nuclear-news

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

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

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

Mondoweiss, By Mitchell Plitnick  June 16, 2026 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cradle,, JUN 14, 2026

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

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

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

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

Israelnews updates

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

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

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

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

 SCHEERPOST, June 15, 2026, Joshua Scheer

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

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

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

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

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

Netanyahu faces a new threat: The collapse of Western support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Trump Restrain Israel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what does it even mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATO collapsing in 2026? Can’t come soon enough – Walt Zlotow.


A case can be made for creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) when it was founded April 4, 1949. Originally just 10 Western European countries plus the US and Canada, NATO ensured no further Soviet expansion beyond the block of Soviet satellite nations Stalin established following WWII.

Of course, one can debate whether NATO was necessary at all. A was ravaged Russia, had neither the will not the means to expand anywhere beyond the buffer it had created to protect itself from a third invasion from the West in the 20th century. NATO may had more to do with expanding US imperial power in Europe and enriching the Military Industrial Complex than protecting Western Europe from unlikely Russian invasion.

Regardless, when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down on November 9, 1989 and the Soviet Union followed along December 26, 1991, NATO should have joined both in the dustbin of history. Indeed, the US, under President George H.W. Bush, spent much of 1990 negotiating the reunification of Soviet Eastern Germany into Western Germany, something Soviet Russia would have thought unthinkable. The pro in the quid pro quo was that NATO would never expand one inch eastward toward Mother Russia from its then western membership of 16 nations. Russia could even imagine that NATO, like The Warsaw Pact, would go away.

Big Russian mistake. With the US now the world’s sole superpower, the US abrogated any détente with Russia regarding NATO expansion, much less existence. Russia was to be permanently consigned to second class European status. Beginning under President Clinton in 1999, the NATO added 14 former Soviet aligned nations cementing NATO hegemony in Europe and ensuring an ever weakened Russia.

By betraying the former Soviet Union after its collapse, NATO morphed from a theoretically defensive to an overtly offensive organization. Russia was just one of NATO’s offensive moves. In 1999, NATO bombed Russian ally Serbia for 78 days to kick Serbia out of Kosovo, turning Kosovo into a failed province of the West. In 2011 NATO intervened in the Libyan civil war, bombing the Gaddafi regime and Gaddafi himself into oblivion. Libya remains a failed state 15 years on with much of Africa destabilized in its wake. Even the revered Barack Obama laments NATO intervention in Libya as his biggest presidential mistake.

But nothing compares to NATO perfidy in Ukraine. NATO proposed membership to Ukraine in 2008 to further isolate Russia from Europe. When six years of advancing NATO membership failed due to Ukrainian President Yanukovych partnering with Russia, NATO, led by Obama, simply overthrew him in 2014. Even worse, Ukraine began murdering Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas on Russia’s border by the thousands with NATO’s help. Worse Yet, NATO suckered Russia into agreeing to the Minsk I and II agreements that Donbas could achieve autonomy under Ukraine sovereignty to bring peace to Donbas Ukrainians. That was a subterfuge to build up the Ukraine military to finish off the Ukraine separatists in the Donbas. After 8 years of this duplicity Russia had enough, invading in February 2022 to end NATO, Ukraine aggression.

Four and a half years on, Ukraine is on life support, not from the US, which has largely bowed out, but from European NATO, which is still throwing billions of Euros on Ukraine’s lost cause. EU leaders, Especially UK’s Starmer, Frances’s Macron and Germany’s Merz claim Ukraine can win, reclaim all lost territory and save Western Europe from a likely Russian attack as early as 2030.

Long before 2030, Starmer, Macron and Merz will be gone, as well as the Ukraine that existed before the NATO offensive blew it up. NATO may be gone as well and good riddance if it is. Russia has no designs on Western Europe or all of Ukraine. They simply want their sensible security concerns met that have been foolishly rejected by NATO since the Soviet Union went poof in 1991 and NATO, led by the US, used it crush Russian integration in the European political economy.

Had the US and NATO exercised an iota of sensible diplomacy there would have been no war destroying Ukraine. Europe would be enjoying cheap energy and other trade with Russia fostering mutual economic growth. Current NATO leadership would have favorable approval ratings instead of ones worse than President Trump. Right wing European opposition parties would remain on the fringe instead of poised to assume power. European treasure could be spent uplifting the commons instead of destroying Ukraine.

Pivoting away from supporting NATO and the senseless Ukraine war is the one sensible Trump foreign policy. He’s too busy blowing up the world’s economy over Iran to care about NATO. Starmer, Macron, Merz, along with NATO secretary general Mark Rutte, remain in denial that the hopeless war they’re supporting is not only wrecking their careers and their countries; it may spell the end of NATO. It cannot come soon enough.

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

Europe’s recent peace overtures are war by other means

Zakharova accused the ambassadors of promoting a “dead-end Zelensky formula.”

She said: “The leaders of these countries are pretending, through their statements, to be calling for peace, but in reality they are putting forward unacceptable conditions, increasing the production of long-range weapons for Kiev and generally taking steps towards the militarisation of Ukraine and Europe.”

European overtures for renewing diplomacy with Russia smack of hypocrisy and duplicity.

June 12, 2026, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/06/12/europes-recent-peace-overtures-are-war-by-other-means/

After four years of zero diplomacy, multiple rounds of economic sanctions aimed at crushing the Russian state, and hundreds of billions of euros fueling a futile war in Ukraine against Russia, European capitals are lately abuzz with calls for opening peace negotiations with Moscow.

No doubt part of the shifting policy is due to the economic mess that Europe has created for itself by cutting off energy trade with Russia. Escalating energy costs are destroying European industries and imposing crippling financial hardship on millions of its citizens. Realizing the self-inflicted disaster, European capitals are desperate to appear to be normalizing relations with Russia and resume affordable energy supplies.

France and Italy are advocating the appointment of an envoy to engage with Russia to resolve the conflict and the lifting of anti-Russian sanctions.

Last weekend, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany – the so-called E3 – stated that they would “help mediate” a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainian puppet president, Vladimir Zelensky, was feted in Downing Street on June 7 by Britain’s Keir Starmer, France’s Macron, and Germany’s Merz. They proposed taking the lead in negotiations from the United States since President Trump seems more preoccupied with ending the war against Iran.

Various names have been suggested as to who could serve as an interlocutor representing Europe. Angela Merkel, the former German Chancellor, and former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi are two names that have been put forward. Finnish President Alexander Stubb has also been suggested. It’s unlikely any of them would be acceptable to Moscow, especially Merkel, mainly due to her past role in covertly undermining the 2015 Minsk Accords, thereby sowing the seeds for war that erupted seven years later.

The telling – almost laughable – thing is the paucity of any European figure with credibility as an envoy.

The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, has become a laughing stock over her rank incompetence. Her Russophobic ranting has rendered her redundant in conducting foreign policy. So much so that there is a revolt among European diplomats against what they declaim as her “dysfunction”.

This week, Europe sent three ambassadors to Moscow to renew some form of dialogue. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Galuzin, met with representatives from Britain, France, and Germany. The Russian foreign ministry said it was open to hearing what Europe had to say.

However, Galuzin reportedly gave the visitors short shrift, reminding them that Europe cannot pose as mediators when it is a participant in the war against Russia.

Following the meeting on Thursday, Maria Zakharova, the foreign ministry spokeswoman, dismissed the European mission as not serious about addressing the challenge of finding a peace settlement.

Zakharova accused the ambassadors of promoting a “dead-end Zelensky formula.”

She said: “The leaders of these countries are pretending, through their statements, to be calling for peace, but in reality they are putting forward unacceptable conditions, increasing the production of long-range weapons for Kiev and generally taking steps towards the militarisation of Ukraine and Europe.”

If Europe were serious about peace, it would stop arming the Kiev NeoNazi regime and show some meaningful acknowledgment of Russia’s long-held demand to deal with the root causes of the conflict.

Europe’s backing of the Kiev regime’s call for an immediate ceasefire while expanding Ukraine’s ability to carry out deep strikes on Russian territory with European-manufactured drones, killing hundreds of civilians over recent months, is just a cynical ploy to rearm the proxy regime and give it some respite in order to resume the war with more lethal vigour at a later stage.

The duplicity of the European politicians goes back to the treachery of the Minsk Peace Accords in 2015 and the sabotage of the Istanbul peace negotiations in April 2022. That has culminated in the biggest war in Europe since World War Two, with millions of casualties and a real threat of spiralling into open war.

Europe’s governments and its EU and NATO bureaucrats are still wedded to the ideology of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. So, too, it seems is Washington, despite Trump’s talk of wanting peace.

Arming the Nazi regime in Kiev at an increasing pace while calling for a superficial ceasefire is proof that the European leaders are not authentic in their belated espousal of seeking diplomacy with Russia.

Former German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel (2017-2018) recently pointed out a shameful truth when he said that Europe lost its chance for diplomacy in 2021.

Back then, the EU leadership and the American Biden administration both repudiated Russia’s earnest efforts to negotiate a way to avoid war in Ukraine. Moscow had clearly set out its objections to NATO expansion, in particular, the absorption of Ukraine into the military alliance, and it proposed rational solutions for collective security. Russia’s diplomacy was rejected out of hand by Washington and Brussels.

The Europeans and the Americans were bent on provoking Russia into an armed confrontation with their proxy Ukrainian regime that they had installed in the 2014 coup and weaponized. Diplomacy was rejected because the NATO axis calculated that it could defeat Russia with war and economic strangulation, or, as some Western politicians admitted, “total war”.

The European agenda, as reflected in demands for an immediate ceasefire without any cognizance of Russia’s arguments about historic claims and indivisible security, demonstrates that European leaders are not yet ready or willing to engage genuinely and meaningfully.

As 18th-century Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz might put it, their recent overtures for political talks are simply war by other means.

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

How Zionist Lobbying Has Reshaped Global Politics

13 June 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, PhD, Australian Independent Media

The Branch That Reaches Across Oceans – How Zionist Lobbying Has Reshaped Global Politics

“The branch is not the tree. The tree is still standing. And the tree – the tree is justice.”

The Branch That Reaches Across Oceans

The “Greater Israel” project is not a secret. It is not a fringe fantasy. It is being marketed in London, in Montreal, in New York – real estate roadshows advertising properties in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. The UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices warned in November 2025 that “Israel continues to expand its presence and control of territory in Palestine, Syria and Southern Lebanon,” and that Israel’s “constant claims to a borderless ‘Land of Israel’ are incompatible with a just and lasting peace.”

This is not merely a Middle Eastern conflict. It is a global project – one that relies not only on military force, but on an extensive apparatus of lobbying, financial influence, and the suppression of dissent in Western capitals.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman warned that the “Greater Israel” project poses dangers not only to neighbouring countries but also to Europeans: “Even the Europeans are not safe, because the Zionist regime does not hesitate to openly declare its colonial and racist ambitions in forms such as ‘greater Israel’.” Whether one accepts the Iranian framing, the fact that the project is cited by adversaries as a casus belli indicates that it is not a secret.

The scale of political interference is not unique in spirit – it is an extension of historically brutal colonial behaviours, morphed into a new scale in line with modern communication systems. The Roman Empire bribed Germanic chieftains. The British Empire divided and ruled India. But the contemporary Zionist project operates within a rules‑based international order that was supposed to prevent exactly this kind of extraction.

And it operates with the active complicity of Western governments – not because they are powerless, but because their political systems have been captured.

The Machinery of Influence: AIPAC and the American Political System

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most visible node in a vast network of lobbying organisations that influence US Middle East policy. A 2024 academic study published in the Hasanuddin Journal of Strategic and International Studies found that “the AIPAC lobby is deeply rooted in US policymaking structures, ranging from vice‑president, and higher‑echelon staff, to parliament members.” The study noted that since 2021, AIPAC has expanded its activities to include direct participation in political campaign contributions, effectively buying access to the highest levels of American government.

The study’s conclusion is stark: “Such overly foreign influence on national policymaking has the potential to harm America’s long‑term relationships and interests in the Middle East if the US can’t make the barrier for foreign interference toward its national interests.”

This is not a fringe argument. Ilan Pappé’s comprehensive study, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic, documents how “over a century of aggressive lobbying changed the map of the Middle East.” Pappé details how pro‑Israel lobbies convinced British and American policymakers “to condone Israel’s flagrant breaches of international law, grant Israel unprecedented military aid and deny Palestinians rights.” Anyone who questioned unconditional support for Israel, “even in the mildest terms, became the target of relentless smear campaigns.”

The mechanism is not subtle. It is the same mechanism that has always operated in systems where political survival depends on campaign contributions. The donor class – in this case, a network of Zionist organisations and aligned right‑wing groups – buys influence. Politicians who comply receive funding, electoral support, and protection from primary challenges. Those who dissent are targeted, smeared, and often defeated.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a system.

The Silencing of Dissent: Academic Freedom Under Attack

The suppression of criticism extends beyond electoral politics into the realm of ideas. A 2024 academic paper in the journal Milel ve Nihal examines how “political lobbying, financial influence, and allegations of antisemitism are strategically employed to establish a cultural hegemony that determines what discourse is acceptable” in US universities.

The paper, titled “Zionism and Academic Hegemony: The Intersection of Power, Knowledge, and Suppression in the United States Universities,” draws on Michel Foucault’s theory of power‑knowledge and Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony to analyse how “Zionist organisations influence higher education frameworks, research priorities, and public discourse.”  This manipulation, the paper argues, “serves to marginalize, silence, or delegitimize critical perspectives that oppose or challenge Israeli policies and actions, especially those related to the occupation of Palestinian territories and human rights violations.”


The paper provides specific examples, including the rescinded job offer to Professor Steven Salaita at the University of Illinois following his criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza on social media. The case is not isolated. The paper documents “additional examples including the suppression of pro‑Palestinian viewpoints and the punishment of students and faculty who advocate for Palestinian rights at various prominent U.S. institutions.”

The paper concludes that “Zionism’s influence is not limited to isolated cases but creates a widespread atmosphere where academic freedom is restricted.” Universities, “meant to be pillars of free thought and critical inquiry, increasingly become arenas where dissent is suppressed and ideological conformity is imposed.”


The weaponisation of antisemitism accusations is central to this strategy. Criticism of Israeli government policy is routinely conflated with hatred of Jews. The effect is to chill debate, to intimidate critics, and to protect the settlement enterprise from scrutiny. As one reviewer of Pappé’s book noted, the strategy involves “cracked down on dissent in the Labour Party, and relentlessly smeared critics.”

The Australian Connection

The pattern is not confined to the United States and the United Kingdom. Australia has its own history of Zionist lobbying and political interference – a history that remains largely unexamined in mainstream discourse.

The Australian example is particularly instructive because it reveals how the machinery of influence operates even in a country geographically distant from the Middle East, with no historical responsibility for the conflict, and no strategic interest that would justify the degree of alignment with Israeli policy.

The mechanisms are similar: campaign donations, community lobbying, and the weaponisation of antisemitism accusations to silence critics. Australian politicians who question Israeli policy face organised opposition from Zionist organisations. The media environment is shaped by the same dynamics of donor pressure and editorial alignment.

The result is a foreign policy that is not in Australia’s national interest – AUKUS, the uncritical support for US Middle East policy, the silence on Israeli atrocities – but is dictated by a donor class whose primary loyalty is not to Australia.

This is not a fringe observation. It is the conclusion of the same structural analysis that applies to the United States and the United Kingdom. The only difference is scale.

The Geographic Safety Nets

The “Greater Israel” project is not merely ideological. It is infrastructural. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/how-zionist-lobbying-has-reshaped-global-politics/

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

Trump news at a glance: president claims Iran ‘no longer want a nuclear weapon’ amid peace deal hopes

Washington and Tehran express increasing optimism that weeks of halting negotiations may be drawing to a close – key US politics stories from Saturday 13 June at a glance

Guardian staff, 14 June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/14/trump-news-at-a-glance-president-claims-iran-no-longer-want-a-nuclear-weapon-amid-peace-deal-hopes

Donald Trump says a deal with Iran to end the war would be signed on Sunday, and that the strait of Hormuz would be “open to all” immediately after.

Iran had offered a different timeline earlier in the day, but nonetheless signalled an agreement was in the offing, as both the warring parties and their mediators expressed increasing optimism that weeks of halting negotiations were drawing to a close.

“The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform. Since an 8 April truce paused the worst of the fighting, Trump has repeatedly insisted a deal was near only for the wrangling to drag on.

The Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baqaei, had said earlier on Saturday that the date of the signing was yet to be determined, but “it will not be tomorrow”. However, he added: “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out.”

June 17, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

The view from Moscow: The future of nuclear arms control exists, but the path is hard

there can and should be some new legally binding new arms-control regimes, including strict limitations on nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles

However, the alternative is significantly more costly and dangerous on an existential level. The more nuclear weapons (and nuclear weapons states) that exist, the greater the possibility that nuclear weapons use becomes. This is the ultimate threat to the human civilization, and efforts to limit this threat demand leadership from the great powers today, not tomorrow.

By Dmitry Stefanovich | May 13, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/premium/2026-05/the-view-from-moscow-the-future-of-nuclear-arms-control-exists-but-the-path-is-hard/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=France%20s%20new%20nuclear%20doctrine&utm_campaign=20260608%20Monday%20Newsletter%20%28Copy%29

It is impossible to argue with the fact that today’s arms control architecture is in very bad shape, especially if one focuses on strategic nuclear weapons. While Moscow seems open to at least some limitations, the current thinking in Washington is obsessed with Chinese nuclear buildup (real or alleged), and the only acknowledged solution to the ‘three-body’ problem seems to be purely arithmetical in its nature: In other words, the United States declares that the only way to sustain nuclear deterrence under current circumstances is to have its nuclear arsenal exceed both the Russian and Chinese capabilities. Clearly, neither Russia nor China can ignore such an attitude and would respond in kind.

But despite the current negative trends, arms control remains alive, although the formats that still exist are limited. And in the future, arms control instruments may take many forms: legally and politically binding agreements, unilateral initiatives, and bilateral and multilateral arrangements. Even enhanced notifications and transparency mechanisms could be helpful. Moreover, there is some room for synchronized limitations on certain activities—i.e. deployment of selected weapons only at selected regions—which might contribute to the stabilization of military-political relations between certain countries.

It is also crucial to understand that it is hardly possible that any future arms control could only be bilateral. Furthermore, it is impossible to even imagine the complicated arrangements for inspection mechanisms for every state that possesses nuclear weapons, and the asymmetrical quantitative limitations for them. The arsenals of nuclear weapon states are significantly different, and even the Russian and US nuclear forces postures are not symmetrical. To have a dozen or more inspections per country per year is too much of a logistical challenge if we begin to consider more than two participants for such a regime.

There are other factors as well, including but not limited to the increasing presence of dual-capable systems, growing cooperation between the United States and its allies and partners in the nuclear domain (with NATO declaring itself a “nuclear alliance”). The peculiar part is that while one side perceives such developments as explicitly destabilizing, the other believes them to be stabilizing and enhancing strategic (or integrated) deterrence.

Most important, not only nuclear capabilities contribute to the overall “security equation.” Military conflicts since the end of the 20th century clearly show that non-nuclear long-range precision weapons are indeed a strategic capability, while non-nuclear deterrence is a much more complicated concept. It is now becoming readily apparent that non-nuclear weapon states can inflict significant costs on their adversaries, no matter how many nuclear weapons those adversaries have in their arsenals. Such trends are augmented by rapid scientific and technological change. The role of hypersonic weapons, drone warfare, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and outer space infrastructure is continuously growing, and all these emerging and disruptive technologies are intertwined—jointly contributing to the very complicated landscape of multilateral strategic deterrence.

Last but not least, the renewed possibility of overt nuclear testing is becoming a big challenge. Major countries have hardly forgotten what their nuclear weapon explosions revealed, but there seems to be a growing number of arguments supporting nuclear tests for both political and technological reasons. A deep dive into this issue deserves a separate paper, but what is clear is that should one country test, others will follow—and ultimately, a domino effect would likely follow, leading to the destruction of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as it is, not to mention the grim prospects it would make for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty to ever enter into force.

A path forward

Still, there are options to address the current polycentric nuclear era of major military-political confrontations. One way is to find a way to engage in behavioral arms control—which basically means looking for mechanisms that limit activities, and not capabilities.

Unilateral and coordinated declarations of one’s capabilities and doctrines might be helpful as well. Joint notification regimes are also a possibility, even if those will be limited initially. For example, the only area where the “Nuclear Five” of the nuclear weapons states recognized by the NPT have some symmetry is the sea-based leg of their nuclear deterrence forces. Codifying existing patrol practices regarding nuclear-tipped ballistic missile-armed submarines (known as Ship Submersible Ballistic Nuclear, or SSBN), and a regime of submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launch notifications could be a relatively easy first step that would significantly enhance mutual understanding and revitalize the practices of military-to-military data exchanges. Moreover, increasing the number of SSBNs deployed on deterrent patrols above the agreed “normal’ can become a visible and clear signaling method.

However, to make such arrangements possible, arms control itself should be “re-branded,” so it will be perceived first and foremost as a tool in a state’s national security arsenal rather than anything intended for the good of all humankind. And the term “re-branding” would be absolutely correct to use, because a top-to-bottom overhaul of arms control would indeed contribute to the optimization of military development projects—based on better understanding of the efforts and logic of similar developments in both adversarial and partner countries alike.

Russia, for what it is worth, had already made several proposals regarding somewhat informal arms control mechanisms over the last decade alone. To name a few such proposals, there was the suggestion for a post-INF moratorium on intermediate-range ground-launched missiles deployment; limitations on the scale and geographic locations of military exercises during the COVID-19 pandemic; and an extension of treaty limitations post-New START. Unfortunately, none of those eventually succeeded, although the post-INF moratorium did contribute to a somewhat slowed and scaled-down development and deployment of such systems by both Russia and by the United States. Moreover, as of Spring 2026 neither Russia nor the United States seem to be actively engaged in deploying nuclear warheads beyond the now-defunct New START limits.

Other scenarios

Read more: The view from Moscow: The future of nuclear arms control exists, but the path is hard

But with the expiration of the last of the nuclear arms control treaties, a renewed nuclear arms race is a real possibility, and one that is already occurring in some domains. The exact parameters are hard to determine, because there is only secondary or even tertiary data on the capacities of defense industries and nuclear enterprises for countries like China and Russia, especially given the ongoing “special military operation” that the latter is undertaking in Ukraine. More information is available on the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, while far less can be found on India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea (also known as the DPRK).

Such races are occurring even though they are not the most effective way to spend increasingly limited resources. Russian nuclear weapons and delivery systems have been continuously upgraded and modernized throughout the post-Cold War period, for many reasons. The reasons include the degradation of Russia’s conventional forces, US superiority in strategic non-nuclear weapons, concerns about US missile defense, and the general security environment on the Eurasian continent—not to mention the practical need to preserve nuclear weapons’ expertise and to keep Russia’s relevant nuclear infrastructure running throughout periods of economic turmoil. So, there seems to be some capacity for arms racing.

The same is more or less true for China and, probably, France, although the reasons for keeping one’s nuclear weapons enterprise in good shape can be different.

The nuclear arms race itself, which could be said to have been ongoing for at least a decade or even more, only now shows signs of switching from the qualitative to the quantitative. Previously, most nuclear weapon states focused on enhancing the capabilities of their nuclear weapons—and especially their delivery systems—through increased precision, reliability, and survivability. Now it is clear that, although there is a different amount of open-ness and transparency about it, all nuclear weapon states are getting ready to increase their overall nuclear weapon stockpiles. What makes it much more different and much more dangerous compared to the previous Cold War is that this new arms race is essentially multi-domain and multipolar, with much bigger roles played by many more actors—including newly emerging powers.

One should not ignore the link between the growing emphasis on nuclear weapons as an ultimate tool to ensure national security and sovereignty by nuclear weapons states (and to some extent their allies) and the pressure on nuclear non-proliferation, with more countries considering getting a nuclear capability for the very same purpose. This link, if understood correctly, might also contribute to the limitation of “nuclear optimism” by the existing nuclear weapon states and force them to search for collective security solutions.

Limits of negative effects

Presumably, there is an understanding in Moscow and other nuclear capitals that arms-racing each other “into oblivion” (as a former US official once said) is not straightforward, and that there are serious limitations and bottlenecks. This gives some level of optimism that the arms race can be contained, if not through formal mechanisms, but based on mutual understanding that you can’t change the political, industrial, and demographic landscape back to what it once was.

The biggest danger, as viewed from Moscow, is that it is crucial to see a mix of strategic nuclear, strategic non-nuclear, non-strategic nuclear, and missile defense capabilities as a joint system augmented by nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities of allied states and integrated through “space superiority” and AI-enabled unified mission planning. This is perceived as a possibility to combine a disarming and decapitating strike with nuclear and non-nuclear weapons with air and missile defense capabilities preventing a weakened retaliation. The latest military conflicts demonstrate that such “bogeymen scenarios” cannot be ignored, as there is a clear push to bank on selected areas of military superiority by the United States and some of its allies.

Clearly, such threats are well understood; consequently there is a constant development of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, as well as Heavy Bombers and SSBNs, not to mention so-called novel strategic delivery systems, such as Avangard HGV-tipped ICBMs, Burevestnik unlimited range nuclear-powered cruise missiles, and the Poseidon nuclear-powered uncrewed underwater vehicle. Rapidly developing kinetic and non-kinetic counterspace capabilities also contribute to such efforts. There has been a clear focus on survivability and overwhelming second-strike capabilities, so that even a limited number of delivery vehicles intended for the targets on the adversary’s territory will reach their destination. However, actions by the United States and its allies do contribute to the ever-growing decapitation and disarming strike concerns. Ensuring the balance based solely on one’s military power without arms control framework is an extremely complicated task.

How to survive

Finally, there are many reasons to have questions and make accusations against each other because of bad decisions made over the years, including but not limited to the destruction of the ABM Treaty by Washington, as the most dramatic example—it drove both Moscow and Beijing to pursue symmetrical and asymmetrical measures to hedge against possible future technological breakthroughs. The so-called rogue states that have been cited as a primary reason to develop the US missile defenses and forward deploy its assets also continuously enhanced their capabilities. The characterization of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea by some politicians as an “axis of evil” (or “evil tetragon” in Russian) did not help to stabilize things either.

But the problem is that things can get much worse, with countries facing less stable strategic balances and more escalatory force postures. And they surely will evolve in that way, unless joint efforts to find solutions are undertaken.

Ultimately, there can and should be some new legally binding new arms-control regimes, including strict limitations on nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles, although it is possible that a “warhead” would be a virtual accounting unit akin to the New START rules, where one Heavy Bomber accounted for one Nuclear Warhead only. This demands a significant volume of political will, especially given the fact that it is impossible to cover all existing concerns within a single document. Before we reach this stage, some informal mechanisms to enhance arms control and risk reduction can be put in place. The path forward will be hard and will need mutual concessions.

However, the alternative is significantly more costly and dangerous on an existential level. The more nuclear weapons (and nuclear weapons states) that exist, the greater the possibility that nuclear weapons use becomes. This is the ultimate threat to the human civilization, and efforts to limit this threat demand leadership from the great powers today, not tomorrow.

June 15, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

  International People’s Tribunal (IPT) invites representatives of the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Korea to participate in Proceedings on Korean Victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings

10 June 2026, https://abombtribunal.campaignus.me/34/?q=YToxOntzOjEyOiJrZXl3b3JkX3R5cGUiO3M6MzoiYWxsIjt9&bmode=view&idx=171742128&t=board

The International Organizing Committee of the International People’s Tribunal (IPT) today formally invited representatives of the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Korea to participate in this Peoples’ Tribunal, which is being convened to highlight the experiences and claims of Korean victims of the 1945 atomic bombings. This group of atomic bomb survivors has too often been overlooked and now seeks recognition, acknowledgment, and redress through international legal accountability. 

Letters of invitation were respectfully provided to these two governments in the hope that they will send representatives to the Tribunal, which will be held at the Graduate School of Theology, Hanshin University, in Seoul, South Korea, on November 13–15, 2026. 

The formal invitations are attached to this release. The invitations were jointly signed by the three Co-Chairs of the International Organizing Committee: Bishop Emeritus Kang U-il of Jeju, Archbishop John Charles Wester of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, and Takashi Hiraoka, former Mayor of Hiroshima City. 

The Tribunal is organized with the participation of lawyers, scholars, activists, and relevant experts from Korea and abroad. Korean atomic bomb victims will participate as claimants in the proceedings, which will address issues of international legal responsibility arising from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, as well as the future use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. 

The IPT is being organized in recognition of the fact that the experiences of Korean atomic bomb victims—who were victims both of Japanese imperial aggression and colonial rule, and of the atomic bombings carried out by the  United States—have not been sufficiently brought to light before the international community.

The IPT also seeks to contribute to international legal discussions concerning the restoration of victims’ human rights, including official apologies, compensation, guarantees of non-repetition, and the prohibition of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as to broader efforts toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the realization of a world free of nuclear weapons.

CONTACT: 

Brad Wolf
U.S. Organizing Committee Contact
Email: bradwolf1310@gmail.com 

Kihoon Lee
SPARK (Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea)
Email: abombtribunal@gmail.com 

June 14, 2026 Posted by | politics international, South Korea | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »