Putin warns NATO over being drawn into Ukraine war
By Zahid Mahmood, CNN, June 17, 2023
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned there is a “serious danger” of NATO being drawn further into the Ukraine war if members of the alliance continue to supply military weaponry to Kyiv.
“NATO, of course, is being drawn into the war in Ukraine, what are we talking here,” Putin said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Friday.
“The supplies of heavy military weaponry to Ukraine are ongoing, they are now looking into giving Ukraine the jets.”
The comment appeared to be a reference to the F-16 fighter jets some members of the NATO alliance are making plans to supply Ukraine with.
NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was formed in the aftermath of World War II to defend Western nations from the Soviet Union [despite USSR being their ally in WW2 !]and the alliance contains a mutual defense clause where an attack on any one member is considered an attack on all. While Ukraine is not a member of NATO, some NATO members have been supplying Kyiv with tanks, armored vehicles and other weaponry – prompting threats of retaliation from Russia.
German Leopard 2 tanks, British Challenger 2 tanks and American Bradley and Stryker vehicles are among the Western equipment that has been sent to Ukraine.
In late April, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO allies and partners had delivered more than 1,500 vehicles and 230 tanks to the country.
During his speech in St. Petersburg, Putin said Russia had destroyed tanks “including Leopards” at the front lines.
“And if they are based abroad, but used in fighting we’ll see how to hit them, and where we can hit those means that are used against us in fighting,” Putin said.
“This is a serious danger of further drawing NATO into this military conflict,” he added………………………….. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/17/europe/nato-danger-ukraine-war-putin-intl-hnk/index.html
Zelensky admits that there was an ongoing civil war prior to the Russian invasion, claims Russia will attack a NATO member
Zelensky Slams Trump for Saying He Would End the War in Ukraine
The Ukrainian leader admitted that there was an ongoing civil war prior to the Russian invasion.
By Kyle Anzalone / Antiwar June 18, 2023
In an interview with NBC News, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attacked former President Donald Trump’s pledge to end the war. He argued that if Kiev does not defeat Moscow, Russia will attack a NATO member state and force the US into a direct conflict.
Zelensky was asked about Trump’s claim he would immediately engage the Kremlin in talks and bring the war to a negotiated settlement. “Are they ready to start a war to send their children? Are they ready to die?” he said in the interview that was published on Thursday. “If Russia occupies Ukraine, they will move on to the Baltic countries, to Poland, to any NATO country, and in that particular case the U.S. will have to choose between dismantling NATO or fighting.”
Kiev and hawks in Washington have asserted that Ukraine is a bulwark, protecting members of NATO from Moscow’s expansionist ambitions. However, there is no evidence that the Kremlin eyes attacking another country. Russian President Vladimir Putin views Ukraine as a unique security threat to his county and says seizing territory protects Moscow against the expanding NATO alliance.
Ukraine hopes to be added as a member of the alliance once the war is over. “We need an invitation, and it needs to be clear that after this war, if we are ready, and if the Ukraine army is ready to NATO standards, then after the war we will be invited to join.” Zelensky continued, “It’s very important to hear the truth and not tell us lies.”
In 2008, Ukraine was told it would one day receive full NATO membership. At the time, Moscow denounced the proposal, saying it violated red lines and, from the Russian perspective, would create a significant security threat.
Despite the Russian objections, NATO maintains its doors are open to new members, but Ukraine does not currently meet the requirements. As Kiev is currently at war with Moscow, admitting Ukraine into the alliance will put NATO in direct confrontation with Russia.
At times, Kiev appears to be frustrated with NATO refusing to make a formal commitment to Ukraine. Zelensky is threatening to sit out a coming meeting of the North Atlantic alliance in July because Ukraine will not receive a pledge to become a member at the end of the war.
Zelensky went on to slam Trump, claiming he was unable to end the war in Ukraine while he was in office. “Why didn’t he do that earlier? He was president when the war was going on here,” he explained. “I think he couldn’t do that. I think there are no people today in the world who could just have a word with Putin and end the war.”
The statement appears to be an admission from Zelensky that the war in Ukraine began before the Russian invasion in 2022. Prior to the Russian invasion, Ukraine was embroiled in an eight-year-long civil war. Washington and NATO justify their support for Kiev by saying the Russian invasion was “unprovoked.”
The Minsk Accords were agreed to by Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France with the intention of ending the civil war. However, Zelensky was unable to get neo-nazi paramilitaries fighting for Ukraine to comply with the agreement. In the days before the Russian invasion, there was a surge in fighting between Ukrainian forces and rebels in the Donbas region.
Victoria Nuland to announce Ukraine to join NATO – the start of World War 3
Antonio Sontavo 14 June 23, The next meeting of NATO Heads of State and, Government will take place, in Vilnius on 11-12 July 2023. Victoria Nuland will announce that Ukraine is joining NATO, at that meeting on July 11 2023. The announcement, will mark the beginning, of World War Three.
Key renewables vote in European Council postponed over nuclear spat
The Swedish presidency is leery of France blocking the approval process at the last minute.
BY VICTOR JACK https://www.politico.eu/article/key-renewables-vote-council-postponed-nuclear-spat/ JUNE 14, 2023
The Swedish Council presidency has again delayed the formal approval of the Renewable Energy Directive (REDIII) as it tries to resolve a French-led feud among countries over the role of nuclear energy.
EU ambassadors on Wednesday were due to sign off on REDIII, an integral part of the bloc’s flagship Fit for 55 climate package that aims to slash emissions by 55 percent by 2030 and ramp up the share of renewables in the EU’s energy mix to 42.5 percent.
But the vote was postponed until Friday to give EU countries time to digest a last-minute proposal by the Swedish presidency circulated late Tuesday meant to placate France, according to two diplomats, who were granted anonymity to speak candidly about country dynamics.
EU capitals and the Parliament reached a provisional deal on the text in March, but Paris has been pushing for a greater role for its atomic sector. Those efforts have riled nuclear-skeptic countries including Luxembourg and Germany, as well as countries previously sympathetic to France’s views. Earlier this month, 10 EU countries told the Swedish presidency to find a deal “as soon as possible.”
The Swedish presidency already pushed back approval of its compromise text last month out of concern that France could torpedo the process.
The new Swedish compromise text adds language to the text’s non-binding preamble that would allow a rebate for certain existing ammonia production plants in meeting an industry sub-target for renewable energy, providing a limited loophole for hydrogen derived from non-renewable sources.
Several EU ambassadors in today’s meeting queried whether the late addition would create legal uncertainties and require re-opening negotiations with the Parliament, the two diplomats said.
The postponement of a deal on REDIII has implications for a related file on sustainable aviation fuels, ReFuelEU aviation. That was due to be signed off on Wednesday, but has also been pushed back until Friday.
South Korea begins public briefings to address concern over Fukushima water
South Korea’s fisheries ministry held the first of a series of nationwide
briefings for the public on Tuesday regarding seafood safety amid Japan’s
plan to release treated radioactive water from the disaster-hit Fukushima
nuclear power plant into the sea.
The Oceans and Fisheries Ministry said
Monday the briefings will continue until late June to provide scientific
information on the treated water at the Fukushima No. 1 plant that Japan
plans to start discharging in the summer.
The first event was held in the
southern port city of Busan with about 40 people — all working in the
local fisheries industry — in attendance, a ministry official said. Song
Sang-keun, the vice fisheries minister, said Monday, “(The ministry)
plans to meet face-to-face with the public, especially those working in the
fisheries industry, to explain how safe our marine products are, based on
scientific and objective facts. “There is no way that inappropriate
marine products will get to the table of our people,” Song added.
Japan Times 14th June 2023
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/06/14/national/south-korea-briefings-fukushima-water/
In July, NATO nations will upgrade Ukraine’s status as a future member, but in a rather confusing way.
Gathering in Vilnius is likely to result in post-war security guarantees and easier route to join alliance when the time comes
Ukraine will not be offered timeline for Nato membership at summit in July Patrick Wintour, Guardian, 14 June 23,
Ukraine will not be offered a timeline with specific dates by which it can join Nato at its summit in Vilnius next month but instead may be offered a shorter route when an offer of membership is made. The proposal, reflecting a gathering consensus of key partners in the western defence alliance, will come as a disappointment to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
Nato members, but outside formal Nato structures, will also offer post-conflict security guarantees to Ukraine, which are likely to take the shape of broad commitments to protect Ukraine from assaults by Russia. They are also expected to continue to provide ammunition and to help the Ukrainian armed forces become more convergent with Nato. But the commitments are likely to take a broad high level form rather than be specific offers of weaponry.
The countries at the centre of the negotiations said it is normal in the run-up to a summit for Nato members still to be in disagreement. However, they hoped a possible commitment that Ukraine would not have to meet conditions set out in a laborious membership application plan (MAP) and instead gain near automatic membership once an invitation is offered would be recognised as an upgrade from anything offered to the country before. Finland and Sweden have been offered Nato membership without needing to complete a MAP.
It is also likely that Nato will upgrade its current political relationship with Ukraine from the current Nato-Ukraine commission to a Nato-Ukraine council, an upgrade that gives Ukraine a higher status in joint meetings. One diplomat conceded the upgrade was unlikely to mean much to the average Ukrainian soldier fighting on the frontline but insisted it had a real value.
Juliette Smith, the US ambassador to Nato, said an upgrade to a council format “would shift the fundamental dynamics”, since Ukraine would be meeting as one of 32 attendees, as opposed to a format of 31 plus one. This would change the potential agenda items, something the US would welcome, she said.
All sides have long accepted that Ukraine cannot become a Nato member in the middle of a conflict but Kyiv, backed by Baltic states and Poland, would like a date or a timeline by which it could join once the conflict ends. A Vilnius commitment to membership has been proposed.
The absence of a date or clear conditions that Ukraine would need to meet to gain automatic Nato status will lead to Ukrainian accusations that Nato is doing little more than re-offering the promise of membership made to Ukraine at the Nato Bucharest summit in April 2008 when Nato said it had agreed Ukraine and Georgia will become members of Nato. Western countries said it would be perfectly understandable for Ukraine to be angry but insist the wording, coupled with the security commitments, can be an improvement.
The need to maintain Nato unity at such a critical time is seen as paramount, with Vladimir Putin likely to be the only beneficiary of an acrimonious Nato summit in which different sides fall out over Ukraine’s future Nato status. Full Nato membership gives members the protection umbrella of Nato’s Article 5 commitment to collective self-defence.
An attempt to require all Nato members to ensure 2% of GDP is spent on defence is also expected at the summit……………………………….more https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/14/ukraine-will-not-be-offered-timeline-for-nato-membership-at-summit-in-july
EU to vote on renewables bill again after being stalled on nuclear row
France wants the law to recognise low-carbon nuclear energy as a component of renewable targets, while Bulgaria, Romania and Poland call the targets overambitious.
By Ashima Sharma, https://www.power-technology.com/news/eu-to-vote-on-renewables-bill-after-nuclear-row/ 12 June 23
U diplomats will vote on the bloc’s new renewable energy bill on Wednesday after a group of countries, including France, registered last-minute opposition in May.
The bill proposes a binding goal for all EU countries to generate 42.5% of their energy from renewable sources by 2030. While France wanted the law to recognise low-carbon nuclear energy as a component of renewable targets, Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland say the targets are overambitious.
The EU’s current share of renewables in the energy mix is 22%. However, the share of the energy mix is unevenly distributed among the countries. Sweden’s share of renewable energy is 63%, while Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands comprise less than 13% of the total energy share.
The revised directive on renewables doubles the current targets with an ambition to accelerate the bloc’s plan to fight climate change and end dependence on Russian fuel. Meeting the new goals requires scaling up wind and solar farms, increasing the production of renewable gases and integrating Europe’s power grids to accommodate cleaner energy.
While nuclear energy is low-carbon, it is not renewable. France is, however, pushing for more favourable treatment of nuclear energy. The country maintains that the new bill puts countries like France, with a huge nuclear share, at a disadvantage. In May this year, the French Parliament passed a law to accelerate the construction of new nuclear reactors.
The revised directive on renewables doubles the current targets with an ambition to accelerate the bloc’s plan to fight climate change and end dependence on Russian fuel. Meeting the new goals requires scaling up wind and solar farms, increasing the production of renewable gases and integrating Europe’s power grids to accommodate cleaner energy.
While nuclear energy is low-carbon, it is not renewable. France is, however, pushing for more favourable treatment of nuclear energy. The country maintains that the new bill puts countries like France, with a huge nuclear share, at a disadvantage. In May this year, the French Parliament passed a law to accelerate the construction of new nuclear reactors.
European Union to try again for renewable energy deal after nuclear row
By Kate AbnettJune 10, 2023
BRUSSELS, June 10 (Reuters) – European Union countries will try again next week to pass a deal on new renewable energy targets, which have been stalled by concerns from France and other states that the law sidelines nuclear energy.
A group of countries including France lodged last-minute opposition to the EU’s law on more ambitious renewable energy goals last month, putting on hold a main pillar of the bloc’s plans to tackle climate change.
EU country diplomats will attempt to approve the law on Wednesday, according to an agenda for the meeting published late on Friday.
Paris has sought changes to the law to offer more favourable treatment of nuclear energy, and said the final deal puts at a disadvantage countries like France with large shares of nuclear power. Nuclear energy is low-carbon, but not renewable.
The EU law is designed to drive a rapid expansion of renewable energy sources like wind and solar. The deal negotiated this year offered some compromises, including lower renewable fuel targets for industry, in countries that have already used nuclear power to slash their use of fossil fuels…………………
France’s energy ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said on Thursday France will not give up the competitive advantages linked to nuclear power, noting that EU countries have the right to choose their own energy mix.
Other pro-nuclear EU members including Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic had also signalled they would not support the renewable law – citing concerns including, for some, that the targets are simply too high.
Together, they have enough votes to block the law.
It is unusual for countries to reject pre-agreed deals on EU laws, which follow months of negotiations.
Meanwhile, states including Germany and Luxembourg – both anti-nuclear countries – plus Denmark and Ireland have urged the EU to resolve the spat quickly, warning the delay endangers investments in renewable energy.
Reporting by Kate Abnett Additional reporting by Dominique Vidalon Editing by Frances Kerry https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-try-again-renewable-energy-deal-after-nuclear-row-2023-06-10/
France’s EDF and the global nuclear lobby sulking because Europe won’t accept their lie that nuclear power is “renewable”.
‘Not there yet’: France’s EDF frustrated with nuclear power’s status in EU’s Net-Zero Industry Act, By Frédéric Simon | EURACTIV.com 11 June 23,
Supporters of nuclear power in France have welcomed plans to scrap the two-tier approach to low-carbon technologies in the EU’s draft Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA) but they also condemn the lower status granted to atomic energy as “incoherent” with the bloc’s wider decarbonisation goals.
Tabled by the European Commission in March, the NZIA aims to ensure Europe is capable of producing domestically at least 40% of the technologies it deems “strategic” to achieve its goal of reducing emissions to net zero by 2050.
But while nuclear energy was catalogued among the EU’s net-zero industries, it did not make it into the list of “strategic” technologies – such as wind, solar, batteries and electrolysers – that are eligible for the 40% domestic manufacturing benchmark, as well as quicker permitting procedures and looser EU state aid oversight.
Under the Commission’s proposal, only Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and “advanced technologies” producing energy from nuclear processes “with minimal waste from the fuel cycle” would be eligible for the ‘strategic’ label.
“The cutting-edge nuclear is in for specific fields, but not for all,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen explained after an EU summit in March, causing uproar among nuclear energy fans on social media.
Technological neutrality
Legislators are now examining the proposed NZIA regulation, with the European Parliament and EU member states aiming to reach an agreement on a joint text before the end of the year.
And for nuclear power advocates, the Parliament’s draft position on the regulation means more frustration, even though some see encouraging signs as well…………………………………..
EDF, the French state-owned electric utility, appears even more bitter, denouncing the “incoherence” of ignoring a mature technology like nuclear power, which emits almost no carbon dioxide, in a legislative text meant to promote zero-emission technologies.
“The only nuclear power included in the NZIA is the one which does not yet exist – Small Modular Reactors (SMRs),” said Erkki Maillard, senior vice president for EU affairs at EDF, which returned under full state ownership this week……………………………………..
Nuclear alliance
France is not alone in its quest to win recognition for nuclear power as a strategic net-zero technology.
Last month, a group of 16 European countries taking part in the French-led “nuclear alliance” signed a joint declaration in which they encouraged the European Commission “to recognise nuclear energy in the EU’s energy strategy” and promote “better conditions for the development and deployment of new nuclear energy capacity in the EU”.
………………………………………. Parliament lawmakers have until 19 June to table amendments to the NZIA regulation.
The Parliament’s industry committee, which has the lead on the matter, is scheduled to vote on the proposal on 12 October, before a plenary vote expected the following month. This will open the way for decisive talks with EU member states and the European Commission to finalise the law’s adoption.
Iranian Supreme Leader Says ‘Nothing Wrong’ With A Nuclear Deal With West
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-khamenei-nuclear-deal-approval/32454257.html 12 June 23
Iran’s supreme leader said on June 11 that a deal with the West over Tehran’s nuclear work was possible if the country’s atomic infrastructure remained intact, amid a stalemate between Tehran and Washington to revive a 2015 nuclear pact.
Months of indirect talks between Tehran and Washington to salvage the nuclear accord with six major powers have stalled since September, with each side accusing the other of making unreasonable demands. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s guarded approval comes days after both Tehran and Washington denied a report that they were nearing an interim deal. To read the original story by Reuters, click here.
Oman facilitating Iran-US talks to replace 2015 nuclear accord
MUSCAT DAILY, 12 JUN 2023
Tehran, Iran – Iran on Monday said it has continued indirect negotiations with the Unites States through the Sultanate of Oman over its nuclear deal and a possible prisoner swap.
Iran’s nuclear programme has long been the subject of scrutiny from Western powers, resulting in sanctions that have crippled the country’s economy.
A 2015 deal granted Tehran much-needed relief from sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme before it was torpedoed by the United States’ unilateral pullout in 2018.
In recent days, the two capitals have denied media reports that they were close to reaching an interim deal to replace the 2015 accord.
“We welcome the efforts of Omani officials and we exchanged messages with the other party through this mediator” over the lifting of US sanctions, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said on Monday.
“We have never stopped the diplomatic processes,” he added during his weekly press conference, emphasising that the talks “were not secret”.
Diplomatic ties between Tehran and Washington soured following the 1979 revolution led by Iran’s first supreme leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal have so far failed to yield results.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday reiterated the denial of moves towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. He also said deals could be reached, provided they do not change “the existing infrastructure of the nuclear industry”……………………………………………..more https://www.muscatdaily.com/2023/06/12/oman-facilitating-iran-us-talks-to-replace-2015-nuclear-accord/
Anxiety and disagreement in South Korea about Fukushima radioactive wastewater
[Lee Kyong-hee] Fallout from Fukushima radioactive wastewater, By Korea Herald, Jun 8, 2023
“………………….. quoting a diplomatic source, the reports say that President Yoon Suk Yeol vowed to make all-out efforts to remove public concerns in Korea about the wastewater discharge when he met Japanese lawmakers in March during his visit to Tokyo for a summit with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
Many Koreans were caught off guard, and this administration’s purported stance is further proof that their president is bent on fence-mending with an unrepentant government at whatever cost.
Yoon has neither confirmed nor denied the reports. Transparency is not a priority of his administration, though his search for avenues of rapprochement with Japan is clear.
As Yoon remains tight-lipped, we can only guess his views about the rationality of the discharge and whether he grasps the potential risks. Hence a confrontation with the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea is underway, each side blaming the other for spreading malicious rumors lacking scientific basis.
Amid the accusations, the science community also has misgivings. Seo Kyun-ryeol, a professor emeritus at Seoul National University’s Department of Nuclear Engineering, is an outspoken critic. He is among several scientists who question the contaminated water filtration process and cautions that sea currents will ultimately bring some of discharged wastewater to Korea’s shores.
…………………….public mistrust is understandable, given TEPCO’s history; a Japanese government investigation report in 2012 said TEPCO had failed to meet initial safety requirements.
………………………. Seo says, “There is no guarantee that all of the system’s many filters for different isotopes will work perfectly all of the time, given the condition and quantity of the water, let alone the period of time required.”
The SNU professor highlights the potential hazards associated with cesium, strontium and plutonium, which were released from the reactors due to the disaster. “These substances not only enter the bloodstream but also penetrate the muscles, bones and brain, leading to the development of solid cancers and tumors,” he said.
Seo has raised concerns that marine life and ocean currents can carry harmful radioactive isotopes across the Pacific. He warns of the potential risks to entire marine ecosystems, from the deep-sea organisms up to invertebrates, fish and marine mammals through the food chain, eventually reaching humans.
Naturally, among the most vocal critics of the ocean discharge is the Pacific Islands Forum, an organization representing 18 island nations. They have already suffered from nuclear tests by the United States and European countries. Their concerns are reasonable as most of their populations are coastal residents who depend on the ocean for their livelihoods.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to release its final assessment later this month before Japan embarks on its plan. The root of the problem, as contended by Ken Buesseler, a marine radiochemist and advisor to the Pacific Islands Forum, is that Japan is moving already with a plan which has not proven workable.
Masashi Goto, a retired nuclear engineer who designed reactor containment vessels for Toshiba for many years, bemoans the “safety culture” he encountered in the industry. In a presentation marking the 10th year after the Fukushima accident, he said, “Risks can be expressed in terms of their potential for damage or probability of occurrence. Many unlikely scenarios run the risk of horrendous consequences.”
Goto’s views concerning the decommissioning of a nuclear reactor are worth heeding. “TEPCO claims to have a decommissioning schedule that can be completed within the next 30 to 40 years, but this is completely unrealistic. Given the severity of what happened and the current state of the reactors, in practice we are looking at a process lasting anywhere from 100 to 200 years.”
“What is the number one priority? It’s the same question that was thrust upon the citizens of Japan 10 years ago. Do we prioritize the economy and convenience at any cost, or do we choose to live modestly in safety and free from worry?” he asked.
All said, Japan should suspend the planned release of the wastewater. Heeding the concerns of the international community, it may well consider other possible options, such as long-term storage and processing through half-lives of isotopes or cement-based solidification. https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20230607000843
Universalization of Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty Is Essential
IDN InDepthNews BERLIN | TOKYO, 11 June 2023 (IDN) By Ramesh Jaura — Peacebuilder and Buddhist leader Daisaku Ikeda, who is president of the Tokyo-based Soka Gakkai International (SGI), issued a statement ahead of the meeting of the Group of 7 (G7) countries in Hiroshima May 19-21, calling on the G7 leaders to take bold steps toward resolving the conflict in Ukraine and guarantee the security of all humanity by taking the lead in discussions on pledges of No First Use of nuclear weapons.
The venue of the summit of seven leaders—from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, plus the European Union (EU)—was symbolically stark because the US atomic bombings in 1945 killed over 226,000 people in the twin Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the heaviest toll in Hiroshima.
But did the seven leaders—from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, plus the European Union (EU)—manage to take bold steps in respect of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and committing to ‘No First Use’ of nuclear weapons?
IDN interviewed Mr Hirotsugu Terasaki, Director General of Peace and Global Issues, Soka Gakkai International. Following is the complete text of the interview:
Q: What does the SG think of the outcome of the Hiroshima Summit, which ended May 21 with Ukraine in focus and both Russia and China criticizing the G7?
Hirotsugu Terasaki (HT): Hiroshima, where the first atomic bomb in human history was dropped, is the starting point of peace, and a summit meeting for the total abolition of nuclear weapons should be held there—the this is something SGI President Daisaku Ikeda has repeatedly called for since 1975…………………………………………….. more https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/armaments/nuclear-weapons/6233-universalization-of-nuclear-weapon-ban-treaty-is-increasingly-essential
France says nuclear power is ‘non-negotiable’
EURACTIV.com with AFP 9 June 23
French nuclear power is “an absolute red line” and non-negotiable, Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said Thursday (8 June), following Franco-German disagreements over the role of nuclear energy in Europe.
Nuclear-reliant Paris has already irked Berlin by insisting on giving nuclear energy a starring role in European plans to produce more green technology in Europe.
“Nuclear power is an absolute red line for France, and France will not relinquish any of the competitive advantages linked to nuclear energy”, Le Maire insisted as he closed the annual conference of the French Electricity Union.
France’s 56 ageing reactors normally provide some 70% of France’s electricity needs.
“French nuclear power is non-negotiable and will never be negotiable. We will have to live with it, and we are convinced that it is not only in France’s interest, but also in the interest of the European continent”, he added.
Spat over EU’s renewable energy directive
Earlier, at the same meeting, German state secretary for economic affairs and climate action Stefan Wenzel acknowledged that France and Germany “often have different approaches in energy policy, especially concerning nuclear energy”
Germany “respects diverging choices for other fossil fuel energy sources by other member states as France that may similarly contribute to achieve climate neutrality,” he added.
However “what we cannot accept is when nuclear energy is defined as renewable, or low-carbon hydrogen is equated with green hydrogen”.
Agreement on the EU’s revised renewable energy directive was delayed last month as France requested further “guarantees” to limit the share of renewable hydrogen production for countries that already have significant amounts of low-carbon hydrogen derived from nuclear power…………………… https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/france-says-nuclear-power-is-non-negotiable/
Are We Back to Nuclear Brinkmanship for Good?
It’s not just Putin who has re-embraced nuclear threats. The U.S. and China are also cracking open the door.
By Michael Hirsh, a columnist for Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/09/nuclear-brinksmanship-arms-control-jake-sullivan-putin-china-russia/
Sixty years ago this week, U.S. President John F. Kennedy gave a speech at American University that transformed the nature of the Cold War, turning the insanity of nuclear brinkmanship into the relative safety of negotiation. Coming just eight months after the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world harrowingly close to armageddon, Kennedy noted the “ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers [on earth] are the two in the most danger of devastation.”
That, he said, had to stop—not to achieve some “infinite concept of universal peace and goodwill” but rather to secure “a more practical, more attainable peace.”
In an act of political courage for the time, Kennedy then delivered a unilateral concession to Moscow, saying the United States “does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so.”
Astonishingly, given the hostility between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Soviet government broadcast Kennedy’s June 10, 1963, address in its entirety, and it was published by the Soviet newspapers Izvestia and Pravda. On July 25, 1963, after only 12 days of negotiations, a nuclear test ban treaty was signed.
Where is the political courage of yesteryear?
In a speech at the Arms Control Association’s annual conference on June 2, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan took a very different tack. Sullivan signaled—though he likely didn’t intend to—that there is little hope for restraining the threat of nuclear war in the foreseeable future. Sullivan conceded that there was no meaningful U.S. communication with either Russia or China, that Washington was engaging in tit-for-tat reprisals against Moscow by suspending day-to-day missile operations notification, and that the United States would continue to push for military dominance over both Russia and China for decades to come.
Sullivan, rightly blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin for bringing nuclear brinkmanship back into the conventional war equation, said “the cracks in our post-Cold War nuclear foundation are substantial and they are deep.” But in the end, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard University, told Foreign Policy, Sullivan “offered nothing, no proposals.”
To be fair, the Biden administration is already being criticized by Republicans for proposing unconditional nuclear talks with both Russia and China. Indeed, U.S. President Joe Biden is clearly avoiding what may be his biggest foreign-policy fear leading up to the 2024 presidential election: the perception of being soft on China. That sort of political pressure at home, combined with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s apparent determination to rapidly build up his nuclear capability, suggests a long-term arms race.
Yet Sullivan did little to ameliorate those fears last week. On the contrary, he announced that the United States is pursuing an arms race in order to prevent an arms race. “Together with our NATO allies, we’ve been laser-focused on modernizing the alliance’s nuclear capabilities,” Sullivan said, including “certifying our F-35 aircraft to be able to deliver modern nuclear gravity bombs. … Together, these modernization efforts will ensure our deterrent capabilities remain secure and strong as we head into the 2030s—when the United States will need to deter two near-peer nuclear powers for the first time in its history.”
Sullivan denied that he was calling for a new arms race, contending the Biden administration was taking a “better” approach rather than a “more” one. “The United States does not need to increase our nuclear forces to outnumber the combined total of our competitors in order to successfully deter them,” he said. But Sullivan was basically telling the Chinese and Russians that Washington will continue to insist on precisely what both Beijing and Moscow have said they can no longer accept: U.S. hegemony in the global system.
As a result, Bunn said, “I’m fairly worried that we have a level of hostility that is the worst since the Cuban Missile Crisis.”
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (245)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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 
