Starve, Strangle, Invade: How Washington’s Siege of Cuba Is Pushing a Nation to the Brink
What makes the situation particularly tragic, Benjamin argued, is Cuba’s long history of providing medical assistance to the world. She recalled being treated by Cuban doctors while working in Africa and noted that Cuba has trained physicians and deployed medical missions across dozens of countries. Even under severe economic constraints, Cuba has maintained a reputation for international medical solidarity that far exceeds what might be expected from a small island nation.
Yet today, she says, the country that has helped save lives around the globe is struggling to obtain the fuel and medical supplies needed to care for its own people.
June 3, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/03/starve-strangle-invade-how-washingtons-siege-of-cuba-is-pushing-a-nation-to-the-brink/
Medea Benjamin warns that a decades-long economic war against Cuba has escalated into what she calls a “medieval siege,” as fuel shortages cripple hospitals, food systems and daily life while U.S. officials openly discuss military options.
For more than six decades, Washington has tried to force Cuba to its knees. Today, according to peace activist Medea Benjamin, that campaign has reached a new and dangerous stage. Fuel shipments have been blocked, foreign companies threatened, humanitarian aid obstructed and military rhetoric intensified, creating what Benjamin describes as a modern-day siege designed to break the Cuban economy and the Cuban people alike.
In this wide-ranging conversation with Dr. Margaret Flowers, Benjamin argues that the crisis unfolding on the island is not the result of natural disaster or governmental incompetence, but of deliberate U.S. policy. She details how shortages of fuel have crippled transportation, disrupted hospitals, spoiled food supplies and contributed to worsening public health conditions. The goal, she says, remains largely unchanged from the earliest days of the Cold War: create enough hardship that Cubans turn against their government.
But the discussion goes beyond Cuba. Benjamin places the escalating pressure on Havana within a broader pattern of U.S. foreign policy — one that relies on sanctions, coercion and military power to maintain global influence even as that influence declines. From Venezuela and Iran to Palestine and beyond, she argues that economic warfare has become a preferred tool of empire, inflicting immense humanitarian costs while remaining largely invisible to the American public.
At a moment when reports of possible military action against Cuba are once again circulating, Benjamin issues a stark warning: what is happening in Cuba today is not simply a foreign policy dispute. It is a test of whether the United States will continue down a path of punishment, intervention and regime change, or whether ordinary people can build enough pressure to choose diplomacy, solidarity and peace instead.
For more than sixty years, the United States has sought to isolate, punish and ultimately reshape Cuba through economic warfare. Yet according to longtime peace activist and CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin, what is happening today goes far beyond the familiar story of sanctions and diplomatic hostility. Speaking with Margaret Flowers on Clearing the FOG, Benjamin described a rapidly escalating campaign that she says has pushed Cuba into a humanitarian emergency while raising fears that Washington could be laying the groundwork for direct military intervention.
Benjamin did not mince words when describing current U.S. policy.
“I struggle to find the correct adjective,” she said. “It is so horrific that there’s almost no words.” What began decades ago as an attempt to create economic pressure on Cuba has, in her view, evolved into something far more extreme: a policy designed to systematically cut off every possible source of fuel, trade, investment and survival.
The consequences are visible throughout Cuban society.
According to Benjamin, the island is facing severe fuel shortages that have crippled transportation, disrupted industrial production and created rolling blackouts that affect nearly every aspect of daily life. Hospitals struggle to maintain services. Refrigerators stop working, causing food to spoil. Public transportation becomes unreliable or nonexistent. Families living in apartment buildings face interruptions in water supplies because pumps cannot operate consistently without electricity.
Perhaps most alarming, Benjamin pointed to rising infant mortality rates as evidence of a public health crisis that she believes is directly connected to the tightening blockade. Cuba once boasted one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Western Hemisphere, often outperforming wealthier nations including the United States. That achievement, she warned, is now being undermined by shortages of medicine, medical equipment and basic necessities.
What makes the situation particularly tragic, Benjamin argued, is Cuba’s long history of providing medical assistance to the world. She recalled being treated by Cuban doctors while working in Africa and noted that Cuba has trained physicians and deployed medical missions across dozens of countries. Even under severe economic constraints, Cuba has maintained a reputation for international medical solidarity that far exceeds what might be expected from a small island nation.
Yet today, she says, the country that has helped save lives around the globe is struggling to obtain the fuel and medical supplies needed to care for its own people.
At the center of the crisis is oil.
Benjamin explained that the Trump administration has effectively declared that “not one drop of oil” should reach Cuba. Since January, she said, only a single Russian tanker has successfully delivered oil to the island, while other shipments have reportedly been pressured, delayed or canceled. Countries that might normally assist Cuba have faced threats of sanctions, tariffs or other forms of retaliation from Washington.
The blockade’s reach extends beyond governments. New sanctions target foreign companies operating in key Cuban sectors such as energy and mining. Benjamin cited the example of a Canadian company that had worked in Cuba for decades but is now severing ties under mounting U.S. pressure. The strategy, she argued, is designed not merely to isolate Cuba economically but to make normal commerce virtually impossible.
China has attempted to provide assistance, sending rice and helping construct solar energy projects, while solidarity groups continue delivering humanitarian aid. But Benjamin stressed that food aid alone cannot solve the crisis. Without sufficient fuel, transportation networks collapse, power grids remain unstable and basic economic activity becomes impossible.
The contradiction at the heart of U.S. policy became especially clear when Flowers asked about Washington’s proposal to provide roughly $100 million in assistance to Cuba through selected organizations.
Benjamin called the offer deeply hypocritical.
The economic damage caused by sanctions, she argued, amounts to billions of dollars annually. Offering a fraction of that amount while continuing the policies responsible for the suffering is akin to creating a crisis and then presenting oneself as the rescuer. She noted that Cuban officials estimated the proposed aid represented only a tiny portion of what sanctions cost the country.
While humanitarian groups continue delivering food and medicine under limited exemptions to U.S. sanctions, Benjamin warned that aid alone cannot address the scale of the crisis. Organizations including CODEPINK, Global Exchange, Global Health Partners and others have mobilized delegations and donations, but they are attempting to fill a gap created by a policy that deliberately restricts Cuba’s access to international trade and finance.
More troubling still is the growing discussion of military action.
Benjamin pointed to reports that U.S. military assets have been repositioned in the Caribbean and that officials connected to Southern Command have indicated preparations exist for a possible operation against Cuba. While she acknowledged uncertainty about whether Washington intends a full-scale invasion, targeted regime-change operation or continued economic strangulation, she argued that the rhetoric itself creates instability and fear.
She believes advocates of regime change are hoping that worsening conditions will eventually provoke unrest and political upheaval on the island.
The recent U.S. indictment of Raul Castro, now 94 years old, further fuels those concerns. Benjamin argued that reviving a decades-old case involving the “Brothers to the Rescue” aircraft serves less as a legal action than as a political pretext. She compared it to earlier efforts to criminalize leaders in other targeted countries before pursuing broader interventionist objectives.
The larger issue, however, extends far beyond Cuba.
Throughout the interview, Benjamin repeatedly returned to a theme that has defined much of her activism: the connection between U.S. foreign policy and domestic inequality.
America’s military spending, she argued, continues to grow even as political leaders claim there is insufficient money for healthcare, affordable housing, education and other public needs. She pointed to a Pentagon budget that now exceeds one trillion dollars annually and questioned why basic social investments remain politically impossible while military expenditures expand almost without debate.
Benjamin also linked foreign intervention to migration, surveillance, policing and the erosion of civil liberties at home. The consequences of empire, she suggested, do not remain overseas. They eventually return to shape life inside the United States itself.
Yet despite her grim assessment of current events, Benjamin ended on a note of cautious optimism.
She argued that the global balance of power is shifting. Countries across the Global South are developing alternatives to U.S. dominance through new economic partnerships and institutions. China, BRICS nations and other emerging centers of influence are creating a world that is increasingly multipolar, reducing Washington’s ability to dictate outcomes unilaterally.
At home, Benjamin believes ordinary people must build new forms of solidarity and political engagement. She highlighted the “Summer of Peace and Love” initiative, which seeks to create community spaces for organizing, education, mutual aid and antiwar activism. Drawing inspiration from movements such as Occupy Wall Street, she argued that people need opportunities not only to protest existing systems but to model alternatives rooted in cooperation and democracy.
As the interview concluded, Benjamin delivered a straightforward message: Americans who oppose military escalation should pressure Congress to support measures that would block any invasion of Cuba and reject another chapter of interventionist foreign policy.
Whether one agrees with her analysis or not, the warning she offers is unmistakable. Cuba is not simply facing another round of sanctions. According to Benjamin, the island is confronting a coordinated campaign of economic suffocation whose human costs are already being measured in shortages, blackouts, deteriorating health conditions and growing uncertainty about what comes next. In a world already scarred by war and confrontation, she argues that the last thing the Caribbean needs is another conflict manufactured in Washington.
Nuclear Injustice in New York
June 1, 2026, Gregory Kulacki , https://blog.ucs.org/gregory-kulacki/nuclear-injustice-in-new-york/
Is disarmament dead? There are nine nuclear armed nations. All of them continue to invest in the maintenance and improvement of their arsenals. Fifty-six years ago, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force, five of those nations promised the rest of the world they would eventually get rid of them. If justice delayed is justice denied, how much longer should the non-nuclear states wait?
On April 27, the 191 nations who are parties to the NPT sent representatives to the Headquarters of the United Nations in New York to confer for almost a month. I took three trips to Midtown Manhattan to interview NPT participants at the beginning, in the middle and near the end of their discussions. All expressed a pessimism that was justified by the outcome. The nuclear weapons states thwarted every effort to hold them accountable. I was happy the non-nuclear weapons states refused to agree to a final document that would have made this injustice appear acceptable.
Iran and Ukraine
The wars in Iran and Ukraine significantly influenced the discussions. Both are non-nuclear nations that were attacked by nuclear-armed aggressors. Both were given assurances by the five NPT nuclear weapons states that they would never threaten to attack a non-nuclear member state with nuclear weapons. No fair interpretation of the public statements and media discourse of the aggressors could claim those assurances were honored. The lesson for the rest of the non-nuclear world seems clear. Binding legal commitments from nuclear weapons states mean the least when they matter the most.
And yet, the nuclear taboo held. Not because of the NPT, or international diplomacy, but because there is something intangible about nuclear weapons that, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, prevented them from being used again. Moreover, the non-nuclear states are, for the moment, defeating their nuclear-armed aggressors on the battlefield. If they prevail when the fighting stops, and the wars officially end, these outcomes may contribute more to nuclear nonproliferation than the treaty their nuclear aggressors failed to honor. Small and medium-sized states with limited defense budgets may be better off investing in cheap drones than in expensive empty threats.
The umbrella states
The most disappointing group of nations attending the conference was the small collection of non-nuclear armed US allies who imagine they enjoy some sort of benefit from the US nuclear arsenal. Shortly after his inauguration in 1969, President Richard Nixon famously told his national security council that the idea there was a nuclear umbrella that covered these allies was “a lot of crap.” Whether any US president would be willing to risk a retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States to aid an allied nation has always been an open and unanswerable question, which may be why there is no explicit nuclear use commitment included in any US mutual defense agreement.
In exchange for this imaginary protection these “umbrella states” consistently work with the nuclear weapons states to thwart efforts by the rest of the non-nuclear world to make the NPT a more effective legal instrument. The most disappointing of all may be the government of Japan, which leverages the remembered suffering of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to burnish its disarmament credentials while secretly lobbying the United States to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons in East Asia.
China
The only other country approaching this level of nuclear hypocrisy may be China, which offered the conference a scathing condemnation of several Japanese behaviors that are not all that different than their own. It claimed Japan is reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from its nuclear energy program and stockpiling the separated plutonium for military purposes. At the same time Chinese officials refuse to address US claims China is using its civilian nuclear energy program to manufacture the plutonium it will need to fill hundreds of new silos with nuclear-armed missiles.
China accused the Japanese government of “ramping up its military spending for 14 consecutive years” while it has been doing the same for twice as long. It called upon the international community to insist on “open, transparent and effective measures” to monitor Japan’s nuclear energy program, while at the same time refusing to comment on why it stopped reporting the amount of civilian plutonium China is producing to the IAEA.
China associates itself with an emerging “global majority” of developing nations who seek to rebalance long-standing inequities in the international order. As China’s economic and political influence continues to grow, many nations, including other members of this “global majority,” justifiably wonder what kind of partner China will become. The Chinese government claims it will never seek hegemony, but it’s attitude towards nuclear weapons undercuts that claim. How can there be economic and political equity between a nuclear have and nuclear have nots? What is China saying to the world when it condemns the nuclear energy program of a non-nuclear weapons state – a nuclear energy program exactly like its own – while simultaneously increasing the size and capabilities of its nuclear arsenal?
The nongovernmental
Alongside the official deliberations, concerned civic organizations from all over the world hold events and activities they hope will contribute to a constructive outcome. These often take the form of stern reminders to member states of their treaty obligations, dire warnings of the potential consequences of failing to meet those obligations, and advice on how to succeed. While well-intended, it is difficult to argue, after so many decades, that these reminders, warnings and advice have had any impact.
What may be more important is that these nongovernmental organizations observe and record what happens with a great deal more objectivity and honesty than the participating member states. Decades from now, looking back, those reports may reveal that 2026 was the year the non-nuclear weapons states finally decided they’ve waited for nuclear justice long enough.
Trump blasts Netanyahu as Iran Talks Stall over Beirut
Juan Cole, 06/02/2026, https://www.juancole.com/2026/06/blasts-netanyahu-beirut.html
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Monday began with a statement issued by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs cautioning that the United States and Israel, by their egregious violations of the ceasefire concluded on April 8, are jeopardizing the ongoing talks aimed at achieving an armistice. The ministry, which is headed by Abbas Araghchi, underlined that the ceasefire involved a cessation of hostilities on all fronts.
The ministry accused the United States of repeatedly violating the ceasefire by its attacks on commercial Iranian shipping. Moreover, it said, Israel has grossly violated the ceasefire by launching a vicious attack on Lebanon, violating its sovereignty and killing or wounding thousands of Lebanese and displacing two million, while destroying essential infrastructure.
The ministry said that the US has a direct responsibility to cease attacking Iranian shipping and an indirect responsibility to rein in the Israel atrocities, warning that Iran will take measures to act in self-defense to ensure its interests.
The Tasnim news agency, which is close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, reported that these violations of the ceasefire, especially the Israeli invasion and devastation of south Lebanon, had led the Iranian side to cease all talks and the exchange of texts through mediators.
The agency said that the Iranian government insists on the end of Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon and its complete withdrawal from Lebanon. Otherwise there will be no further dialogue with the United States.
Moreover, the report said, Iran is determined to block the Strait of Hormuz completely, and to activate further fronts, including the Bab al-Mandeb or “Strait of Tears” at the mouth of the Red Sea. The Red Sea has been an alternative route for shipping, including of oil and gas, given the closure of the Persian Gulf.
The official status of these threats is unclear, according to BBC Monitoring .
Israel has sent troops deep into Lebanon and has expelled some 275,000 people from the metropolitan area of the coastal city of Tyre in the south, making threats to level the suburbs of Beirut where Shia Muslims predominate and to bomb the Lebanese capital. Hezbollah has continued to fight back against the Israeli invasion, showering northern Israel with rockets and sometimes managing to kill or wound Israeli troops and to take out Merkava tanks.
Asked about these reports of a halt to negotiations by CNBC’s Eamon Javers, President Donald J. Trump replied , “I don’t care if they’re over, honestly.” In case the message wasn’t clear, he repeated, “I really don’t care. I couldn’t care less.” He complained that the talks had “started to get very boring.”
Trump attempted to intervene in reality by Tweet, saying he would ask Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “what’s going on with Lebanon.” He thundered, “There will be no Troops going to Beirut, and any Troops that are on their way, have already been turned back.”
He claimed to have spoken to Hezbollah indirectly, saying, “they agreed that all shooting will stop — That Israel will not attack them, and they will not attack Israel.”
Netanyahu remained defiant, boasting of having taken the Crusader castle Beaufort and threatening, “if Hezbollah does not cease attacking our cities and citizens—Israel will attack terror targets in Beirut. This stance of ours remains unchanged. In parallel, the IDF will continue to operate as planned in southern Lebanon.”
Barak Ravid at Axios reported that according to a US official, Trump’s phone call to Netanyahu was explosive, with the American president “pissed off” about Netanyahu’s threat to bomb Beirut. Ravid reports that his source alleged Trump told the prime minister, “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”
Trump for his part insisted that the negotiations with Iran were continuing “at a rapid pace.”
Many energy analysts believe that if the closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues through the summer, by September we could see $200 a barrel petroleum and a severe global economic recession. The consequent economic crisis domestically could produce a blue wave, i.e. a big Democratic victory in the midterms, which would hobble Trump in his final two years in the White House.
Around the world, global solidarity and cooperation are remarkably popular
June 1, 2026, by Lawrence Wittner, https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2026/06/01/around-the-world-global-solidarity-and-cooperation-are-remarkably-popular/
One of the curious ironies of our time is that, although many politicians spout heated nationalist rhetoric, rail against foreign nations, and belittle international cooperation, this approach to international affairs is not at all what most people want.
The climate of aggressive nationalism is clear enough. In nations around the globe, demagogues (usually of a rightwing variety) whip up xenophobia, preach superpatriotism, demand vast military buildups, and―if holding public office―often launch invasions of other nations under the banner of restoring an allegedly glorious national past.
But what is often overlooked is that, across the planet, most people favor a very different way of engaging with the world.
In late 2025, Focaldata, a major research company commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation, conducted a landmark survey of 36,405 people across 34 countries. The resulting report, Demanding Results: Global Views on International Cooperation, revealed that 55 percent of people worldwide “believe their country should cooperate on global challenges even if it means compromising on national interests.” If international cooperation was proven to solve global problems, public support jumped to 75 percent. Respondents viewed such cooperation as essential for food and water security, jobs, health, trade, and climate.
Other opinion surveys confirm the widespread nature of internationalist sentiment. An Ipsos poll conducted between February and April 2026 found a substantial increase over the previous year in support for global solidarity and cooperation, with net disagreement shifting to net agreement. Among the more than 22,000 adults in the 31 countries surveyed, nearly two-thirds now supported the claim that, “for certain problems, like environmental pollution, international bodies should have the right to enforce solutions.” Some 42 percent (a plurality) agreed with the idea that “my taxes should go towards solving global problems.” And nearly four out of ten respondents (a plurality) endorsed the statement: “I consider myself more a world citizen than a citizen of the country I live in.”
Another measure of the worldwide support for international cooperation is provided by polling on public attitudes toward international organizations. The Rockefeller Foundation-Focaldata study reported that public trust was strong for the United Nations (58 percent) and the World Health Organization (60 percent), although weaker for international financial institutions. The global popularity of the United Nations was also attested to by a Pew Research Center survey that appeared in September 2025. Covering 31,938 adults in 25 countries, it found that a median of 61 percent of adults had a favorable view of the world organization, while only 32 percent had an unfavorable one.
Even proposals for new, avant garde global institutions have attracted more public support than opposition. Commissioned by Democracy Without Borders, Nira Data conducted a global survey in September 2025 of public attitudes toward the election of a citizen-elected world parliament to handle global issues. The survey, released in January 2026, drew upon 117,000 people in 101 countries that held 90 percent of the world’s population. The finding was that 40 percent of respondents approved of the world parliament idea, while only 27 percent opposed it.
But what about the United States? Surely in this flag-waving nation, engulfed in the rabid “America First” rhetoric of the Trump administration and its MAGA acolytes, we might expect that the ideals of global solidarity and cooperation would be supported by no more than a small minority.
But that’s not the case at all.
One of the most striking findings of the Rockefeller Foundation-Focaldata survey is that 61 percent of U.S. respondents believed that the United States should cooperate on global challenges even it meant compromising on some national interests.
When it came to the United Nations, the Pew Research Center report revealed that 57 percent of Americans held a positive view of the world organization, as compared to 41 percent with a negative one. Moreover, it found that positive views of the United Nations had increased by 5 percent over the preceding year.
A study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, issued in September 2025, reported an even more favorable public attitude toward the United Nations. Two-thirds of the Americans surveyed, it noted, said that the United States should be more willing to make decisions within the framework of the United Nations, even if this meant that the country would sometimes have to go along with a policy that was not its first choice.
Admittedly, opinion surveys found that the level of support for international cooperation varied significantly from country to country. Thus, for example, the backing for international cooperation when that meant compromising on some national interests was greater in India (81 percent) and South Korea (73 percent), the countries highest on the scale, than in Argentina (41 percent) and Japan (34 percent), the countries at the bottom of the scale.
Furthermore, there was often a political dimension to worldwide public attitudes toward foreign affairs. According to the Pew Research Center, “people who place themselves on the left of the ideological spectrum are more likely than those on the right to have a positive view of the UN.”
This political division was particularly wide in the United States, where, as the Pew report maintained, “81% of liberals―versus 34% of conservatives―have a favorable opinion” of the United Nations. When it came to the issue of support for cooperation with other nations, the surveys by Rockefeller-Focaldata and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs both found substantial differences between the attitudes of Democrats (quite positive) and Republicans (far more negative).
Even so, in most countries, including the United States, support for international solidarity and cooperation is very substantial, and growing. Consequently, political activists and politicians shouldn’t be reluctant to speak out for them. Indeed, given the popularity of this internationalist approach to global affairs, it might even prove a winning political issue.
Lawrence S. Wittner (https://www.lawrenceswittner.com/ ) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).
Iran Suspends U.S. Talks as Israel Kills 8 More in Lebanon & Expands Occupation
SCHEERPOST, June 2, 2026
Israeli drones have killed at least eight people in Lebanon despite an announcement Monday by U.S. President Donald Trump that both Israel and Hezbollah had agreed to stop fighting. Trump’s intervention came as Israel threatened new strikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut, leading Iran to suspend indirect negotiations with the U.S. to protest Israel’s expanding military offensive in Lebanon. Since March 2, Israel has killed more than 3,400 people in Lebanon while seizing large swaths of the country and displacing about one-fifth of the population.
Lebanon is “a weak state, it doesn’t have a lot of leverage, and a lot of people are concerned,” says Associated Press reporter Kareem Chehayeb in Beirut. “They sort of feel beholden to the regional and global powers on their fate.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Lebanon, where Israeli drones have killed at least eight people despite President Trump’s claim that Israel and Hezbollah have agreed that, quote, “all shooting will stop.” Trump made the claim as Iran said it’s suspending indirect negotiations with the U.S. to protest Israel’s expanding military offensive in Lebanon. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote online, “The ceasefire between Iran and the US is unequivocally a ceasefire on all fronts, including in Lebanon. Its violation on one front is a violation of the ceasefire on all fronts. The US and Israel are responsible for the consequences of any violation,” he said.
Since March 2nd, Israel has killed more than 3,400 people in Lebanon while seizing large swaths of southern Lebanon, including the medieval Beaufort Castle.
On Monday, President Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by phone after Israel threatened new attacks on Beirut. Axios is reporting, during the expletive-laden call, Trump told Netanyahu, quote, “You’re f’ing crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this,” Axios reported Trump saying to Netanyahu.
After the call, Trump wrote online, quote, “I had a very productive call with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, of Israel, and there will be no Troops going to Beirut, and any Troops that are on their way, have already been turned back,” he said.
In Beirut, displaced Lebanese residents decried Israel’s ongoing attacks……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/02/iran-suspends-u-s-talks-as-israel-kills-8-more-in-lebanon-expands-occupation/
European countries split on Macron’s nuclear deterrence offer
Questions remain over how it would complement the US nuclear umbrella
DefenceCharles Cohen/Pietro Guastamacchia, Euractiv, 5 June26, https://www.euractiv.com/news/macrons-advanced-nuclear-deterrence-gains-supporters-but-questions-remains/
France’s offer to extend its nuclear deterrence has so far seduced nine European countries, but the benefits the scheme would provide on top of the US nuclear umbrella remain unclear to others.
Last week, Norway, which has long believed its security was best ensured through close alignment with Washington, announced it would join France’s ‘forward deterrence’ initiative, joining eight other countries: Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom.
This shift sends a very strong signal to both European allies and Washington, Etienne Marcuz, a senior analyst on strategic armaments at the Foundation for Strategic Research, told Euractiv, adding that it could encourage other countries in the region to follow suit.
Eastern flank
Neighbouring Finland, which shares a 1,340-km border with Russia, is also assessing whether to take part in the initiative, Defence Minister Antti Häkkänen said last week.
“The 2022 invasion (of Ukraine by Russia) generated a sense of vulnerability, particularly in terms of being potentially susceptible to nuclear coercion. Now Finland considers nuclear deterrence legitimate,” Matti Pesu, a senior research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, said.
The Baltic countries have been particularly exposed to Russia’s hybrid attacks, with Ukrainian drones veering off course by electronic warfare crashing into their territory. Such incidents have prompted the collapse of the Latvian government. So far, the three countries have not publicly expressed interest in taking up France’s offer.
According to Marcuz, if all Nordic countries joined, this would provide new corridors from which to hit Russia, especially through the Arctic.
“An entire part of the Russian flank would be vulnerable,” he said.
But such decisions could take time, amid reports that Washington is debating extending its deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe to Poland and the Baltic states.
“The US is putting pressure on Europeans, so they don’t distance themselves from their nuclear dependency,” Marcuz noted. “The fundamental lever of US influence in Europe is the nuclear weapon,” he added.
Macron’s deterrence is not a nuclear umbrella
Emmanuel Macron unveiled the concept of ‘forward deterrence’ last March during a long-awaited revision of France’s nuclear doctrine.
“It enables French nuclear deterrence to deploy French forces abroad, either in peacetime for strategic signalling or in wartime to disperse and to be able to spread out across the European space,” Marcuz said.
“There is no explicit security guarantee,” he added, one of the key differences with American deterrence in Europe.
Instead, the French president said in his Ile Longue speech that the territories of partner countries would have an “affirmed bond” with France’s deterrence.
For Marcuz, the term is strategically ambiguous so as to avoid clearly laying out France’s ambitions to adversaries, in this case, Russia.
Macron said he would open deterrence exercises to European allies and deploy the country’s strategic forces, including the air force, across Europe. France runs quarterly nuclear exercises involving its air-based nuclear deterrence, carried by a fleet of Rafale fighter jets. The last such exercise was held on Monday.
Partner countries could take part in the drills, playing the role of an adversary, Marcuz noted.
Italy’s doubts
Rome, which has the EU’s third-biggest army, is notably absent from the list. Italian bases host US tactical nuclear bombs – the B61 models.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has long enjoyed a privileged relationship with US President Donald Trump. But Rome’s refusal to authorise the use of its bases for the war in Iran has drawn Washington’s ire.
Still, Italy is so far standing strongly behind the American deterrent.
“This government, like others in the past, will do everything it can to maintain the best possible relations with its US ally,” Alessandro Politi, director of the NATO Defence College Foundation, said.
Additionally, the French doctrine could expose partner countries to security risks, Politi argued, if French nuclear-armed Rafales were to fly through their airspace.
“Such planes are easily vulnerable, and the last guarantee of France’s response capability is four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, which means, on average, about one or two on patrol during the year. Frankly, that’s a bit meagre.”
Several countries currently host American nuclear weapons, Politi said, adding these are framed within the context of the NATO alliance.
But Paris and Rome have already collaborated in the field of nuclear deterrence. Italy was the first foreign country to participate in a French nuclear exercise by providing refuelling assets in 2022.
This sets a precedent and so “Italy’s non-participation therefore seems to be more closely tied to political reasons related to the less-than-idyllic relations between Macron and Meloni,” Antonio Missiroli, former NATO assistant secretary general, said.
Both the French programme and any future Italian cooperation will depend on the outcome of national elections in the two countries, both scheduled for 2027, he added.
Will Trump sideline Israel in order to make a deal with Iran?
Donald Trump reportedly has a deal on the table to suspend fighting and begin negotiations to end the Iran war and the resulting global economic crisis. But Israel and Iran hawks see it as a disaster and are working to undermine it. Who will win out?
Mondoweiss, By Mitchell Plitnick May 31, 2026
According to available reports, the purported agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran to entrench the current ceasefire was ready to be signed and presented to the public, and Trump was going to retire to his “situation room” to confer with his people and announce it.
If that seemed too good to be true, it turns out it was, at least for the moment.
Eventually, Trump is going to have to decide whether to accept an MOU that will be harshly attacked by Israel and Iran hawks or resume the fighting. Choosing the former is out of character for the beleaguered president, but resuming the fighting will bury him deeper in this quagmire and will intensify the global economic crisis.
This mistrust is why Iran wants this MOU rather than a comprehensive deal. They want to move slowly, confirming American sincerity with actions, not words, every step of the way.
Trump, on the other hand, is struggling to decide what to do amid conflicting, powerful political pressures. His team has, apparently, negotiated the terms of the MOU, but he is indecisive about implementing it. These are the consequences of a weak, unqualified person in the White House.
This political quicksand that Trump continues to sink into is another in the long list of reasons why other presidents have refused to let Israel draw them into a war with Iran. Now that Iran has the upper hand, it is dictating the framework of ending the war.
Trump wanted to end it with a comprehensive deal, a grand bargain. That has been completely thwarted by Iran, which insists on a staged process to confirm American intentions after two surprise attacks. Trump’s absurd idea of expanding the Abraham Accords was a last, desperate attempt to try to come out of this debacle with a win big enough for him to claim that it was all worth it.
He made that desperate grab because the MOU, although not addressing some of the biggest issues, would include some immediate concessions to Iran that will be viewed by Trump’s allies as significant setbacks.
The concessions that have been rumored—which include funding Iran’s reconstruction, sanctions relief, and releasing frozen Iranian funds, for which he will be accused of “sending pallets of cash” to Iran, just as Trump once accused Barack Obama—are going to be attacked by Iran hawks. But for Trump, the immediate priority is reopening the Strait of Hormuz quickly and doing as much damage control as he can before the congressional elections in November.
The MOU would, according to the reports, accomplish that. Iran would allow ships to move through the Strait and would start removing impediments, such as mines, from the area, while concurrently, the U.S. would gradually lift its blockade of Iranian ports. The fighting would stop, including in Lebanon, although the specific terms of that and whether Israel would be forced to completely withdraw from southern Lebanon have not been mentioned. Iran would reiterate its long-standing pledge not to create a nuclear weapon.
Beyond that, the MOU would outline the topics for further talks that would, it is hoped, lead to a permanent peace deal. 60 days would be allotted for those talks, which would include Iran’s nuclear program, a proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, a permanent system for managing the Strait, the lifting of sanctions, and the release of frozen Iranian assets.
Trump unintentionally confirmed much of the rumored content and limitations of the MOU:
“Iran must agree that they will never have a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb. The Hormuz Strait must be immediately open, no tolls, for unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions. All water mines (bombs), if any, will be terminated (we have removed, through detonation, numerous such mines with our great underwater mine sweepers. Iran will complete the immediate removal and/or detonation of any mines that are left, which will not be many!). … The enriched material, sometimes referred to as “Nuclear Dust,” … will be unearthed by the United States (which, it is agreed, is the only Country, along with China, with the mechanical capability of doing so!), in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED. No money will be exchanged, until further notice.”
Though the language is Trumpian, there is much to read into this message, both in its contents and its omissions.
Trump’s demand about destroying the so-called “nuclear dust” leaves open the option of Iran diluting its highly enriched uranium and agreeing to IAEA inspections going forward. That’s an Iranian proposal, which Trump is trying to own. Doubtless, Iran would be fine with him making that claim for his own political purposes.
Dilution, however, would not be good enough for Israel or its allies in Washington. Nor are they going to be happy about Trump even mentioning money. His declaration that no money will change hands “until further notice” implies that there will, eventually, be such “further notice” if the process of the MOU is followed.
It is worth noting that nowhere in any of the talk of either the immediate terms of the MOU or the framework for negotiations going forward that it would imply is there any mention at all of Iran’s missile and drone programs or its support of regional allies, which are often termed “proxies” by the media.
A disaster for Netanyahu and Iran hawks
Israeli reporter Ben Caspit, citing a “senior Israeli political source,” reports that Benjamin Netanyahu faces a political disaster if Trump ends the war.
“This time, the prime minister’s hands are tied. He is completely paralyzed and knows that he will not be able to do anything, even if the agreement signed between the United States and Iran remains the disaster he now defines it as,” an anonymous Netanyahu associate told Caspit.
That same insider also said that Netanyahu now longs for the days of Joe Biden. It is a classic case of being careful what you wish for……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The next president, whomever that might be, will have the same opportunity. The terms for a permanent agreement with Iran will be clear: a workable agreement on the Strait, IAEA inspections ensuring Iran doesn’t develop a nuclear weapon, and a path forward that includes a resuscitation of the Iranian economy, and regional agreements to ensure the security of the Gulf states, including Iran.
In other words, the JCPOA, in all the dimensions Obama envisioned. All we need to get there is the same resolute determination to do the sensible thing that Obama showed when he too froze Israel out of the process so he could do something wise. https://mondoweiss.net/2026/05/will-trump-sideline-israel-is-order-to-make-a-deal-with-iran/
Polish politician urges EU veto on Ukraine accession after Zelenskyy’s UPA move
by Daria Dmytriieva. 3 June 26, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/polish-politician-urges-eu-veto-on-ukraine-accession-after-zelenskyys-upa-move/ar-AA24E3wR?ocid=BingNewsSerp
What move by Zelenskyy sparked backlash in Poland?
Calls are growing in Poland to block Ukraine’s accession to the European Union over a decision by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy regarding the UPA, Krzysztof Bosak, leader of the far-right Confederation party, stated.
According to Bosak, Poland should officially announce that it will block Ukraine’s accession to the EU until Kyiv abandons what Warsaw views as the cult of historical figures considered criminals in Poland. He said the key condition for resuming Ukraine’s European integration process is the full restoration of exhumations of all victims of the Volhynia tragedy.
The politician’s reaction came after Zelenskyy decided to grant the name “Heroes of the UPA” (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) to the Separate Special Operations Center “North” of Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces.
Bosak stressed that Warsaw must move from words to concrete and tougher measures in order to exert real pressure on Kyiv, arguing that Ukraine allegedly views the current position of Polish politicians as weak.
Among additional measures, the far-right leader proposed that the Polish government stop paying for Starlink terminals used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. He also called for ending joint borrowing schemes with other EU member states to finance assistance for Ukraine.
According to Bosak, the situation in which countries go into debt to provide non-repayable aid to another state while assuming responsibility for repaying those loans is unprecedented in the history of international finance.
As a reminder, on May 26, Zelenskyy signed a decree granting the Separate Special Operations Center “North” the honorary title “named after the Heroes of the UPA.” The decision was made in recognition of the exemplary performance of combat missions by its personnel.
Reacting to the move, Polish President Karol Nawrocki said he would consider stripping Zelenskyy of Poland’s highest state award.
Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry stressed that Kyiv had no intention of offending the Polish people. The ministry emphasized that, for Ukraine, the UPA symbolizes resistance against Moscow’s imperial policies and occupation.
Congress quietly moves to integrate US and Israeli militaries
In the first step towards shifting aid further into the shadows, the House’s 2027 NDAA would all but fuse the two countries’ armed forces together
Ben Freeman, Responsible Statecraft, Fri, 29 May 2026, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-us-military/
At a time when the American public is expressing unprecedented levels of distrust in the Israeli government, Congress just proposed tying the U.S. to the Israeli military more than ever before.
Buried in the House’s version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) released on Tuesday, is section 224, entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” The provision would arguably do more to intertwine the U.S. military with the Israeli military than the more than $200 billion (inflation adjusted) in military assistance Israel has received from the U.S. since its founding in 1948.
Section 224 lays the groundwork for bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of U.S.-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation. The U.S. and Israel already work together heavily on missile defense, but this provision would greatly expand coordination to seemingly every area of defense tech, including AI, quantum, autonomous systems, directed energy, cyber, biotech, and many more. It also proposes “network integration” and “data fusion.” In other words, the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.
If fully enacted, this proposal would provide a higher level of military-industrial integration than the U.S. has with any other country in the world. To be sure, the U.S. has worked closely with its NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains, most notably via the Defence Production Action Plan. And, as the number one arms dealer in the world, the U.S. provides weapons to militaries across the globe. But that is mostly a one-way street, with the U.S. providing weapons to foreign buyers who only occasionally make parts for those weapons themselves, as in the case of the F-35’s global supply chain.
Section 224 would be a different beast entirely. It would fuse the U.S. and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas vital to the battlefields of the future, like autonomous systems and cyber. It would also bring extraordinary Israeli influence to the U.S. beyond what it already has through the Israel lobby and its robust network of social media influencers. It would give the Israeli government the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in U.S. politics: jobs in the U.S. By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on U.S. soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs lie.
The result could well be a U.S. political system even more susceptible to the whims of an Israeli government that seemingly has no qualms about drawing the U.S. into military conflicts in the Middle East.
This unprecedented level of U.S.-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of U.S. military assistance. As laid out in a recent Quincy Institute brief, authored by Steven Simon, this shift from an aid model to a military integration model has troubling implications, namely:
The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously deeper and less transparent.
This all comes at a time when the Israeli military has repeatedly used U.S. weapons in strikes that have violated international humanitarian laws in Gaza, and as Israel has repeatedly violated ceasefires (as has the U.S. itself) in the Trump administration’s unnecessary war with Iran.
The enormous gulf between what most Americans want and what the president is doing when it comes to Israel and what Congress is proposing here should not be ignored. Just 30% of respondents to a New York Times/Sienna poll from mid-May believe Trump made “the right decision” to go to war with Iran, with 64% saying it was wrong. An Institute for Global Affairs poll released earlier this week dove even deeper into the American psyche when it comes to arming Israel, finding that “Just 16 percent say the United States should keep supplying Israel with weapons without new restrictions. Thirty-eight percent want to stop supplying weapons entirely, and another 24 percent want weapons conditioned on how they’re used.”
Yet, mainstream leadership in both parties remains largely pro-Israel and continues to shape the base legislative text before amendments and broader congressional debate open it to the full body, as is the case with this NDAA provision.
Though slowly, tides within both parties are shifting as more and more members speak out against the growing divide between Israel’s actions and America’s interests. For example, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday that, “The Democratic Party has provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American interests and values.” On the Republican side of the aisle, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) have openly decried the Israel lobby’s corrosive influence — a stance that may have, at least partially, cost both of them their seats in Congress.
What can other members of Congress who are concerned about Israel’s destabilizing actions do right now? Stop the Israeli-U.S. military-industrial merger in its tracks. Lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel’s military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in the region.
Netanyahu directs army to occupy 70 percent of Gaza
When asked about taking 100 percent of Gaza, the Israeli prime minister said, ‘First 70 percent. We’ll start with that’
News Desk, MAY 28, 2026, https://thecradle.co/articles/netanyahu-calls-for-army-to-occupy-70-percent-of-gaza
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he has given directives for the Israeli military to take control of 70 percent of the Gaza Strip, Israel’s Channel 12 reported on 28 May.
“At this point, we are fully in control of 60 percent of the territory of the Gaza Strip … and my directive is to get to … 70 percent,” Netanyahu said in Hebrew during a conference held by the Ein Prat Leadership Academy.
During the speech, one audience member shouted that Israel should take “100 percent” of Gaza. Netanyahu responded, saying that “We’re going in order,” suggesting this was the long-term goal of his government.
“First 70 percent,” he says, “we’ll start with that.”
Last week, Netanyahu publicly acknowledged reports that the Israeli military currently occupies 60 percent of the territory in the strip, significantly more than the 53 percent allowed under the terms of last September’s ceasefire with Hamas.
Ministers in Netanyahu’s government say they want to completely occupy Gaza and expel its nearly 2 million Palestinian inhabitants to make way for Jewish settlement of the strip.
Jewish settler leader and Israeli minister Orit Strock called the months after the Hamas attack of 7 October a “time of miracles,” because it gave Israel the pretext to conquer the strip.
Shortly after 7 October, Netanyahu called for committing genocide against Palestinians, comparing them to the Amalekite people, who were exterminated, including women and children, by the ancient Israelites according to the account in the Book of Samuel in the Jewish holy book, the Torah.
Israel has killed over 72,000 Palestinians, the majority women and children, since the start of the war over two years ago. Thousands more are missing and presumed lost under the rubble.
According to satellite imagery analysis, approximately 81 percent of all structures in the Gaza Strip have been damaged due to Israeli bombing as of October last year.
As a result, nearly 1.9 million Palestinians – about 90 percent of Gaza’s population – are internally displaced and homeless. Many live in tents or make-shift shelters. Conditions remain dire with severe shortages of food, medicine, and clean water and sanitation that will continue to cause indirect deaths long after the Israeli violence in Gaza ends.
In April, Reuters reported that rats and parasites are spreading through Gaza’s tent camps, “biting children’s fingers and toes as they sleep, gnawing through people’s few remaining treasured possessions, and spreading disease.”
The news agency spoke with Khalil Al-Mashharawi, who said that a rat bit the hand and toes of his 3-year-old son and that he himself was bitten.
“They strike in our sleep,” said Mashharawi, 26, who lives with his wife and children in the ruins of their house in Al-Tuffah neighborhood in northern Gaza.
“They may disappear for a day or two before they strike again, (forcing) their way under the tiles of the floor of the house.”
Bully Trump pivots from strong Iran to weak Oman – Walt Zlotow
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 29 May 26
Donald Trump is the classic schoolyard bully. Alas, instead of hurting, indeed terrorizing weaker school mates, he’s terrorizing the weaker on a global scale, both at home and abroad.
On the domestic front he’s demonizing the ‘other’ by abusing, sometimes killing decent, hardworking undocumented. He uses the Bully Pulpit, not in the rhetorical sense to uplift society promoting wise polices, but to dismantle most sensible domestic policies and institutions, and demonize anyone who crosses him. Nearly every critic of Trump within the Republican Party has been bullied from public office. Every Democrat is slimed as a terrible, horrible person. Classic bullying.
But it’s on the world stage where his bullying is relentlessly murderous. Over 60 bombings of imagined bad guys in Somalia without a hint of justification, much less even a mention. Swooping down into pitifully powerless Venezuela to snatch its president on trumped up charges, slaughtering hundreds in the process. Blowing up small, unarmed boats in the Caribbean then bragging his sick, murderous rampage saved a million US lives.
But on February 28th bully Trump met match. He attacked large, powerful Iran believing the lies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and own war cabinet that Iran would collapse within days once Netanyahu assassinated Iran’s ruler. A few days turned into 39 days of bombing before Trump realized that Iran was not only surviving but winning. How? By unleashing a massive missile barrage on every US Gulf States base, Gulf States oil infrastructure, Israel, and closing the Strait of Hormuz to a fifth of the world’s oil supply.
What to do? After 91 days of humiliating defeat, bully Trump turned his bullying on tiny Oman which shares the Strait of Hormuz with Iran. Oman will be Iran’s partner in controlling traffic thru the Strait which consists of Iran and Oman territorial waters.
When asked if he’d accept a short-term deal that involved Iran and Oman jointly controlling the Strait of Hormuz, bully Trump unloaded on Oman. “No, the Strait’s got to be opened to everybody. It’s international waters. Nobody’s going to control it. We’ll watch over it, but nobody’s going to control it. Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we’ll have to blow them up. They understand that they’ll be fine,
Sorry bully Trump. Knowing Trump can no longer ‘blow up’ anybody in the region after squandering much US firepower on his lost Iran war, Oman will stand up to bully Trump just like Strait partner Iran.
Now that bully Trump has been exposed as the powerless bully he is, it’s all over for him to strut the world stage like he owns it. He’s alienated friend and foe alike with his murderous bullying, duplicitous negotiating and utter lack of credibility.
Trump’s bullying served him well in both his business career and his takeover of the r Republican Party for two presidential terms. But Karma eventually comes to bullies who believe they can bully their way thru life. It’s going to take months, years, possibly a decade to undo the damage of Trump’s bullying at home and abroad. But as Bob Dylan sang long ago…”Even the President of the United States must sometimes have to stand naked.”
An Open Letter to Chancellor Friedrich Merz – for peace in Ukraine – Jeffrey Sachs.
Economist and diplomat Jeffrey Sachs is calling on German Chancellor Merz to begin immediate talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin about peace in Europe.
Jeffrey D. Sachs | May 27, 2026 | Berliner Zeitung
When I wrote an open letter to you a half year ago, I urged Germany to pursue diplomacy with Russia rather than the normalization of war. Six months later, the situation in Europe is dramatically worse. Europe and Russia are slipping into open war. And in that drift, Chancellor, your responsibility is singular. No European leader — not in Paris, not in Warsaw, not in Rome — holds the position that Germany holds, or has the power that you personally hold, to interrupt this catastrophe. Will you try for peace?
You yourself, with Prime Minister Meloni and President Macron, called in January 2026 for Europe to restart relations with Russia and described Russia as „a European country.“ Yet you did not pursue diplomacy. With the future of Europe at stake, this is an extraordinary abdication of leadership. Have you, in your months as Chancellor, attempted one substantive dialogue with President Putin? Has your foreign minister attempted one substantive dialogue with Foreign Minister Lavrov? Real conversations, the kind that ended the Cold War. The answer, as far as the public record reveals, is no. Not once. And not for want of recognizing the urgency.
The past days have brought a dangerous acceleration that should focus every European mind. Both capitals are now under sustained attack: Ukrainian long-range drones have struck deep into Moscow, including civilian sites; Russian missile and drone strikes against Kyiv have greatly intensified. Ukrainian drones have crossed into the airspace of the Baltic states, raising the immediate prospect of an incident that could pull Europe directly into the war. A horrific Ukrainian strike on a boys’ school in Lugansk has further eroded what little remains of restraint. And on May 25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, acting on instructions from President Putin, formally notified the United States Secretary of State that the Russian Armed Forces are now launching „systematic and sustained strikes“ on facilities and decision-making centers in Kyiv, and the Russian Foreign Ministry has advised that the United States and other countries „ensure the evacuation of their diplomatic personnel and other citizens from the capital of Ukraine.“ That message is the prologue to a major escalation. Diplomacy is more urgent than ever.
The way to defend Ukraine is not continued slaughter, but peace on terms that are agreeable to all parties. Instead, we face escalation, with more deaths, more destruction, and the real prospect of a war that expands beyond Ukraine. By calling for ever more weapons, ever greater war-fighting capacity, and ever louder demonstrations of „resolve,“ and by signaling that Germany is preparing for war rather than working to end it, you have allowed Berlin to become an accelerant rather than a brake to a European-wide war.
Germany’s Responsibility: Six Particulars
Germany bears profound responsibility for the situation it now confronts. Before German policy can be reset toward peace, Germany’s record must be confronted honestly. I set out below six serious failures of German foreign policy vis-à-vis Russia since German reunification in 1990.
First — the 2+4 Treaty and NATO’s eastward expansion. On 12 September 1990, in Moscow, Germany signed the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany — the „2+4 Treaty“ — that completed German reunification. That treaty was secured because Mikhail Gorbachev was given solemn assurances, by Hans-Dietrich Genscher, by Helmut Kohl, by James Baker, and by other Western leaders, that NATO would not move eastward. The declassified record — including the now-public memoranda assembled by the National Security Archive of George Washington University — is unambiguous: those assurances were given and were clearly meant at the time to apply beyond the territory of the former GDR to Eastern Europe. These assurances were reaffirmed through 1990 and 1991.
The 2+4 Treaty restricts the placement of NATO troops in the former GDR, and recalls the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, which emphasizes that no nation’s security should come at the expense of another’s. Does any serious person believe that the Soviet Union cared about Western troops on the territory of the former GDR but was indifferent to NATO armies in Warsaw, Vilnius, or Kyiv? Of course not.
The matter of NATO enlargement was discussed in detail and explicit assurances of non-enlargement to the East were given by Germany to the Soviet leaders — and then were broken. Germany was the principal beneficiary of those assurances, which were the quid pro quo for Germany’s reunification. Yet as early as 1993, German leaders began to promote the violation of those assurances.
Second — Chancellor Merkel’s own testimony. In her memoirs, Angela Merkel writes with striking candor that she understood at the time of the 2008 Bucharest Summit that inviting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO would be tantamount to a declaration of war on Russia. She knew Russia’s red line. And yet she gave in to American pressure, accepting the compromise communiqué that Ukraine and Georgia „will become“ NATO members. That single sentence set in motion the catastrophes of 2014 and 2022. Merkel’s later candor is a gift to her successors: she has told you, plainly and in her own words, what was understood at the time. Germany should not now pretend otherwise.
Third — the betrayal of the February 21, 2014 agreement. On 21 February 2014, in Kyiv, Germany’s then–Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, together with his Polish and French counterparts, brokered an agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition. The agreement provided for a return to the 2004 constitution, the formation of a national-unity government, and early presidential elections. President Putin was consulted; the agreement was confirmed. It was a serious diplomatic achievement under conditions of intense violence. Yet within twenty-four hours Yanukovych was forcibly overthrown by a violent coup. Germany did not insist on the agreement it had just guaranteed. Instead, following the U.S. lead, Germany backed the new government, as if there had been no agreement in place. That decision persuaded Moscow that Western signatures could not be trusted.
Fourth — Minsk II. In February 2015, Chancellor Merkel personally negotiated Minsk II in the Normandy Format and pledged Germany’s political backing through the Declaration of Support adopted in Minsk on 12 February 2015. For seven years, the key political provision — autonomy for the Donbas regions within a sovereign Ukraine — was never implemented by Kyiv. Germany did not press Kyiv to implement the autonomy provision it had championed — and Merkel later acknowledged that the agreement had been used as a holding action to allow Ukraine to rearm. President Hollande said the same. The guarantee, in other words, was not a guarantee at all. It was a stratagem — once again at Washington’s behest. Once again, the message to Moscow was that Western signatures cannot be trusted
Fifth — Nord Stream. On 7 February 2022, in the East Room of the White House, President Biden announced — with then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz standing beside him — that „if Russia invades… then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.“ Asked how, he replied, „I promise you, we will be able to do that.“ The pipelines were destroyed seven months later in an act of sabotage in the Baltic Sea. The available evidence — investigative reporting in the United States and Germany, the trail followed by the German federal prosecutor, and the public statements of former officials — points overwhelmingly to a joint Ukrainian-American operation. The German government has long known this. And yet Germany has permitted the public blame to fall on Russia, against the direct evidence, while an act of industrial sabotage against the German economy has gone unprosecuted and unanswered.
Sixth — the April 2022 Istanbul agreement that was within reach. Just weeks after Russia’s invasion in February 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators converged in Istanbul on the terms of a peace agreement: Ukrainian neutrality outside NATO, multilateral security guarantees, agreed troop limits, and the political resolution of the Donbas and Crimea questions over time. The agreement was within days of signature. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, one of the mediators, has confirmed publicly that the deal was close and that the West — the United States and the United Kingdom in particular — moved to block it. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s mission to Kyiv in April 2022 to instruct Ukraine not to sign is a matter of public record. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives, and the wider European order, have paid the price for that US–UK intervention. Germany has not raised its voice on this — even though Germany, more than any other European state has borne the economic consequences.
The Second Catastrophe: Germany’s Economic Self-Destruction
Your first concern must be peace. Yesterday’s message from Moscow tells us how late the hour is. But there is a second catastrophe unfolding alongside the first: the willful destruction of the German economy, with Berlin as both author and victim.
Germany’s industrial economy was built on trade with Russia. The destruction of Nord Stream and the subsequent severance of Germany’s trade relations with Russia have left Germany buying natural gas from the United States at prices several times higher than the Russian pipeline gas it replaced. This is industrial suicide. Germany’s chemical sector, its steel sector, its glass industry, its energy-intensive manufacturers — the very foundations of the Mittelstand — are losing international competitiveness day by day. Skilled jobs are draining out of the German economy. And the German taxpayer and the German consumer are making a transfer of national wealth from Germany to American gas producers at a scale unprecedented in postwar Europe.
On top of this, the German government is now pledging an enormous defence build-up — hundreds of billions of euros over the coming decade — to arm for a war that diplomacy can easily prevent. This is a profound misallocation of national resources. The fundamental challenge facing Germany in this decade is competitiveness in the digital age. Every euro spent on tanks, missiles, and artillery shells is a euro not spent on Germany’s AI capacity, its chip-design and chip-fabrication capability, its energy infrastructure, and the high-speed digital networks that Germany needs to remain a top global economy.
The hard reality, Mr. Chancellor, is that there is no security to be bought with these arms that diplomacy cannot buy at a tiny fraction of the cost, and there is no prosperity to be had without the digital and energy investments that this arms buildup will crowd out.
My Appeal
Chancellor Merz, more than any other European leader, the question of whether Europe descends into general war, or returns to negotiation, and to economic sanity, rests with you. The hour is very late. Yesterday’s formal message from Moscow to Washington says so explicitly. Please open a dialogue with President Putin. Please send your foreign minister to Moscow or invite Russia’s Foreign Minister to Berlin. Please reopen the OSCE channels that Germany has allowed to atrophy. Please tell Kyiv to cease its strikes on civilian targets.
Most importantly, please tell the German public the truth: that a negotiated peace based on Ukrainian neutrality is the realistic path out of catastrophe, and that restoring a normal economic relationship with Russia is the realistic path out of Germany’s industrial decline.
The terms of an acceptable agreement that Germany could propose are clear. The fighting would stop on an armistice line. All sides would renounce any future resort to violence on the question of borders. Ukraine would restore its neutrality, and NATO would permanently renounce further eastward enlargement.
Europe and Russia would restore economic relations and would stop the warmongering. The OSCE would once again become the central forum for European security, with the fundamental precept that European security is indivisible, not based on military blocs dividing Europe. Alongside this peace, Germany would redirect its national resources toward the digital, AI, semiconductor, and energy investments that Germany’s economic future demands.
History will record what you do in the weeks ahead, and what you fail to do. So will the German public. So will the peoples of Russia, Ukraine, and Europe generally. It’s time for diplomacy, Mr. Chancellor. The choice is yours to make.
Respectfully,Jeffrey D. SachsUniversity Professor of Columbia University
https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/article/jeffrey-sachs-an-open-letter-to-chancellor-friedrich-merz-10038768
Can the Imperial Core Be Reformed? Chris Hedges and Aaron Maté on the Collapse of the Global Order
May 29, 2026 , Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/05/29/can-the-imperial-core-be-reformed-chris-hedges-and-aaron-mate-on-the-collapse-of-the-global-order/
At the Vancouver Web Summit, Chris Hedges and Aaron Maté examine Gaza, the erosion of international law, AI-powered warfare, media censorship, and whether meaningful reform is still possible inside a system they argue is designed to preserve empire.
For decades, Western leaders have championed a so-called “rules-based international order,” presenting international law, human rights, and democratic institutions as the foundation of global stability. But what happens when the very powers that claim to defend those principles openly violate them?
In a wide-ranging conversation at the Vancouver Web Summit, journalist Chris Hedges and investigative reporter Aaron Maté argue that the war in Gaza has exposed a crisis far deeper than a single conflict. From the collapse of international legal norms and the weaponization of global institutions to the rise of AI-driven warfare and expanding censorship across the West, both contend that the legitimacy of the post-World War II order is rapidly unraveling.
The discussion moves beyond foreign policy to examine the consequences at home: shrinking democratic space, growing surveillance, media consolidation, and the increasing influence of tech billionaires over public life. While Maté points to remaining pockets of institutional accountability, Hedges argues that meaningful change will not come from political elites or established parties, but from organized popular movements capable of challenging concentrated power.
At its core, the conversation asks a question that increasingly defines our political moment: Can the imperial center be reformed, or has the system become so corrupted that only mass resistance can alter its course?
The Empire Has No Clothes: Chris Hedges and Aaron Maté on the Collapse of the Rules-Based Order
For decades, Western leaders sold the world a comforting fiction.
International law mattered. Human rights mattered. Democracy mattered. The United States and its allies, whatever their flaws, were supposedly the guardians of a rules-based international order.
According to Chris Hedges and Aaron Maté, that illusion is now impossible to maintain.
Speaking at the Vancouver Web Summit, the two journalists argued that the war in Gaza has done more than devastate a population. It has exposed the moral and institutional bankruptcy of the very system that claims to govern the world.
“The genocide in Gaza has obliterated any pretense of international law,” Hedges said.
The significance of Gaza, they argued, extends far beyond Palestine. What the world is witnessing is the public collapse of institutions that once claimed to provide accountability, restraint and justice. The crime itself is horrific enough. But equally revealing is the response: governments supplying weapons, blocking censure, shielding allies from consequences and demanding that the public look away.
For much of the Global South, this reality is hardly new. What is different, Hedges argued, is that the mask has finally slipped for audiences in the West.
The Death of the Rules-Based Order
Throughout the discussion, both journalists returned to a central theme: institutions are only as strong as the political will behind them.
The United Nations, international courts, humanitarian law and global watchdog organizations were all designed to constrain power. Yet again and again, powerful states have demonstrated that those constraints apply only to weaker nations.
Maté pointed to what he described as the growing willingness of international institutions themselves to accommodate power rather than challenge it. Long-standing principles and resolutions can be discarded overnight when geopolitical interests demand it.
What emerges is not a world governed by law but by hierarchy.
The powerful write the rules.
The rest are expected to obey them.
AI and the Machinery of Modern Empire
One of the most chilling moments of the conversation focused on artificial intelligence.
While Silicon Valley markets AI as a tool of progress, Hedges and Maté warned that it is increasingly becoming a tool of surveillance, censorship and warfare.
Hedges described a future in which technology giants function as partners in a rapidly expanding surveillance state. He argued that algorithms are already helping select military targets and enabling forms of social control that previous authoritarian systems could only dream about.
Maté raised the disturbing possibility that automated systems are already playing direct roles in lethal decision-making, with devastating consequences when flawed intelligence becomes automated violence.
The issue, they argued, is not the technology itself.
The issue is who owns it.
Who controls it.
And whose interests it serves.
As wealth and technological power become concentrated in fewer hands, democratic oversight becomes increasingly irrelevant.
The people building the future are not elected.
Yet they wield powers once reserved for governments.
Manufacturing Ignorance
If the empire’s first weapon is force, its second is amnesia.
Both journalists argued that one reason the public remains disconnected from the consequences of Western power is because information itself is increasingly controlled.
The conversation touched on censorship, algorithmic suppression and the shrinking space for dissenting voices. Images that challenge official narratives are hidden, marginalized or removed. Journalists who challenge prevailing orthodoxies often find themselves isolated or punished.
What is striking, they argued, is how openly this process now occurs.
No elaborate conspiracy is required.
The institutions often announce exactly what they are doing.
The public is simply expected to accept it.
The result is a society where citizens are encouraged to consume endless information while remaining disconnected from the realities that information might reveal.
Why Independent Journalism Matters
Both men argued that this crisis has created an opening for independent media.
As trust in corporate outlets declines, audiences increasingly turn toward journalists willing to challenge official narratives and ask uncomfortable questions.
Yet they also acknowledged the dangers.
Independent media is not immune to the pressures of capitalism. Clickbait, outrage farming and audience capture can corrupt alternative media just as thoroughly as corporate ownership corrupts mainstream outlets.
The challenge, Hedges argued, is maintaining integrity in a media environment increasingly driven by algorithms and attention metrics.
Journalism is supposed to tell the truth.
Not maximize engagement.
Not serve power.
Not protect careers.
Tell the truth.
That simple principle has become radical.
Can the System Be Reformed?
The sharpest disagreement—or perhaps difference in emphasis—came when the discussion turned toward solutions.
Maté expressed hope that some institutions remain worth saving. He pointed to international legal actions and pockets of accountability as evidence that reform remains possible.
Hedges was far less optimistic.
“The system’s not reformable,” he said.
His argument was blunt. Democratic institutions have been hollowed out. Political parties no longer function as genuine vehicles of popular power. Economic elites dominate both politics and media. Elections alone cannot reverse the trajectory.
If change is to come, he argued, it will come from organized mass movements capable of disrupting the normal functioning of power.
History, he noted, offers the same lesson repeatedly.
Workers won rights because they organized.
Civil rights were won because people mobilized.
Democracy expanded because ordinary people forced it to expand.
Nothing was given voluntarily.institutions remain worth saving. He pointed to international legal actions and pockets of accountability as evidence that reform remains possible.
Hedges was far less optimistic.
“The system’s not reformable,” he said.
His argument was blunt. Democratic institutions have been hollowed out. Political parties no longer function as genuine vehicles of popular power. Economic elites dominate both politics and media. Elections alone cannot reverse the trajectory.
If change is to come, he argued, it will come from organized mass movements capable of disrupting the normal functioning of power.
History, he noted, offers the same lesson repeatedly.
Workers won rights because they organized.
Civil rights were won because people mobilized.
Democracy expanded because ordinary people forced it to expand.
Nothing was given voluntarily.
The Empire Has Been Revealed
The conversation ultimately returned to a simple but devastating observation.
What many people once dismissed as isolated failures increasingly appears systemic.
Wars without accountability.
Technology without oversight.
Media without independence.
Democracy without meaningful participation.
Whether one agrees with every argument presented by Hedges and Maté, the question they raise is impossible to ignore.
If the institutions designed to restrain power consistently serve power instead, what exactly are they preserving?
The answer may explain why so many people around the world no longer see a rules-based order.
They see an empire.
And empires, history suggests, rarely reform themselves.
Time for US to deescalate confrontation with China over Taiwan.
On October 25, 1971, the UN ended the 2 China policy, voting to expel Taiwan, claiming to be the Republic of China, and replacing it with the mainland Peoples Republic of China. Just a year later Nixon’s thaw with mainland China cemented US recognition of the mainland One China policy and de-emphasized supporting the Chiang government on Taiwan.
China’s relationship with Taiwan is essentially none of our business. Yet we continue to risk war 8,000 miles from the Homeland on China’s doorstep by provoking confrontation with China with massive arming of Taiwan’s military.
Current US government and media narrative erases the last 6,000 years of China, Taiwan history to create a new cause célèbre for US military adventurism, America’s No 1 business industry. Without historical context, the US electorate remains clueless of reckless US policy deemed necessary to US national security interests: defending freedom over authoritarianism on the other side of the world.
A review of the long, tortured China, Taiwan history refutes that narrative. Chinese from Southwest China settled Taiwan over 6000 years ago. Beginning in 1624, the Dutch and Spanish moved in to exploit Taiwan’s resources, as Europeans were want to do worldwide. But the Chinese kicked them out by 1683, ruling Taiwan for 212 years till Japan gobbled up Taiwan after in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895.
For the next 50 years Japan used Taiwan (Formosa at the time) as a land based aircraft carrier for their pan Asian adventurism. But at the Cairo Conference in 1943, the Allies declared a major war aim was full return of Formosa to China. This occurred by a UN mandate upon Japan’s surrender in 1945.
With Japan defeated in China, Mao’s communists resumed their civil war to overturn the corrupt, unpopular nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek. In 1949, Mao prevailed. Chiang fled with about 2 million of his die hard supporters to Formosa, setting up their own version of the Republic of China renamed Taiwan.
The US looked at the 538 million Chinese living under communism on the mainland, the 2 million on Taiwan living under Chiang’s authoritarianism, and said ‘Nope, we’ll recognize Chiang on tiny Taiwan as the legitimate Chinese government till he can kick out the dreaded commies.’ They even gave Chiang the military assistance to prevent any unification with China which was inevitable without that support. Is it any wonder the people and government of China would embark on eventual reunification, whether taking years, decades, even a century?
On October 25, 1971, the UN ended the 2 China policy, voting to expel Taiwan, claiming to be the Republic of China, and replacing it with the mainland Peoples Republic of China. Just a year later Nixon’s thaw with mainland China cemented US recognition of the mainland One China policy and de-emphasized supporting the Chiang government on Taiwan.
Without abandoning Taiwan completely, the US embarked on 5 decades of ‘strategic ambiguity’ which kept tensions with China over Taiwan’s status on the back burner of US China diplomacy. That changed when President Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ in his second term moved pro Taiwan policy to the front burner. His successors Trump, Biden and Trump again have so turned up the heat, that war with China over its long term plan for eventual absorption of Taiwan into Chinese sovereignty, remains a possibility.
From Strategic Ambiguity we’ve degenerated into reckless trips to Taiwan by US officials and congresspersons and proposed legislation giving the President a blank check to intervene militarily with China should they embark on any, albeit unlikely, military move at reunification. The US keeps advancing multibillion dollar weapons tranches that do nothing for Taiwan’s defense; indeed, provoke Chinese military maneuvers near Taiwan, raising the possibility of US China confrontation.
At his recent summit with Chinese President Xi, Trump got schooled by Xi who told Trump that if Trump doesn’t pull back from arming Taiwan it could lead to “clashes and conflicts” between the two superpowers. Trump might be getting the message. He had his Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao tell Congress that the US was “doing a pause” on a $14 billion Taiwan weapons package to ensure the US has enough weapons to finish off the Iranian regime in so far failed Operation Epic Fury. Facing the biggest military failure in US history, Trump would be wise to put belligerence with China over Taiwan back on the back burner.
Ignoring the 6,000 year long interwoven China, Taiwan history prevents sensible, peace promoting US diplomacy. America made the wrong decision on the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and has chosen to govern in ignorance for the past 77 years. On this issue, ignorance is not bliss. It may mean war.
Trump’s Retaliatory Withdrawal: America Punishes Europe for Refusing to Join Its War with Iran
Adrian Korczyński, May 24, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/05/24/trumps-retaliatory-withdrawal-america-punishes-europe-for-refusing-to-join-its-war-with-iran/
In the first days of May 2026, the Pentagon announced the withdrawal of approximately 5,000 American troops from Germany over the next six to twelve months — with explicit threats of further cuts directed at Italy and Spain.
President Donald Trump stated the reason with characteristic bluntness: these countries had failed to provide meaningful support during the joint U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.
This is not a strategic recalibration. It is a punitive act by a declining hegemon that launched a dangerous conflict, triggered a global energy shock, and is now lashing out at Europe for refusing to bleed alongside it.
U.S.-Israeli War Triggers Energy Shock
The conflict with Iran, launched jointly by the United States and Israel, has severely disrupted global oil supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. Crude oil prices have surged, driving up the cost of gasoline, diesel, and all forms of transportation fuel. Logistics costs have skyrocketed, inflation is accelerating, and entire industries dependent on cheap transport and energy are slowing down. The ripple effects are hitting every sector of the European economy.
Europe — far more dependent on imported hydrocarbons than the United States — has been hit hardest by this self-inflicted crisis. Yet when Washington and Tel Aviv demanded active European participation in their war, most European capitals offered only minimal or symbolic help.
Trump’s response was simple and crude: you didn’t help us enough, so we’re pulling our troops out.
This is the classic behaviour of a fading empire: drag others into your reckless adventures, force them to bear the economic consequences, and then punish them when they refuse to pay the full price in blood and treasure.
Europe’s Angry Backlash
The announcement triggered sharp reactions across the continent. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who had publicly stated that the United States was being “humiliated” by Iranian leadership and lacked any coherent exit strategy, tried to downplay any direct link between his remarks and the troop withdrawal — but the timing was unmistakable. Washington had made its point.
In Spain, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez faced renewed pressure after refusing to allow U.S. military planes to use Spanish bases for Iran-related operations. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, long cultivated as one of Trump’s closest European allies, also found herself in the crosshairs. Trump singled both countries out by name, saying he would “probably” reduce troop presence there too.
What makes the decision particularly revealing is that even within the United States, Republican lawmakers expressed alarm. The withdrawal has not been universally welcomed in Washington — which tells you everything about how impulsive and transactional this decision actually is.
The message from the White House was unmistakable: loyalty is no longer a relationship. It is a service to be paid for on demand.
Poland’s Eager Servility
While much of Europe reacted with concern or restrained anger, Polish President Karol Nawrocki once again demonstrated the depth of his country’s strategic dependence. Instead of reading Trump’s withdrawal as a warning signal about the nature of American commitments, he immediately volunteered to absorb the displaced forces.
“If President Donald Trump decides to reduce the American military presence in Germany, then we in Poland are ready to receive American soldiers. We have the necessary infrastructure,” Nawrocki declared.
This is not strategic wisdom. This is the behaviour of a client state. While Germany, Italy, and Spain push back — imperfectly, inconsistently, but at least instinctively — Warsaw rushes to fill the gap left by countries that finally said no.
Poland is not strengthening its security. It is deepening its exposure — on behalf of a partner that has just demonstrated it will withdraw forces the moment European governments exercise independent judgment.
The Unravelling of American Hegemony in Europe
Even after this withdrawal, more than 30,000 American troops will remain stationed in Germany alone. The point is not that American power has collapsed overnight. It is that the terms of that power are changing — openly, transactionally, and with diminishing pretence of shared values or mutual obligation.
What we are witnessing is the visible erosion of the post-1945 European security model. An arrangement that was never genuinely about partnership — only about power, dependence, and the management of European compliance.
The withdrawals are only the beginning. The real question is how long it will take for European elites to acknowledge that the old order was never built on solidarity. It was built on hierarchy, and hierarchy that no longer finds Europe sufficiently useful is beginning to look elsewhere.
The age of automatic American commitment to European security is ending. Not with a dramatic rupture but with punitive withdrawals, transactional threats, and the slow realisation that decades of unconditional loyalty purchased nothing permanent.
Bucharest appears to have understood. Rome and Madrid are beginning to understand. Berlin understood reluctantly — and Warsaw still volunteers for more.
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (247)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
