US to Own Nuclear Reactors Stemming From Japan’s $550 Billion Pledge.
The US government plans to buy and own as many as 10 new, large nuclear reactors that could be paid for using Japan’s $550 billion funding
pledge, part of a push to meet surging demand for electricity. The new
details of the unusual arrangement were outlined Wednesday by Carl Coe, the Energy Department’s chief of staff, about the non-binding commitment made by Japan in October to fund $550 billion in US projects, including as much as $80 billion for the construction of new reactors made by Westinghouse Electric Co.
Bloomberg 19th Nov 2025,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-19/us-to-own-reactors-stemming-from-japan-s-550-billion-pledge
UN Security Council Resolution On Gaza Is An ‘Atrocity’
On Monday, November 17, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution endorsing Donald Trump’s so-called ‘peace plan’ for Gaza.
The resolution approves the creation of a Trump-led “peace board” to supervise the Gaza Strip, calls for the ‘demilitarization’ of Gaza without imposing any restrictions on the arming of Israel, and authorizes an “international stabilization force” to police and disarm Palestinian resistance groups.
Worst of all, the resolution does not provide for the creation of a Palestinian state. It merely expresses a hallucinatory aspiration that Palestinians might one day have a fireside chat with the genocidal Israeli entity about the two-state delusion.
The UNSC members that voted in favour of this travesty were: the U.S., U.K., France, Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, South Korea, Pakistan, Panama, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Somalia.
To their discredit, Russia and China refrained from exercising their veto and abstained.
In this episode of R2R, I analyze the UNSC resolution with fellow attorney, Craig Mokhiber. Craig is an American former UN human rights official who resigned from the UN in late 2023 over its failure to stop what he described (with complete justification) as a “textbook genocide” in Gaza.
According to Craig, the Security Council’s resolution is an “atrocity”.
Big Loss for US Empire: Ecuador Votes To Reject Foreign Military Bases
Geopolitical Economy, By Ben Norton, November 19, 2025
Ecuador’s Trump-backed right-wing oligarch President Daniel Noboa tried to rewrite the constitution to allow US military bases in the country’s territory. 61% of Ecuadorians voted against it.
The Donald Trump administration is trying to expand the presence of the US military across Latin America, in an attempt to forcibly impose Washington’s hegemony in the region.
The people of Ecuador just delivered a major blow to Trump’s aggressive Latin America strategy.
More than three-fifths of Ecuadorians voted to reject a change to their progressive constitution, which would have allowed the Pentagon to establish US military bases in their territory……………………………. https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/11/18/noboa-ecuador-vote-foreign-military-bases/
Greenpeace claims French resumption of nuclear trade with Russia
Environmental campaign group Greenpeace hit out at the resumption of nuclear trade between France and Russia during its war with Ukraine after activists observed the loading of a tanker in northern France with reprocessed uranium bound for Russia.
RFI 18/11/2025
Greenpeace published video that it said its activists shot on Saturday of around 10 containers with radioactive labels going onto a cargo ship in Dunkirk.
The Panamanian-registered ship, the Mikhail Dudin, is regularly used to carry enriched or natural uranium from France to St Petersburg, according to Greenpeace.
Saturday’s consignment was the first of reprocessed uranium to be observed for three years, it added.
“The resumption of this trade once again shows France’s dependence on Russia,” Pauline Boyer, the head of Greenpeace France’s nuclear campaign, told RFI.
The images released by Greenpeace came two days ahead of a meeting in Paris between the French president, Emmanuel Macron and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to discuss Ukraine’s air defence systems.
“Despite the French government’s commitments to support Ukraine — which is, fortunately, the case — on the other hand, there is ongoing collaboration with Rosatom, the Russian nuclear company, which is indirectly contributing to the financing of the war.”
…………………………..”It is outrageous that French nuclear companies — EDF, Orano, Framatome — continue to collaborate with Rosatom.”
French state-controlled energy giant Electricité de France (EDF) signed a 600-million-euro deal in 2018 with a Rosatom subsidiary, Tenex, for the recycling of reprocessed uranium.
These operations have not been affected by international sanctions over the Ukraine war.
Rosatom has the only facility in the world – at Seversk in Siberia – capable of carrying out key parts of the conversion of reprocessed uranium to enriched reprocessed uranium……………..
Only about 10 percent of the reenriched uranium sent back to France by Russia is used at its Cruas nuclear power plant, in southern France, the only one in the country that can use enriched reprocessed uranium, according to Greenpeace.
France’s energy ministry and EDF have yet to respond publicly to questions on the consignment or trade.
Top politicians in France ordered EDF chiefs to halt uranium trade with Rosatom in 2022 when Greenpeace France revealed the contracts in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine……
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20251118-greenpeace-claims-french-resumption-of-nuclear-trade-with-russia
The Guardian view on a new nuclear age: great powers should not restock a house of dynamite
Donald Trump’s remarks on resuming nuclear testing have highlighted the risks. Proliferation must not be considered inevitable.
When Eisaku Satō, a former prime minister of Japan, received the Nobel peace prize in 1974 after committing his country to not making nuclear bombs, owning them or allowing them on its territory, he assured the audience: “I have no doubt that this policy will be pursued by all future governments.”
Yet last week, Sanae Takaichi, Japan’s new prime minister, declined to say whether the country that understands the cost of nuclear war better than any other would stand by its commitment – reflecting the bleak broader outlook. Eighty years after the US dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima, incinerating tens of thousands of people, and almost 40 after Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan seriously discussed nuclear abolition in Reykjavik, the spectre looms once more. Last month, Donald Trump ordered the US military to match other countries’ nuclear weapons testing.
Vipin Narang and Pranay Vaddi, who worked on nuclear strategy in the Biden administration, warn that arms control has essentially broken down and that the growing risks amount to a “Category 5 hurricane”. Ankit Panda, another noted expert in the field, has published The New Nuclear Age: At the Precipice of Armageddon. Tellingly, the subject has returned to pop culture. Kathryn Bigelow’s new movie A House of Dynamite shows a nuclear attack targeting Chicago.
The last nuclear arms control treaty between Russia and the US, New Start, is due to expire in February. For decades the main fear was of terrorists or rogue states such as North Korea; now there is a new great power rivalry. In place of the old standoff between two hegemons comes a more complicated contest, with China massively expanding its capabilities, and broader proliferation. For unsettled US allies such as South Korea and Poland, acquiring their own arsenals is no longer out of the question. The nuclear taboo is wearing thin. The Biden administration believed Vladimir Putin could well follow through on his nuclear threats in Ukraine.
Donald Trump pulled out of the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty, which Russia had been violating, in his first term. In withdrawing from the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran in 2018, and bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities this year, though it did not have an active weapons programme, he told potential adversaries that the best strategy is North Korea’s: arm yourself as soon as you can. China was content with a relatively modest arsenal for decades after it acquired the bomb; its breakneck expansion reflects its growing global might, but its efforts ramped up after Mr Trump was first elected.
Mr Trump’s confusing comments on nuclear tests (prompting counter-threats from Mr Putin) appear to reflect his misunderstanding of Russian systems tests which, though alarming, do not breach the de facto moratorium. A resumption – the US last detonated a warhead in 1992 – would probably be more useful to adversaries than to the US itself. It would also strengthen suspicions that non-proliferation is window dressing for the maintenance of the nuclear monopoly of a few states, rather than a serious commitment for the sake of humanity.
Mr Trump, said to truly fear nuclear war, should instead challenge Mr Putin to make good on his proposal of a one-year extension of New Start treaty limits and revive non-proliferation endeavours by championing the comprehensive test ban treaty. The US and China have not ratified it; Russia withdrew ratification. A president aspiring to a Nobel peace prize could set an example that is sorely needed.
Coalition of the unlikely: How Australia and China could save the planet.
Cooperation between Australia and China could send a useful message to the Trump regime and other countries around the world about both the possibility of developing alternatives to failing American leadership and the institutional order it did so much to create.
By Mark Beeson | 17 November 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/coalition-of-the-unlikely-how-australia-and-china-could-save-the-planet,20387
If we are to survive, unprecedented levels of cooperation are needed, no matter how unlikely. Mark Beeson writes.
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE is failing. Nothing highlights this reality more dramatically than our collective inability to address the degradation of the natural environment adequately. Addressing an unprecedented problem of this magnitude and complexity would be difficult at the best of times. Plainly, these are not the best of times.
Even if climate change could be dealt with in isolation, it would still present a formidable challenge. But when it is part of a polycrisis of intersecting issues with the capacity to reinforce other more immediate, politically sensitive economic, social and strategic problems, then the prospects for effective cooperative action become more remote.
Indeed, the polycrisis makes it increasingly difficult to know quite which of the many threats to international order and individual well-being we ought to focus on. The “we” in this case is usually taken to be the “international community”, which has always been difficult to define, generally more of an aspiration than a reality, frequently more noteworthy for its absence than its effectiveness.
Nation-states, by contrast, can still act, even if we don’t always like what they do. The quintessential case in point now, of course, is the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. Because it is by any measure still the most powerful country in the world, what America does necessarily affects everyone. This is why its actions on climate change – withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, gutting the Environmental Protection Authority, encouraging fossil fuel companies – matter so much.
But nation-states can also be forces for good and not just for those people who live within the borders of countries in the affluent global North. On the contrary, states that oversee a reduction in CO2 emissions are not only helping themselves, but they are also helping their neighbours and setting a useful example of “good international citizenship”.
When global governance is failing and being actively undermined by the Trump regime, it is even more important that other countries try to fill the void, even if this means cooperating with the unlikeliest of partners. Australia and China really could offer a different approach to climate change mitigation while simultaneously defusing tensions in the Indo-Pacific and demonstrating that resistance to the Trump agenda really is possible.
Friends with benefits
In the long term, if there still is one, environmental breakdown remains the most unambiguous threat to our collective future, especially in Australia, the world’s driest continent. And yet Australia’s strategic and political elites remain consumed by the military threat China supposedly poses, rather than the immediate, life-threatening impact of simultaneous droughts, fires and floods.
One of the only positives of the climate crisis is that it presents a common threat that really ought to generate a common cause. Some countries are no doubt more responsible for the problem and more capable of responding effectively, so they really ought to overcome the logic of first-mover disadvantage. No doubt, some other country will take over Australian coal markets, but someone has to demonstrate that change is possible.
China is possibly at even greater risk from the impact of climate catastrophes because of water shortages and, paradoxically enough, rising sea levels that will eventually threaten massive urban centres like Guangzhou and Shanghai. While there is much to admire about the decrease in poverty in the People’s Republic, it has come at an appalling cost to the natural environment. China also has powerful reasons to change its ways.
Unfortunately, Chinese policymakers, like Australia’s and their counterparts everywhere else, are consumed with more traditional threats to national strategic and economic security. This may be understandable enough in a world turned upside down by an unpredictable administration bent on creating a new international order that puts America first and trashes the environment in the process.
But in the absence of accustomed forms of leadership from the U.S. and the international community, for that matter, states must look to do what they can where they can, even if this means thinking the unthinkable and working with notional foes. China and Australia really do have a common cause when it comes to the environment and they could and should act on it.
Yes, this does all sound a bit unlikely. But if we are to survive in anything like a civilised state, unprecedented levels of cooperation would seem to be an inescapable part of limiting the damage our current policies have inflicted on the environment. In this context, Australia and China really could lead the way by simply agreeing to implement coordinated domestic actions designed to set a good example and address a critical global problem.
Leading by example
As two of the biggest consumers and producers of coal, Australia and China could make an outsize contribution to a global problem that would almost certainly win near universal praise, not to say disbelief. In short, China could agree not to build any more coal-fired power stations and Australia could commit to not opening any more new mines and rapidly moving to close down existing ones.
This would be a challenge for both countries, no doubt, but if we are ever going to address the climate challenge seriously, this is the sort of action that will be needed. There are no easy or painless solutions. But voluntarily abandoning the use of one of the most polluting fossil fuels is a potentially feasible and effective gesture that would make a difference. After all, China is a world leader in the development and use of green energy already, so the transition would be difficult but doable.
Australia has a shameful record of exporting carbon emissions and could live without the coal industry, which produces most of them, altogether. Coal extraction doesn’t employ many people and Australia is a rich enough country to compensate those affected by the loss of what are awful jobs in a dirty industry. If Australia can find $368 billion for submarines that will likely never arrive, to counter an entirely notional threat from China, it ought to be able to find a couple of billion to deal with a real one.
No doubt there would be significant pushback from coal industry lobbyists and politicians who think their future depends on being “realistic”, even if it means wrecking the planet. And yet it is possible, even likely, that such actions on the part of Australia and China would be very well received by regional neighbours, who would directly benefit from their actions and who might also be encouraged to consider meaningful cooperative actions themselves.
Given the failure of regional organisations like ASEAN to tackle these issues, normative pressure could be useful.
China might even get a significant boost to its soft power and regional reputation. President Xi Jinping frequently talks about the need to develop an “ecological civilisation”. Moving away from coal and collaborating with an unlikely partner for the collective good would be an opportunity to demonstrate China’s commitment to this idea, and to offer some badly needed environmental leadership.
If that’s not an example of what Xi calls win-win diplomacy, it’s hard to know what is.
A sustainable world order?
In the absence of what U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders calls a “revolution” in American foreign policy, multilateralism may well be in terminal decline. Indeed, it is an open question whether interstate cooperation will survive another four years of Trumpism, especially when the United Nations faces a funding crisis and politics in the European Union is moving in a similarly populist and authoritarian direction.
Cooperation between Australia and China could send a useful message to the Trump regime and other countries around the world about both the possibility of developing alternatives to failing American leadership and the institutional order it did so much to create. American hegemony was frequently self-serving, violent and seemingly indifferent to its impact on the global South, but we may miss it when it’s gone.
If multilateralism is likely to be less effective for the foreseeable future, perhaps minilateralism or even bilateralism can provide an alternative pathway to cooperation. Narrowly conceived notional strategic threats could be usefully “decoupled” from the economic and environmental varieties. In such circumstances, geography may be a better guide to prospective partners than sacrosanct notions about supposed friends and enemies.
Someone somewhere has to show leadership on climate change and restore hope that at least one problem, arguably the biggest one we collectively face, is being taken seriously. There really isn’t any choice other than to contemplate unprecedented actions for an unprecedented problem. Australia and China may not save the world, but they could make things a bit less awful and inject some much-needed creativity and hope into international politics.
Mark Beeson is an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. He was previously Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia.
Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Is Set to Visit Washington. Here’s What to Expect Out of His Meeting with Trump.
the country has continued to push for a civilian nuclear program as the high energy demand of new AI data centers prompts a global revival in nuclear power. Riyadh has long expressed interest in developing its own nuclear program
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Analysis, by Rachel Bronson, November 13, 2025
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s meeting with US President Donald Trump comes during a period of relatively strong and stable ties between Saudi Arabia and the United States. How much he can leverage those ties will be on full display.
Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) will make an official working visit to the White House on Tuesday, November 18. It will be his first trip to Washington since March 2018.
The period between his two visits has been bumpy. MBS seeks to solidify and extend a recent positive period, building on a strong personal relationship with US President Donald Trump, deep commercial ties between members of each country’s leadership, and Trump’s successful trip to the Kingdom in May. The connection between the two countries and the two men will prove critical this visit, as they will confront a wide-ranging agenda requiring considerable attention and diplomatic finesse.
There will be no shortage of topics for the two leaders to discuss during the meeting. New commercial and defense ties are likely to receive significant attention, particularly in the realms of artificial intelligence and growing regional data centers. Trickier for the two sides will be managing bigger ticket items—such as the purchase of F-35s and the development of nuclear power. Larger regional questions loom large about Saudi Arabia’s relationship with Israel, Turkey, and Qatar that will shape the future of Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and beyond.
What’s on the agenda?
Key priority areas for the Saudis include broadening and deepening commercial ties, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence, data technology, energy, and defense.
State visits usually result in announcements of new agreements or memoranda of understanding, and this trip will likely prove no different. But such trips can also highlight where sides remain further apart. Human rights, a perennial stumbling block in US-Saudi relations, are unlikely to receive significant attention.
The Saudis have been working assiduously to lower expectations that they will join the Abraham Accords—a stated goal of the Trump administration that would require normalizing relations with Israel—until the White House articulates a clearer vision for the future of Gaza and the West Bank. The two sides will thus need to work through how much is possible without attaining this loftier goal.
What is behind the visit?
When MBS last arrived in Washington to meet with Trump, he had only recently assumed his role as crown prince, supplanting his uncle, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. He was not yet halfway through a controversial 15-month purge of business leaders, officials, and members of the royal family that would eventually solidify his rule.
Just seven months after his March 2018 visit, MBS was implicated in the grotesque and brazen assassination of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a murder that brought international opprobrium. The growing humanitarian disaster in Yemen resulting from intense Saudi armed intervention was further galvanizing public outcry in the United States and abroad. Although the Trump administration tried to downplay both crises, Congress and the American public remained cautious of US-Saudi ties.
In September 2019, as the conflict in Yemen escalated, Iranian missiles and drones successfully targeted Abqaiq and Khurais, two major Saudi oil facilities, taking out 50 percent of Saudi oil production for about two weeks. Although the Trump administration responded by bolstering America’s military troop presence in the Kingdom and reimposing select sanctions on Iran, Riyadh wanted a more visible show of force. Washington’s perceived tepid response left many in Riyadh openly questioning US commitment to the desert kingdom.
The following September, just four months before leaving office, the Trump administration heralded in the Abraham Accords between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. Saudi Arabia remained on the sidelines…………………..
The return of the Trump administration in January 2025 provided an opportunity to reset and strengthen relations more generally. In May, building on strong commercial ties forged between Trump administration associates and their Saudi counterparts during the Biden years, Trump traveled to Gulf states including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, ushering in a raft of new defense and technology deals, particularly in the areas of data center technologies and artificial intelligence…………………………………………………………………………..
What does Saudi Arabia hope to get out of it?
…………..The focus of the announcements will most likely center on a robust AI future that is emerging in the Gulf in particular. Saudi Arabia has made investing in data centers and digital infrastructure a key aspect of its “Saudi Vision 2030” economic development plan and is investing $21 billion in data centers alone. ……….
……… the country has continued to push for a civilian nuclear program as the high energy demand of new AI data centers prompts a global revival in nuclear power. Riyadh has long expressed interest in developing its own nuclear program, which the Biden administration entertained as a sweetener to Saudi-Israeli normalization.
………………………During Trump’s May trip to the region, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright signed a memorandum of understanding with Saudi Arabia’s energy minister on civil nuclear energy, including safety, security, and nonproliferation programs; vocational training and workforce development; US Generation III+ advanced large reactor technologies and small modular reactors; uranium exploration, mining, and milling; and safe and secure nuclear waste disposal. ……………….
What could happen?
In addition to energy and data infrastructure, the two sides will likely continue to deepen their defense relationship. During the May trip, the White House announced $142 billion in arms sales, and related weapons packages are now making their way through the Pentagon, including a Saudi request for F-35s—one of the world’s most advanced aircrafts. During the Biden administration, the F-35s were tied to Saudi-Israeli normalization. As with nuclear power, it is not clear whether such tethering will continue.
Another key topic to watch is how the two leaders define their overall defense relationship. Saudi Arabia has long sought a defense treaty with the United States that would elevate the country among other US partners in the Gulf. Without full recognition of Israel—and given the current polarization in US politics—Riyadh is unlikely to be able to muster the two-thirds US Senate vote required for official ally status. Still, the Saudis likely want to upgrade their existing relationship……………………………..
What we are likely to hear less about during this trip is human rights, which have been on the US-Saudi agenda for decades.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The future of Gaza and the West Bank will likely prove the trickiest shoal to navigate. The Saudis want to ensure a strong influence in leading Gaza reconstruction given that they are expected to foot a large portion of the bill. ……………………………………. https://globalaffairs.org/commentary/analysis/saudi-arabias-crown-prince-visit-washington-trump-what-to-expect?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Trump%20s%20radiation%20exposure%20rule%3A%20%20catastrophic%20%20for%20women%20and%20girls&utm_campaign=20251117%20Monday%20Newsletter
US and Russia ‘actively discussing’ settlement of Ukraine conflict – Moscow
16 Nov, 2025, https://www.rt.com/russia/627862-russia-us-discuss-ukraine-settlement/
The understanding reached at the Alaska summit is still in force, President Putin’s aide Yury Ushakov has said.
Moscow and Washington are continuing their dialogue on resolving the Ukraine conflict in line with the understanding reached during the Alaska meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump in August, Putin’s aide Yury Ushakov has said.
Although the summit failed to yield a breakthrough, Moscow has praised what it called Washington’s willingness to mediate and consider the conflict’s underlying causes.
Russian officials also maintain that continued dialogue creates opportunities for trade and economic cooperation despite the US decision to sanction the oil companies Rosneft and Lukoil last month.
Russia is receiving “many signals” from the US, with the Anchorage meeting still acting as a basis for the talks, Ushakov told journalist Pavel Zarubin on Sunday. “We do believe it is a good way forward,” he said. According to the official, the understandings are still relevant since Washington has never explicitly stated that they are no longer valid.
The presidential aide admitted that the peace process and agreements reached in Alaska do not sit well with Kiev and some of its European backers, adding that it only indicates they want to continue the bloodshed. “The Anchorage [meeting] is only disliked by those who does not want a peaceful resolution [to the Ukraine conflict],” he said.
Bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington sank to an all-time low under former US President Joe Biden, amid the Ukraine conflict, but have shown signs of improvement since Trump’s return to the White House. US and Russian officials have held several rounds of talks this year, including the Alaska summit.
The US and Russia also announced the next planned Trump-Putin summit in Budapest in the fall, but it was then postponed indefinitely. Washington is still determined to continue contacts with Moscow, according to US Vice President J.D. Vance. Earlier in November, he called direct dialogue with Russia part of the “Trump doctrine.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed this month that Moscow was ready to resume contacts and rejected media reports claiming otherwise as false.
Trump’s Ploy at the UN Is American Imperialism Masquerading as a Peace Process
Jeffrey D. SachsSybil Fares, Nov 13, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-s-ploy-at-the-un-is-american-imperialism-masquerading-as-a-peace-process
Palestine remains the endless victim of US and Israeli maneuvers. The results are not just devastating for Palestine, which has suffered an outright genocide, but for the Arab world and beyond.
The Trump administration is pushing an Israeli-crafted resolution at the UN Security Council (UNSC) this week aimed at eliminating the possibility of a State of Palestine. The resolution does three things. It establishes US political control over Gaza. It separates Gaza from the rest of Palestine. And it allows the US, and therefore Israel, to determine the timeline for Israel’s supposed withdrawal from Gaza–which would mean: never.
This is imperialism masquerading as a peace process. In and of itself it’s no surprise. Israel runs US foreign policy in the Middle East. What is a surprise is that the US and Israel might just get away with this travesty unless the world speaks up with urgency and indignation.
The draft UNSC resolution would establish a US-UK-dominated Board of Peace, chaired by none other than Donald Trump himself, and endowed with sweeping powers over Gaza’s governance, borders, reconstruction, and security. This resolution would sideline the State of Palestine and condition any transfer of authority to the Palestinians on the indulgence of the Board of Peace.
This would be an overt return to the British Mandate of 100 years ago, with the only change being that the US would hold the mandate rather than Britain. If it weren’t so utterly tragic, it would be laughable. As Marx said, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Yes, the proposal is farce, yet Israel’s genocide is not. It is tragedy of the first order.
Incredibly, according to the draft resolution, the Board of Peace would be granted sovereign powers in Gaza. Palestinian sovereignty is left to the discretion of the Board, which alone would decide when Palestinians are “ready” to govern themselves – perhaps in another 100 years? Even military security is subordinated to the Board, and the envisioned forces would answer not to the UN Security Council or to the Palestinian people, but to the Board’s “strategic guidance.”
The US-Israel resolution is being put forward precisely because the rest of the world—other than Israel and the US—has woken up to two facts. First, Israel is committing genocide, a reality witnessed every day in Gaza and the West Bank, where innocent Palestinians are murdered to the satisfaction of the Israel Defense Forces and the illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Second, Palestine is a state, albeit one whose sovereignty remains obstructed by the US, which uses its veto in the UNSC to block Palestine’s permanent UN membership. At the UN this past July and then again in September, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for Palestine’s statehood, a fact that put the Israel-US Zionist lobby into overdrive, resulting in the current draft resolution.
For Israel to accomplish its goal of Greater Israel, the US is pursuing a classic divide-and-conquer strategy, squeezing Arab and Islamic states with threats and inducements. When other countries resist the US-Israel demands, they are cut off from critical technologies, lose access to World Bank and IMF financing, and suffer Israeli bombing, even in countries with US military bases present. The US offers no real protection; rather, it orchestrates a protection racket, extracting concessions from countries wherever US leverage exists. This extortion will continue until the global community stands up to such tactics and insists upon genuine Palestinian sovereignty and US and Israeli adherence to international law.
Palestine remains the endless victim of US and Israeli maneuvers. The results are not just devastating for Palestine, which has suffered an outright genocide, but for the Arab world and beyond. Israel and the US are currently at war, overtly or covertly, across the Horn of Africa (Libya, Sudan, Somalia), the Eastern Mediterranean (Lebanon, Syria), the Gulf region (Yemen), and Western Asia (Iraq, Iran).
If the UN Security Council is to provide true security in accordance with the UN Charter, it must not yield to US pressures and instead act decisively in line with international law. A resolution truly for peace should include four vital points. First, it should welcome the State of Palestine as a sovereign UN member state, with the US lifting its veto. Second, it should safeguard the territorial integrity of the State of Palestine and Israel, according to the 1967 borders. Third, it should establish a UNSC-mandated protection force drawn up from Muslim-majority states. Fourth, it should include the defunding and disarmament of all belligerent non-state entities, and it should ensure the mutual security of Israel and Palestine.
The two-state solution is about true peace—not about the politicide and genocide of Palestine, or the continued attacks by militants on Israel. It’s time for both Palestinians and Israelis to be safe, and for the US and Israel to give up the cruel delusion of permanently ruling over the Palestinian people.
The Unseen Hand: From the War Room to the Ruins – A Cycle of Profit and Pain
15 November 2025, Andrew Klein. https://theaimn.net/the-unseen-hand-from-the-war-room-to-the-ruins-a-cycle-of-profit-and-pain/
In the corridors of power in Washington and the tech hubs of Silicon Valley, a term is well-known: the “military-industrial complex.” Sixty years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned his nation of its “unwarranted influence.” Today, this complex is not an American anomaly but a global blueprint of a system where war has been transformed from a last resort of statecraft into a first option for profit. This system, fueled by corruption and shielded by propaganda, now finds its most brutal testing ground in the lands of Palestine, where lives, futures, and the very environment are sacrificed in exchange for data and dividends.
The Anatomy of a War Machine: How the Iron Triangle Turns
The military-industrial complex is not a shadowy conspiracy, but a deeply entrenched “iron triangle” – a symbiotic relationship between three pillars: the defence industry, the military establishment, and the political class.
The Currency of Influence: The fuel for this machine is money. From 2001 to 2021, the top U.S. defence giants spent a staggering $1.1 billion on lobbying to ensure their weapons find a “battlefield application.” They target key congressional committees, with politicians who approve massive arms budgets seeing their campaign coffers swell by up to 40% more than their peers. This is not investment in security; it is a transaction for access and influence.
The “Revolving Door” of Power: A more insidious mechanism is the “revolving door,” where defense officials and senior military officers retire one day and walk into high-paid executive or lobbying roles at the very companies they once regulated or procured from. A 2018 report found 645 former senior government and military officials had been hired by the top 20 defence contractors, creating a culture where decisions made in office can be influenced by the promise of a lucrative “golden parachute.” This corrupts the very principle of impartial governance.
Manufacturing Consent through Propaganda: To sustain this cycle, the public must be convinced of the perpetual need for war. This is achieved through a sophisticated propaganda apparatus that controls the narrative. Threats are exaggerated, complex conflicts are reduced to simple good-versus-evil dramas, and civilian casualties are sanitised into the clinical term “collateral damage.” The goal is to manufacture a truth where endless war is framed as essential for safety, and questioning it is made to seem unpatriotic or naive.
Palestine: The Laboratory for the Future of Warfare
This global system requires a laboratory to test, refine, and market its latest technologies. For decades, the Palestinian territories have served this grim purpose, a captive population subjected to an endless experiment in digital control and automated violence.
AI as an Assassin: In the current conflict, the world is witnessing the first full-scale deployment of AI-powered warfare. The Israeli military uses systems with benign-sounding names like “The Gospel” and “Lavender” to generate targets at an industrial pace, producing hundreds of potential targets daily. Human oversight is minimal and accelerated, with reports of soldiers often rubber-stamping AI-generated targets in a matter of seconds. With admitted error rates of around 10%, the mathematical consequence is the condemnation of thousands of innocent civilians by algorithm.
The Panopticon of Surveillance: Every aspect of Palestinian life is data-mined. A vast network of drones, facial recognition cameras (codenamed “Red Wolf” and “Blue Wolf”), satellites, and digital monitoring creates a constant state of surveillance. As one investigative journalist noted, the occupied territories have become a showroom where “Israel’s military-industrial complex… exports advanced weapons and surveillance technology to the world.”
Weaponising Communication: The ultimate demonstration of this control was the hijacking of the entire Palestinian cellular network to force a political speech upon a captive audience. This act is a perfect metaphor for the system: seizing the very channels of human connection to broadcast its own uncompromising narrative, rendering dissent inaudible.
The True Cost: A Balance Sheet of Human and Planetary Suffering
The shareholders of defense corporations may indeed be “drooling” over the “combat-proven” credentials of their products. But the real balance sheet tells a different story.
Lives and Lost Futures: The cost is measured in the thousands of children who will never grow up, the students whose potential is buried under rubble, the families erased from the census. It is a cost of choices permanently denied – the choice to travel, to learn, to love, and to live in peace. This is not “collateral damage”; it is the central, brutal outcome of the system.
Economic Devastation: Beyond the immediate destruction of homes and infrastructure lies the long-term economic annihilation. The productive capacity of generations is wiped out, creating a cycle of dependency and despair that can last for decades.
A Scarred Planet: The environmental cost of war is a silent casualty. Unexploded munitions poison the soil and water for generations. The toxins released from destroyed buildings and industrial sites create a public health crisis. The carbon footprint of endless military conflict is a devastating contributor to planetary crisis, all while the war machine presents itself as a guardian of order.
Building Bridges of Peace: An Alternative Architecture
Confronted with this reality, we must actively choose to build an alternative architecture for human coexistence, one based on bridges, not bombs. This requires a fundamental reorientation.
- Understanding: The first step is to actively dismantle the propaganda that dehumanises “the other.” We must invest in cultural exchange, language learning, and people-to-people programs that allow us to see the full humanity in every face. When we understand the history, hopes, and fears of others, it becomes impossible to see them as mere targets.
- Embrace Self-Reflection in Foreign Policy: Nations, particularly powerful ones, must have the courage for honest self-criticism. Acknowledging past mistakes and the unintended consequences of our actions is not a sign of weakness, but a foundation for building genuine trust and finding a more just path forward.
- Forge New Frameworks for Cooperation: We must move beyond a zero-sum view of global politics. The greatest challenges of our time – climate change, pandemics, technological governance – are shared problems that require shared solutions. By creating robust international frameworks for cooperation on these issues, we build habits of collaboration and create tangible, shared interests that make conflict a less desirable option.
The road from the war room to a lasting peace is long and arduous. It requires us to see through the manufactured truths, to follow the money, and to hold to account the systems that profit from endless conflict. But it is the only road that leads away from the ruins. We must choose to be architects of the bridge, not suppliers for the battlefield.
Atom is prematurely split in the ‘golden age’ transatlantic partnership
Nils Pratley, 14 Nov 25 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/nov/13/atom-split-us-uk-golden-age-partnership-wylfe-smr
Britain was always going to prefer homegrown technology for the SMR reactors at Wylfe. The US would have done the same.
It had all been so harmonious two months ago. “Together with the US, we’re building a golden age of nuclear that puts both countries at the forefront of global innovation and investment,” purred the prime minister about the new “landmark” UK-US nuclear partnership.
Now there’s an atomic split over the first significant decision. The UK has allocated Wylfa on the island of Anglesey, or Ynys Môn, to host three small modular reactors (SMRs) to be built by the British developer Rolls-Royce SMR. The US ambassador, Warren Stephens, says his country is “extremely disappointed”: he wanted Westinghouse, a US company, to get the gig for a large-scale reactor.
This quarrel is easy to adjudicate. The US ambassador is living in dreamland if he seriously thought the UK wouldn’t show home bias at Wylfa. This is the coveted site for new nuclear power in the UK because the land is owned by the government, which ought to make the planning process easier and quicker, and the site hosted a Magnox reactor until 2015, so the locals are used to nuclear plants. Since Rolls-Royce’s kit is the best national hope of reviving the UK’s industry with homegrown technology, of course there was going to be preferential treatment.
None of which is to say the SMR experiment will definitely succeed in the sense of demonstrating cheapness (a relative measure in nuclear-land) versus mega-plants, such as Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C or the Westinghouse design. Rolls-Royce oozes confidence about the cost-saving advantages of prefabrication in factories, but these have yet to be demonstrated on the ground. The point, though, is that the only way to find out is to get on and build. Rolls-Royce SMR’s only other order currently is from the Czech Republic for six units.
Indeed, the criticism from some quarters is that the UK government has been too timid in ordering only three. If the batch-production is supposed to be the gamechanger on costs, goes the argument, then commit to a decent-sized batch at the outset.
The choice of Wylfa may help on that score in time, though. The site is reckoned to be big enough to hold an additional five SMR units eventually, on the top of the first three. Since each SMR is 470 megawatts, a full build-out would equate to more megawatts in total than the 3,200 from each of Hinkley and Sizewell.
The sop to the US is that Westinghouse gets to compete for future large-scale reactor projects in the UK. It would probably have been a good idea to tell the ambassador in advance before he blew a fuse. Reserving Wylfa for Rolls-Royce SMRs was the only sensible decision here.
Hopes that SMR technology will become a major export-earner for the UK eventually are best treated with extreme caution at this stage. The first electricity from Wylfa won’t be generated until the mid-2030s, and the demonstration of falling costs with each additional unit can only come after that. There is a long way to go. But a good way to maximise your chance of success is to give the top site to your pet project. The US would have done exactly the same.
US ‘disappointed’ that Rolls-Royce will build UK’s first small modular reactors.
Guardian, 13 Nov 25
As Keir Starmer announces SMRs to be built in Wales, US ambassador says Britain should choose ‘a different path.
Keir Starmer has announced that the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactors will be built in north Wales – but immediately faced a backlash from Donald Trump’s administration after it pushed for a US manufacturer to be chosen.
Wylfa on the island of Anglesey, or Ynys Môn, will be home to three small modular reactors (SMRs) to be built by British manufacturer Rolls-Royce SMR. The government said it will invest £2.5bn.
SMRs are a new – and untested – technology aiming to produce nuclear power stations in factories to drive down costs and speed up installation. Rolls-Royce plans to build reactors, each capable of generating 470 megawatts of power, mainly in Derby.
The government also said that its Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) will report on potential sites for further larger reactors. They would follow the 3.2GW reactors under construction by French state-owned EDF at Hinkley Point C in Somerset and Sizewell C in Suffolk.
The Labour government under Starmer has embraced nuclear energy in the hope that it can generate electricity without carbon dioxide emissions, while also providing the opportunity for a large new export industry in SMRs.
However, it faced the prospect of a row with the US, piqued that its ally had overlooked the US’s Westinghouse Electric Company when choosing the manufacturer for the Wylfa reactors.
Ahead of the publication of the UK announcement, US ambassador Warren Stephens published a statement saying Britain should choose “a different path” in Wales.
“We are extremely disappointed by this decision, not least because there are cheaper, faster and already-approved options to provide clean, safe energy at this same location,” he said.
The Trump administration last month signed an $80bn (£61bn) deal with Westinghouse, which had been struggling financially, to build several of the same larger reactors proposed at Wylfa. Under the terms of that deal, the Trump administration could end up taking a stake in the company……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/13/us-disappointed-that-rolls-royce-will-build-uks-first-small-modular-reactors
When it comes to New Start nuclear treaty….Trump just can’t get started
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL , 12 Nov 25
President Trump sure has an aversion to nuclear disarmament treaties with Russia that might just prevent nuclear war.
In his first term he dropped out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a signature Obama agreement including Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK to diffuse Iran’s nuclear program. He also withdrew from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Then he left office without renewing the impending expiration of the New Start Treaty. Successor Biden wisely renewed it for 5 years upon replacing Trump in January, 2021.
Here we are with New Start set to expire in 12 weeks and guess whose president again? Nuclear agreement adverse Donald J. Trump. And what has Trump done to avoid having the third nuclear treaty go poof on his watch. Nada, zilch, nothing.
New Start was and is a sensible nuclear agreement. It limits the number of strategic nuclear warheads that can be deployed by the US and Russia to 1,550 each. It further restricts nuclear capable bombers, submarines and missile launchers to 800. All this to be verified by mutual inspections.
Seven weeks ago Russian President Putin reached out to Trump to get the New Start renewal ball rolling. Trump’s response? Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed dismay there has been no reaction to the proposal as of yet. “After all, my colleague in Washington announced that Trump would personally respond to this initiative. But so far, there’s been no response from the American.”
When a reporter recently asked Trump what he thought of Putin’s request to renew New Start, Trump meekly replied “Sounds like a good idea to me” before turning away to avoid a follow up question.
When it comes to initiating, staying in, renewing nuclear agreements with Russia that just might prevent nuclear Armageddon, Trump adheres to the NATO formula: No Action, Talk Only.
Is President Trump leading US to Vietnam style disaster in Venezuela?
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL , 14 Nov 25.
Sure looks like Trump is initiating regime change in Venezuela. He’s sent a US armada of ships including its most advanced aircraft carrier, planes and troops to Venezuela’s neighborhood. Trump’s hoping to intimidate Venezuelan President Maduro to go quietly so he can replace him with a compliant US puppet. For emphasis he’s issued a $50 million dollar reward for his arrest, and blasted 17 small, unarmed boats to smithereens near Venezuela murdering dozens.
Trump doesn’t care one whit about ending imaginary Venezuelan drug smuggling into the US. That is simply a plot device to control Venezuela’s massive oil reserves via a US puppet ruling Venezuela, and to sever Venezuela’s newfound political, economic and military ties to Russia and China. Neither will stand by to an American regime change operation, much less an outright invasion, without offering help to resist US aggression. Trump may be the president upon whose watch the Monroe Doctrine went poof.
No nation in in Central or South America supports Trump’s march to war against Venezuela. Indeed no nation in the world, outside of possibly Israel, supports this impending abomination of foreign intervention.
US firepower is so dominant they can quickly take out Maduro if Trump’s newly rechristened Secretary of War Pete Hegseth lights the fuse. But neither the Maduro government nor its citizens will go quietly. Resistance both during and after the incursion will likely be ferocious. Get ready for US body bags to start arriving at Arlington.
Trump would be wise to converse with former President George W. Bush to get his thoughts on the nearly 4,500 senseless US deaths in Iraq and the 2,400 senseless US deaths in Afghanistan after Bush’s ‘war fighters’ quickly deposed Saddam Hussein and the Taliban respectively. To what end? We’re still defiling Iraq with 2,000 troops Iraq wants out but, like being in a roach motel, will never leave. It took 20 years but the Taliban kicked out the US invaders that stayed thru 3 presidencies till Biden left in disgrace.
The last possible firewall preventing Trump’s impending invasion, Congress, abdicated their responsibility by refusing to invoke the War Powers Act forbidding war without Congressional approval as required by the Constitution. Only 2 of 100 Senators voted for peace. All 49 Democrats who voted to prevent were more likely motivated by political opposition to anything Trump. When it comes to US militarism abroad, Democrats are almost always on board.
The 49 Republicans voting for presidential war did so because they love both robust militarism and their deranged, war loving president keeping them supported by Trump’s MAGA base. Only Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul voted against their party’s impending war out of principle.
Besides a powwow with Bush Jr., Trump might seek a séance with late warmonger down in War Lovers Hell LBJ. If he could communicate from his everlasting place of infamy over Vietnam, he might tell Trump, ‘Faggedaboudit Donald, I lost 58,000 US boys for nothing. Pivot to peace while you’re till earthbound.’
The Member States Complicit in Genocide (w/ Francesca Albanese) | The Chris Hedges Report
Scheerpost, By Chris Hedges / The Chris Hedges Report, November 13, 2025
After two years of genocide, it is no longer possible to hide complicity in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. Entire countries and corporations are — according to multiple reports by UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine Francesca Albanese — either directly or indirectly involved in Israel’s economic proliferation.
In her latest report, “Gaza Genocide: a collective crime,” Albanese details the role 63 nations played in supporting Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians. She chronicles how countries like the United States, which directly funds and arms Israel, are a part of a vast global economic web. This network includes dozens of other countries that contribute with seemingly minor components, such as warplane wheels.
Rejection of this system is imperative, Albanese says. These same technologies used to destroy the lives of Palestinians will inevitably be turned against the citizens of Israel’s funders.
“Palestine today is a metaphor of our life and where our life is going to go,” Albanese warns.
“Every worker today should draw a lesson from what’s happening to the Palestinians, because the large injustice system is connected and makes all of us connected to what’s happening there.”
Transcript
Chris Hedges
Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on Palestine, in her latest report, “Gaza Genocide: a collective crime,” calls out the role 63 nations have in sustaining the Israeli genocide. Albanese, who because of sanctions imposed on her by the Trump administration, had to address the UN General Assembly from the Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation in Cape Town, South Africa, slams what she calls “decades of moral and political failure.”
“Through unlawful actions and deliberate omissions, too many states have harmed, founded and shielded Israel’s militarized apartheid, allowing its settler colonial enterprise to metastasize into genocide, the ultimate crime against the indigenous people of Palestine,” she told the UN.
The genocide, she notes, has diplomatic protection in international “fora meant to preserve peace,” military ties ranging from weapons sales to joint trainings that “fed the genocidal machinery,” the unchallenged weaponization of aid, and trade with entities like the European Union, which had sanctioned Russia over Ukraine yet continued doing business with Israel.
The 24-page report details how the “live-streamed atrocity” is facilitated by third states. She excoriates the United States for providing “diplomatic cover” for Israel, using its veto power at the UN Security Council seven times and controlling ceasefire negotiations. Other Western nations, the report noted, collaborate with abstentions, delays and watered-down draft resolutions, providing Israel with weapons, “even as the evidence of genocide … mounted.”
The report chastised the US Congress for passing a $26.4bn arms package for Israel, although Israel was at the time threatening to invade Rafah in defiance of the Biden administration’s demand that Rafah be spared.
The report also condemns Germany, the second-largest arms exporter to Israel during the genocide, for weapons shipments that include everything from “frigates to torpedoes,” as well as the United Kingdom, which has allegedly flown more than 600 surveillance missions over Gaza since war broke out in October 2023.
At the same time, Arab states have not severed ties with Israel. Egypt, for example, maintained “significant security and economic relations with Israel, including energy cooperation and the closing of the Rafah crossing” during the war.
The Gaza genocide, the report states, “exposed an unprecedented chasm between peoples and their governments, betraying the trust on which global peace and security rest.” Her report coincides with the ceasefire that isn’t. Over 300 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by Israel since the ceasefire was announced two weeks ago……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://scheerpost.com/2025/11/13/the-member-states-complicit-in-genocide-w-francesca-albanese-the-chris-hedges-report/
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (83)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 