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.
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.
NATO collapsing in 2026? Can’t come soon enough – Walt Zlotow.
A case can be made for creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) when it was founded April 4, 1949. Originally just 10 Western European countries plus the US and Canada, NATO ensured no further Soviet expansion beyond the block of Soviet satellite nations Stalin established following WWII.
Of course, one can debate whether NATO was necessary at all. A was ravaged Russia, had neither the will not the means to expand anywhere beyond the buffer it had created to protect itself from a third invasion from the West in the 20th century. NATO may had more to do with expanding US imperial power in Europe and enriching the Military Industrial Complex than protecting Western Europe from unlikely Russian invasion.
Regardless, when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down on November 9, 1989 and the Soviet Union followed along December 26, 1991, NATO should have joined both in the dustbin of history. Indeed, the US, under President George H.W. Bush, spent much of 1990 negotiating the reunification of Soviet Eastern Germany into Western Germany, something Soviet Russia would have thought unthinkable. The pro in the quid pro quo was that NATO would never expand one inch eastward toward Mother Russia from its then western membership of 16 nations. Russia could even imagine that NATO, like The Warsaw Pact, would go away.
Big Russian mistake. With the US now the world’s sole superpower, the US abrogated any détente with Russia regarding NATO expansion, much less existence. Russia was to be permanently consigned to second class European status. Beginning under President Clinton in 1999, the NATO added 14 former Soviet aligned nations cementing NATO hegemony in Europe and ensuring an ever weakened Russia.
By betraying the former Soviet Union after its collapse, NATO morphed from a theoretically defensive to an overtly offensive organization. Russia was just one of NATO’s offensive moves. In 1999, NATO bombed Russian ally Serbia for 78 days to kick Serbia out of Kosovo, turning Kosovo into a failed province of the West. In 2011 NATO intervened in the Libyan civil war, bombing the Gaddafi regime and Gaddafi himself into oblivion. Libya remains a failed state 15 years on with much of Africa destabilized in its wake. Even the revered Barack Obama laments NATO intervention in Libya as his biggest presidential mistake.
But nothing compares to NATO perfidy in Ukraine. NATO proposed membership to Ukraine in 2008 to further isolate Russia from Europe. When six years of advancing NATO membership failed due to Ukrainian President Yanukovych partnering with Russia, NATO, led by Obama, simply overthrew him in 2014. Even worse, Ukraine began murdering Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas on Russia’s border by the thousands with NATO’s help. Worse Yet, NATO suckered Russia into agreeing to the Minsk I and II agreements that Donbas could achieve autonomy under Ukraine sovereignty to bring peace to Donbas Ukrainians. That was a subterfuge to build up the Ukraine military to finish off the Ukraine separatists in the Donbas. After 8 years of this duplicity Russia had enough, invading in February 2022 to end NATO, Ukraine aggression.
Four and a half years on, Ukraine is on life support, not from the US, which has largely bowed out, but from European NATO, which is still throwing billions of Euros on Ukraine’s lost cause. EU leaders, Especially UK’s Starmer, Frances’s Macron and Germany’s Merz claim Ukraine can win, reclaim all lost territory and save Western Europe from a likely Russian attack as early as 2030.
Long before 2030, Starmer, Macron and Merz will be gone, as well as the Ukraine that existed before the NATO offensive blew it up. NATO may be gone as well and good riddance if it is. Russia has no designs on Western Europe or all of Ukraine. They simply want their sensible security concerns met that have been foolishly rejected by NATO since the Soviet Union went poof in 1991 and NATO, led by the US, used it crush Russian integration in the European political economy.
Had the US and NATO exercised an iota of sensible diplomacy there would have been no war destroying Ukraine. Europe would be enjoying cheap energy and other trade with Russia fostering mutual economic growth. Current NATO leadership would have favorable approval ratings instead of ones worse than President Trump. Right wing European opposition parties would remain on the fringe instead of poised to assume power. European treasure could be spent uplifting the commons instead of destroying Ukraine.
Pivoting away from supporting NATO and the senseless Ukraine war is the one sensible Trump foreign policy. He’s too busy blowing up the world’s economy over Iran to care about NATO. Starmer, Macron, Merz, along with NATO secretary general Mark Rutte, remain in denial that the hopeless war they’re supporting is not only wrecking their careers and their countries; it may spell the end of NATO. It cannot come soon enough.
Europe’s recent peace overtures are war by other means
Zakharova accused the ambassadors of promoting a “dead-end Zelensky formula.”
She said: “The leaders of these countries are pretending, through their statements, to be calling for peace, but in reality they are putting forward unacceptable conditions, increasing the production of long-range weapons for Kiev and generally taking steps towards the militarisation of Ukraine and Europe.”
European overtures for renewing diplomacy with Russia smack of hypocrisy and duplicity.
June 12, 2026, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/06/12/europes-recent-peace-overtures-are-war-by-other-means/
After four years of zero diplomacy, multiple rounds of economic sanctions aimed at crushing the Russian state, and hundreds of billions of euros fueling a futile war in Ukraine against Russia, European capitals are lately abuzz with calls for opening peace negotiations with Moscow.
No doubt part of the shifting policy is due to the economic mess that Europe has created for itself by cutting off energy trade with Russia. Escalating energy costs are destroying European industries and imposing crippling financial hardship on millions of its citizens. Realizing the self-inflicted disaster, European capitals are desperate to appear to be normalizing relations with Russia and resume affordable energy supplies.
France and Italy are advocating the appointment of an envoy to engage with Russia to resolve the conflict and the lifting of anti-Russian sanctions.
Last weekend, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany – the so-called E3 – stated that they would “help mediate” a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainian puppet president, Vladimir Zelensky, was feted in Downing Street on June 7 by Britain’s Keir Starmer, France’s Macron, and Germany’s Merz. They proposed taking the lead in negotiations from the United States since President Trump seems more preoccupied with ending the war against Iran.
Various names have been suggested as to who could serve as an interlocutor representing Europe. Angela Merkel, the former German Chancellor, and former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi are two names that have been put forward. Finnish President Alexander Stubb has also been suggested. It’s unlikely any of them would be acceptable to Moscow, especially Merkel, mainly due to her past role in covertly undermining the 2015 Minsk Accords, thereby sowing the seeds for war that erupted seven years later.
The telling – almost laughable – thing is the paucity of any European figure with credibility as an envoy.
The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, has become a laughing stock over her rank incompetence. Her Russophobic ranting has rendered her redundant in conducting foreign policy. So much so that there is a revolt among European diplomats against what they declaim as her “dysfunction”.
This week, Europe sent three ambassadors to Moscow to renew some form of dialogue. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Galuzin, met with representatives from Britain, France, and Germany. The Russian foreign ministry said it was open to hearing what Europe had to say.
However, Galuzin reportedly gave the visitors short shrift, reminding them that Europe cannot pose as mediators when it is a participant in the war against Russia.
Following the meeting on Thursday, Maria Zakharova, the foreign ministry spokeswoman, dismissed the European mission as not serious about addressing the challenge of finding a peace settlement.
Zakharova accused the ambassadors of promoting a “dead-end Zelensky formula.”
She said: “The leaders of these countries are pretending, through their statements, to be calling for peace, but in reality they are putting forward unacceptable conditions, increasing the production of long-range weapons for Kiev and generally taking steps towards the militarisation of Ukraine and Europe.”
If Europe were serious about peace, it would stop arming the Kiev NeoNazi regime and show some meaningful acknowledgment of Russia’s long-held demand to deal with the root causes of the conflict.
Europe’s backing of the Kiev regime’s call for an immediate ceasefire while expanding Ukraine’s ability to carry out deep strikes on Russian territory with European-manufactured drones, killing hundreds of civilians over recent months, is just a cynical ploy to rearm the proxy regime and give it some respite in order to resume the war with more lethal vigour at a later stage.
The duplicity of the European politicians goes back to the treachery of the Minsk Peace Accords in 2015 and the sabotage of the Istanbul peace negotiations in April 2022. That has culminated in the biggest war in Europe since World War Two, with millions of casualties and a real threat of spiralling into open war.
Europe’s governments and its EU and NATO bureaucrats are still wedded to the ideology of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. So, too, it seems is Washington, despite Trump’s talk of wanting peace.
Arming the Nazi regime in Kiev at an increasing pace while calling for a superficial ceasefire is proof that the European leaders are not authentic in their belated espousal of seeking diplomacy with Russia.
Former German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel (2017-2018) recently pointed out a shameful truth when he said that Europe lost its chance for diplomacy in 2021.
Back then, the EU leadership and the American Biden administration both repudiated Russia’s earnest efforts to negotiate a way to avoid war in Ukraine. Moscow had clearly set out its objections to NATO expansion, in particular, the absorption of Ukraine into the military alliance, and it proposed rational solutions for collective security. Russia’s diplomacy was rejected out of hand by Washington and Brussels.
The Europeans and the Americans were bent on provoking Russia into an armed confrontation with their proxy Ukrainian regime that they had installed in the 2014 coup and weaponized. Diplomacy was rejected because the NATO axis calculated that it could defeat Russia with war and economic strangulation, or, as some Western politicians admitted, “total war”.
The European agenda, as reflected in demands for an immediate ceasefire without any cognizance of Russia’s arguments about historic claims and indivisible security, demonstrates that European leaders are not yet ready or willing to engage genuinely and meaningfully.
As 18th-century Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz might put it, their recent overtures for political talks are simply war by other means.
How Zionist Lobbying Has Reshaped Global Politics
13 June 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, PhD, Australian Independent Media
The Branch That Reaches Across Oceans – How Zionist Lobbying Has Reshaped Global Politics
“The branch is not the tree. The tree is still standing. And the tree – the tree is justice.”
The Branch That Reaches Across Oceans
The “Greater Israel” project is not a secret. It is not a fringe fantasy. It is being marketed in London, in Montreal, in New York – real estate roadshows advertising properties in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. The UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices warned in November 2025 that “Israel continues to expand its presence and control of territory in Palestine, Syria and Southern Lebanon,” and that Israel’s “constant claims to a borderless ‘Land of Israel’ are incompatible with a just and lasting peace.”
This is not merely a Middle Eastern conflict. It is a global project – one that relies not only on military force, but on an extensive apparatus of lobbying, financial influence, and the suppression of dissent in Western capitals.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman warned that the “Greater Israel” project poses dangers not only to neighbouring countries but also to Europeans: “Even the Europeans are not safe, because the Zionist regime does not hesitate to openly declare its colonial and racist ambitions in forms such as ‘greater Israel’.” Whether one accepts the Iranian framing, the fact that the project is cited by adversaries as a casus belli indicates that it is not a secret.
The scale of political interference is not unique in spirit – it is an extension of historically brutal colonial behaviours, morphed into a new scale in line with modern communication systems. The Roman Empire bribed Germanic chieftains. The British Empire divided and ruled India. But the contemporary Zionist project operates within a rules‑based international order that was supposed to prevent exactly this kind of extraction.
And it operates with the active complicity of Western governments – not because they are powerless, but because their political systems have been captured.
The Machinery of Influence: AIPAC and the American Political System
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most visible node in a vast network of lobbying organisations that influence US Middle East policy. A 2024 academic study published in the Hasanuddin Journal of Strategic and International Studies found that “the AIPAC lobby is deeply rooted in US policymaking structures, ranging from vice‑president, and higher‑echelon staff, to parliament members.” The study noted that since 2021, AIPAC has expanded its activities to include direct participation in political campaign contributions, effectively buying access to the highest levels of American government.
The study’s conclusion is stark: “Such overly foreign influence on national policymaking has the potential to harm America’s long‑term relationships and interests in the Middle East if the US can’t make the barrier for foreign interference toward its national interests.”
This is not a fringe argument. Ilan Pappé’s comprehensive study, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic, documents how “over a century of aggressive lobbying changed the map of the Middle East.” Pappé details how pro‑Israel lobbies convinced British and American policymakers “to condone Israel’s flagrant breaches of international law, grant Israel unprecedented military aid and deny Palestinians rights.” Anyone who questioned unconditional support for Israel, “even in the mildest terms, became the target of relentless smear campaigns.”
The mechanism is not subtle. It is the same mechanism that has always operated in systems where political survival depends on campaign contributions. The donor class – in this case, a network of Zionist organisations and aligned right‑wing groups – buys influence. Politicians who comply receive funding, electoral support, and protection from primary challenges. Those who dissent are targeted, smeared, and often defeated.
This is not a conspiracy. It is a system.
The Silencing of Dissent: Academic Freedom Under Attack
The suppression of criticism extends beyond electoral politics into the realm of ideas. A 2024 academic paper in the journal Milel ve Nihal examines how “political lobbying, financial influence, and allegations of antisemitism are strategically employed to establish a cultural hegemony that determines what discourse is acceptable” in US universities.
The paper, titled “Zionism and Academic Hegemony: The Intersection of Power, Knowledge, and Suppression in the United States Universities,” draws on Michel Foucault’s theory of power‑knowledge and Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony to analyse how “Zionist organisations influence higher education frameworks, research priorities, and public discourse.” This manipulation, the paper argues, “serves to marginalize, silence, or delegitimize critical perspectives that oppose or challenge Israeli policies and actions, especially those related to the occupation of Palestinian territories and human rights violations.”
The paper provides specific examples, including the rescinded job offer to Professor Steven Salaita at the University of Illinois following his criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza on social media. The case is not isolated. The paper documents “additional examples including the suppression of pro‑Palestinian viewpoints and the punishment of students and faculty who advocate for Palestinian rights at various prominent U.S. institutions.”
The paper concludes that “Zionism’s influence is not limited to isolated cases but creates a widespread atmosphere where academic freedom is restricted.” Universities, “meant to be pillars of free thought and critical inquiry, increasingly become arenas where dissent is suppressed and ideological conformity is imposed.”
The weaponisation of antisemitism accusations is central to this strategy. Criticism of Israeli government policy is routinely conflated with hatred of Jews. The effect is to chill debate, to intimidate critics, and to protect the settlement enterprise from scrutiny. As one reviewer of Pappé’s book noted, the strategy involves “cracked down on dissent in the Labour Party, and relentlessly smeared critics.”
The Australian Connection
The pattern is not confined to the United States and the United Kingdom. Australia has its own history of Zionist lobbying and political interference – a history that remains largely unexamined in mainstream discourse.
The Australian example is particularly instructive because it reveals how the machinery of influence operates even in a country geographically distant from the Middle East, with no historical responsibility for the conflict, and no strategic interest that would justify the degree of alignment with Israeli policy.
The mechanisms are similar: campaign donations, community lobbying, and the weaponisation of antisemitism accusations to silence critics. Australian politicians who question Israeli policy face organised opposition from Zionist organisations. The media environment is shaped by the same dynamics of donor pressure and editorial alignment.
The result is a foreign policy that is not in Australia’s national interest – AUKUS, the uncritical support for US Middle East policy, the silence on Israeli atrocities – but is dictated by a donor class whose primary loyalty is not to Australia.
This is not a fringe observation. It is the conclusion of the same structural analysis that applies to the United States and the United Kingdom. The only difference is scale.
The Geographic Safety Nets
The “Greater Israel” project is not merely ideological. It is infrastructural. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/how-zionist-lobbying-has-reshaped-global-politics/
Trump news at a glance: president claims Iran ‘no longer want a nuclear weapon’ amid peace deal hopes
Washington and Tehran express increasing optimism that weeks of halting negotiations may be drawing to a close – key US politics stories from Saturday 13 June at a glance
Guardian staff, 14 June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/14/trump-news-at-a-glance-president-claims-iran-no-longer-want-a-nuclear-weapon-amid-peace-deal-hopes
Donald Trump says a deal with Iran to end the war would be signed on Sunday, and that the strait of Hormuz would be “open to all” immediately after.
Iran had offered a different timeline earlier in the day, but nonetheless signalled an agreement was in the offing, as both the warring parties and their mediators expressed increasing optimism that weeks of halting negotiations were drawing to a close.
“The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform. Since an 8 April truce paused the worst of the fighting, Trump has repeatedly insisted a deal was near only for the wrangling to drag on.
The Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baqaei, had said earlier on Saturday that the date of the signing was yet to be determined, but “it will not be tomorrow”. However, he added: “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out.”
The view from Moscow: The future of nuclear arms control exists, but the path is hard
there can and should be some new legally binding new arms-control regimes, including strict limitations on nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles
However, the alternative is significantly more costly and dangerous on an existential level. The more nuclear weapons (and nuclear weapons states) that exist, the greater the possibility that nuclear weapons use becomes. This is the ultimate threat to the human civilization, and efforts to limit this threat demand leadership from the great powers today, not tomorrow.
By Dmitry Stefanovich | May 13, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/premium/2026-05/the-view-from-moscow-the-future-of-nuclear-arms-control-exists-but-the-path-is-hard/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=France%20s%20new%20nuclear%20doctrine&utm_campaign=20260608%20Monday%20Newsletter%20%28Copy%29
It is impossible to argue with the fact that today’s arms control architecture is in very bad shape, especially if one focuses on strategic nuclear weapons. While Moscow seems open to at least some limitations, the current thinking in Washington is obsessed with Chinese nuclear buildup (real or alleged), and the only acknowledged solution to the ‘three-body’ problem seems to be purely arithmetical in its nature: In other words, the United States declares that the only way to sustain nuclear deterrence under current circumstances is to have its nuclear arsenal exceed both the Russian and Chinese capabilities. Clearly, neither Russia nor China can ignore such an attitude and would respond in kind.
But despite the current negative trends, arms control remains alive, although the formats that still exist are limited. And in the future, arms control instruments may take many forms: legally and politically binding agreements, unilateral initiatives, and bilateral and multilateral arrangements. Even enhanced notifications and transparency mechanisms could be helpful. Moreover, there is some room for synchronized limitations on certain activities—i.e. deployment of selected weapons only at selected regions—which might contribute to the stabilization of military-political relations between certain countries.
It is also crucial to understand that it is hardly possible that any future arms control could only be bilateral. Furthermore, it is impossible to even imagine the complicated arrangements for inspection mechanisms for every state that possesses nuclear weapons, and the asymmetrical quantitative limitations for them. The arsenals of nuclear weapon states are significantly different, and even the Russian and US nuclear forces postures are not symmetrical. To have a dozen or more inspections per country per year is too much of a logistical challenge if we begin to consider more than two participants for such a regime.
There are other factors as well, including but not limited to the increasing presence of dual-capable systems, growing cooperation between the United States and its allies and partners in the nuclear domain (with NATO declaring itself a “nuclear alliance”). The peculiar part is that while one side perceives such developments as explicitly destabilizing, the other believes them to be stabilizing and enhancing strategic (or integrated) deterrence.
Most important, not only nuclear capabilities contribute to the overall “security equation.” Military conflicts since the end of the 20th century clearly show that non-nuclear long-range precision weapons are indeed a strategic capability, while non-nuclear deterrence is a much more complicated concept. It is now becoming readily apparent that non-nuclear weapon states can inflict significant costs on their adversaries, no matter how many nuclear weapons those adversaries have in their arsenals. Such trends are augmented by rapid scientific and technological change. The role of hypersonic weapons, drone warfare, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and outer space infrastructure is continuously growing, and all these emerging and disruptive technologies are intertwined—jointly contributing to the very complicated landscape of multilateral strategic deterrence.
Last but not least, the renewed possibility of overt nuclear testing is becoming a big challenge. Major countries have hardly forgotten what their nuclear weapon explosions revealed, but there seems to be a growing number of arguments supporting nuclear tests for both political and technological reasons. A deep dive into this issue deserves a separate paper, but what is clear is that should one country test, others will follow—and ultimately, a domino effect would likely follow, leading to the destruction of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as it is, not to mention the grim prospects it would make for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty to ever enter into force.
A path forward
Still, there are options to address the current polycentric nuclear era of major military-political confrontations. One way is to find a way to engage in behavioral arms control—which basically means looking for mechanisms that limit activities, and not capabilities.
Unilateral and coordinated declarations of one’s capabilities and doctrines might be helpful as well. Joint notification regimes are also a possibility, even if those will be limited initially. For example, the only area where the “Nuclear Five” of the nuclear weapons states recognized by the NPT have some symmetry is the sea-based leg of their nuclear deterrence forces. Codifying existing patrol practices regarding nuclear-tipped ballistic missile-armed submarines (known as Ship Submersible Ballistic Nuclear, or SSBN), and a regime of submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launch notifications could be a relatively easy first step that would significantly enhance mutual understanding and revitalize the practices of military-to-military data exchanges. Moreover, increasing the number of SSBNs deployed on deterrent patrols above the agreed “normal’ can become a visible and clear signaling method.
However, to make such arrangements possible, arms control itself should be “re-branded,” so it will be perceived first and foremost as a tool in a state’s national security arsenal rather than anything intended for the good of all humankind. And the term “re-branding” would be absolutely correct to use, because a top-to-bottom overhaul of arms control would indeed contribute to the optimization of military development projects—based on better understanding of the efforts and logic of similar developments in both adversarial and partner countries alike.
Russia, for what it is worth, had already made several proposals regarding somewhat informal arms control mechanisms over the last decade alone. To name a few such proposals, there was the suggestion for a post-INF moratorium on intermediate-range ground-launched missiles deployment; limitations on the scale and geographic locations of military exercises during the COVID-19 pandemic; and an extension of treaty limitations post-New START. Unfortunately, none of those eventually succeeded, although the post-INF moratorium did contribute to a somewhat slowed and scaled-down development and deployment of such systems by both Russia and by the United States. Moreover, as of Spring 2026 neither Russia nor the United States seem to be actively engaged in deploying nuclear warheads beyond the now-defunct New START limits.
Other scenarios
Read more: The view from Moscow: The future of nuclear arms control exists, but the path is hardBut with the expiration of the last of the nuclear arms control treaties, a renewed nuclear arms race is a real possibility, and one that is already occurring in some domains. The exact parameters are hard to determine, because there is only secondary or even tertiary data on the capacities of defense industries and nuclear enterprises for countries like China and Russia, especially given the ongoing “special military operation” that the latter is undertaking in Ukraine. More information is available on the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, while far less can be found on India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea (also known as the DPRK).
Such races are occurring even though they are not the most effective way to spend increasingly limited resources. Russian nuclear weapons and delivery systems have been continuously upgraded and modernized throughout the post-Cold War period, for many reasons. The reasons include the degradation of Russia’s conventional forces, US superiority in strategic non-nuclear weapons, concerns about US missile defense, and the general security environment on the Eurasian continent—not to mention the practical need to preserve nuclear weapons’ expertise and to keep Russia’s relevant nuclear infrastructure running throughout periods of economic turmoil. So, there seems to be some capacity for arms racing.
The same is more or less true for China and, probably, France, although the reasons for keeping one’s nuclear weapons enterprise in good shape can be different.
The nuclear arms race itself, which could be said to have been ongoing for at least a decade or even more, only now shows signs of switching from the qualitative to the quantitative. Previously, most nuclear weapon states focused on enhancing the capabilities of their nuclear weapons—and especially their delivery systems—through increased precision, reliability, and survivability. Now it is clear that, although there is a different amount of open-ness and transparency about it, all nuclear weapon states are getting ready to increase their overall nuclear weapon stockpiles. What makes it much more different and much more dangerous compared to the previous Cold War is that this new arms race is essentially multi-domain and multipolar, with much bigger roles played by many more actors—including newly emerging powers.
One should not ignore the link between the growing emphasis on nuclear weapons as an ultimate tool to ensure national security and sovereignty by nuclear weapons states (and to some extent their allies) and the pressure on nuclear non-proliferation, with more countries considering getting a nuclear capability for the very same purpose. This link, if understood correctly, might also contribute to the limitation of “nuclear optimism” by the existing nuclear weapon states and force them to search for collective security solutions.
Limits of negative effects
Presumably, there is an understanding in Moscow and other nuclear capitals that arms-racing each other “into oblivion” (as a former US official once said) is not straightforward, and that there are serious limitations and bottlenecks. This gives some level of optimism that the arms race can be contained, if not through formal mechanisms, but based on mutual understanding that you can’t change the political, industrial, and demographic landscape back to what it once was.
The biggest danger, as viewed from Moscow, is that it is crucial to see a mix of strategic nuclear, strategic non-nuclear, non-strategic nuclear, and missile defense capabilities as a joint system augmented by nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities of allied states and integrated through “space superiority” and AI-enabled unified mission planning. This is perceived as a possibility to combine a disarming and decapitating strike with nuclear and non-nuclear weapons with air and missile defense capabilities preventing a weakened retaliation. The latest military conflicts demonstrate that such “bogeymen scenarios” cannot be ignored, as there is a clear push to bank on selected areas of military superiority by the United States and some of its allies.
Clearly, such threats are well understood; consequently there is a constant development of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, as well as Heavy Bombers and SSBNs, not to mention so-called novel strategic delivery systems, such as Avangard HGV-tipped ICBMs, Burevestnik unlimited range nuclear-powered cruise missiles, and the Poseidon nuclear-powered uncrewed underwater vehicle. Rapidly developing kinetic and non-kinetic counterspace capabilities also contribute to such efforts. There has been a clear focus on survivability and overwhelming second-strike capabilities, so that even a limited number of delivery vehicles intended for the targets on the adversary’s territory will reach their destination. However, actions by the United States and its allies do contribute to the ever-growing decapitation and disarming strike concerns. Ensuring the balance based solely on one’s military power without arms control framework is an extremely complicated task.
How to survive
Finally, there are many reasons to have questions and make accusations against each other because of bad decisions made over the years, including but not limited to the destruction of the ABM Treaty by Washington, as the most dramatic example—it drove both Moscow and Beijing to pursue symmetrical and asymmetrical measures to hedge against possible future technological breakthroughs. The so-called rogue states that have been cited as a primary reason to develop the US missile defenses and forward deploy its assets also continuously enhanced their capabilities. The characterization of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea by some politicians as an “axis of evil” (or “evil tetragon” in Russian) did not help to stabilize things either.
But the problem is that things can get much worse, with countries facing less stable strategic balances and more escalatory force postures. And they surely will evolve in that way, unless joint efforts to find solutions are undertaken.
Ultimately, there can and should be some new legally binding new arms-control regimes, including strict limitations on nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles, although it is possible that a “warhead” would be a virtual accounting unit akin to the New START rules, where one Heavy Bomber accounted for one Nuclear Warhead only. This demands a significant volume of political will, especially given the fact that it is impossible to cover all existing concerns within a single document. Before we reach this stage, some informal mechanisms to enhance arms control and risk reduction can be put in place. The path forward will be hard and will need mutual concessions.
However, the alternative is significantly more costly and dangerous on an existential level. The more nuclear weapons (and nuclear weapons states) that exist, the greater the possibility that nuclear weapons use becomes. This is the ultimate threat to the human civilization, and efforts to limit this threat demand leadership from the great powers today, not tomorrow.
International People’s Tribunal (IPT) invites representatives of the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Korea to participate in Proceedings on Korean Victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings
10 June 2026, https://abombtribunal.campaignus.me/34/?q=YToxOntzOjEyOiJrZXl3b3JkX3R5cGUiO3M6MzoiYWxsIjt9&bmode=view&idx=171742128&t=board
The International Organizing Committee of the International People’s Tribunal (IPT) today formally invited representatives of the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Korea to participate in this Peoples’ Tribunal, which is being convened to highlight the experiences and claims of Korean victims of the 1945 atomic bombings. This group of atomic bomb survivors has too often been overlooked and now seeks recognition, acknowledgment, and redress through international legal accountability.
Letters of invitation were respectfully provided to these two governments in the hope that they will send representatives to the Tribunal, which will be held at the Graduate School of Theology, Hanshin University, in Seoul, South Korea, on November 13–15, 2026.
The formal invitations are attached to this release. The invitations were jointly signed by the three Co-Chairs of the International Organizing Committee: Bishop Emeritus Kang U-il of Jeju, Archbishop John Charles Wester of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, and Takashi Hiraoka, former Mayor of Hiroshima City.
The Tribunal is organized with the participation of lawyers, scholars, activists, and relevant experts from Korea and abroad. Korean atomic bomb victims will participate as claimants in the proceedings, which will address issues of international legal responsibility arising from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, as well as the future use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.
The IPT is being organized in recognition of the fact that the experiences of Korean atomic bomb victims—who were victims both of Japanese imperial aggression and colonial rule, and of the atomic bombings carried out by the United States—have not been sufficiently brought to light before the international community.
The IPT also seeks to contribute to international legal discussions concerning the restoration of victims’ human rights, including official apologies, compensation, guarantees of non-repetition, and the prohibition of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as to broader efforts toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the realization of a world free of nuclear weapons.
CONTACT:
Brad Wolf
U.S. Organizing Committee Contact
Email: bradwolf1310@gmail.com
Kihoon Lee
SPARK (Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea)
Email: abombtribunal@gmail.com
Is the Ceasefire Dead? (w/ Alastair Crooke) | The Chris Hedges Report
The US-Israeli war has heated up again as Iran launched “Operation Victory” in response to Israel’s continued attacks on Southern Lebanon and attacks on Iranian infrastructure, and the United States bombing islands in the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend. In this episode, Chris Hedges speaks with former British Diplomat Alastair Crooke of the Conflicts Forum Substack, who explains that given the failure of diplomatic negotiations, Iran has entered a new phase of the war utilizing the methodology of ‘escalatory deterrence’ in which every attack on Iran will be met with an increasingly greater response.
A change in Israel’s military strategy has occurred following the events of the 7th of October 2023. Crookes describe this as a shift away from primarily using military force to expand settlements to a focus on ‘permanent security’ — aimed at eliminating any potential threats in the region. Israel is on a mission to establish a Greater Israel by force, but this is taking a toll on the Israeli military, which is at a “point of implosion.”
Both Netanyahu and Trump have boxed themselves in with the wars on Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, generating heavy losses and little possibility of victory but no clear politically acceptable path to a resolution. Both face declining support in the polls and are likely to fare poorly in the next elections. The Likud party is fragmenting, and Crooke explains that “it’s quite possible that the machine that [Netanyahu’s] put into place over 20 and more years could implode.”
For President Trump, the outcome will be decided by what happens to the global economy as shortages of critical resources — fuel, fertilizer and industrial inputs — cause a growing crisis. “Pain is a great transformer,” states Crooke, which may lead Western allies to accept greater concessions to Iran. In the big picture, Hedges and Crooke concur that the West, with its failing institutions, is in a process of catharsis, a period of decline, which is necessary, they say, for there to be any possibility of its renewal and restoration. “This is the process we’ve got to start slowly addressing.”
Transcript………………………………………………..https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/10/is-the-ceasefire-dead-w-alastair-crooke-the-chris-hedges-report/
IAEA board passes resolution demanding Iran report uranium stocks
By Francois Murphy, June 11, 2026, Reuters
The U.N. nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors passed a
U.S.-backed resolution on Wednesday telling Iran to declare its remaining
enriched uranium stocks and let inspectors verify them, which could
complicate Washington’s talks with Tehran……. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/iaea-board-passes-resolution-demanding-iran-report-uranium-stocks-diplomats-say-2026-06-10/
𝐍𝐄𝐓𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐀𝐇𝐔’𝐒 𝐆𝐀𝐌𝐁𝐋𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐑𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐃𝐃𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐓
DD Geopolitics Protagonist HQ and Ibrahim Majed, Jun 09, 2026
The fragile calm that had prevailed across much of the Middle East since April, excluding the ongoing Israeli war on Lebanon, unraveled within hours, exposing a strategic reality Washington has long sought to avoid.
What began as a localized escalation rapidly evolved into a broader geo-economic crisis with consequences extending far beyond the battlefield.
At the center of the crisis lies a structural imbalance within the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
While Washington remains Israel’s principal military, diplomatic, and economic backer, recent events have highlighted the extent to which regional escalations can impose costs on the United States regardless of American preferences.
The result is a dynamic in which decisions made in Tel Aviv increasingly shape the strategic environment that Washington must manage.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫
he latest escalation stemmed from Israel’s continued military operations in Lebanon, including renewed strikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut, despite mounting regional warnings and Iran’s explicit signaling that further escalation in Lebanese territory would cross a red line.
These actions effectively collapsed the fragile de-escalation framework that had begun to take shape in recent months.
Yet the strategic significance of the crisis did not stem solely from direct military exchanges.
The conflict quickly expanded through an asymmetric front.
Yemen’s Ansarallah movement announced a comprehensive blockade targeting Israeli-linked maritime traffic through the Bab al-Mandab Strait, transforming what might have remained a localized confrontation into a wider geo-economic challenge.
The implications were immediate.
One of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints suddenly became a theater of strategic pressure.
Energy markets reacted rapidly, with oil prices surging as traders assessed the risks posed to global shipping routes and regional stability.
What began as a military confrontation was now exerting pressure on the economic infrastructure that underpins global commerce.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬
The military escalation unfolded against the backdrop of a growing political divergence between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Hours before the strikes, Trump projected confidence that Washington remained firmly in control of events.
According to reports surrounding a high-level phone conversation, the American president conveyed the impression that he retained decisive influence over Israeli decision-making and could prevent a broader confrontation.
The subsequent Israeli strikes conveyed a different message.
Regardless of Washington’s preferences, events on the ground proceeded according to Israeli calculations.
The operation demonstrated the limits of American influence at a moment when the White House was attempting to contain regional tensions and preserve diplomatic channels.
More importantly, it reinforced a perception increasingly shared across the region: while the United States remains the dominant external power, its ability to dictate the behavior of key allies is not unlimited.
𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩’𝐬 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐍𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐞
For the White House, the timing could hardly be worse.
The administration entered 2026 seeking to reduce regional tensions, stabilize energy markets, and avoid another Middle Eastern crisis capable of dominating domestic political discourse ahead of the Midterm Elections.
Escalation threatens all three objectives simultaneously…………………………………………………………………….
𝐍𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐚𝐡𝐮’𝐬 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞
Netanyahu, however, is operating according to a very different political timetable.
His government faces mounting domestic pressures, including declining public support, growing political fragmentation, large-scale protests, and unresolved disputes surrounding the conscription of the Ultra-Orthodox community.
Current political trends suggest that a return to normal political conditions could expose the governing coalition to severe electoral risks…………………………………………..
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐩
The deeper problem for Washington is that its options remain constrained.
Despite occasional public disagreements, successive American administrations have found it politically difficult to impose meaningful costs on Israel during periods of confrontation.
Congressional support, entrenched institutional relationships, domestic political considerations, and long-standing strategic commitments collectively limit the range of coercive tools available to the White House.
As a result, American policymakers frequently find themselves attempting to contain the consequences of decisions they neither initiated nor fully control.
This dynamic creates a strategic trap.
The United States absorbs the diplomatic costs of regional instability, bears responsibility for protecting maritime trade routes, manages the economic consequences of energy market disruptions, and remains expected to provide security guarantees throughout the region.
Yet its ability to shape the behavior that generates those costs remains constrained by political realities at home.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭
The deeper danger for Washington extends far beyond the immediate crisis.
What has emerged is a growing divergence between Israeli domestic political imperatives and broader American strategic objectives………………………………………………………….
Ultimately, the central question is no longer whether the United States can continue supporting Israel.
Rather, it is whether American policymakers can reconcile unconditional strategic commitments with a regional reality in which their own interests are increasingly exposed to decisions made by an ally pursuing a very different political agenda.
If the current trajectory continues, the greatest challenge to Washington’s Middle East strategy may not emerge from its adversaries, but from the widening gap between American interests and the actions of the partner it remains committed to defending. https://ddgeopolitics.substack.com/p/75a?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769298&post_id=201184525&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
‘The Humiliation Just Compounds’: Trump Tells Netanyahu Not to Bomb Iran, Then Israel Strikes Anyway
US President Donald Trump “appears unwilling to spend the political capital necessary to rein in Netanyahu—beyond angry phone calls and tough public statements,” said one analyst.
Jake Johnson, Jun 08, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-netanyahu-iran-2677009860
The Israeli military bombed Iran on Monday shortly after US President Donald Trump urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to respond to an Iranian missile barrage, which came in retaliation for Israel’s earlier bombing of Beirut.
“I am going to call Bibi right now and tell him not to retaliate,” Trump told Axios on Sunday, noting that the Iranian strikes did not appear to cause any injuries. “Each of them had their fun. Israel had its strike, and Iran had its strike. We don’t need another one.”
Iran’s missile attack on Israel was the first since a tenuous ceasefire agreement took effect in early April, and the exchange intensified concerns of a return to full-blown regional war. Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the Sunday strikes were a defensive response to the Israeli military’s bombing of southern Beirut as well as “Israel’s persistent breaches of the April ceasefire, including its collaboration with the US military in attacks on Iranian ships and targets in southern Iran over the past two weeks.”
The Israel Defense Forces vowed to “continue to operate all across Lebanon” and said it would not “allow fire toward Israel.”
Esmail Baghaei, a spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, said during a press conference on Monday that despite Trump’s public comments, “no one in the region believes” that Israel attacked Lebanon or Iran “without prior coordination and cooperation with the United States.”
“The United States bears responsibility as a party to the April 8 ceasefire understanding,” said Baghaei. “Whatever happens in the region, whether the US itself violates the ceasefire by attacking Iranian commercial ships or targeting southern parts of the country, or whether violations are carried out through the Zionist regime in Lebanon with US complicity, the direct responsibility of the United States is clear, and the consequences of any escalation will also fall on Washington.”
Trump told the Financial Times following Iran’s missile attack on Israel that he did not believe it would undercut the prospects of a diplomatic agreement. The US president also said Netanyahu would have no choice but to accept any agreement the Trump administration reaches with Iran, declaring: “I call the shots. I call all the shots. [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots.”
But critics of Trump’s illegal and costly war of choice in Iran, which he launched in coordination with Israel in late February, said Netanyahu’s swift defiance of the president’s call for restraint underscored how disastrous the conflict has been for the US.
“This war has been humiliating for Trump and American power generally,” US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media. “And when Trump announces he is going to call Netanyahu and tell him not to retaliate, and within hours Netanyahu retaliates, the humiliation just compounds.”
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in a blog post following the Israeli attack on Iran that Trump “appears unwilling to spend the political capital necessary to rein in Netanyahu—beyond angry phone calls and tough public statements—unless he knows that he has a deal with Iran.”
“From Trump’s perspective, it is only worth doing if an agreement with Iran is already secured. In short, Trump is willing to restrain Israel to preserve a deal, but not to obtain one. Iran, however, wants evidence that Trump can restrain Israel before agreeing to a deal,” Parsi wrote. “As a result, the most likely scenario is another round of Iranian and Israeli strikes, with Trump declining to meaningfully constrain Israel.”
The National Iranian American Council noted that Iran’s leadership “has already threatened a broader and more destructive campaign” in response to Israel’s strikes.
“The coming 24 to 72 hours will likely determine whether this becomes a contained crisis or the beginning of a new phase in the regional conflict,” the group added.
The Gazafication of Lebanon: How Israel Exports Destruction and Washington Protects It
7 June 2026 Dr Andrew Klein,, Australian Independent Media
Dedication: To the people of Lebanon – who have been told that their country is a “failed state” by those who worked ceaselessly to break it.
“The destruction will stop only when the silence is broken. Break it.”
On 1 March 2026, Israel launched a full-scale military offensive against Lebanon. The official rationale was self-defence: to push Hezbollah away from the border, to “demilitarize” Lebanon, and to secure the northern settlements. Within weeks, the death toll passed 3,500; 1.6 million people – roughly one‑fifth of Lebanon’s population – were displaced; hundreds of towns and villages were flattened.
The violence did not come from nowhere. It was the product of decades of Israeli military intervention, occupation, political interference, and a US‑backed policy that has systematically dismantled Lebanon’s sovereignty. The objective is not peace. It is the Gazafication of Lebanon: the imposition of a siege-and-destruction model that has already been perfected in Gaza, now exported to a second country.
This article is a comprehensive examination of the historical record, the current violence, and the geopolitical machinery that enables it. It is based on verifiable sources: official government statements, United Nations data, peer‑review
peer‑reviewed research, and on‑the‑ground reporting.
II. The Anatomy of the Current Assault
The offensive began on 2 March 2026, two days after a joint US‑Israeli attack on Iran. Hezbollah responded with rocket fire; Israel responded with a full‑scale ground and air campaign. By early June, the Lebanese health ministry had recorded more than 3,500 killed – including 711 women, children, and medical personnel – and over 10,000 wounded.
The disparity in casualties is stark:
- Israel: 24 soldiers and 4 civilians killed.
- Lebanon: Over 3,500 killed, plus 1.6 million displaced.
According to the UN, between 8 and 10 May 2026 alone, Israeli forces carried out 1,296 strikes in Lebanon, killing 87 people and wounding hundreds more – all during a supposed “ceasefire.” The United States‑brokered truce, ostensibly in place since April, has been violated by Israel on a near‑daily basis.
Evacuation orders have been issued for roughly 15% of Lebanese territory, including vast areas south of the Litani River. The military has drawn up maps for a permanent “buffer zone” that extends north of key cities such as Bint Jbeil, Aita al‑Shaab, and Khiam, reaching the Litani River and beyond.
The destruction is systematic. Human Rights Watch and the Lebanese government have documented “widespread demolitions” of entire villages, flattening of residential areas, and severe damage to schools, hospitals, mosques, and civilian infrastructure, including bridges and gas stations. One report described the operation as “the Gaza model” applied to Lebanon: mass displacement, wholesale destruction of housing stock, and the deliberate degradation of the country’s capacity to sustain life.
III. The Invention of Hezbollah: Israel’s Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy
The current violence is often presented as a war between Israel and an Iranian “proxy.” This framing ignores history. Hezbollah would not exist without Israel’s own actions.
On 6 June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, deploying up to 75,000 troops and advancing all the way to Beirut. The official objective was to remove the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had been launching cross‑border attacks. But the invasion quickly became an occupation, lasting 18 years in southern Lebanon.
The brutality of the invasion – the siege of Beirut, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila (carried out by Lebanese Christian militias but enabled by Israeli forces surrounding the camps), the widespread destruction – galvanised a resistance movement. In the aftermath of the invasion, Iran sent a contingent of Revolutionary Guards to the Bekaa Valley to help organise local Shi’ite militias. In 1985, these groups formally coalesced into Hezbollah – the “Party of God.”
Hezbollah was born to fight an Israeli occupation. It was not a “terrorist” group in any meaningful sense of the word; it was a national resistance movement recognised as such by a broad cross‑section of the Lebanese population. That Israel now cites Hezbollah’s existence as a justification for further violence is a grotesque circular argument: Israel invades, Hezbollah forms, Israel calls Hezbollah a “threat,” and invades again.
The pattern has repeated for over four decades. The 2006 war, which killed more than 1,100 Lebanese (mostly civilians) and devastated the country’s infrastructure, was the dress rehearsal. Today’s assault is the full performance.
IV. The “Greater Israel” Project – Not a Conspiracy, But a Policy
Statements by Israeli ministers make the objective abundantly clear: this is not about security; it is about expansion.
In March 2026, a map circulated by Israeli officials depicted a “Greater Israel” stretching from the Litani River in Lebanon to the Suez Canal in Egypt, swallowing the West Bank, Gaza, most of Lebanon, large parts of Syria, and all of Jordan.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that the goal of the current operation is to “demilitarize Lebanon” and to establish Israeli security control over the Litani area – a demand that goes far beyond anything required for border security. In a CNBC interview on 3 June 2026, he declared: “If we want to save Lebanon, we have to disarm Hezbollah and demilitarize Lebanon.”…………………………………………………………………………………………
V. Lebanon: A State Crippled by Design
To understand why Lebanon is so vulnerable, it is necessary to understand how it was deliberately crippled.
The French Mandate (1920–1943)
Modern Lebanon was carved out of the former Ottoman Empire by the French. The French mandatory authorities institutionalised a confessional political system, distributing power among 18 officially recognised religious sects on the basis of a 1932 census that gave Christians a slight majority. This system was further codified in the unwritten National Pact of 1943, which reserved the presidency for a Maronite Christian, the prime ministership for a Sunni Muslim, and the speakership of parliament for a Shi’ite Muslim.
The confessional system was not designed to foster national unity; it was designed to make Lebanon governable by divide and rule. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
VI. US Complicity – The Perpetual Enabler
Every major Israeli military operation – 1982, 2006, 2024, 2026 – has been carried out with direct US diplomatic, military, and financial backing………………………..
The current US‑brokered “ceasefire” is a farce. It has been violated by Israel almost daily. Rather than enforcing its terms, Washington has used it as a cover to continue arms shipments and diplomatic protection.
Hezbollah MP Hassan Hamade described the reality accurately: the conflict is part of a “Zionist‑US scheme” to redraw the map of the region and to incorporate Lebanon into a Greater Israel project.
VII. The Two Narratives – What They Say at Home vs. What They Tell the World
Israel consistently presents two incompatible narratives.
To its own public and to Western allies:
- The war is a defensive operation against a “terrorist” organisation (Hezbollah) that holds Lebanon hostage.
- The goal is to push Hezbollah north of the Litani River and to “demilitarize” Lebanon – a “peace” operation, not a conquest.
- The destruction of civilian infrastructure is regrettable but unavoidable, because Hezbollah “hides among civilians.
To the rest of the world (and through the actions of its ministers):
- The goal is territorial expansion, as made explicit by the “Greater Israel” maps and the statements of ministers like Ben‑Gvir and Strock.
- The objective is the permanent displacement of populations – both in Gaza and in Lebanon – to create “facts on the ground” that prevent any return.
………………………………………………………………… VIII. A Double Standard That Undermines International Law
No other state in 2026 would be permitted to behave as Israel does.
No other state’s ministers openly call for the establishment of settlements in a third country, to be populated by its own citizens.
No other state systematically occupies territory in defiance of decades of UN Security Council resolutions.
No other state issues mass evacuation orders covering a fifth of a neighbour’s population while claiming “self‑defence.”
No other state’s ministers openly call for the establishment of settlements in a third country, to be populated by its own citizens.
The international community’s response has been a masterclass in moral cowardice. The UN Security Council is paralysed by the US veto. The International Criminal Court’s investigation into Israeli officials – including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant – proceeds at a glacial pace, while arrest warrants for Russian officials were issued within months………………………………………………………………………………………….
IX. The Gazafication of Lebanon – A Deliberate Export
The term “Gazafication” – the deliberate application of the Gaza model (siege, mass displacement, and wholesale infrastructure destruction) to another territory – is not hyperbole. It is an accurate description of current Israeli strategy……………………………………………………………………..
X. Conclusion: No Sovereign State Should Dictate Terms to Another
The official Israeli narrative – that this is a war against “terrorism” – collapses under the weight of the evidence.
- Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982; Hezbollah was formed to resist the occupation.
- Israel has occupied Lebanese territory for over 40 years (the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shuba hills).
- Israel has interfered in Lebanese politics, assassinated its leaders, and undermined its sovereignty.
- Israeli ministers openly call for the expansion of “Greater Israel” into Lebanese territory.
- The United States has protected every single Israeli violation of international law.
No sovereign state should be forced to accept that its northern river marks the boundary of a foreign power‘s “security zone.” No people should be told that their homes must be destroyed to satisfy the expansionist ambitions of a neighbour.
The “Greater Israel” project is not a fringe fantasy; it is official policy. The “buffer zone” maps have been published. The ministers have spoken. The bombs have fallen. The only question is whether the international community will continue to look away.
History will not forgive those who remained silent while a second country was systematically dismantled.
References…………………………………………. https://theaimn.net/the-gazafication-of-lebanon-how-israel-exports-destruction-and-washington-protects-it/
Trump and Netanyahu: The odd couple
June 5, 2026 . by Jamal Kanj, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260605-trump-and-netanyahu-the-odd-couple/
“He’ll do whatever I want him to do,” Donald Trump declared recently about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The statement may be one of the most revealing statements Trump has ever made—not for what it says about Netanyahu, but for what it reveals about Trump’s psychology. It was intended as a display of strength. Instead, it exposed the opposite.
Trump has built a political persona around hyperbole, self-aggrandizement, and declarations of superiority to cover up for an oversized inferiority complex, he only knows its extent. When he insists that Netanyahu is acting at his command, he is projecting an authority he does not possess. The louder the boast, the more apparent the insecurity beneath it.
“If there is one lesson since the election of Trump, it is that Netanyahu, not Trump, has consistently dictated the pace of America’s wars in the Middle East. Trump may occupy the White House, issue ultimatums, and proclaim himself the master negotiator, but the facts on the ground tell a different story. Again and again, Netanyahu acts, and Trump adjusts.“
For years, Netanyahu worked relentlessly to pull the U. S. into another made-for-Israel war, this time against Iran. Successive administrations, despite their deference to Israel, stopped short of falling for the scheme. Trump, however, proved far more susceptible to the influence of his Israel-first donors and to Netanyahu’s chicanery. Yet he continues to portray himself as the one calling the shots.
This week, Trump proudly recounted a phone call in which he supposedly instructed Netanyahu to halt a planned Israeli attack on Beirut. It took little time after Trump’s statement for Israel’s defense minister to announce that military operations “will continue under all circumstances.” True to that pledge, Israel launched fresh attacks on hospitals and villages in southern Lebanon, killing and wounding civilians despite the so-called Trump’s war cessation.
“Two days later, on Wednesday June 3rd, Lebanese and Israeli delegations meeting in Washington announced another ceasefire. The third such extension since last April. One day after reaching the agreement, Israel resumed strikes on South Lebanon and said it would neither withdraw nor allow Lebanese civilians back to their homes in the south.“
It is almost certain, when the Lebanese resistance eventually counters the repeated Israeli violations, Trump—as he has done before—will condemn the retaliation rather than the provocation. To save face and avoid appearing weak before Netanyahu, he will once again blame the Lebanese side while ignoring the Israeli occupation and military actions that triggered the response.
The same pattern is evident in the negotiations with Iran. For months, Trump’s stated objective was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon—a framework which aligns with Tehran’s declared position. But nuclear-armed Israel, which never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran did, has different goals entirely. Netanyahu’s government will not be satisfied with anything short of the destruction of knowledge and the reduction of Iran to a failed state, precisely the fate that befell Iraq and Libya after both countries agreed to surrender their nuclear ambitions.
For Israel, a negotiated agreement between the U.S. and Iran, may be far less desirable than the continuation of regional turmoil. For its objective is the preservation of a strategic environment that sustains military and geopolitical dominance. Zionism has long viewed the emergence of democratic, technologically advanced, and self-reliant neighboring states as a threat. Fragmentation and disorder in surrounding countries serve that objective by limiting the rise of independent regional powers that could one day, potentially challenge Israeli primacy. In this case, Israel may be unique among nations: it derives strategic advantage not from a stable and prosperous region, but from entropy, and has built a regional doctrine whose success depends on propagating chaos.
The cost to ordinary Americans is tangible, and personal. They feel it every time they fuel their cars, pay inflated prices for goods, or watch Congress cut healthcare or financial student aid for Americans in order to finance another military aid package for Israel.
“Americans are not only financing Israel’s wars through tax dollars and weapons transfers. They are also paying what amounts to an Israeli surcharge tax at the pump.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been trying for weeks to assure consumers that gas will hover around $3 a gallon between June and September, as if it is acceptable for Americans to pay elevated prices until Netanyahu deigns to approve a ceasefire, especially when Trump boasts that America is a net oil exporter.
Gaza is another front in Israel’s endless wars. Trump personally signed the ceasefire agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh in October 2025, chirping “we have peace in the Middle East.” He had since watched in silence as Israel systematically dismantled every commitment it had made. During the “ceasefire,” it maintained a starvation diet blockade, murdered more than 800 and wounded thousands.
Under Phase One of the agreement, Israeli forces were required to withdraw to approximately 53 percent of Gaza. Phase two stipulated further withdrawal. Instead, Netanyahu ordered the seizure of an additional 32 percent, increasing total Israeli military occupation to 70 percent of the besieged territory, confining 2.3 million Palestinians to 30 percent, or roughly 50,000 human beings per each square mile of rubble.
On all fronts, Trump did not merely follow Netanyahu’s lead. He enabled it, funded it, armed it, and defended it diplomatically. Then, standing before television cameras, he attempted to compensate for this reality by insisting that he was the one in control.
To that end, and following recent Republican primary elections, lame-duck Republican members of Congress have already begun treating the Trump administration as a lame-duck presidency, long before the midterm elections. The recent congressional vote to limit presidential war powers is a telling sign that Trump’s political capital is eroding far sooner than expected.
Nevertheless, Americans may be witnessing a historic inflection point in the decades-long power of Israel-first Zionist influence over American political life. It is clear the political landscape is shifting, and the assumptions that long governed Washington’s relationship with Israel no longer appear as immutable as they once did. From growing dissent within the Democratic Party—and among Republican influencers—to deepening unease across the Washington Beltway, genuine cracks are appearing in a system that for generations treated Israel as a sacred cow. Eight decades of unquestioned manipulation and political leverage over American leaders is now facing resistance from constituencies that were once among its most reliable friends.
“Hence, no amount of presidential bravado or social-media posturing can obscure what has become undeniable: under Donald Trump, American foreign policy has served Netanyahu’s Israel-first agenda, not America’s. And when the history of this era is written, this odd couple may be remembered for ushering in the sunset of Israel-first Zionist dominance over the U.S. government.“
Why Europe Embraced Authoritarianism For Israel
Nate Bear Do Not Panic, June 3, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/03/why-europe-embraced-authoritarianism-for-israel/
This week the UK revoked the visas of leftist American influencer Hasan Piker and the podcaster Cenk Uygur who were both scheduled to speak at events in Oxford and London.
The UK government hasn’t commented on the reason, but it’s obvious it was for their views on Israel. Piker and Uygur are not radical in any true sense of the word. They are both fairly mainstream progressives close to the AOC-wing of the Democrats. Uygur used to be a Republican. They don’t call for revolution, they call for voting and standard social democratic policies. Nothing in their speech is conventionally radical, hateful or incites violence. But they are anti-genocide and anti-Israel, and this is radical enough to get you banned from entering the UK.
While it’s a frightening level of authoritarianism from a supposedly liberal democracy, the decision is not that surprising. From proscribing non-violent protest group Palestine Action as terrorists, to the mass arrest of peaceful anti-genocide protestors, to the secret terrorism charges being brought against pro-Palestine activists, the UK’s embrace of authoritarianism on behalf of Israel has been a consistent theme of Keir Starmer’s Labour government.
The incredible twist is that banning Piker and Uyghur has attracted more attention and controversy than letting them speak at the event ever would have, and is going to win Labour precisely zero votes from a right that hates them anyway.
On the face of it the decision appears, like the crackdown on pro-Palestine activism which has seen Labour bleed votes to the Greens, to be comically bad politics. But I have to consider, as was pointed out to me when I posted this perspective on twitter, that maybe politics isn’t the point here. I have to consider that rational political calculations, when it comes to Israel, aren’t part of the equation for most western governments. Maybe slavish servitude to Zionists and Zionism is the only position that matters. Maybe signalling that you are prepared to do anything for Israel regardless of the domestic political consequences is the only point. And frighteningly, we have to consider that perhaps the worse those consequences are, the better. It seems illogical on the one hand, but there’s an argument to be made that the more pain an elected official endures on behalf of Israel, the greater the benefit to them in the long run. If not politically, then certainly personally and financially.
I think there’s a huge chunk of truth to this analysis, and I understand why people look at these moments and find it increasingly hard to interpret events in any other way. But I find it hard to accept this as the full explanation. I think a fuller explanation is that vote-losing slavish Zionism is simply a core tenet of the anti-politics of centrism. An anti-politics that clings, against all evidence, to a mythical centre ground in which an anti-fascist is considered the same as a fascist. I’ve been up close to these people, and their capacity to make utterly false equivalences between ‘extremes’ because doing so enables them to feel more secure about their defunct political ideology can be hard to appreciate. They will point to the fact the UK has also banned right-wingers from entering the country, and token progressive red meat such as recognising Palestine to sanctioning a few Israeli settlers, as proof of their centrist sincerity. They really think a sweet-spot can be found opposing fascist speech and anti-fascist speech, and because of their brainwashed Zionism do not recognise that their support for an apartheid state committing genocide is materially fascist in nature.
But it’s not just the UK of course.
France and Germany have also cracked down hard on pro-Palestine voices and are working to make criticism of Israel a criminal offence in pursuit of a miserable waste-ground politics of ‘anti-extremism’ which rests on the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
Last month France denied an entry visa to the Palestinian human rights campaigner, Shawan Jabarin, a decision which came two weeks after the country arrested one of its own elected MEPs, Rima Hassan, for her pro-Palestine advocacy. France is also pushing forward with a law to make criticism of Israel punishable with up to five years in prison. Germany has embarked on a similar campaign of repression, cracking down on anti-Israel dissent by banning protest, arresting activists, outlawing pro-Palestine slogans as antisemitic, and denying entry to pro-Palestine figures. The EU has also frozen the bank accounts of critics of both Israel and NATO in its desperate attempts to wrest back control of a status quo narrative.
While these are the most high-profile efforts to codify anti-Zionism as hate speech, even in countries considered more sympathetic to Palestine, like Spain, police violence and repression against pro-Palestine activists has been a regular feature. Just this week a pregnant Palestinian woman was thrown violently to the ground and brutalised by Dutch police after her husband, a Palestinian from Gaza, was arrested on spurious disturbance charges.
All of this is happening, of course, while Gaza has been turned into a literal concentration camp, where 1.8 million people are living in tents, crammed into just 133 square kilometres of space while still being indiscriminately murdered from the sky, and with disease rampant.
But for most European governments, especially those dominated by legacy centre-left and centre-right parties, Israel’s colonial settler brutality is not an example of extremism. The sexual assault and rape of European citizens by Israeli soldiers is not extremism to be overly concerned about or condemn. No, the real extremists, in their minds, are those who oppose the creation of Palestinian concentration camps, who oppose Israeli rape dungeons, and who oppose the genocide of Palestinians.
There is no question that Zionism is a totalitarian ideology which has infected Europe deeply and at a moment of crisis has revealed the massive contradictions between the continent’s professed liberalism and its liberalism in practice. But it is not enough just to say that Zionism alone determines the political contours of growing European authoritarianism. The UK, for instance, has also been sentencing peaceful eco protestors to years in prison.
It is, I think, more accurate to say that the establishment status quo is by necessity Zionist, and a centrist anti-politics, which stands for nothing but the maintenance of the violent and oppressive status quo, is a perfect political vehicle for such an ideology.
Israel is a vital European project and a valuable geopolitical extension of the violent status quo, and embracing a natural inclination towards authoritarianism to protect it just makes perfect sense.
1 This Month
9 September – online public forum THREE MILE ISLAND:
7-8:30 PM ET,
Legacy, resistance to reopening – https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_-LGJU4j6TD2Hgf0rpgAr1A#/registration
The nuclear industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are threatening to restart Pennsylvania’s permanently closed and decommissioning Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear power station. Three expert speakers will present the resistance to this dangerous misadventure in a webinar hosted by the Clamshell Alliance, Beyond Nuclear and Massachusetts Peace Action.
No Nuclear in Cwm Llynfi! Stop the nuclear power station near Maesteg.
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- August 2026 (279)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 