nuclear-news

Common Security as a credible alternative to nuclear deterrence

Statement to the 2026 NPT Review Conference on behalf of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy

Cosponsored by Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace, Basel Peace Office, Global Security Institute,
Green Hope Foundation, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament,
UNFOLD ZERO and World Future Council

Presented by Kehkashan Basu
Co-President, World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy

Your Excellencies, distinguished guests, and colleagues,
My name is Kehkashan Basu, and I speak as the Co-President of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy on the topic of Common Security as a credible alternative to nuclear deterrence.

On September 22, 2025, UN Member States adopted by consensus the Pact for the Future, reaffirming that nuclear war would bring devastation to all humankind, that it can never be won and must never be fought, and that every effort must be made to prevent it. It also commits States to advance disarmament and nonproliferation, including the achievement of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

As a young woman who has spent more than a decade advancing disarmament education to lift the veil ofsecrecy surrounding nuclear weapons and raise awareness of the risks they pose, I now see a growing sense of urgency – particularly among younger generations – for security approaches rooted in cooperation,accountability, and shared responsibility.

The pursuit of a nuclear-weapon-free world is grounded in international law, as affirmed by the
International Court of Justice in 1996. We call on NPT States Parties to begin a phased transition away from nuclear deterrence and to initiate negotiations on a mutual, verifiable framework for the global elimination of nuclear weapons no later than 2045.

Nuclear deterrence continues to be viewed as a source of security – including to prevent aggression – yet it sustains risk rather than removing it. Advancing alternative credible approaches to achieving security is essential. In this regard, common security offers a practical framework. It is based on the understanding that lasting security depends on addressing the concerns of all states, including adversaries. It emphasizes diplomacy, negotiation, mediation, and the application of international law to prevent conflict and resolve disputes.

There is already a foundation to build on. Civil society and policy initiatives have identified pathways to
reduce reliance on nuclear deterrence, including strengthening nuclear-weapon-free zones, advancing arms control agreements, and making more effective use of international institutions such as the United Nationsand the International Court of Justice.

Recent global developments underscore the urgency of acting on these approaches. Across multiple
regions, senseless wars and escalating conflicts continue to take lives and deepen insecurity. These
situations persist while diplomatic and legal mechanisms remain underutilized. The UN Charter provides clear avenues for peaceful resolution, including mediation, arbitration, and adjudication. Strengthening these mechanisms, including broader acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, is essential to reinforcing a rules-based international order.

In this short presentation I can merely touch on the comprehensive common security ‘tool kit’ available to States to assure security without nuclear deterrence. We will explore this tool kit in more depth in a side event on May 5 entitled Can Common Security replace Nuclear Deterrence? All delegations are invited.

May 10, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Has the US accepted Iran’s demand to settle Hormuz first, nuclear later?

The US pauses Hormuz escorts after Pakistan-led mediation gains traction, signalling a shift towards a limited framework deal.

Aljazeera, By Abid Hussain 6 May 2026

Islamabad, Pakistan – On Monday morning, the United States Navy began escorting commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. By Tuesday afternoon, the operation had been paused.

President Donald Trump announced the reversal on Truth Social, citing the “request of Pakistan and other Countries” and “great progress” towards a “complete and final agreement” with Iran.

Earlier on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that Operation Epic Fury, the air and naval campaign launched on February 28, was “concluded”.

What Washington now sought, he said, was a “memorandum of understanding for future negotiations”.

For weeks, that is precisely what Iran has been demanding.

In proposals passed on to the US through Pakistan, Iran has in recent weeks sought multistage negotiations, with a preliminary deal aimed at ending the war, and negotiations on the White House’s demands that Tehran end its nuclear programme pushed for later.

Trump and his administration resisted, with the US president insisting that getting Iran to give up its nuclear programme was central to any deal with Tehran.

Now, the US appears to have come around to accepting Iran’s demand, say experts. On Wednesday, the Reuters news agency and the US publication Axios reported that the US and Iran were close to agreeing to a one-page MoU to end the war, even though there have been no detailed negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Seyed Mojtaba Jalalzadeh, an international relations analyst based in Tehran, said the week’s diplomatic signals reflected a sober reassessment in Washington of what was achievable.

“Moving towards a memorandum of understanding, a framework for future talks, is a good, viable and important first step to solve the immediate problem,” he told Al Jazeera.

Shift amid fraying ceasefire

Pakistani officials close to the country’s efforts to mediate peace between the US and Iran told Al Jazeera that Islamabad’s role as an intermediary had intensified in recent days, with senior officials in direct communication with both sides. Details of those exchanges remain closely held.

On Wednesday afternoon in Islamabad, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif responded to Trump’s announcement of the pause in the operation to open the Strait of Hormuz, naming Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as a partner who prodded the US president to suspend the military mission in the waterway.

Pakistan, Sharif wrote on social media, was “very hopeful that the current momentum will lead to a lasting agreement that secures durable peace and stability for the region and beyond”.

Just 24 hours earlier, that optimism would have appeared misplaced.

Since the weekend, an already fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran appeared to be fraying.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) allegedly launched missiles and drones at the United Arab Emirates on Monday and Tuesday, the first such attacks since the April 8 truce. An oil facility in Fujairah was struck, wounding three Indian workers. Iran denied involvement.

The US and Iran each claimed they had hit the other’s ships, and each denied the other’s claims of success.

Washington, however, declined to escalate. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine said the incidents remained “all below the threshold of restarting major combat operations”. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the ceasefire “certainly holds”.

Has Washington blinked?

The central question is whether the US has, implicitly, accepted Iran’s core demand: end the war and settle the Strait of Hormuz first, with the nuclear programme to follow.

Rubio’s Tuesday briefing suggests a sharp departure from Washington’s initial position.

At the outset, the US outlined four objectives: destroy Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, dismantle its navy, sever support for armed proxies, and ensure Iran never obtained a nuclear weapon.

A 15-point proposal delivered to Tehran via Pakistan in late March went further. It called for dismantling nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, handing over highly enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and permanently prohibiting nuclear weapons development.

By contrast, Rubio declared the military phase over. Nuclear material, he said, “has to be addressed” and is “being addressed in the negotiation”, but he declined to elaborate.

What Washington now seeks is an MoU, a framework defining “the topics that they’ve agreed to negotiate on” and “the concessions they are willing to make at the front end”.

That marks a significant shift from March.

In early April, he warned that “a whole civilisation will die tonight” if Iran did not yield. This week, he called for an agreement to be “finalised and signed”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/5/6/has-the-us-accepted-irans-demand-to-settle-hormuz-first-nuclear-later

May 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

A Nobel Effort: Parliamentary call for common security and nuclear disarmament

Presentation by Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND)
to the 2026 NPT Review Conference.
May 1, 2026
United Nations, New York
DELIVERED BY BILL KIDD MSP, PNND CO-PRESIDENT

Your Excellencies,
We are meeting at the United Nations in New York at a time of devastating armed conflicts,
an erosion of multilateralism and the rule of law, a renewed nuclear arms race, increased
risks and specific threats to use nuclear weapons, increasingly severe climate-change induced
disasters and a looming existential threat to humanity from high levels of Green House Gas
emissions.
I am addressing this Review Conference in my role as a Co-President of Parliamentarians for
Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, a network of parliamentarians representing
citizens of nations around the world with their concerns over the dangers presented by
nuclear weapons.

I have spent 19 years as a Member of the Scottish Parliament working for the removal of
Trident nuclear weapons from the land and waters of Scotland – where the entire nuclear
arsenal of the United Kingdom is based just 30 miles from the homes of a half of the Scottish
Population.
Parliamentarians are active in their national assemblies, and through organizations like the
Inter-Parliamentary Union and PNND to address these issues. We appeal to you as
representatives of governments to do likewise.
Together, we need to elevate diplomacy, cooperative leadership, common security and the
rule of law in order to prevent nuclear war, resolve international conflicts peacefully, protect
the climate for current and future generations and set in motion concrete processes to
achieve the peace and security of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

We need to strengthen the roles of the UN General Assembly, International Court of Justice
and International Criminal Court to prevent – and build accountability for – acts of aggression.
And we need to support the establishment of additional nuclear-weapon-free zones,
especially in the Middle East.
In these ways we can replace the reliance on nuclear deterrence with reliance on common
security.

In 2024, 70 parliamentarians from 34 legislatures endorsed the appeal Turn Back the
Doomsday Clock which was presented to the NPT Prep Com in Geneva. It includes nine
concrete recommendations for achieving the peace and security of a nuclear weapon free
world – a world based on the common security of the UN Charter, not the threat or use of
force. You can view these recommendations in the written version of our statement today.
One immediate step not included in our 2024 appeal, is to end the war by US and Israel
against Iran through common security. Newsweek recently shared an article by PNND Council
Member, Jonathan Granoff, titled War Will Not Stop Iran’s Nuclear Threat, This Could.

It advocates making comprehensive inspection safeguards, much like the JCPOA and the
Chemical Weapons Convention, apply to all non-nuclear weapons states parties to the NPT,
not just Iran. This would make the world safer, stop the next North Korea, and allow both the
USA and Iran to rightfully claim a victory for the world. It would also strengthen the
legitimacy of the NPT regime by reinforcing its nonproliferation pillar. Would it per se
advance disarmament? No, but stopping a war and saving the unique legal instrument that
obligates the P5 to achieve nuclear disarmament is worth our efforts.
PNND highlights that 2026 is the 125th anniversary of the first Nobel Peace Prize, which was
jointly awarded to Henri Dunant (Switzerland) for founding the International Committee of
the Red Cross and to Frédéric Passy (France) for co-founding the Inter-Parliamentary
Union and for being instrumental in the establishment of the first international tribunal –
the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The vision and leadership of these Nobel Laureates can
help inspire us today.
We cordially invite you to a side-event on May 6 organised by PNND and the InterParliamentary Union entitled A Nobel Effort: The Roles and Actions of Parliamentarians to
support Diplomacy, Disarmament and International Humanitarian Law where we will discuss
these ideas in more depth.

May 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

“Anti-diplomacy” rules in Europe

Europe has absolutely no interest in a diplomatic settlement with Russia, despite the harm it causes to itself by the war’s continuance in Ukraine. Because Europe is locked in “anti-diplomacy”.

As it relates to the Ukraine war there is an underlying and sometimes stated assumption here too, including in the mainstream media, that eventual war with Russia is inevitable, and that Ukraine is buying time for Europe to rearm.

the situation gets ever more dire for Ukraine, European leaders still insist that Ukraine is winning and just a few more weapons and a few more tens of billions will do the trick.

Don’t expect the war in Ukraine to end anytime soon

Ian Proud, May 05, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/anti-diplomacy-rules-in-europe?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=196537738&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

I have said for a long time that the war in Ukraine will continue into 2027. Without a major rethink of policy on the European side, which currently appears extremely unlikely, or without a significant military escalation from the Russian side, which is possibly more likely, the war could in fact run on much longer than that.

I remain extremely pessimistic of there being any policy change on the European side under the current leadership of Von der Leyen with Merz in charge in Berlin, Macron in charge in Paris and Starmer in charge in London.

The main reason is that the European position towards the war has remained unchanged since its beginning. Arguably it has hardened with the plans to remilitarise Europe. The current posture rests on their being no negotiations and no concessions towards Russia, even in spite of US led efforts under Trump to broker peace, which the European side has sought to derail at every turn.

I call this approach ‘anti-diplomacy’ in which negotiations themselves are viewed as a prize and are withheld for fear of rewarding the adversary, in this case Russia.

As it relates to the Ukraine war there is an underlying and sometimes stated assumption here too, including in the mainstream media, that eventual war with Russia is inevitable, and that Ukraine is buying time for Europe to rearm.

At the frontline of Europe’s ‘anti-diplomacy’ is its arch ‘anti-diplomat’, Kaja Kallas, who appears to have no diplomatic skills, or at least not outside of the committee rooms of Brussels, where she appears remarkably effective in herding the cats.

Her most recent reassertion of ‘anti-diplomacy’ happened last week when she said that the EU shouldn’t “beg” to talk to the Russians.

“What we have seen so far is that Russia does not want to engage in any kind of dialogue,” Kallas said after a Nordic-Baltic ministerial meeting. “We should not humiliate ourselves by being the demanders — you know, we beg you to talk to us.” Instead, she said, the goal must be to push Russia “from pretending to negotiate to actually negotiate.”

This was the most bizarre statement for several reasons.

Firstly, Russia has shown itself willing to engage in dialogue. Immediately after the war started in March/April 2022 when a peace deal was almost reached in Istanbul, before it was scotched by Boris Johnson and Victoria Nuland. During talks in Istanbul in the summer of 2025 after Trump came to power. In Putin’s meeting with Trump in Alaska which led to some sort of understanding of what Russia’s demands were. In direct talks with between the Russian and Ukrainian side in late 2025 and early 2026.

Russia’s participation in negotiations was neither demanded nor begged for.

Objectively, European politicians, through ‘anti-diplomacy’, have been unwilling to enter into negotiations with Russia at any point since the war started. After the Alaska talks, Ursula von der Leyen said there was no intent in Moscow to engage in peace talks, even after Putin had held talks with Trump, which was bizarre but also familiar, given the frequency with which this line is trotted out in Brussels and elsewhere across Europe.

Ten months after the war started, Joe Biden said he would only talk to Putin if Russia showed real intent to end the war, in other words, the US would not enter into talks unless Russia agreed to every western demand without securing any concessions including on NATO membership.

In December, Macron said that Europe will need to engage with Putin though that offer went nowhere amid infighting in Brussels around who should be the European representative in Putative talks.

Keir Starmer has said several times that he has no plans to talk to Putin, indeed, the Uk said that it would not enter into talks with Russia even if Europe did.

So, this “anti-diplomacy”, pushed by Ukraine’s western sponsors in which not talking to Russia is the norm, is established and fairly set in stone. In fact, it was first initiated by the UK Foreign Office in the summer of 2014, after Philip Hammond became foreign secretary. Twelve years down the track, the Europeans have adopted this approach lock stock and smoking missile launcher, and now own it.

More recently, Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever has suggested talks with Russia and absolutely nothing has happened.

So, looking back at Kallas’ statement you can see how absurd it is.

Firstly, it is absurd in its suggestion that Europe might “beg” Russia for peace talks. Europe has done everything in it power to avoid talks. If von der Leyen, Merz, Macron, Starmer, or any combination suggested talks with Russia, I believe Putin would agree to that. All the evidence of the talks that have taken place so far, brokered by the US, suggest that is so.

Indeed, throughout the war, there have been ongoing Russia-Ukrainian talks about practical issues such as prisoner and body swaps, and also on the reunification of displaced children with their Ukrainian parents.

A key principle of talks is the need to discuss areas of disagreement and search for ways to find compromise that will be acceptable to both sides and which both sides can agree to. And when I say both sides, I mean just that, both the Russian side and the Ukrainian side. Any peace deal will have to leave both countries feeling safer than they did before the war, and confident that war won’t resume again.

A popular misinformation line in Europe’s “anti-diplomacy” has been that Ukraine must not be left out of talks. And yet, when has Ukraine ever been left out of talks since the war began?

The pathology of European diplomacy has descended into holding countless Summits and meetings about peace that Zelensky attends, but to which the other combatant in the conflict – Russia – is not included.

This summitry serves not to resolve differences between Russia and Ukraine and search for common ground, but rather to reinforce the Ukrainian position as the only right and just position that should not be resiled from.

These summits are intended to avoid any possibility of compromise on Ukraine’s side and to insist on total compromise from the Russian side. As I’ve said before, Zelensky’s permanent star billing at these events allows him to own the narrative that Russia isn’t interested in peace and that only by supporting Ukraine with more funding and weapons, can peace be achieved.

One meeting between Putin and Trump, however, provoked a cacophony about Zelensky being excluded, yet this, too, is nonsense, as Trump has met him on several occasions.

Diplomatic negotiations aren’t about friendship they are about dispute resolution. They are not about favouring one side over another side. A single meeting does not confer legitimacy. It just confirms that there are important things to be discussed.

Europe’s “anti-diplomacy” has created a vacuum which, until Trump came to power, US leaders and now, European and British leaders filled with money and weapons. They didn’t fill it, by the way, with troops, preferring to let Zelensky fight to the last Ukrainian, so the Poles, Germans, French, Italians and sparse ranks of Tommies could be spared.

This is what I have described many times as the neither war nor peace posture of the British and Europeans. They don’t want a direct war with Russia, neither do they want peace with Russia, and so proxy war has become the preferred policy fudge whatever the cost in Ukrainian lives and livelihoods, not to mention Ukraine’s catastrophic depopulation and demographic cliff edge.

What is absolutely clear, is that funding Ukraine and giving it more weapons isn’t intended at resolving Ukraine’s dispute with Russia.

Many will say, of course, that if we don’t give Ukraine weapons, then Russia will take over the whole country. But no evidence is ever provided that Russia’s goal in entering this was really to conquer the whole of Ukraine, rather than to prevent the possibility of Ukraine being used as another NATO client state on Russia’s border.

Right at the start of the war, the first round of peace talks in Istanbul seemed to reach a point where Russia and Ukraine could agree to the conditions for the war to be brought to a close. That included Ukrainian neutrality and non-membership of NATO and an acceptance that Ukraine could join the EU.

So, having captured much less land than Russia occupies today, the Russian side was willing to sue for peace and pull its troops back from the north of Kyiv as a confidence building measure.

Organisations such as the Institute for the Study of War in DC, run by Victoria Nuland, has since claimed that the agreement was a surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty.

Yet, I don’t believe the first Istanbul deal would have been a surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty, but rather a guarantee of its future neutrality a neutrality, by the way, which would have allowed for a slow – and let’s be honest it may take a generation if it ever happens – normalisation of relations with Russia.

We now know, of course, that Victoria Nuland encouraged Zelensky not to take the deal. But the point is that both the Ukrainian and Russian negotiation teams believed that it was a deal that both countries could live with in the interests of ending the war.

That is how diplomacy works. Two sides with vastly opposing positions undertake tough negotiations to hammer out a framework that both can live with recognising that, absent a decisive military victory by one side, some compromise will have to be made.

Here we bring in the second aspect of “anti-diplomat” Kallas’ statement.

The goal must be to push Russia “from pretending to negotiate to actually negotiate.”

If you consider this statement carefully, I don’t understand what is meant by “pretending” to negotiate. Russia has been negotiating and a whole host of prisoner swaps, body swaps and children reunifications have happened at different times.

It also raises the question, actually, to negotiate with whom? Because Russia has been negotiating with Ukraine in circumstances where European leaders refused to engage with Russia in negotiations. There has been no pretence on the European side, they have not wanted either to pretend to, or, actually to negotiate.

And it is clear from Kallas’s rhetoric that pushing Russia to actually negotiate means insisting that Russia simply accepts Europe’s demands for how peace should be restored to Ukraine, with no Russian conditions being met in any settlement.

This, again, is clearly absurd, because Russia occupies 20% of Ukraine’s land – whatever the rights and wrongs of that situation – and has the funds to sustain the war for the foreseeable future, a position that Europe does not occupy. If the intention is to pressure Russia to end the war then that itself implies a negotiation that has not been offered by Europe and does not appear to be wanted by Europe.

Because any negotiation will inevitably lead to some concessions being offered to Russia that will allow Putin to settle and be able to show to his people that the four years of devastation was worth it in some way.

Kaja Kallas on the other hand has over the past year made wild demands that peace in Ukraine will only be possible if Russia fully withdraws from Ukraine back to the 1991 borders, pays full war reparations for all the damage caused to Ukraine, while leaving the door open to Ukraine joining NATO.

It may seem obvious to point this out, but Russia will never agree to this. If Russia was losing badly, then the situation might be different. If Russia was losing badly, perhaps Europe might prefer to maintain the war to inflict a much talked about strategic defeat on Russia. But neither of these scenarios have ever appeared even remotely likely.

So, the cold reality boils down to Europe doing everything in their power to avoid the possibility of such diplomatic negotiations that might result in an agreement between Russia and Ukraine that was markedly weaker than the maximalist calls they have been making since the war began.

And, unfortunately, the longer the war continues, the more solidified this position is becoming in Brussels.

Why? Because a peace deal with Russia will amount to a PR disaster for Europe.

Why? Because since the start of the war, European leaders to a person have been saying that Ukraine will win, and that the situation isn’t as bad as portrayed.

That position is relentlessly reinforced by the western mainstream media who insist that Russia is collapsing and that, ultimately, Ukraine will prevail.

This has never looked remotely true to any independent observer who looks at evidence of economic collapse, troops losses and territorial gains. Yet it is an unshakeable narrative punctuated just occasionally, by the odd voice who raises a hand only to be slapped down immediately, like the Punch and Judy crocodile.

Ukraine not winning will make citizens across Europe ask why they were lied to for all this time.

Since the war has started, citizens have been sanctioned, and in some cases had their citizenship revoked, naysayers are summarily detained at British airports and interrogated if they disagree, elections are rigged in Central European nations, lawfare is used in France against the political party with the largest share of public support, all because they disagree with this narrative.

And you need to understand something here too.

When the anti-diplomat Kaja Kallas holds another presser in yet another expensive designer dress or coat, she isn’t doing so to impart truth, she is doing so to gain attention.

She is safe and democratically uncontested – or rather, undemocratically uncontested – in her job at least until 2029 so she can say what she wants with the mainstream media hanging on her every word and reporting it verbatim as if it is truth.

I don’t know how many politicians in the foreign policy space you’ve met, but I’ve met a lot and I can tell you one thing, they love to cut a dash on the world stage. Starmer is another terrible example but then, in fairness, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss were dreadful examples too.

Being right is entirely incidental to being right in front of the camera particularly, in Boris’ case, if the reporter is a bit of a filly.

So, the point is, it is far harder to bullshit when it comes to domestic policy. If the NHS is crap, if rats are taking over Birmingham, if innocent kids are being killed with zombie knives in London because the police are too timid to stop and searching sketchy looking youngsters, if young girls are being gang raped, then these are political stories that a British politician can’t ignore.

When it comes to foreign policy, they have a greater free reign to say what they want because most citizens are first and foremost concerned with basic survival and raising their kids and couldn’t really care that much about the situation in Ukraine. Except when it hits their bank balances, in which case the mainstream media will tell them it is Putin’s fault and we have to defeat him and we will defeat him because Ukraine is winning.

What happens, though, when he isn’t defeated? Suddenly, Ukraine becomes like a giant rat clambering over an uncollected bin bag in Birmingham or a yobbo walking away from a crime scene with a parent in tears over their murdered schoolchild. People will ask, hold on a minute, you said this wasn’t going to happen and that you were going to sort things out. You lied to us.

So, “anti-diplomacy” is held aloft by those like Kallas who are trapped by a dread fear of being revealed as bare faced liars and narcissists who kept a war going because they wanted more time in front of the cameras to shake their booty on the world stage and show how tough they were.

Because, you see the problem isn’t just that Ukraine isn’t winning and isn’t going to win, the problem is that Europe’s leaders are now making increasingly poverty stricken European citizens pay for Ukraine not to win. All the while Zelensky’s corrupt cronies steal hundreds of millions of dollars in western aid provided, and while ever more brutal tactics are used to drag unwilling young Ukrainian men to the front line – almost never reported by the mainstream media.

While the situation gets ever more dire for Ukraine, European leaders still insist that Ukraine is winning and just a few more weapons and a few more tens of billions will do the trick. Except that it won’t. It will just make us poorer and less safe.

And when I say poorer, peace will be devastating politically to European leaders who have merrily watched their economies tip into deindustrialisation, even before Trump’s war against Iran started. The cost of supporting Ukraine may just as likely go up after the war ends. And the self-harming, de-industrialisation inducing sanctions against Russia will probably remain.

Why have European economies tipped into deindustrialisation? Because, and I have said more times than I care to remember, Europe has chosen as an article to policy to absorb high energy costs to cut off hundreds of billions of Euros which in the past would have been paid to Russia, as a major supplier of oil and gas.

Again, that gamble may have been worthwhile had it worked. Europe’s leaders haven’t explained the cause of their cost of living crises to their citizens as yet. But had Russia buckled economically, pulled out of Ukraine, paid full war reparations to Ukraine then Europe’s leaders would have been able to sell the line to their voters that this was a necessary pain to defeat Russia in Ukraine.

Except that manifestly hasn’t happened. Russia has earned more from oil and gas in the four years since war started than in the four years before war commenced. It has simply sold it to China and India instead.

Yes, economic growth slowed to 1% in 2025 in Russia as the Central Bank sought to bear down on high inflation. But at the same time, growth in Germany was 0.2%, in Italy, 0.5% and in France 0.8%. German debt 63.5% of GDP, France 115% of GDP and Italy 137% of GDP. Russian debt is less than 20% of GDP. Unemployment in Germany 6.3%, in France 7.9% and in Italy 5.5% compared to 2.2% in Russia.

Russia has had to spend more to fund the war in Ukraine, yet its fiscal deficit is still lower than Germany, France and Italy. Europe can only fund the war in Ukraine by borrowing money to lend it to Ukraine. Russia has vast and growing reserve funds from its yearly current account surpluses that it can largely fund the war with little recourse to borrowing.

Russia is the most sanctioned economy on the planet and yet no one seems able to ask why it appears to be performing better than all of Europe’s biggest economies on key economic variables. These are observable facts, taken from data provided by the governments of each country. And before you say it, Russia maintains as high quality statistical standards as Europe.

The point is that Europe’s self-inflicted economic plight has been justified on the basis that it is in the interests of weakening Russia and helping Ukraine to win.

Yet that hasn’t happened. Which raises the question, why not revisit foreign policy towards Russia? Which takes us back to the start of this discussion. Europe has absolutely no interest in a diplomatic settlement with Russia, despite the harm it causes to itself by the war’s continuance in Ukraine. Because Europe is locked in “anti-diplomacy”.

This is hairbrained and yet, as no one in Brussels has been elected to office and as they live off the power trip of being putatively in charge of Europe, it comes as no surprise. What comes as a greater surprise is that the Germans, the French, the Italians and also, of course, the Brits, continue along this fruitless avenue.

The obvious solution, especially since Trump launched his war against Iran, should be to import cheap Russian energy to boost Europe’s economies.

If the war against Iran ended, a more diversified European import mix that included Russian energy would undoubtedly drive down energy prices across Europe.

If the war against Iran continues, Europe’s economic woes will get much worse if they maintain the embargo against Russia, at a time when Russia will profit massively from hugely inflated global energy prices. Lifting the embargo on Russian energy would at least help to moderate the economic damage caused by Trump’s war. Yet that, predictably, seems unlikely.

In fact, I see zero chance of this change in policy position taking place. Anti-diplomats like Kallas are too invested in the status quo and their political futures depend on the war’s continuance, given the devastating impact on their reputations if it ends.

That means Ukraine has been given another 90 billion Euro loan, which the Eurocrats themselves had to borrow to give to them. If the war continues beyond 2027, then a further multibillion loan will follow.

But just imagine if, instead of putting those billions into war, European countries got behind peace in Ukraine and also offered billions to rebuild their country and their economy? How much better off would Ukraine be today if, since 2014, Europe had got behind the Minsk II agreement, told the USA and Victoria Nuland to go away, and settled on peaceable relations with Russia?

How much easier would it be for European citizens to thrive in their countries if their governments were spending money on public services and not war?

How many factories in Europe might survive closure if Europe started buying lower cost Russian energy again?

How many lives would be saved in Ukraine and in Russia if the war ended tomorrow?

How many cities would be able to start to rebuild if the missile and drones stopped flying?

You know the answers to these rhetorical questions, of course.

Yet the anti-diplomats in charge do not or, if they do, are too focussed on clinging on to power prestige and status to admit it.

Europe desperately needs diplomats and states people who put the needs of their citizens first. Right now, you will not find them in Brussels, London, Paris or Berlin. Anyone who votes for globalist liberals in elections coming up over the coming three years is voting for a war with Russia in the future. It’s time for everyone to vote these warmongers out of power at every opportunity and to protest where they can, and to join a growing community of peacemongers worldwide.Subscribe

May 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Rapid escalation

the immediate battlefield risks are only part of the problem. The deeper concern lies in the erosion of the international arms control architecture that has historically constrained nuclear competition.

At the same time, the normalization of military solutions to nuclear disputes is becoming more pronounced. Pre-emptive strikes, once viewed as extreme measures, are increasingly framed as legitimate tools of non-proliferation.

 May 3, 2026 by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/05/03/rapid-escalation/

With arms control agreements weakened and diplomatic safeguards fading, nuclear-armed conflicts are no longer an abstract possibility, warns Paul Saoke

The ongoing confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has created a moment of extraordinary danger for the international system. Public debate has largely focused on conventional escalation, missile strikes, drone warfare, and air campaigns. Yet beneath these visible dynamics lies a far more consequential risk: the steady erosion of the global nuclear restraint regime.

In today’s geopolitical environment, where arms control agreements have weakened and diplomatic safeguards are fading, nuclear escalation is no longer an abstract or distant possibility. It is becoming structurally conceivable.

Recent developments across the Middle East, including intensified exchanges and tensions around strategic chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, illustrate how rapidly regional conflicts can acquire global significance. Military actions intended to degrade capabilities are increasingly entangled with broader strategic calculations, extending the scope and stakes of confrontation.

One immediate concern is the status of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile. Estimates suggest that Iran retains significant quantities of highly enriched uranium, potentially sufficient for weaponization if further processed. Reports that external actors are considering operations to secure or neutralize these materials underscore a dangerous reality: when nuclear assets exist within active conflict zones, the margin for miscalculation narrows dramatically.

If a state perceives that its nuclear capabilities or infrastructure are at imminent risk of destruction, the incentive to escalate pre-emptively increases. In such environments, actions intended as defensive or preventive can be interpreted as existential threats, triggering unpredictable responses.

Yet the immediate battlefield risks are only part of the problem. The deeper concern lies in the erosion of the international arms control architecture that has historically constrained nuclear competition.

For decades, global nuclear stability depended on a network of agreements that limited arsenals, enhanced transparency, and reduced uncertainty between rival powers. Today, many of these frameworks are weakening or have collapsed altogether. The deterioration of arms control arrangements between major nuclear powers, including the United States and Russia, threatens to remove the remaining constraints on the world’s largest nuclear arsenals.

This breakdown has direct implications for the Middle East. In the absence of clear frameworks, states increasingly plan for worst-case scenarios. Nuclear modernization accelerates. Strategic distrust deepens. Channels for managing escalation become fragile or disappear entirely.

Equally concerning is the collapse of diplomatic mechanisms designed to prevent nuclear proliferation. The unraveling of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action removed a key constraint on Iran’s nuclear program. In its absence, military pressure has intensified, but so too has Iran’s perceived need for strategic deterrence.

This reveals a fundamental paradox: efforts to eliminate nuclear threats through force can inadvertently strengthen the incentive to acquire them.

The risk is not limited to deliberate nuclear war. It lies in miscalculation.

Wars involving nuclear-adjacent infrastructure introduce unique escalation dynamics. A strike on a nuclear facility may be intended as a tactical operation, but it can be interpreted as an attempt to eliminate a state’s long-term deterrent capability. Under such conditions, responses may escalate beyond initial intentions.

At the same time, the normalization of military solutions to nuclear disputes is becoming more pronounced. Pre-emptive strikes, once viewed as extreme measures, are increasingly framed as legitimate tools of non-proliferation. Yet such actions carry significant long-term risks, potentially accelerating proliferation rather than preventing it.

Political rhetoric has also shifted. Language emphasizing “all options on the table” has become routine, reflecting a broader change in how nuclear risk is conceptualized. Nuclear weapons are no longer confined to the realm of last-resort deterrence; they are increasingly embedded within strategic thinking about escalation, coercion, and dominance.

This shift is reinforced by broader trends. Nuclear modernization programs are expanding across major powers, including the China and others. Arms control treaties that once symbolized cooperation are giving way to competition. The institutional foundations of nuclear restraint are weakening at precisely the moment when they are most needed.

The danger, therefore, is cumulative.

It is not that a nuclear weapon will necessarily be used in the current conflict. Rather, it is that repeated crises without effective diplomatic resolution normalize brinkmanship. Each episode reinforces the perception that escalation can be managed and that nuclear thresholds remain stable.

History cautions against such assumptions. The Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated how quickly miscalculation can bring nuclear powers to the edge of catastrophe. Today, the institutions that helped manage such risks are weaker, and the geopolitical environment is more fragmented.

What makes the present moment particularly dangerous is the convergence of three trends: regional conflicts involving nuclear-capable actors; the erosion of arms control frameworks; and the weakening of diplomatic mechanisms for managing escalation.

Individually, each of these factors increases risk. Together, they create a system in which nuclear catastrophe becomes more conceivable than at any point in recent decades. The lesson is clear.

Military escalation cannot resolve nuclear disputes. Long-term stability depends on rebuilding the architecture of restraint: renewing arms control agreements, strengthening verification mechanisms, and restoring sustained diplomatic engagement between rival powers.

Without such efforts, the world risks returning to a strategic environment in which nuclear weapons are central instruments of geopolitical competition.

The tragedy of nuclear weapons lies not only in their destructive power, but in the illusion of control they create. States may believe they can manage escalation, dominate conflict, or contain risk through superior capability. History repeatedly demonstrates that such confidence can be dangerously misplaced.

Today, the world stands at a similar moment. The greatest danger is not only the conflict unfolding in the Middle East. It is the quiet dismantling of the safeguards that once made nuclear catastrophe less likely.

If those safeguards are not rebuilt, the world may discover too late that it has been sleepwalking toward the unthinkable.

Paul Saoke, IPPNW Kenya, is the author of Africa’s Atomic Odyssey: A Continent’s Encounter with Nuclear Power.

May 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | 1 Comment

INTERVIEW: There are two crazy individuals here, Trump and Netanyahu.

105,329 views 5 May 2026 #MOATS#ProfJeffreySachs#GeorgeGallowayThey’re both nuts, they’re both pathological liars, says Prof Jeffrey Sachs. Psychopaths who kill and create harm without remorse. Everything points to a resumption of fighting because ‘we do not have rational leadership or a rational process’

May 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Can the NPT Keep Nuclear Weapons from Spreading? (MBN)

 This week, a month-long review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT) began at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. Middle
East Broadcasting Networks (MBN), a U.S.-funded service that reaches more
than one million viewers in the Middle East, asked me whether the NPT keeps
nuclear weapons from spreading.

I made four points. First, if the NPT is to
succeed in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, it must clarify what
“peaceful” nuclear activities are permissible. Making nuclear fuel has
brought Iran, North Korea, and Iraq either up to or over the red line of
nuclear weapons manufacturing.

Henceforth, the treaty needs to be
interpreted to prohibit states that lack nuclear weapons from engaging in
this activity. The U.S. NPT delegation seems to have taken this point on:
Yesterday, U.S. representative Christopher Yeaw told the review conference
that there is no “inalienable right” to enrich uranium.

 NPEC 29th April 2026, https://npolicy.org/can-the-npt-keep-nuclear-weapons-from-spreading-mbn/

May 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Varoufakis on Palantir and its 22 points

28 Apr 26

Palantir were kind enough to sum up its hideous ideology in 22 points. And I have taken the liberty of annotating each one of them. Here is my interpretation of all 22 of them (preserving the original numbering ):

1. Silicon Valley owes an immeasurable debt to the ruling class who bailed out the criminal bankers that wrecked the livelihood of the majority of Americans. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley will defend that ruling class to the death (literally!), in the name of the majority of Americans whom they treat with contempt – i.e., like cattle that have lost their market value.

2. Palantir is eyeing the Apple Store, salivating over the prospect of creating its own technofeudal estate. Time to replace the iPhone with another device that dissolves what is left of people’s privacy.

3. Palantir shall give nothing away for free. It cares uniquely over its own growth which it pursues by sowing fear so that it can sell a fake sense of security.

4. Glory to brute force! Ethics is for suckers. The West needs more of Palantir’s murderous software.

5. AI-powered killer robots are coming. The task is to profit magnificently by building killer robots first and ask questions later. To be able to do so, Palantir will do whatever it takes to avoid at all cost any international treaties that limit AI-driven killer robots.

6. Every poor sod (lacking the connections to avoid being thrown into the trenches with killer drones targeting them from the sky) must be drafted into the army. Forget paying soldiers a salary. All payments should be directed to Palantir, where our own people will be serving their ‘national service’ – leaving the dying to non-shareholders.

7. Palantir works overtime to equip US Marines with killer bots that take away from the US Marines whatever remnants of ethical judgment they are left with on the battlefield. American society should be rendered perfectly incapable of any debate that restricts Palantir’s capacity to get the US Military to eliminate any remaining opportunity to reject its software’s choice of targets.

8. Palantir deplores the fact that the public sector is still not totally devoid of a conscience. Public servants must be fired en masse, except some very few approved by Palantir who will receive huge salaries, paid by taxpayers.

9. Palantir thinks that Donald Trump must be beatified for throwing himself into public service. Not forgiving folks like Trump everything risks our soul, not to mention that it raises the prospect of officials that restrict Palantir’s evil project.

10. Politics needs to be AI-like, devoid of anything that can be mistaken for human empathy. Those who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self must be sent to the gulag forthwith!

11. There are some people too eager to hasten Palantir’s demise. They should rethink, or else!

12. Palantir makes no nuclear weapons but is happily developing other weapons of mass destruction. We proudly announce that we are now ready to add to nuclear Armageddon the AI-driven threat to humanity’s existence.

13. No other country in the history of the world has committed so many war crimes in the name of progress and freedom. The United States offers infinite freedom to people like Palantir’s founders to profit so handsomely by inflicting so much damage upon humanity.

14. American power has feasted on causing one war after another, one putsch after another, one avoidable financial disaster after another. Too many have forgotten or perhaps have taken for granted America’s capacity to pursue forever wars in the name of peace and democracy.

15. German and Japanese Fascism must be made great again. The denazification of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price. A similar and highly misplaced commitment to Japanese pacifism must also end immediately!

16. We should applaud those who attempt to monopolise everything by means of generous government contracts. Billionaires must not be satisfied merely with their billions. To become even more obscenely rich they need grand narratives that help them convince the poor to use their freedom to keep them, the billionaires, in power. And, by the way, Palantir loves Elon, especially his grand apartheid-inspired narrative.

17. Silicon Valley must be free to do in America’s cities what it did in Gaza. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it came to granting Palantir the right to annihilate all remaining civil liberties and human rights. This must end.

18. Epstein’s syndicate should be forgotten lest lovely people like Trump and the Clintons are deterred from entering government. The public arena must be scrutiny-free unless subversives like Sanders or Mamdani enter it.

19. We love banal public figures as long as they give Palantir all the juicy contracts. We also love colourful public figures who give Palantir all the juicy contracts.

20. We need more opium for the masses, as they are not sufficiently inebriated for us to be unimpeded in the pursuit of their complete subjugation. Questioning organised superstition is dangerous and must end.

21. Time to bring back Hitler’s hierarchy of races, with Palantir’s founders and Elon at its Aryan pinnacle. The idea that it is wrong to judge someone by the colour of their skin or their ethnicity or their religion must be jettisoned.

22. Blacks, Muslims, most Asians, and of course women, are inferior untermensch. Blokes in America, and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted putting these subhumans in their places in the name of inclusivity. It was a mistake. Such subhumans must never be allowed in, except as servants or sex service providers – at least until we can improve our robots, in which case we won’t need them at all.

May 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment