nuclear-news

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

Reality bites – by Walt Zlotow

22 June 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Walt Zlotow, https://theaimn.net/reality-bites/

Reality bites… and it’s Trump chomping on Netanyahu’s Zionist logic demanding America continue supporting Israel’s war on Iran, thus destroying Trump’s presidency and the world’s economy.

President Trump appears done with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s near total control of US Middle East foreign policy.

He trotted out Vice President Vance to deliver the most astonishing public rebuke ever uttered to Israel regarding their clear effort to derail the Trump peace plan with Iran by their grisly bombing and ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon.

“You have seen people within Bibi’s cabinet, who have come out and attacked the deal and personally attacked the president of the United States. Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world. Over two thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars. Anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.”

Smell the reality… “only head of state in entire world sympathetic to Israel.” It does not get much more biting than that. And it’s about time. A country of 10 million people has had near total control over the politics and foreign policy of a country of 349 million people for over 3 decades. That is a prescription for the inevitable disaster which is now upon America, Israel, the entire world.

Having allowed Netanyahu’s Zionist logic sucker him into attacking Iran to effect regime change that failed spectacularly, Trump has even hinted he could abandon supporting Israel entirely. Without unlimited US weapons, diplomatic support, intel, and logistics, Israel could no longer continue their ongoing encroachment in Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and destruction of Iran. Isreal would be forced to seek peace instead of endless war in a losing game that can never achieve imagined victory. That reality wouldn’t bite. It would be welcomed indeed.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

The Persistence of Israel First

 SCHEERPOST, June 23, 2026,  Timothy Hopper for Foreign Policy in Focus

If there is one conclusion to be drawn from the latest confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel, it is the remarkably short life of Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine. Trump returned to power promising to break with Washington’s foreign-policy establishment, avoid costly overseas commitments, and place the interests of American citizens above the demands of allies and foreign governments. For a brief moment, recent tensions involving Iran appeared to support that narrative. Reports of disagreements between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, combined with signals that the White House remained open to diplomacy with Tehran, created the impression that the administration might finally be pursuing a genuinely independent Middle East policy.

That impression did not last. The sudden hardening of the White House’s tone toward Tehran, followed by the decision to authorize military action against Iran, exposed the limits of Trump’s supposed break with the old order. The strike was more than a military operation; it was a test of whether “America First” could survive a direct collision with Israel’s security priorities.

The outcome suggested that it could not. More importantly, the episode highlighted a broader pattern that extends far beyond the current crisis. The Iran strike was not an isolated departure from “America First.” It was the latest example of a recurring reality: whenever American and Israeli priorities diverge in the Middle East, Trump’s record consistently shows a preference for the latter.

The evidence stretches across both Trump administrations. One of the clearest examples was his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement in 2018. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was far from perfect, but it imposed significant restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program while avoiding military confrontation. European allies overwhelmingly supported preserving the agreement because they viewed it as a mechanism for regional stability. American intelligence agencies repeatedly indicated that Iran was complying with its core obligations at the time of withdrawal.

Yet one government had long viewed the agreement as unacceptable regardless of compliance: Israel. Netanyahu devoted years to opposing the deal and publicly pressured Washington to abandon it. Trump ultimately did exactly that. The result was not greater American security but the collapse of diplomatic constraints, heightened regional tensions, and a path that eventually led toward direct military confrontation.

The same pattern appeared in Trump’s 2017 decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate the U.S. embassy. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations alike avoided such a move because they feared it would inflame regional tensions and undermine Washington’s ability to act as a mediator. The decision delivered a major symbolic and political victory to Israel while generating little measurable strategic benefit for the United States. It weakened America’s diplomatic position across much of the Arab and Muslim world without producing progress toward regional peace.

Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2019 followed a similar logic. No urgent American national-security interest required the move. The decision did not reduce threats to the U.S. homeland, strengthen the American economy, or improve the lives of American citizens. It did, however, fulfill a longstanding Israeli objective and further aligned U.S. policy with Israeli territorial preferences. Once again, Washington absorbed diplomatic costs while Israel obtained a strategic gain………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….  the Iran episode carries significance beyond the immediate military confrontation. It forces a reconsideration of the meaning of “America First” itself. If the doctrine can be suspended whenever Israeli security concerns become central to a crisis, then its practical limitations are far greater than its supporters acknowledged. The issue is not whether Trump supports Israel. Many American presidents have done so. The issue is whether support for Israel has become so deeply embedded within Washington’s political structure that even presidents elected on promises of strategic independence find themselves unable—or unwilling—to depart from it.

The most important question raised by the recent confrontation is therefore not about Iran. It is about the nature of American power and decision-making. Can American foreign policy in the Middle East be defined independently of Israeli preferences when significant disagreements emerge? Or has support for Israel become such a foundational principle that it overrides alternative conceptions of national interest regardless of who occupies the White House?

Trump’s record provides a revealing answer. From the nuclear deal to Jerusalem, from the Golan Heights to the recent strike on Iran, the pattern is difficult to ignore. The slogan “America First” may have transformed American political rhetoric, but when confronted with the most consequential Middle Eastern decisions, Washington repeatedly returned to a familiar reality. The durability of “Israel First” has proven far greater than the lifespan of the doctrine that promised to replace it. https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/23/the-persistence-of-israel-first/

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | 1 Comment

Taking a sledgehammer to the nuclear nonproliferation regime.

The Iranian proliferation quandary. In 2011, the IAEA concluded that, prior to 2003, Iran had a nuclear weapon development program. In 2003, then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni published a religious edict that weapons of mass destruction are “haram” (religiously forbidden). The force of this edict has been debated, but the most recent Congressional Research Service report on Iran’s nuclear-weapon program states, “According to official U.S. assessments, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and has not resumed it.”

Bulletin, By Frank von Hippel, Seyed Hossein Mousavian | Analysis | April 18, 2026

The current crisis over Iran’s nuclear program has reached an extraordinary level, climaxing shockingly with President Trump’s April 7 threat to destroy Iran’s “civilization” if it did not comply with his demands—a barely veiled threat of a massive nuclear attack on Iran’s cities. Any country faced with such a threat would want its own nuclear deterrent.

More broadly, the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—the expression of a global near consensus that the world would be better off without nuclear weapons and that, in the interim, the fewer fingers on nuclear triggers the better—is fraying.

In the NPT, the “P5” (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the United States; the Soviet Union, succeeded by Russia; the United Kingdom; France; and China— committed to eliminate their nuclear arsenals if the non-weapon states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor their use of nuclear material to make sure that none was diverted to weapons use.

Surprisingly few countries have acquired nuclear weapons. In 1995, the negotiators of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty judged 44 countries to be technologically capable of making nuclear weapons. But, in the 56 years since the NPT came into force, only three countries—Israel, India, and Pakistan—decided to acquire nuclear weapons outside the NPT and only one, North Korea, defected after it joined the NPT.

The nonweapon states initially agreed to membership in the NPT for 25 years. In 1995, when the 25 years were up, the Cold War had just ended and US and Russian nuclear warheads were being dismantled at a combined rate of 3,000 per year. Nuclear disarmament seemed in sight, and the NPT was made permanent. Unfortunately, during the past decade, the shrinkage of the global warhead stockpile stopped, with about 10,000 warheads still in existence, and it has begun to grow again as China builds up.

The 190 parties to the NPT that are to meet at the UN during May to review the state of compliance with the treaty have failed to reach consensus in the previous two reviews since 2010.

And then there is Iran.

The Iranian proliferation quandary. In 2011, the IAEA concluded that, prior to 2003, Iran had a nuclear weapon development program. In 2003, then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni published a religious edict that weapons of mass destruction are “haram” (religiously forbidden). The force of this edict has been debated, but the most recent Congressional Research Service report on Iran’s nuclear-weapon program states, “According to official U.S. assessments, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and has not resumed it.”

In 2018, President Trump capriciously withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by the Obama Administration, in which Iran had agreed to strong limits on different parts of its nuclear program for 15 years or longer. To force Iran to give him a “better deal” than it had given Obama, Trump reinstated crushing primary and secondary sanctions on Iran’s economy. Neither the UN Security Council nor the IAEA Board of Governors said anything, but UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres did:

“I am deeply concerned by today’s announcement that the United States will be withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and will begin reinstating US sanctions… I have consistently reiterated that the JCPOA represents a major achievement in nuclear non-proliferation and diplomacy and has contributed to regional and international peace and security.”

Given the widespread opposition to the JCPOA in Congress, the Biden administration did not give a high priority to negotiating its revival. Since President Trump’s reelection, the situation has rapidly deteriorated.

On June 12, 2025, the IAEA’s Board of Governors found that “Iran has failed to co-operate fully with the Agency, as required by its Safeguards Agreement.” The focus of the board’s complaint was Iran’s inadequate explanations of the activities it had carried out during the period ending in 2003. Those were issues that the IAEA had declared closed after it summarized its conclusions in its December 2015 “Final Assessment on Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran’s Nuclear Programme,” just before the JCPOA came into force in January 2016.

The day after the IAEA Board’s statement, while the United States was negotiating with Iran, Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear sites. President Trump ordered US forces to join in and bomb Iran’s buried centrifuge halls with massive bunker busters.

Again, on February 27, in a pause in a second US negotiation with Iran, the foreign minister of Oman, who was mediating the talks, reported in a “Face the Nation” interview that the negotiators had made “substantial progress” toward a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program and that Iran was willing to end its production of highly enriched uranium and blend down its existing stock. The next day, Israel attacked and killed Iran’s supreme leader and much of its military leadership, and Trump again ordered US forces to join in the intense follow-on bombing of Iran.

The UN Security Council has not condemned these attacks on Iran but has condemned Iran for its retaliatory attacks on its US-allied Persian Gulf neighbors and for its closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The IAEA also has not condemned Israeli and US attacks on facilities it safeguarded, even though the result has been Iran’s decision to block IAEA access to Iran’s bombed sites (presumably out of fear that IAEA inspections could be used by the US and Israel for targeting intelligence).

US negotiations with Iran. The key sticking point in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program since it became public in 2003 has been uranium enrichment. Iran claims it has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, uranium enrichment provides a route to nuclear weapons.

Our own view is that there is no economic justification for a small enrichment program like Iran’s. The four big suppliers: Russia; URENCO (a firm jointly owned by Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK); China; and France have more than enough capacity to supply the world’s nuclear power reactors at lower cost. Even the United States, with the world’s largest nuclear-power capacity—one quarter of the global total—has bought enrichment services from these suppliers since 2013 when it shut down the last of the three energy-inefficient enrichment plants it built to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons during the Cold War.

If countries insist on building uneconomic enrichment plants, we have advocated that those plants be under multinational control, as is the case with URENCO, which was founded in 1971 when there was still some concern that West Germany might seek nuclear weapons. Iran has expressed a willingness to put its enrichment program under multinational control but is unwilling to have it relocated to a neutral country as we recommended…………………………….

An inconsistent nonproliferation policy. Despite going to war over Iran’s uranium enrichment program, President Trump has inconsistently given both South Korea and Saudi Arabia his blessing to acquire uranium-enrichment and spent-fuel-reprocessing programs. “Reprocessing” is a chemical process used to separate plutonium, another nuclear-weapons material, from irradiated uranium fuel.

……………………………….President Trump made these agreements with the leaders of South Korea and Saudi Arabia in his usual transactional style. Rules, he apparently believes, need not be followed if a government is willing to pay enough.

President’s Trump’s disdain for the rules is endangering world order in many ways. We cannot leave defense of the nonproliferation regime for later, however. If we do, we may find ourselves in a nuclear-armed crowd. https://thebulletin.org/2026/04/taking-a-sledgehammer-to-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-regime/

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A Turning Point: What the Iran MoU Reveals About the Limits of US Power

June 19, 2026, By Iqbal Jassat, https://www.palestinechronicle.com/a-turning-point-what-the-iran-mou-reveals-about-the-limits-of-us-power/

The lessons from Iran, if incorporated in the study of international relations, will be that the era in which Washington could dictate terms without consequence is steadily eroding.

Events at the G7 Summit in Evian were overshadowed by news of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This was hardly surprising since the story broke about America’s dramatic turnaround and widespread speculation about the details of the MoU, as well as the reasons for it.

It would be fair to say, thus, that the most significant outcome of the G7 Summit in Évian was not the signing of the MoU. It was the public collapse of the illusion that military superiority automatically translates into political victory.

For months, Washington and Tel Aviv insisted that Iran would eventually be forced to surrender. The language was harsh, pointed and uncompromising. Iran’s missile program would be destroyed. Its nuclear capabilities would be dismantled. Its regional alliances would be broken. Its leadership would face collapse under the combined weight of military pressure, sanctions and international isolation.

None of those objectives were achieved.

The contradiction became impossible to conceal when President Donald Trump stood before the world at the G7 and defended Iran’s right to retain conventional ballistic missiles.

The same missiles that had been presented as an existential threat suddenly became acceptable. The same missile program that justified war was transformed into a reality that Washington was prepared to live with.

Contrary to the wishful thinking of some political pundits, this was not a minor adjustment in policy. It was a public admission that the original objectives could not be achieved.

Absent from much Western reporting is the extent of this reversal. The final agreement contains no dismantling of Iran’s missile deterrent. It contains no regime change. It contains no surrender of Iran’s political system. It contains no disarmament of Iran’s regional allies. Even the nuclear issue was largely deferred into future negotiations rather than resolved through force.

The shock registered on the gaping mouths of G7 leaders as well as Israel’s war criminals was obvious, for the outcome exposed the enormous gap between public rhetoric and strategic reality.

For years, American foreign policy has been built around the assumption that economic pressure, military dominance and international isolation can force adversaries to comply with Washington’s demands. Iraq was supposed to demonstrate that reality. Libya was supposed to reinforce it. The sanctions architecture imposed on Iran was designed around the same logic.

The MoU signed by Trump at the G7, demonstrates the limits of that model.

Iran’s leadership calculated that surrender would be more dangerous than resistance. Despite suffering enormous military and economic damage, Tehran retained enough leverage to make continued escalation prohibitively expensive for its adversaries.

The critical factor was not military strength alone.

The Strait of Hormuz exposed a vulnerability that military planners could not bomb away. As energy markets reacted and global supply chains faced disruption, the economic consequences of a prolonged conflict became increasingly unacceptable. Oil prices surged. Shipping costs escalated. Insurance markets were shaken. European governments demanded an end to the crisis. Gulf states that had quietly supported pressure on Iran suddenly became advocates for de-escalation.

The beneficiaries of the original confrontation were clear. Arms manufacturers secured contracts. Security establishments expanded their authority. Lobbying organizations intensified demands for escalation. Media institutions repeated assumptions about inevitable Iranian defeat. A vast ecosystem of political and economic interests promoted the belief that only one outcome was possible.

Though the MoU demolished that narrative, the reaction from Israel was even more revealing. The Israeli political establishment expected the conflict to fundamentally alter the regional balance of power in its favor.

Instead, Netanyahu and his criminal gang of genocidaires found themselves confronting an agreement negotiated largely without their input and one that preserved many of Iran’s capabilities Israel had spent years attempting to eliminate.

The frustration expressed by them and echoed across the regime’s media was not simply about the agreement itself.

It reflected the recognition that military escalation had failed to produce the strategic transformation that had been promised.

This is why the agreement carries implications far beyond Iran, particularly for governments across the Global South who are expected to study the outcome closely.

Indeed, so will Russia and China. The lesson they will draw is not that America lacks power. The lesson is that American power now operates within constraints that did not exist during the unipolar era.

The lessons from Iran, if incorporated in the study of international relations, will be that the era in which Washington could dictate terms without consequence is steadily eroding.

The MoU therefore marks something larger than the end of a conflict. It marks another stage in the transition from a unipolar order to a multipolar one. The significance of the MoU lies not in what was announced. It lies in what was conceded.

The campaign to impose American terms concluded with Washington accepting realities it once declared unacceptable.

June 22, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Censored Lavrov article Politico refused to publish (FULL TEXT)

This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences

The Russian foreign minister has shared his views on NATO expansion and EU militarization, including in the nuclear sphere, and the threat this poses to global security

18 Jun, 2026 , https://www.rt.com/russia/641806-lavrov-censored-politico-article/

The pro-establishment, Brussels-based publication Politico Europe, owned by Germany’s Axel Springer SE, has refused to publish an exclusive article written by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Lavrov’s article was initially slated for publication in the Brussels-based Politico Europe, but due to a “last-minute decision by the outlet’s editorial team,” the publication was canceled, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

In the article, Russia’s highly experienced top diplomat outlined Moscow’s view of the Ukrainian conflict, Europe’s role in escalating the crisis, and the broader implications for global security. Lavrov accused European leaders of using diplomacy as a cover for NATO and EU expansion, while arguing that the West has sought to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian foothold. He also warned that the EU’s growing militarization, including discussions about nuclear deterrence and “strategic autonomy,” could increase the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Below is the full text of Lavrov’s article, as published on the Russian Foreign Ministry website:

Some reflections on resolving the Ukrainian crisis, Europe and global security

At a meeting in London on June 7, 2026, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, as well as Vladimir Zelensky, laid out five preconditions for Russia to secure a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. United Europe now presents this list of demands as the basis for dialogue with Moscow.

Background

More than two decades of negotiations with Europe, as part of the collective West, lead to only one conclusion: engaging Russia in dialogue has served as a diplomatic smokescreen for the geopolitical expansion of Western institutions, above all NATO and the European Union, eastwards, right up to Russia’s borders.

Europe’s complicity in fueling the Ukrainian crisis is undeniable. Together with the United States, European countries orchestrated the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004. To create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine, they spent years buying off politicians and entire parties, rewriting history and educational curricula, cultivating and nurturing Ukrainian nationalism, and going to great lengths to pull Ukraine away from Russia.

In 2013, the European Union outright rejected our proposal for a compromise on the association agreement – a deal Brussels had long been pressing Viktor Yanukovich to sign. It is worth recalling that Ukraine was offered unilateral market opening without reciprocal commitments – terms that would have proved incompatible with Kiev’s continued membership in the CIS free-trade zone. When Viktor Yanukovich requested a deferral, the Europeans incited street riots that swiftly escalated into a coup d’état in Kiev in February 2014.

Germany, France, and Poland then proved themselves to be equally treacherous. Having guaranteed that the agreement reached between the opposition and Viktor Yanukovich would be honored, they washed their hands of it the moment that same opposition, their own handiwork, took power. “Democracy,” they shrugged, “takes unexpected turns.”

Europe thereafter lent its backing to the new authorities. In Odessa on May 2, 2014, the burning alive of dozens of innocent supporters of closer ties with Russia did not draw a single word of condemnation from European capitals.

As co-guarantors of the 2015 Minsk Agreements, France and Germany effectively encouraged the Ukrainian regime to sabotage its own commitments. As Angela Merkel and François Hollande later conceded – after the special military operation had already begun – Kiev’s implementation of the Minsk Agreements, unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, was never genuinely intended. The objective, they admitted, was merely to buy time: to shore up the Armed Forces of Ukraine and flood them with Western weaponry.

Russia, for its part, explored every diplomatic avenue to defuse Europe’s security crisis. However, in January 2022, the United States and NATO rejected Russia’s proposal for legally binding mutual security guarantees. European NATO members actively endorsed that rebuff.

Following the launch of the special military operation, United Europe threw its support behind the British prime minister’s efforts to sabotage the Istanbul negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Boris Johnson’s appeal to Kiev – “don’t sign anything, just fight” – slammed the door on genuine diplomacy for the foreseeable future.

Current situation

So what has prompted European leaders to suddenly shift their rhetoric and start talking about negotiations, and what are they aiming to achieve with these statements? For instance, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has stated that the purpose of any dialogue with Russia is to dictate Europe’s terms. These include paying “reparations” to Ukraine; withdrawing troops from Transnistria and the South Caucasus; abolishing the “foreign agents” law; and accepting strict limits on the size of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces. In her framing, “there can be no just and lasting peace without accountability for Russia.” During the UN Security Council session on May 19, 2026, an EU representative made the point unequivocally: “Supporting Ukraine militarily does not contradict the pursuit of peace, but rather serves as a fundamental prerequisite for any credible, good-faith negotiations.”

Europe’s plan is to talk with Russia while simultaneously pressing ahead with a campaign of legal warfare orchestrated through the Council of Europe. Within this once-respected organization, an entire infrastructure is being assembled for the express purpose of “holding Russia accountable”: a Register of Damage, a Claims Commission, and a Special Tribunal.

The European Union has also given the green light to detaining merchant vessels on the high seas. Several incidents have already taken place in the Baltic and the Atlantic. At the same time, the West studiously averts its gaze from the terrorist acts of sabotage perpetrated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

The real objective of Europe’s leaders, then, is not to negotiate with Russia. It is to shore up the Zelensky regime and preserve it as a launchpad for continued confrontation against Russia. With this in mind, European leaders are scrambling to secure a ceasefire as quickly as possible and for one reason only: to prevent the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the battlefield. The plan is to “freeze” the conflict without addressing its root causes, and then rapidly deploy military contingents from the Anglo-French “coalition of the willing” onto Ukrainian soil.

It is widely known that European elites have invested their “political capital” in the confrontation with Russia, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into propping up the Kiev regime and ramping up the military budgets of EU member states and NATO. Europe now aims to achieve “defense readiness” against Russia by 2030. Until then, they mean to buy time by whatever means are available. In a strikingly candid remark this April, Belgium’s chief of staff put it bluntly: “We still have a few years. Thanks to the courage and blood of the Ukrainians, who are buying us that time.”

United Europe continues to dream of expansion. It intends to absorb Ukraine and Moldova while pulling Armenia into its sphere of influence. NATO has already expanded eastward, swallowing up Finland and Sweden. As for Ukraine, it is increasingly being eyed as the “striking fist” of a future European military force, independent of the United States and independent of NATO.

Risks to global security

This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences

Under the banner of “strategic autonomy,” Europe is witnessing a significant build-up of its military capabilities, including in the nuclear sphere. Paris’s intention to extend its “nuclear umbrella” to several EU and NATO member states is a source of deep concern. This will do nothing to strengthen the security of France itself or of the recipients of its so-called protection.

For all that, Europe’s political and military establishment continues to attribute aggressive plans to Russia – plans that, they claim, reach far beyond Ukraine. The Russian president has stated on numerous occasions that all of this is nonsense, provocation, and disinformation, aimed solely at extracting budget funds for the fight against Russia. That is scarcely the climate for substantive dialogue.

Russia’s position

As for negotiations, Vladimir Putin reiterated at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that Russia is not opposed to contacts with any party. We see Europe, however, as a party bent on Russia’s defeat – a stance the Europeans themselves openly avow. Dialogue with Europe, therefore, cannot be conducted as though it were an impartial third-party observer.

Russia would prefer to achieve the goals of the special military operation through diplomacy.

That requires reliably guaranteeing security along Russia’s western borders and ensuring respect and dignity for our citizens and compatriots, including the right to speak their native Russian language and practice the Orthodox Christian faith. Further military, political, and economic expansion by the West is unacceptable: it runs counter to the imperatives of a multipolar world.

European leaders should recognize that the model of regional security built in Europe over decades, ever since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, has been destroyed by their own hands. And it will never be restored. We must now move toward creating a continent-wide security architecture open to all Eurasian countries and reflective of today’s multipolar reality.

The principle of equal and indivisible security, trampled upon by the Euro-Atlanticists, can be embodied within a new Eurasian architecture. When the time is ripe, Europe too will be able to join this great effort.

The key point is that meaningful dialogue requires the restoration of trust, shattered by the anti-Russian actions of the West, and Europe as part of it, in the post-Cold War era. Trust can be recovered only through concrete steps that demonstrate a sincere commitment to moving away from using diplomacy as a cover for expansionist ambitions. Trust cannot be restored, nor can dialogue be resumed, through ultimatums such as the one issued to Russia in London on June 7, 2026.

P.S. It is noteworthy that the London ultimatum was unequivocally reaffirmed by the ambassadors of Britain, France, and Germany at the meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 11, 2026 – a meeting they had so insistently requested. That was the sole purpose of their visit to the ministry.

June 22, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Russia | 2 Comments

US Finally Capitulates with ‘Memorandum’ of Surrender

Simplicius, Jun 17, 2026

The US has finally capitulated in its disastrously failed war against Iran, reportedly drafting a memorandum of understanding which is highly favorable to the Islamic Republic, and gains as concession nothing more than the promise that “Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons”—a position Iran had already long held.

The most explosive detail is the alleged $300 billion “reconstruction fund” that Iran will be entitled to once the deal is sealed.

Trump has downplayed or denied this point, with everyone seemingly perplexed as to what this massive sum entails, exactly. In the above article, Reuters writes the following:

The new fund is a private investment vehicle, not a reconstruction or reparations program and will not include any ⁠government money or grants, the source said, adding that companies based in the U.S., the Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America and Africa have agreed to commit financing.

Investments ​pledged span energy, logistics, manufacturing and transport, the source said.

They claim it’s not a reparations program, yet the official name of the fund is the ‘Reconstruction and Development Fund’. It appears to revolve around regional entities—both corporate and governmental—providing credit lines, direct financing, etc., to Iran. As can be seen above, over half of the fund is claimed to be already committed.

Some American propaganda pundits had claimed that this fund is being pulled from Iran’s frozen assets abroad, but Reuters begs to differ, citing that as an entirely separate negotiating track:

The investment fund is entirely separate from a parallel negotiating track over the lifting of U.S. sanctions and the release of Iranian sovereign assets frozen abroad, the source said, describing the two as distinct financial mechanisms with different purposes and timelines.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/us-finally-capitulates-with-memorandum?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=201961444&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=c9zhh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

June 21, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

The U.S. And Iran Have Struck A Deal To Open The Strait Of Hormuz, But Israel May Prevent An End To The War

The U.S. and Iran have reportedly signed a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz and to begin negotiations to end the war. It is a hopeful sign that this disastrous war of choice may soon be over, but once again, Israel stands to be the spoiler.

Mondoweiss, By Mitchell Plitnick  June 16, 2026 

According to reports, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz and formally end the fighting between the two countries was signed on Monday. 

It is important to clarify that, regardless of White House statements, this is not a peace deal. It is an agreement to end the standoff in the Strait of Hormuz and a commitment to stop fighting for 60 days while an agreement is reached, hopefully. The negotiation period can be extended if both parties agree. Still, it is a important agreement that indicates a end to this disastrous war could be in sight.

But as usual Israel stands to play the role of spoiler. The one thing that is most clear is that Tel Aviv won’t give up on its long-term goal of regime change in Iran. But if this MOU actually takes effect and opens the Strait of Hormuz, that will not be achieved through this war. 

…………………………………………………………………. There seems to be a consensus that the ceasefire does apply to Lebanon. Even the Israelis seem to believe this. But there is less clarity about exactly what that means.

Israel is currently occupying a large portion of Lebanon. Israeli leaders have already made it clear they have no intention of leaving. 

For the time being, it seems that the MOU will allow Israel to remain in place. The language both sides have used has often featured the “end of attacks” on Lebanon. Iran obviously seeks a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, but whether they are willing to put that off to the negotiation period rather than insisting on it happening immediately remains to be seen.

Speaking on the Breaking Points podcast, journalist Jeremy Scahill said he had been told that, in exchange for refraining from retaliating against Israel for its attack on Sunday on Dahiya in Lebanon, U.S. President Donald Trump would press Israel to withdraw entirely from Lebanon. 

That would be welcome if true, but it is more likely that Iran refrained from that attack so Israel would not get what it wanted from its bombing, namely the disruption of this MOU. So Lebanon still stands out as the main trigger point for blowing up this agreement……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://mondoweiss.net/2026/06/the-u-s-and-iran-have-struck-a-deal-to-open-the-strait-of-hormuz-but-israel-may-prevent-an-end-to-the-war/

June 20, 2026 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

The interim US-Iran deal leaves the fate of Tehran’s nuclear program still to be negotiated

 The interim deal between the U.S. and Iran is supposed to usher in a
two-month period that would address the most divisive issue between the
longtime adversaries – Tehran’s nuclear program. Preventing Iran from
attaining a nuclear bomb is a key reason that President Donald Trump said
he launched the war alongside Israel in February, but the tentative
agreement he has trumpeted leaves little runway to negotiate the
long-running sticking point.

The previous nuclear pact between Iran and
world powers, which Trump pulled the U.S. from in his first term, took many
months to negotiate. Few details have been publicly released about the
initial deal, set to be officially signed Friday in Switzerland, but it
generally calls for reopening the Strait of Hormuz to global oil shipments,
financial incentives for Iran if it meets certain benchmarks, and a 60-day
period for talks on ending the country’s nuclear program.

 Daily Mail 17th June 2026, https://www.dailymail.com/wires/ap/article-15906411/Interim-US-Iran-deal-leaves-thorniest-issue-negotiated-Tehrans-nuclear-program.html

June 20, 2026 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Iran warns ‘no point’ in deal with US if Israel remains unrestrained

Another top Iranian official said Washington’s ‘rabid dog’ must be ‘controlled’ following Israel’s latest strike on Beirut

The Cradle,, JUN 14, 2026

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned in a statement on 14 June that there is “no point” in continuing efforts to reach a deal with Washington if Tel Aviv remains unrestrained, a few hours after a new Israeli attack on Lebanon’s capital.  

“The Zionists’ aggression against the southern suburb [of Beirut] once again demonstrated that the US either lacks the will to uphold its commitments or lacks the ability to do so,” Ghalibaf said.

“You cannot gain concessions by giving the [Israeli] regime a green light. The ‘good cop, bad cop’ game has grown old. If you lack the will and the ability to fulfill your commitments, then there is no point in speaking about continuing down this path,” the parliament speaker added. 

Meanwhile, Brigadier General Mohammad Jafar Asadi, deputy commander and deputy inspector of the Iranian military’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said Israel’s attack on Beirut’s southern suburb will not go unanswered. 

Israelnews updates

“If you seek an agreement or understanding, you must discipline the Zionist regime. If this rabid dog is not controlled, it will bite your leg before the ink is dry on the agreement,” said Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s Foreign Policy and National Security Committee.

The latest Israeli airstrike on the Lebanese capital took place earlier on Sunday afternoon. The attack hit a building in the southern suburb’s Ghobeiry area. …………………………………………………………………………….. https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-warns-no-point-in-deal-with-us-if-israel-remains-unrestrained

June 19, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Jeffrey Sachs: Peace at Last—or Just the Next Pause Before War?

 SCHEERPOST, June 15, 2026, Joshua Scheer

For weeks, the world stood on the edge of a wider regional war as the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran, threatening to ignite a conflict that could engulf the Middle East and destabilize the global economy. Now, with Washington announcing that a deal has been reached with Tehran, the question is no longer whether the fighting will continue—but whether this agreement represents genuine peace or merely a temporary pause before the next crisis.

In this conversation with Glenn Diesen, economist and geopolitical analyst Jeffrey Sachs argues that the war achieved none of its stated objectives. Rather than demonstrating American or Israeli strength, Sachs contends the conflict exposed the limits of military power, accelerated the decline of U.S. global dominance, and left all sides weakened. While reports suggest the agreement could reopen the Strait of Hormuz, ease sanctions, and restart negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, Sachs warns that the deal remains fragile, its details unclear, and its success far from guaranteed—especially with Israel remaining outside the formal framework.

More broadly, Sachs sees the conflict as part of a larger historical turning point. From Ukraine to Iran to China, he argues that Washington is confronting a reality it has long resisted: the unipolar moment is over. The United States can still inflict enormous damage, but it can no longer dictate outcomes across Eurasia through military force alone. Whether this agreement marks the beginning of a more diplomatic era or simply another pause in a cycle of escalation remains an open question. What is clear, Sachs argues, is that the assumptions that guided American foreign policy for the last three decades are increasingly colliding with reality.

Jeffrey Sachs: The Iran War Failed. Now Comes the Real Test.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/15/jeffrey-sachs-peace-at-last-or-just-the-next-pause-before-war/

June 19, 2026 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Netanyahu faces a new threat: The collapse of Western support

the Foreign Office announced plans for the UK to bring “together Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand and Norway to deliver coordinated sanctions against networks financing and enabling settler attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank, and firmly advises British businesses against activity in illegal Israeli settlements.”

As Iran and Israel exchange fire once again, it seems that the Israeli PM’s greatest loss may be US public opinion

By Paul Rogers, June 15, 2026, https://www.opendemocracy.net/netanyahu-new-threat-collapse-support-united-states-israel-iran-gaza/

In a further fracturing of the very shaky ceasefire between Iran and the United States, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) this week shot down a US Army Apache attack helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz.

At any other time, the US would have seen this as an unacceptable act of war requiring a very strong reaction. But where Donald Trump’s unpredictable social media output would usually have breathed hellfire and damnation, this time it talked a proportionate response.

It seemed a welcome sign that Trump’s advisers, and maybe even the president himself, are having to accept that this war will not be won by bombs, missiles and drones, and will have to end in compromise.   

As domestic support for the war is ebbing away in the US, the mood in Washington is changing. Opposition to the war is growing, while support for Israel and its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is dwindling. 

A week ago, this was all reasonably obvious, but the past few days have given a sharp indication of how difficult it will be to move to negotiated settlements in the double conflicts involving Israel and Lebanon, and the US and Iran.

The recent sequence of events started with a warning from the IRGC leadership in Tehran: Israel’s continued bombing of Lebanese towns and cities, including the widespread targeting of health facilities, violated the temporary ceasefire and must stop. Instead, Netanyahu ordered more attacks, including on the Lebanese port city of Tyre, which has been subject to around 30 direct air raids by the IDF in the past three months.  

As well as healthcare facilities, the IDF attacks have also been aimed at critical urban infrastructure, such as power and communications lines, water treatment plants and sewage treatment systems. The New York Times even reports the probable use by the Israelis of white phosphorus, an incendiary substance that spontaneously ignites on contact with air and is exceptionally difficult to extinguish.

The IDF is also continuing its practice of ordering mass evacuations of both urban populations and rural communities.

Yet despite the extent of the force it is using, the IDF has failed to destroy Hezbollah. There is little sign of that changing; consider that the IDF is still unable to control Hamas in Gaza despite having destroyed so many urban areas. 

Meanwhile, Netanyahu has made it abundantly clear that Israel is stepping up its plans to annex the great majority of Gaza. Over 50% of the land, including most of the area previously used for intensive horticulture, has been taken over by Israel. That is now increasing to 70% of Gaza, with yet more Palestinians being forced into overcrowded camps.

Taken alongside the increasing number of illegal settlements as well as Jewish settler violence in the Occupied West Bank, and the move to control substantial parts of southern Lebanon, the immediate prospects for a peaceful outcome are minimal.  

A remarkable indicator of this is that, as settler violence against Palestinians continues, Amnesty International reports on a “Great Israeli Real Estate Event” scheduled to take place in London this weekend, in which land in illegal settlements will be marketed to the Israeli diaspora in the UK.  

Two substantial issues remain. The first has been glaringly obvious for over 30 months: Israel is radicalising many thousands of young Palestinians to resist the IDF, even to the extent of sacrificing their lives. That alone means Netanyahu and his government are engaged in an unwinnable war. 

Then there is the second issue: overseas opposition to Israel is growing in some unexpected quarters. Germany is historically reluctant to criticise Israel in public, yet a pro-Palestinian wave of support has been seen in universities across the country. 

In Britain, Labour MP Melanie Ward has brought attention to UK charities that she says have given at least £28m illegal Jewish settlements across the occupied West Bank. Foreign secretary Yvette Cooper has responded by announcing that the Charity Commission will investigate the organisations’ links to the settlements and whether they can retain their charity status.

This comes in the week that the Foreign Office announced plans for the UK to bring “together Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand and Norway to deliver coordinated sanctions against networks financing and enabling settler attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank, and firmly advises British businesses against activity in illegal Israeli settlements.”

Despite the Labour government’s antagonism to pro-Palestinian activists, The Guardian reports that some activists believe there is a “sea-change” underway in government circles, aided by the strongly pro-Palestinian stance of leading Green Party politicians, including leader Zac Polanski. 

Successive Israeli governments have spent decades cultivating support through well-funded lobbies in these two key European states. That support is fraying, but what is far more significant is the shift in attitudes in the US. A trenchant piece in the influential Wall Street Journal, entitled ‘Netanyahu has lost Middle America’, concludes that whatever happens in the Gaza conflict, the loss of public US support “has been catastrophic and won’t be reversed quickly.”  

That conclusion, in that journal, may turn out to be the most significant development in a singularly chaotic week.

June 19, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

Trump hands Iran a major nuclear concession as US and regime get closer to peace deal… while Tehran demands two-part agreement: live updates

By JON MICHAEL RAASCH, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT  and STEPHEN M. LEPORE, US SENIOR REPORTER, 13 June 2026 , https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15895963/Trump-hands-Iran-major-nuclear-concession-final-deal-text-agreed-sides.html

Donald Trump has agreed to let Iran retain its civilian nuclear program in a major concession as the two sides say they are closer than ever to reaching a peace deal, with Iran wanting it done in two parts.

A senior White House official said: ‘We’re not bothered at all by the idea of civilian power plants in Iran; what we’re bothered by is the type of infrastructure that would allow them to jump from civilian power generation to nuclear weapons development.’

The official pointed to how the United Arab Emirates has a civilian nuclear power program that could not be turned into a bomb-making operation. 

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed the deal is in its final stages, while laying out what they want out of Washington.

That includes Israel‘s withdrawal from Lebanon and Tehran’s continued control over a reopened Strait of Hormuz and a ‘service fee’ for commercial ships.

Araghchi added that he wants a two-part pact to end the war. Part one would be a memorandum of understanding followed by a lasting peace deal build on the nuclear issue and the lifting of sanctions.  

‘The nuclear issue has been left for the second round and a final agreement,’ he said on state television. 

The revelation indicates that the Trump administration has given Iran the green light to hold onto its civilian nuclear power plants as long as those sites cannot be used to create a nuclear weapon. 

What safeguards would be put in place to prevent Iran from scaling up its nuclear power plants to bomb-making facilities is unclear, but any steps taken by the Islamic Republic to make a nuclear weapon would derail any potential deal. 

Trump has long stressed that any end to the war would be predicated on Iran giving up its nuclear capabilities, particularly its uranium enrichment labs that US intelligence claims can make weapons-grade fuel. 

The MOU mandates that Iran’s current stockpile of nuclear material be destroyed on-site and then taken out of the country. Trump has said that only the US and China can dig up the deeply buried fissile material. 


Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said on Friday that the ‘final text’ of a peace deal between the US and Iran ‘has been reached.’ 

‘Peace has never been this close as it is now,’ he added.  

The official also said the deal would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the current US blockade targeting Iranian vessels. 

The US is 80 to 85 percent certain that the deal would be signed, the official said, with reports indicating a ceremony planned for Sunday in Geneva. 

Many of the hardliners in the Iranian regime are on board with the proposed MOU, the senior White House official stated. 

The Islamic regime will be rewarded economically after the deal, the US official said.

‘They do get reintegrated into the world economy, they’re going to be rewarded for acting like a normal country rather than the largest state sponsor of terrorism,’ the official said. ‘That said, those benefits only accrue if Iran delivers.’

The call to clarify exactly what is in the MOU came after the President fumed at Iranian officials for leaking the terms, saying what they put out is not the official stance of US negotiators. 

‘The terms that Iran leaked out to the Fake News have nothing to do with the terms that were agreed to, in writing,’ Trump wrote on Friday morning. ‘What they said, including their weak and pathetic statement on having a deal, bears no relation to the truth.’ 

Very dishonorable people to deal with. With them, there is no such thing as dealing in good faith.’

The administration has said on countless occasions over the past months that a deal was close at hand.

But this time, there may be more traction as Vice President JD Vance is expected to sign a deal in Europe as soon as this weekend. 

Four US Air Force C-17 transport planes flew to Europe on Thursday, carrying equipment for a possible VP trip to Geneva, where a signing ceremony is planned in the coming days, Axios reports. 

The MOU between the US and Iran to halt the war could be signed as soon as Sunday, a source told Reuters, the same day as Trump’s birthday. 

‘We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran,’ Trump told reporters on Thursday.

‘The documents are in pretty final shape, so we’ll see. It should be done over the next few days. We’ll probably have a signing, maybe in Europe, and it’s a great thing.’

June 19, 2026 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Can Trump Restrain Israel?

Middle East Monitor06/13/2026, by Norliza binti Saleh, https://www.juancole.com/2026/06/trump-restrain-israel.html

The latest exchange between Iran and Israel raises a fundamental question: Who is really driving events in the Middle East – Washington or Jerusalem? 

Following Israeli strikes on targets in Beirut, Lebanon, Iran responded with strikes against northern Israel and military facilities around Haifa. Israel then immediately retaliated by attacking Tehran, Tabriz, Karaj and Isfahan. While the ceasefire between the United States and Iran is technically in place, the broader regional conflict continues to intensify. Throughout the crisis, President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed support for de-escalation and urged all parties to avoid a wider war. 

Yet events on the ground suggest that Washington’s desire for stability may not necessarily translate into restraint by its closest ally. The current crisis is becoming a test not only of regional security but also of American influence itself. 

The Trump administration appears reluctant to become involved in another prolonged West Asian conflict. Unlike previous periods of direct American military engagement in the region, Washington’s priorities today are largely domestic and economic. 

A wider regional war would almost certainly increase energy prices, disrupt global trade routes, and create uncertainty in international markets. Such instability would undermine economic recovery efforts and place additional pressure on American households.

For Trump, who has consistently portrayed himself as a leader focused on domestic prosperity rather than foreign military adventures, another regional war offers few political benefits. 

This explains why Washington continues to advocate restraint and emphasize the importance of maintaining the ceasefire framework currently in place. 

Israel, however, views the situation through a different lens. 

From the Israeli perspective, Hezbollah and Iran remain immediate security threats that cannot be ignored. Israeli leaders claim that military pressure is necessary to weaken these adversaries, regardless of American concerns about regional escalation. 

Yet security alone does not fully explain Israel’s actions.

“The conflict is also intertwined with political and ideological ambitions. The influential factions within the Israeli regime continue to be influenced by a broader vision of expanding Israel’s strategic footprint in the region, often associated with the concept of “Greater Israel”.

In this reading, Lebanon is not merely a battlefield but part of a wider Israeli expansionist project. 

This creates an important divergence between American strategic interests and Israeli security calculations. The result is an increasingly visible gap between what the United States wants and what Israel is prepared to do. 

Recent developments have also highlighted Iran’s growing strategic importance. Iran occupies a critical geographical position overlooking the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil and gas supplies passes. Any disruption to this maritime chokepoint would immediately affect global energy markets and international trade. 

More importantly, external pressure has strengthened domestic unity within Iran. The groups that previously disagreed with the government have increasingly

rallied around the state in response to external threats. Regionally, Iran has demonstrated both military capability and strategic reach, reinforcing its position as a major regional power whose actions can no longer be ignored. Recent events have witnessed that Iran possesses significant leverage over regional security and global energy stability. 

The central issue, therefore, is not whether Trump supports a ceasefire. He clearly does. 

The real question is whether Washington possesses sufficient leverage to translate its preference into Israeli behaviour.

“If Israeli military operations continue despite American calls for restraint, observers will inevitably question the extent of US influence over its closest ally. “

This matters because American credibility remains a key pillar of regional stability. If Washington is unable to shape the actions of partners that depend heavily on American diplomatic, financial and military support, its broader influence across West Asia may also come under scrutiny. 

Failure to contain the current escalation carries risks far beyond West Asia. A wider Iran-Israel confrontation could threaten critical energy routes, including the Strait of Hormuz and other regional maritime chokepoints. Rising energy prices would affect economies worldwide, including countries geographically distant from the conflict such as Malaysia. 

At the same time, continued instability risks expanding the conflict across multiple fronts involving Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the Red Sea region. The longer the crisis continues, the greater the likelihood of miscalculation by one or more actors. 

For this reason, calls for a genuine ceasefire must be matched by meaningful diplomatic efforts and credible pressure on all parties involved. 

“The current crisis has become a test of two things: regional stability and American influence. “

President Trump may genuinely prefer de-escalation, but preference alone is insufficient. The true measure of leadership lies in the ability to shape outcomes, not merely express intentions If Washington cannot persuade its closest ally to support a sustainable ceasefire, the risk of a wider regional conflict will continue to grow. 

“The key question is therefore not whether Trump wants peace. The key question is whether he still possesses the leverage necessary to make it happen”

June 19, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Why a single ‘peace deal’ for Ukraine war just won’t work

As Western mainstream media carpet bombs the world with news that Ukraine is turning the tide in the war and could still win, then the calculus may be among Western policy hawks that continuing the war is no bad thing.

The Europeans and Zelensky appear dug in for the long haul.

An agreement within NATO. A peace settlement for Ukraine will only land when its future NATO aspiration is taken decisively off of the table. Anyone who still believes that Russia will give up on this clearest of redlines is dangerously misguided.

The time is ripe for European leaders to set aside the self-licking summits and get in the room with the US, Ukraine, and Russia

Ian Proud, Jun 13, 2026, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-russia-europe-talks/

The time is ripe for European leaders to set aside the self-licking summits in European capitals and get in the room with the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia to orchestrate a modern-day Helsinki Conference.

A durable peace for Ukraine will require several interlocking agreements, each of which will be incredibly difficult to negotiate, but all of which will be vital if we are to avoid a general war in Europe.

In a recent post on X, former U.S. diplomat Dan Fried, commenting on the June 7 E3 Leaders’ Statement on peace in Ukraine, said, “If Russia wants to end the war it can, you know, end the war.”

It’s important to pause here and note that Fried was the State Department Coordinator for Sanctions Policy from 2013 until 2017. I know, because I was directly involved at the time, that Fried is the architect of the policy of making Russia sanctions permanent by linking them to the full implementation of the Minsk II agreement, which Russia and Ukraine interpreted in radically different ways. The main aim of sanctions conditionality was therefore to delay any possibility of peaceful settlement, and in that it succeeded.

Eleven years on, Fried’s remark echoes a common line of argument in pro-war Western circles: that Russia could simply end the war without a negotiated settlement. And yet an unconditional about-face by Russia is quite obviously never going to happen, and so the comment serves only to prolong the war.

The E3 statement flowed from the same logic. It offered nothing new or unexpected. Critically, it reiterated the line that roughly $300 billion of Russian assets will remain immobilized until Russia “ceases its war of aggression and compensates Ukraine for the damage caused by the war.”

The current World Bank estimate of the cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine stands at $588 billion. So, the E3 position amounts to confirmation that Russia will never see its money again and moreover will still have $288 billion left to pay.

This, I fear, is another example of Fried’s logic — that peace in Ukraine is indeed possible, but only on terms that Russia would be unable or unwilling to accept. As Western mainstream media carpet bombs the world with news that Ukraine is turning the tide in the war and could still win, then the calculus may be among Western policy hawks that continuing the war is no bad thing.

It’s certainly clear that no one appears in a rush. The E3 statement follows a sixteen-month period of endless and repetitive meetings by European leaders and Zelensky in which everyone violently agrees, but to which the Russians are never invited.

Only in recent months, notably since President Donald Trump’s Alaska Summit with Putin, has the topic of a negotiated end to the Ukraine war slowly bubbled to the surface in Europe. President Alexander Stubb of Finland, President Emmanuel Macron of France, Prime Minister Bart de Wever of Belgium have at various times dipped their toes in the water of suggesting diplomatic talks with Russia.

Last week, Zelensky himself issued an open letter to Putin about a possible meeting.

But, being that the letter contained several pages of personal barbs and insults about Putin, it is hard to see this as anything more than a self-licking stunt, of the type Dan Fried would support. The Europeans and Zelensky appear dug in for the long haul.

A senior Russian contact remarked to me recently that the Europeans spend a lot of time talking about the possibility of talks, but not the substance of what might be on the agenda. In truth, a vast amount of work will be needed in preparatory negotiations to map out the shape of a future peace settlement, requiring a clarity of focus that has hitherto been missing.

A durable peace for Ukraine will require several interlocking deals, possibly negotiated separately with different signatories. Talk of a single ‘peace deal’ for Ukraine is a lazy over-simplification. The latest E3 statement bundles up separate issues in the same basket as does the now dormant US brokered plan. A peace settlement for Ukraine will require, inter alia, the following.

A bilateral peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, brokered by the U.S. and others. The existing U.S.-brokered draft is the right place to start, as that includes the most contentious issue of territory, and in particular the future status of the remaining territory in Donetsk which Russia has not conquered. It would also need to cover sensitive topics such as the size of Ukraine’s army, Ukrainian children who were removed to Russia, and minority languages in Ukraine.

A clear plan and timeline for Ukraine to join the European Union. This can only be negotiated bilaterally by the EU and Ukraine, without U.S. or British involvement. It is arguably as difficult as a bilateral peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

Zelensky has said he wants to see Ukrainian accession by 2027, but this is not going to happen, and not only because the war may still be ongoing. The Europeans aren’t over eager about Ukraine joining because Ukraine is nowhere near ready, and Europe can’t afford it. Chancellor Merz has recently resurfaced the idea of “associate membership,” in which Ukraine gets no voting rights or money. Every rational observer should be able to judge that many Ukrainians will want clarity on the glidepath towards EU membership as a condition for ending the war.

An agreement between Russia and Europe, including the United Kingdom, on the future shape of their relationship. The third issue is equally as complex. Should Ukraine eventually join the EU, then it would join existing former Soviet and Warsaw Pact members (the Balts and Poland) who frame Russia as an existential threat. Relations between Europe and Russia are more shuttered today than they were during the Soviet era.

Europe needs cheap energy to stem the tide of self-imposed deindustrialization; Russia would like European investment again and a more open people-to-people relationship. There will need to be a settlement on how sanctions against Russia are eased during a post-war period. Ignoring an EU-Russia deal risks pressing the pause button on a future general war at a time when Europe is rapidly rearming,

An agreement within NATO. A peace settlement for Ukraine will only land when its future NATO aspiration is taken decisively off of the table. Anyone who still believes that Russia will give up on this clearest of redlines is dangerously misguided.

Ukraine needs cast iron security guarantees that should involve a hard commitment to boots on the ground should Russia renege on its commitments.This will require Russia to have confidence that NATO isn’t stoking the fire in the background to reignite tensions as a pretext for intervention. These are incredibly complex issues and will require U.S. leadership to shift the Europeans into line. The NATO-Russia Council could have provided a forum for discussion and deconfliction but was formally disbanded in December 2025. Perhaps a NATO-Ukraine-Russia Council might emerge, to take its place, reopening a vital avenue for military dialogue and deconfliction.

Amid signs that the Trump Administration is tiring of the Ukraine peace process, the time is ripe for a serious push to bring the disastrous war in Ukraine to a close. Rather than the Europeans and Americans tussling over who should be in charge of the negotiations, the truth is that every Western nation will have a role to play, together with Ukraine and Russia, to hammer out the various agreements needed for peace. That may require a grand summit similar in scale to the Helsinki Conference of 1975. On the back of the E3 Statement, however, I am not holding my breath.

June 19, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

An MoU Is Not Peace—It Is Misleading Language That Paves the Way for More War

The reality is that this MoU, if it is signed, is not a peace agreement. It does not end the Iran war

What an MoU means in the context of a war is confusing and misleading. Is the war over when it is signed? Or is it a pause until there is a misunderstanding?

Kathy Gannon Substack, June 14, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/14/an-mou-is-not-peace-it-is-misleading-language-that-paves-the-way-for-more-war/

As with so much surrounding the Iran war, which the United States and Israel began in February, truth has been elusive and words have lost much of their meaning.

A cease fire agreement does not cease the firing. A peace agreement is not an agreement. Instead it is a Memorandum of Understanding.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and U.S. President Donald Trump have been claiming on social media, of course that there is an agreement on the Iran war and says Sharif “peace has never been this close as it is now.”

What exactly an MoU is in the context of a war is a bit of a mystery. Also an MoU has an inoffensive, business-like sound to it. It’s as if the brutal reality of war, the deaths of innocents, homes destroyed, children killed, is made invisible behind the inoffensive MoU. It is manipulative and it should be more than a little offensive to anyone who values words and reality.

And what does it even mean?

Is the war over when it is signed? Or is it on pause until/if the Memorandum of Understanding is misunderstood? Who decides whether there is a misunderstanding?

Can an MoU be interpreted as a peace agreement? Would breaking an MoU be a declaration of war? If it is, would the U.S. administration this time be required to seek permission to go to war?

The reality is that this MoU, if it is signed, is not a peace agreement. It does not end the Iran war, a war that has killed nearly 4,000 Iranians, destroyed homes, and devastated countless lives. Nothing is over. It is simply a pause in fighting while the warring sides agree to talk about the issues, they have been unable to resolve until now, like the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear enriched material.

If one peels away the layers, this MoU, if it is signed, appears to be little more than a 60-day breathing space for President Donald Trump, who is desperate for an off ramp. This MoU allows him to kick the war down the road until he can recover some political ground at home ahead of the November mid-term elections in the United States?

If the MoU opens the Strait of Hormuz to unfettered traffic and gas prices at the pumps in America (which really is all that matters to most Americans), Trump will be able to tell mid-term voters he was right all along: The pain at the pumps was temporary.

This latest “peace has never been this close” moment is not hopeful—it is manipulative, detached from reality, and dangerously effective at normalizing memorandums as a substitute for real peace.

If this is where we are headed, wars may no longer end at all. They will simply be deferred—one evasive compromise, one sanitized memorandum, one future battlefield at a time—while innocents are killed, families are torn apart, and homes are reduced to rubble beneath the deceptively harmless language of an MoU.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »