nuclear-news

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

The Authoritarian Stack – How Tech Billionaires Are Building a Post-Democratic America — And Why Europe Is Next

[Superb graphics on original]

The Authoritarian Stack
A project led by Prof. Francesca Bria with xof-research.org, 12 December 2025. https://www.authoritarian-stack.info/

Research and editorial team: Francesca Bria, José Bautista
Data analysis: Autonomy Institute
Map development and design: xof-research.org
Web development: José Núñez
Supported by: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung
Funded by: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Future of Work

The Contract That Changed Everything

In late July 2025, deep within the Pentagon’s bureaucratic machinery, the U.S. Army quietly signed away a piece of its sovereignty.

A ten-billion-dollar contract with Palantir Technologies—one of the largest in the Department of Defense’s history—was framed as a move toward “efficiency.”

It consolidated seventy-five procurement agreements into a single contract.

A strategic handover of core military functions to a private company whose founder, Peter Thiel, has declared that “freedom and democracy are no longer compatible.”

The Authoritarian Tech Network:
The Kingmakers

J.D. Vance, propelled to the vice-presidency by $15 million from Peter Thiel, became the face of tech-right governance. Behind him, Thiel’s network moved into the machinery of the state.

Under the banner of “patriotic tech“, this new bloc is building the infrastructure of control—clouds, AI, finance, drones, satellites—an integrated system we call the Authoritarian Stack. It is faster, ideological, and fully privatized: a regime where corporate boards, not public law, set the rules.

Our investigation shows how these firms now operate as state-like powers—writing the rules, winning the tenders, and exporting their model to Europe, where it poses a direct challenge to democratic governance.

Silicon Valley isn’t building apps anymore.
It’s building empires.

State Capture: Personnel Pipeline

To understand why this capture is happening so rapidly, follow the personnel. The revolving door no longer spins between government and industry—it locks them together into a new architecture of power.

Detachment 201: The Army’s Executive Innovation Corps

This goes further—commissioning Silicon Valley executives directly into military ranks. In June 2025, four tech executives were sworn in as lieutenant colonels:
The line between contractor and commander has been erased.

The Pipeline Made Visible

Unlike old authoritarianism built on fear and force, this new system rules through code, capital, and infrastructure — making resistance feel architecturally impossible.

It’s a self-reinforcing loop:
Ideology fuels venture capital → capital captures the state → the state feeds the same private systems that built it. A new model of power — privatized sovereignty.

Each layer reinforces the others. Ideology justifies investment. Investment captures state power. State power secures contracts. Contracts build infrastructure. Infrastructure becomes indispensable. Indispensability generates returns. Returns fund more ideology.

The Capital Machine: Financial Flows — From Taxpayers to Venture Capital

Follow the Money

Funding

Government

Tech Companies

Venture Capital

Founders Fund, Thiel’s $17 billion flagship, led Anduril’s $1 billion round at a $30.5 billion valuation. It was the first institutional investor in both Palantir and SpaceX. Palantir’s quarterly revenue now exceeds $1 billion—up 53 percent in government contracts. 1789 Capital epitomizes dynasty.

Founded by Thiel’s confidants and joined by Donald Trump Jr., it grew from $150 million to over $1 billion. It channels tens of millions into Musk’s empire—SpaceX for orbital dominance, xAI for military AI. 

Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), through its “American Dynamism” fund, backs defense tech and what it calls builders of the American state. Andreessen rallied Silicon Valley’s billionaire class to Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Smaller giants like 8VC and General Catalyst reinforce the pattern. 8VC poured $450 million into Anduril; General Catalyst led a $1.48 billion round.

The Stack: Five Domains of Privatized Sovereignty

Critical state infrastructures are being privatized across five domains—data, defense, space, energy, and money—the foundations of democratic power. These domains form the architecture of privatized sovereignty: a technological regime where power flows through laws, infrastructure and automated platforms.

Crypto Sovereignty

The Nuclear AI Complex

SpaceX: Orbital Infrastructure

Anduril: Autonomous Warfare

Palantir: The Operating System of Government

Privatizing the state’s data and decision making.

Systems

  • Gotham (intelligence)
  • Foundry (DOGE budget automation)
  • ImmigrationOS (ICE tracking)
  • NHS Federated Data Platform

Contracts

ICE Immigration Platform (2025)

$10 B U.S. Army Enterprise Agreement

Europe’s Deepening Trap

y mid-2025, its reverberations were already felt across Europe. In Rome, Italian defense officials moved to integrate Elon Musk’s Starlink into military communications. In Berlin, Rheinmetall and Anduril expanded their joint venture to deploy autonomous drone swarms for NATO. The German variants of its drones still run on Californian code. Musk livestreams with the AfD’s Alice Weidel, endorsing the German far-right while supplying NATO infrastructure.

In London, the NHS scaled Palantir’s £330 million Federated Data Platform across tens of millions of patient records, By May 2025, the government had to pay KPMG £8 million just to encourage hospital adoption. Meanwhile, a £1.5 billion defense partnership binds Britain to Palantir’s AI systems.

None of these decisions provoked real debate. Few reached front pages. Together, they reveal the systematic outsourcing of European sovereignty to American oligarchs whose ideology openly undermines democracy.

It is a paradox with devastating implications: pursuing digital sovereignty while ceding control through every signed contract.

Each new contract deepens the trap. Once Palantir becomes indispensable, once Anduril’s drones are NATO standard, once nuclear facilities power AI that runs everything else— the transformation is irreversible.

Europe faces an existential choice: build genuine technological sovereignty now, or accept governance by platforms whose architects view democracy as an obsolete operating system.

The Infrastructure of Control

ilicon Valley’s Authoritarian Tech Right is not theorizing this world. They are already building it. The pipelines are operational. The feedback loops are functioning. The sovereignty transfers are completing.

Democracy persists as a legacy interface— maintained for stability, while being systematically hollowed out and replaced.

The question now is whether democratic societies can recognize this formation for what it is—and build alternatives before the infrastructure of control becomes too deeply embedded to dislodge.

The Authoritarian Tech Complex

Explore the Map [by clicking on graphic on original]

December 13, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

The Moral Urgency of Compromise in Ukraine.

George Beebe, December 05, 2025

At the heart of the public debate over the latest twists and turns in the Trump administration’s ongoing discussions with Russian and Ukrainian negotiators is a fundamental moral question on which there is no consensus: Is it wrong to seek a compromise to end the war in Ukraine? To judge from the anguished reactions to the leak of the White House’s “28-point plan”—which was not really a plan so much as a rough snapshot in time of what US negotiators thought might bridge the gaps between Ukrainian and Russian demands—much of the Western commentariat believes the answer is yes.   

In fact, the foreign policy establishments in Europe and Washington—which until recent years had presided over the West’s post-Cold War foreign policies—appear to view compromise itself as anathema. They insist that Russia should not gain in any way from its invasion of Ukraine, arguing that any other outcome would reward aggression, which would not only tempt Russia to resume its military conquests at some future date, but also invite similar aggression by China and others. 

As a result, they argue, Ukraine should not withdraw from territory in Donetsk it now holds, even if that is reciprocated by Russian withdrawals outside the Donbass region, as Moscow has offered. 

Nor should Russian-occupied territory be recognized as Russian in any way. Moscow should have no say in how Ukraine treats its linguistic and religious minorities or over whether Ukraine joins NATO, hosts Western combat forces, or has caps on its military holdings. All of these, it is argued,  should be sovereign Ukrainian decisions, regardless of whether Russia drops its objections to Ukraine joining the European Union, as President Vladimir Putin has pledged. Moreover, Russia must pay war reparations, and its leaders must face trial for war crimes.  

……………………………….. There are three big problems with this uncompromising stance. First, there is a yawning gap between what the opponents of a compromise insist must happen in Ukraine and their willingness to undertake the risks and sacrifices necessary to make it so.  Neither the United States nor Europe has been willing to go to war with Russia to force its unconditional surrender, understanding that this would very likely end in nuclear conflict………………………..

Second, having ruled out both direct military intervention and compromise, Ukraine’s rejectionist benefactors assume that they can sustain a prolonged battlefield stalemate that will ultimately exhaust Russia’s resources or its patience. That assumption is wishful thinking at best. Ukraine’s military efforts suffer from two increasingly problematic shortages: manpower and air defenses. The West cannot remedy Ukraine’s recruitment and desertion problems without sending hundreds of thousands of its own forces to fight. 

It cannot plug Ukraine’s growing air defense gap because Russia is building attack missiles, drones, and glide bombs faster than Western factories can manufacture air defense systems. This is not a formula for a prolonged stalemate; it is a recipe for Ukraine’s collapse, probably within months rather than years. 

Third and most important: The principle that lies at the root of the Ukraine conflict, which the opponents of compromise claim to defend—the principle that every nation has a sovereign right to choose its military allies—was never intended to be absolute, and the United States historically has not treated it as sacrosanct.

……………………………………………… That [the Cuban missile]crisis was resolved through a compromise in which the Soviets agreed to remove their missiles from Cuba in return for America’s pledge to remove its own missiles from Turkey and to refrain from efforts to overthrow the Castro regime.

……………………………….A truly principled approach to ending the war in Ukraine cannot be uncompromising.  It has to find a reasonable balance between principles that are by their very nature in tension with one another, such as Ukraine’s freedom to choose its allies and Moscow’s insistence that this freedom be limited by Russia’s security concerns………………………………………….. https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-moral-urgency-of-compromise-in-ukraine/

December 12, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Japan rejects EU plan to steal Russian assets – Politico.

09 Dec 2025, https://www.sott.net/article/503419-Japan-rejects-EU-plan-to-steal-Russian-assets-Politico 

The bloc wants to use Moscow’s funds immobilized in the West to cover Ukraine’s budget deficit.

Japan has reportedly dismissed a European Union initiative to tap frozen Russian sovereign assets to help finance Ukraine’s massive budget shortfall.

Brussels hopes to issue a so-called “reparation loan” backed by Russian funds immobilized in the West – a plan that Moscow has denounced as outright theft. Belgium, where most of the money is held by the Euroclear clearinghouse, has refused to greenlight the proposal unless other nations agree to share associated legal and financial risks.

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has said broader international backing, particularly from non-EU countries holding Russian assets, would bolster the European Commission’s case for what he called the effective confiscation of a foreign state’s funds. But at a meeting of G7 finance ministers on Monday, Japan’s Satsuki Katayama made clear her government would not support the plan due to legal constraints, Politico reported, citing EU diplomatic sources.

Officials told the outlet they believe Japan’s stance aligns with that of the United States, which also opposes the EU approach and views the frozen assets as leverage in negotiations with Moscow.

France has reportedly likewise declined to touch any assets held on its soil, while Canada and the UK have signaled possible participation if the EU ultimately pursues the scheme.

Ukraine’s parliament last week adopted a 2026 budget with a staggering $47.5 billion deficit, expecting foreign donors and creditors to fill the gap. Roughly half that anticipated support – an estimated $23.6 billion – remains uncertain pending the fate of the EU loan plan.

Ukrainian media noted that lawmakers pushed the budget through despite unresolved questions over foreign financing, in part to project stability following the removal of Andrey Yermak, formerly the most powerful aide to the country’s leader, Vladimir Zelensky. Yermak was dismissed as a corruption scandal engulfed Kiev’s political establishment.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, Japan, politics international | Leave a comment

Venezuela and the colonial enterprise

By Ben Laycock | 11 December 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/venezuela-and-the-colonial-enterprise,20471

When small nations resist the United States, democracy becomes a game of pressure, writes Ben Laycock.

U.S. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP claims his belligerence towards Nicolás Maduro is in the noble cause of restoring democracy to Venezuela, but history shows us that the U.S. is no friend of democracy in Latin America.

The U.S. is renowned for interfering in the democratic process in every single country south of the border of America. It is common knowledge that it is nigh on impossible to maintain power in any Latin American democracy if the U.S. decides it is time for you to go.

The way the world economy works like this rich countries make products that poor countries need, like technology. To afford those products, poor countries must offer something the rich folks need. This is usually minerals or fossil fuels. If the rich folks don’t like the way you run your country, basically, if you don’t run your country the way they tell you to, they use their immense economic power to cripple your economy by cutting off the most vital thing you need, finance. The rich folks control the money supply. They turn off the tap. Your country goes broke, the people get angry and throw you out. The U.S.-backed mob get in, the tap is turned on again. The anger of the masses subsides, the status quo returns, without a shot being fired, all perfectly democratic.

A nation cannot maintain its independence via democratic means if the powers-that-be object to that independence, as they so often do.

The only way to maintain your independence is to suspend normal democratic rights and be prepared to defend your country via military means. If you take this drastic course of action, you will face the approbation of the entire “democratic” world. You will no longer be seen as a legitimate state. That is when they really turn the screws, imposing an economic blockade on your struggling little country. This forces you to turn to less popular regimes for life support, thus placing you firmly in the enemy camp, ripe for full-scale military invasion.

The U.S. imposed an extremely strict economic blockade on Cuba in 1962. That blockade is ongoing, the longest economic blockade in history. No company that trades with Cuba can trade with the U.S., full stop.

But only a fool would think these actions have anything to do with democracy. Here in the rich world, democracy is a game we play. If we are losing the game, that’s when things get serious. The USA is going through the painful process of shedding long-held notions of democracy at this very moment.

Donald Trump’s best friends are not leaders of democracies: Mohamed Bin Salman, his present best friend, is a Prince. Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf states are monarchies, ruled by kings. His other bosom buddy is Benjamin Netanyahu, a man who runs a brutal military dictatorship over many of his subjects, divided along racial lines. Israel reserves democratic rights for Jews only, plus a small minority of arabs that they neglected to exterminate long ago (something they have come to regret). The rest of their subjects are subject to military dictatorship. All Jewish people are allowed to vote, no matter where they live in Palestine. Arabs citizens are allowed to vote unless they live in Gaza or the West Bank. There are 9.5 million citizens in Israel (this includes Jewish settlers in the West Bank), two million of them are Arabs. Until recently, there were over two million people living in Gaza. (The I.D.F. is going to extraordinary lengths to reduce that number). There are 2.5 million people living in the West Bank. That makes a total population under Israeli control of 14 million, 9.5 million of whom have the right to vote, the other 4.5 million are living in an extremely brutal military dictatorship, and have been for generations.

So we can say that the land of Israel is 63 per cent democracy and 37 per cent military dictatorship.

This is not so different to how Australia was run until quite recently.

Our nation began as a military dictatorship. Eventually, the invaders and settlers were allowed to vote, while the indigenous population continued to be ruled by a brutal military dictatorship right up until 1967. The “blackfullas” were seen as the enemy, to be shot on sight. The last recorded massacre was the Conniston Massacre in 1928. It is a rule of thumb for any self-respecting colonising power to keep the local indigenous population out of the democratic process until you have reduced their numbers to the point where they no longer pose a threat to your idea of “civilisation.”

A colonial enterprise must reduce the ratio of locals to interlopers. This is achieved by two simultaneous methods: Reducing the population of locals via extermination, whilst flooding the place with immigrants from “the home country.”

When Captain Cook arrived in Australia, there were around one million blackfullas. This number was swiftly and efficiently reduced to a far more manageable size. In Tasmania, the number of full-blood blackfullas was reduced to zero. In Victoria, it was reduced to three. Yet it still took nearly 200 years before the interlopers felt safe enough to grant the last indigenous remnants their democratic rights.

To return to Palestine. The interlopers arrived en masse around 1947-8. They immediately set about adjusting the ratio of locals to invaders (following the colonial textbook to the letter) via a campaign of mass terror. The Zionists expelled over one million Palestinians from their homes, at gunpoint, with nothing more than they could carry on their backs. They then blew up their homes and planted booby traps so they could never return. This is how the state of Israel was founded, on ethnic cleansing. Since that time, some 80 years ago, the Palestinians have lived under brutal military rule, but until now, there has been little attempt to get rid of them altogether. That policy has changed. The Arab Palestinian cohort is growing faster than the Jews. Partly because the Arabs are outbreeding the Jews about 3-1, well done team! But also because Israel is no longer such a popular place to come and live, for obvious reasons. The Israeli regime is aware that it cannot maintain a Jewish state once the Arab population approaches parity. So they are now talking about expelling the Arabs from the Israeli enclave, as well as from Gaza and the West Bank. In their eyes, this would reduce the threat of violence that is putting off potential immigrants, whilst freeing up new lands to give them, problem solved!

December 12, 2025 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Schemes of Bankruptcy: The United Nations, Funding Dues and Human Rights

 Increasingly shrivelled and shrunken, the UN’s far from negligible role in seeking to conserve peace, flawed as it can be, or distributing aid and protecting human rights, risks vanishing into history.

11 December 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/schemes-of-bankruptcy-the-united-nations-funding-dues-and-human-rights/

The United Nations, in turning 80, has been berated, dismissed and libelled. In September, US President Donald Trump took a hearty swipe at the body’s alleged impotence. “What is the purpose of the United Nations?” he posed to gathered world leaders. All it seemed to do was “write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words and empty words don’t solve war.” Never once did he consider that many of the wars he has allegedly ended have not so much reached their pacific terminus as having gone into simmering storage.

While harsh geopolitics has become violently fashionable and sneery of international law, an organisation whose existence depends on solidarity, support and cooperation from its often uncooperative Member States, is seeing itself slide into what has been described as a “worsening liquidity crisis.” The crisis was given much stimulus by the organisation’s US$135 million deficit as it entered 2025. By September’s end, it had collected a mockingly inadequate 66.2 per cent of the year’s assessments.

In October, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, in speaking to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly responsible for the entity’s budget, warned that the organisation was facing a “race to bankruptcy” unless Member States forked out their dues. Last year, arrears totalled US$760 million. With the need to return credits worth US$300 million to Member States at the start of 2026, some 10 per cent of the budget would be emptied. “Any delays in collections early in the year [2026] will force us to reduce spending even more … and then potentially face the prospect of returning US$600 million in 2027, or about 20 per cent of the budget.”

While discussing finances can induce a coma, some preliminary discussion about the structure of contributions to the UN is necessary. Assessed or mandatory contributions for 2025, measured by the “capacity to pay” formula, comprised the regular budget of the organisation covering administrative and operational costs (approximately $US3.7 billion); funding for international tribunals ($US43 million); the Capital Master Plan covering the renovation of the UN headquarters in New York; and peacekeeping operations (US$5.4 billion). Voluntary contributions are self-explanatory enough, comprising optional donations from Member States and various other entities for humanitarian and development agencies, in addition to sustaining the broader UN system.

States discharging their obligations in making contributions to the regular budget receive proud mention in the Honour Roll of the UN. Those not doing so risk losing their vote in the organisation if their financial lethargy continues for two years or more after the due date of contributions – not that this injunction has been well observed. The United States remains famously tardy, and under Trump, boisterously so. As the body’s primary contributor to the regular budget – assessed as 22 per cent in 2025 – and 26 per cent to the peacekeeping budget, this is particularly galling.

Since January, the current administration has savaged funding to various UN bodies. On his first day of office, the President signed an executive order withdrawing his country from the World Health Organization due to its “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”

The UN Human Rights Council was the next fashioned target, with February’s withdrawal from the body justified on the basis that it had “protected human rights abusers by allowing them to use the organization to shield themselves from scrutiny”.  In sympathy for Israel, funding was also frozen to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), citing the allegation that employees had been “involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel.”

Revealing its crass, impulsive philistinism, the Trump administration proceeded to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in July. “UNESCO,” declared State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, “works to advance divisive social and cultural causes and maintains an outsized focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, a globalist, ideological agenda for international development at odds with our America First foreign policy.” Amidst all of this, the parochial agenda was made clear: UNESCO, in admitting Palestine as a Member State was “highly problematic, contrary to US policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization.”

Washington has been singular in this regard only in terms of scale. China and Russia are also conspicuous in being late with their contributions while other Member States have simply pared back their UN contributions for reasons of defence and domestic expenditure. War mongering is proving catching, while peacemaking, despite the boasts of the US President, is falling out of vogue. A most conspicuous area to suffer has been human rights.  

In October 2025, the International Service for Human Rights identified an ongoing campaign to defund the UN human rights agenda being waged in the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee. In a report using material gathered from 37 diplomats, UN officials and experts, along with data analysis of UN documents and the organisation’s budget from 2019 to 2024, the ISHR identified a campaign of “coordinated obstruction” by Member States steered by China and Russia. Coupled with Washington and Beijing’s “failure to pay their assessments in full and on time (respectively)”, the UN’s means of funding and implementing its human rights programs has been stymied.  

Most to suffer has been the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which finds itself $90 million short of what it needs for 2025. Some 300 jobs have already been shed by the organisation. “Our resources have been slashed, along with funding for human rights organisations, including at the grassroots level, around the world,” warns UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk. “We are in survival mode.”  

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), responsible for humanitarian aid and crisis, has had to resort to the beggar bowl. Facing its own budgetary razor, the body is seeking US$23 billion as a matter of immediacy, with the hope that it will save 87 million lives. “Ultimately, in 2026,” the body announced on December 8, “the aim is to raise a total of US$33 billion to support 135 million people through 23 country operations and six plans for refugees and migrants.”

While wobbly, scarred by imperfections and marked by contentiousness, an organisation built from the ashes of murderous global conflict in 1945 risks becoming the very model of impotence Trump claims and no doubt wishes it to be. In this, he can count on a number of countries, friendly or adversarial to the US. Increasingly shrivelled and shrunken, the UN’s far from negligible role in seeking to conserve peace, flawed as it can be, or distributing aid and protecting human rights, risks vanishing into history.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, politics international | Leave a comment

Oil and gas industries join with nuclear to fight renewable energy.

 For decades oil, gas and coal backers were locked in a rivalry with nuclear interests, competing for shares of America’s energy grid; but today many on both of those sides have teamed up to counter the rise of renewable power.

Bloomberg Businessweek previously reported on how the
backers of a politically connected nuclear startup are working, at times covertly, to neutralize the industry’s chief regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Many of the nuclear industry’s most energetic backers are simultaneously engaged in efforts to kill the competition—wind and solar.

Bloomberg 9th Dec 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-12-09/nuclear-energy-fossil-fuel-interests-join-forces-against-renewable-energy

December 12, 2025 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Russia says it awaits an answer from the US on New START as nuclear treaty ticks down.

By Guy Faulconbridge and Lucy Papachristou, December 10, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russia-says-it-awaits-an-answer-us-new-start-nuclear-treaty-ticks-down-2025-12-10/

  • Summary
  • New START expires on February 5
  • Russia awaits an answer from US, top official says
  • Putin has proposed keeping the treaty’s limits
  • Trump has said it is a good idea

MOSCOW, Dec 10 (Reuters) – Russia on Wednesday said it was still awaiting a formal answer from Washington on President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to jointly stick to the last remaining Russian-U.S. arms control treaty, which expires in less than two months.

New START, which runs out on February 5, caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the United States and Russia can deploy, and the deployment of land- and submarine-based missiles and bombers to deliver them.

Putin in September offered to voluntarily maintain for one year the limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons set out in the treaty, whose initials stand for the (New) Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

Trump said in October it sounded “like a good idea.”

“We have less than 100 days left before the expiry of New START,” said Sergei Shoigu, the secretary of Russia’s powerful Security Council, which is like a modern-day politburo of Russia’s most powerful officials.

“We are waiting for a response,” Shoigu told reporters during a visit to Hanoi. He added that Moscow’s proposal was an opportunity to halt the “destructive movement” that currently existed in nuclear arms control.

NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL IN PERIL

Russia and the U.S. together have more than 10,000 nuclear warheads, or 87% of the global inventory of nuclear weapons. China is the world’s third largest nuclear power with about 600 warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists, opens new tab.

The arms control treaties between Moscow and Washington were born out of fear of nuclear war after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Greater transparency about the opponent’s arsenal was intended to reduce the scope for misunderstanding and slow the arms race.

U.S. AND RUSSIA EYE CHINA’S NUCLEAR ARSENAL

Now, with all major nuclear powers seeking to modernise their arsenals, and Russia and the West at strategic loggerheads for over a decade – not least over the enlargement of NATO and Moscow’s war in Ukraine – the treaties have almost all crumbled away. Each side blames the other.

In the new U.S. National Security Strategy, opens new tab, the Trump administration says it wants to “reestablish strategic stability with Russia” – shorthand for reopening discussions on strategic nuclear arms control.

Rose Gottemoeller, who was chief U.S. negotiator for New START, said in an article for The Arms Control Association this month that it would be beneficial for Washington to implement the treaty along with Moscow.

“For the United States, the benefit of this move would be buying more time to decide what to do about the ongoing Chinese buildup without having to worry simultaneously about new Russian deployments,” Gottemoeller said.

December 11, 2025 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

THE NEXT WARS WERE ALWAYS HERE: How Post 9/11 Law and the Monroe Doctrine Converged in the Caribbean.

December 9, 2025 By Michelle Ellner, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/09/the-next-wars-were-always-here-how-post-9-11-law-and-the-monroe-doctrine-converged-in-the-caribbean/

The first U.S. missiles that struck the boats in the Caribbean in early September 2025 were described by Washington as a “counter-narcotics operation,” a sterile phrase meant to dull the violence of incinerating human beings in an instant. Then came the second strike, this time on survivors already struggling to stay afloat. Once the details emerged, however, the official story began to fall apart. 

Local fishermen contradicted U.S. claims. Relatives of those killed have said the men were not cartel operatives at all, but fishermen, divers, and small-scale couriers. Relatives in Trinidad and Venezuela told regional reporters their loved ones were unarmed and had no connection to Tren de Aragua, describing them instead as fathers and sons who worked the sea to support their families. Some called the U.S. narrative “impossible” and “a lie,” insisting the men were being demonized after their deaths. U.N. experts called the killings “extrajudicial.” Maritime workers noted what everyone in the region already knows: the route near Venezuela’s waters is not a fentanyl corridor into the United States. Yet the administration clung to its story, insisting these men were “narcoterrorists,” long after the facts had unraveled. Because in Washington’s post 9/11 playbook, fear is a tool. Fear is the architecture of modern American war.

The U.S. did not emerge from the Iraq War into peace or reflection. It emerged into normalization. The legal theories invented and abused after 9/11 – elastic self-defense, limitless definitions of terrorism, enemy combatants, global strike authority – did not fade. They became the backbone of a permanent war machine. These justifications supported drone wars in Pakistan, airstrikes in Yemen and Somalia, the destruction of Libya, special operations in Syria, and yet another military return to Iraq. And behind every expansion of this global battlefield was a U.S. weapons industry that grew richer with each intervention, lobbying for policies that kept the country in a constant state of conflict. What we are seeing today in the Caribbean is not an isolated action; it is the extension of a militarized imperial model that treats entire regions as expendable. 

The next wars were always there because we never confronted the political and economic system that made endless wars a profitable cornerstone of U.S. power.

A Post-9/11 Legal Framework Built for Endless War

The Trump administration has advanced several overlapping legal arguments to justify the strikes, and together they reveal a post-9/11 framework that stretches executive power far beyond its intended limits.

According to detailed reporting in The Washington Post, a classified Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo argues that the United States is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with so-called narcoterrorist organizations. Under this theory, the strikes qualify as part of an ongoing armed conflict rather than a new “war” requiring congressional authorization. This framing alone is unprecedented: drug-trafficking groups are criminal networks, not organized armed groups targeting the U.S.

A second pillar of the memo, described by lawmakers to the Wall Street Journal, claims that once the president designates a cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, it becomes a lawful military target. But terrorism designations have never created war powers. They are financial and sanctions tools, not authorizations for lethal force. As Sen. Andy Kim put it, using an FTO label as a “kinetic justification” is something “that has never been done before.”

The OLC memo also invokes Article II, claiming the president can order strikes as part of his commander-in-chief authority. Yet this argument depends on a second unsupported premise: that the boats posed a threat significant enough to justify self-defense. Even internal government lawyers questioned this. As one person familiar with the deliberations told The Washington Post, “There is no actual threat justifying self-defense — there are not organized armed groups seeking to kill Americans.” 

At the same time, the administration has publicly insisted that these operations do not rise to the level of “hostilities”  that would trigger the War Powers Resolution because U.S. military personnel were never placed at risk. By the administration’s own logic, that means the people on the boats were not engaged in hostilities and therefore were not combatants under any accepted legal standard, making the claim of a wartime self-defense strike impossible to reconcile with U.S. or international law.

Under international law, executing people outside a genuine armed conflict is an extrajudicial killing.  Nothing about these strikes meets the legal threshold for war. Because the people on the boats were not lawful combatants, the operation risks violating both international law and U.S. criminal law, including statutes on murder at sea, a concern reportedly underscored by Admiral Alvin Holsey’s early resignation.

The memo goes further still, invoking “collective self-defense” on behalf of regional partners. But key regional partners, including Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico, have publicly criticized the strikes and said they were not consulted, undermining the very premise of “collective” defense.

This internal contradiction is one reason lawmakers across both parties have called the reasoning incoherent. As Sen. Chris Van Hollen put it, “This is a memo where the decision was made, and someone was told to come up with a justification for the decision.”

And beneath all of this lies the most dangerous element: the memo’s logic has no geographic limits. If the administration claims it is in an armed conflict with a designated “narcoterrorist” group, then, by its own theory, lethal force could be used wherever members of that group are found. The same framework that justifies strikes near Venezuela could, in principle, be invoked in a U.S. city if the administration claimed a cartel “cell” existed there. 

If Trump truly believes he leads “the most transparent administration in history,” then releasing the memo should be automatic. The American people have the right to know what legal theory is being used to justify killing people in their name.

For decades, OLC memos have been used not simply as legal advice but as the internal architecture that allows presidents to expand their war-making power. The Bush torture memos treated torture as lawful by redefining the word “torture” itself, calling it “enhanced interrogation,” thereby enabling years of CIA black-site operations and abusive interrogations. The Libya War Powers memo argued that bombing Libya did not constitute “hostilities,” allowing the administration to continue military action without congressional approval. Targeted-killing memos, including those related to drone strikes on U.S. citizens abroad, constructed a legal theory that lethal force could be used outside traditional battlefields, without trial, based on executive determinations alone. In each case, the memo did not merely interpret the law; it reshaped the boundaries of presidential war powers, often without public debate or congressional authorization.

The American people have the right to know what “legal theory” is being used to justify killing people in their name. Congress needs it to conduct oversight. Service members need it to understand the legality of the orders they receive. And the international community needs clarity on the standards the U.S. claims to follow. There is no legitimate reason for a president to hide the legal basis for lethal force, unless the argument collapses under scrutiny. A secret opinion cannot serve as the foundation for an open-ended military campaign in the Western Hemisphere.

The Older Foundation: A 200-Year-Old Doctrine of Control

If the legal foundation comes from the post-9/11 era, the geopolitical foundation is older. Almost ancestral. For 200 years, the Monroe Doctrine has served as the permission slip for U.S. domination in Latin America.

The Trump administration went even further by openly reviving and expanding it through what officials called a “Trump Corollary,” which reframed the entire Western Hemisphere as a U.S. “defense perimeter” and justified increased military operations under the language of counter-narcotics, migration control, and regional stability. In this framework, Latin America is no longer treated as a diplomatic neighbor but as a security zone where Washington can act unilaterally. 

Venezuela, with its vast oil reserves, sovereign political project, and refusal to submit to U.S. pressure, has long been marked as a target. Sanctions softened the terrain. Disinformation hardened public opinion. And now, military strikes near its waters test how far Washington can push without triggering public revolt at home. The term “narcoterrorism” is simply the newest mask on a very old doctrine.

The strikes in the Caribbean are not isolated. They are the predictable intersection of two forces: a post-9/11 legal regime that allows war to expand without congressional approval, and a 200-year-old imperial doctrine that treats Latin America as a zone of control rather than a community of sovereign nations. Together, they form the logic that justifies today’s violence near Venezuela.

The Label that Opened the Door

After 9/11, every administration learned the same lesson: if you label something “terrorism,” the public will let you do almost anything. Now, this logic is being used everywhere. The cruel, decades-long blockade on Cuba is justified by claiming that the island is a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Mass surveillance, border militarization, endless sanctions, all wrapped in the language of “counterterrorism.” And now, to authorize military action in the Caribbean, they simply take the word “narco” and attach it to the word “terrorism.” The label does all the work. The danger is not confined to foreign policy: after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the same elastic definition of “terrorism” is now being used domestically to justify crackdowns on NGOs the administration claims are inciting “anti-American” political violence.

The only reason Trump has not launched a full-scale attack on Venezuela is that he is still testing the ground, testing resistance inside Venezuela, testing Congress, testing the media, and testing us. He knows nearly 70% of people in the United States oppose a war with Venezuela. He knows he cannot sell another Iraq. So he is probing, pushing, looking for the line we will not let him cross.

We are that line.

If we do not challenge the lie now, if we do not demand release of the memo, if we stay silent, “narcoterrorism” becomes the new “weapons of mass destruction.” If we allow this test case to go unanswered, the next strike will be a war. We are the only ones who can stop him. And history is watching to see whether we learned anything from the last twenty years of fear, deception, and violence.

Because the next wars were always here, looming. We just need the clarity to see them and the force to stop them before they begin.

December 11, 2025 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Across the world we are marking 5 years since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons became international law. 

11 Dec 25, https://www.icanw.org/resources_for_5_years_since_the_nuclear_ban_went_into_effect

There are so many ways the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is making a difference:

Making nuclear weapons illegal and illegitimate

The treaty has closed the legal gap! Nuclear weapons are now banned under international law. It has also reinforced the nuclear taboo by creating a new international norm that nuclear weapons can never be used because of the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental harm they cause. TPNW states have condemned nuclear threats unequivocally and have encouraged other states to do the same – for example, through the G20. The TPNW is the first multilateral treaty to prohibit nuclear threats. It has solidified the international consensus that nuclear threats are inadmissible.

Demanding nuclear justice

Prior to the TPNW’s entry into force, there were few opportunities for states to discuss victim assistance and environmental remediation in a multilateral setting and in a focused way. The Treaty has brought the fight for nuclear justice to the fore and provided an important forum for communities affected by the use and testing of nuclear weapons to discuss their ongoing needs.

Cutting financial support for nuclear weapons manufacture, development and production

Hundreds of banks, pension funds and other financial institutions have pledged never to finance nuclear-weapon-producing companies on the basis that such weapons are now prohibited under international law.

Providing a rallying place for those who demand an end to nuclear weapons forever

Representatives of hundreds of non-government organisations, along with parliamentarians, mayors, religious leaders and academics, have attended each of the TPNW meetings of states parties. New actors have become involved.

Read more about how the TPNW has changed the world

Action Ideas: What can I do?

Nuclear weapons affect all of us, so it’s up to all of us to push back against the threats and absurd concept that they provide any security whatsoever. This anniversary is an opportunity to celebrate that the global majority of countries have signed onto the Treaty.

Ways to show your support………………………………………………………………..

December 11, 2025 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Trump warns Ukraine is ‘losing’ Russia war, calls for new elections despite wartime prohibition.

Trump occasionally says something sensible, even if by accident.

New York Post, By Richard Pollina, Dec. 9, 2025

President Trump said in an interview Monday that Ukraine should hold new elections despite its ongoing war with Russia — prompting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to declare he’s “ready” for them to begin when voters can be safe. 

“I think it’s time. I think it’s an important time to hold an election,” the president told Politico reporter Dasha Burns. “They’re using war not to hold an election, but, uh, I would think the Ukrainian people would, should have that choice.”

Under Ukraine’s constitution, elections cannot be held during period of martial law — which President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed in response to Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Under normal circumstances, the terms of Zelensky and Ukraine’s parliament would have ended in May and August 2024, respectively.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Zelensky said he has the “will and readiness” to hold elections. But he cited issues in Ukraine’s way, including the security of voters in a war zone at risk of missile strikes and Ukrainian law that prevents elections when the country is under martial law.

Zelensky said he’s seeking a legislative fix, and if he has help from the US on ensuring the safety of voters during a war, Kyiv would be ready to hold elections in “the next 60 to 90 days.”

“Maybe Zelensky would win,” Trump said of the prospect of a wartime election. “I don’t know who would win. But they haven’t had an election in a long time. You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.”

The president also responded to a weekend claim by first son Donald Trump Jr. that the commander-in-chief may be willing to walk away from Ukraine, saying: “It’s not correct. But it’s not exactly wrong.”

“We have to, you know, they have to play ball,” the president went on. “If they, if they don’t read agreements, potential agreements, you know, it’s not easy with Russia because Russia has the upper, upper hand. And they always did. They’re much bigger. They’re much stronger in that sense.

The president’s comments came as his administration makes another effort to end Europe’s deadliest conflict since the Second World War, with Trump telling reporters Sunday that Zelensky had yet to read the latest peace framework hashed out by US and Ukrainian negotiators.

“It would be nice if he would read it,” the president told Politico Monday. “You know, a lot of people are dying. So it would be really good if he’d read it. His people loved the proposal. They really liked it. His lieutenants, his top people, they liked it, but they said he hasn’t read it yet. I think he should find time to read it.”

Zelensky disputed the accusation on Thursday, telling reporters he has in fact “read many different versions of this plan.” https://nypost.com/2025/12/09/us-news/trump-says-ukraine-should-hold-elections-despite-wartime-prohibition/

December 11, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Perfectly Appropriate: Trump, Infantino and the FIFA Peace Prize

10 December 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/perfectly-appropriate-trump-infantino-and-the-fifa-peace-prize/

He craves it, and, to some extent, his desire was satisfied. President Donald Trump did get a peace prize. Not the peace prize picked out by self-important Norwegian non-entities, but the inaugural curiosity of FIFA, an organisation famed for opacity, corruption and graft. What the critics missed in all of this was its sheer appositeness.

In a two-hour ceremony held on December 5 at Washington’s Kennedy Center, which included the World Cup draw for participants at next year’s games, Trump was presented with a prize few FIFA officials seem to know existed. Last month, FIFA president Gianni Infantino announced the award, expressing the view that Trump also deserved that other coveted gong, the Nobel Peace Prize. One senior FIFA official boldly told BBC Sport that the football organisation’s prize deserved serious attention: “Why can’t this be bigger than the Nobel Peace Prize? Football has huge global support, so it’s right that it recognises extraordinary efforts to bring about peace every year.”

That football – grand sport of sublimated aggression, contest and rivalries – is an agent of peace, is one of those shibboleths sporting administrators feed. Go through the records of any famous club rivalry, and peace is found wanting. Violence and politics, however, can be found in abundance. But Infantino did not become FIFA President on his mastery of such details. His formula was simple if hypocritical: athletes should play and shut up about politics, leaving it to the administrative class to do the rest.

With fawning relish, he heaped high praise on the winner. “This is what we want from a leader; a leader who cares about the people. We want to live in a safe world, in a safe environment. We want to unite – that’s what we do here today, that’s what we’ll do at the (FIFA) World Cup, Mr President.” Trump, in deserving the inaugural award, could count on Infantino’s support and that “of the entire football community – or ‘soccer’ community – to help you make peace and make sure the world prospers all over the world.”

Infantino has never been a strict observer of the dusty ethics clause stating that the organisation maintains neutrality “in matters of politics and religion” and that “all persons bound by the code remain politically neutral … in dealings with government institutions.” He has hobnobbed with the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Russia, ostensibly pursuing the footballing cause. He was the only sports leader present at the Egyptian “Summit for Peace” held in October, when a clutch of significant figures, marshalled by Trump and Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi, agreed to implement the first phase of the Gaza peace plan. (There was much personal gratitude for Trump, praised as “absolutely fundamental and crucial in the [peace] process.) He has gathered a swag of awards and accolades from governments, hardly an affirmation of neutrality in any strict sense.

In keeping with the mood, Trump spoke about everything other than football. He was in the business of saving lives, and peace prizes did not matter much. (You need to get one in orderto dismiss its merits.) For good measure, he had also “saved a lot [of lives], millions even.”

In keeping with the absurd occasion was the furious criticism of the choice, when its absurdity was most apt. Infantino, derided over his stance on not suspending Israel over its military operations in Gaza, was now receiving rebukes for eschewing neutrality. “Not satisfied with two years of FIFA complicity in genocide in Palestine, Infantino and his cronies have now invented a ‘peace prize’ in order to curry favour with Donald Trump,” fumed former UN official Craig Mokhiber and campaigner against Israeli’s membership of FIFA.

Andrea Florence, Executive Director of the Sports & Rights Alliance, acknowledged that the World Cup had been the political plaything of states in rinsing stained human rights records. “But FIFA is now doing the sportswashing itself. Giving this so-called FIFA ‘Peace Prize’ to US President Donald Trump with no clear criteria or process – and despite his administration’s violent detentions of immigrants, crackdowns on freedom of expression, and militarization of US cities – it’s sportswashing on steroids.”

This grumbling was bound to take a more formal shape, and it came in the form of an eight-page letter of complaint from the non-profit advocacy organisation, FairSquare. Unfortunately for the organisation, it was sent to FIFA. In the letter, the organisation demands that the ethics committee (the joke keeps giving) “investigate the circumstances surrounding the decision to introduce and award a FIFA Peace Prize and their conformity with FIFA’s procedural rules.” It makes reference to various remarks of Infantino’s, including those in an Instagram post from Trump’s inauguration on January 20 declaring that, “Together we will make not only America great again, but also the entire world.”

Studiously referencing FIFA statutes – not that this will get them far – the group goes on to state that awarding such a prize “to a sitting political leader is in and of itself a clear breach of Fifa’s duty of neutrality.” Infantino lacked the power to unilaterally determine “the organisation’s mission, strategic direction, policies and values.”

Identity politics books

As with most things relevant to that organisation, the complaint is unlikely to get far. Politics and sport do mix, as they have always done. Infantino, chief of the world’s foremost unchallenged sporting mafia, may claim otherwise, but his tenure shows that he knows that crude reality all too well.

December 11, 2025 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Trump says Ukraine should hold elections

Sometimes, if only by accident, Trump says something sensible

by Julia Manchester – 12/09/25, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5640123-trump-says-ukraine-should-hold-elections/

President Trump said in a new interview that Ukraine should hold elections despite being locked in war with Russia. 

“They’re using war not to hold an election. I would think the Ukrainian people should have that choice,” Trump told Politico. “They talk about having a democracy but it gets to the point where it’s not a democracy anymore.” 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has come under political pressure in recent weeks over a corruption scandal that implicated top Ukrainian officials. After the country’s watchdogs concluded that $100 million had been embezzled from the energy sector through kickbacks paid by contractors, Zelensky fired two top officials and slapped sanctions on close associates. 

Zelensky has not been accused of any wrongdoing but his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, resigned following an anti-corruption raid on his home last month. 

Additionally, Zelensky has found himself and Ukraine on defense as Russia seeks to make advances on Ukrainian territory and Trump administration officials struggle to broker a peace deal between the two countries. 

Trump aired his frustrations over Zelensky on Sunday, saying the Ukrainian leader had not read the latest version of the peace proposals that came out of talks between U.S. officials and Russian President Vladimir Putin last week.

Zelensky said Ukraine would not budge from its longstanding opposition to ceding land to Russia after he met with European leaders on Monday. 

Trump said in the Politico interview published Tuesday that he believes Russia is in a stronger negotiating position than Ukraine. 

“[Zelensky] is going to have to get on the ball and start accepting things,” he said, adding that they are “losing.” 

December 10, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

The Colby Review, AUKUS and Lopsided Commitments

9 December 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/the-colby-review-aukus-and-lopsided-commitments/

In one of his many cutting observations about the fallibility of politicians, H. L. Mencken had this to say about the practical sort: “It is his business to convince the mob (a) that it is confronted by some grave danger, some dreadful menace to its peace and security, and (b) that he can save it.” Regarding Australia’s often provincial politicians, that grave danger remains the Yellow Peril, albeit it one garbed in communist party colours, while the quackery they continue to practise involves the notion the United States will act as shield bearer and saviour in any future conflict.

The AUKUS trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States has turned the first of these countries into an expectant vassal state, mindful of security guarantees it does not need from a power that can, and would at a moment’s notice, abandon it. But more dangerously, the expectation here is that Canberra, awaiting Virginia Class (SSN-774) nuclear-powered submarines from the US, will offer unconditional succour, resources and promises to the projection of Washington’s power in the Indo-Pacific. Without any guarantee of such submarines, Australian money is underwriting US submarine production, which remains consistently tardy. (Currently, 1.3 boats are being produced annually, when 2.3 are needed.)

The 2023 National Defense Authorization Act makes it irrefutably clear that Congress shall be notified that any transfer of boats “will not degrade the United States underseas capabilities.” Pursuing AUKUS still entailed “sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments” on the part of the US to meet undersea capabilities, with Australia advancing “appropriate funds and support for the additional capacity required to meet the requirements” along with Canberra’s “capability to host and fully operate the vessels authorized to be transferred.”

This true steal for US diplomacy, and sad tribute to Homo boobiens on the part of the Australians, has continued with the review of AUKUS conducted by Undersecretary of Defense Policy Eldridge Colby. The review is not available for public eyes, but Colby had previously released smoke signals that the AUKUS pact would only “lead to more submarines collectively in 10, 15, 20 years, which is way beyond the window of maximum danger, which is really this decade.”  

The Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles told reporters on December 4 that the review had been received. “We’re working through the AUKUS review, and we very much thank the United States for providing it to us.” (Surely that’s the least they could have done.) He had identified unwavering support for the pact. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also released a statement to the media expressing enthusiasm. “Consistent with President Trump’s guidance that AUKUS should move ‘full steam ahead,’ the review identified opportunities to put AUKUS on the strongest possible footing.” No doubt opportunities have been identified, but these are likely to be consistent with the lopsided arrangements Australia has had with the US to date.

Australia has so far provided A$1.6 billion in funding to the US submarine base, with the promise of more. What remains unclear is how much of this is also going into training Australian personnel to operate and maintain the vessels. “There’s a schedule of payments to be made,” explained Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in July. “We have an agreement with the United States as well as with the United Kingdom. It is about increasing their capacity, their industrial capacity.” As part of such arrangements, “we have Australians on the ground, learning those skills.”

The joint fact sheet on the 2025 Australia-US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN), held between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and their Australian counterparts Penny Wong and Marles in Washington, makes one reference to AUKUS and nothing in terms of substance to Colby’s recommendations. There is, however, this bit of unpardonable gibberish: “In line with President Trump and Prime Minister Albanese’s direction to move ‘full steam ahead’ on AUKUS, the [ministers] recognised the work underway to deliver priority infrastructure works and workforce uplift plan in support of an enhanced trilateral submarine industrial base.”

Given such statements, it is hard to see what opportunities identified in the Colby report could possibly be advantageous to Australia, a mere annexure of the US imperium. There is bound to be continued pressure on Australia to increase its defence spending. There are also unaddressed concerns about how sovereign the SSNs in Australian hands are going to be when and if they ever make it across the Pacific. In a conflict involving the United States, notably in the Indo-Pacific, Canberra will be expected to rush in with that mindless enthusiasm that has seen Australian soldiers die in theatres they would struggle to name for causes they could barely articulate.

Even the confident opinion of Joe Courtney, a Democrat member of the House Armed Services Committee and representative of Groton, Connecticut (the “Submarine Capital of the World”), should be viewed warily. “The statutory authority enacted by Congress in 2023 will remain intact, including the sale of three Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032,”comes his beaming assessment. The Colby review “correctly determined that there are critical deadlines that all three countries have to meet. Therefore, maintaining disciplined adherence to schedule is paramount.” That degree of discipline and adherence to schedules is unlikely to be an equal one. It is bound to favour, first and foremost, Washington’s own single perspective.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

Trump scores an own goal for FIFA

By Kate Zarb | 8 December 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/trump-scores-an-own-goal-for-fifa,20463

FIFA invents a “Peace Prize” to flatter Donald Trump, proving once again that football’s governing body never misses an open goal for global embarrassment, writes Kate Zarb.

WE WEREN’T SURPRISED when we saw it play out, but the punchline we’ve been bracing ourselves for has finally happened. On Saturday 6 December, FIFA awarded its inaugural Peace Prize – a prize no one had ever heard of before Saturday – to none other than Donald Trump.   

Clearly, FIFA has decided the respect of six billion people isn’t worth having. It’s sucking up to the giant man-baby with a made-up prize and a trophy big enough (and ugly enough) to be used as a security bollard.

Or has it?

FIFA, like the rest of the world, has been watching in horror at the way everything is spiralling under Trump’s oppressive presence. He is at once a laughing stock and an existential threat to millions of people, such is his malice — and FIFA knows this.

With football still only a minor sport in the USA, I’m sure FIFA was hoping to profit from a successful Men’s World Cup, in 2026 and for many years to come.

But I think FIFA has seen the writing on the wall. It knows the 2026 World Cup won’t be remembered for an astonishing goal, but for the players turned away at the border. It knows there will be no heroism on the football pitch if the locker rooms, team hotels and public streets become a hunting ground for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) agents hell-bent on deporting anyone darker than an Antebellum plantation owner.  

Like many of you, I try to stay away from news from the USA. I realise I am privileged to be able to do so. But my boycott isn’t a complete one. I’ve seen the videos of I.C.E. agents terrorising people, violating the Constitution, confident in their impunity. The Project 2025 regime has recruited the cruellest and most ignorant people in the country and given them a gun and a badge. And not just a gun, but an arsenal. And not just a badge, but a government prepared to look the other way when laws are broken by White men in uniforms.

FIFA can’t be sure that players will have safe passage when travelling to the USA next year. There will be even less protection for the fans, which may keep many of them away. As well as the ticket revenue, FIFA risks embarrassment if the powerhouses from South America, Europe and Asia attract smaller crowds than a local Under 6’s match.

The USA will cement its reputation as the most contemptible nation on Earth, that much is certain, but FIFA risks humiliation as well. Teams like Brazil, Spain and England are used to a certain level of celebrity. Empty stadiums would draw the ire of every football-loving nation on Earth (which, at last count, was all of them) and who knows what that could mean for FIFA’s future?

I think FIFA has taken lessons from the stories of Coppola, Scorsese and David Chase and decided their only hope for “protection” is to pay off the local gangster boss. And like Tony Soprano before him, the only currency Trump accepts is sycophancy.

Will FIFA’s global humiliation pay off? Only time will tell. Just days after Silicon Valley billionaires, including Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman, dined with Trump, each taking turns to heap praise on the tangerine tyrant, Trump added a new $100,000 fee to the H-1B visa that these tech bosses rely on to keep their empires running.

And yes, it was as cringe-inducing as it sounds. America’s richest men spent an evening awkwardly reverse-roasting the President –  “blowing smoke up his arse,” as Australians would say – only to forget them and his “deals” with them after a few days.

I recently saw a meme that compared Trump to all four of the bad Willy Wonka kids. This is the core of Trump, so evil that even fictitious villains have to be amalgamated before they approach his level of depravity.

This is the man that FIFA is wooing.

Of course, we all know the “Peace Prize” has been conjured up, but, hopefully, Trump won’t. Even if he has any nagging doubts, FIFA is a global organisation and it wouldn’t take much for Trump to be convinced that FIFA is far more respected than the Nobel Committee. If he keeps believing that this made-up prize is the greatest honour ever bestowed on a man, it just might have some sway with him.

We can only hope it works.

Kate Zarb is an exhausted Gen X woman who just wants the world to be a better place. She has worked in everything from hospitality to politics, using each chapter as an opportunity to learn about the world we live in. You can follow Kate on Bluesky @kathoftarragon.bsky.social.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Von der Leyen pushes ahead with reparations loan for Ukraine as Belgium maintains its opposition.

Euro News, By Jorge Liboreiro, 03/12/2025 

Ursula von der Leyen has offered sweeping guarantees for Belgium to agree to an unprecedented reparations loan for Ukraine. Belgian authorities say risks could be fatal. EU leaders will gather on 18 December to make a final decision. If no deal is found, the EU will resort to joint debt.

The European Commission will provide Belgium with sweeping guarantees to unblock a controversial reparations loan for Ukraine, Ursula von der Leyen has said, forging ahead with the plan despite risks deemed “disastrous” by Belgian authorities.

The guarantees, outlined in legal texts presented on Wednesday, consist of bilateral contributions by member states, a backstop by the EU budget, legal safeguards against retaliation and a new prohibition on transferring sovereign assets back to Russia.

It is the boldest and most comprehensive attempt by the Commission to overcome Belgium’s resistance before a crucial EU summit on 18 December. Ukraine has said it would need a fresh injection of foreign funding as early as spring next year…………………………………………..

An untested scheme

The reparations loan is von der Leyen’s preferred option to cover Ukraine’s financial and military needs for the next two years, estimated at €135 billion. The EU is meant to contribute at least €90 billion, with the rest backed by other Western allies, which do not include the United States, as it no longer provides external support.

Under the untested scheme, the Commission would channel the immobilised assets of the Russian Central Bank into a zero-interest line of credit for Ukraine.

Kyiv would be asked to repay the loan only after Moscow agreed to compensate for the damages caused by its war of aggression – a virtually unthinkable scenario.

The bulk of the assets, about €185 billion, are held at Euroclear, a central securities depository in Brussels. There are €25 billion in other locations across the bloc.

This means Belgium holds the cardinal vote in negotiations.

Since the start of discussions in September, Belgium has firmly demanded bulletproof and all-encompassing guarantees from other member states to shield itself against Moscow’s scorched-earth retaliation and prevent multi-billion-euro losses.

Another key worry is that the sanctions behind the assets, which are subject to renewal by unanimity, might be derailed by a single country’s veto. A premature lifting of the restrictions would release the Russian funds and precipitate the collapse of the loan.

The European Central Bank has declined to provide an emergency liquidity backstop to help governments raise the necessary cash to protect Euroclear.

Belgium’s unwavering resistance

Even before von der Leyen took the stage, Belgium dug its heels in.

Earlier on Wednesday, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot said the reparations loan was “the worst” of the three available financial options to support Ukraine.

“Our door has always remained open and still is. However, we have the frustrating feeling of not having been heard. Our concerns are being downplayed,” Prévot said before heading into a ministerial meeting of NATO.

The Commission’s proposals “do not address our concerns in a satisfactory manner. It is not acceptable to use the money and leave us alone facing the risks,” he added, suggesting that he was aware of the content of the legal documents before they were made public by the head of the Commission.

Prévot said that for the loan to move ahead, his country would require guarantees that “go beyond” Euroclear and Belgium, easily exceeding €185 billion of the assets.

“We are not seeking to antagonise our partners or Ukraine,” he said. “We are simply seeking to avoid potentially disastrous consequences for a member state that is being asked to show solidarity without being offered the same solidarity in return.”

In her presentation, von der Leyen sought to address the Belgian reservations with broader guarantees – backed by both member states and the EU budget – that Euroclear will have liquidity at all times to honour the claim of the Russian Central Bank.

The guarantees will also cover any potential awards from arbitration and be complemented by safeguards to nullify retaliation against European property.

Additionally, the EU will introduce a novel measure to prohibit the return of sovereign assets to Russia. The law will be based on Article 122 of the treaties, which has been used only for economic emergencies, and approved by a qualified majority. In practice, it will defang individual vetoes and prevent a sudden removal of sanctions.

In yet another overture to Belgium, von der Leyen opened the door to using the entire pool of €210 billion in Russian sovereign assets across the bloc and invited other G7 allies, like Canada, the UK and Japan, to mimic the instrument.

However, it is unclear if the offering will be enough to convince Belgium.

However, it is unclear if the offering will be enough to convince Belgium.

Last week, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said that prolonging the sanctions by a qualified majority would “enhance the practical appearance that sanctions are open-ended, effectively permanent and thus expropriatory in character”.

“These risks are unfortunately not academic but real,” De Wever said.

If no deal is found on the reparations loan, the EU will resort to joint borrowing, as it did during the COVID-19 pandemic, von der Leyen said on Wednesday.

The issuance would amount to about €45 billion for 2026 alone.

The option of common debt, advocated by Belgium, would leave the Russian assets untouched and avoid any legal pitfalls. But the idea is opposed by the vast majority of member states because of the immediate impact it would have on national treasuries……………………………………………

In his scathing letter to von der Leyen, De Wever warned that moving forward with the reparations loan at this stage “would have, as collateral damage, that we, as the EU, are effectively preventing reaching an eventual peace deal”…………………….

Ambassadors will begin discussions on the legal texts later on Wednesday, following von der Leyen’s anticipated presentation. The goal is to have a deal when EU leaders meet in mid-December for a make-or-break summit, which means a very tight timeframe.

Adding to the pressure is an $8.1 billion programme that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is meant to grant Ukraine. For the IMF to make a final decision, it will need firm commitments by European allies to ensure Kyiv’s macro-economic stability.

Strictly speaking, the main text of the reparations loan can be approved by a qualified majority, which means that, in theory, Belgium could be overruled. But officials and diplomats admit that such a scenario would be politically untenable.https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/12/03/von-der-leyen-pushes-ahead-with-reparations-loan-for-ukraine-as-belgium-maintains-its-oppo

December 8, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »