face on Ukraine is untenable: fight Russia to the last, but keep Ukraine out of the EU. That contradiction is now visible to voters

Whether Krupa is right about the scale of the turn will be tested in Polish politics during elections in 2027. What is already clear is that the old script — Poland as the uncomplaining engine of European support for Ukraine — is finished.

The public has moved. The government in Warsaw and the Eurocrats in Brussels have not.

Watch the conversation here:

September 14, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Witkoff and Kushner Cite Progress in Kyiv Talks, Push for Renewed Russia-Ukraine Negotiations

U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner described talks with Ukrainian leaders as encouraging after carrying new proposals from Moscow to Kyiv, though major disputes over territory and security remain unresolved.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom, | Sep 6, 2026

U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner said they made progress during their first official visit to Kyiv on Sunday, expressing optimism that direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine can be revived after more than three hours of talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow a day earlier.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held three rounds of discussions with the Americans, with national security advisers from the United Kingdom, France and Germany joining the final session. The talks covered possible pathways toward ending the more than 4½-year war as well as Ukraine’s immediate military needs, long-term security guarantees and economic support for postwar reconstruction.

Witkoff said Washington remains focused on “a diplomatic resolution to this conflict, not a kinetic resolution.” He said Saturday’s Kremlin discussions produced “new ideas” that he and Kushner brought directly to Kyiv, adding that the participation of advisers from France, Germany and Britain demonstrated that “collaboration is critical” to reaching an agreement.

Both Moscow and Kyiv would have to compromise, Witkoff acknowledged, but he said the administration believes a negotiated settlement remains possible. “We think we have the ingredients to get to that place,” he said.

Kushner similarly said the United States is seeking a “win-win” outcome rather than simply pressuring one side to accept the other’s terms. He said President Donald Trump is focused not only on stopping the fighting but on creating “a framework that could actually lead to a durable peace.” Kushner described Saturday’s meeting with Putin as “constructive and substantive” and said the discussions explored what Russia, Ukraine and the broader international community could gain from a settlement.

The two envoys hope to revive trilateral negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine and the United States, a format last used roughly six months ago. Kushner said Washington has remained in near-daily communication with Ukrainian officials even during the recent slowdown in diplomatic activity, which coincided with the administration’s increased focus on the Iran war.

Zelenskyy said several major issues remain unresolved, particularly territory. He said the territorial question “remains relevant” but argued that such difficult decisions “can only be resolved at the level of leaders.” He also emphasized that any settlement must include lasting security arrangements, saying a strong Ukrainian military remains “one of the main guarantees of security.”


Immediate defense requirements formed another major part of Sunday’s talks. Zelenskyy said Ukraine is seeking “serious volumes” of American support for a winter package combining air defense with protection for energy infrastructure as colder weather approaches. Kyiv is particularly seeking additional Patriot systems and interceptor missiles, with European governments expected to help support the effort.

The Ukrainian president said the United States plans to increase production of Patriot interceptor missiles next year and that Germany is also expanding production under existing licensing arrangements. Ukraine is simultaneously working with 67 domestic companies developing systems capable of destroying Russia’s increasingly common jet-powered drones………………………………………………………………

Zelenskyy said Sunday that Ukraine, the United States and European partners agreed to another meeting, although no location has been selected. The planned session is expected to continue work on territorial questions, security guarantees, military support and the economic framework surrounding any eventual settlement……………………………..

The central obstacles, however, remain substantial. Territory has not been resolved, security guarantees are still being negotiated and the aerial war continues even while diplomats discuss peace. The next test will be whether the “new ideas” carried from Moscow to Kyiv can produce the renewed direct negotiations Washington is now seeking. https://yournews.com/2026/09/06/7187875/witkoff-and-kushner-cite-progress-in-kyiv-talks-push-for/

September 12, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

30 years later: The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

By Xanthe Hall on September 10, 2026, https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2026/09/10/30-years-later-the-comprehensive-test-ban-treaty-ctbt/


Previously, it was normal for a multilateral disarmament treaty to be adopted in the Conference on Disarmament (CD), where it was also negotiated. However, the CD had a consensus rule and treaty negotiations ended on 9 August 1996 without unanimity.

Protests against the health and environmental effects of nuclear testing led to them being banned above-ground, underwater, and in space by the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963. However, all of the Nuclear Weapons States continued to test underground in order to continue their development of new nuclear weapons. Pressure continued for nuclear testing to cease altogether, and a test moratorium was agreed which has held since 1992 for the US, Russia, France and the United Kingdom. China ended testing in 1996, India and Pakistan  both conducted a short series of tests in 1998, and North Korea began testing in 2006 and has not tested since 2017.

On 19 November 1993, the UN General Assembly voted unanimously to mandate the CD in Geneva with negotiating a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The negotiations began on January 1994, and seriously progressed after the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was indefinitely extended in 1995. This was a period of positive progress for nuclear disarmament with the large nuclear powers — the USA and Russia — agreeing on real disarmament (START 1) and arms control.

Although the CTBT negotiations seemed to be making headway, the talks were put under strain by the announcements of both China and France that they needed to conduct more final tests in order to be able to have enough data to cease testing altogether.

By the summer of 1996, when the final draft of the treaty was presented by the Chair Jaap Ramaker, the controversial points had boiled down to these:

  • The development of new technologies allowed the testing of nuclear weapons, like subcritical and hydrodynamic tests and computer simulations, to continue. The spirit of the treaty, to end or at least constrain the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons, would be undermined by allowing these forms of testing.
  • The treaty did not contain any direct commitment to the necessity for further nuclear disarmament.
  • The requirement that all 44 states (listed in Annex 2) would need to ratify the treaty for it to enter into force would endanger the treaty itself.
  • The treaty cemented the status quo regarding the level of development each NWS had reached .

The main argument for accepting the treaty as drafted was that it would represent an international legally-binding norm that could be used to stigmatise testing, despite its perceived weaknesses. However, some states continued to veto a consensus, in particular India. By the end of the final negotiating session in the CD, no consensus was reached, and the Australian Ambassador Richard Butler brought the Treaty to the United Nations for adoption.

When it came to voting on 10 September 1996 on the UN resolution A/RES/50/245, only three voted against the Treaty in the First Committee: India, Bhutan, and Libya. 158 States voted in favour. The CTBT was opened for signature on 24 September 1996. A Preparatory Commssion for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) was adopted on 19 November 1996 (CTBT/MSS/RES/1) at a Meeting of States Signatories.

What is in the CTBT?

The text of the Treaty contains a preamble and 17 articles.

The Preamble lays out the intentions and the ‘spirit’ of the Treaty: to constrain development and therefore contribute as an effective measure towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and to protect the environment.

Article I lays out the obligations:

“Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion”.

Moreover, the Treaty parties committed to prohibiting and preventing nuclear tests from taking place anywhere under their control, and to refrain from any kind of encouragement or assistance of others to test.

Article II established the CTBTO and its components:

The establishment of the Organisation to oversee the implementation and verification of the CTBT, and to assist consultation and cooperation was set out in Article II, A. The article also covered how the CTBTO was to be financed.

Article II B set out the composition, procedures and decision-making through regular Conferences of the State Parties, as the principal organ of the CTBTO.

How the Executive Council for the CTBTO was to be set up was detailed in Article II C. It would consist of 51 members from different geographical regions. Annex 1 listed these. The members of the Council would be elected by the Conference.

Article II D established a Technical Secretariat for the CTBTO which was to set up the International Monitoring System (IMS) and assist in establishing the monitoring stations in countries around the world. The Secretariat will be headed by a Director-General. Where appropriate, the Director-General can set up specific working groups of scientific experts.

Article III: National Implementation Measures

Legal and administrative steps were to be taken in order for the CTBT to be implemented on a national level and to facilitate cooperation and liaison with the CTBTO.

Article IV lays out the verification system:

The system to verify compliance with the CTBT was to consist of four elements:

B.) the International Monitoring System (IMS): providing seismological, radionuclide, and other data from the monitoring stations, as well as satellite monitoring, to the International Data Center of the CTBTO to give early warning of forbidden activities.

C.) consultation and clarification on compliance with the treaty. States are required to address the concerns of other states regarding a possible non-compliance, via the Director-General and the Executive Council.

D.) on-site inspections can be requested by any State Party to clarify where a nuclear explosion has taken place. An inspection team will be designated by the Director-General and will be allowed physical access to enable the team to gather facts necessary to ascertain whether there has been a violation of the Treaty. Information gathered by the inspection will then be reviewed by the Executive Council which will decide whether there exists a need for further action.

E.) confidence-building measures include the timely resolution of any compliance concerns.

Article V outlines sanctions and other measures to address violations, e.g. suspension or restriction of membership, loss of rights and privileges. Worst case, the issue may be brought “to the attention of the United Nations”, meaning the Security Council.

The settlement of disputes, amending the Treaty, and how the CTBT will be reviewed, are covered in Articles VI to VIII.

While the CTBT is of unlimited duration, withdrawal is allowed by giving six months notice, and an explanation of the reason, if a party decides that:

“extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests”

as set out in Article IX.

Articles X to XIII cover the status of the protocol and annexes, signature, ratification, and accession.

Probably the most important Article, other than Article I, is Article XIV which covers Entry into Force (EIF). The CTBT cannot enter into force until 180 days (six months) after all the countries listed in Annex 2 have signed and ratified the Treaty. Those states are all those that have a nuclear programme. Should EIF not be reached within three years, a Conference should be convened to address the issue each year until the Treaty enters into force.

There are three more articles outlining reservations, depositions and authentic versions of the Treaty text.

There is also a Protocol in three parts that goes into more detail about the roles and functions of the IMS, procedures for on-site inspections and confidence measures.

The Protocol has two annexes: Annex I lists the facilities that make up the IMS network, and Annex II defines parameters for standard event-screening.

What has and has not been achieved in the last 30 years?

188 of a total of 196 states have signed the CTBT, of which 179 have ratified. All of the States that have signed have adhered to the provisions of the Treaty.

The CTBTO was established in Vienna, Austria, in the United Nations. It is now staffed by more than 300 multidisciplinary experts and support staff and financed by the member states, costing about US$ 140 million annually.

The Preparatory Commission of all States Signatories and the Technical Secretariat have also taken up their work. The latter oversees the IMS, the International Data Centre (IDC) and the On-Site Inspection (OSI) Division.

The main achievement is the establishment of a global network of monitoring stations, the International Monitoring System (IMS) that is 90% complete and delivering data to the IDC. This system has already been used to detect all of the North Korean nuclear tests between 2006 and 2017. It also detected other events, such as the nuclear accident at Fukushima in 2011 and the Beirut explosion in 2020, as well as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes.

The IMS uses various technologies to verify events: seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasound and radionuclide stations that can detect shockwaves, underwater soundwaves, ultra low frequency soundwaves in the atmosphere and radioactive particles and gases.

Of the 196 UN states, eight have not signed the treaty and 17 have not ratified.

It has not been possible for the CTBT to enter into force because nine of the 44 Annex 2 states have not ratified the Treaty and three have not even signed. North Korea, India, and Pakistan have not signed.The United States, China, Egypt, Israel and Iran have signed, but not ratified. Russia withdrew their ratification in 2023.

Will nuclear testing begin again?

Construction has been seen at several test sites in the past three years: at the Lop Nor test site in China, at the Russian Novaya Zemlya site, and at the US Nevada nuclear test site.

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov alleged on 10 October 2023 that the US was preparing to resume testing in Nevada. This was followed on 2 November 2023 by Russian President Vladimir Putin officially rescinding ratification of the CTBT. He justified the move as a measure to address the imbalance caused by US failure to ratify the Treaty. Putin declared that Russia would not resume testing unless the US did so first.

On 30 October 2025, US-President Donald Trump declared on social media that his administration planned on carrying out new nuclear test explosions. He repeated this statement in an interview with the CBS programme “60 Minutes”, on 2 November 2025. He said that it was necessary in order to know if US nuclear weapons still worked, and because he believed that Russia was also planning to test. He claimed that other states, specifically mentioning North Korea, were constantly testing and the US was the only country that wasn’t. Despite the interviewer refuting this statement, Donald Trump remained insistent that it was true. The week after, Admiral Richard Correll, head of STRATCOM said that neither China or Russia were conducting nuclear tests. North Korea has also not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 2017.

Although it remains unclear whether the United States will resume testing, any uncertainty undermines confidence in the CTBT.

Thirty years ago, there was a choice to end nuclear testing and to make that commitment international law. The CTBT is almost universal, bar a few hold-outs who continue to threaten the security of the planet and its environment.

Documents verbatim:

► The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), PDF, adopted 10 Sep 1996

► UN Resolution 50/245 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, voted on 10 Sep 1996

September 12, 2026 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

They Can’t Stop the War. They Can’t Survive It.

So European leaders have deployed – to use an Ursula von der Leyen saying – all means possible. Except that those means were never enough to meet Ukraine’s needs.

‘if I give the promise to the people in Ukraine, “we stand with you, as long as you need us,” then I want to deliver. No matter what my German voters think.’

Europe has also closed off access to a consumer market of 143 million people in Russia – Europe was Russia’s biggest trade partner before the Ukraine crisis began – because we can’t stand to trade with those Russians.

The AfD win in Germany and Reform’s landslide in Britain show why Europe’s liberal governments are trapped — continue Ukraine and they lose the voters; end it and they lose them anyway.

Ian Proud, The Peace Monger, Sep 08, 2026

The victory of AfD in a local election in Germany was as consequential as the Reform Party’s landslide in local elections in Britain in May.

Why? Because a nationalist party won. This is another sign that liberalism is dying in Europe. What does this mean for the politics of Europe and for the war in Ukraine?

Politics in Europe Is Changing – The Ukraine War Is Driving a Shift Away from Liberalism

I have said for some time that the changing politics of Europe will ultimately decide the outcome of the war in Ukraine. Foreign policy always starts and ends at home.

And what I mean by that is, even if our governments support a proxy war in Ukraine, they are limited by essentially domestic considerations in how much support they can give.

European states have shown themselves unwilling to commit to direct war with Russia principally because they can’t guarantee they will garner political support at home, not least given the large number of casualties that would result.

Liberalism is predicated on a stable capitalist system, and a direct war would have devastating consequences for the economies of Europe.

Liberal European governments can’t give Ukraine as much money and equipment as they would prefer, as they are heavily indebted and don’t have the fiscal space to do this at a time when ordinary people feel that public services are being ignored.

So European leaders have deployed – to use an Ursula von der Leyen saying – all means possible. Except that those means were never enough to meet Ukraine’s needs.

Ukraine will lose the war against Russia because European leaders decided they could not bear the financial, human and political cost of direct war. That they encouraged war to continue for so long reflects the essential liberalism of Europe, that Ukraine was a prized project in the bid to create another liberal democracy on the periphery of Europe as a counterpoint to nationalist Russia. And that helps to explain why ordinary, often working-class, citizens are turning against liberalism.

Put simply, even though European governments have avoided a direct war with Russia, they haven’t been able to shield their citizens from the consequences of proxy war, nor deliver the strategic defeat that they promised, and this leaves ordinary people poorer, uncertain about their future employment prospects, worried about their children and feeling less safe.

It would be impossible for them not to make a connection with the war in Ukraine because that is the topic their leaders seem to talk about most when travelling abroad to grand summit meetings that never seem to resolve the world’s problems.

Indeed, Annalena Baerbock, while foreign minister, said in 2022, ‘if I give the promise to the people in Ukraine, “we stand with you, as long as you need us,” then I want to deliver. No matter what my German voters think.’

She was roundly criticised by parties like AfD at the time who were accused of a disinformation campaign. But her words were on the record. And the message that sent to ordinary Germans was that the Federal government cares about Ukrainian people more than you, which was a politically suicidal thing to say.

In this day of high-speed media, ordinary people can see what is going on.

Even though national priorities have placed some limited guardrails on liberal foreign policy hegemony, specifically the temptation to get sucked into a general war across Europe – that foreign policy consensus has nonetheless still funded a dreadful war in Ukraine for four-and-a-half years which is held aloft as more important than domestic concerns despite the severe consequences for ordinary German people.

Ordinary people are not stupid and can make the connection between their condition of life and the need to keep funnelling money and weapons into a war that shows no end in sight, which their leaders refuse to bring to a close.

In terms of the feeling of being poorer and less secure about the future, Europe has chosen economic warfare instead of actual warfare, and this has backfired. In the process, sanctions have rendered European industry uncompetitive through the closing off of cheap sources of energy. Europe has also closed off access to a consumer market of 143 million people in Russia – Europe was Russia’s biggest trade partner before the Ukraine crisis began – because we can’t stand to trade with those Russians.

German unemployment is now at its highest level in well over a decade. Germany was Russia’s biggest trading partner before the Ukraine crisis started.

Let’s be clear, cutting off supplies of Russian energy doesn’t benefit the people of Ukraine; that country is energy dependent too and also, by the way, bankrupt, which means that European capitals have to subsidize its expensive energy costs as well as its own.

It doesn’t hurt Russia, which has diverted its energy supply to Asia.

It only hurts the economies of Europe and, in doing so, the cost of living and job security of ordinary European citizens.

Meanwhile, ordinary people see the threat of future war with Russia dangled before them in the mainstream press which conjures up all sorts of fake news stories on a near-daily basis about Russia’s plan to invade and conquer Europe.

While all this is happening, people can see that the rest of the world – particularly in Asia – is powering ahead.

Outside of West Asia and the Middle East they see a part of the world relatively free of conflict where economic growth is lifting the living standards of millions each day.So ordinary people in Europe are starting to ask ‘why are we losing out?’

And the answer that increasing numbers keep coming back to is the war in Ukraine.

Europe has chosen economic stagnation, unemployment, falling living standards and the fear of war as a price to pay to weaken Russia, even though Russia has managed the shock of conflict and war far better, has a bigger industry, plentiful supplies of energy and access to the largest market in the world, in Asia.

More and more people in Europe are starting to see that their liberal governments do not have the interest of their citizens at heart.

And liberal governments have no way out of the Ukraine war. In fact, they are terrified of the war ending.

Liberalism’s Ukraine War Trap

European government have found themselves caught in a Ukraine War Trap in which they face electoral obliteration whether they end the Ukraine war or if they continue it.

What is devastating for liberal political leaders is that they have no way out of the cycle of electoral suicide they have put themselves in.

If they continue the war, they will get devastated in the polls.

If they end the war, they will also get devastated in the polls.

Firstly, what will happen if they continue the war?

Energy.

Even if Donald Trump ends his damaging war in Iran, Europe will remain locked into high energy prices. Indeed, an end to the Iran war will simply accentuate the difference between Europe, stuck in an era of uncompetitive high energy costs, and the rest of the world, which will start to benefit from a gradual normalisation of energy prices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/they-cant-stop-the-war-they-cant?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=214714777&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

September 10, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal Clears Vienna Hurdle As Congress Review Continues

Congressional Democrats have pushed back hard, joined by some Republicans, arguing the deal opens the door to a wider enrichment race across the Middle East. The White House, meanwhile, has tied the agreement to Saudi Arabia eventually joining the Abraham Accords and normalizing relations with Israel, a step Riyadh has so far declined to take without progress toward Palestinian statehood.

Oil Price, By Michael Kern – Sep 08, 2026,

  • IAEA chief Rafael Grossi says Saudi Arabia won’t sign the Additional Protocol but will accept oversight powers over enrichment, conversion and reprocessing that closely mirror it.
  • The underlying US-Saudi 123 agreement, signed July 22, opens a path to domestic uranium enrichment after a two-year study, a break from the UAE’s enrichment-free ‘gold standard.’
  • Congress is 90 days into reviewing the deal, with Democrats and nonproliferation groups pushing back and two side letters still classified.

A planned nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and Saudi Arabia won’t include the toughest inspection regime the U.N.’s atomic watchdog has to offer, but it’s going to come close on the activities that matter most.

That’s the picture International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi laid out Monday in Vienna, speaking to reporters during the agency’s September Board of Governors meeting. Riyadh isn’t signing the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, the tool that lets inspectors show up unannounced at sites a country hasn’t even declared. But Grossi said Saudi Arabia is preparing to grant the agency verification and monitoring authority over its most sensitive nuclear activities, uranium enrichment, the conversion step that precedes it, and reprocessing, that functions almost the same way……………………………………………


Under the terms reported at signing, Washington and Riyadh have two years to study whether domestic enrichment makes commercial sense. Any enrichment plant built afterward would go up under a “black box” model, run by U.S. companies inside Saudi Arabia so the underlying technology never actually changes hands. It’s a sharp departure from Washington’s 2009 pact with the United Arab Emirates, the deal nonproliferation advocates still call the gold standard, under which Abu Dhabi permanently gave up enrichment and reprocessing altogether.

Congress Gets Its Say

The administration sent the agreement to Congress in late August, starting a 90-day review clock under the Atomic Energy Act. Lawmakers can let it take effect by doing nothing, or pass a joint resolution of disapproval to kill it, though that would need to survive a presidential veto. Two side letters attached to the deal remain classified, according to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which also notes that of the 51 countries with active 123 agreements, only Argentina and Brazil currently lack the Additional Protocol. Saudi Arabia would be the third.

Congressional Democrats have pushed back hard, joined by some Republicans, arguing the deal opens the door to a wider enrichment race across the Middle East. The White House, meanwhile, has tied the agreement to Saudi Arabia eventually joining the Abraham Accords and normalizing relations with Israel, a step Riyadh has so far declined to take without progress toward Palestinian statehood.

The Backdrop

For Riyadh, the deal is also part of a broader push under Vision 2030 to build out nuclear power alongside renewables and diversify an economy still tied to oil exports, with U.S. firms like Westinghouse positioned to compete for reactor contracts worth billions. The talks are unfolding against last year’s war between Israel and Iran, which has hardened Gulf calculations around nuclear deterrence. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said publicly the kingdom would pursue a weapon of its own if Iran ever built one. Iran, for its part, operated under the Additional Protocol from 2016 to 2021 under the nuclear deal that collapsed after the U.S. withdrew in 2018, a history nonproliferation groups keep pointing to as they push for tougher terms on Riyadh.

For now, the deal sits in a kind of holding pattern. Congress’s review runs deep into the fall. The bilateral safeguards text is still being finalized in Vienna. And whether the arrangement Grossi described Monday ends up satisfying skeptics on Capitol Hill, or just gives them a new set of details to pick apart, is still an open question.

September 10, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia | Leave a comment

Australia’s continued enmeshment with the US could make it a nuclear target, former Labor minister warns

“This makes Australia a priority nuclear target for any adversary of the United States,”

“An adversary would target Australia before targeting the US directly since to do so would invite immediate retaliation.”

Former Labor minister Melissa Parke has warned that Australia’s close military ties to the United States make it a priority nuclear target that adversaries would likely strike before attacking the US directly.

By Tegan George, Tue 8 Sep 2026 , https://thepoint.com.au/new/260908-australias-continued-enmeshment-with-the-us-could-make-it-a-nuclear-target-former-labor-minister-warns

Former Labor minister Melissa Parke has warned that Australia’s close military ties to the United States make it a priority nuclear target that adversaries would likely strike before attacking the US directly.

Speaking on the Australia Institute’s After America podcast, Ms Parke said Australia’s increasing enmeshment with the US was even more reason for it to join the “groundbreaking” Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

“It’s the first treaty to comprehensively and categorically prohibit nuclear weapons and anything to do with them: developing, possessing, testing, using, threatening to use, sharing, deploying, et cetera,” she said.

Ms Parke, now executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), said more than half the world’s countries had joined as states parties or signatories, including almost all of Australia’s neighbours in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific.

While Labor has committed in its national platform to joining the treaty since 2018, the Albanese government is yet to sign on the dotted line.

The commitment was moved by Anthony Albanese and seconded by Richard Marles, now Prime Minister and Defence Minister.

Defence Minister Richard Marles recently travelled to the US to meet his counterpart, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, as the countries marked the 75th anniversary of the ANZUS alliance.

Following the meeting, they agreed to “accelerate force posture initiatives” at Australian bases but didn’t say whether that would mean more American troops heading down under.

The growing US military presence includes the rotation of nuclear-powered submarines through HMAS Stirling and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers at RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, alongside existing joint facilities such as Pine Gap.

“This makes Australia a priority nuclear target for any adversary of the United States,” said Ms Parke.

“An adversary would target Australia before targeting the US directly since to do so would invite immediate retaliation.”

She argued other countries in the region had joined the treaty without damaging their US relationship, pointing to Palau, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand.

Ms Parke said she understood the Albanese government was concerned about “upsetting” the US but cited former prime minister Paul Keating’s remark that “we couldn’t get rid of the Americans even if we wanted to”.

“Our own former foreign minister, Gareth Evans, says that reliance on US nuclear deterrence is both dangerous because it makes us a nuclear target and absurd because the US would never sacrifice one of its cities for ours.”

She said the treaty also provided victim assistance and remediation of affected environments.

“There’s a bit of a myth out there that nuclear weapons have only ever been used twice in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” she told the podcast.

“But in fact, nuclear weapons have been exploded more than 2000 times around the world, mostly on colonised Indigenous and vulnerable communities.”

That includes Australia, where the British conducted 12 major nuclear detonations and hundreds of radiological trials in Western and South Australia between 1952 and 1963.

The tests caused severe radioactive contamination and prompted a royal commission into their lasting health and environmental impacts.

The treaty’s first review conference is due to be held in New York from 30 November to 4 December, but Ms Parke said some affected communities would not attend because they “don’t feel safe” under the Trump administration.

Ms Parke accused the US of doing “enormous damage” to international institutions and appearing willing to violate and discard any rule or norm of international law.

“When we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness,” she said.

“We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating. This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.”

September 9, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

Nuclear Outlook: Key Developments

Dr Alexander Bychkov, former Deputy Director of the IAEA, spoke to NEI about some recent developments in the global nuclear sector

Staff Writer 7th Sep 2026,
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/analysis/nuclear-outlook-key-developments/

R ALEXANDER BYCHKOV WAS FORMERLY Deputy Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 2011- 2015. Now a private consultant, he recently spoke to NEI to give his opinion about some recent developments in the global nuclear sector.

Q: How do you see the growing interest in small modular reactors and advanced reactors and the proliferation of new designs in these sectors?
A: I think we can distinguish two clear tendencies. One focuses on small reactors, so-called SMRs, and the other on a revival of previously tested reactor technologies and their application for Generation IV reactors. There is a lot of discussion about molten salt reactors (MSRs), while China has made progress in developing high temperature reactors (HTRs). This is in addition to the more classical approach – SMRs based on water cooled reactors. But it is important to underline that now there are a large number of SMR designs and I’m not so sure that this is our future when it comes to energy production.

Maybe from the political point of view it could be considered the next step but, from a practical point of view, I think that the legal and regulatory system of the ‘nuclear world’ cannot accept so many reactors. There are a lot of challenges such as licensing, waste, spent fuel management, nuclear security, safeguards etc. However, it may be possible to solve these problems if IAEA member states make a joint effort. And the current initiative of IAEA Director General Mr Rafael Grossi – the Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative – is an important illustration of these efforts.

Q: Many of these new reactor designs are targeting 2030 for deployment of their first reactor. Is this practical?
A: I don’t think companies will be able to deploy new design reactors by then. Of course, it is a good sign that small businesses and venture companies are making efforts in this area. However, my long-term experience in the nuclear industry shows that, without government support, it is not possible to establish long-term development. This does not necessarily mean just providing the required funding, but involves support and some kind of prioritisation for promoting nuclear technology. Without this government backing, long-term development will be difficult.

Maybe some small examples such as transportable NPPs or some other things could be organised by some vendor companies. However, they will have very strong competition from big vendors such as Rosatom, Chinese companies and maybe, in future, also some big American companies. But this is not an easy discussion. It’s necessary to consider each case separately, taking into account a lot of factors.

September 9, 2026 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Energy secretary says US might not reach nuclear agreement with Iran

Chris Wright tells ABC there ‘may not’ be an agreement that would prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons

Maya Yang, Guardian, Mon 7 Sep 2026

US energy secretary Chris Wright said on Sunday morning that the US may not be able to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran that would prevent the country from having nuclear weapons.

Asked on ABC on Sunday morning about any sign of such a deal, as negotiations appear stalled and the US-Israel war on Iran continues, Wright said: “There may not be a nuclear agreement.”

He talked about options for ending the “existential threat” of a nuclear armed Iran coming about by further US military action to knock out the country’s capacity to manufacture and deploy such missiles, saying: “It may be simply [a case of] destroying their capabilities to do it” or else “an agreement may await the next administration in Iran”.

He later said on CBS that the US was not shutting down diplomatic outreach and was “always open for a deal”. Wright told that network’s Face the Nation show that the “biggest role” of the US military in the Gulf region currently was to stop Iranian energy exports.

“We are strangling their economy to try to bring either a change in policy from the existing regime or a new regime,” he said.

In an earlier interview with CNN on Sunday, Wright declined to declare the strait of Hormuz safe for oil tankers – unless they are being escorted by the US navy – and stopped short of saying whether the navy would need to remain in the Gulf region “indefinitely” in order to keep the vital energy passageway operating, as the conflict drags on.

This came despite Donald Trump’s repeated claims that ships can safely navigate the narrow marine waterway, and the US president’s insistence last week that the US controls the strait, while floating the idea that it be named after him – statements that were followed by further strikes from both sides in the area.

Wright, appearing for an interview on CNN’s State of the Union show on Sunday as well as ABC and CBS, was asked whether he could “unequivocally” assure safety to merchant ships transiting the strait. The question came after a New York Times report found that August was the deadliest month for merchant vessels in the area since March…………………………………………………………………………………

Wright was also asked by CNN if he would say the US is still at war. “We’re still in a conflict, for sure,” he said. On Thursday, the US vice-president JD Vance said at a White House press briefing: “I wouldn’t call it a war,” instead referring to a military conflict. Trump then defended Vance, saying: “A lot of people do not call it a war, I would call it a military conflict, because it’s small potatoes for us … it’s not a big thing.”

The Republican US senator John Kennedy of Louisiana was asked on Sunday by NBC if the war would be over by November.

“Probably not,” he said.

The conflict passed the six-month mark in late August. The former defense secretary Leon Panetta warned in an interview with the Guardian this weekend that it could last a lot longer. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/06/us-iran-nuclear-agreement-chris-wright

September 9, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

The Freedom Flotilla Sails Again To Break The Gaza Blockade

THE FREEDOM FLOTILLA SAILS AGAIN
Vessels have begun international port-to-port voyage to Gaza

 Coalition statements, By zohar. September 4, 2026, https://freedomflotilla.org/2026/09/02/ffc-sails-again/

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) today announced that a new international mission to challenge Israel’s illegal and deadly blockade of Gaza is underway.

The violence and torture that Israel inflicted on hundreds of flotilla volunteers this past spring, including severe beatings, repeated tasering, and sexual assault, has not deterred the FFC, just as Israel’s murder of 10 flotilla activists aboard the Mavi Marmara, in 2010 did not stop the movement. If anything, action is needed now more than ever. While much of the world has moved on from Gaza, believing a supposed “ceasefire” has ended the genocide, Israel continues to kill Palestinians in Gaza at will; use its blockade to restrict and manipulate the entry of the food, medicine, and fuel that a besieged population depends on to survive; and deny Palestinians their fundamental right to freedom.

The new mission involves a port-to-port voyage throughout Europe, bringing together human rights advocates, union activists, elected representatives, journalists, medical professionals, and other supporters of Palestinian freedom. In June and July 2026, FFC vessel, Handala II, sailed around Scandinavia, making stops at ports in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Earlier this month, the vessel, Kate, launched from Bristol, UK and has made port calls in Ireland, Germany, and France. Upcoming stops include ports in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, before the flotilla continues on to Gaza. At every stop, the flotilla will stand with local communities to press their own governments to end their complicity in genocide by blocking weapons and energy shipments that arm Israel’s aggression, ending diplomatic and military cooperation, and imposing real sanctions. The journey will build public support and international pressure ahead of the flotilla’s planned attempt to reach Gaza in October 2026.

“The Freedom Flotilla sails again because our governments continue to fail to uphold their obligations,” said Zohar Chamberlain Regev, FFC Steering Committee member. “At every port, we will carry the demand that Palestinians be free to live with dignity. In October, we intend to carry that demand and the solidarity of people around the world to Gaza’s shores.”
Throughout the port-to-port journey, FFC and its local partners will organize public welcomes, community gatherings, media events, and opportunities for supporters to visit the vessels. Details of port calls and public events will be released as arrangements are confirmed.
Since 2010, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition has brought together civil-society organizations and grassroots campaigns from around the world to challenge the blockade by sea. Its work continues the precedent established by the Free Gaza Movement, whose vessels began sailing to Gaza in 2008.

“The Freedom Flotilla sails again because our governments continue to fail to uphold their obligations,” said Zohar Chamberlain Regev, FFC Steering Committee member. “At every port, we will carry the demand that Palestinians be free to live with dignity. In October, we intend to carry that demand and the solidarity of people around the world to Gaza’s shores.”
Throughout the port-to-port journey, FFC and its local partners will organize public welcomes, community gatherings, media events, and opportunities for supporters to visit the vessels. Details of port calls and public events will be released as arrangements are confirmed.
Since 2010, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition has brought together civil-society organizations and grassroots campaigns from around the world to challenge the blockade by sea. Its work continues the precedent established by the Free Gaza Movement, whose vessels began sailing to Gaza in 2008.

September 7, 2026 Posted by | Gaza, politics international | Leave a comment

US and allies push IAEA board to report Iran to UN Security Council, diplomats say

By Francois Murphy and John Irish, September 5, 2026,
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-allies-want-iaea-board-report-iran-un-security-council-diplomats-say-2026-09-04/

  • Summary
  • Board declared Iran in breach in June of last year
  • Israel started bombing its nuclear sites the next day
  • A standoff over access to those sites continues
  • Reporting Iran to the council escalates the clash

VIENNA/PARIS, Sept 4 (Reuters) – The United States, Britain, France and Germany are seeking a resolution by the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s ‌board next week reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council for the first time in 20 years, according to diplomats and the proposed text seen by Reuters.

If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not ​fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

Israel started bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities the next ​day, soon joined by the U.S. Iran’s uranium-enrichment plants were destroyed or badly damaged.

Iran has not let ⁠International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, ​some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

FRESH DIPLOMATIC ESCALATION

A resolution by the IAEA’s 35-nation ​board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

“(The board) requests the (IAEA) ​Director General to transmit this resolution and the previously adopted resolutions … to all Members of the Agency and to the Security Council ​and the General Assembly of the United Nations,” said the latest resolution draft seen by Reuters.

It also “reiterates its call upon Iran to urgently remedy ‌its non-compliance ⁠with its Safeguards Agreement by taking all steps deemed necessary by the Agency and the Board, so that the Director General can provide the necessary assurances regarding the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations”.

The draft has not yet been formally submitted to the board and negotiations over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. Whenever the four powers have submitted a draft resolution on Iran in ​recent years, it has passed.

Concrete action ​by the Security Council against ⁠Iran is unlikely since Tehran’s allies Russia and China are permanent, veto-wielding members.

IAEA CONCERNS OVER ENRICHMENT

Iran has often retaliated following IAEA board resolutions against it by escalating its nuclear activities or scaling back ​cooperation with the IAEA, but its options for both are currently extremely limited.

It is unclear what ​other repercussions there ⁠might be on Tehran’s conflict with the U.S.

As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes. Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons.

It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making ⁠a bomb. ​The IAEA has said the amount it has enriched to that level is ​of serious concern.

September 7, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Putin says Ukraine peace deal is possible, calls for full restoration of U.S.-Russia relations

[your]NEWS, Thu, 03 Sep 2026 

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that Moscow sees “a chance” for peace with Ukraine and wants to restore full relations with the United States, citing continued contacts with Washington and ongoing communication between Russian and Ukrainian intelligence services.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that there is “a chance” to reach a peace agreement with Ukraine and signaled that Moscow also wants to rebuild its relationship with the United States after years of confrontation.

Speaking Sept. 3 during a session of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Putin said Russia remains appreciative of international efforts aimed at ending the war but maintained that Moscow and Kyiv must ultimately reach an agreement directly.

Moscow is “grateful to everyone who is trying to contribute to resolving this issue,” Putin said, adding that in his view there is “a chance” of achieving peace, according to Russian state news agency TASS. For the fighting to end, Putin said, “Russia and Ukraine must first reach an agreement” between themselves.

He acknowledged that “all other countries are ready to support and assist” the two sides in reaching such an agreement.

Despite the continuing war, Putin revealed that Moscow and Kyiv have maintained lines of communication through their respective intelligence services.

He said it was difficult to determine “to what extent these contacts are leading to a peace agreement,” but confirmed that communication between the two governments has not completely ceased.

Putin also used his remarks in Vladivostok to address the future of relations between Russia and the United States.

He confirmed that Moscow remains in contact with Washington and said he hopes those channels remain open.

The Russian president pointed to cooperation involving U.S. and Russian intelligence services as well as officials appointed by President Donald Trump, saying the process is “working” and expressing hope that it will “ultimately lead to a positive outcome.”

Putin said Russia wants a broader normalization of relations with Washington.

Moscow is “in favor of restoring relations with the United States in full, but this does not depend solely on us; it depends on the American side,” he said.

Putin nevertheless indicated that he believes Trump is personally interested in improving ties. He said Trump is “determined to engage in such positive, constructive work.”

Putin’s comments came one day after Trump said any future face-to-face meeting between the two leaders should take place in connection with an actual peace agreement.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

During an Aug. 24 Independence Day speech in Kyiv, Zelenskyy said Ukraine wants peace but would not capitulate.

Those positions remain at the center of the diplomatic challenge.

Putin says Moscow sees a possible route toward agreement and favors restoring full relations with Washington, while Trump has increasingly tied future high-level diplomacy with the Kremlin to tangible progress toward ending the conflict.

Zelenskyy, meanwhile, has publicly endorsed negotiations while insisting that peace cannot come through Ukrainian surrender…………………. https://www.sott.net/article/508247-Putin-says-Ukraine-peace-deal-is-possible-calls-for-full-restoration-of-US-Russia-relations

September 7, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

The Geopolitical Trap: Structural Incentives Prolonging the War in Ukraine [i]

The Geopolitical Trap: Structural Incentives Prolonging the War in Ukraine [i]

The war in Ukraine that will not stop…

Sep 04, 2026, https://bmanalysis.substack.com/p/the-geopolitical-trap-structural?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1105422&post_id=213842334&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

As the war in Ukraine grinds into its next phase, international observers continue to search for signs of a diplomatic off-ramp or a negotiated settlement. However, a close examination of the underlying political, intelligence, and strategic dynamics suggests that the conflict is highly unlikely to end in the near future. The war’s prolongation is not merely the result of battlefield stalemates, but the product of a complex web of survival imperatives, intelligence-agency dominance, and grim strategic utility. From this perspective, the conflict’s continuation serves the immediate interests of the key actors involved, creating a self-sustaining cycle that resists peaceful resolution.

The Survival Imperative: Trapped Between West and Nationalist

At the center of this dynamic is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whose political survival has become inextricably linked to perpetuating the war. Operating within a framework heavily dictated by Western powers, Zelensky’s legitimacy and continued hold on power depend entirely on his alignment with the strategic narratives of NATO and his Western backers.

However, Zelensky faces a deadly dilemma from multiple directions. Should he attempt to negotiate peace or surrender to Russian demands, he would face immediate elimination not only from Western powers, who would discard an asset that no longer served their purposes, but also from within Ukraine itself. The country has seen the rise of powerful nationalist militias and far-right battalions that have grown substantially in influence and military capability since 2014. These groups, some with documented connections to neo-Nazi ideologies and symbolism, have made clear their absolute opposition to any negotiated settlement with Russia.

For Zelensky, the threat is existential and immediate. If he signals any willingness to surrender or accept terms unfavorable to maximalist war objectives, these armed nationalist factions would likely move against him. The president is thus trapped: he must continue the war to satisfy his Western patrons who fund and arm his government, while simultaneously appeasing or controlling the nationalist elements who would eliminate him if he showed weakness. This creates a perverse incentive structure where escalation becomes the only viable political path, and any move toward peace becomes politically impossible and personally dangerous.

The Deep State and the Intelligence Apparatus

The notion that Ukraine operates as a fully sovereign entity making independent decisions is contradicted by the pervasive influence of Western intelligence services, particularly Britain’s MI6. Ukraine’s wartime strategy is largely shaped from abroad, with British intelligence deeply embedded in the country’s military and political decision-making.

This reality is starkly illustrated by the positioning of figures like former Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi. While often portrayed in Western media as a popular, independent alternative to Zelensky, analysts operating within this framework view Zaluzhnyi not as a sovereign Ukrainian nationalist, but as a vetted asset of Western intelligence. His rise, public image, and eventual sidelining were managed to ensure that no matter who occupies the presidential office or military command, the overarching strategy remains aligned with Western objectives. Nothing of strategic significance occurs in Kyiv without the implicit or explicit approval of these foreign intelligence apparatuses, ensuring that the war effort remains on a predetermined, unyielding trajectory.

The Mercenary Economy: Training Grounds for Future Conflicts

One of the most concerning developments prolonging the conflict is the massive influx of foreign mercenaries into Ukraine, creating what amounts to an international training ground with far-reaching implications for global security. Fighters from dozens of countries have flooded into Ukraine, motivated by ideology, adventure, or financial compensation, but their presence serves purposes beyond the immediate battlefield………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

NATO Forces and the Preparation for Wider War

Perhaps even more significant than the mercenary phenomenon is the documented presence of Western military personnel, including active and former special forces operators from NATO countries, participating directly in combat operations in Ukraine. While Western governments officially maintain that their forces are not engaged in direct combat, numerous reports and investigations have revealed that special operations personnel from the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, and other NATO members are actively involved in various combat roles………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The Proving Ground for Western Weaponry

Beyond the training of personnel, the conflict serves as an unprecedented, real-world laboratory for NATO and Western-made weaponry. For decades, the United States and its allies have dominated global conflicts, but these were largely fought against asymmetric, third-world opponents lacking modern air defenses, electronic warfare capabilities, or peer-level artillery. Despite this overwhelming technological superiority, the US still suffered strategic defeats in protracted conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ukraine offers a starkly different paradigm: a high-intensity, conventional war against a near-peer adversary with a sophisticated, layered defense. Western governments and defense contractors are eager to see how their flagship systems—such as the Patriot, HIMARS, Leopard tanks, and Storm Shadow missiles—perform against Russian electronic warfare, drone swarms, and advanced air defenses.  This real-world testing is invaluable, exposing the vulnerabilities and limitations of Western tech that marketing brochures and sanitized military exercises would never reveal. It allows the West to gather crucial data on how their weapons fail, how they can be jammed, and how they must be upgraded for future high-end conflicts.

The Industrial Base and the Attrition Reality

However, this real-world stress test has exposed a critical, perhaps fatal, flaw in the Western military paradigm: the inability to sustain a prolonged war of attrition. The Western military-industrial base is fundamentally optimized for short, high-intensity expeditionary conflicts—blitzkrieg-style interventions against technologically inferior foes. It is not designed for the grinding, artillery-heavy attrition seen in Ukraine……………………………………………………………………………

The Collective Survival of the Political Elite

This dependency on perpetual conflict extends beyond the president to the broader Ukrainian political and oligarchic elite. The current ruling class has thoroughly intertwined its fate with the wartime status quo. Years of martial law, the consolidation of power, and the redirection of state resources have created a system where the elite’s wealth, influence, and physical safety are entirely dependent on the continuation of the current regime………………………………………..

Russia’s Grim Strategic Calculus

Perhaps the most paradoxical element of this prolonged conflict is Moscow’s strategic calculus. While Russia officially seeks the “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine, the current Ukrainian leadership is inadvertently achieving these goals on Russia’s behalf.

From the Kremlin’s perspective, there is no strategic incentive to eliminate Zelensky. His policies, driven by the need to satisfy Western demands for total war, have resulted in the systematic dismantling of the Ukrainian state. The massive demographic depletion, the destruction of critical infrastructure, the flight of millions of citizens, and the economic devastation are all outcomes that align with long-term Russian objectives of neutralizing Ukraine as a viable, independent threat on its border. Russia recognizes that Zelensky, in his desperate bid to remain useful to the West, is actively destroying his own country’s future. Eliminating him would risk replacing him with someone more competent, more unifying, or better able to negotiate a peace that preserves Ukrainian statehood. As long as the current leadership continues to bleed the country dry in a war it cannot win, Moscow views him as a strategic asset, albeit an unwitting one.

The Media-Military-Industrial Echo Chamber

Compounding these strategic and industrial realities is the profound incompetence and disconnect of the Western mass media and its military analysts. The public narrative in the West is largely shaped by a revolving door of retired high-ranking military officers and defense officials who transition seamlessly into lucrative roles as television analysts and consultants for the very media and military-industrial complexes they once served.

These figures operate in a closed echo chamber, profoundly disconnected from the grim realities on the ground in Ukraine. They routinely offer overly optimistic assessments, dismiss Russian tactical adaptations, and parrot the official talking points of their former institutions. This manufactured consensus serves to obscure the actual trajectory of the war, hiding the failures of Western weapons, the depletion of stockpiles, and the strategic stalemate. By prioritizing the defense industry’s financial interests and their governments’ political narratives over objective analysis, these commentators ensure the public remains largely ignorant of the true costs and diminishing returns of the prolonged conflict.

Conclusion: A War Without an Exit

These factors converge to create a formidable barrier to peace. Zelensky must continue the war to avoid being discarded by Western powers or eliminated by nationalist factions within Ukraine. The Ukrainian political elite must support him to protect their own power and survival. Western intelligence agencies and military forces are using the conflict as a training ground and testing laboratory for future confrontations with Russia, while simultaneously exposing the limitations of their own industrial base. International mercenaries are gaining skills that will destabilize regions far beyond Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, Russia tolerates the current leadership because their actions are effectively dismantling the Ukrainian state from within.

In this grim equilibrium, the war is no longer just a military contest; it is a self-sustaining political, economic, and military ecosystem with powerful stakeholders on all sides who benefit from its continuation. Peace would threaten the survival of political leaders, eliminate valuable training opportunities for Western forces, and expose the strategic weaknesses of the NATO alliance. Until these underlying structural incentives shift, the war in Ukraine will continue. Peace remains a distant illusion, overshadowed by the immediate, overriding imperatives of political survival, military preparation, and industrial profit.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The Finnish President Made Some Surprisingly Solid Points About Russia

Andrew Korybko, Sep 03, 2026, https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-finnish-president-made-some-surprisingly

He argued that it’s not plotting to test NATO’s resolve, its resilience to immense hardships “should never be underestimated”, suggested that the conflict will end without Ukraine recovering its lost territories, praised the CIA chief for visiting Russia, and called for “someone in Europe” to follow suit.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb bucked the trend of fearmongering about Russia in his interview with Bild. Instead of claiming that it’s plotting to test NATO’s resolve like American media reported was the reason why the CIA chief recently paid an unannounced visit to Moscow, he described such talk as part of Russia’s “information warfare” against Europe. Stubb insisted that his intelligence doesn’t indicate any such plans and argued that Russia wouldn’t attack the world’s most powerful military bloc anyhow.

He also pointed to the unlikelihood of Russia “suddenly mobilizing” forces for a two-front conflict with Ukraine and NATO even though he still believes that a mobilization directed towards Ukraine will occur this fall despite United Russia Chairman Dmitry Medvedev recently denying that there’s any need to. Another of the surprisingly solid points that Stubb made about Russia had to do with its resilience to immense hardships and warned that this “should never be underestimated” by its foes.

He also suggested that Ukraine won’t recover its lost territories upon describing victory for it as simply “surviving, remaining independent, and remaining a sovereign state” but still urged its allies to continue supporting it for their unspecified sake of their own security. Wrapping everything up, Stubb praised the CIA chief’s recent unannounced visit to Moscow for expanding bilateral dialogue in “different formats”, which led to his clarion call for “someone in Europe” to “resume dialogue with Russia” too.

Stubb’s last point echoes what he intriguingly told local media a week prior about how “At some point, dialogue will have to be established on the European side, and perhaps the most important role in this will be played by countries that share a border with Russia.” This followed reports that Britain, France, and Germany – collectively known as the E3 – are preparing to resume dialogue with Russia. It was thus analyzed here that the E3 and the Intermarium might open up rival dialogues with Russia.

The Intermarium refers to the modern-day revival of interwar Poland’s vision of an anti-Soviet alliance between their country, the Baltic States, and Finland, all of which border Russia in the present. Therefore, the abovementioned analysis concluded that Stubb might lead the Intermarium’s dialogue with Russia since regional leader Poland’s government is irreparably divided between the conservative president and the liberal prime minister, which makes it unlikely to agree on this ultra-sensitive issue.

Stubb also expressed interest earlier this year in serving as the EU’s envoy for talks with Russia back when this role was first discussed among the bloc’s members, but the problem is that Putin suggested shortly thereafter that this should be “someone who has not badmouthed us”. As it turns out, Stubb was recently condemned by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as a terrorist for justifying Ukraine’s attacks against civilian infrastructure, which might disqualify him from this role.

At the same time, Putin might calculate that it’s better for dialogue to occur with Stubb if he initiates it on behalf of Finland, the Intermarium, or the EU as a whole than to rebuff him in that scenario, so the possibility of him entering into some sort of talks with Russia in the future can’t confidently be ruled out. While all EU leaders apart from Slovakia’s Robert Fico are adversarial to Russia, Stubb is the most pragmatic among them, so he might ultimately be tasked with this role or play it on his own initiative.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Finland, politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries