nuclear-news

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

Brexit blamed for delays to nuclear power project

EDF’s former CEO had pledged christmas turkeys would be cooked by the plant by 20172

i By Ben Gartside, 24 Jan 24

The UK’s premier nuclear power project could be delayed by another four years as costs continue to balloon, with Brexit cited as a major factor………………According to EDF, the French firm in charge of developing the site, issues on the project had been caused by Brexit, the Pandemic and inflation…………………………………………………….

How has Brexit affected construction costs?

Developers have been hit hard by both the Covid pandemic and soaring energy prices. Tim Heatley, co-founder of Manchester-based Capital&Centricm, said Brexit had also been a “major factor”.

He previously told i: “On the surface there doesn’t seem as much jeopardy in construction as car manufacturing – you can’t outsource building new homes to Asia.

“But, I’d argue, we’re facing even bigger economic consequences if we don’t get things under control.”

“Both construction material and labour costs have rocketed here way more than EU countries, so Brexit must be a major factor.”

A report published in 2023 found that between 2015 and 2022 the cost of construction materials including cement, timber and steel increased by 60 per cent in the UK compared to 35 per cent in the EU……………………..  https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit-blamed-delays-nuclear-power-lower-energy-bills-2871548—

January 28, 2024 Posted by | politics international, UK | Leave a comment

The ICJ’s Provisional Orders: The Genocide Convention Applies to Gaza

January 27, 2024,  Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.com/the-icjs-provisional-orders-the-genocide-convention-applies-to-gaza/—

On January 26, legal experts, policy wonks, activists and the plain curious waited for the order of the International Court of Justice, sitting in The Hague. The topic was that gravest of crimes, considered most reprehensible in the canon of international law: genocide. The main participants: the accused party, the State of Israel, and the accuser, the Republic of South Africa.

Filed on December 29 last year, the South African case focused on its obligations arising under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and those of Israel. Pretoria, in its case, wished that the ICJ adjudicate and declare that Israel had breached its obligations under the Convention, and “cease forthwith any acts and measures in breach of those obligations, including such acts or measures which would be capable of killing or continuing to kill Palestinians, or causing or continuing to cause serious bodily or mental harm to Palestinians or deliberately inflicting on their group, or continuing to inflict on their group, conditions of life calculated to bring out its physical destruction in whole or in part, and fully respect its obligations under the Genocide Convention.”

The latter words derive from Article II of the Convention, which stipulate four genocidal actions: the killing of the group’s members; the causing of serious bodily or mental harm to those group’s members; the deliberate infliction of conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction, in whole or in part, of that group and imposing measures to prevent births within the group.

The sheer extent of devastation being wrought by Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza, justified by the Netanyahu government as necessary self-defence in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks of October 7, led the South African team to also seek immediate provisional measures under Article 41 of the Court’s statute. (The review on the case’s merits promises to take much longer.) They included the immediate suspension of the IDF’s military operations in and against Gaza, the taking of all reasonable measures to prevent genocide, and desisting from committing acts within Article II of the Convention. The expulsion and forced displacement of Palestinians should also stop, likewise the deprivation of adequate food, water and access to humanitarian assistance and medical supplies and “the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza.”


By 15-2, the court accepted that “the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment.” (Over 26,000 Palestinians have been killed, extensive tracts of land in Gaza pummelled into oblivion, and 85% of its 2.3 million residents expelled from their homes.) Measures were therefore required to prevent “real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision.”

The grant of provisional measures was, however, more conservative than that sought by Pretoria. Conspicuously missing was any explicit demand that Israel pause its military operations. That said, the judgment did little to afford Israel’s leaders and the IDF comfort from the obligatory reach of the Genocide Convention, an instrument they had argued was irrelevant and inapplicable to the conduct of “innovative” military operations.

To that end, Israel was obligated to take all possible measures to prevent the commission of acts under Article II of the Genocide Convention, including by its military; prevent and punish “the direct and public incitement to genocide” against the Palestinian populace in Gaza; permit basic services and humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip; ensure the preservation of, and prevent destruction of, evidence related to acts committed against Gaza’s Palestinians within Articles II and III of the Convention; and submit a report to the ICJ on how Israel was abiding by such provisional measures within one month.

As is very much the form, the justice from the country in the dock, in this case, Israel’s Aharon Barak, could see nothing inferentially genocidal in his country’s campaign. South Africa, he insisted, had intentionally ignored the role played by Hamas in its October 7 attacks, and “wrongly sought to impute the crime of Cain to Abel.”

-ADVERTISEMENT-

Inevitably, the singular experience of the Holocaust survivor, the sui generis Jewish view of trauma, used as solid armour against any possibility that Israel might ever commit genocide, became a point of contention. Genocide “is the gravest possible accusation and is deeply intertwined with my personal life experience.” Israel had a firm commitment to the rule of law, and to accept that it was committing genocide “is very hard for me personally”. Tellingly, he suggested that Israel’s campaign in Gaza be examined, not from the viewpoint of the Genocide Convention but international humanitarian law.

With classic casuistry, Barak did vote for the measure requiring Israel to do everything “within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza strip.” But having identified nothing in the way of such intent, the issue became a moot one. With some relief, Barak could state that certain measures sought by South Africa, including an immediate suspension of military operations, were rejected by the ICJ, which preferred “a significantly narrower scope”.

From the other side of the legal aisle, the South African foreign minister, Naledi Pandor, wished that the ICJ had grasped the nettle to order a halt in military operations. But, with some deft reasoning, she was satisfied that the only way Israel could implement the provisional measures would be through a ceasefire. Much the same view was expressed by the Associated Press: “The court’s half-dozen orders will be difficult to achieve without some sort of cease-fire or pause in the fighting.” That logic is clear enough, but the actions, given the various statements from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his officials alleging slander and a blood libel against their country, are unlikely to follow.

January 27, 2024 Posted by | legal, politics international | Leave a comment

Nuclear hype in meltdown

The latest nuclear power ‘renaissance’ is going in reverse.

Dr Jim Green , 23rd January 2024,  https://theecologist.org/2024/jan/23/nuclear-hype-meltdown

Nuclear power went backwards last year and shrunk to below 10 percent of global electricity generation despite all the hype about a new nuclear ‘renaissance’. Meanwhile, renewables enjoyed record growth for the 22nd consecutive year and now accounts for more than 30 percent.

The nuclear renaissance of the late-2000s was a bust due to the Fukushima disaster and catastrophic cost overruns with reactor projects. The latest renaissance is heading the same way – nowhere.

There were five reactor start-ups and five permanent closures in 2023 with a net loss of 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. There were just six reactor construction starts in 2023, five of them in China.

Hype

Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) anticipates the closure of 10 reactors (10 GW) per year from 2018 to 2050. 

Therefore the industry needs an annual average of 10 reactor construction starts, and 10 reactor startups (grid connections), just to maintain its current output. Over the past decade (2014-23), construction starts have averaged 6.1 per year and reactor startups have averaged 6.7.

The number of operable power reactors is 407 to 413 depending on the definition of operability, well down from the 2002 peak of 438.

Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen to 9.2 percent, its lowest share in four decades and little more than half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.

Over the two decades 2004-2023, there were 102 power reactor startups and 104 closures worldwide: 49 startups in China with no closures; and a net decline of 51 reactors in the rest of the world.

In China, there were five reactor construction starts in 2023 and just one reactor startup. Put another way, there was just one reactor construction start outside China in 2023. One. So much for the hype about a new nuclear ‘renaissance’.

Deployment

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are the subject of endless hype but there were no SMR construction starts or startups last year. 

Indeed, the biggest SMR news in 2023 was NuScale Power’s decision to abandon its flagship project in Idaho despite securing astronomical subsidies amounting to around US$4 billion from the US Government. The company is far more likely to go bankrupt than to break ground on its first reactor.

The pro-nuclear Breakthrough Institute noted in a November 2023 article that efforts to commercialise a new generation of ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors “are simply not on track” and it warned nuclear advocates not to “whistle past this graveyard”. 

The Institute said: “The NuScale announcement follows several other setbacks for advanced reactors. Last month, X-Energy, another promising SMR company, announced that it was canceling plans to go public. This week, it was forced to lay off about 100 staff.

“In early 2022, Oklo’s first license application was summarily rejected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the agency had even commenced a technical review of Oklo’s Aurora reactor.

“Meanwhile, forthcoming new cost estimates from TerraPower and XEnergy as part of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Deployment Program are likely to reveal substantially higher cost estimates for the deployment of those new reactor technologies as well.”

Installed

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has just released its ‘Renewables 2023’ report and it makes for a striking contrast with the nuclear industry’s malaise.

Nuclear power suffered a net loss of 1.7 GW capacity in 2023, whereas renewable capacity additions amounted to a record 507 GW, almost 50 percent higher than 2022. This is the 22nd year in a row that renewable capacity additions set a new record, the IEA states.

Nuclear power accounts for a declining share of global electricity generation (currently 9.2 percent) whereas renewables have grown to 30.2 percent. 

The IEA expects renewables to reach 42 percent by 2028 thanks to a projected 3,700 GW of new capacity over the next five years in the IEA’s ‘main case’.

The IEA states that the world is on course to add more renewable capacity in the next five years than has been installed since the first commercial renewable energy power plant was built more than 100 years ago.

Milestones

Solar and wind combined have already surpassed nuclear power generation and the IEA notes that several other milestones are in sight: 

‒ In 2025, renewables surpass coal-fired electricity generation to become the largest source of electricity generation

‒ In 2025, wind surpasses nuclear electricity generation

‒ In 2026, solar PV surpasses nuclear electricity generation

‒ In 2028, renewable energy sources account for over 42 percent of global electricity generation, with the share of wind and solar PV doubling to 25 percent.

An estimated 96 percent of newly installed, utility-scale solar PV and onshore wind capacity had lower generation costs than new coal and natural gas plants in 2023, the IEA states.

Tripling 

The IEA states in its ‘Renewables 2023’ report that: “Prior to the COP28 climate change conference in Dubai, the International Energy Agency (IEA) urged governments to support five pillars for action by 2030, among them the goal of tripling global renewable power capacity.

“Several of the IEA priorities were reflected in the Global Stocktake text agreed by the 198 governments at COP28, including the goals of tripling renewables and doubling the annual rate of energy efficiency improvements every year to 2030.

“Tripling global renewable capacity in the power sector from 2022 levels by 2030 would take it above 11 000 GW, in line with IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) Scenario.”

It adds: “Under existing policies and market conditions, global renewable capacity is forecast to reach 7300 GW by 2028. This growth trajectory would see global capacity increase to 2.5 times its current level by 2030, falling short of the tripling goal.”

In the IEA’s ‘accelerated case’, 4,500 GW of new renewable capacity will be added over the next five years (compared to 3,700 GW in the ‘main case’), nearing the tripling goal. The goal of tripling renewables by 2030 is a stretch but it is not impossible. Conversely, the ‘pledge’ signed by just 22 nations at COP28 to triple nuclear power by 2050 is absurd.

Military-strategic

China’s nuclear program added only 1.2 GW capacity in 2023 while wind and solar combined added 278 GW. Michael Barnard noted in CleanTechnica that allowing for capacity factors, the nuclear additions amount to about seven terrawatt-hours (TWh) of new low carbon generation per year, while wind and solar between them will contribute about 427 TWh annually, over 60 times more than nuclear.

Barnard commented: “One of the things that western nuclear proponents claim is that governments have over-regulated nuclear compared to wind and solar, and China’s regulatory regime for nuclear is clearly not the USA’s or the UK’s. 

“They claim that fears of radiation have created massive and unfair headwinds, and China has a very different balancing act on public health and public health perceptions than the west. They claim that environmentalists have stopped nuclear development in the west, and while there are vastly more protests in China than most westerners realise, governmental strategic programs are much less susceptible to public hostility.

“And finally, western nuclear proponents complain that NIMBYs block nuclear expansion, and public sentiment and NIMBYism is much less powerful in China with its Confucian, much more top down governance system.

“China’s central government has a 30-year track record of building massive infrastructure programs, so it’s not like it is missing any skills there. China has a nuclear weapons programme, so the alignment of commercial nuclear generation with military strategic aims is in hand too. China has a strong willingness to finance strategic infrastructure with long-running state debt, so there are no headwinds there either.

“Yet China can’t scale its nuclear program at all. It peaked in 2018 with seven reactors with a capacity of 8.2 GW. For the five years since then then it’s been averaging 2.3 GW of new nuclear capacity, and last year only added 1.2 GW…”

This Author

Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.

January 26, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics international | Leave a comment

France presses UK to help fill multibillion-pound hole in nuclear projects

Call comes day after EDF flagged more delays of construction of power plant at Hinkley Point

Sarah White in Paris and Jim Pickard and Rachel Millard in London, 25 Jan 24,  https://www.ft.com/content/3320c06e-7ce3-4a6b-ab22-4b8201a4cfca

The French government is pressing the UK to help plug a multibillion-pound hole in the budget of nuclear power projects being built in Britain by France’s electricity operator EDF. The call for a contribution from the UK is likely to cause tensions between Paris and London, a day after state-owned EDF admitted its construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset would suffer further costly delays, taking the bill to as much as £46bn. The UK has said it will not put cash into the project, which counts EDF as a majority shareholder, and is already backed by a government guarantee on its revenues once it is up and running.

But Paris is pushing for a “global solution” that would also encompass funding issues at another planned UK plant, Sizewell C, said a French economy ministry official and another person close to the talks. “It’s a Franco-British matter,” the French economy ministry official said. “The British government cannot at the same time say EDF has to figure it out alone on Hinkley Point and at the same time ask EDF to put money into Sizewell. We’re determined to find a global solution to see these projects through.”

Sizewell in Suffolk has a different financial set-up to Hinkley. The UK this week said it would inject another £800mn of state funds, bringing its total contribution to £2.5bn at the £20bn plant, where it is the top shareholder. Its partner EDF has no obligation to put more money in. French officials said discussions on various options had begun several months ago with British counterparts, although they acknowledged London had flagged budgetary constraints that would have to be taken into account. In the UK, a government official played down the talks, adding that on Hinkley Point: “Costs will be the responsibility of EDF.”

An EDF executive told the BBC on Wednesday that the French company picks up “the tab for the cost overruns”. EDF on Tuesday warned Hinkley Point would not now be completed until 2029 at the earliest, four years later than its original start date, while the two reactors could cost up to £46bn to build at today’s prices, compared with a £18bn budget in 2016.

Other factors might play into the discussions, however. Under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Britain took the political initiative to eject Chinese group CGN as an investor in Sizewell — leaving that project in need of fresh private capital, but also prompting CGN to pull back from Hinkley, where it is a 33.5 per cent shareholder. The Chinese group has fulfilled its contracted payments on Hinkley but has no obligation to fund over-costs and stopped doing so a few months ago.

“The French don’t have many levers here but the CGN issue is a very real one,” a third person close to the talks said. Finding private investors to make up the Hinkley shortfall may be tough, several people close to the group said, although formulas such as state guarantees could be discussed. EDF is only just coming out of a period of financial turmoil, and has big investments to make at home, too, in the coming decades. It was fully renationalised last year

“Our goal here . . . is for what’s happening at Hinkley Point, with the delays and the issue with the Chinese partner’s decision, not to impact EDF’s financial trajectory excessively,” the French economy ministry official said.  However, one UK nuclear industry figure said that EDF’s plight at Hinkley was the consequence of signing up to a deal with the UK government a decade ago, which at the time was criticised for being too generous to the French group. Under a so-called contract for difference signed with the state, construction costs are not covered but future electricity production is backed up by subsidies in case power prices fall below a certain threshold.

January 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Netanyahu Rebuffs Biden, Says Israel ‘Will Not Compromise on Full Israeli Control’ Over Gaza

The Israeli PM’s statement contradicts messaging from President Joe Biden and the White House

01/21/24 Zachary Rogers,  https://themessenger.com/news/netanyahu-rebuffs-biden-says-israel-will-not-compromise-full-israeli-control-gaza

sraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Saturday that he “will not compromise on full Israeli control” over Gaza and that “this is contrary to a Palestinian state.”

Netanyahu released the statement in a social media post. The statement comes just a day after President Joe Biden spoke with Netanyahu for the first time in nearly a month and directly contradicts messaging from the White House that creative solutions could bridge wide gaps between the leaders’ views on Palestinian statehood.

“The President discussed Israel’s responsibility even as it maintains military pressure on Hamas and its leaders to reduce civilian harm and protect the innocent,” the White House said of the conversation between national leaders.

“The President also discussed his vision for a more durable peace and security for Israel fully integrated within the region and a two-state solution with Israel’s security guaranteed,” it added.

The conflicting messaging is a sign of the pressures Netanyahu’s government faces at home. Thousands of Israelis have been protesting in Tel Aviv calling for new elections and for their nation to ensure the safe return of the remaining hostages of Hamas, but Netanyahu is also under heat to appease members of his right-wing ruling coalition by intensifying the conflict.

Netanyahu has said Israel must fight until it achieves “complete victory” and Hamas no longer poses a threat but has not outlined how this will be accomplished.

But a member of Israel’s War Cabinet, former Israeli army chief Gadi Eisenkot, has called a cease-fire the only way to secure the hostages’ release, a comment that implied criticism of Israel’s current strategy.

January 24, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear tensions on the Korean Peninsula set to worsen in 2024

 https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_tensions_on_the_korean_peninsula_set_to_worsen_in_2024—

2024 looks set to be an even more perilous year than 2023 on the Korean Peninsula as nuclear threat and counter threat have escalated even further since the beginning of January. On New Year’s Day, South Korea’s defence ministry repeated previous threats to destroy the North Korean “regime” if it uses nuclear weapons. This was a response to North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un’s speech the day before in which he told his military to prepare for possible war.

Since then, Kim has said he has given up on the idea of peaceful reunification with South Korea designating it a hostile state and again warned of possible war. In the past week alone, Kim has called for a change in the constitution to designate Seoul as Pyongyang’s “primary foe” and a confidence building military agreement with the South agreed in 2018 has started to fall apart as the South Korean armed forces resumed frontline aerial surveillance in the wake of North Korean artillery exercises near a South Korean island on the maritime border between the two states.

The expected change in the constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea’s official name) follows an amendment last year that enshrined nuclear weapons in it.

This week has also seen the North testing what it says is a solid-fueled hypersonic missile and an underwater nuclear drone in response to what some observers say is the largest ever joint naval exercise between South Korea, the United States and Japan.

Analysts believe Pyongyang is developing both so-called strategic and tactical nuclear weapons in order to deter the US which is committed to use nuclear weapons in South Korea’s defence.

North Korea has been testing more and more advanced ballistic missiles and warheads, some with the range to reach the US and has also said it is developing ship-launched cruise missiles, while the Americans have been mounting repeated shows of force including military exercises using nuclear-capable aircraft and the visit of a nuclear-armed submarine to South Korea.

Last year, the US and South Korea agreed to increase their cooperation on the planning for the use of nuclear weapons following earlier statements by South Korean President, Yoon Suk Yeol, that suggested Seoul might develop its own nuclear weapons. Yoon has since cooled talk of acquiring nuclear weapons,but the debate continues in policy circles.

Another escalatory move has been increasing military cooperation between the US, South Korea and Japan, which also endorses the use of American nuclear weapons in its defence.

In the light of this, some analysts see the Korean Peninsula as the most dangerous nuclear flashpoint in a world that currently has no shortage of conflict involving nuclear-armed states in Ukraine and Gaza.

Alicia Sanders-Zakre, ICAN’s Policy and Research Coordinator, called for restraint on all sides: “Inflammatory nuclear rhetoric and threats, accompanied by military exercises and weapons tests,  ramp up tensions and bring us closer to the brink of catastrophe. All nuclear-armed states, including North Korea and the US, as well as those allied on nuclear policies, such as  Japan and South Korea, need to take urgent steps to de-escalate tensions and to break free from the dangerous doctrine of nuclear deterrence. Joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a crucial step to delegitimise nuclear deterrence and eliminate nuclear weapons.”

North Korea uses the same justification for its actions as the US, and the other declared nuclear-armed states. Just like Washington, Pyongyang says it is committed to disarmament, but argues the security threats it faces mean it needs nuclear weapons to deter its enemies.

The doctrine of deterrence is based on the threat to use nuclear weapons with all the catastrophic consequences that would entail for the whole world. As the states parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) declared at their recent meeting in New York: “the renewed advocacy, insistence on and attempts to justify nuclear deterrence as a legitimate security doctrine gives false credence to the value of nuclear weapons for national

security and dangerously increases the risk of horizontal and vertical nuclear proliferation.”

The TPNW (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons) is growing in strength and has just welcomed its 70th state party while a further 27 countries are signatories. These states recognise that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is a global imperative and they are showing responsible leadership by championing the treaty as the best way to end the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons.

January 23, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

US urges discussions with China on practical nuclear risk reduction steps

Reuters, January 19, 2024

WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) – The United States does not expect formal nuclear arms-control negotiations with China anytime soon, but does want to see a start of discussions on practical risk-reduction measures, a senior White House official said on Thursday.

Pranay Vaddi, the senior White House official for arms control and non proliferation, told a Washington think tank it had been important to have initial arms-control talks in November with China, but stressed the need for them to involve key Chinese decision makers or influencers on the country’s nuclear posture………………………..

The U.S. and China held their first talks on nuclear arms control in nearly five years on Nov. 6, amid growing U.S. concerns about China’s nuclear build up, but the meeting produced no specific results…………………………………………..

The U.S. and China held two days of military talks in Washington last week, their latest engagement since agreeing to resume military-to-military ties.

In its annual report on the Chinese military in October, the Pentagon said China has more than 500 operational nuclear warheads and will probably have over 1,000 warheads by 2030.

The U.S. has a stockpile of about 3,700 nuclear warheads, of which roughly 1,419 strategic nuclear warheads were deployed.

Reporting by David Brunnstrom; Editing by Sandra Maler,  https://www.reuters.com/world/us-urges-discussions-with-china-practical-nuclear-risk-reduction-steps-2024-01-18/

January 21, 2024 Posted by | China, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Zelensky Courts JPMorgan, Bank of America & Bridgewater CEOs At Davos, Urges More Money From West

Zero Hedge, BY TYLER DURDEN, WEDNESDAY, JAN 17, 2024

As expected, anything related to Ukraine presented at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos has been focused on more weaponry and seeking more vows of integration among Western allies. 

“Ukrainians need predictable financing throughout 2024 and beyond,” European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen told World Economic Forum participants. “They need a sufficient and sustained supply of weapons to defend Ukraine and regain its rightful territory.”

As for President Zelensky, in addressing world leaders at the forum he emphasized that the West needs to help Ukraine achieve air superiority if his forces are to have a chance to emerge victorious against Russia……………………………………

At the summit, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken promised that Washington will keep up its support for Ukraine, however while keeping things vague – following Biden’s proposed foreign defense budget request being reject by GOP members in Congress; and NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg suggested Ukraine is moving closer to entry into the alliance.

Stoltenberg acknowledged a “serious battlefield situation” but also said there is “cause for optimism” after nearly two years of fighting, and NATO’s constant support.

Below is a portion of the NATO press readout based on his panel speech: 

…………  Ukrainians are now firmly oriented to the West, aspiring for membership in NATO and the European Union. The Secretary General also stressed that “support for Ukraine is not charity; it’s an investment in our own security”.………

But realistically, the prospect of Ukraine gaining full NATO membership would be a process of years, and would likely trigger WW3 with Russia–so to some degree this is all empty posturing.

But here’s what’s happening at Davos which is arguably more important to Kiev at the moment:

Ukraine is seeking new ways to finance its rebuilding plans as vital aid from the West slows down. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reportedly has plans to meet JP Morgan’s CEO at the World Economic Forum.

Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy is reportedly planning to meet JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon at the World Economic Forum in Davos to seek new ways of financing its rebuilding plans. 

JP Morgan, the biggest US bank with almost half a trillion dollars of market capitalization, has already been advising Ukraine on financing reconstruction.

It’s as yet unclear if any firm promises were made or agreements struck at the Davos meeting which also included Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan, as well as Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio. 

According to further details of who was in attendance via Fox Business: “Other meeting attendees included David Rubinstein of the private equity firm Carlyle Group; billionaire entrepreneur Michael Dell, the founder of Dell Technologies; Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund; Steve Schwarzman, the CEO of Blackstone, the world’s largest private equity fund; and Philipp Hildebrand, representing BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager.”

Additionally, “Dimon was accompanied by Mary Erdoes, who runs JPMorgan’s asset-management unit. The White House was represented by Penny Pritzker, of the super-wealthy Pritzker family and a major Democratic Party donor.” Pritzker has been appointed Biden administration’s special representative for Ukraine’s economic recovery.  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zelensky-courts-jpmorgan-bank-america-bridgewater-ceos-davos-urges-more-west

January 20, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

When Yemen Does It It’s Terrorism, When The US Does It It’s “The Rules-Based Order”

That’s right kids: when Yemen sets up a blockade to try and stop an active genocide, that’s terrorism, but when the US empire imposes a blockade to secure its geostrategic interests in the middle east, why that’s just the rules-based international order in action.

What this shows us is that the “rules-based international order” the US and its allies claim to uphold is not based on rules at all; it’s based on power, which is the ability to control and impose your will on other people. The “rules” apply only to the enemies of the empire because they are not rules at all: they are narratives used to justify efforts to bend the global population to its will.

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, JAN 18, 2024

The Biden administration has officially re-designated Ansarallah — the dominant force in Yemen also known as the Houthis — as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity. 

The White House claims the designation is an appropriate response to the group’s attacks on US military vessels and commercial ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, saying those attacks “fit the textbook definition of terrorism.” Ansarallah claims its actions “adhere to the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” since it is only enforcing a blockade geared toward ceasing the ongoing Israeli destruction of Gaza.

One of the most heinous acts committed by the Trump administration was its designation of Ansarallah as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT), both of which imposed sanctions that critics warned would plunge Yemen’s aid-dependent population into even greater levels of starvation than they were already experiencing by restricting the aid that would be allowed in. One of the Biden administration’s only decent foreign policy decisions has been the reversal of that sadistic move, and now that reversal is being partially rolled back, though thankfully only with the SDGT listing and not the more deadly and consequential FTO designation.

In a new article for Antiwar about this latest development, Dave Decamp explains that as much as the Biden White House goes to great lengths insisting that it’s going to issue exemptions to ensure that its sanctions don’t harm the already struggling Yemeni people, “history has shown that sanctions scare away international companies and banks from doing business with the targeted nations or entities and cause shortages of medicine, food, and other basic goods.” DeCamp also notes that US and British airstrikes on Yemen have already forced some aid groups to suspend services to the country.

So the US empire is going to be imposing sanctions on a nation that’s still trying to recover from the devastation caused by the US-backed Saudi blockade that contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths between 2015 and 2022. All in response to the de facto government of that very same country imposing its own blockade with the goal of preventing a genocide.

That’s right kids: when Yemen sets up a blockade to try and stop an active genocide, that’s terrorism, but when the US empire imposes a blockade to secure its geostrategic interests in the middle east, why that’s just the rules-based international order in action…………………………………..

What this shows us is that the “rules-based international order” the US and its allies claim to uphold is not based on rules at all; it’s based on power, which is the ability to control and impose your will on other people. The “rules” apply only to the enemies of the empire because they are not rules at all: they are narratives used to justify efforts to bend the global population to its will………  https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/when-yemen-does-it-its-terrorism?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=140790707&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email

January 19, 2024 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Incredible analysis of US warmongers plans for war with China !  Read this and weep!

Note, he (Andrew Krepinevich) disingenuously argues the need for a plan for war with China–as if he has just discovered this need, rather than acknowledge he has been planning, preparing this war for 15 years now 

This, in a nutshell, is Elbridge Colby’s “Strategy of Denial” regarding using Taiwan for war–provoke China into firing the first shot, and then bind allies (“binding strategy”) in a coalition to attack and sanction China.

Subject:  Foreign Affairs: Prepare for long, painful war with China

Alice Slater www.worldbeyondwar.org 16 Jan 24

If central casting ever needed a devil-as-lawyer-character, Andrew Krepinevich is that man.  He looks like he stepped right out from a morality play (see, for example, his dialogue with John Pilger in  “The coming war with China”).

Appropriately, Andrew Krepinevich is the architect of war with China.  Around 2009, during the Obama administration, he started building out the explicit plans for war (euphemistically called “operational concepts”) called AirSea Battle at CSBA.  This plan, which has already affected every branch and dimension of military operations, strategy, and procurement, was based on the US war doctrine against the USSR called AirLand Battle, itself derived from the Yom Kippur War . AirLand Battle doctrine was used in Kosovo, Iraq I & II, and every US war since its inception.  It was described colloquially as “shock an

continued at  https://nuclear-news.net/2024/01/18/continuation-incredible-analysis-of-us-warmongers-plans-for-war-with-china-read-this-and-weep/

January 18, 2024 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

São Tomé and Príncipe 70th State to ratify Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

 https://www.icanw.org/sao_tome_and_principe_ratifies_treaty_on_the_prohibition_of_nuclear_weapons?utm_campaign=sao_tome&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ican 15 Jan 24

São Tomé and Príncipe has become the first new state party to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2024. At UN Headquarters in New York on 15 January, the Minister of Justice of São Tomé and Príncipe, H.E. IIza Amado Vaz, deposited the instrument of ratification for this landmark treaty on behalf of the government, bringing the total number of states parties to 70.

The National Assembly of São Tomé and Príncipe unanimously approved ratification of the TPNW on 16 November 2023.

São Tomé and Príncipe’s ratification comes shortly after states parties to the TPNW renewed a “call for all States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify or accede to the Treaty without delay”, and reiterated their commitment to pursue universalisation of the Treaty as a priority, in a declaration issued at the second meeting of states parties of the treaty in New York in December 2023.

ICAN’s Executive Director, Melissa Parke, welcomed the move: “It’s great news that Sao Tome and Principe has ratified the Treaty which means it now has 70 states parties. As more and more countries join the TPNW they strengthen the new international norm it has created that makes nuclear weapons unacceptable. These are the responsible states in the international community, and we look forward to more ratifications and signatures in the year ahead.”

A total of 93 countries have signed the TPNW and 70 have ratified or acceded to it. In Africa, there are now 16 states parties and a further 17 signatories. The TPNW complements and reinforces the 1996 Treaty of Pelindaba, which established Africa as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. The states parties to the Treaty of Pelindaba have called upon all African Union member states “to speedily sign and ratify the [TPNW]”.

In January 2023, São Tomé and Príncipe was among the 37 African states that met in Pretoria, South Africa, for the African Regional Seminar on the Universalisation of the TPNW to promote adherence to the treaty by every African state as soon as possible.

Support for the TPNW

São Tomé and Príncipe was among the first countries to sign the TPNW at a high-level ceremony in New York when it opened for signature on 20 September 2017. Since then, it has promoted universal adherence to the TPNW, including by consistently voting in favour of an annual UN General Assembly resolution since 2018 that calls upon all states to sign and ratify the treaty “at the earliest possible date”.

São Tomé and Príncipe participated in the negotiation of the TPNW at the United Nations in New York in 2017 and was among 122 states that voted in favour of its adoption.

January 17, 2024 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Former Polish PM admits Ukraine’s strategy failed

 https://www.rt.com/russia/590598-poland-ukraine-fail/ 15 Jan 23

The conflict is “going in the wrong direction,” Mateusz Morawiecki told the UK’s Express newspaper

Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive was “not successful” and Russia has the upper hand strategically, former Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki admitted, in an interview with Britain’s Express newspaper published on Friday.

The conflict in Ukraine is “not going in the right direction,” Morawiecki told the outlet, outlining his “huge concern” with a situation in which Moscow had apparently outflanked its opponents.

Russia has “huge resources,” he explained, noting the country’s military production capabilities significantly outweighed the EU’s own. “They have this strategic depth, and they have patience in international politics,” he added, also dismissing the country’s elections scheduled for March as mere “theater” unlikely to change the balance of power in Moscow.

Morawiecki also argued, however, that Ukraine’s failure had a silver lining for NATO in that it had brought Finland and Sweden into the alliance and was “awakening” countries like Denmark and Romania. The Scandinavian countries, he said, were among the most vocal in calling attention to the threat allegedly posed by Russia.

“Not only the security of the eastern flank of NATO, but also for the security of the United Kingdom, security of Germany, Denmark and the Scandinavians, they do understand it very, very well,” he said.

The former premier (2017-2023) was speaking to the British press for the first time since his successor, current PM Donald Tusk, had two lawmakers from Morawiecki’s Law and Justice Party (PiS) arrested earlier in the week. The ex-leader described the MPs as “political prisoners” and accused Tusk’s admittedly pro-EU government of “representing Brussels and Berlin, not Warsaw.”

While international attention has largely shifted away from the Ukraine conflict to Israel’s war with Gaza as the latter threatens to erupt into a broader conflict, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak traveled to Kiev on Friday to bestow his government’s largest gift yet on the government of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, announcing £2.5 billion ($3.2 billion) to be paid out over the coming financial year and starting in April, and a bilateral agreement that includes security guarantees for Ukraine “in the event that it is ever attacked by Russia again.”

Zelensky has been vocal about his concern over flagging international support for Kiev’s fight, after unprecedented amounts of foreign aid from the UK, US, and EU failed to appreciably move the needle against Russia. Legislative gridlock has stalled planned aid packages in the US even as the Biden administration insists on an urgency to it, with his political opposition countering that accountability for funds spent must be a requirement for any future aid.

January 17, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Talks on Zelensky’s ‘peace formula’ are pointless – Kremlin

 https://www.rt.com/russia/590675-zelensky-peace-formula-talks-useless/ 15 Jan 24

Russia’s absence means the negotiations in Davos could not have produced any concrete results, Dmitry Peskov has said

Top officials from dozens of countries who met in Switzerland to discuss Ukraine’s ‘peace formula’ were engaged in a completely useless endeavor without Russian participation, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday.

On Sunday, national security advisers from 81 nations and international organizations gathered in Davos ahead of the World Economic Forum to talk about a 10-point initiative floated by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky in October 2022 to end hostilities with Russia.

The plan calls for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory Kiev claims as its own and insists on the creation of a tribunal to prosecute Moscow for alleged war crimes. Russia has dismissed the proposal as divorced from reality.

Commenting on the Davos meeting, Peskov called it “talking for the sake of talking,” reiterating that the same applied to previous rounds of talks in such a format. “This process is not aimed and cannot be aimed at achieving a concrete result for an obvious and simple reason – we are not there.”

Russia was also absent from previous discussions last year in Denmark, Saudi Arabia, and Malta. At the same time, Moscow has never categorically refused peace talks with Kiev, despite Zelensky signing a decree banning all negotiations with the current Russian leadership after four regions overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in the autumn of 2022.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reported on Sunday that the Davos talks had ended “with no clear path forward” despite Ukraine’s hopes that it would be able to secure backing for its plan from members of the Global South, many of whom have proclaimed neutrality in the conflict. That was denied by Ukrainian officials, however, who nevertheless acknowledged differences of opinion among the meeting’s participants.

On Sunday, Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis echoed Peskov’s remarks, arguing that any Ukraine peace talks should involve Russia in one way or another.

January 17, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Do or die’: MPs launch urgent bid to spare Assange from US extradition.

By Matthew Knott, January 15, 2024 —  https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/do-or-die-mps-launch-urgent-bid-to-spare-assange-from-us-extradition-20240114-p5ex2h.html

Australian politicians across the political divide have launched a last-ditch bid to prevent Julian Assange from being extradited to the United States to face espionage charges as the WikiLeaks founder faces a crucial final legal challenge in Britain next month.

The four co-convenors of the cross-party Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group wrote to British Home Secretary James Cleverly arguing for an urgent review of Assange’s case. This was in light of a judgment in the Supreme Court of the UK in November, striking down Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s controversial plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

On February 20 and 21, two British High Court judges will review an earlier ruling that refused Assange permission to appeal his extradition order. This is expected to be his final bid to prevent being sent to the US.

Assange faces decades in prison over his role in the publication of US classified files and diplomatic cables relating to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“If he loses in the UK courts next month he could be extradited to the USA within 24 hours,” Assange’s brother Gabriel Shipton said of the High Court review.

“This is literally a do-or-die scenario for Julian.”

Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson has argued he was at high risk of suicide if the High Court rejects his final appeal, saying Assange was so mentally unwell that he would be unlikely to survive extradition.

Liberal MP Bridget Archer, Labor MP Josh Wilson, independent MP Andrew Wilkie and Greens Senator David Shoebridge wrote in their letter to Cleverly: “We are deeply concerned that the legal proceedings involving Mr Assange will now continue, first in the United Kingdom and then in the United States, if extradition is ordered and consented to by you.

“This would add yet more years to Mr Assange’s detention and further imperil his health.

“To this end, we are requesting that you undertake an urgent, thorough and independent assessment of the risks to Mr Assange’s health and welfare in the event he is extradited to the United States.”

As Home Secretary, Cleverly is one of the government’s most powerful ministers, presiding over law enforcement, national security and immigration and with oversight of the domestic counter-intelligence agency MI5.

The MPs argued in their letter that the judges’ reasoning in the Rwanda Supreme Court case – which found it was illegal for Britain to send asylum seekers to Rwanda – “clearly has direct relevance to the extradition proceedings involving Julian Assange”.

“The decision found that courts in the United Kingdom cannot just rely on third-party assurances by foreign governments but rather are required to make independent assessments of the risk of persecution to individuals before any order is made removing them from the UK,” they wrote.

The MPs said that the justices in Assange’s key extradition hearing had “expressly relied on the ‘assurances’ of the United States as to Mr Assange’s safety and welfare should he be extradited to the United States for imprisonment and trial.

“These assurances were not tested, nor was there any evidence of independent assessment as to the basis on which they could be given and relied upon.”

The MPs wrote that they were deeply worried about Assange being sent to a high-security American prison because he “has significant health issues, exacerbated to a dangerous degree by his prolonged incarceration, that are of very real concern to us as his elected representatives”.

In 2021, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser blocked the attempt to extradite Assange on the basis that the harsh conditions of US solitary confinement would create a substantial suicide risk. Her ruling was overturned on appeal.

January 16, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

The “Rules-Based International Order”

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, JAN 16, 2024  https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-rules-based-international-order?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=140721447&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email

The “rules-based international order” has allowed the incineration of Gaza, and the bombing of Yemeni forces who are trying to stop it.

The “rules-based international order” allowed hundreds of thousands of people to be killed by western-backed Saudi atrocities in Yemen.

The “rules-based international order” allowed NATO powers to knowingly provoke a world-threatening proxy war in Ukraine.

The “rules-based international order” allowed western powers and their regional partners to plunge Syria into a horrific civil war by flooding the nation with heavily armed fascistic extremist factions.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed the US to invade and occupy a vast stretch of Syrian territory in order to control the nation’s natural resources and prevent reconstruction.

The “rules-based international order” allowed Libya to be turned into a chaotic hellscape after western-backed forces killed Gaddafi following a long-desired western regime change operation disguised as “humanitarian intervention”.


The “rules-based international order” allowed the invasion of Iraq to destabilize an entire region resulting in millions of deaths following a campaign of deliberate lies and propaganda.

The “rules-based international order” allowed the invasion of Afghanistan and a decades-long occupation sustained by lies and corruption.

The “rules-based international order” allowed the imprisonment of Julian Assange for journalistic activities exposing US war crimes.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed the planet to be circled by hundreds of US military bases, including in places where the people who live there vehemently oppose their presence like Okinawa, Iraq and Syria.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed the US and its allies to kill huge numbers of civilians with siege warfare tactics in nations like Yemen, Iraq and Venezuela.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed the US to interfere in scores of elections around the world at will and forcibly topple inconvenient governments whenever it wants to.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed China to be surrounded by a rapidly increasing amount of US military bases and war machinery in preparation for a future conflict of unimaginable horror.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed the US to plunge the world into a new cold war with rapidly-escalating brinkmanship against nuclear-armed Russia and China.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed our civilization to be controlled by the most powerful propaganda system ever devised, creating a mind-controlled dystopia of brainwashed gear-turners who are deceived into believing they are free.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed unfathomable amounts of government malfeasance to be hidden behind an increasingly opaque wall of government secrecy.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed the interests of ordinary human beings to be subordinated and subjected to the interests of billionaire corporations and sociopathic government agencies.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed the destruction of our ecosystem for the enrichment of powerful plutocrats.

The “rules-based international order” has allowed our planet to be dominated by an empire of extreme murderousness and depravity at the cost of nonstop bloodshed and ever-increasing tyranny.

If the “rules-based international order” has allowed all these things to happen, what kind of “rules” are we talking about exactly? And what kind of “order” do they sustain? 

If this is what the “rules-based international order” looks like, would we not, perhaps, be better off without it?

January 16, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »