nuclear-news

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

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov warns that a third world war would be nuclear

Russia’s Lavrov: A third world war would be nuclear, destructive

Moscow put its strategic nuclear forces on alert last week amid the war in Ukraine, causing ripples across the globe. Aljazeera, 2 Mar 22,

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that if a third world war were to occur, it would involve nuclear weapons and be destructive, according to Russian media.

The comments reported by the RIA news agency on Wednesday came a day after he told a Geneva disarmament meeting via video link that neighbouring Ukraine, which Russian invaded last week, had been seeking nuclear weapons.

He did not provide evidence other than saying “Ukraine still has Soviet nuclear technologies and the means of delivery of such weapons.”

Lavrov has also said that Russia would have faced a “real danger” if Ukraine acquired nuclear weapons.

Nuclear forces on high alert

Russian forces attacked Ukraine by land, air and sea, the biggest attack by one state against another in Europe since World War II.

The move has been countered by the West with harsh economic sanctions on Russia as well as deliveries of arms and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

The US government on Tuesday announced a ban on Russian flights in its airspace, following similar moves by the European Union and Canada.

On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin put his strategic nuclear forces on alert, causing ripples across the globe and raising the threat the tensions could lead to the use of nuclear weapons.   ………….. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/2/russias-lavrov-says-a-ww-iii-would-be-nuclear-and-destructive 

March 3, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Noam Chomsky: US Military Escalation Against Russia Would Have No Victors. 

‘‘ In brief, the crisis has been brewing for 25 years as the U.S. contemptuously rejected Russian security concerns, in particular their clear red lines: Georgia and especially Ukraine.”

”……..  repeatedly the reaction to real or imagined crisis has been to reach for the six-gun rather than the olive branch. It’s almost a reflex, and the consequences have generally been awful ………….”

”The options that remain after the invasion are grim. The least bad is support for the diplomatic options that still exist,……….. with an escape hatch for Putin, or outcomes will be still more dire for Ukraine and everyone else, perhaps almost unimaginably so.”‘

Interview with Noam Chomsky, C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout,  1 March 22, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine took much of the world by surprise. It is an unprovoked and unjustified attack that will go down in history as one of the major war crimes of the 21st century, argues Noam Chomsky in the exclusive interview for Truthout that follows.

Political considerations, such as those cited by Russian President Vladimir Putin, cannot be used as arguments to justify the launching of an invasion against a sovereign nation. In the face of this horrific invasion, though, the U.S. must choose urgent diplomacy over military escalation, as the latter could constitute a “death warrant for the species, with no victors,” Chomsky says……………

Q. …………Why do you think he decided to launch an invasion at this point in time?

CHOMSKY. ” …………..  It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation.

Turning now to the question, there are plenty of supremely confident outpourings about Putin’s mind. The usual story is that he is caught up in paranoid fantasies, acting alone, surrounded by groveling courtiers of the kind familiar here in what’s left of the Republican Party traipsing to Mar-a-Lago for the Leader’s blessing.

The flood of invective might be accurate, but perhaps other possibilities might be considered. Perhaps Putin meant what he and his associates have been saying loud and clear for years. It might be, for example, that, “Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.”

 The author of these words is former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, one of the few serious Russia specialists in the U.S. diplomatic corps, writing shortly before the invasion. He goes on to conclude that the crisis “can be easily resolved by the application of common sense…. By any common-sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict.   To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence — the avowed aim of those who agitated for the ‘color revolutions’ — was a fool’s errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis?”

Matlock is hardly alone. Much the same conclusions about the underlying issues are reached in the memoirs of CIA head William Burns, another of the few authentic Russia specialists……………..

The fact is, to be honest, that we do not know why the decision was made, even whether it was made by Putin alone or by the Russian Security Council in which he plays the leading role. There are, however, some things we do know with fair confidence, including the record reviewed in some detail by those just cited, who have been in high places on the inside of the planning system. In brief, the crisis has been brewing for 25 years as the U.S. contemptuously rejected Russian security concerns, in particular their clear red lines: Georgia and especially Ukraine.

There is good reason to believe that this tragedy could have been avoided, until the last minute. We’ve discussed it before, repeatedly. As to why Putin launched the criminal aggression right now, we can speculate as we like. But the immediate background is not obscure — evaded but not contested

……….    If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful.

……..  The question cuts deep. There is no time to review this critically important matter here, but repeatedly the reaction to real or imagined crisis has been to reach for the six-gun rather than the olive branch. It’s almost a reflex, and the consequences have generally been awful — for the traditional victims. ………….

The options that remain after the invasion are grim. The least bad is support for the diplomatic options that still exist, in the hope of reaching an outcome not too far from what was very likely achievable a few days ago: Austrian-style neutralization of Ukraine, some version of Minsk II federalism within. Much harder to reach now. And — necessarily — with an escape hatch for Putin, or outcomes will be still more dire for Ukraine and everyone else, perhaps almost unimaginably so.

Q.  …………….. Can you comment on Putin’s legal justifications for the invasion of Ukraine and on the status of international law in the post-Cold War era?

CHOMSKY.  There is nothing to say about Putin’s attempt to offer legal justification for his aggression. Its merit is zero……………………………………

Do you think the invasion will initiate a new era of sustained contestation between Russia (and possibly in alliance with China) and the West?

It’s hard to tell where the ashes will fall — and that might turn out not to be a metaphor. So far, China is playing it cool……………………………   https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a353e8c0-2709-4024-84ba-04836fea0cbf

March 2, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A fatal disconnect? the different narratives of Russia and the West on the Ukraine crisis

Putin’s Nuclear Threat.  https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/27/putins-nuclear-threat/ The disconnect between the Western and Russian narratives in the current conflict could prove fatal to the world, writes Scott Ritter.

Vladimir Putin is a madman. He’s lost it. At least that is what the leaders of the West would like you to believe. According to their narrative, Putin — isolated, alone, confused, and angry at the unfolding military disaster Russia was undergoing in Ukraine — lashed out, ostensibly threatening the entire world with nuclear annihilation.

In a meeting with his top generals on Sunday, the beleaguered Russian president announced, “I order the defense minister and the chief of the general staff of the Russian armed forces to put the deterrence forces of the Russian army into a special mode of combat service.”

The reason for this action, Putin noted, centered on the fact that, “Western countries aren’t only taking unfriendly actions against our country in the economic sphere, but top officials from leading NATO members made aggressive statements regarding our country” in relation to the ongoing situation in Ukraine.

The “deterrence forces” Putin spoke of refers to Russia’s nuclear arsenal.

What made the Russian president’s words resonate even more was that last Thursday, when announcing the commencement of Russia’s “special military operation” against Ukraine, Putin declared that “no one should have any doubts that a direct attack on our country will lead to the destruction and horrible consequences for any potential aggressor.” He emphasized that Russia is “one of the most potent nuclear powers and also has a certain edge in a range of state-of-the-art weapons.”

When Putin issued that threat, The Washington Post described it as “empty, a mere baring of fangs.” The Pentagon, involved as it was in its own review of U.S. nuclear posture designed to address threats such as this, seemed non-plussed, with an anonymous official noting that U.S. policy makers “don’t see an increased threat in that regard.”

NATO’s Response

For NATO’s part, the Trans-Atlantic military alliance, which sits at the heart of the current crisis, issued a statement in which it noted that:

“Russia’s actions pose a serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security, and they will have geo-strategic consequences. NATO will continue to take all necessary measures to ensure the security and defense of all Allies. We are deploying additional defensive land and air forces to the eastern part of the Alliance, as well as additional maritime assets. We have increased the readiness of our forces to respond to all contingencies.”



Hidden near the bottom of this statement, however, was a passage which, when examined closely, underpinned the reasoning behind Putin’s nuclear muscle-flexing. “[W]e have held consultations under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty,” the statement noted. “We have decided, in line with our defensive planning to protect all Allies, to take additional steps to further strengthen deterrence and defense across the Alliance.”

Under Article 4, members can bring any issue of concern, especially related to the security of a member country, to the table for discussion within the North Atlantic Council. NATO members Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland triggered the Article 4 consultation following the Russian incursion into Ukraine. In a statement issued on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expanded on the initial NATO statement, declaring that NATO was committed to protecting and defending all its allies, including Ukraine.

Three things about this statement stood out. First, by invoking Article IV, NATO was positioning itself for potential offensive military action; its previous military interventions against Serbia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2004, and Libya in 2011, were all done under Article IV of the NATO Charter. Seen in this light, the premise that NATO is an exclusively defensive organization, committed to the promise of collective self-defense, is baseless.

Second, while Article V (collective defense) protections only extend to actual NATO members, which Ukraine is not, Article IV allows the umbrella of NATO protection to be extended to those non-NATO members whom the alliance views as an ally, a category Stoltenberg clearly placed Ukraine in.

Finally, Stoltenberg’s anointing of Ukraine as a NATO ally came at the same time he announced the activation and deployment of NATO’s 40,000-strong Response Force, some of which would be deployed to NATO’s eastern flank, abutting Ukraine. The activation of the Response Force is unprecedented in the history of NATO, a fact that underscores the seriousness to which a nation like Russia might attach to the action.

When seen in this light, Putin’s comments last Thursday were measured, sane, and responsible.

What Happens if NATO Convoys or EU Jets Are Hit?

Since the Article IV consultations began, NATO members have begun to supply Ukraine with lethal military aid, with the promise of more in the days and weeks to come. These shipments can only gain access to Ukraine through a ground route that requires transshipment through NATO members, including Romania and Poland. It goes without saying that any vehicle carrying lethal military equipment into a war zone is a legitimate target under international law; this would apply in full to any NATO-affiliated shipment or delivery done by a NATO member on their own volition.

What happens when Russia begins to attack NATO/EU/US/Allied arms deliveries as they arrive on Ukrainian soil? Will NATO, acting under Article IV, create a buffer zone in Ukraine, using the never-before-mobilized Response Force? One naturally follows the other…

The scenario becomes even more dire if the EU acts on its pledge to provide Ukraine with aircraft and pilots to fight the Russians. How would these be deployed to Ukraine? What happens when Russia begins shooting down these aircraft as soon as they enter Ukrainian airspace? Does NATO now create a no-fly zone over western Ukraine?

What happens if a no-fly zone (which many officials in the West are promoting) is combined with the deployment of the Response Force to create a de facto NATO territory in western Ukraine? What if the Ukrainian government establishes itself in the city of Lvov, operating under the protection of this air and ground umbrella?

Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine

In June 2020, Russia released a new document, titled “On Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” that outlined the threats and circumstances that could lead to Russia’s use of nuclear weapons. While this document declared that Russia “considers nuclear weapons exclusively as a means of deterrence,” it outlined several scenarios in which Russia would resort to the use of nuclear weapons if deterrence failed.

While the Russian nuclear policy document did not call for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons during conventional conflicts, it did declare that “in the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”

In short, Russia might threaten to use nuclear weapons to deter “aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

In defining Russia’s national security concerns to both the U.S. and NATO last December, Putin was crystal clear about where he stood when it came to Ukrainian membership in NATO. In a pair of draft treaty documents, Russia demanded that NATO provide written guarantees that it would halt its expansion and assure Russia that neither Ukraine nor Georgia ever be offered membership into the alliance.

In a speech delivered after Russia’s demands were delivered, Putin declared that if the U.S. and its allies continue their “obviously aggressive stance,” Russia would take “appropriate retaliatory military-technical measures,” adding that it has “every right to do so.”

In short, Putin made it clear that, when it came to the issue of Ukrainian membership in NATO, the stationing of U.S. missiles in Poland and Romania and NATO deployments in Eastern Europe, Russia felt that its very existence was being threatened. 

The Disconnect

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, when seen from the perspective of Russia and its leadership, was the result of a lengthy encroachment by NATO on the legitimate national security interests of the Russian state and people. The West, however, has interpreted the military incursion as little more than the irrational action of an angry, isolated dictator desperately seeking relevance in a world slipping out of his control.

The disconnect between these two narratives could prove fatal to the world. By downplaying the threat Russia perceives, both from an expanding NATO and the provision of lethal military assistance to Ukraine while Russia is engaged in military operations it deems critical to its national security, the U.S. and NATO run the risk of failing to comprehend the deadly seriousness of Putin’s instructions to his military leaders regarding the elevation of the level of readiness on the part of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces.

Far from reflecting the irrational whim of a desperate man, Putin’s orders reflected the logical extension of a concerted Russian national security posture years in the making, where the geopolitical opposition to NATO expansion into Ukraine was married with strategic nuclear posture. Every statement Putin has made over the course of this crisis has been tied to this policy.

While the U.S. and NATO can debate the legitimacy of the Russian concerns, to dismiss the national security strategy of a nation that has been subjected to detailed bureaucratic vetting as nothing more than the temper tantrum of an out of touch autocrat represents a dangerous disregard of reality, the consequences of which could prove to be fatal to the U.S., NATO, and the world.

President Putin has often complained that the West does not listen to him when he speaks of issues Russia deems to be of critical importance to its national security.

The West is listening now. The question is, is it capable of comprehending the seriousness of the situation?

So far, the answer seems to be no.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

March 1, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international | Leave a comment

Mapping the unthinkable: inside the new nuclear war games

A final area of thought nuclear strategists are turning their attention to are what the American’s call “off-ramps” – concessions that can be offered which would allow Putin to back off while saving face.

”We can strengthen Ukraine’s hand in negotiations by making the consequences of a deal more attractive for Russia,”

Mapping the unthinkable: Inside the new nuclear war games

Not since the Cold War have the stakes been so high, as experts rush to understand Putin’s nuclear strategy and plot counter moves telegraph,  By Paul Nuki, GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY EDITOR, LONDON and Sarah Newey, GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, 28 February 2022 ”…………………….   Since the end of the Cold War, the number of nuclear weapons across the globe has dropped drastically, from a peak of around 70,300 in 1986, to roughly 12,700 in early-2022. But there are still more than enough. Russia and the US have by far the largest arsenals, with 5,600 and 6,200 weapons, respectively.

These weapons are much more powerful than those dropped on Japan. Just 50 modern bombs could kill 200 million people – or the combined populations of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany, it is estimated.

…………..   Western intelligence agencies are watching closely to see exactly what Putin’s order means in practice, but most have interpreted it as a shift to a general state of nuclear readiness. The US could match the Russian move and raise its own response to Defcon 3 – “known to moviegoers as that moment when the US Air Force rolls out bombers, and nuclear silos and submarines are put on high alert”, as The New York Times puts it – but has so far chosen not to.

Experts suggested there were two reasons that the US and other nuclear armed Nato nations, including the UK and France, are not following suit.

“The United States won’t want to alert because then it would certainly be a nuclear crisis,” said Dr Mount. “The dominant strategy is to do what we can to impose costs in the areas where Putin is weak rather than agreeing to compete where Putin is stronger.”
There is also, in practical terms, little to be gained as Nato is, as a matter of course, always ready to strike back…………

Underpinning the nuclear standoff which has existed between Nato and Russia for decades is the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). It saw us through the Cold War but experts caution it may not be as reliable today. And even in the Cold War there were mistakes that brought nuclear armageddon close.

In October 1962, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a Russian commander operating in a sweltering submarine with broken air-conditioning almost launched a tactical nuclear torpedo. The Soviet B-59 sub was under fire from US forces, who were dropping non-lethal depth charges. The officer was unaware the action was designed to make him surface, and instead interpreted the situation as the beginning of a third world war.

But launching the torpedo required the approval of all three senior officers on board and one – Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov – refused. He was honoured with the “Future of Life” award in 2017, almost two decades after his death, for averting a nuclear conflict.A simple mistake or misunderstanding remains one of the principal risks today – a risk that is increased because, over the past 30 years, nuclear drills have been practised less frequently and the technology has aged.

Another risk – one that threatens the deterrence provided by MAD – is the proliferation of smaller “battlefield” nuclear weapons.

“Russian nuclear forces can be divided into strategic (which can reach the US) and nonstrategic (which can’t),” said

James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He added that it is not yet clear whether Putin’s order would result in both being “alerted” or readied for action.Given that Nato’s systems for strategic retaliation are already in place (our Trident submarines are already at sea) it would be intelligence which suggests Putin is preparing tactical nukes that would cause most immediate concern…………….Sahil Shah, a policy fellow at the European Leadership Network who advises senior US and European decision makers on reducing strategic and nuclear risks, said that not everything rests on Putin. There are checks and balances in place in Russia, just as there are in the West.

Russia has inherited a two-person rule throughout the chain of nuclear command and control from the Soviet days,” he told the Telegraph. Three people have “nuclear footballs”, or codes needed to authorise the launch of weapons: the President, Minister of Defence and the Chief of the General Staff. It is thought that two of the three codes are needed to grant the military permission to deploy nuclear weapons.

“In effect, the Minister of Defence or possibly the Chief of the General Staff would need to validate the authorisation to use nuclear weapons for the Russian military to launch them,” Dr Shah said. “If that were to occur, the order would be passed to the Nuclear Strategic Forces Command and Control Centre, where two officers would need to simultaneously carry them out.”

A final area of thought nuclear strategists are turning their attention to are what the American’s call “off-ramps” – concessions that can be offered which would allow Putin to back off while saving face. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, President John Kennedy saved Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s blushes (to some extent) by agreeing to remove Nato missiles from Turkey in return for the Soviets dropping their attempts to arm Cuba.

“It’s difficult for the West to create a de-escalation pathway; much presumably depends on how Putin views the domestic consequences of his backing down – something over which the West has no control,” said  James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“But we can at least reduce the costs to his backing down by making it clear that the most punishing sanctions – central bank and Swift – will be lifted if the status quo ante is restored.

“I encourage others to think creatively now about other elements of a potential off-ramp for Russia. To be sure, it’s unsavoury to think about providing inducements to Putin for backing down while Ukrainians are being slaughtered.“However, Ukraine and Russia are now reportedly engaged in negotiations. We can strengthen Ukraine’s hand in negotiations by making the consequences of a deal more attractive for Russia,” he added. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/mapping-unthinkable-inside-new-nuclear-war-games/

March 1, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international | Leave a comment

Russia still part of Iran nuclear talks, US hopes for progress, White House says


Russia still part of Iran nuclear talks, US hopes for progress, White House says,   https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-still-part-iran-nuclear-talks-us-hopes-progress-white-house-says-2022-02-28/  WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) – Russians continue to be part of nuclear negotiations with Iran, and the Biden administration hopes to make progress in those talks, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday.

March 1, 2022 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Experts: Finnish nuclear project “directly supports Russian nuclear weapon production”

Experts: Finnish nuclear project “directly supports Russian nuclear weapon production”

Finland is planning to build a nuclear power plant, sourcing the reactor from Russia.  YLE NEWS, 22.2. 20,

Two professors told Yle that the Fennovoima nuclear power project, which is part-owned by Russian companies, entails big risks connected to the Russian nuclear industry.

The project is using a reactor from Russian state-owned firm Rosatom, which also produces Russia’s nuclear weapons.

“If we invest in Russian nuclear power in this current Fennovoima structure, then we directly support Russian nuclear weapon production and therefore also Vladimir Putin‘s geopolitical goals,” said Veli-Pekka Tynkkynen, a professor in Russian environmental policy.

The project was approved in 2014 with Rosatom holding a 35 percent stake. Other shareholders are mostly Finnish energy companies, with a Croatian firm apparently owned by two students owning a crucial shareholding.

Without that stake, the holding company would not have enough EU-based owners to meet security requirements.

The decision to grant a permit was controversial at the time, with the Green League leaving Prime Minister Alexander Stubb’s (NCP) government in protest.

Final building permits are due to be granted this year, with nuclear regulator STUK set to evaluate the project.

Professor of International Business Kari Liuhto said that the project looked too risky, in his view.  “The Fennovoima project will surely be on the government’s agenda during this year,” said Liuhto. “If Russia attacks Ukraine, in my opinion the project should be stopped.

Nuclear power increases reliance on Russia

Rosatom became the largest single shareholder in the project in 2014……………

Journalists from Yle’s MOT programme asked politicians including President Sauli Niinistö, Prime Minister Sanna Marin (SDP), and former Prime Ministers Antti Rinne (SDP), Alexander Stubb (NCP) and Juha Sipilä (Cen) for an interview on the topic, but all of the politicians declined to discuss it.

Fennovoima also refused to comment.  Journalists from Yle’s MOT programme asked politicians including President Sauli Niinistö, Prime Minister Sanna Marin (SDP), and former Prime Ministers Antti Rinne (SDP), Alexander Stubb (NCP) and Juha Sipilä (Cen) for an interview on the topic, but all of the politicians declined to discuss it.

Fennovoima also refused to comment.  https://yle.fi/news/3-12328641

March 1, 2022 Posted by | Finland, politics international | Leave a comment

Finland’s Russian-backed Fennovoima nuclear power station project now coming to a halt

Finland Signals Russian-Backed Nuclear Project Faces Halt  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/finland-signals-russian-backed-nuclear-project-faces-halt

Finnish minister says construction permit can’t proceed
Government faces legal predicament in shutting down project

By Kati Pohjanpalo, February 25, 2022,

Finland’s Economy Minister Mika Lintila signaled that the Russian-backed nuclear project Fennovoima Oy would not be granted a construction permit in the Nordic country.

“As the presenting minister, a permissioning authority of sorts, I do not see a scenario in which I could present that to the government,” Lintila said in parliament on Thursday following Russia’s attack on Ukraine. About a third of the greenfield Hanhikivi-1 atomic reactor project belongs to Rosatom Corp., the Russian government-owned plant supplier, and a  construction permit was expected this year.

The project underscores the Finnish government’s predicament as it seeks to prevent Russia from operating its critical infrastructure without angering the eastern neighbor with which it shares a 1,300-kilometer (800-mile) border. Finland also imports power and gets much of its oil and gas from Russia

Fennovoima had initially been given a green light by the parliament in 2010, when it was led by EON SE. The German utility withdrew from the project in 2012, and in 2013, Rosatom stepped in. Other owners include a plethora of Finnish energy and industrial companies.

In a further complication, the 1,200-megawatt plant’s pressure chamber looks to fall under the scope of sanctions against Russia, as it’s set to be manufactured in the Ukraine separatist region of Donetsk, Lintila said.

Prime Minister Sanna Marin had earlier indicated that the project’s security implications would face a review. Still, any decision to shut down the project would be against the law, Lintila told lawmakers.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the counter measures by European Union and western countries as a consequence, pose a major risk for the project,” Fennovoima said on its website on Thursday.

February 26, 2022 Posted by | Finland, politics international | Leave a comment

Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian forces to ‘maintain peace’ in eastern Ukraine’s two breakaway regions.

On Monday, local time, a Biden administration official said, however, the area was already controlled by Russian-backed separatists and Moscow, in practice, and that Mr Putin’s decision to send troops he called peacemakers into the breakaway regions of Ukraine did not as yet constitute a further invasion that would trigger a broader sanctions package.

“This isn’t a further invasion since it’s territory that they’ve already occupied,” the official said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian forces to ‘maintain peace’ in eastern Ukraine’s two breakaway regions.

President Vladimir Putin has ordered his Defence Ministry to dispatch Russian forces to “maintain peace” in eastern Ukraine’s two breakaway regions, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, after he said Moscow would recognise their independence.

Key points:

  • Vladimir Putin, joined by Russia-backed separatist leaders, signed a decree recognising the independence of the breakaway regions
  • In his address, Mr Putin delved into history as far back as the Ottoman empire and as recent as the tensions over NATO’s eastward expansion
  • French President Emmanuel Macron earlier said the US and Russian leaders had agreed in principle to hold a summit

The Kremlin decree, spelled out in an order signed by Mr Putin, did not specify the size of the force to be dispatched, when they would cross the border into Ukraine nor exactly what their mission would be.

Hours later, a Reuters reporter witnessed unusually large columns of military vehicles and hardware, including tanks, moving through Donetsk, the largest city of the self-proclaimed republic.

Mr Putin earlier signed decrees to recognise the two breakaway regions as independent statelets………………………

On Monday, local time, a Biden administration official said, however, the area was already controlled by Russian-backed separatists and Moscow, in practice, and that Mr Putin’s decision to send troops he called peacemakers into the breakaway regions of Ukraine did not as yet constitute a further invasion that would trigger a broader sanctions package.

“This isn’t a further invasion since it’s territory that they’ve already occupied,” the official said.

But, the official added, that a full invasion could come at any time.

The United States will continue to pursue diplomacy with Russia until “tanks roll,” another official said.

“Russian troops moving into Donbas would not itself be a new step. Russia has had forces in the Donbas region for the past eight years … They are currently now making decisions to do this in a more overt and … open way,” the official said……………………

In his lengthy televised address, Mr Putin, looking visibly angry, described Ukraine as an integral part of Russia’s history and said that the regions in eastern Ukraine were ancient Russian lands and that he was confident the Russian people would support his decision. 

Russian state television showed Mr Putin, joined by Russia-backed separatist leaders, signing a decree recognising the independence of the two Ukrainian breakaway regions, along with agreements on cooperation and friendship.

Under the two identical friendship treaties — submitted by Mr Putin for ratification by parliament — Russia has the right to build bases in the separatist regions and they, on paper, can do the same in Russia.

The parties committed to defend each other and signed separate agreements on military cooperation and on recognition of each other’s borders.

Their 31-point treaties also say Russia and the breakaway statelets will work to integrate their economies. Both regions are former industrial areas in need of massive support to rebuild after eight years of war with Ukrainian government forces.

The 10-year treaties are automatically renewable for further five-year periods unless one of the parties gives notice to withdraw. 

Defying Western warnings against such a move, Mr Putin had announced his decision in phone calls to the leaders of Germany and France earlier, both of whom voiced disappointment, the Kremlin said.

The UN Security Council will meet publicly on Ukraine at 2am GMT (1pm AEDT) on Tuesday, a Russian diplomat said, following a request by the United States, the United Kingdom and France………………………..

EU will respond to ‘illegal act’ with sanctions against Moscow

According to another White House statement, Mr Biden had also discussed with France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Olaf Scholz “how they will continue to coordinate their response on next steps”. ………………..

The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called out Mr Putin’s decision to recognise the separatist regions as independent as “a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine” in a statement read by his spokesman, Stéphane Dujarric.

“The Secretary-General urges all relevant actors to focus their efforts on ensuring an immediate cessation of hostilities, protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, preventing any action and statements that may further escalate the dangerous situation in and around Ukraine, and prioritising diplomacy to address all issues peacefully,” Mr Dujarric said.

…………….

With his decision to recognise the rebel regions, Mr Putin brushed off Western warnings that such a step would be illegal, would kill off peace negotiations and would trigger sanctions against Moscow.

“I deem it necessary to make a decision that should have been made a long time ago: to immediately recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic,” Mr Putin said.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-22/putin-orders-russian-peacekeepers-ukraine/100849964

February 22, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Aspects of the Ukraine crisis and some suggested solutions for de-escalation

DC AREA PEACE ACTIVISTS DISCUSS UKRAINE TENSIONS, By John Zangas,DC Media Group. February 20, 2022.

Washington DC—Local Peace Activists spoke about the growing crisis in East Europe, characterized the crisis as avoidable, and recommended solutions to avoid conflict. As tensions between world powers reached a climax not seen since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, and diplomatic efforts between stakeholders seemed all but doomed to fail, the activists drew on years of experience and understanding of global issues to draw their recommendations. Despite ominous developments they still held out hope that war could be averted.

Their recommendations came as President Joe Biden spoke to the nation on Friday afternoon, saying that diplomacy was still an option. His optimism however, was eclipsed by media reports of shelling in Eastern Ukraine from rebel-held territory, pipeline explosions, a car bomb explosion in Donesk, and the evacuations of most Western Nation embassies from Kiev. Another report flashed that Ukraine separatists had evacuated Ukrainians to Russia from rebel held territory, further complicating efforts to unwind regional tensions.

Superpowers are Responsible for Arms Reduction

David Swanson, Executive Director, World Beyond War, said that both Russia and the United States have played roles in the crisis.

“I think we’re dealing with a situation in which all the momentum is toward escalation. You just can’t line up two armies in front of each other, swear to each one that the other is about to attack them, commit each one to counter-attacking, throw in nationalistic and ethnic hatred, and then hope for peace. Both sides are guilty of this , not because they are equal in all ways, but simply because they are guilty of this. The main way in which they are not equal is that this is happening on the border of Russia, whereas the U.S. instigator is thousands of miles away.

Russia’s demands for months have been perfectly reasonable and exactly what the U.S. would demand if the roles were reversed. Evacuating people to safety is a good thing, though unfortunate and not a complete solution.”

Swanson pointed out that the U.S. had already derived benefits from the situation by arms sales and the establishment additional military bases in Eastern Europe. He also offered possible solutions to deescalation.

A complete solution would be to begin a reverse arms-race, a deescalation. But the reason Biden and gang don’t much care about their predictions of imminent invasions making them look dumb is the other purposes of such a crisis that are rarely talked about. The U.S. has gotten out of this already: new bases in Slovakia, billions in tank sales to Poland, billions more in other weapons to Ukraine and Eastern Europe, and along with all of that, more U.S. influence in a Europe kept at odds with Russia—plus a proposal to Congress for record military spending without the slightest murmer of diaspproval from anywhere.

 A success in moving toward peace would require undoing all of those successes for the military industrial congressional “intelligence” media academic thinktank complex. But if we can make it through 50 days of an invasion being imminent, we can make it through 100.“

Sustain Peace By Supporting International Monitoring Groups Like the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Michael Beer, Director of Nonviolence International, an Internationally recognized organization dedicated to building a global culture of nonviolence, said, “We need all governments to beat the drums of peace.” Beers further elaborated that the U.S. could do more to support peace monitoring support by strengthening the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

“While the US is concerned about the safety of its OSCE personnel it is at moments such as these when we most need peace monitors. It is critically important to maintain the personnel, who are currently involved in monitoring the situation along the line of contact and to take every possible measure to expand their capacity. Strengthening the Peace Monitoring Mission in Ukraine is something everyone can agree on.”

Michael Beer recently published his first book, Non-Violent Tactics in the 21st Century, which is a free update of Gene Sharp’s seminal text training the world in the value of nonviolent tactics, and is available online here.

Reduce Conflict Scenarios by Disbanding NATO and Cutting Military Expenditures

Medea Benjamin, co-founder and peace activist at CODEPINK! Women For Peace, said in a video that the roots of the current situation were tied up in continuing support for expanding NATO, while at home both parties in the Congress continued to green-light massive military spending. This along with silence among the voices of progressives has led to the present situation in Ukraine.

“Parties In the House and Senate fast-tracked bills calling for massive [amounts] of weapons to be sent to Ukraine. It just shows us once again that we have two war parties. We’ve seen this before and we’re seeing it now. The progressives in the meantime, are much more focused on domestic issues and you don’t hear them in Congress coming out and screaming ‘what the heck is going on’ and ‘what we need now is deescalation, diplomacy, and not to antagonize Russia’.”

Benjamin also said that progressives needed to discuss disbanding NATO and pointed to recent historic facts to explain why Ukraine’s intent to joint NATO led to Russia’s reaction

At the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union there were guarantees given to then President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward and instead NATO move easteard and now NATO is on Russia’s border. So instead of progressives in Congress saying now is the time to talk about NATO there is all this talk about shoring up NATO.”

Benjamin discussed the limited role peace groups have in projecting a peace narrative because mainstream media was a much longer reach…………

Commitments made During the Glasgow Climate Conference Demand Solutions for De-escalation

Margaret Flowers, Director of Popular Resistance, said that Western nations made a pact with the planet to preserve the environment for future generations but the signors of the COP26 agreements were sidestepping their commitments by posturing and moving towards conflict.

“The U.S. military is the greatest user of fossil fuel as a single institution and it is also the greatest polluter on the planet. There is a growing awareness in the climate justice and anti-war movements that these things are closely interconnected and we can’t deal with the climate crisis if we don’t address the U.S. military and the wars it wages.”

American Empire, Exceptionalism, and the Flames of Global Conflict….

February 22, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international | Leave a comment

Nuclear project with Russian reactors shakes Bulgarian politics

Nuclear project with Russian reactors shakes Bulgarian politics By Emiliya Milcheva and Krasen Nikolov | EURACTIV.bg 21 Feb 22, Leading figures in the Bulgarian government are looking for a way out of a 40-year project to build a second nuclear power plant near the Danube island of Belene. The Belene project, which is to be implemented with two Russian nuclear reactors, is creating serious political tensions between liberal pro-European ‘Change Continues’ and ‘Democratic Bulgaria’ and the pro-Russian Bulgarian Socialist Party, which are coalition partners. President Rumen Radev has also insisted on a swift decision on the nuclear project.

Currently, Bulgarian energy is dependent on Russia. About 70% of the gas Bulgaria uses is Russian, the nuclear reactors at the Kozloduy power plant are filled with Russian nuclear fuel, nuclear waste is exported to Russia, and the largest oil refinery in the Balkans – near the Bulgarian city of Burgas – is owned by Lukoil.

‘Change Continues’ wants to change that.

Amid the crisis in Ukraine, Prime Minister Kirill Petkov has twice said he will not build the Belene project with two Russian reactors already purchased and delivered.

Using Russian nuclear reactors at Belene also means orders from Bulgaria for the Russian state-owned company Rosatom. Prime Minister Petkov stressed that Bulgaria had nuclear fuel for two years and there is no immediate threat to Bulgaria’s nuclear energy, but energy experts say the country must make a long-term decision

Prime Minister Petkov’s comments immediately provoked a reaction from the Socialist Party. Under pressure from the socialists, Bulgaria will launch a new analysis of the viability of the Belene nuclear project. Belene’s status is also being used by the pro-Russian far-right Vazrazhdane party, which supports Bulgaria’s exit from the EU and NATO.

Last week, a large Bulgarian delegation visited the United States, led by influential Deputy Prime Minister Asen Vassilev. Nuclear energy was one of the main topics discussed, with Bulgaria exploring whether it can use US nuclear fuel at the current Kozloduy power plant instead of Russia’s.

As early as January 2021, the government of Boyko Borissov approved a report supporting the construction of a new nuclear power unit at Kozloduy with a Russian reactor, but American technology. However, for such a hybrid to work, the participation of Rosatom is required. Such a Russian-American partnership now seems impossible.

EURACTIV understands that leading figures in the Bulgarian government are considering the possible benefits of the American small modular reactors or the Westinghouse reactor – AP1000.

Bulgaria has enough time to decide

Martin Vladimirov from the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) told EURACTIV that the Belene project is currently used as a carrot by politicians. Surveys show that 70% of Bulgarians want the Belene project to be built.

Vladimirov says the nuclear project should be talked about economically, not politically. He says that American interests in the export of modular nuclear reactors are visible, as they are trying to launch the technology in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Ukraine……………………..   https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/nuclear-project-with-russian-reactors-shakes-bulgarian-politics/

February 22, 2022 Posted by | Bulgaria, politics international | Leave a comment

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t a Threat, and Israel Must Find a New Approach

Editorial | The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t a Threat, and Israel Must Find a New Approach, https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/.premium-the-iran-nuclear-deal-isn-t-a-threat-and-israel-must-find-a-new-approach-1.10624130 The latest reports on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program have sown fear in the hearts of Israeli decision makers. There has apparently been significant progress in the talks between Iran and the Western powers in Vienna, and they may soon sign a new nuclear agreement. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was quick to warn that “two things have happened” since the original deal was signed in 2015 – “the Iranians have made great strides in building their enrichment capability and time has passed. If the world signs the agreement again – without extending the expiration date – then we are talking about an agreement that buys a total of two and a half years, after which Iran can and may develop and install advanced centrifuges, without restrictions.”

Bennett forgot to mention that Iran began to violate the agreement only about a year after the United States withdrew from it unilaterally in 2018. He also forgot to mention that Israel made a big contribution to that American decision. Israel invested all its diplomatic efforts and military capabilities into torpedoing the agreement before it was signed, and now, it’s complaining that the new agreement will freeze Iran’s nuclear program for too short a time.

This complaint is inaccurate. The supervision and most of the restrictions will remain in place for many years, and in any case, Iran won’t be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Moreover, had the agreement still been in force, the reduced sanctions and Iran’s increased profits would have made it possible to scrutinize its intentions more seriously, so there would be no need to automatically continue nurturing the idee fixe of an existential threat.

After the negotiations with Iran were frozen last June due to the election of a new Iranian president, Israel rushed to market the theory that Iran didn’t intend to return to the negotiating table. When the negotiations did resume, Israel predicted that Tehran would try to buy time and that its goal was to further develop its nuclear program under cover of the talks. Both of these prophecies proved wrong. Iran is negotiating aggressively – and while the negotiations haven’t been free of ups and downs, Tehran has demonstrated seriousness and appears determined to sign a deal.

If the deal is signed, it won’t allay all of Israel’s fears. Iran will still be able to continue developing ballistic missiles, and it’s not expected to stop supporting Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis in Yemen or militias in Iraq. At the same time, Tehran is seeking to repair its relationships with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the other Gulf states that are considered Israeli allies.

Israel’s government must view the agreement with suspicion, participate in the international supervisory effort to ensure that all its provisions are indeed upheld and work to thwart any Iranian threat against Israelis. But when the government views the agreement itself as a threat, it is undermining its aspiration to neutralize the existential threat Iran poses to Israel’s citizens.

February 22, 2022 Posted by | Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

Damage limitation and US nuclear strategy 

if America is able to target all of Russia’s missiles, this creates an incentive for the United States to try a damage‑limiting preventative attack that otherwise it would never have attempted.

It is within this situation that the Kremlin’s concern over even limited BM can be placed

the current situation demonstrates how damage limiting capabilities driven by the intent to save lives can lead to unwanted results – including not only Russia’s new weapons, but potentially also novel systems and more missile silos in China. As such, the recent recommitment of world leaders to the notion that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought provides a small but welcome step on the path to maintaining the uneasy peace.

Damage limitation and
US nuclear strategy  https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/damage-limitation-and-us-nuclear-strategy VICTOR ABRAMOWICZ 20 Feb 22,

In an atomic world, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.    Almost four years ago, I argued in The Interpreter that Vladimir Putin’s decision to pursue a range of weapons specifically designed to defeat America’s Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system was irrational behaviour, being an expensive solution to a problem which did not exist.

In particular, while the Kremlin worried that BMD might make Washington immune to Moscow’s existing missiles, in turn opening Russia to coercion or destruction, I observed that America’s 44 interceptor missiles could not hope to defeat Russia’s 1,700 warheads. And while the United States could potentially manufacture hundreds more, there was no indication that Washington planned to do so – and if this occurred, Russia’s existing countermeasures including chaff and jammers represented more cost-effective solutions.

Yet in the years since, having learned more about American nuclear warfighting policies, I’m forced to conclude that there may be more sense to Russia’s actions than first meets the eye – and they do not even require a view of Washington as a villain.

In particular, while the United States and Russia’s primary aim is to avoid a nuclear war, should this arise both of course still seek to minimise harm to themselves, including by saving the lives of millions of their citizens. In turn, both sought to achieve this imperative in many common ways – such as storing medicines or building civil bunkers.

Yet one key means, referred to as “damage limitation” appears to have only been pursued by America, perhaps because of its extraordinary expense. Damage limitation refers to the vastly complex task of seeking to be able to destroy (mainly by atomic attack) most and ideally all of Russia’s missiles before they are launched, including fixed silo-based and mobile land and sea-based weapons.

Washington’s interest in being able to pre-emptively ruin all these types of rockets is obvious and arguably even benign: they present a threat to millions of US lives. But by potentially successfully seeking such a capability it has also dramatically increased, from Moscow’s perspective, the risk of nuclear war.

This outcome reflects that both sides’ mobile assets in particular have been the crux of stability by enabling an “assured second strike”. That is, by being moveable and hence hard to destroy in an atomic first strike, such weapons helped ensure such an attack would never come as they promised obliteration in return.

Yet if America is able to target all of Russia’s missiles, this creates an incentive for the United States to try a damage‑limiting preventative attack that otherwise it would never have attempted.

It is within this situation that the Kremlin’s concern over even limited BMD can be placed, as any such defences further-increase the imperative to attack. So, while some Russian rockets would almost certainly survive a first strike, their reduced numbers are much more likely to be defeated by even a handful of interceptors. And should Washington manufacture more, even out of purely defensive intent, the appeal of a pre-emptive attack increases in turn.

In this light, Moscow’s novel weapons appear much more rational. They do not require unreasonable American malevolence, simply a recognition of Washington’s aim to save US lives.

After all, in a real nuclear crisis, what would a future president do if advised that America had a possibly fleeting fix on all of Russia’s weapons? What if, in such a scenario, Washington realised that Moscow had detected – and might at any moment fire upon – an American attack submarine that had been trailing a Russian missile‑sub, noting such vessels each hold enough warheads to wipe out the United States?

In such situations the incentives to strike first would be enormous. And to offset this grim calculus, even small numbers of BMD-immune weapons can disproportionately rebalance the scales and thus present a sensible investment.

Of course, Russia’s developments are only one means to address the evolving nuclear dilemma, and a variety of more peaceful measures have been suggested also. Yet the current situation demonstrates how damage limiting capabilities driven by the intent to save lives can lead to unwanted results – including not only Russia’s new weapons, but potentially also novel systems and more missile silos in China. As such, the recent recommitment of world leaders to the notion that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought provides a small but welcome step on the path to maintaining the uneasy peace.

February 22, 2022 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

How dare Germany oppose USA over nuclear power !

U.S., Germany clash over role of nuclear energy in green transition, By Joseph Nasr BERLIN, Feb 18 (Reuters) – Germany and the United States clashed on Friday over whether nuclear power should be part of the energy mix as rich countries race to cut emissions to limit the impact of global warming.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Special Climate Envoy John Kerry said that cutting emissions fast required some reliance on nuclear energy, adding that without carbon capture technology relying on gas as a stop-gap fuel amounted to ignoring the root cause of the climate crisis.

Franziska Brantner, parliamentary state secretary in the Economic Ministry and a member of the ecologist Greens, defended Germany’s plan to rely on gas a bridge fuel as it phases out nuclear and coal and expands renewables.

The administration of U.S. President Joe Biden has been putting pressure on Germany to ditch the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project ……….

Asked by a moderator if Germany’s decision to shut its last nuclear plants this year did not amount to avoiding the most efficient path to a green future, said Brantner, pointing to Kerry: “No. The answer is easy, it’s ‘no’. And you gave part of the answer. You said nuclear is ‘monumentally expensive.’ Exactly. We have a much cheaper way we can go, and that’s renewables.”

Kerry and Brantner also disagreed on whether nuclear power could be transferred to poorer countries to help them cut energy emissions from coal……..

Brantner, who Greens party has it roots in the anti-nuclear movement of the 70s and 80s, said Germany would not use tax payer’s money to transfer nuclear energy know-how to developing countries given the risk of nuclear proliferation. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-germany-clash-over-role-nuclear-energy-green-transition-2022-02-18/

February 19, 2022 Posted by | Greece, politics international | Leave a comment

Standoff ending, Ukraine and Russia both claim victory

And for the same thing: Russian troops returning to barracks. To put matters in perspective, NATO troops, arms and equipment continue to flood into what the military alliance claims as its eastern flank, from the Arctic Circle to the Caucasus, notwithstanding Maria Zakharova’s statement below. ==== 112 UkraineFebruary 15, 2022 Ukraine, together with partners, manages […]

Standoff ending, Ukraine and Russia both claim victory — Anti-bellum

February 17, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Europe’s nuclear power plants will need investments of EUR 500 Billion, so they need to be labelled ‘green” !

Nuclear Power Preparing to Change Colour, Energy Industry Review,  Adrian Stoica February 16, 2022

  Cutting-edge nuclear power plants will need investments of EUR 500 billion by 2050, according to the European Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton, and to support these projects it is ‘crucial’ for nuclear power to receive the green label within energy transition.

The European Commission (EC) has already prepared a draft proposing rules for the classification of investments that will meet the climate sustainability criteria (“sustainable finance taxonomy”). Therefore, nuclear power plants will be considered green if there is a plan, funding, and location suitable for the elimination of radioactive waste.

The draft has already ignited the spirits in the European Union. While France, a country that ensures 70% of its energy consumption from nuclear source, supports it, Germany, but also other states, vehemently oppose to such draft and threatened to even consider legal action against the European Commission. Together with France, several states, including Romania, have signed a declaration requesting the Commission that nuclear energy be included in the list of green investments.

Existing nuclear plants alone will need €50 billion of investment from now until 2030. And new generation ones will need €500 billion by 2050,” said Thierry Breton. At the end of last year, the European Commission announced that it was preparing a draft according to which some nuclear power plants and some of the gas-fired power plants could be considered green projects, which would make it easier for them to attract funding. The Community Executive has raised comments on this draft until January 12, following to officially present the text of its proposal. Currently, about 26% of electricity produced in the EU comes from nuclear power plants and Commissioner Thierry Breton has estimated that it would account for at least 15% of the energy mix in 2050.

Romania supports the EC initiative

Romania, country which operates two nuclear units, and which has several projects providing for the construction of two other groups and small nuclear power plants with a US partner, has publicly requested, together with other states, the inclusion of nuclear energy in the list of ‘green’ investments…………………………   For all of us, nuclear energy is a crucial and reliable asset for a low-carbon future,” reads a statement signed in October 2021 by the representatives of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Slovenia………………………   https://energyindustryreview.com/power/nuclear-power-preparing-to-change-colour/


February 17, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »