Celebrating Five Years of the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.
On Thursday, January 22th, the world and New Mexicans will mark five years since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons became international law. Nuclear weapons are now illegal. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons/treaty-prohibition-nuclear-weapons
In Santa Fe, on Thursday and Friday, January 22nd and 23rd from noon to 1 pm, we’ll be gathering on the corners of West Alameda and Sandoval to peacefully commemorate the fifth year of the Treaty. Join us!
In 2017, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN, for its work to bring the Treaty to fruition. https://www.icanw.org/nobel_prize
ICAN continues its work. Currently most countries support the nuclear weapons ban treaty because they understand that any use of nuclear weapons carries extreme risks – by design, miscalculation or accident – causing catastrophic humanitarian consequences. We must continue to demand policy reform to debunk the myths of nuclear deterrence and defund the costs of continuing down that road.
In 2026, ICAN will work closely with states parties to the Treaty to make sure that diplomatic efforts reduce the risks of nuclear weapons and build towards nuclear disarmament. https://www.icanw.org/
Did you know about some of the changes have happened since the Treaty went into effect? In the last five years over $4.7 trillion dollars have been divested from nuclear weapons and the majority of the world refuses to accept doomsday as our destiny. https://www.icanw.org/take_action_now
Keir Starmer to rule over Gaza?
DECLASSIFIED UK, 16 Jan 26.
This week, it was revealed that UK prime minister Keir Starmer has been offered a place on Donald Trump’s Gaza “Board of Peace”, and he looks poised to accept the offer.
Last November, the UN Security Council (UNSC) voted in favour of establishing the board as a “transitional authority” to oversee Gaza reconstruction as well as the deployment of an International Stabilisation Force, with a mandate lasting until the end of 2027.
This allowed Trump to drive a bulldozer through any “Uniting for Peace” proposal at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), which authorises that body to take over from the UNSC in its role of maintaining international peace and security.
The actions of the UNGA become particularly important when the UNSC is deadlocked due to vetoes used by the major powers. The US government, for instance, has continually vetoed resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
By September, the “Uniting for Peace” mechanism had been backed by 45 UN human rights experts including special rapporteurs, independent experts, and working group members.
They urged the UNGA to recommend six proposals, including establishing a peace force, opening all crossings into Gaza, and deploying humanitarian naval missions.
The initiative also had the support of international leaders such as Colombian president Gustavo Petro, and had a chance of passing the two-thirds voting threshold at the UNGA.
But the effort was stymied by Trump’s “Board of Peace”, which effectively puts the genocidaires in charge of planning for the day after the genocide. “I assume that the US, at Israel’s urging, was very unhappy about the prospect of Uniting for Peace”, international law expert Richard Falk told the Electronic Intifada. “It’s a very strange context in which the perpetrator of genocide and its principal supporter are rewarded by presiding over a supposed peace process”, he added. The same could now be said for Starmer, a man who continued to provide intelligence support and sell arms to Israel amid the genocide, while welcoming Israeli soldiers to train on UK soil. On Tuesday, foreign secretary Yvette Cooper responded to the reports that Starmer was due to join the board, and showed little signs that the prime minister would reject the offer. |
“We supported the 20-point plan to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza”, Cooper said. “That is still fragile and there’s still a huge amount of work to do, including humanitarian surge and support, and including the decommissioning of weapons from Hamas”.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign responded to these developments, saying: “This would amount to a grotesque new low for Starmer, once again deepening his complicity in the denial of Palestinian rights”.
The group added: “Trump’s board is not about achieving lasting peace or justice. It’s about entrenching Israel’s colonisation, fragmentation and occupation of Palestinian land”.
Russia says it awaits US response on ‘important’ issue of expiring nuclear treaty
By Dmitry Antonov, January 15, 2026, Reporting by Dmitry Antonov Writing by Mark Trevelyan and Andrew Osborn Editing by Andrew Osborn, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-awaits-us-response-important-issue-expiring-nuclear-treaty-2026-01-15/
MOSCOW, Jan 15 (Reuters) – Russia is still waiting for the United States to respond to President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to informally extend for a year the provisions of the last remaining nuclear arms pact between the two countries, the Kremlin said on Thursday.
The New START treaty is due to expire in three weeks, and President Donald Trump has not formally responded to the offer that Putin made last September.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
“No, we have not received a response. We are certainly awaiting a response to Putin’s initiative; we consider this a very important topic,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
New START, which was signed by presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev in 2010, sets limits on the strategic weapons that each side would use to target the other’s critical political and military centres in the event of a nuclear war. It caps the number of deployed strategic warheads at 1,550 on each side, with no more than 700 deployed ground- or submarine-launched missiles and bomber planes to deliver them.
It is the last in a series of treaties dating back to the early 1970s that have enabled Moscow and Washington to maintain a stable nuclear balance even at times of acute international tension.
Trump told the New York Times this month that “if it expires, it expires”, and that he wanted to replace it with a more ambitious treaty including China.
China, whose arsenal is growing fast but remains a fraction of the size of Moscow’s or Washington’s, says it is unreasonable and unrealistic to ask it to join three-way disarmament talks.
Asked about Trump’s comments on a successor treaty, Peskov said this would be good for everyone but would involve a “very complex and drawn-out process”.
“As for our Chinese friends, their position is well known, and we respect it.”
Peskov reasserted Russia’s position that any discussion of strategic stability and security must take into account the nuclear arsenals of Britain and France.
It’s time to stop talking about the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” and instead focus on halting U.S. militarism in the region.
Washington needs North Korea’s alleged threat to justify its military buildup in Northeast Asia.
From the standpoint of the U.S. (and Japan), can there be a more effective pretext than propping up North Korea’s threat?
Washington needs North Korea’s alleged “threat” to justify its military buildup in Northeast Asia. 워싱턴은 동북아에서의 군사력 증강을 정당화하기 위해 북한의 ‘위협’을 필요로 한다.
Korea Update, Jan 16, 2026, https://koreaupdate.substack.com/p/its-time-to-stop-talking-about-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6214632&post_id=184718135&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=nm4gn&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
My quick daily commentary: Japan’s insistence on North Korea’s “denuclearization” and the South Korean government’s push for the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
In his recent discussion, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, explained the role nuclear weapons play in fending off U.S. threats to national sovereignty.
Mearsheimer reiterates that the U.S. does not approach North Korea as it does other countries, such as Iran—obviously because of North Korea’s nuclear deterrent. He emphasizes that the United States no longer “plays games” with North Korea, meaning overt threats of invasion, because “they have nuclear weapons.”
“…they [Iranians] were foolish not to have nuclear weapons a long time ago… You don’t play these games in North Korea. Don’t play these games in North Korea because they have nuclear weapons.”
At the 2023 Korea International Forum in Seoul, Mearsheimer noted that North Korea’s primary concern is survival against the U.S., and that the most rational step is to maintain an ultimate deterrent: nuclear weapons.
Indeed, many argue that Washington may have no choice but to recognize North Korea as a nuclear power and negotiate.
U.S. President Donald Trump refers to North Korea as a nuclear power, and some analysts argue that the U.S. should formally recognize North Korea as a nuclear-armed state and enter into nuclear arms reduction negotiations.
The U.S. 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), released on December 5, 2025, made no mention of North Korea at all, let alone its denuclearization.
North Korea—the only country in the world to constitutionally guarantee nuclear weapons, underscoring the importance it places on its arsenal as a survival tool against the U.S.—argues that it has focused on nuclear development to protect its citizens and safeguard sovereignty, even under U.S. threats and national disasters like the “Arduous March.” On November 29, 2017, Pyongyang declared the completion of its nuclear forces. On September 21, 2025, the 14th Supreme People’s Assembly passed the “State Nuclear Force Policy,” formally enshrining nuclear possession in the constitution. In a Supreme People’s Assembly speech, Kim Jong-un stated:
“Let me make it clear: ‘denuclearization’ can never, ever happen for us. Even if the U.S. and its allies chant for 10, 20, 50, or 100 years, the fact that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea possesses nuclear weapons will remain unchanged, whether they like it or not.”
There is also a caveat. Some claim that historically, the U.S. has used every possible measure to prevent North Korea’s nuclear development, including threats of war, large-scale military exercises, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure on Russia and China to isolate Pyongyang. Despite these efforts, North Korea’s nuclear capabilities have continued to strengthen.
In my view, this claim is flawed. The United States has had ample time and opportunity to strike a deal with North Korea, yet it has not done so.
The reason is that the ongoing perception of North Korea as a threat—both conventional and nuclear—serves Washington’s geopolitical interests. In other words, it’s not primarily about North Korea—it’s about a bigger strategic target: China and Russia.
Washington needs North Korea’s alleged threat to justify its military buildup in Northeast Asia.
From the standpoint of the U.S. (and Japan), can there be a more effective pretext than propping up North Korea’s threat?
If North Korea did not exist as a threat, Washington would likely have invented another North Korea–style justification.
The irony is that North Korea now has the capability to strike the U.S. The U.S. 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), which made no mention of North Korea at all—let alone its denuclearization—underscores Washington’s lack of a strategy for a nuclear-armed North Korea that has threatened “nuclear strikes on the U.S. mainland.”
The bottom line: The Lee Jae Myung administration should stop talking about denuclearization—its’ waste of time. Instead, it instead focus on reducing Washington’s militarism. Specifically, it should push to end U.S.-led joint military exercises with South Korea and Japan. That would be the first and most sensible step.
Trump names son-in-law, Rubio, Blair to Gaza ‘Board of Peace’
Jessica Gardner, Jan 17, 2026 , https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/trump-names-son-in-law-rubio-blair-to-gaza-board-of-peace-20260117-p5nuqb
Washington | United States President Donald Trump has named Secretary of State Marco Rubio, his Middle East fixer Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and private equity baron Marc Rowan to a Board of Peace to oversee the rehabilitation of wartorn Gaza.
The formation of the board, which will be chaired by Trump, was one of the 20-steps in a peace plan that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the terror group Hamas agreed to in September 2025, which led to the longest enduring ceasefire in the two-year conflict.
A White House statement released on Friday afternoon (Saturday AEDT) named the seven-member executive board, which also includes former British prime minister Sir Tony Blair, World Bank president Ajay Banga and US national security adviser Robert Gabriel.
There are no women on the board, nor are there any Palestinian representatives or leaders from Arab nations.
Each board member will “oversee a defined portfolio critical to Gaza’s stabilisation and long-term success,” the White House said. These responsibilities included governance capacity-building, regional relations, reconstruction, investment attraction, large-scale funding, and capital mobilisation.
Trump has also appointed Major General Jasper Jeffers to command an International Stabilisation Force to “establish security, preserve peace, and establish a durable terror-free environment”.
Trump has previously relied on Witkoff and Kushner as on-the-ground sherpas of his unorthodox style of foreign policy. Witkoff, a former real estate developer, has also been heavily involved in negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war.
The two men, as well as Blair and Rowan, the chief executive of $US908 billion ($1.4 trillion) investment giant Apollo Global Management, will also join a Gaza Executive Board responsible for supporting governance and service delivery.
Other members of that board include Turkish Foreign Minster Hakan Fidan, Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi, Egyptian intelligence official Hassan Rashad and United Arab Emirates Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al-Hashimy.
Trump earned praise for his role in persuading Netanyahu to end his military campaign in Gaza, which was sparked by the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by the terror group Hamas, which killed 1200 Israelis and took 250 hostages. Israel’s two-year retaliation led to the death of over 70,000 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians.
The ceasefire led to the return of all living hostages and almost all the remains of those hostages who had been killed.
Witkoff said in a post on social media platform X on Wednesday that the White House was moving into the second phase of Trump’s peace plan, which will include establishing a transitional Palestinian governing committee and beginning the complicated tasks of disarming Hamas and reconstruction.
The United Nations has estimated reconstruction will cost over $US50 billion. This process is expected to take years, and little money has been pledged so far.
Trump’s 20-point plan — which was approved by the U.N. Security Council — lays out an ambitious vision for ending Hamas’ rule in Gaza. If successful, it would see the rebuilding of a demilitarized Gaza under international supervision, the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world, and the creation of a possible pathway to Palestinian independence.
But if the deal stalls, Gaza could be trapped in an unstable limbo for years to come, with Hamas remaining in control of parts of the territory, Israel’s army enforcing an open-ended occupation, and its residents stuck homeless, unemployed, unable to travel abroad and dependent on international aid to stay alive.
The ceasefire took effect on October 10, 2025, although Israeli fire has killed more than 450 Palestinians since then, according to Gaza health officials. Palestinian militants, meanwhile, continue to hold the remains of the last hostage — an Israeli police officer killed in the Hamas-led attack that triggered the war.
Gaza’s population of more than 2 million people has struggled to keep cold weather and storms at bay while facing shortages of humanitarian aid and a lack of more substantial temporary housing, which is badly needed during the winter months.
Spectral Threats: China, Russia and Trump’s Greenland Rationale
Were Russia or China to attempt an occupation of Greenland through military means, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty would come into play, obliging NATO member states, including the United States, to collectively repel the effort.
“There are no Russian and Chinese ships all over the place around Greenland,”
“Russia and/or China has no capacity to occupy Greenland or to take control over Greenland.”
14 January 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/spectral-threats-china-russia-and-trumps-greenland-rationale/
The Trump administration’s mania about Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, is something to behold. Its untutored thuggery, its brash assertiveness, and the increasingly strident threats to either use force, bully Denmark into a sale of the island, or simply annex the territory, have officials and commentators scrambling for theories and precedents. The Europeans are terrified that the NATO alliance is under threat from another NATO member. The Greenlanders are anxious and confused. But the ground for further action by Washington is being readied by finding threats barely real and hardly plausible.
The concerns about China and Russia seizing Greenland retells the same nonsense President Donald Trump promoted in kidnapping the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Looking past the spurious narcoterrorism claims against the former leader, it fell to the issue of who would control the natural resources of the country. If we don’t get Venezuelan oil now and secure it for American companies, the Chinese or the Russians will. he gangster’s rationale is crudely reductionist, seeing all in a similar veinThe obsession with Beijing and Moscow runs like a forced thread through a dotty, insular rationale that repels evidence and cavorts with myth: “We need that [territory],” reasons the President, “because if you take a look outside Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We are not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t.” On Denmark’s military capabilities in holding the island against any potential aggressor, Trump could only snort with macho dismissiveness. “You know what their defence is? Two dog sleds.”
This scratchy logic is unsustainable for one obvious point. Were Russia or China to attempt an occupation of Greenland through military means, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty would come into play, obliging NATO member states, including the United States, to collectively repel the effort. With delicious perversity, any US effort to forcibly acquire the territory through use of force would be an attack on its own security, given its obligations under the Treaty. In such cases, it becomes sound to assume, as the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen does, that the alliance would cease to exist.
Such matters are utterly missed by the rabidly hawkish Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who declared that, “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” It was up to the US “to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests” in incorporating Greenland. To take territory from a NATO ally was essentially doing it good.
Given that the United States already has a military presence on the island at the Pituffik Space Base, and rights under the 1951 agreement that would permit an increase in the number of bases should circumstances require it, along with the Defence Cooperation Agreement finalised with Copenhagen in June 2025, much of Miller’s airings are not merely farcical but redundant. Yet, Trump has made it clear that signatures and understandings reflected in documents are no substitute for physically taking something, the thrill of possession that, by its act, deprives someone else of it. “I think ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty,” he told the New York Times. “Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
What, then, of these phantom forces from Moscow and Beijing, supposedly lying in wait to seize the frozen prize? “There are no Russian and Chinese ships all over the place around Greenland,” states the very convinced research director of the Oslo-based Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Andreas Østhagen. “Russia and/or China has no capacity to occupy Greenland or to take control over Greenland.”
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen is similarly inclined. “The image that’s being painted of Russian and Chinese ships right inside the Nuuk fjord and massive Chinese investments being made is not correct.” Senior “Nordic diplomats” quoted in the Financial Times add to that version, even if the paper is not decent enough to mention which Nordic country they come from. “It is simply not true that the Chinese and Russians are there,” said one. “I have seen the intelligence. There are no ships, no submarines.” Vessel tracking data from Marine Traffic and LSEG have so far failed to disclose the presence of Chinese and Russian ships near the island.
Heating engineer Lars Vintner, based in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, wondered where these swarming, spectral Chinese were based. “The only Chinese I see,” he told Associated Press,“ is when I go to the fast food market.” This sparse presence extends to the broader security footprint of China in the Arctic, which remains modest despite a growing collaboration with Russia since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. These have included Arctic and coast guard operations, while the Chinese military uses satellites and icebreakers equipped with deep-sea mini submarines, potentially for mapping the seabed.
However negligible and piffling the imaginary threat, analysts, ever ready with a larding quote or a research brief, are always on hand to show concern with such projects as Beijing’s Polar Silk Road, announced in 2018, which is intended as the Arctic extension of its transnational Belt and Road initiative. The subtext: Trump should not seize Greenland, but he might have a point. “China has clear ambitions to expand its footprint and influence in the region, which it considers… an emerging arena for geopolitical competition.” Or so says Helena Legarda of the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin.
The ludicrous nature of Trump’s claims and acquisitive urges supply fertile material for sarcasm. A prominent political figure from one of the alleged conquerors-to-be made an effort almost verging on satire. “Trump needs to hurry up,” mocked the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council and former President Dmitry Medvedev. “According to unverified information, within a few days, there could be a sudden referendum where all 55,000 residents of Greenland might vote to join Russia. And that’s it!” With Trump, “that’s it” never quite covers it.
You Can’t Cheer For Regime Change In Iran Without Also Cheering For The US Empire.
Caitlin Johnstone, Jan 11, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/you-cant-cheer-for-regime-change?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=184201179&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The western press are reporting that Trump is considering another attack on Iran as protests heat up amid a government crackdown and internet blackout. The president had previously announced that he will intervene militarily if the Iranian government starts killing protesters.
At this point it’s probably worth recalling that earlier this month Mike Pompeo tweeted that Mossad agents were intimately involved in the unrest, saying, “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”
Pompeo was secretary of state during Trump’s first term, and was Trump’s CIA director prior to that. The claim that Mossad agents are active among the protesters has also been circulated by the Israeli press.
As secretary of state, Pompeo said during a 2020 interview that the goal of the crushing sanctions the US had imposed on Iran was not to pressure the Iranian government to change, but to pressure the Iranian people to change the government. He told former acting CIA director Mike Morrell that while he didn’t expect the sanctions to change Tehran’s behavior, he believed that “what can change is the people can change the government.”
Pompeo was confessing that Washington’s starvation sanctions were directed not at the Iranian government, but at the people of Iran. The goal has been to make them so miserable and impoverished that they turn to civil war against their government out of desperation. Economic strife is widely cited as a driving motivator for the protests.
Deliberately immiserating a population in order to cause a civil war is a profoundly evil thing to do. And it becomes all the more evil when you understand that it is only being done for power and geostrategic domination.
If you think of yourself as a leftist or an opponent of the US murder machine, there is no valid excuse for you to support regime change in Iran. It’s not okay to be a grown adult and pretend this is all happening in a vacuum like it’s somehow separate from all these foreign abuses that have been calculatingly engineered to give rise to the unrest we are seeing in Iran today, and act like this wouldn’t directly benefit the most murderous and tyrannical regime on this planet.
I find it so offensive when I see anarkiddies and NATO progressives supporting the regime change agendas of the CIA and the Pentagon like it somehow makes the world less tyrannical when yet another nation gets absorbed into the folds of the imperial blob. If they do get their wish and Tehran is toppled, all that will happen is that the US-centralized empire will gain that much more power and the worst people on earth will get big smiles on their faces. It gives the most powerful and destructive power structure on earth even more control over the fate of our species, and these infantile human livestock are clapping along with it and pretending they’re sticking it to the man.
It’s a completely nonsensical position to support the downfall of any government before the fall of the western empire, because that is the most deadly and abusive power structure in existence, and because it directly benefits whenever it succeeds in absorbing a noncompliant state into its power umbrella. If you actually oppose tyranny and support freedom, it’s absurd to desire the fall of the empire’s enemies while the empire itself remains standing, because every win for the empire makes the world less free.
I don’t know what’s going to happen in Iran, but I hope the empire fails its regime change operation. I hope the western empire gets weaker, not stronger, because it is only getting more and more despotic and deadly as the years go on, and the last thing we need is for it to shore up even more control over our planet. Humanity won’t have a shot at real freedom until that power structure has been thoroughly dismantled.
Somaliland: Longtime Zionist Colonisation Target
Kit Klarenberg, January 12, 2026 , https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/somaliland-longtime-zionist-colonisation
On December 26th, the Zionist entity recognised Somaliland – historic Somalian territory that has claimed independence since 1991 – as a state, the first country in the world to do so. The move sparked widespread outcry and international condemnation, with the African Union demanding it be revoked. Undeterred, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar visited Hargeisa on January 6th, signing a memorandum of understanding on cooperation in multiple areas, including ‘defence’. President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi hailed the visit as a “historic milestone” in Somaliland’s quest for international legitimacy.
These developments are of significant concern to Somaliland’s neighbours throughout the Horn of Africa, with which the statelet has extremely strained relations, that have boiled over into all-out conflict on numerous occasions over decades. Fears are understandably widespread an Israeli – if not accompanying US – military presence locally will embolden breakaway authorities to intensify their belligerence, and seize contested territory claimed by both Hargeisa and Somalia. But grave anxieties are also felt throughout West Asia
Speculation has long-swirled Somaliland is viewed as a potential dumping ground for Gaza’s population by the US and Israel, to clear the way for further Zionist settlement and Palestine’s total erasure. Recognition appears to be a move in that monstrous direction. Moreover, in November 2025 the highly influential Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies published a paper explicitly stating Somaliland was “an ideal candidate” for “strategic” cooperation, in service of numerous geopolitical and military objectives. Chief among them, a “future campaign” against Yemen’s AnsarAllah.
Throughout the Gaza genocide, God’s Partisans have stood defiant in their defence of the Palestinian people. This has included direct strikes into the heart of the Zionist entity with drones and hypersonic missiles, and a blockade of the Red Sea. The latter effort endured for almost two years, causing immense disruption to global trade and crippling Israel’s ports, to the extent of outright closure. Along the way, AnsarAllah resoundingly defeated two grand Anglo-American air and naval efforts to regain control of the Sea.
The INSS paper noted Somaliland’s geographical position offers the Zionist entity “potential access to an operational area close to the conflict zone.” Put simply, an Israeli military presence in the would-be country would make striking AnsarAllah considerably easier in a future war. Entity military and political officials have for months made clear they have not jettisoned reveries of crushing the Resistance, despite the embarrassing failure of Tel Aviv’s 12-day-long broadside against Iran in June 2025.
Nonetheless, there may be other motivations underpinning Israel’s recognition of Somaliland – for the territory has long-been a subject of literally religious fascination for Zionists. In 1943, the Harrar Council was founded in New York to pursue the dream of Hermann Fuernberg, who fantasised for years about forging a “permanent home for a large Jewish population” in “Harrar” – land spanning Ethiopia and then-British Somaliland. World War II provided Fuernberg and his adherents an ideal opportunity to put their plan into action – or so they thought.
The Council had high hopes of success. First and foremost, Ethiopia’s Emperor Haile Selassie was supposedly a “descendant of the House of David”, and “successor of King Solomon.” The sense the organisation believed God was on their side is writ large in private communications with the monarch. Jewish scripture stating “the Diaspora will come to an end when Jews enter the Land of Cush” is repeatedly cited. The Council elaborated, “Cush is no other than Ethiopia, of which Harrar forms a part.”
‘Heroic Achievements’
The Harrar Council is largely forgotten today, the only vestiges of its existence correspondence between its representatives and British, Ethiopian, and US officials, and promotional pamphlets. The little-known material contains a number of extraordinary insights, not merely into the ultimately failed project itself, but Zionist settlement of Palestine more widely, and how the repulsive colonial ideology of Zionism grew from a niche political project into a dominant force within Judaism.
Some of the most incendiary excerpts can be found in a pamphlet authored by Hermann Fuernberg in early 1943, The Case Of European Jews. Repeated reference is made throughout to the urgent necessity of resolving the “Jewish problem” once World War II was over, and how the Holocaust had significantly strengthened arguments for the creation of a Jewish state. However, Fuernberg was critical of the Zionist colonial movement for its exclusive focus on Palestine as a destination:
“The Zionist program has as its goal the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and the regeneration – cultural, political and religious – of the Jewish people within the framework of this Palestinian state. Their extensive program is so set they cannot deviate from it to take account of current events and urgent problems. Thus Zionism believes that every attempt at collective emigration which Jews may undertake on a non-Zionist basis may easily damage the Zionist cause and therefore the Zionists oppose all such attempts.”
Fuernberg noted how Adolf Hitler’s ascent to power in Germany “gave Zionism…a great increase of strength,” boosting “both legal and illegal” immigration to Palestine. However, this led to “increasing resistance…to Jewish immigration (infiltration)” locally – “not only from the Arab world.” In particular, ever-increasing Zionist demands for further territory, including lands belonging to nearby states such as Jordan, arrayed international opinion against the settler colonial project. In practical terms too, due to its size and existing population, Palestine was unable to “absorb” the world’s Jews in their entirety.
While hailing Zionism’s “many admirable and heroic achievements,” Fuernberg lamented how the ideology “has not been able to convert to its side the great mass of the Jewish people,” despite “40 years of propaganda”. While US Jews provided “the bulk of the funds” for Palestine’s colonisation, and “80% of the Jewish press is Zionist dominated,” Stateside Zionist organisations boasted meagre memberships, representing a tiny percentage of the world’s Jewish population. Nazi rule in Germany had failed to shift this needle significantly outside Europe.
In the same four-decade-long period, “Zionists were able to build a number of quasi-political organizations, which…assumed greater importance” for Jews in lieu of alternative movements opposing Hitler. Despite their putative clout though, “these organizations had never been capable of arousing even among their own adherents sufficient political understanding…so as to make the cry for a Jewish state the united demand of a whole people.” Vast sums reaped by these entities was provided out of “charity and piety”, not support for colonising Palestine.
‘Equitable Proportion’
So it was in early 1944, the Harrar Council, led by Fuernberg, submitted a detailed proposal to Ethiopia’s Emperor on establishing a “permanent home for a large Jewish population” in his country, and neighbouring Somaliland. In an accompanying letter to the US State Department, the organisation spelled out the perceived benefits of this land grab. For one, the proposed territory was “large enough to accommodate the very large number of Jews, whose emigration from Europe will become inevitable in the near future.”
Furthermore, “climatic conditions are such that fruit, grain and vegetables grown in Europe can also be grown in Harrar, thus assuring favorable living conditions for a people emanating from Central Europe.” Best of all, “the territory is very sparsely populated, so that the political and racial obstacles to a free development found elsewhere” – ie Palestine – “are not likely to arise.” Fuernberg stressed to US officials, “our project is in no way a rival to Palestine,” but instead complemented the settler colonial effort.
In submissions to Ethiopia’s Emperor, the Council made a number of bold pledges. All Jews settling in Harrar province would “swear allegiance to Your Majesty,” the territory’s “internal affairs” would be administered by an elected governing body and “governor-royal or viceroy,” English would be the colony’s official language, and the Emperor would “be entitled to an agreed equitable proportion of certain taxes to be levied…an income which will increase with the growth of the industrial and cultural life of the province.”
It was promised Harrar’s imported population would be “law-abiding, orderly and loyal citizens,” inspired by the “autonomy and the possibility of free development” granted by Ethiopian authorities. Palestine was cited as “an excellent example” of how Jews could “build up an agricultural and colonial settlement and to develop it successfully.” This would greatly “enrich” Ethiopia, offering “vast markets for the products of your land and stimulate the development of its natural resources.”
The Council signed off, “if a harassed and persecuted people can be turned into a happy and prosperous community, the whole of Ethiopia will thereby also be enriched and Your Majesty will rightly be regarded as one of the great benefactors of humanity.” In secret discussions with the State Department, the organisation bragged it had “reason to believe” the Emperor was “favorably inclined towards the Jewish people,” and there was “a fair probability that he will be willing to cooperate to a large extent.”
However, this was not to be. In July 1944, the Emperor’s subordinates politely informed the Council that while Ethiopia had eagerly “afforded asylum to many refugees from Europe,” authorities rejected any suggestion “an entire province” be given to “one group of refugees.” Resultantly, the Emperor demanded “the proposal…be now abandoned.” There is no indication the British or US governments were possessed of such opposition. Now, over 80 years later, the Harrar Council’s designs may be on the verge of becoming reality.
The Non-Peaceful Atom
Vladimir Slivyak, January 7, 2026, https://www.posle.media/article/the-non-peaceful-atom
In what ways does Russia use nuclear energy as a strategic tool? Why have sanctions failed to end Europe’s dependence on the Russian nuclear industry? How is Rosatom involved in the war? Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair of the Eco-Defense group, answers these questions
As a strategic instrument of the Kremlin, Rosatom helps to create and entrench geopolitical dependencies. This dependence rests on the promotion of nuclear energy but has ramifications that extend far beyond the energy sector. Rosatom is both directly and indirectly involved in Russia’s war against Ukraine. In particular, Rosatom played a key role in Russia’s seizure of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and has offered to procure materials and components for Russian arms manufacturers under sanctions.
Nevertheless, the European nuclear industry continues to collaborate with Rosatom. For instance, Rosatom supplies uranium to Framatome’s ANF nuclear fuel plant in Lingen, Germany. Rosatom is also involved in expanding this facility, even though the German authorities have not yet approved such cooperation. If the Framatome-Rosatom project, which has been in development for over three years, goes ahead, the Russian regime will further strengthen its political influence in Western Europe despite the war in Ukraine.
Rosatom as a Civil-Military State Corporation
Rosatom is a state-owned corporation that operates in both the civilian and military spheres of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. As the successor to Russia’s Ministry of Atomic Energy, Rosatom brings together over 350 companies engaged in nuclear activities. The corporation was created by a decree by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2007.
Rosatom is directly owned by the Russian state. It is one of seven Russian “state corporations,” grouped together with Rostec, Roscosmos, and others. In 2012, former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev described Rosatom as a “corporation of a special kind” that not only seeks to expand its activities but also carries out “certain ministerial tasks.”
The corporation’s Supervisory Board is its main decision-making body. This board includes Sergey Kirienko, the deputy head of the Russian presidential administration, who is currently under sanctions from the EU, the UK, and the US, as well as Sergei Korolev, the first deputy director of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (the main successor to the Soviet KGB). In relation to the war in Ukraine, Korolev has also been sanctioned by the EU, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, the UK, and Ukraine. The Supervisory Board also includes two Russian deputy prime ministers and two aides to President Vladimir Putin.
The European Parliament has repeatedly called for sanctions on Rosatom and for an end to all nuclear cooperation with Russia, including uranium imports and investments in critical infrastructure.
Participation in the War
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, Rosatom has been directly and indirectly involved in the war. According to a letter obtained by Ukrainian intelligence and published in the American press, Rosatom offered assistance to the Russian arms industry in securing goods needed for the production of weapons, tanks, and aircraft after that sector had been hit by international sanctions.
In his December 2022 address to Rosatom on the occasion of its 15th anniversary, President Vladimir Putin praised the corporation for its “enormous contribution to the development and deployment of advanced weapons systems and military equipment.”
In the early days of the invasion, Rosatom employees assisted Russian troops who occupied the Chernobyl exclusion zone in Ukraine. The Russian state corporation also facilitated the illegal seizure of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Rosatom employees have taken over key management positions at the facility. Following a decree by the Russian president, Rosatom created a new subsidiary specifically tasked with taking control of the plant.
In October 2023, Ukrainian nuclear operator Energoatom reported that the safety culture at the plant was deteriorating under Rosatom’s control. This deterioration included poorly performed work, insufficient staffing, and inadequate inspections. The company stated that these problems had led to significant damage to critical components of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), including leaks in the radioactive primary coolant circuit. There is also credible evidence that Rosatom employees assisted the Russian military in selecting targets at the Zaporizhzhya NPP; they reportedly “helped direct Russian artillery fire at the plant.”
Rosatom as a Geopolitical Tool
Rosatom is a central player in the Russian regime’s “geopolitics.” The company’s goal is to make as many countries as possible dependent on Russian nuclear technology, services, and fuel. Rosatom purchases essential equipment for nuclear reactors under construction from European companies and supplies the EU with unenriched and enriched uranium, fuel, and other nuclear services. This cooperation helps fund the continuation of the war in Ukraine. It also locks Europe into dependence on Russian nuclear fuel and services, which ultimately translates into political influence.
Hungary is perhaps the clearest example. It is almost entirely dependent on Russia for nuclear energy services and has repeatedly blocked any attempt by the EU to impose sanctions on Rosatom. Russia controls the supply of nuclear fuel and the maintenance of existing Hungarian reactors and has provided a €10 billion loan for the construction of Paks-2 nuclear power plant. In addition, Siemens Energy and Framatome are providing key equipment and control systems for new Russian-made reactors in Hungary.
Rosatom states that it is currently building more than 30 new reactors in about a dozen countries. Last year, its subsidiaries exported approximately $2.2 billion worth of nuclear energy-related goods and materials. The Russian state budget covers more than 90% of the cost of Rosatom’s construction of new nuclear power plants around the world.
Rosatom has signed agreements with nearly 20 African countries to build nuclear power plants and research reactors. So far, however, only one plant is actually under construction: the Al Dabaa plant in Egypt. Rosatom has also purchased a uranium mine in Tanzania. A previous attempt to build a nuclear power plant in South Africa collapsed due to resistance from environmental activists. In South America, Rosatom is involved in smaller but still significant projects, such as a research reactor and lithium mining in Bolivia.
Despite Russia’s war in Ukraine, the French nuclear company Framatome continues to purchase uranium from Rosatom. Between 2022 to 2023, at least ten shipments of uranium went from Russia to the ANF nuclear fuel plant in Lingen, a Framatome subsidiary. According to the German government, these deliveries took place under two federal government licenses issued in September, November, and December 2022, as well as in April and May 2023. In August 2023, German authorities granted a new license authorizing up to 40 more shipments. Deliveries are still ongoing.
Prospects
In the four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion began, the EU has adopted nearly twenty packages of sanctions against the Russian economy and industry. Other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan, have also imposed sanctions. However, Russia has faced virtually no pressure in the field of nuclear energy, one of its key sectors with both civilian and military significance. On the contrary, Rosatom has expanded its operations and almost tripled its profits from trade with Western countries.
Europe’s dependence on Russia in the nuclear sphere is roughly comparable to its reliance on pipeline gas supplies before the war. First, Putin used gas deliveries as leverage over Europe, and then the Russian pipeline was destroyed in an act of sabotage. Without these developments, we would now likely be talking about the EU’s crippling dependence on Russia for both uranium and pipeline gas. In such a situation, it is reasonable to assume that Ukraine would not have been able to rely on the level of support it currently enjoys in Europe.
This dependence on Russian supplies did not arise by a happy accident for Moscow but from strategic steps the Russian regime has taken over the past 10–15 years. It is not known for certain whether Putin had been planning a full-scale war throughout this entire period. However, it is clear that making Europe’s economy as dependent as possible on Russian energy supplies was one of Moscow’s strategic priorities. Under this strategy, many European countries were meant to end up in the position Hungary finds itself in today.
As a result of the war in Ukraine, Europe’s dependence on Russian supplies has fallen sharply, though it has not disappeared. For instance, Germany, the EU’s largest economy, no longer relies on Russian pipeline gas. The fight against the “shadow fleet” transporting Putin’s oil to fund the war is under way, albeit with mixed results. Furthermore, Russian coal has been completely banned from Europe. Russia’s coal industry, one of the most profitable, is currently in a deep crisis — direct evidence that Russia has been unable to offset the consequences of Europe’s refusal to buy Russian coal. Even in the nuclear energy sector, the least affected by sanctions, there have been notable shifts. For instance, Finland has abandoned plans to build a major nuclear power plant with Russian involvement. In several cases, European companies have been unable to supply Rosatom with equipment for its projects in other countries.
Unfortunately, efforts to reduce dependence on Russian uranium are progressing extremely slowly, and there is still no clear timeline for this process. A full break with Russian uranium in the foreseeable future seems unlikely, especially if Hungary goes ahead with a new nuclear power plant project involving Rosatom. Russia is also trying to increase its liquefied natural gas exports to Europe. However, it now seems unlikely that European authorities will once again allow a situation in which Vladimir Putin can make their economies dependent on Russia.
Rosatom is arguably the biggest Russian thorn in Europe’s flesh today, and half-measures won’t remove it. A “surgical extraction” would cause severe and painful shocks to the economies — and, in turn, the politics — of several EU member states. The problem is not that the threat is underestimated; Europe understands it perfectly well. The issue is that freeing itself from this nuclear dependence would require enormous time and effort. The question is: will there be enough of either?
The Coalition of the Willing has achieved nothing
‘we agreed to finalise binding commitments setting out our approach to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. These may include, military capabilities, intelligence and so on.’
In diplomatic parlance, agreeing to finalise commitments that may include basically means that nothing has been agreed.
What the declaration does achieve is to commit European nations to paying Ukraine to maintain an army of 800,000 personnel after the war ends which, by the way, is significantly higher than the total number of armed forces personnel of Germany, France and Britain combined.
Time to be more direct in telling Zelensky what he should do
Ian Proud, Jan 13, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/the-coalition-of-the-willing-has?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=184
The war in Ukraine happened because western nations insisted that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO but were never willing to fight to guarantee that right.
That reality has never changed. Last week’s latest Summit of the Coalition of the Willing confirmed that it will not change any time soon.
The only countries that appear remotely willing to deploy troops to Ukraine in a vague and most certainly limited way are the British and French.
Both would need parliamentary approval which can’t be guaranteed. Reform Leader Nigel Farage has already come out to say that he wouldn’t back a vote to deploy British troops to Ukraine because we simply don’t have enough men or equipment, a point recently reinforced by General (ret’d) Sir richard Shirreff.
Even though Keir Starmer has the parliamentary numbers to pass any future vote on deploying British troops, it would almost certainly damage his already catastrophic polling numbers.
Macron is clinging on to his political life and would probably face a tougher tussle to get his parliament to approve the French sending their troops to Ukraine, potentially leaving the UK on its own.
In any case, it is completely obvious that Russia won’t agree to any deployment in Ukraine by NATO troops. This shows once again that western leaders have learned absolutely nothing over the past decade. It will never be possible to insist that Russia sues for peace under terms which is has long made clear are unacceptable at a time when it was winning on the battlefield, and European nations refuse to fight with their own troops.
Hawkish British journalist Edward Lucas, with whom I disagree on most things, summed it up well in an opinion in the Times Newspaper when he said
We are promising forces we do not have, to enforce a ceasefire that does not exist, under a plan that has yet to be drawn up, endorsed by a superpower (read the US) that is no longer our ally, to deter an adversary that has far greater willpower than we do.’
President Putin has shown an absolute determination not to back down until his core aims, namely to prevent NATO expansion, are achieved. And as I have said many times, the west can’t win a war by committee.
All of these pointless Coalition of the Willing meetings happen in circumstances where Europe refuses to talk to Russia upon whom an end to the war depends. Peace will only break out after Ukraine and Russia sign a deal, and the west appears deliberately to be doing everything possible to ensure that Russia never signs.
Instead, we entertain Zelensky with hugs and handshakes, reassuring him that we will do anything he wants for as long as he needs, only to offer insufficient help all of the time.
And, as Zelensky is in any case unelected, not likely to win elections in Ukraine as and when they happen, overseeing a corrupt regime that is adopting increasingly repressive tactics to keep a losing war going, it is not in his interest to see the war anyway.
His calculus continues to be that, if he clings on for long enough, the west will finally be dragged into a direct war with Russia. So, he’s happy to drag out an endless cycle of death by committee in which European leaders never agree to give him exactly what he wants and he uses that as a pretext not to settle.
Zelensky went on from Paris to Cyprus where, among other things, he has been pushing for more sanctions against Russia. At no point since 2014 have sanctions looked remotely likely to work against Russia, for reasons I have outlined many times.
The European Commission is now planning its twentieth round of sanctions to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the war on 24 February 2026. So with peace talks ongoing, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas as always are doing their bit to ensure that nothing gets agreed.
None of this brings the war any closer to an end nor does it provide any security guarantees to Ukraine. As always, the biggest security guarantee should be the offer by European allies to intervene militarily in Ukraine should Russia decide to reinvade after any future peace deal.
But that was not agreed in Paris. Instead, the Paris Declaration said, ‘we agreed to finalise binding commitments setting out our approach to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. These may include, military capabilities, intelligence and so on.’
In diplomatic parlance, agreeing to finalise commitments that may include basically means that nothing has been agreed.
The declaration also said:
We stand ready to commit to a system of politically and legally binding guarantees. However, the final communique gave individual countries opt outs from those guarantees by saying that any guarantees would be, ‘in accordance with our respective legal and constitutional arrangements’.
So, again, in diplomatic parlance, what this means is that some coalition members may be able to opt out of the security guarantees if they decide that their domestic framework does not allow for such an arrangement, thinking here in particular of Hungary, Italy and Spain, for example.
What the declaration does achieve is to commit European nations to paying Ukraine to maintain an army of 800,000 personnel after the war ends which, by the way, is significantly higher than the total number of armed forces personnel of Germany, France and Britain combined.
Even though these are Ukrainian troops, not European, Russia will undoubtedly see EU funding of a large Ukrainian army on its border as a form of NATO lite. Which, of course, Zelensky would welcome.’
So the process of holding near weekly Coalition of the Willing summits is entirely pointless, though perhaps that is the point. Since 2022, western leaders have been completely unable to say no to Zelensky, either through guilt or stupidity, or both.
Yet at some point, if only for their own political survival, Starmer and others will have to politely decline to offer more support and make it clear to Zelensky that he has no choice but to sue for peace. To me, at least, the European offer to Zelensky follows these lines:
Ukraine cannot join NATO (sorry we lied to you about that) but you can join the European Union and we will help you make the reforms you need to do so.
You will get significant investment when the war ends that boosts your economy. As your people return home, we believe Ukraine has potential to grow quickly and reconstruct.
However, it may still be many years before you receive EU subsidies on the level of other European Members, and you possibly may not receive them at all.
And you will have to become financially sustainable, including meeting the EU’s fiscal deficit like other EU member states.
I’m afraid that means that you won’t be able to maintain an army of 800,000 people at Europe’s expense (sorry we reassured you that you could).
But, as a European Union member you would have a security guarantee by virtue of your membership of this community, even though only Macron’s France has said it would send you troops (je m’excuse).
You should also be aware that Europe sees benefit in a normalised economic relationship with Russia, that includes purchasing cheap Russian energy. We can’t go on buying massively expensive US LNG just to avoid hurting your feelings.
Sanctions may have been a policy or war, but they won’t be a policy of peace, and you will need to accept that we will drop them too.
We have now reached the limit of the financial support that we can provide to you so we have reached the point of now or never in your signing a peace deal.
That requires you to make hard choices about de facto recognition of land on the lines of the peace deal that the US is trying right now to finalise with Russia.
Without that, he will simply continue this charade of endless pointless Summits and the war will drag Europe even further into the mire.
That’s a lot to take in and we’ve already apologised enough as it is. Look, we lied to you okay, but everyone makes mistakes.
Somehow, though, I predict the Europeans will continue to drift in circles. I wonder where the next Coalition of the Willing Summit will be? I hope it’s soon, as Zelensky might actually have to spend some time inside of Ukraine if there’s a delay. And he likes it in Europe as it’s the only place where everyone seems to love him.
Is the U.S. preparing to install another Shah to run Iran as a U.S. puppet?
13 January 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Walt Zlotow , West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, https://theaimn.net/is-the-u-s-preparing-to-install-another-shah-to-run-iran-as-a-u-s-puppet/
Nationwide anti-government protests are wracking Iran with over 500 killed and 10,000 detained. The U.S. political establishment is ecstatic about the possibility of regime change of the hated Iranian Islamic government which in 1979 toppled the American puppet Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (the Shah of Iran) the U.S. installed in 1953.
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi pounced on this statement by former US Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo that implied both the US and Israel are involved in fomenting the protest:
“The Iranian regime is in trouble. Bringing in mercenaries is its last best hope. Riots in dozens of cities. 47 years of this regime; POTUS 47. Coincidence? Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”
Araghchi responded:
“According to the US Government, Iran is ‘delusional’ for assessing that Israel and the US are fueling violent riots in our country. There is only one problem: President Trump’s own former CIA Director has openly and unashamedly highlighted what Mossad and its American enablers are really up to.”
Araghchi is well aware of historical precedence for US regime change in Iran. Seventy-three years ago the US joined Britain’s Operation TP-Ajax, the US-British coup that deposed Iran’s legitimate ruler Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Brits conceived the coup in 1952 and presented it to ‘Give ‘Em Hell’ Harry Truman, who literally told the Brits to go to hell.
A year later newbie Prez Ike greenlighted TP-AJAX to allow Britain to grab back its Iranian oil monopoly nationalized by elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh. For Ike, it was a chance to make his bones as a stanch anti-communist, due to Mosaddegh’s unwillingness to crush Iranian communist influence. Leading this first official CIA coup against a foreign leader who wouldn’t do our bidding was TR’s grandson Kermit Roosevelt Jr., following a family tradition of senseless and bellicose militarism.
Our handpicked successor was Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, son of the first Pahlavi monarch Reza Shah Pahlavi. His reluctance and indecision almost wrecked Uncle Sam’s best laid plans, but our CIA Iranian operatives, masquerading as commies, shed enough blood to turn the tide against Mosaddegh. The Shah ruled Iran for another 26 years, with his CIA trained secret police killing thousands who dared speak out against his tyrannical rule.
And guess who has jumped into the current chaos in Iran… Reza Pahlavi, the US-based son of Iran’s ousted Shah whom the US installed after deposing Mosaddegh in 1953. Pahlavi praised the protests as “magnificent” and urged Iranian to plan more targeted actions “to seize and hold city centers.” He’s likely salivating at a chance to reclaim his father’s rule in Iran to once again do America’s bidding. Back then it was to protect British, US oil interests and counter communist influence in Iran. If installed today Pahlavi would complete both Israel and America’s decade’s long goal of weakening, destabilizing Iran to cement Israel’s Middle East hegemony.
Maybe the US has nothing to do with current unrest that may topple the Iranian regime. But based on US regime change history with Iran and numerous other countries, it would not surprise if the US was all in aiding it.
Why the coalition should be willing to say no to Zelensky
But they won’t, as they are unable to agree on anything useful
Ian Proud, Jan 09, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/why-the-coalition-should-be-willing?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=183930866&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The latest in a line series of self-congratulatory Coalition of the Willing Summits in Paris, only confirmed that no one is willing to fight Russia on Ukraine’s behalf.
So, well dressed western leaders posed for the cameras and agreed nothing that would bring the war in Ukraine any closer to an end.
Zelensky doesn’t seem to mind, though, as it’s not in his interests to settle.
The Americans appear to be growing increasingly reluctant to get involved. leaving European tax payers to foot the billl.
In this video I outline what European leaders should say to Zelensky as the best offer on the table for Ukraine. Though I don’t expect them to do so as they are incapable of rational analysis and, in any case, unable to make a decision on anything useful.
“Condemning US imperialism for its illegal invasion and violation of sovereignty”
Over the weekend, 56 groups across the country marched to condemn the United States and to demonstrate solidarity with Venezuela, Palestine, and anti-imperialists…
North Korea News, Reporter Lee Seung-hyun , 2026.01.10
Actions condemning the US’s illegal invasion of Venezuela continued across the country over the weekend.
Fifty-six civic groups, including the Joint Action to Stop Trump Threats (preliminary), the National People’s Action, and the Independent Unification and Peace Solidarity, held a “Citizens’ March Condemning the US for Illegal Invasion and Sovereignty Violation” in front of KT in Gwanghwamun, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 10th. The march continued through the city center, through Jongno, Gwanghwamun, and finally to the US Embassy.
Citizens who gathered in front of KT in Gwanghwamun, braving the bad weather of heavy snow, cold waves, and strong winds, chanted in one voice: △ Condemn Trump, a war criminal who aims to plunder resources and change the regime; △ Immediately release President Maduro, who has been illegally kidnapped; △ Stop the tyranny and war of aggression of US imperialism.
Yang Kyung-soo, chairman of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, said, “The tariff war waged by the United States against the world last year shows that the economic order that guaranteed the limitless greed of capital through neoliberalism is over, and that the history of the United States, which boasted sole global hegemony based on neoliberalism and powerful military power, and that the hegemony of the United States are also coming to an end,” adding, “The same goes for the US’s acts of aggression in Venezuela.”
He also mentioned that President Trump signed a proclamation on the 7th (local time) withdrawing from 66 international organizations, including 31 UN agencies and 35 non-UN agencies, and said, “This means that the United States, which is leaving behind both the universal value of responding to the climate crisis and the value of human rights, which are common values for all of humanity, can no longer lead the world order.” He emphasized, “We must stand together with the people of the world who oppose war and the United States, and with the people who love peace, to create a new world where peace, equality, and independence are guaranteed.”
Lee Eun-jung, standing representative of the National Women’s Solidarity, fiercely criticized, “The wars and military interventions the United States has waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria over the past several decades were organized violence by an imperialist state to protect its oil and resource hegemony.” She also strongly criticized, “The United States’ invasion of Venezuela and the arrest of President Maduro and his wife are also clear violations of sovereignty, theft of resources, and a declaration of colonial rule.”
However, times have changed, and the people of the world will not accept the war that the United States wages for its own interests and greed as its destiny, and will never be isolated, he said, raising his voice, saying, “The awakened people of the world will fight together against the imperialist United States that carries out barbaric and illegal invasions and violations of sovereignty
Pastor Hong Deok-jin of the National Council of Clergy Justice and Peace said, “The airstrike on Caracas, Venezuela and the forcible repatriation of the national leader by the Trump administration in the United States on January 3rd is not a simple military action, but an act of neo-imperialism that tramples on the sovereignty of a country and shakes the foundations of international law, and a direct challenge to peace-loving people around the world.” He demanded, “The United States must cease all military operations and withdraw its troops immediately.”
He also emphasized that “the international community must not tolerate U.S. violence,” and that “we must reject Pax Americana, which is dominated by the logic of great power, and we must mobilize all international means to stand in solidarity so that only the self-determination of the Venezuelan people can determine the future of their land.”
He urged the South Korean government to declare its principle of opposing war of aggression rather than worrying about what the United States thinks.
Palestine Peace Solidarity activist Hana said that although Palestine, Venezuela, and Korea are geographically distant, they are closely linked in the criminal plans of the United States and imperialism, and emphasized that “the struggles of the Venezuelan and Palestinian people, who are at the forefront of the fight against imperialism, should also be at the center of the anti-imperialist movement in Korea.”
He pointed out that the US’s support of Israel as a proxy agent in the Middle East to control oil flow and prices is similar to the imperialist greed to maintain hegemony by dominating resources.
He pointed out that since October 2023, Israel has indiscriminately killed at least 72,000 Palestinians by pouring more bombs into the Gaza Strip, an area half the size of Seoul, than the bombs dropped during World War II. He also pointed out that the US has vetoed eight UN resolutions demanding an end to genocide and has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid, making them the main culprits of genocide.
In addition, the government urged Dana Petroleum, which is 100% owned by Korea National Oil Corporation, to stop its complicity in colonial plunder, saying that it is conducting gas exploration activities in the western part of the Leviathan gas field near the Gaza Strip by paying a license fee of 20.4 billion won to the Israeli government.
Citizens’ actions condemning the US war of aggression were also held in Busan (Busan Station Plaza), Daegu and Gyeongbuk (in front of CGV Daegu Hanil), Daejeon (in front of Ian Kyungwon on Euneungjeong Street), and Jeju (in front of the Jeju City Hall Civil Affairs Office) that afternoon.
The Unbroken Thread: China’s Civilisational-State vs. The West’s Contractual Empire – A Study in Divergent Destinies
10 January 2026 Andrew Klein, PhD, https://theaimn.net/the-unbroken-thread-chinas-civilisational-state-vs-the-wests-contractual-empire-a-study-in-divergent-destinies/
Abstract
This article contrasts the developmental trajectories of China and the United States (representing the modern West) by examining their foundational civilisational codes, historical experiences, and political philosophies. It argues that while the U.S. follows the extractive, individual-centric model of a classic maritime empire (extending the Roman pattern), China operates as a continuous civilisational-state, its policies shaped by a deep memory of collapse and humiliation and a Confucian-Legalist emphasis on collective resilience. The analysis critiques the Western failure to comprehend China through the reductive lens of “Communism,” ignoring the profound impact of the “Century of Humiliation” and China’s subsequent focus on sovereignty, infrastructure, and social stability as prerequisites for development. The paper concludes that China’s model, focused on long-term societal flourishing over short-term extraction, presents a fundamentally different, and perhaps more durable, imperial paradigm.
Introduction: The Mandate of History vs. The Mandate of Capital
The rise of China is often analysed through the prism of Western political theory, leading to a fundamental category error. To compare China and the United States is not to compare two nation-states of similar ontological origin. It is to compare a civilisational-state – whose political structures are an outgrowth of millennia of unified cultural consciousness and bureaucratic governance – with a contractual empire – a relatively recent construct built on Enlightenment ideals, but ultimately sustained by global financial and military hegemony (Jacques, 2009). Their paths diverge at the root of their historical memory and their core objectives.
China’s Catalysing Trauma: Modern China’s psyche is indelibly shaped by the “Century of Humiliation” (c. 1839-1949), beginning with the Opium Wars – a stark example of Western imperial extraction enforced by gunboats (Lovell, 2011). This was compounded by the collapse of the Qing dynasty, civil war, and the horrific suffering during the Second World War. The foundational drive of the People’s Republic, therefore, was not merely ideological victory but the restoration of sovereignty, stability, and dignity (Mitter, 2013). Every policy is filtered through the question: “Will this prevent a return to fragmentation and foreign domination?”
America’s Founding Myth: The U.S. narrative is one of triumphant exceptionalism. Born from anti-colonial revolution, it expanded across a continent it saw as empty (ignoring Native nations) and engaged with the world primarily from a position of growing strength. Its traumas (Civil War, 9/11) are seen as interruptions to a forward progress, not as defining, humiliating collapses. This fosters an optimistic, forward-looking, and often abistorical mindset (Williams, 2009).
2. Political Philosophy: Meritocratic Collectivism vs. Individualist Democracy
China’s System: The “Exam Hall” State. China’s governance synthesises Confucian meritocracy and Legalist institutionalism. The modern manifestation is a rigorous, multi-decade screening process for political advancement, emphasising administrative competence, economic performance, and crisis management (Bell, 2015). The objective is governance for long-term civilisational survival. The Communist Party frames itself as the contemporary upholder of the “Mandate of Heaven,” responsible for collective welfare. Political legitimacy is derived from delivery of stability and prosperity.
The West’s System: The “Arena” State. Western liberal democracy, particularly in its U.S. form, is a contest of ideas, personalities, and interest groups. Legitimacy is derived from the procedural act of election. While capable of brilliance, this system incentivises short-term focus (electoral cycles), polarisation, and the influence of capital over long-term planning (Fukuyama, 2014). Expertise is often subordinated to popularity.
3. The Social Contract: Infrastructure & Security vs. Liberty & Opportunity
China’s Deliverables: Post-1978 reforms shifted focus to development, but within the framework of the party-state. The state prioritises and invests heavily in tangible foundations: universal literacy, poverty alleviation, high-speed rail networks, urban housing, and food security (World Bank, 2022). The social contract is explicit: public support in exchange for continuous improvement in material living standards and national prestige.
The West’s Deliverables: The Western social contract, historically, promised upward mobility and individual liberty protected by rights. However, the late-stage extractive economic model has led to the decline of public goods: crumbling infrastructure, unaffordable higher education, for-profit healthcare, and eroded social safety nets (Piketty, 2013). The contract feels broken, leading to societal discord.
4. Global Engagement: Symbiotic Mercantilism vs. Extractive Hegemony
China’s Method: Development as Diplomacy. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the archetype of its approach: offering infrastructure financing and construction to developing nations, facilitating trade integration on its terms. It is a form of state-led, long-term strategic mercantilism aimed at creating interdependent networks (Rolland, 2017). Its “soft power” is not primarily cultural, but commercial and infrastructural.
The West’s Method: The post-WWII U.S.-led order, while providing public goods, has been characterised by asymmetric extraction: structural adjustment programs, financial dominance, and military interventions to secure resources and political alignment (Harvey, 2003). It maintains a core-periphery relationship with much of the world.
Conclusion: The Durability of Patterns
The West’s mistake is viewing China through the simple dichotomy of “Communist vs. Democratic.” This ignores the 4,000-year-old continuum of the Chinese statecraft that values unity, hierarchical order, and scholarly bureaucracy. China is not “learning from Communism”; it is learning from the Tang Dynasty, the Song economic revolutions, and the catastrophic lessons of the 19th and 20th centuries.
China’s course is different because its definition of empire is different. It seeks a Sinic-centric world system of stable, trading partners, not necessarily ideological clones. Its focus is internal development and peripheral stability, not universal ideological conversion. Its potential weakness lies in demographic shifts and the challenge of innovation under political constraints. The West’s weakness is its accelerating internal decay and inability to reform its extractive, short-termist model.
Two imperial models are now in full view. One, the West, is a flickering, brilliant flame from Rome, burning its fuel recklessly. The other, China, is a slowly rekindled hearth fire, banked for the long night, its heat directed inward to warm its own house first. History is not ending; it is presenting its bill, and the civilisations that prepared their ledger will write the next chapter.
References…………………………..
Golden Dome changes both NATO and the EU.
Now the wording is changed to: “The United States will deter – and defend its citizens and critical infrastructure – against any airstrike against its territory“. The level of ambition has been raised significantly.
Av Ingolf Kiesow, The Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences (Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademien 22 dec 2025
SIPRI’s 2024 yearbook is titled “Role of nuclear weapons grows as geopolitical relations deteriorate.” The content of that statement has grown in importance in 2025.
Golden Dome
On January 27, 2025, just a few days after taking office for a new term as President of the United States, Donald Trump signed an “Executive Order” to the US Department of Defense – now called the “War Department” – to build a missile defense system, what he later came to call “The Golden Dome”.
According to a statement by the then Department of Defense (now the “Ministry of War”), the Golden Dome will “unify a range of capabilities to create a system of systems to protect the United States from air attack by any aggressor“. Congress approved $24,5 billion for the purpose on September 5.
Donald Trump has said that this grant should be seen as a first installment and that the entire project should be fully operational before his presidential term ends.
He said in May that the total cost could be estimated at $175 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has since estimated that it will cost more than $500 billion. Other observers argue that the need to continuously replace satellites in the system, as Earth’s gravity pulls them out of orbit, means that the cost will exceed a trillion or several trillion dollars before it can be operational.
A first contract under Golden Dome was signed on November 4. Space X will receive $2 billion to build a system of 600 satellites with Lockheed Martin to create an “Air Moving Target Indicator (AMTI).” These low-altitude satellites will detect and track advanced threats from maneuvering glide missiles and stealth aircraft and then feed the data obtained into the US missile defense targeting system.
Congress has pointed out that the US missile defense strategy has so far been formulated as the US striving afterr “to defend against rogue states as well as against unauthorized or accidental missile launches while relying on nuclear weapons to deter China and Russia from striking American territory“.
Now the wording is changed to: “The United States will deter – and defend its citizens and critical infrastructure – against any airstrike against its territory“. The level of ambition has been raised significantly.
The relationship between the White House and Congress on the Golden Dome is marked by suspicion. In a statement, the Congressional Office laments that the administration has failed to provide the public with a detailed account of the project, has not held meetings with representatives of the business community, and has reportedly instructed military officials not to discuss the Golden Dome publicly.
Reactions to the Golden Dome
On May 8, China and Russia issued a joint statement criticizing the project for undermining the link between strategic offensive weapons and strategic defensive weapons, i.e. the very idea of a nuclear balance. Russian press spokesman Peskov said that while a decision on Golden Dome is a sovereign matter for the United States, it is also in the common interest of both countries to create a new legal framework to replace the no longer functioning nuclear arms treaties between the United States and Russia.
However, as of the end of October 2025, no preparations for negotiations on US-Russian arms control have been initiated. Donald Trump is said to have said that it might be a good idea, but without wanting to discuss the matter in more detail. On January 5, 2026, the only Russian-American arms control agreement still in force, the so-called New START agreement, expires.
In addition to China and Russia, there has also been criticism in the West that the US is trying to make the US invulnerable to nuclear attack with Golden Dome and thereby create a strategic advantage. This would damage the balance that has so far rested on the theory of mutual deterrence, a concept that also presupposes a certain degree of mutual vulnerability.
China shows off its weapons
China celebrated the eightieth anniversary of its victory over Japan in World War II with a military parade in Beijing on October 3 of this year. The parade was characterized by three things: coordination with the authoritarian countries of the world, the focus of Chinese defense on preparations for a war with the United States, and the belief that the next war will be fought globally.
Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un sat on either side of Xi Jinping during the parade, and among the invited guests were a large majority of presidents and prime ministers from the global south.
The new weapons systems on display included new advanced fighter jets, tanks, hypersonic anti-ship missiles and long-range rocket artillery. Three different groups of missile systems were displayed: five nuclear-capable systems, three cruise missile systems and three hypersonic missile systems.
The direction has been interpreted abroad as a warning to the United States not to try to oppose a possible upcoming attempt to invade Taiwan and to keep the United States away from the waters along China’s coasts in the Pacific Ocean.
FOBS has been a headache for the Pentagon
The presence of a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) in both Russia and China has been a particular concern for Western defense forces in recent times. This is especially true since China conducted a pair of test flights in the summer of 2021, when a launch vehicle was launched into orbit around the Earth and a hypersonic glide missile was released, which re-entered the atmosphere on the other side of the world and hit a designated target. The launch vehicle remained in a relatively low-altitude orbit (around 150 kilometers) and the entire crew moved at hypersonic speed the entire way, making them very difficult – almost impossible – to detect and combat.
Some of the missiles displayed at the military parade may be included in FOBS, which would mean that production and supply to units is ongoing.
After China’s first hypersonic missile flight, it took the United States several years to build a similar system and get the missiles flying, which has been a major concern for the Pentagon. The lack of a US system to defend against FOBS has been explicitly cited by the Defense Intelligence Agency as one of the reasons for introducing Golden Dome.
Truce in the trade war with China, but not peace and no deal………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………. Since NATO is designed to function under American leadership, Europe must now create its own organization in peacetime in order to be able to function without or at least with weakened support in wartime. That is the only conclusion that seems logical to draw in the light of this article. Whether such an adaptation can take place within the framework of NATO or can best be done within the EU or through the creation of an entirely new European defense organization has become a pressing question.
How Europe should dispose of its own nuclear weapons assets to deter Russia from attacking is also an issue that is now demanding attention even in peacetime.
Conclusions for Europe.
In any case, the connection between economic and military strength will play a central role. If the US fails to mobilize the financial resources required for Golden Dome and if the EU fails to find the means to both help Ukraine avoid defeat in the war with Russia and at the same time build up our own defenses, the situation may become difficult to manage.
Since Donald Trump came to power, however, the US has committed serious violations of international law, such as the prohibition of genocide in connection with its support for Israel’s war in Gaza and against the rules on freedom of the seas and human rights in connection with the killing of suspected smugglers from Venezuela and Colombia without prior trial. Being part of NATO and being part of the same alliance as the US is beginning to feel embarrassing to a European.
The nonchalance with the rules of international law also raises uncertainty about how serious the US is about its own membership in NATO and its obligations to help the EU preserve sovereignty over its territory.
Donald Trump’s fickleness and the uncertainty about what the investment in Golden Dome will entail create uncertainty for Europe and the rest of the “West”. For Europe, this means having to walk a balance between the desire not to lose the US as an ally in the long term and, on the other hand, the prospect of perhaps having to face a growing threat from Russia alone. In addition, the US may demand help in its power struggle with China, something that it is not in Europe’s interest to allocate resources to.
Can the EU prepare for a period of reduced American support without irreparably damaging the relationship with the US? Can the EU build a partnership with countries in the global south and even with China that resembles the world trade and payments system that functioned before Xi Jinping and Donald Trump came to power in their respective countries?
Puppet dreams? Yes, maybe, but what choice do we have?
The author is an ambassador and member of KKrVA. https://en.kkrva.se/golden-dome-forandrar-bade-nato-och-eu/
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (306)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 