politics international « nuclear-news

Australia to chart its own course on Palestinian statehood, without Trump’s say-so.

Trump’s return to the White House has already shifted global diplomatic currents, with several leaders recalibrating their positions to maintain favour. By declaring that Australia’s decision will not be subject to U.S. approval, Albanese is signalling a willingness to resist that pressure – even if it means copping criticism from one of the country’s most powerful media empires.

9 August 2025 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/australia-to-chart-its-own-course-on-palestinian-statehood-without-trumps-say-so/

Australia’s decision on whether to recognise a Palestinian state will not be dictated by Washington – and that, apparently, was enough to attract howls of condemnation and disapproval from sections of the Murdoch media.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed this week that he was unlikely to consult with U.S. President Donald Trump before making any decision on recognition. It’s a simple case of Australia acting in Australia’s national interest, emphasising that the issue will be decided in Canberra, not in the White House.

The reaction from the Murdoch media was swift and fierce. Headlines and opinion columns framed Albanese’s stance as a diplomatic snub to a “key ally,” warning of potential damage to the Australia–U.S. relationship. The coverage fits a familiar pattern: when leaders diverge from U.S. policy – especially under a Republican president – Murdoch media frequently portrays it as reckless or unpatriotic.

At the heart of the dispute is a deeper question of sovereignty. Critics argue that Australia should stand firm on charting its own foreign policy, particularly on sensitive Middle East matters, which have been shaped for decades by complex international law and humanitarian concerns. Recognition of a Palestinian state has long been debated within Australia, with supporters citing the need for a two-state solution and opponents warning of diplomatic repercussions with Israel and the United States.

In a political environment where foreign policy is often filtered through the prism of domestic politics and media narratives, Albanese’s comments draw a sharp line: Australia will make its own call. The real question is whether the public sees that as principled independence – or unnecessary defiance.

Either way, the stance taps into a deeper tradition in Australian foreign policy: the belief that while alliances matter, sovereignty matters more. From Whitlam’s recognition of China to Howard’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, Australia has occasionally charted its own course against the preferences of powerful allies. Albanese’s decision – or even just his refusal to seek Trump’s blessing – may yet be remembered as another of those moments.

August 11, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

80 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki — time for a nuclear-free world for a peaceful, sustainable future

Sam Annesley, Executive Director at Greenpeace Japan.6 Aug 2025 ,https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/77462/80-years-since-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-time-for-a-nuclear-free-world-for-a-peaceful-sustainable-future/

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First, I would like to express my deepest condolences to all those who lost their lives as a result of the atomic bombings, and to those who survived the ravages of war and still live with physical and mental scars, as well as to those around the world who are still in the midst of war and violence.

On August 6 and 9, 1945, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, instantly claiming the lives of tens of thousands of people. Even after that, radiation-related disabilities, illnesses, and discrimination continued to have a huge impact on the lives of many people.

However, even 80 years later, the threat of nuclear weapons has not disappeared from the world. In fact, the development of nuclear weapons and missiles by certain nations – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and nuclear threats, and recent airstrikes by the United States and Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities – all pose nuclear threats that endanger countless lives, lurking just beyond our daily lives. However, the international community at large, lacks the power to strongly deter such threats and faces an extremely serious crisis.

If nuclear weapons were ever used again, the damages would be unimaginably devastating. Japan experienced this firsthand. As the only country in the world to have experienced the devastation of nuclear weapons in war, Japan has already witnessed the inhumane consequences of such weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago. And as a nation that has personally experienced the horrors of war and nuclear weapons, Japan has a responsibility to firmly oppose any act of war and to clearly demonstrate its commitment to achieving peace.

Greenpeace was founded in 1971 to oppose nuclear testing by the U.S. military in Alaska, and has since taken numerous actions to protect human life and the environment, including rescuing and transporting residents of Rongelap Island in the Marshall Islands who had been exposed to U.S. nuclear testing. In 1991, during the Gulf War, Greenpeace, in cooperation with other organizations, investigated the environmental pollution caused by oil intentionally released into the Persian Gulf by the Iraqi military, and found that the oil had caused serious damage to the marine ecosystem. We are convinced that protecting the environment goes hand in hand with protecting peace for all.

During wars, oil spills, fires and bombings may all happen and even individually release massive amounts of greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals that seriously contaminate water, air, soil and ecosystems. War is not only the greatest form of human destruction, but also of environmental destruction. The use of nuclear weapons, which carry the risk of exposure to radiation and radioactive contamination, seriously affects the environment and people’s lives and health. That is why it is essential to aim for a world free from war and nuclear weapons.

2021 marked the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). However, Japan, the only country in the world to have suffered atomic bombings during wartime, has yet to ratify the treaty. Greenpeace will continue to urge Japan and all nuclear-armed states to join. We believe that passing on the determination to never start war to the next generation is a vital step toward protecting all lives and building a green and peaceful society. We will persist in our efforts to make this vision a reality.

August 9, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

AUKUS delusions. More rivets pop in submarine drama.

by Rex Patrick | Aug 4, 2025 https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-delusions-more-rivets-pop-in-submarine-drama/

Announcing a new one-sided subs-deal with the UK, resisting calls for a review, ignoring a US Admiral’s caution, while building hundreds of houses for US military. AUKUS is having a shocker. Former senator and submariner Rex Patrick reports.

On Friday, 25 July, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong stood beside their UK counterparts at a brief press conference in Sydney. They answered questions on a new 50-year treaty-level agreement between the UK and Australia related to the AUKUS submarine scheme.

The journalists who attended the press conference were not in possession of the text of the agreement, which was not actually signed by Marles and UK Defence Secretary John Healey until the following day, and not in Sydney but rather in Geelong. Without the text of the treaty being released, no hard questions could be asked (see below).

Marles apparently thought it more important to have the text signed a day after the ministerial discussions so that the “Nuclear-Powered Submarine Partnership and Collaboration Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” could be informally named after his hometown, as “the Geelong Treaty”.

The whole stage-managed affair was one that would have left everyone feeling warm and fuzzy in the halls of Parliament, where rhetoric counts for more than reality.

Meanwhile, in US Congress

About the same time, the Geelong Treaty was being announced, news was breaking in Australia of the testimony to the United States Senate of the nominee to serve as the next US Chief of Navy, Admiral Daryl Caudle. What he had to say did not augur well for Australia eventually being provided with three US Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines as envisaged under AUKUS.

“The question of Australia’s ability to conduct undersea warfare is not in question by me or by anyone,” the admiral told the Senate Armed Services Committee’s seapower subcommittee. “But as you know, the delivery pace is not where it needs to be to make good on the Pillar 1 of the AUKUS agreement, which is currently under review by our Defense Department”.

Caudle testified that “There are no magic beans.”

“We do have to understand whether or not the industrial base can produce the submarines required so that we can make good on the actual pact that we made with the U.K. and Australia, which is around 2.2., 2.3 Virginia-class submarines per year.”

“That’s going to require a transformational improvement, not a 10 percent improvement, not a 20 percent, a 100 percent improvement.”

Of course, none of this was really news. The US Congressional Research Service and numerous other well-informed observers have been spelling out these facts for some time, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Defence Minister Marles remain wilfully blind to the facts. Having put all their political chips on AUKUS, they don’t want to see or hear anything negative. Instead of a pause, they’ve been writing taxpayer-funded cheques to gift United States shipyards.

They quietly slipped the US Government another non-refundable $800M last week – following on from a non-refundable $800M in February.

No control, no warranty

By Monday, the ‘Geelong Treaty’ had been tabled in the Parliament.

A read of the treaty documents revealed the completely lop-sided nature of the partnership with the UK. Whilst Australia gets to have a bit of a say, the UK get to decide the design of SSN-AUKUS. Australia will be buying and building a British design, and the success, delivery schedule, and cost will be absolutely dependent on the United Kingdom’s currently run-down and struggling submarine industrial base.

And if it doesn’t work in the end, there is no warranty.

During the election campaign, a number of cross-benchers and the Greens started calling for an AUKUS inquiry, a call repeated this week by Senator David Shoebridge. He lodged a motion to establish a Select Committee into what is our most expensive and purportedly most important Defence procurement project ever.

The inquiry motion was originally set to be voted on on Tuesday, but as the week progressed, Senator Shoebridge kept postponing it. That’s a signal that he didn’t have the numbers to get a ‘yes’ vote. The Labor Party has already ruled out an inquiry, and it looks like the Senator is trying to get the Liberal Party on board.

We’ll now find out the inquiry’s fate on 25 August. The Liberal Party are unlikely to support the inquiry. They want to criticise the government’s handling of the US alliance, but they have no intention of questioning AUKUS, which, after all, was first conceived by their man, Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

It’s an all-eggs-in-the-one-$368B-basket capability acquisition full of risk – but it appears as though there will be no oversight.

As the Parliament appears reluctant to review AUKUS, in true Trump tariff negotiation style, the US Defence Department announced its review of AUKUS would not be completed until “fall” (the next three months).

Housing bill waved through

To add icing on the cake, the government’s first Housing Bill in the 48th Parliament, voted through the House on Wednesday by the duopoly, was one to build houses, not for Australians, but for foreign military personnel and their families in Perth.

As Senator Shoebridge tried to have this Bill referred to a Senate Committee, he laid it out:

“In the last parliament, we saw Labor coming up with a million reasons they couldn’t do anything on public housing. They couldn’t help people out on rents, they couldn’t build public housing, and they kept saying it was all the Greens’ fault for not supporting their crap bills. Then, in this parliament, they start with a public housing bill. Well done, Labor! You bring a public housing bill into the chamber. You push it through the lower house. And do you know what public housing they’re building? They’re building public housing for US troops under AUKUS. That’s their public housing bill.”

“Please, minister, you haven’t explained in the bill how much this is going to cost; is it going to come from the Defence budget or some other budget?”

No answer was given, and no referral to a committee occurred.

The AUKUS week closed with some lobbying on Sky by former Secretary of Home Affairs, Michael Pezzulo. Pezzulo is officially disgraced, but is not without expertise on national security issues.

Pezzulo does know something about the financing of Australia’s defence capabilities, and he issued a blunt warning about the scale and urgency of Australia’s AUKUS commitments, saying the nuclear submarine program will demand a national effort on par with Medicare.

“It’s like having the military version of Medicare. It’s something that’s got to become an all-consuming, focused effort that transcends Commonwealth, state, territory governments into industry, academia, the training pipeline through both universities and vocational educational training institutions.”

All that statement does is roll out the trifecta. The US can’t deliver Virginia Class submarines to us; the UK submarine industry is a cluster fiasco; and Australia’s not ready. And, we will have to make AUKUS submarines our number one national priority if we are to have any chance of success.

In 2023 Paul Keating – without knowledge of the total $4.7B that is to be gifted to the United States, or the similar amount that is being gifted to the UK, nor the facts that the US is unlikely to deliver, and that we really don’t have any rights in relation to the SSN-AUKUS – called it “the worst deal in all history”.

Knowing what we know now, Keating was wrong. He should have said “dumbest deal in all history”.

August 9, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

The new space race: How the US, China, and Russia are all vying to be the first to build a nuclear reactor on the MOON.

By WILIAM HUNTER, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY REPORTER, 5 August 2025, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14971339/new-space-race-US-China-Russia.html

In the years of the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union tussled to prove their superiority by rushing to become the first nation to put a man on the moon.

While America might have claimed that particular prize in 1969, a new and even more dramatic space race is only just beginning.

This week, it was revealed that Sean Duffy, the new head of NASA, is preparing to install an American nuclear reactor on the moon before 2030.

In a directive, first reported by Politico, Mr Duffy claims this would allow the US to declare a ‘keep-out zone’ on the lunar surface.

This is seen as a necessary step towards protecting the landing site for a future American moon base, planned as part of the Artemis Programme.

However, the US is far from being the only country to set its sights on our lunar satellite.

In May, China and Russia signed a memorandum of cooperation to build their own nuclear reactor on the moon.

But with Russia and China targeting 2036 as their completion date, the three superpowers are now locked in a head-to-head race to get there first.

This comes as the US makes a rapid and unexpected shift towards prioritising human exploration in space.

Despite slashing scientific missions and giving NASA the smallest budget since 1961, the agency has allocated more than $7 billion for lunar exploration.

The Artemis programme, once feared to be a target for Donald Trump’s cuts, is now scheduled to return a human presence to the moon by 2027.

In the directive, Mr Duffy called for NASA to ‘move quickly’ in establishing a nuclear reactor on the moon in order to ‘support a future lunar economy‘.

Mr Duffy, who is also US transport secretary, has asked NASA to place a reactor capable of producing at least 100 kilowatts on the moon by the end of the decade.

That is enough energy to power 80 average American households and could provide the energy backbone for a permanent lunar base.

NASA had previously planned to place a 40-kilowatt reactor on the moon in a similar timeframe, but it is not clear if they will be able to use the same designs.

Mr Duffy will give NASA 30 days to appoint an official to oversee the operation and 60 days to issue a request seeking proposals from commercial companies for the project.

Nuclear power is seen as key for establishing a lunar presence because it is plunged into complete, freezing darkness for two weeks every month.

At the South Pole, where NASA is planning to establish its operations, the sun never rises high above the horizon and some craters are shrouded in permanent darkness.

That makes it practically impossible for spacecraft or bases to survive on the moon using solar power and batteries alone.

However, this sudden swing back to lunar exploration may be a product of increasing competition from other superpowers.

Tellingly, Mr Duffy warned that ‘the first country to do so could potentially declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first.’

This is almost certainly a reference to Russia and China’s recent plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, announced in May.

That reactor would be used to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), which should be completed by 2036 according to the latest plans.

Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, wrote in a statement at the time: ‘The station will conduct fundamental space research and test technology for long-term uncrewed operations of the ILRS, with the prospect of a human being’s presence on the Moon.’

The groundwork will be laid by China’s upcoming Chang’e-8 mission, which will be the nation’s first attempted human moon landing.

This means that the moon, and especially the south pole, is now becoming the target of a new international space race.

Dr Mark Hilborne, a security studies expert from King’s College London, told Daily Mail: ‘The Moon is a place where nations will have competing interests. There will be parts of the moon that are more valuable than others and, therefore, could be particular points of competition.

‘The Moon is valuable as a low-gravity staging base where future space developments can be built. Lunar materials, mined in situ, would be valuable in building elements that would further lunar exploration.

‘If these could be built on the Moon, rather than sent from Earth, the cost would be far cheaper.’

The big concern for the US, and presumably Russia and China, is that whatever country starts building on the moon first could effectively claim it as its own territory

Countries’ dealings in space are governed by a set of rules called the Outer Space Treaty, which was first signed in 1967.

Signatories to the treaty agree that space is ‘not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.’

This explicitly means that nations are not legally able to make territorial claims on celestial bodies like the moon.

However, in practice, America has recently doubled down on a far more assertive version of the law by signing a series of rules called the Artemis Accords in 2020.

Critically, the Artemis Accords also gives states the power to implement ‘safety zones’ – exclusive areas which members of other states will not be able to enter or use without permission from the owner.

While the US insists that these boundaries will end ‘when the relevant operation ceases’, for a permanent colony, this would function almost exactly like the borders of a sovereign territory.

These rules essentially create a principle that whoever gets to a part of the moon first gets to keep it for their own use.

Dr Jill Stuart, an expert on space law from the London School of Economics, told Daily Mail: ‘Countries could use a part of the lunar surface for a scientific base – without claiming long-term ownership of it – but must communicate to other users where that base is and be transparent about its purpose.

‘Although this seems like a potentially “fair” way to allow for future activity on the moon, it also creates a “first mover advantage” in that those who can set up bases first have the right to claim a safety zone around it.’

That idea may now be alarming to America as China shows rapid advancements in its spaceflight program that have put a human presence on the moon within reach.

While these safety zones might be essential for a nuclear reactor, experts say this may lead to an increasingly risky space race.

Dr Fabio Tronchetti, a space law expert from Northumbria University, told Daily Mail: ‘It is evident that we are heading towards a space rush.

‘The United States is attempting to act quickly and get to the Moon first, at least before China and Russia, so as to be able to unilaterally claim the right to set out the rules of the game.’

This has the serious potential to spark conflict between the nations since China and Russia, having not signed the Artemis Accords, have no legal requirement to respect the US ‘keep-out zones’.

Dr Tronchetti says that international law ‘does not recognise the possibility’ of the US’s claims, adding that the US is attempting to ‘force its [China’s] hand to set out rules favourable to its own interests’.

How this conflict might play out on the lunar surface remains to be seen, but in the future, we might see the conflicts here on Earth extend out into space.

August 7, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Reference, space travel | Leave a comment

Dare To Hope

Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 04, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/dare-to-hope?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=170050544&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

At least 100,000 Australians, including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, marched for Gaza across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in the pouring rain at a demonstration on Sunday.

It wasn’t that long ago when I sincerely wondered if we’d ever see Assange’s face again, let alone in public, let alone in Sydney, let alone heading up what had to be one of the largest pro-Palestine rallies ever held in Australia. Dare to be encouraged. The light is breaking through.

The western political/media class is fuming with outrage about images of Israeli hostages who are severely emaciated, which just says so much about how dehumanized Palestinians are in western society. Everyone stop caring about hundreds of thousands of starving Palestinians, it turns out two Israeli hostages are starving in the same way for the same reason.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry has announced that in order to improve “public diplomacy” efforts the term “hasbara” will no longer be used, because people have come to associate it with lies and propaganda.

The Times of Israel reports:

“Long referred to as hasbara, a term used to denote both public relations and propaganda that has been freighted with negative baggage in recent years, the ministry now brands its approach as toda’a — which translates to ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’ — an apparent shift toward broader, more proactive messaging.

That “negative baggage” would of course be public disgust at the nonstop deluge of lies that Israel and its apologists have been spouting for two years to justify an act of genocide. Westerners have grown increasingly aware that Israel and its defenders have a special word for their practice of manipulating public narratives about their beloved apartheid state, so they’re changing the word.

Simply stopping the genocide is not considered as an option. Simply ceasing to lie is not considered as an option. They’re just changing the word they use for their lies about their genocide.

One of the reasons Israel’s supporters love to hurl antisemitism accusations at its critics is because it’s a claim that can be made without any evidence whatsoever. It’s not an accusation based on facts, it’s an assertion about someone’s private thoughts and feelings, which are invisible. Support for Israel doesn’t lend itself to arguments based on facts, logic and morality, so they rely heavily on aggressive claims about what’s happening inside other people’s heads which cannot be proved or disproved.

It’s entirely unfalsifiable. I cannot prove that my opposition to an active genocide is not in fact due to an obsessive hatred of a small Abrahamic religion. I cannot unscrew the top of my head and show everyone that I actually just think it’s bad to rain military explosives on top of a giant concentration camp full of children, and am not in fact motivated by a strange medieval urge to persecute Jewish people. So an Israel supporter can freely hurl accusations about what’s going on in my head that I am powerless to disprove.

It’s been a fairly effective weapon over the years. Campus protests have been stomped out, freedom of expression has been crushed, entire political campaigns have been killed dead, all because it’s been normalized to make evidence-free claims about someone’s private thoughts and feelings toward Jews if they suggest that Palestinians deserve human rights.

A Harvard professor of Jewish studies named Shaul Magid recently shared the following anecdote:

“I once asked someone I casually know, an ardent Zionist, ‘what could Israel do that would cause you not to support it?’. He was silent for a moment before looking at me and said, ‘Nothing.’”

This is horrifying, but facts in evidence indicate that it’s also a very common position among Zionists. If you’re still supporting Israel at this point, there’s probably nothing it could do to lose your support.

August 6, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

A global call to action

August 3, 2025 by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/08/03/a-global-call-to-action/

Trades unions and peace groups demand democracy that delivers peace and prosperity for all

A joint statement anchored by the International Trade Union Confederation, Greenpeace International, the International Peace Bureau, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Oxfam and 350.org and signed by 17 peace, justice and disarmament groups was released in anticipation of the commemoration of 80 years since atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

For Democracy that Delivers Peace and Prosperity for All

As we approach the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we, the undersigned organisations, call on governments and international institutions to reaffirm their commitment to a world free from nuclear weapons, honouring the demand of the hibakusha and 2024 Nobel Peace laureate Nihon Hidankyo, and to prioritize sustainable development over militarism.

As organisations from the peace, labour, economic justice, and climate movements, we share the belief that collective security can only be ensured through solidarity, by meeting the basic needs of all people.

The Billionaire Coup: An Existential Threat to Democracy, Peace, and Security

Unfortunately, today we face a growing threat to our collective security from the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of an unholy alliance of billionaires and far-right political forces. This billionaire coup against democracy is already capturing governments and subverting multilateral institutions. A small group of the wealthiest individuals and corporations has successfully reshaped policies, economies, and democracies to serve their interests, undermining the common good. This elite’s influence is driving the rise of authoritarian regimes, robbing the people of collective power, accelerating military build-up and climate change, and diverting resources away from human development and peacebuilding.

The economic consequences of this concentration of wealth are staggering. In 2024, the wealthiest 1% of the global population held more wealth than the bottom 95% of the world’s population combined. These extreme inequalities perpetuate a cycle of poverty, social unrest, and political instability, contributing to rising authoritarianism. The impact of this billionaire coup is felt across the globe, with governments on every continent prioritizing military expansion over social protection or sustainable development, undermining workers’ rights, and inflating the cost of living while cutting essential social programmes.

Escalating Militarism

Militarism is the natural consequence of this profit-at-all-costs political economy. Military expenditures have surged globally, with governments around the world committing $2.718 trillion to military spending in 2024, a 9.4% increase in real terms from the previous year. The weapons industry, alongside a growing network of arms traders and military contractors, increasingly dictates state priorities. As militarism takes centre stage, resources that could address the urgent challenges of climate change, poverty, and inequality are diverted into weapons systems, expanding arms races, and dangerous geopolitical standoffs.

This militarization is both fueled by and further encourages the rise of authoritarian regimes, where leaders consolidate power by warping democratic processes, curtailing civil liberties, and viciously suppressing dissent. The weakening of democratic structures at work, in society, and in global institutions undermines the ability of citizens to hold their employers and governments accountable and to demand investments in their well-being and the planet’s.

Human, Economic, and Environmental Costs

The human cost of militarism and unchecked wealth concentration is almost unimaginable. Military conflicts uproot millions, with over 100 million people worldwide currently displaced due to conflict or persecution. The economic cost is also astonishing. The Global South, in particular, bears the brunt. In 2022, low- and middle-income countries accounted for 35% of global military expenditures despite facing the greatest challenges in meeting the basic needs of their populations.

Furthermore, militarism exacerbates environmental degradation. The legacy of nuclear testing, deforestation caused by military operations, and pollution from the use of heavy weapons and mines pose significant threats to the environment. When combined and compared to countries, the world’s militaries have the fourth largest carbon footprint, following only China, the United States, and India. This increases dramatically during times of heightened conflict as we are seeing today.

A Call for Common Security and Solidarity

In response to these pressing issues, we advocate for a transformative shift in how governments conceive of security. We call for common security and solidarity, in which human development, environmental sustainability, democracy, and multilateralism take precedence over military might. Immediate action can be taken by governments this year to change course, including but not limited to:

Universal ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The catastrophic potential of nuclear weapons is incompatible with the principles of international human rights and humanitarian law and poses an existential threat to humanity and the planet. We urge all nuclear-armed states to engage in full-scale disarmament processes, and for all states to reaffirm their commitment to non-proliferation.
Adoption of progressive tax policies that ensure the wealthiest individuals and corporations pay their fair share, including support for a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. The current global tax regime disproportionately benefits the richest, while funding for essential services is cut. Tax justice promotes social stability and reduces economic inequality. A fairer and coordinated global tax system will allow governments to reinvest in public infrastructure, social programs, a Just Transition, and poverty reduction efforts without fear of corporate retaliation.
Implementation of living wages for all workers. Fair compensation is central to ensuring economic and social stability and protecting the rights and dignity of workers worldwide. As workers endure unprecedented industrial and technological transitions amid growing inequality, societies risk fracture and conflict. Governments must guarantee decent work, enforce labor rights, and support union organising and collective bargaining to ensure better wages and working conditions.
Redirect military expenditures toward the urgent needs of human development, climate action, and global health, including reducing bloated defense budgets. A “peace dividend” from these modest reductions can fund investments in education, healthcare, clean energy, and poverty alleviation. Disarmament also helps to foster trust and reestablish relations between nations and peoples.
Create a United Nations Fair Conversion mechanism, providing financial and technical support to countries transitioning from military-dependent economies to those focused on social welfare, sustainable industries, and clean energy. A key aspect of common security is ensuring that militarized economies are restructured toward peaceful and sustainable industries, with social dialogue and worker participation driving decision-making, guided by principles of fairness, justice, and democracy.
Global expansion of social protection systems to ensure that all people have access to healthcare, education, unemployment benefits, pensions, and other essential services. Every individual, regardless of their circumstances or where they live, deserves access to basic services, social protection, and a dignified life. This includes especially those often left out of existing protections and most egregiously harmed by conflict: women, migrant workers, and those working in the informal economy who are demanding formalisation. Universal social protection is a cornerstone of democratic governance and common security, fostering equality and social cohesion.
Integrate disarmament and sustainability into climate action plans, ensuring that military industries reduce their carbon footprints and contribute to global climate goals. Militarism exacerbates the climate crisis. The environmental costs of military activities including pollution; greenhouse gas emissions; nuclear weapons testing, production, and development; and the destruction of ecosystems, cannot be ignored. Such a Just Transition must include unions and civil society at the decision-making table.

The Time is Now

In the months ahead, many of the same governments that will commemorate 80 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki will also send delegations to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the 2nd World Summit on Social Development in Doha, the G20 Summit in Johannesburg, and COP 30 in Belém. At each of these, social movements will be represented and their demands articulated. It’s time for governments to listen:

The 80th anniversary of the United Nations presents a moment for these governments to reaffirm the UN’s founding principles: peace, security, and human rights. We urge all UN member states to embrace multilateralism; democratize, reform and strengthen the UN system; prioritize sustainable development over militarism; and make tangible commitments to disarmament and social justice.
The first World Social Summit in 30 years provides an opportunity to address the interlinked crises of poverty, inequality, and social exclusion, all worsened by war. We call for governments to adopt a new social contract that ensures economic justice and human development, addressing the root causes of instability and military conflict.
The G20 summit in South Africa, with a focus on “Solidarity, Equality, and Sustainability” offers a critical opportunity for the world’s largest economies to align their economic priorities with the values of peace, common security through solidarity, and shared prosperity. We urge the G20 to commit to reducing military expenditures and investing in policies that foster human development and climate mitigation and adaptation.
Hosted in the Amazon, COP30 is a key moment for governments to ensure that investments in peace and sustainability are at the heart of the global response to the climate crisis.

As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the nuclear bombings, too many world leaders are forgetting the lessons of 1945. We call on them to learn from, not repeat, the past and build a better world where the threat of nuclear weapons is eradicated, where democracy delivers peace and prosperity for all people, and where common security is guaranteed through solidarity and sustainable development.

Find the original statement and list of signatories here.

August 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Israel’s international isolation has begun.

U.S. and global politics surrounding Israel are shifting rapidly as the world recoils in horror at Israel’s starvation of Gaza. Here are several lessons the left should take note of.

By Philip Weiss August 1, 2025 , https://mondoweiss.net/2025/08/israels-international-isolation-has-begun/

We’ve never lived through such rapid change in the politics of Israel as we are now. Two nights ago more than half of Democratic senators – 27– voted to block some arms sales to Israel. A day before that, the UK and Canada said they will recognize a Palestinian state at the U.N, echoing France’s recent statement.

These are steps that advocates for Palestinians thought might be years away. But today the world is shocked by Israel’s starvation of Gaza, and the mainstream press is at last reporting the charge of genocide.

Israel’s international isolation has begun.

These political changes were driven by the street. For years, Israel’s favorability has been sliding in global opinion and in the U.S. among Democratic voters. But party leaders defied the shift — and then Zohran Mamdani won the NY primary for mayor last month, in a groundswell that overwhelmed Cuomo’s $25 million in negative ads. A poll shows that nearly four of five Democrats in NY say Israel is committing a genocide. And Trump’s base is catching up. “My people are starting to hate Israel,” Trump reportedly warned a “Jewish donor”.

There are several lessons the left should recognize.

Pressure works

We always said that the way to stop Israeli war crimes is for western nations to sanction or abandon Israel. The change in official tone proves the point. Israel is now seeking to moderate its brutality, and reports from Israel say that some Israelis are ashamed by the front-page coverage of starvation. The west could have ended the occupation a long time ago.

Our media failed us

When the reckoning on genocide comes, it will include all the voices who explained away children buried in rubble by American bombs. Liberal voices in the Times, on the cables and NPR acted like Gaza was normal—then the people arose.

“Truthfully, it goes back decades,” Donald Johnson writes. “Israel has been an apartheid state for a long time, even by liberal Zionist standards. Jimmy Carter was right about apartheid in 2006 and the press didn’t want to listen.” (In fact, Carter was pilloried by Wolf Blitzer and Terry Gross and ostracized from the Democratic Party.)

The Israel lobby is exposed

Biden and Harris and Blinken and Power did nothing to stop a genocide, just sent more bombs—why? Democrats for years embraced the illegal settlement project, and Obama insisted on “undivided Jerusalem” language in the Democratic platform in 2012–why? Dem leadership in NY has failed to endorse Mamdani weeks after his victory—why?

There is only one factor that keeps leading Democrats “allegiant” to Israel, as James Carville phrased it, and that is the pro-Israel forces inside the Party, embodied by DMFI and AIPAC and the big donors.

The good news is that the corruption is now obvious. “Support for blocking bombs to Israel, recognizing Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and holding Israel accountable for its violations of the law is not simply the opinion of the majority of Democratic voters, it is the vast, vast majority, and any Democrat who stands with AIPAC instead of their own voters is running the real risk of getting voted out of office,” says Margaret DeReus of IMEU.

While former Obama aide Tommy Vietor said on his podcast that the Dems’ policy of hugging Netanyahu is a failure, he pleads guilty, and — “there is no going back to a pre-October 7 Democratic Party”.

For years the lobby claimed that the U.S. was on Israel’s side because Israel served the American interest, and anti-Israel activists claimed that if Americans only knew they would abandon Israel. The anti-Israel activists were right. There is no American interest in racial oppression. There is no American interest in arming a country that bombs one neighbor after another creating instability across the world.

The liberal Zionist branch of the lobby is also vulnerable. For over a year it has denied that there is a genocide– as it has denied apartheid and ethnic cleansing and war crimes in years past. The liberal Zionists served a vital function for the lobby, keeping progressive Democrats on board. To that end, they have fostered delusions — that real pressure on Israel is bad policy and antisemitic, and that Israel is a “democratic Jewish state.”

Today the liberal Zionists are scrambling to get ahead of the shifting Democratic politics of the issue, but they ought to be challenged. For instance, J.J. Goldberg says Americans should sympathize with Israelis’ “fear at the prospect of accepting a new structure of full equality and integration, as though a century of Palestinian anger will just go away”. There were similar fears in the Jim Crow south and South Africa.

The Jewish community is in turmoil and it should be

The American Jewish community is the most reactionary force in the Democratic Party on Israeli apartheid. Leading Jewish organizations sought to kneecap any politician who stepped out of line. These politics among the most liberal highly educated voting bloc in the U.S. should have produced an internal Jewish crisis a long time ago. Yes, horror over Israeli actions generated Jewish Voice For Peace and IfNotNow 10 and 20 years ago, but today is a revolutionary moment. As Arielle Angel writes, “The Gaza genocide has made plain what many leftist Jews have long feared: that virtually the entire enterprise of Judaism—and nearly every organization charged with stewarding it—is infected with a voracious rot.” (This rot sadly extends to Bernie Sanders, the leading moral voice for Democrats, whose refusal to call a genocide a genocide surely reflects his youth volunteering at an Israeli kibbutz.)

It’s understandable that many Americans are so afraid of the antisemitism label that they won’t call out Jewish organizations’ role in oppressing Palestinians. But Jews can do so freely—and young Jews must take down the pro-genocide establishment.

The root cause of the Israel/Palestine conflict is Zionism

An ideology that grants Jews greater rights to land and to civil freedoms is inherently hateful and will always produce the sort of revolt we saw on October 7 (horrific war crimes against civilians took place in Algeria and South Africa too).

It is great that European politicians are finally trying to give Palestinians sovereignty. The effort is way too late, but it demonstrates the truth that political freedom is all that will guarantee security in the land.

The recognition and denunciation of Zionism must accelerate. Zionism might have made sense 100 years ago (or even 80) as a liberation from European persecution. But over and over as they gained power, Zionists took the wrong path. They chose ethnic cleansing, occupation, and apartheid. They chose disdain for their neighbors in favor of superpower politics. They bragged of their “villa in the jungle” – a racist fantasy of Jewish supremacy that even liberal Zionists like J Street promoted.

Can Israel be reformed? I don’t know. But Zionism cannot be. Know it by its fruits. It is apartheid genocide and famine, and the American people have awakened.

August 4, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

Trump, or Violence as Diplomacy

By C.A.R. Turner / August 1, 2025, https://www.thepostil.com/trump-violence-as-diplomacy/

Violence is diplomacy—that is the essence of the Trumpian encounter with the world: do as I say, or else. Versions of this approach are easily noted in most of President Trump’s public pronouncements. The most recent iteration, in response to Trump’s bombing of Iran, was given by Vice President JD Vance at the Ohio Republican Party dinner in Lima, Ohio, on Tuesday, June 24, 2025. He later summarized it on X also.

Here is what he said: “What I call the Trump Doctrine is quite simple: Number one, you articulate a clear American interest and that’s, in this case, that Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. Number two, you try to aggressively, diplomatically solve that problem. And number three, when you can’t solve it diplomatically, you use overwhelming military power to solve it and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.”

The contradictions from one through to three are obvious: how can there be a clarity of “American interest” when the policy is “Israel First?” America has long given up being clear about what it wants, since it wants so many different things which negate one another. It wants to be the hegemon, but also the beacon of “liberty.” Number two: suddenly “American interest” is now a “problem” that needs to “solved” by diplomacy, because other countries do not agree with the “American interest.” Was it not Zelinsky, sitting in the White House, who asked Vance, “What do you mean by diplomacy?” In other words, that “American interest” mentioned in Number one is actually an American demand.

And then we quickly move on to Number three—when America fails at diplomacy, it loves to drop bombs. Bombing, it would appear is the last resort of the scoundrel, to update a famous phrase. What is the point of doing any diplomacy when the people you are trying to diplomatize already know that you are going to bomb them in the end? Iran found that out pretty darned quick—for they thought they were actually involved in diplomacy with Washington when Trump suddenly decided to drop some bombs all over Iran, thinking that this would be persuasive. So, how quickly does Washington move from the diplomatic table to the cockpit of a B2 bomber? In other words, how do bombs become diplomacy?

Vance then throws in the caveat that “you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.” So, we are supposed to believe that bombing a country flat and flying back home magically avoids a “protracted conflict?” A recent example—how long has America been bombing Yemen—and what has it accomplished? America just bombed Iran—and what has that accomplished? And, is there any need to mention the fact that Trump, in his first five months of his second term, has carried out 529 airstrikes against Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Somalia, and bombed 240 locations in these places—it is not known yet how many total civilians he has killed in the process. And whatever happened to Number two in all these cases? How did Trump move past diplomacy and get right to Number three with Iraq, Somalia and Yemen?

In other words, the world is viewed through simplistic Trumpian narratives and bombed accordingly.

It would seem that Vance is trying to lend coherence to a “foreign policy” that is no more than Trump’s feelings. How such feelings, which are erratic at best, become a doctrine is beyond comprehension.

Despite claims of aggressively pursuing diplomacy, what everyone has witnessed is an utter lack of diplomacy—there are only threats; or worse, bomb first and then pretend to talk.

The “overwhelming military force” part has translated into significant civilian casualties, nearly matching the total from many years prior in specific conflicts such as Yemen. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have labeled some strikes as potential war crimes. This “bomb first, ask questions later” approach contrasts starkly with the so-called doctrine’s promise to avoid prolonged entanglements, raising ethical and legal questions.

Trump promised rapid resolutions to major conflicts like Ukraine and Gaza and a definitive end to Iran’s nuclear program but has largely failed to achieve any of these objectives. Instead, what the world sees again and again is an overestimation of his own personal influence upon world leaders, and an utter lack of comprehension of the complexity of diplomacy and the ensuing buildup of a deep resentment among nations. In other, there is hardly a doctrine, let alone clarity.

What is clear to see is that all of foreign policy is reduced to a some sort of a transaction, “a deal,” which is spun as prioritizing narrowly defined American interests and sovereignty. However, what ends up happening is confrontation, backed up by a lot of threats of sanctions, tariffs, or bombs.

Despite talk of restraint and rapid exits, Trump’s administration embraces a willingness to wage sustained aerial campaigns and intense military operations, sometimes lacking clarity on long-term goals. What is deployed therefore is intimidation tactics.

This so-called “doctrine” causes unease within political factions and the public who fear prolonged conflicts despite the promise of quick disengagement. It is a strategy that will fail to prevent entanglements, because the world is seen as “ripping American off” and therefore needs to be put in its place. This completely undermines real-world expectations of other nation-states.

In essence, while Vance’s presentation of the “Trump Doctrine” attempts to offer a clear and structured foreign policy, there is a wide gap between rhetoric and reality, made worse by diplomatic incompetence, problematic military consequences, and fundamental inconsistencies that collectively render this “doctrine” not only deeply flawed, but utterly reprehensible as any sort of a guiding principle.

Thus, in June 2025, in the so-called “12 Day War,” the Trump administration conducted airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, aiming to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, consistent with the Trump Doctrine’s three-step approach (clear interests, aggressive diplomacy, military force, if necessary). However, the strikes were launched just two days after a supposed diplomatic ultimatum, raising suspicions that diplomacy was not genuinely exhausted beforehand.

Plus, the strikes risked escalating into a broader regional war and limited future diplomatic options because of Trump’s prior withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement, which Iran rightly saw as a betrayal. This undercut trust and prospects for peaceful resolution.

Although Vance and administration proponents called the strikes “wildly successful” with no American casualties, initial intelligence suggested damage to Iran’s program was limited. Moreover, Iran’s leadership remained cautious, avoiding direct war with the U.S. despite harsh rhetoric, complicating claims of decisive military resolution.

Humanitarian consequences and the risk of civilian casualties added ethical and legal criticisms, undermining the promise to exit before prolonged conflict.

Proponents of the Trump Doctrine also contrast it with the 2015 Obama nuclear deal, which they argue was lenient and compromised American moral clarity by allowing Iran’s nuclear enrichment program to continue.

The Trump Doctrine calls for denying Iran all paths to nuclear weapons through strength and clarity, but this maximalist stance (zero enrichment demanded) is unrealistic and purely ideological, offering no practical diplomatic off-ramp and increasing risk of sustained conflict.

The doctrine’s combination of maximum pressure without clear enforcement capability resulted in constrained U.S. options and increased involvement in the conflict, contradicting the promise of quick exits.

Then, there are the broader regional implications. The doctrine’s application in Yemen, with intense bombing campaigns against the Houthis, parallels its Iran approach, marked by high civilian casualties and unclear long-term strategic gains, raising concerns about ethical implications and strategic coherence.

Fear of prolonged entanglement in the Middle East and tensions within political factions about the feasibility of rapid withdrawal reveal internal contradictions within the doctrine.

Thus, what happened in Iran and Yemen entirely contradicts what Vance says. In other words, there is a chasm between what is done and what is said.

The rapid shift from diplomacy to military action fully undermines claims of aggressive diplomacy first.

Then, military strikes have yet to yield definitive success and have caused legal, ethical controversies and humanitarian catastrophes.

Overly maximalist demands and the lack of feasible diplomatic pathways constrain U.S. options and risk protracted conflicts.

Contradictions between partisan expectations of quick exits and the reality of prolonged military engagement create strategic incoherence.

Thus, the doctrine abandons traditional moral leadership and multilateral cooperation in favor of a deal that tries to find ways to “protect” America rather than build or lead alliances. This results in a posture of strategic disengagement and economic self-interest rather than any sort of global leadership.

In conflicts like Ukraine, the U.S. under Trump criticizes Russia but also avoids deep involvement, leaving resolution largely to the affected parties (e.g., Kyiv and Moscow). This causes concern among long-term defense partners about the reliability and clarity of American commitments, weakening traditional alliance cohesion.

Trump treats NATO more as a “protection racket,” demanding more financial contributions from allies and showing willingness to reduce U.S. support if unmet. European leaders, uncertain about the U.S. guarantee, are exploring independent defense measures, including shared nuclear capabilities. This unsettles longstanding alliance structures and undermines trust, and points to a West that engage in a new arms race.

The Trump administration has withdrawn from major international agreements (e.g., Paris Climate Accord, WHO), signaling skepticism toward multilateral institutions. This has led to diplomatic isolation and further strains relationships with traditional global partners.

The doctrine involves recalibrated signaling to allies based on geopolitical alignment and interests rather than comprehensive coalition-building, emphasizing sovereignty and economic independence sometimes at the expense of traditional alliance solidarity.

In effect, the Trump Doctrine as articulated essentially reshapes U.S. alliances by emphasizing American sovereignty and international relations as “dealmaking,” coupled with reluctance for enduring involvement, which collectively causes alliance uncertainty, strain on NATO and Western partnerships, and challenges to traditional multilateralism and global leadership that the U.S. once upheld.

So, when Trump repeats the slogan of making America “great,” what does he mean? Great economically, or great in leading the world? He does not know how to do both. On the one hand, he piles on tariffs on the world and threatens it, and on the other he wants the world to look up to America.

Vance’s “Trump Doctrine” is clear in one thing—the Trump administration has no clue how to reconcile what they say with what they do, because their actions and words are always contradictory.

August 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Russia is staying quiet on Trump’s nuclear move

BBC, Steve Rosenberg, Russia editor in Moscow, 2 Aug 25

Could this be the first time in history a social media spat triggers nuclear escalation?

President Donald Trump, offended by posts by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, says he’s ordered two nuclear submarines to move closer to Russia.

So, how will Moscow respond? Are we on a path to a nuclear standoff between America and Russia? An internet-age version of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?

I doubt it, judging by initial reaction in Russia.

Russian news outlets have been rather dismissive of Trump’s announcement.

Speaking to the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, a military commentator concluded that Trump was “throwing a temper tantrum”.

A retired lieutenant-general told Kommersant that the US president’s talk of submarines was “meaningless blather. It’s how he gets his kicks”.

“I’m sure Trump didn’t really give any orders [about submarines],” a Russian security expert suggested to the same paper.

Kommersant also mentions that in 2017, Trump said that he’d despatched two nuclear submarines to the Korean peninsula as a warning to North Korea.

Yet not long after, Trump held a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

So, bizarrely, might Donald Trump’s latest submarine deployment be a precursor to a US-Russia summit?

I wouldn’t go that far.

But the reaction from the Russian authorities has been interesting.

At time of writing, there hasn’t been any.

Not from the Kremlin. Not from the Russian foreign ministry. Nor the defence ministry.

And I’ve seen no announcement about Russian nuclear submarines being positioned closer to America.

Which suggests that either Moscow is still studying the situation and working out what to do, or that Moscow doesn’t feel the need to react.

The Russian press reaction I mentioned earlier suggests it’s the latter……………………………. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly4kgv9238o

August 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

Never before has a US leader chosen to engage in nuclear brinkmanship of this kind

US president brazenly climbs first rung of nuclear escalation
ladder, but few are panicking.

Telegraph 1st Aug 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/08/01/trumps-reckless-nuclear-performance-high-stakes-low-cost/

August 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Netanyahu Is Reportedly Planning to Annex Gaza Strip, With Trump Admin’s Backing

Israeli sources say the plan has already been presented to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and has the approval of the White House.

If Netanyahu’s plan goes forward, Israel will be in the process of annexing the entirety of Palestine.

By Sharon Zhang , Truthout, July 29, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/netanyahu-is-reportedly-planning-to-annex-gaza-strip-with-trump-admins-backing/

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly prepared to propose a plan to annex the entire Gaza Strip that has the backing of the Trump administration, signalling the next horrific phase in Israel’s genocide as it also moves forward with annexing the occupied West Bank.

On Tuesday, Israeli outlet Haaretz reported that Netanyahu is expected to propose the plan to his cabinet soon. The plan would entail giving Hamas a few days to accept a ceasefire deal — likely one designed for Hamas to reject, given Netanyahu’s history — and beginning annexation if Hamas rejects the deal.

The Israeli military would first annex parts of the “buffer zone,” an area spanning all of Gaza’s border created by the military amid its genocide. The zone encompasses over half of Gaza’s land area, and Israeli forces have bulldozed everything inside it, including homes, schools, farming sites, and more.

The military would then move to annex parts of northern Gaza, which Israel has worked diligently to isolate from the rest of Gaza, and move gradually until Israel has annexed the entirety of the Gaza Strip, Haaretz reports.

Netanyahu is reportedly presenting the plan in order to keep Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich in his government, following the prime minister’s longtime pattern of taking drastic military actions in order to maintain his coalition and stay in power. Citing sources familiar, Haaretz says that Smotrich has said that he will stay in his position if the annexation plan goes forward.

Israeli sources say the plan has already been presented to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and has the approval of the White House.

Numerous military officials in Netanyahu’s government have said in recent months that annexation has long been the goal of Israel’s genocide, forcible removal of Palestinians, and near-complete destruction of Gaza. Israel has previously distanced itself from an Israeli general’s comments about Israel’s intentions for total occupation in the Strip, but has recently become even more emboldened.

The genocide has accelerated in the past weeks, with Israel’s near-total blockade on all basic resources reaching a breaking point last week, causing at least dozens of starvation deaths.

If Netanyahu’s plan goes forward, Israel will formally begin the process of annexing the entirety of Palestine. In many ways, however, Israel has already been carrying out an annexation plan in all but name.

Israeli officials have vastly accelerated settlement-building and violence in the occupied West Bank throughout their genocide, and last week, the Israeli Knesset passed a nonbinding measure calling for the annexation of the West Bank. Smotrich is a key architect of this plan, and has been pushing for annexation alongside many of the most extremist Israeli politicians for years.

In light of Israel accelerating its genocide and moving to annex Palestine, human rights advocates and experts have issued urgent calls for the world to act.

“The absolute incapacity of Western leaders to enforce international law when it comes to Israel is EPIC,” said UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese on Tuesday. “Ministers, Prime Ministers, Presidents of Republic: Doing NOTHING, diverting attention, sanctioning individual ministers IS NOT enforcing the [international] law that was developed after the Holocaust and WWII to prevent another Holocaust and WWII.”

July 31, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international, USA | 1 Comment

Trump puts Putin on ‘Double Secret Probation’ for not ending Ukraine war.

31 July 2025 AIMN Editorial By Walt Zlotow, https://theaimn.net/trump-puts-putin-on-double-secret-probation-for-not-ending-ukraine-war/

President Trump channeled Animal House’s Dean Vernon Wormer in trying to reign in the out of control John ‘Bluto’ Blutarsky, a.k.a. Vladimir Putin.

Trump is livid over Putin’s refusal to cave into his demand he end the Ukraine war. And what will Trump do if Putin doesn’t enact ceasefire in “10 to 12” days?

Send in American troops to replace the rapidly disappearing Ukraine soldiers filling up numerous freshly dug Ukraine cemeteries? Nope.

Pour another $170 billion in US weapons that have done nothing but cause loss of one fifth of Ukraine territory to Russia? Nope.

Threaten Russia with nuclear annihilation? Nope.
Trump is planning something so horrific Putin will cave the moment Trump drops it on him… the Mother of all Sanctions. Only Trump knows what horrifying sanctions he has in store for Putin. Hence, Double Secret Probation (DSP).

Putin’s Bluto simply thumbed his nose at Trump’s Dean Wormer, hurling hundreds of drone bombs into Ukraine every day since Trump imposed DSP.

Trump’s Ukraine war policy is as chaotic as the administration of Faber College in Animal House. Big difference? Trump’s presiding over a catastrophe, destroying Ukraine in the lost cause to weaken Russia. All things considered, I prefer John Landis’ ‘Animal House’ to the Donald Trump version.

July 31, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, USA | 1 Comment

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Israel’s denial of starvation in Gaza ‘beyond comprehension’

ABC News, By national affairs correspondent Jane Norman, 29 July 25

In short:

Anthony Albanese has expressed his astonishment at claims made by Israel’s prime minister that “there is no starvation in Gaza”, telling Labor MPs that statement is “beyond comprehension”.

The prime minister made the comments in response to a question from a Labor backbencher about when Australia would move to recognise Palestinian statehood.

What’s next?

Overnight, US President Donald Trump also appeared to dispute Mr Netanyahu’s statement, but Opposition Leader Sussan Ley later declined to say whether she believed starvation was occurring.

Anthony Albanese has expressed his astonishment at claims made by Israel’s prime minister that “there is no starvation in Gaza”, telling Labor MPs that statement is “beyond comprehension”.

The prime minister made the comments in response to a question from a Labor backbencher about when Australia would move to recognise Palestinian statehood.

Mr Albanese — who has been sharpening his criticism of Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip — appeared to directly criticise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who posted a clip to X saying “there is no starvation in Gaza, no policy of starvation in Gaza”.

That assertion was repeated in Canberra yesterday by Israeli’s deputy ambassador to Australia, Amir Meron.

“Those claims that there’s no starvation in Gaza are beyond comprehension,” Mr Albanese told the Labor caucus, according to a spokesperson.

The prime minister outlined Australia’s pre-conditions for recognition, including “democratic reforms” in the Palestinian territory, but indicated these obstacles were not insurmountable, referencing a famous quote from Nelson Mandela that “it always seems impossible until it’s done”.

……………………………………………………….. The prime minister’s intervention came amid growing international concern about both the number of deaths at aid centres managed by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and the level of hunger in the enclave………………………………………………………………… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-29/pm-criticises-israels-denial-of-starvation-in-gaza/105585494

July 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics international | 2 Comments

Trump’s Ukraine Plan: Power Play or Exit Strategy?

Beneath the rhetoric lies a fundamental truth: America is disengaging. Not with a decisive withdrawal, but through a form of diplomatic sleight-of-hand. By recasting its role from arsenal to arms dealer (insisting NATO nations pay “a hundred percent” for U.S.-made weapons) the United States transforms the principle of collective defense into a commercial transaction.

Uncover the hidden logic behind Trump’s delayed weapons aid, NATO rifts, and realpolitik tactics reshaping U.S. foreign policy and Ukraine’s fate.

Post-Liberal Dispatch, Jul 24, 2025, This piece was written by guest contributor Sérgio Horta Soares and has been reviewed and edited by Paulo Aguiar, founder of Post-Liberal Dispatch.

In geopolitics, there are no saints, only actors grappling for advantage, cloaking raw interests in the language of freedom, democracy, and humanitarian concern.

The recent choreography surrounding former U.S. President Donald Trump’s ostensible reentry into the Ukraine conflict lays bare the mechanics of power as they actually function: not through moral imperatives, but through calculated ambiguity, resource preservation, and the exploitation of time.

What masquerades as renewed support for Ukraine is, in substance, a meticulously engineered performance, designed not to rescue Kyiv, but to extricate Washington. Trump’s pronouncements of “billions” in arms, and his threats of tariffs against nations buying Russian oil, are not expressions of strategic commitment; they are instruments of political theater, signals issued to multiple audiences with competing agendas, none of whom are meant to receive a clear message.

To understand this gambit, one must first understand the war’s trajectory. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Western countries (led by the United States) have supplied billions in weapons, economic assistance, and intelligence to Ukraine in an effort to repel Russian advances and prevent the collapse of the post–Cold War European security order.

Initially, this support was framed in terms of values: defending sovereignty, democracy, and international law. But as the war dragged on into its third year, cracks emerged in the Western coalition (rising costs, strained defense stockpiles, and growing domestic opposition to what many now view as an open-ended commitment).

Beneath the rhetoric lies a fundamental truth: America is disengaging. Not with a decisive withdrawal, but through a form of diplomatic sleight-of-hand. By recasting its role from arsenal to arms dealer (insisting NATO nations pay “a hundred percent” for U.S.-made weapons) the United States transforms the principle of collective defense into a commercial transaction.

NATO, once a bastion of mutual obligation, is being refashioned into a procurement agency. The nations of Europe are no longer being asked to fight beside the U.S.; they are being asked to shop.

That this approach incites confusion and resentment among allies is the point. Strategic ambiguity, long a hallmark of Trump’s foreign policy, is not a flaw but a deliberate tactic. By maintaining a posture of conditional engagement, the U.S. preserves its leverage, avoids definitive entanglement, and keeps both adversaries and allies on edge. This calculated vagueness allows for plausible deniability and quick reversals. It ensures that commitments can be revoked, blame can be shifted, and outcomes can be rebranded.

What emerges is not policy, but posture, a stance of strength unmoored from obligation. The imposition of delayed tariffs and the promise of weapons that will not arrive in time to affect the current Russian offensive are not strategic errors; they are expressions of strategic intent. They buy time; not for Ukraine, but for Russia.

Intelligence suggests that Russian commanders believe they can achieve key battlefield objectives within weeks, before weather and logistics slow their operations. Trump’s 50-day deadline for triggering sanctions likely falls outside of that window. This is not coincidence; it is complicity, veiled beneath performative deterrence.

Ukraine, under siege and starved of arms, is left to decipher whether the promised aid is a lifeline or a leash. Meanwhile, Washington hedges its bets, calibrating its involvement to extract maximum geopolitical return with minimum exposure.

The material realities further erode any illusion of robust support. Western arsenals are depleted. Since 2022, the U.S. and its NATO allies have shipped tens of thousands of artillery shells, air defense systems, and armored vehicles to Ukraine. Yet the West’s military-industrial base is still operating on peacetime rhythms, struggling to keep pace with the demands of high-intensity warfare. Arms production in the U.S. and Europe cannot meet short-term demand, and weapons systems, such as Germany’s promised Patriots, are delayed by months.

These constraints reveal a widening gap between political intent and logistical feasibility. Without urgent expansion of industrial capacity, Western efforts risk falling behind Russia’s war economy, rendering even well-publicized support strategies operationally irrelevant

The fragmentation of NATO in response to the Trump plan is less an aberration than a revelation.

France and Italy reject participation outright, prioritizing domestic industry and fiscal restraint. Hungary abstains on ideological grounds, and the Czech Republic prefers alternative aid mechanisms. Even those nations nominally listed as partners (Finland, Denmark, Sweden) were reportedly blindsided by the announcement. This is improvisation, and it exposes the brittle scaffolding of transatlantic unity, where each state calculates its own interests and distances itself from burdens it cannot (or will not) carry.

Within this fractured landscape, Ukraine is not a partner but a bargaining chip, leveraged between competing powers with conflicting priorities. Trump’s ultimate objective is not Ukrainian victory but………………………………………………..(Subscribers only) https://postliberaldispatch.substack.com/p/trumps-ukraine-plan-power-play-or?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=4747899&post_id=169097642&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

July 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Predictably, there was no progress in Istanbul peace talks

Citizens have been fed a non-stop diet of propaganda about Zelensky our savior from the terrors of the Vlad the terrible. Yet now cracks have appeared and people are asking whether Zelensky is in fact just as corrupt as every Ukrainian leader who came before him

Will war now stretch into 2026 or has Zelensky’s anti-corruption blunder changed the game?

Ian Proud, The Peacemonger, Jul 24, 2025

Below my article of yesterday in Responsible Statecraft. I predicted there would be no progress at the Istanbul peace talks yesterday and there was no progress. The meeting apparently lasted just 40 minutes or so, with little to show except for further agreement on a further round of POW exchanges.

Zelensky didn’t need to cut a deal in Istanbul because he figures that the US will impose harsh secondary sanctions on Russia’s trading partners on 2 September, amounting to a 100% tariff. I have written previously about why I believe that will backfire on the US.

In any case, Zelensky stalling on peace talks in Istanbul may soon be overtaken by events closer to home, in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities.

It would be easy, I think, to underestimate just how big an impact this will have on public perceptions of Zelensky in western nations that have supported Ukraine to the hilt in the war, and to the impoverishment of their own people. Citizens have been fed a non-stop diet of propaganda about Zelensky our savior from the terrors of the Vlad the terrible. Yet now cracks have appeared and people are asking whether Zelensky is in fact just as corrupt as every Ukrainian leader who came before him. More on that in my next article.

But having started yesterday certain that war would drag into 2026, I am coming round to the idea that it could be over this year. The Ukrainian front line is cracking in various places. European leaders may find it harder than ever before to justify feeding the Zelensky gravy train. One thing I do know, it’s going to be a rocky ride in Kyiv for a while. And more people will die on the front line while the drama unfolds.

Time to end this nonsense now.

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has said that a further round of talks between Ukraine and Russia could start as early as this week, and indicated that “everything had to be done to get a ceasefire.” Yet it is far from clear that a ceasefire will be possible. And it’s likely that the war will continue into 2026.

In June, Zelensky was pressing the European Union to go further in its sanctions against Russia, including calling for a $30 per barrel cap on Russian oil shipments. Washington effectively vetoed a lowering of the oil price cap at the recent G7 Summit in Canada. However, on July 18 the European Union agreed its 18th round of Russian sanctions since war began, overcoming a blocking move by Slovakia in the process.

This imposes a cap on Russian oil shipments at 15% below market value ($47.60 at the time the package was agreed) and places further restrictions on Russia’s energy sector. But, there is scepticism that this will dent Russian revenues without the U.S. mirroring the measures, as the prior $60 per barrel G7 cap made no noticeable difference. Zelensky hailed the package as “essential and timely.”

Despite the overtures towards peace talks, economic sanctions against Russia continue to be the preferred approach for both Zelensky and for the EU. And the clock is ticking for the focus to shift back to President Trump’s proposed secondary sanctions. Having given Russia 50 days to agree a peace deal with Ukraine or face tariffs of 100% against its major trading partners, Trump has effectively set a deadline of September 2.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….this limited agenda will not be enough to satisfy the Kremlin that Ukraine is ready to negotiate and make progress towards an agreement on Russia’s so-called underlying concerns, the key concern being Ukraine’s NATO aspiration. Without the negotiations seriously getting into this and other such substantive issues as the disposition of forces and territory when the fighting stops, don’t expect a leader-level meeting any time soon.

…………………This dynamic of Europe and the U.S. threatening Russia with sanctions unless progress towards peace is made, while no expectations are placed on Ukraine to make concessions, has been locked in since March of 2015. It simply will not work.

Calling on Putin to meet in Istanbul is therefore, like it was in May, an act of political theater by Zelensky. He needs to keep his Western sponsors on side and for the flow of money and arms into Ukraine to continue. He also wants to polish his image as a putative global statesman.

Meanwhile, at the most recent Contact Group of Support for Ukraine meeting, then Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmyhal requested an additional $6 billion to cover this year’s deficit in defense procurement. He also urged “partners to allocate funds for Ukraine in their budget proposals for 2026, right now.”

Anyone who believes that Zelensky is really committed to accelerating moves towards peace in Ukraine may, I fear, be overly optimistic. I am increasingly convinced that war will continue into next year. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/predictably-there-was-no-progress?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=169121725&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

July 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »