nuclear-news

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

Australia’s ongoing nuclear submarine debacle – ‘A tangle of overlapping interests’

 https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/a-tangle-of-overlapping-interests?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=82059669&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email Michelle Fahy 5 Nov 22

The federal government’s secret hiring from 2015 of numerous former US Navy officials to advise on Australia’s submarine procurement was exposed by The Washington Post a fortnight ago. “Some of the retired admirals have worked for the Australian government while simultaneously consulting for US shipbuilders and the US Navy, including on classified programs,” the Post said. The US officials benefited financially from “a tangle of overlapping interests”. The Post revealed that one former US admiral had been consulting to Australia while also occupying a full time position as chairman of the board of Huntington Ingalls Industries, a US company that builds US nuclear-powered submarines. That arrangement was abandoned in April this year due to conflict of interest concerns.

Australian defence experts Mike Scrafton and Richard Tanter have outlined the implications of these revelations in John Menadue’s public policy journal, Pearls and Irritations.

Mike Scrafton said, “What remains unclear now is the extent to which the abandonment of the French submarine and the decision to pursue a nuclear powered version was influenced by the Americans. The dramatic shift to the AUKUS project casts the role of the ex-US officials in a different light.”

Red flags have been a feature of Australia’s submarine procurement process since the original deal with France’s Naval Group in 2016. Concerns there included the government’s selection of Naval Group despite it being under investigation for corruption in three earlier shipbuilding contracts, with a fourth investigation added after Australia handed Naval Group the deal. Neither this alarming fact, nor other questionable aspects of the deal, triggered a rethink to find a more suitable contractor. The Washington Post revelations now raise even more questions about the backroom dealings in this disastrous extended procurement process.

November 4, 2022 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

B52’s mark the demise of Australia as a self-reliant nation

Australia has become a base for the possible use of US nuclear weapons against China………………..

And all this has happened without the Parliament being consulted

 https://johnmenadue.com/b52s-mark-the-demise-of-australia-as-a-self-reliant-nation/
By Bruce Haigh, Nov 5, 2022

News that the US plans to base six B52’s at RAAF, Tindal, will likely change the dynamic, in what has admittedly been a half-hearted attempt by Australia, at improving relations with China.

The Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, got off to a good start, but the momentum was slowed by Prime Minister Albanese’s remarks that China constituted a threat, his rushed attendance at an anti-China NATO Summit meeting, the QUAD meeting and the Abe funeral. Abe like his grand farther Kishi was very anti-Chinese.

Albanese’s remarks echo those of Biden, who has chosen on a number of occasions to say that the US would ‘defend’ Taiwan. These guarantees have each time been denied by White House spokes persons but have been reiterated often enough by Biden to indicate where he stands on the question of the ‘reintegration’ of Taiwan with China.

Biden in his confusing way did nothing to stop the ill-conceived Pelosi visit to Taiwan. Biden has refused, indeed prevented, diplomatic negotiations toward ending the war in the Ukraine. He sees the war, mistakenly and naively, as an opportunity to break Russia. Albanese has gone along with this, recently sending 70 Australian soldiers to the UK to train Ukrainian troops. His thinking, and that of Biden, appear in lockstep over the major foreign policy and defence issues confronting Asia and Europe, mainly created and fanned by the US.

An almost frenzied pace is building in the US for confrontation of China. Why? John Menadue, Richard Tanter, Mike Scrafton and Jeffrey Sachs have all recently written in Pearls & Irritations on this unfolding madness.

The basing of B52’s in the Northern Territory changes the nature of Australia’s defence relationship with the USA and our diplomatic relationship with China. Australia has become a base for the possible use of US nuclear weapons against China. Tentative and overly cautious moves to re-establish a sound and workable relationship with China will have been set back, if not put on ice. Moves that Morrison was a party to, or patsy to, have proceeded apace without the brakes being applied by Marles or Albanese. The horse has bolted. And all this has happened without the Parliament being consulted. So much for Australian democracy. All this talk about Western Democracies standing up to totalitarian regimes is so much cant.

China is unlikely to regard Australia as having acted in good faith and nor is the region and the Pacific. Overnight the US and Australia changed the nature of the game with no prior warning and no special briefings. It is a unilateral and hostile upping of the anti.

It is also unlikely that Australia will be advised if the aircraft are carrying nuclear weapons on planned patrols. The line that can be expected is that for operational and security reasons information relating to carriage of nuclear weapons is classified and can neither be confirmed or denied.

No doubt the Chinese are seriously thinking of writing Australia off as being incapable of independent decision making- a vassal state, a follower, lacking the capacity and courage to shape its regional destiny. The chances of Xi Jinping meeting with Albanese at the G20 have receded, if not evaporated.

Perhaps it is symbolic that the ubiquitous B52 marks the demise of Australia as a self-reliant nation.

The B52 is the symbol of US foreign policy failure in Asia. Not satisfied with the terms of the Paris peace settlement, Nixon and Kissinger decided to bomb the Accord, as it was termed, out of existence. Over a ten-day period beginning on 18 December 1972, B52’s bombed Hanoi and surrounding areas. It was a disaster anywhere from 15 to 30 aircraft were shot down, depending on whether you believe the Americans or Vietnamese. The US was forced back to the negotiating table and agreed to the original terms.

B52’s bombed Laos and Cambodia during the same undeclared war with a greater tonnage of bombs than the US used over Europe in WWII. Fields are still being cleared of unexploded armaments and men, women and children are still being maimed.

The basing of the B52’s blind sides the Defence Review called by Albanese and Marles and gives a great deal of weight to AUKUS, details of which are yet to be put to the Australian Parliament. It is unconscionable that AUKUS is bandied about as a joint defence arrangement when little is known about it.

It is presumed that all that is currently taking place and has taken place between the US and Australia, such as the embedding of US personnel in the ADF, base upgrades and proposed and past purchases of defence equipment, such as the Mark II Abrams tank, were all done under AUKUS, except that the UK seems to have been notably absent. So, is it AUUS? Or against the wishes of the Japanese people will it become JAPAUUS? Or AUJAPUS? OR AUJAPUKUS?

Whatever the Monty Python outcome, it needs to go before the Australian Parliament. It has been a big mistake for Prime Minister, Albanese, to take on and run with Morrison’s dirty and deceitful deal. Australia needs to be aware of the immediate and long-term consequences of the US military and industrial China folly of which once again we have been railroaded into. No debate, no consideration and no brains.

November 3, 2022 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

Australia’s $multibillion submarine madness and the phoney China threat

According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the cost of eight would be $171 billion after inflation. More recent estimates are over $200 billion.

 https://johnmenadue.com/australian-submarine-madness/ By Brian Toohey, Nov 4, 2022

Nobody knows what military threats to Australia from China or anyone else will exist in 2050. In these circumstances, it is folly to commit to spending over $200 billion on acquiring eight US designed nuclear attack submarines to deploy in support of the US on the China coast.

This is particularly extravagant when modern conventionally powered submarines are much cheaper and far harder to detect. Nuclear submarines are noisy because they rely on a reactor to power a steam engine with cooling pumps, turbines, reduction gears and steam in the pipes. They also expel hot water that can be detected, as can the wake on the surface when travelling at high speeds.

Modern battery powered submarines, which Australia perversely has no plans to get, maintain near silent operation with what’s called air independent propulsion (AIP) supplied by a hydrogen fuel cell in Singapore’s German submarines, a Sterling engine favoured by the Swedes or in the case of the latest Japanese submarines, by advanced batteries with long endurance.

These submarines have the great advantage of making the crew far safer than noisy nuclear ones while leaving funds over for much needed improvements in Australian’s health, education, and social security systems as well as for tackling climate change.

Yet the Albanese government has a 350 strong task force in Defence planning the big changes needed to build nuclear powered submarines in Adelaide. In contrast, a prize-winning essay published in the US Naval Institute’s magazine Proceedings in June 2018 said the US Navy would do well to consider acquiring “some quiet, inexpensive and highly capable diesel-electric submarines. It said, “The ability of AIP was demonstrated in 2005, when HMS Gotland, a Swedish AIP submarine, ‘sank’ many U.S nuclear fast-attack subs, destroyers, frigates, cruisers, and even the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier in joint exercises”. However, the Australian Navy somehow sees a great advantage in getting US nuclear attack subs such as the Virginia Class that were sunk in the exercise.

One of the US’s most highly regarded defence analysts, Winslow Wheeler, recently pointed out that these subs have been available only 15 times in 33 years for their six-monthly deployments. This suggests fewer than two of Australia’s eight nuclear submarines would be operationally available, on average, each year. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the cost of eight would be $171 billion after inflation. More recent estimates are over $200 billion.

Australia could build ten of the latest German submarines operated by Singapore for about $10 billion. They also have an outstanding maintenance record, as well as being well suited to the shallow waters in Australia’s region. A similar figure could apply to the latest Swedish ones, but they may not be so readily available. Japan’s new Taigei class would cost roughly the same to buy, but more to operate its bigger crew. The Japanese government would be reluctant to build it in other than in its own shipyards.

These figures suggest that the job of defending Australia could be performed for a reasonable cost, particularly if greater use were made of modern, low-cost, drones. The trend for low-cost drones to become more useful is only likely to grow by 2050 when Australia might be getting its first operational nuclear submarine.

At some stage, a reality check needs to apply to the barrage of claims about increased Chinese aggression or the China threat. The last major war involving China was in Korea in 1950. China argues its rapid arms build-up reflects how it’s surrounded by potential enemies, including the US, which has been in many more aggressive wars and spends much more on its military.

The Pentagon 2021 annual report to Congress on China acknowledged it had withdrawn six land claims to settle border disputes with neighbours. Contrary to the common assumption that it is ready to invade Taiwan, the Pentagon said “There is no indication it is significantly expanding its force of tank landing ships and landing craft – suggesting a traditional large-scale direct beach assault operation requiring extensive lift remains aspirational”.

China could settle some of the extreme territorial sea claims that were originally made by the Communist Party’s political opponent, the Nationalist Party, before 1949. Taiwan also makes these claims. Although abrasive, nobody has been killed. By 2050 the US, with Australia tagging along, may have extended its well-established history of killing people by engaging in international aggression in violation of the rules. Alternatively, in 2050 China could engage in its first major war since 1950 by attempting to invade Australia, except no one no one has suggested any plausible motive.

Although Australian nuclear submarines will not be available, many Australian pundits see a need to go to Taiwan’s aid if secret intelligence analysis says China is about to attack it. Following the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on concocted intelligence, the Challis chair of international law at Sydney University, Ben Saul, said it’s important to ask if a war over Taiwan would be legal. He wrote in the Lowy Institute’s The Interpreter, “The conventional legal answer favours China. Only a state has the right to use military force in self-defence against an armed attack by another state – and to ask other states to help it to defend itself.”

The Australian Foreign Affairs department says Taiwan is not a state. Saul adds, “In a world with a plurality of different political systems, states are not permitted to use force simply to protect democracy or ‘freedom’ abroad. The US backed Taiwan even when it was a military dictatorship until the 1990s; its defence has never really been about freedom.”

November 3, 2022 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

When it comes to a nuclear industry project – Europe puts no sanctions on Russia

Despite conflict, Russia sends France giant magnet for nuclear fusion project, Euractiv 4 Nov 22

Russia on Tuesday (1 November) dispatched one of six giant magnets needed for the ITER nuclear fusion programme in France, one of the last international scientific projects Moscow participates in despite the Ukraine conflict.

The ship carrying the Russian-made magnet – or “poloidal field coil” – departed Saint Petersburg on Tuesday under grey skies.

On board, the massive nine-metre-wide coil, which weighs 200 tonnes had been tightly wrapped to withstand a two-week trip to Marseille, southern France.

The ring-shaped magnet built under Russian atomic agency Rosatom’s supervision will make up the top part of the world’s largest “tokamak”.

The tokamak is a magnetic fusion device built in France following the same principle that powers our sun and stars.


The Russian piece was meant to leave in May but sanctions forbidding Russian ships docking in Europe delayed the departure.

Still, the “current situation did not change the fact that we will fullfil our obligations”, Rosatom representative for international projects Viacheslav Perchukov said.

Geopolitical tensions “practically did not affect the realisation of this project”, Perchukov said.

“Without (the Russian coil), the tokamak will not work,” senior ITER centre scientist Leonid Khimchenko told AFP……………………more https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/despite-conflict-russia-sends-france-giant-magnet-for-nuclear-fusion-project/

November 3, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

USA’s deliberate ambiguity on use of nuclear weapons really means “don’t mess with us or we’ll nuke you”

Basically, the United States is holding the world hostage to its nuclear arsenal, saying that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time we determine under any circumstances so that we have a broader definition of deterrence, meaning that we are deterring. But what are we deterring? You see, with a sole purpose declaration, we’re deterring a nuclear attack against us.

But the current nuclear strategy is to deter something that is ambiguous in nature, meaning we haven’t precisely spelled it out. We’re leaving the world guessing. And what we’re saying is, don’t mess with us, or else we’ll nuke you.

We can never use these weapons, but why are we building them as if they are a viable tool? This is why disarmament is so much better, so much more logical, and ultimately has a more humanitarian basis and national security basis than the continued pursuit of a so-called nuclear deterrent. Disarmament is the only thing that will save mankind. Continuing to pursue a nuclear deterrent could very well be the end of mankind

US Holds World Hostage to Its Nukes, Ex-American Intel Officer Says

Sputnik International, 29.10.2022 

Earlier this week, Pentagon released nuclear posture, which suggests that the US doesn’t rule out use of the nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear threats – which contradicts previous pledges by the Biden administration.

Scott Ritter, a military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, explained Sputnik why Washington adopted new nuclear policies and what do they mean for regular Americans.

Sputnik: Why are Russia and Сhina to be blamed for the Biden’s administration failure to reduce nuclear weapons?

Scott Ritter: We have to look for somebody to blame. We can’t blame ourselves. That’s normally what happens. But we are solely to blame. President Biden ran on a platform that said that he would be seeking what’s called the single-use policy for nuclear deterrence. And what that means is its a single-purpose policy. And the single purpose would be that the sole purpose of the US nuclear weapons arsenal is deterrence. And that’s it; that we would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstance other than to respond to somebody using nuclear weapons against us; that we are here to deter a nuclear attack on the United States.

He’s broken that promise. The strategy that he has propagated recently is a strategy that continues the past practice of having deliberate ambiguity about the conditions and circumstances under which America could use nuclear weapons, up to and including a pre-emptive nuclear attack by the United States in response to a non-nuclear incident.

Basically, the United States is holding the world hostage to its nuclear arsenal, saying that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time we determine under any circumstances so that we have a broader definition of deterrence, meaning that we are deterring. But what are we deterring? You see, with a sole purpose declaration, we’re deterring a nuclear attack against us. But the current nuclear strategy is to deter something that is ambiguous in nature, meaning we haven’t precisely spelled it out. We’re leaving the world guessing. And what we’re saying is, don’t mess with us, or else we’ll nuke you.

This has nothing to do with China and Russia. China and Russia have nuclear weapons arsenals. Which would be covered under the sole purpose doctrine. But this is about blackmailing the world. But we can’t tell the world that we’re blackmailing it. We have to blame it on China and Russia. But there’s no linkage whatsoever between the nuclear posture, as published by the Biden administration, and the nuclear arsenals of China and Russia. If that was it, then we’d have a bold purpose doctrine.

Sputnik: What’s the reason for the West to escalate the nuclear rhetoric?

Scott Ritter: That’s a separate question, separate from the issue of the nuclear posture in the National Security Strategy. We have a current situation right now where Ukraine is losing this conflict. The West is recognizing that ultimately Ukraine will lose this conflict and that there’s nothing they can do to forestall this defeat. And so what they’ve done is they have created in terms of an information warfare, propaganda driven exercise, the threat of a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine. It makes no sense. I think Vladimir Putin addressed this in his presentation to the Valdai conference, that it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about a Russian nuclear weapon used in Ukraine. There’s no reason for this. It’s not part of their doctrine. It isn’t going to happen.

But this isn’t about reality. This is about shaping perception. And so that’s where this nuclear crisis is coming from today – talks of a dirty bomb, talks of a Russian pre-emptive nuclear strike, President Zelensky begging NATO to carry out their own pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Russia, NATO holding an annual exercise that trains the use of the very weapons President Zelensky asked NATO to use against Russia. NATO should have cancelled that exercise or at least postponed it to a later date, but they didn’t. Russia has now responded with its own strategic nuclear exercise. Again, an annual exercise, this one testing not tactical nuclear weapons, but strategic nuclear weapons.

And people are trying to make a linkage between all of this. There isn’t. But this is where the heightened rhetoric and the heightened threat and the heightened crisis comes from. This is independent from the publication of the National Security Strategy. The National Security Strategy isn’t designed to do anything different than what past national security strategies have done, which is to put the world on notice that the United States has a nuclear weapons arsenal, that it will use any time it determines, whether or not the threat is nuclear in nature. We’re holding the world hostage, but we’ve been holding the world hostage for decades.

Sputnik: In the 2022 NPR, the Pentagon refuses to back away from the possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” – what were the reasons to obliterate main agreements in the sphere of strategic security?

Scott Ritter: This is not a new position by the Pentagon. This is actually a posture that emerged during the presidency of George W. Bush. That was the first time that this notion that we would use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear threat emerged.

The Obama administration talked about walking away from that, but it’s very difficult for presidents to disentangle their desires from the pressures of the establishment. And when we’re dealing with nuclear weapons and the issue of nuclear deterrence, the establishment is extraordinarily powerful because they can always say that you’re weakening. You can tell a president that you’re weakening America, you’re putting American lives at risk…………………………………………………………………………

We can never use these weapons, but why are we building them as if they are a viable tool? This is why disarmament is so much better, so much more logical, and ultimately has a more humanitarian basis and national security basis than the continued pursuit of a so-called nuclear deterrent. Disarmament is the only thing that will save mankind. Continuing to pursue a nuclear deterrent could very well be the end of mankind.  https://sputniknews.com/20221029/us-holds-world-hostage-to-its-nukes-ex-american-intel-officer-says-1102824182.html

November 2, 2022 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA’s new nuclear policies: first strike OK, “usable”weapons, nukes for Europe, for any purpose USA likes, and against non-nuclear nations.

Brandon’s “Usable Nukes” Are the Fast-Track to Jopocalypse MIKE WHITNEY • OCTOBER 31, 2022

“The Biden administration’s Nuclear Posture Review is, at heart, a terrifying document. It not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk, in many ways it increases that risk. Citing rising threats from Russia and China, it argues that the only viable U.S. response is to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, maintain an array of dangerous Cold War-era nuclear policies, and threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.” Stephen Young, Union of Concerned Scientists

Maybe you’re one of the millions of people who think the US would never use its nuclear weapons unless the threat of a nuclear attack was imminent.

Well, you’d be wrong, because according to the recently-released Nuclear Posture Review, the bar for using nukes has been significantly lowered. The new standard reads like this: (nukes can be used) “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”

“Defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies”??

That’s a pretty broad net, isn’t it? That could include anything from a serious threat to national security to an ordinary economic competitor. And that loosy-goosy definition appears to be just what the authors were looking for. The hardliners wanted to fundamentally change US nuclear doctrine so the conditions under which nukes could be used was greatly expanded. The obvious objective of this dramatic policy-shift is to eliminate any obstacle to the free and unfettered use of nuclear weapons. Which is precisely what the neocons have always wanted; a green light to Armageddon. Now they got what they wanted. Here are a few of the changes in policy that suggest that a full-blown nuclear war is no longer a remote possibility, but an increasingly likely prospect.

1– First-Strike Use: Biden refuses to rule out first-strike use of US nuclear weapons …in reversal of his campaign promise. This is from The Daily Mail:

“… on the campaign trail, Biden had vowed to switch to a ‘sole purpose’ doctrine, which maintains that the US would only use nuclear weapons to respond to another nation’s nuclear attack….

President Joe Biden is abandoning a campaign vow to alter longstanding US nuclear doctrine, and will instead embrace existing policy that reserves America’s right to use nukes in a first-strike scenario, according to multiple reports.” (Daily Mail)

2– Nuclear Escalation: The Biden team has accelerated the deployment of modernized U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons to NATO bases in Europe. (The B61-12 carries a lower yield nuclear warhead than earlier versions but is more accurate and can penetrate below ground.) This is from Reuters:

Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernised U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the “nuclear threshold” and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning.
Amid the Ukraine crisis, Politico reported on Oct. 26 that the United States told a closed NATO meeting this month that it would accelerate the deployment of a modernised version of the B61, the B61-12, with the new weapons arriving at European bases in December, several months earlier than planned.

“We cannot ignore the plans to modernize nuclear weapons, those free-fall bombs that are in Europe,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told state RIA news agency. (Reuters)

3– ‘Tactical’ means ‘Usable’: Biden’s new regime of low-yield nukes (which can still blow up a city the size of New York.) are called “tactical” weapons because they are designed for use on the battlefield, which is to say, Biden no longer limits the use of nukes for national defense but also supports their use in conventional wars. (like Ukraine?) This is from Aljazeera:

“Tactical nuclear warheads were created to give military commanders more flexibility on the battlefield. In the mid-1950s, as more powerful thermonuclear bombs were being built and tested, military planners thought smaller weapons with a shorter range would be more useful in ‘tactical’ situations,” according to Al Jazeera’s defence analyst Alex Gatopoulos. (Aljazeera)

4– Fasttrack to Nuclear War: Biden’s New Euro-Nukes have lowered the threshold for nuclear war. This is from MSN:

Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernized US B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the “nuclear threshold” and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning…

“The United States is modernizing them, increasing their accuracy and reducing the power of the nuclear charge, that is, they turn these weapons into ‘battlefield weapons’, thereby reducing the nuclear threshold,” Grushko said….

Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, said on Saturday on Telegram that the new B61 bombs had a “strategic significance” as Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons were in storage, yet these U.S. bombs would be just a short flight from Russia’s borders.

“We cannot ignore the plans to modernize nuclear weapons, those free-fall bombs that are in Europe,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told state RIA news agency. (MSM)

5– Increasing the Reasons for using Nukes: The Nuclear Posture Review abandons Biden’s promise to ensure that US nuclear weapons would be used for the “sole purpose” of deterring or responding to a nuclear attack. Instead, the NPR states that the US will consider the use of nuclear weapons “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”

Sole purpose could significantly reduce the risk of unintended escalation and increase the credibility of more flexible and realistic nonnuclear response options in a range of importance contingencies.” (Federation of American Scientists)

6– More Escalation: The US now reserves the right to use its nukes against non-nuclear weapon countries. This is from an article at Bloomberg News:

The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy rejected limits on using nuclear weapons long championed by arms control advocates and in the past by President Joe Biden.

Citing burgeoning threats from China and Russia, the Defense Department said in the document released Thursday that “by the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries.” In response, the US will “maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment” without ruling out using the weapons in retaliation to a non-nuclear strategic threat to the homeland, US forces abroad or allies.” (“Pentagon’s Strategy Won’t Rule Out Nuclear Use Against Non-Nuclear Threats”, Bloomberg)………………………………………………………………………….

The White House, the Pentagon and the entire US foreign policy establishment now march in lockstep behind the most fanatically-lethal defense policy in the nation’s 246-year history. The National Defense Strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review and the National Security Strategy all embrace the same reckless warmongering policy that will inevitably lead to mass annihilation and civilizational collapse. The doves and critical thinkers have all been removed from the foreign policy apparatus while the madmen and warhawks drag the world inexorably towards catastrophe. God help us. https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/brandons-usable-nukes-are-the-fast-track-to-jopocalypse/

November 2, 2022 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Loosening the Nuclear Knot – ARMS CONTROL TODAY

Arms Control Association

November 2022 By Daryl G. Kimball

Over the long, dangerous course of the nuclear age, the easing of tensions and resolution of crises between the nuclear-armed states have relied not only on good luck and self-restraint, but on effective, leader-to-leader dialogue.

For example, a key turning point in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was the decision by President John F. Kennedy to listen to advisers recommending a diplomatic course of action and back-channel talks. This allowed the two sides, as Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev described it, to “take measures to untie that knot” and thus avoid “the catastrophe of thermonuclear war.”

……..  the risk of nuclear war is probably higher than at any point since 1962. The invasion has also led to the suspension of the U.S.-Russian strategic stability dialogue and talks designed to maintain limits on their strategic nuclear arsenals.

………………….  senior U.S. officials say that, despite intensified military competition with China, it is vital to engage in talks with leaders in Beijing on improved crisis communication, forms of mutual restraint, and arms limitations. Unfortunately, Chinese officials have rebuffed U.S. overtures for bilateral strategic risk reduction talks.

To loosen the knot of war, the Biden administration needs to explore other pathways for dialogue. One option surely under consideration but not yet deployed in this crisis is the multilateral P5 process, which involves all five nations recognized as nuclear-weapon states under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

The group has met annually since 2009 to explore confidence-building measures in relation to their nuclear forces. The United States holds the rotating chair, but has not yet convened a meeting. To date, the P5 process has been underutilized and has underperformed. But in this time of heightened nuclear danger, the Biden administration must try to use it to ease nuclear tensions with China and Russia.

Leaders in Beijing continue to tout the process. Last month, Li Song, Chinese ambassador for disarmament affairs, told a UN meeting that the five NPT nuclear-weapon states “should further enhance communication on such issues as strategic stability and reduction of nuclear risks.” With Russia continuing to issue veiled nuclear threats, it is in the vital interest of all five states to pursue joint steps and joint statements designed to lower the temperature.

For instance, the group might consider updating and implementing the 1973 U.S.-Soviet Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War, which pledges the two states “to refrain from the threat or use of force against the other party” and “avoid military confrontations, and as to exclude the outbreak of nuclear war.” The agreement requires that “if at any time there is the risk of a nuclear conflict,” each side “shall immediately enter into urgent consultations with each other and make every effort to avert this risk.”

The United States might also propose that the P5 process be augmented to allow for sustained discussions on specific arms control proposals relevant to all five states. Since the recent collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Russia and the United States have expressed interest in negotiating a new arrangement to limit or ban certain types of these weapons. At their February 2022 summit, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping called for talks with the United States to curtail possible deployments of missiles that had been limited by the treaty. The Biden administration should test their seriousness by advancing proposals for mutual restraints on these types of ballistic and cruise missile systems by all three states through the P5 process.

As they stared into the nuclear abyss 60 years ago, Kennedy and Khrushchev turned to diplomacy to reach the compromises necessary to preserve their nations’ survival. Today’s leaders must be even more creative and persistent in the pursuit of risk reduction and disarmament if we are to avoid arms racing and the possibility of nuclear catastrophe.  https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-11/focus/loosening-nuclear-knot

November 2, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

World Nuclear Industry Status Report delivers all the empirical data we need to know about nuclear power’s decline

  The Annual Goldmine https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2022/10/31/the-annual-goldmine/ By Linda Pentz Gunter 31 Oct 22

The annual goldmine of empirical data on nuclear power that is the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) was duly rolled out on October 5th, this year in Berlin. The 2022 edition is available for download here and is an indispensable reference source, updated each year. 

While delivering an in-depth overview, as its title suggests, of the status of nuclear power worldwide, the report also provides sections focused on particular areas of the technology or on certain countries or regions of the world.

As its principal author, Mycle Schneider, pointed out during the rollout, the report’s authors are big fans of empirical data. Indeed, many of the findings in the report are taken from the nuclear industry itself. Facts and physics are pretty much immutable when it comes to nuclear power, and neither favor the industry very well.  No amount of nuclear industry aspirational rhetoric can hide the truth about a waning and outdated technology.

The over-riding finding of the 2022 edition of the report is that nuclear power’s share of global commercial gross electricity generation in 2021 dropped to below 10 percent for the first time ever, sinking to its lowest in four decades.

As in past years, if you take China out of the picture — a country with 21 new reactors under construction as of mid-2022 — the decline of nuclear power worldwide is even more dramatic. 

At close to 400 pages, the WNISR is a tome, but it is packed full of essential detail on every important topic related to nuclear power and its declining place in the world. Whether you are interested in new builds or closure, decommissioning or small modular reactors, or a specific country, there is something in the report that will flesh out the details.

And this year, there is an important chapter late in the report — Nuclear Power and War — dealing with the fate of nuclear power plants caught up in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the warfare that is exploding around them.

We have of course been talking, writing and warning about the perils of reactors in a war zone since the time a Russian invasion was first intimated late in 2021. But the WNISR helpfully lays out all the possible causes and consequences of a nuclear disaster in Ukraine. It answers the many questions we have about the robustness, or not, of reactors, fuel pools and radioactive waste casks to withstand and survive a bombardment or even a prolonged power outage.

As former IAEA director of nuclear safety, Aybars Gurpinar, told Bloomberg when addressing the risks to reactors in Ukraine: “Even if structures are extremely well designed, you cannot expect them to withstand a military-style attack. They are not designed for this.”

The WNISR concludes, on page 259: “Nuclear power plants are immediately vulnerable in war situations. This is directly due to the constant and permanent need for cooling. Extensive failure of the necessary electrical power or destruction of the cooling systems would lead to overheating of the reactor core. It is relatively unimportant whether this damage is intentional, unintentional, or of indeterminate cause and motivation.

“On the other hand, with increasing duration, the specific stress on the personnel and poorer maintenance worsens the operating conditions which also increases the probability of triggering serious accidents.”

In addition to covering the most obviously disastrous impacts, such as loss of coolant leading to fires and meltdowns, the report also explores some of the other essentials that could be lost during war but that are less often discussed. 

These include lack of access to the plant due to the destruction of roadways; absence of diesel fuel supplies for backup generators; the continued presence of a fire department with necessary equipment and access; the availability of a skilled operating personnel and the consequences of staff working under duress or takeover; and the necessity of continued maintenance, repairs and inspections.

These add to the already long list of technical things that could go wrong at a reactor under war conditions. This makes it particularly important to focus on the prevention of such a disaster, rather than speculating about who is at fault.

Speculation is not to be found in the WNISR. Accordingly, the authors chose to point out in conclusion that the reports coming in about who is firing on what and why are not necessarily reliable. All they, and we, can assess, is what the damage might be and what the consequences of that damage could lead to.

“In a war situation, it is particularly difficult to verify whether certain reports cover indisputable facts, are exaggerated, or false,” the WNISR authors write. “The warring parties, as well as organizations and individuals interacting with them, have an interest in a representation that is not necessarily objective.”

Wars will happen and the fog of war will mask and confuse what is actually going on. But the one abiding problem is the nuclear power plants being there in the first place. And that’s the one thing we do have the power to change.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International.

November 1, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international | Leave a comment

Biden lost temper with Zelenskyy in June phone call when Ukrainian leader asked for more aid

Biden had barely finished telling Zelenskyy he’d just greenlighted another $1 billion in military assistance when the Ukrainian president started listing all the additional help he needed.

NBC News, Oct. 31, 2022, By Carol E. Lee, Courtney Kube and Dan De Luce

It’s become routine since Russia invaded Ukraine: President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speak by phone whenever the U.S. announces a new package of military assistance for Kyiv.

But a phone call between the two leaders in June played out differently from previous ones, according to four people familiar with the call. Biden had barely finished telling Zelenskyy he’d just greenlighted another $1 billion in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine when Zelenskyy started listing all the additional help he needed and wasn’t getting. Biden lost his temper, the people familiar with the call said. The American people were being quite generous, and his administration and the U.S. military were working hard to help Ukraine, he said, raising his voice, and Zelenskyy could show a little more gratitude.

Administration officials said Biden and Zelenskyy’s relationship has only improved since the June phone call, after which Zelenskyy made a statement praising the U.S. for its generous assistance. But the clash reflects Biden’s early awareness that both congressional and public support for sending billions of dollars to Ukraine could begin to fade. That moment has arrived just as the president prepares to ask Congress to greenlight even more money for Ukraine.

Biden now faces resistance from some Republicans and Democrats that wasn’t present when Congress approved previous Ukraine funds. The White House has discussed asking Congress for billions of dollars during the lame-duck legislative session after the midterm elections.

The White House hasn’t specified an amount publicly. Lawmakers and Ukraine lobbyists hope for $40 billion to $60 billion, and some officials familiar with the discussions expect the number to be roughly $50 billion. 

A source familiar with the conversation said that Biden was direct with Zelenskyy about handling the issues in the appropriate military channels but that the exchange wasn’t heated or angry.

A spokesperson for the National Security Council declined to comment on the story. 

A spokesperson for Zelenskyy didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

Top U.S. officials warn there are no signs the war is ending any time soon. 

Before the June 15 phone call, the president’s frustrations with Zelenskyy had been building for weeks, three people familiar with the call said. Biden and some of his top aides felt that the administration was doing as much as it could as quickly as it could but that Zelenskyy continued to focus publicly on only what wasn’t being done. 

From Zelenskyy’s perspective — as well as that of some Eastern European governments and U.S. lawmakers from both parties — there has been repeated frustration that the Biden White House moves too slowly on weapons requests, initially hesitating to approve certain capabilities Ukraine requested most urgently, only to relent weeks or months later under pressure, according to two sources familiar with the Ukraine government’s view, congressional aides and two European officials……………………………………..

The proportion of Americans who are extremely or very concerned about Ukraine’s losing the war has dropped by 17 percentage points since May, from 55% to 38%, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted last month. And the proportion of Americans who say they’re not too concerned or not at all concerned about Russia’s winning was up from 16% to 26%, according to the survey.

The potential change in political will in the U.S. for continuing to send aid to Ukraine could upend how both the White House and Zelenskyy have approached the issue so far.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February, the Biden administration has been criticized for moving too cautiously. Now the president faces potential pushback from some Republican lawmakers and progressive Democrats that he’s providing too much aid.

The shifting dynamics on Capitol Hill also could force Zelenskyy’s team to rethink how it engages with Washington, as it has often tried to leverage its support in Congress to get more out of the White House.  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-lost-temper-zelenskyy-phone-call-ukraine-aid-rcna54592
—

November 1, 2022 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Poland, South Korea sign outline accords on nuclear power project

Aljazeera 31 Oct 22

South Korea and Poland to assess the viability of building four 1,400-megawatt nuclear reactors in Patnow.

Seoul and Warsaw have signed outline agreements to develop nuclear power in Poland, according to ministries from both countries, as Poland strives to phase out coal and lower its carbon emissions and South Korea seeks to revive its nuclear industry.

Poland’s ZE PAK and PGE and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) will assess the viability of building four 1,400-megawatt nuclear reactors in Patnow, central Poland, using South Korean technology, the South Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy said on Monday in a joint statement with the Polish Ministry of State Assets.

The companies, with government backing, intend to prepare a preliminary development plan for the plant by the end of this year, they said in a statement.

Since the election this year of President Yoon Suk-yeol, who pledged to revive the country’s nuclear power industry, South Korea has stepped up efforts to win nuclear power plant export orders……………………

Monday’s agreements follow an announcement on Friday when Warsaw said US firm Westinghouse Electric Co will build the country’s first nuclear power plant in northern Poland.  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/31/poland-south-korea-sign-outline-accords-on-nuclear-power-project

November 1, 2022 Posted by | politics international, South Korea | Leave a comment

New Study Finds The Rest Of The World Supports China And Russia

A puzzling observation in today’s world is that almost no Western leader has laid out a positive vision for the future.

Take Biden for instance. His big vision is “democracies vs autocracies”. Meaning his vision for the future of the world is conflict. How positive is that?

There’s simply nothing to join! Except conflict, I guess, but you join a conflict to fight for a vision – for a better world – the conflict itself cannot be the vision!


https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/new-study-finds-the-rest-of-the-world?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=81628548&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email Caitlin Johnstone, 31 Oct 22,

The US is preparing to station multiple nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in northern Australia in what the mass media are calling a “signal to China,” yet another example of Australia’s forced subservience as a US military/intelligence asset.

“Having bombers that could range and potentially attack mainland China could be very important in sending a signal to China that any of its actions over Taiwan could also expand further,” Becca Wasser from the Centre for New American Security think tank told the ABC.

“This is a dangerous escalation. It makes Australia an even bigger part of the global nuclear weapons threat to humanity’s very existence – and by rising military tensions it further destabilises our region,” tweeted Greens Senator David Shoebridge of the incendiary provocation.

A new Australian Financial Review article titled “Australia’s alliances in Asia are a tale of two regions” candidly discusses the Biden administration’s recent sanctions geared toward kneecapping the Chinese tech industry in what the author James Curran correctly says “is unambiguously a new cold war.” Curran describes the impossible task Australia has of straddling the ever-widening divide between its number one trading partner China and its number one “security” partner the US, while Washington continually pressures Canberra and ASEAN states toward greater and greater enmity with Beijing.

“ASEAN countries, as much as Australia, have much at stake in resisting the onset of a bifurcated world,” Curran writes.

But that bifurcation is being shoved through at breakneck pace, using both hard and soft power measures. Australians have been hammered with increasingly aggressive anti-China propaganda, and as a result nearly half of them now say they would be willing to go to war to defend Taiwan from an attack by the mainland, with a third saying they’d support a war against China over the Solomon Islands.

A recent Cambridge study found that this hostility toward China has been on the rise in recent years not just in Australia but throughout the “liberal democracies” of the US-centralized power alliance. But what’s interesting is that public opinion is exactly reversed in the much larger remainder of the Earth’s population, with people outside the US power cluster just as fond of China as those within that power cluster are hostile toward it. This relationship is largely mirrored with Russia as well.

“Among the 1.2bn people who inhabit the world’s liberal democracies, three-quarters (75%) now hold a negative view of China, and 87% a negative view of Russia,” the report reads. “However, for the 6.3bn people who live in the rest of the world, the picture is reversed. In these societies, 70% feel positively towards China, and 66% positively towards Russia.”

The report finds that in the “developing” world, approval of China is higher than approval of the US:

“For the first time ever, slightly more people in developing countries (62%) are favourable towards China than towards the United States (61%). This is especially so among the 4.6bn people living in countries supported by the Belt and Road Initiative, among whom almost two-thirds hold a positive view of China, compared to just a quarter (27%) in non-participating countries.”

The report finds that while Russia’s approval has plummeted in the west, it maintains broad support in the east despite the invasion of Ukraine:

“However, the real terrain of Russia’s international influence lies outside of the West. 75% of respondents in South Asia, 68% in Francophone Africa, 62% in Southeast Asia continue to view the country positively in spite of the events of this year.”

I first became aware of the Cambridge study via a Twitter thread by Arnaud Bertrand (who is a great follow if you happen to use that demonic app). Bertrand highlights data in the study showing that US-aligned nations’ opinion of China began plummeting not after the Covid outbreak in late 2019, but after 2017 when the US began ramping up its propaganda campaign against Beijing.

Apart from the fact that the USA’s immensely sophisticated propaganda machine naturally focuses primarily on where the world’s wealth and military firepower rests while pushing its global agendas, and apart from the fact that those in Belt and Road Initiative countries apparently believe they benefit from their economic relationships with China, the disparity between the “developed” and “developing” worlds in their perceptions of the US and its enemies may also be partly explained by another thought-provoking Arnaud Bertrand thread, which I will quote in its entirety here:

A puzzling observation in today’s world is that almost no Western leader has laid out a positive vision for the future.

Take Biden for instance. His big vision is “democracies vs autocracies”. Meaning his vision for the future of the world is conflict. How positive is that?

Contrast this with China: between “national rejuvenation” and “common prosperity” at home and the “global security initiative” as their vision for improved international relations; everyone is very clear on the journey they’re embarked on.

This is a key, if not the key reason why the “West” has no chance in hell to convince the “rest” to join them.

There’s simply nothing to join! Except conflict, I guess, but you join a conflict to fight for a vision – for a better world – the conflict itself cannot be the vision!

This reminds me of what George Kennan, the architect of the cold war, wrote: to win he said that America had to “create among the peoples of the world generally the impression of a country which knows what it wants, which is coping successfully with the problems of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a World Power, and which has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among the major ideological currents of the time”

Does America give this impression today?

Even in my own country, France. Ask any French person what Macron’s vision for the future of France and the world is, what the grand plan is, and you’ll get very puzzled looks. “Reform the pension system so we have to work longer?”

The truth is there’s nothing, nada, rien! 

What we have essentially in the West are political operators. They think their jobs are to get reelected and to attempt to move whatever metrics the electorate cares about: GDP, unemployment, debt levels, CO2 emissions, etc. Actual leaders have gone extinct (or gone East).

It’s actually quite sad, really speaks to the levels of intellectual decrepitude in the West today. The time of the Enlightenment, the big revolutions is well and truly gone. We’re stuck with our mediocre operators.

It’s also why this is such a dangerous time. A positive vision brings confidence, it brings hope, it motivates, it makes people look forward to what’s to come. The West has none of that today.

The future is scary, the dominant feelings are fear and anger.

And when there’s a lot of fear and anger, these feelings need to be directed somewhere. And our operators certainly don’t want it to be them! So it’s China, Iran, all those “foreigners” who “hate our freedom”.

Perfect recipe for a very bad conflict…

Please, don’t get fooled!

Bertrand’s musings echo a recent quote by Professor Jeffrey Sachs at the Athens Democracy Forum: “The single biggest mistake of president Biden was to say ‘the greatest struggle of the world is between democracies and autocracies’. The real struggle of the world is to live together and overcome our common crises of environment and inequality.”

Indeed, we could be striving toward a positive vision for the future, one which seeks “common prosperity” and “improved international relations,” one which works to remedy inequality and address the looming environmental crisis. Instead the world is being bifurcated, split in two, which history tells us is probably an indication that something extremely terrible is on the horizon for our species unless we drastically change course.

It’s worth keeping all this in mind, as nuclear-capable bombers are deployed to Australia; as NATO weighs moving nuclear weapons to Russia’s border in Finland; as the Biden administration goes all in on economic warfare with China regardless of the consequences; as Russia accuses the US of “lowering the nuclear threshold” by modernizing the arsenal in Europe into “battlefield weapons”; as the Council on Foreign Relations president openly admits that the US is now working to halt China’s rise on the world stage; as China declares its willingness to deepen ties with Russia on all levels.

We could have such a wonderful, healthy, collaborative world, and it’s being flushed down the toilet because an empire is using its leverage over the wealthiest populations on our planet to work toward dominating all the other populations. This stupid, insane quest to shore up unipolar planetary domination is costing us everything while gaining us nothing, and it’s going to be the poorest and weakest among us who suffer the most as a result.

October 31, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international | Leave a comment

Steps towards multilateral nuclear disarmament – but media silence

An even more momentous UN vote occurred during the same session, when 124 member states affirmed their support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Once again, all the nuclear-armed powers (the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) opposed the aim of a nuclear weapons-free world. They were joined for the first time by Finland and Sweden, now pledged to enter Nato together.

Once upon a time, we would have heard Labour voices at Westminster speaking out against Britain’s nuclear weapons and Nato’s war-mongering.

 https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/steps-towards-multilateral-nuclear-disarmament-media-silence 31 Oct 22

THE “international community” has spoken. Twice in the past three days, a very large majority of United Nations member states have made clear their position on two vital issues of life and death.

Unfortunately, this was not the “international community“ comprising the United States, Britain, other major Western powers and those other countries they can bribe, bully or bamboozle to fall into line.

Hence the shroud of silence that has fallen over most of Britain’s mass media when it comes to reporting two significant votes at the UN.

Last Friday, the general assembly’s first committee decided by 152 to five that Israel should sign up to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT).

The resolution on “the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East” noted that Israel is the only country in the Middle East — and one of the few among the 193 UN member states — not to accede to the NPT.

Accession to the treaty would oblige Israel to submit its nuclear facilities to Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and not to develop, produce, test or acquire nuclear weapons.

Israel refuses to admit its possession of the atomic bomb and kidnapped, drugged, abducted and imprisoned nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu who spilled the beans to the British press 36 years ago.

Freed after 18 years and subsequent short incarcerations, he survives under severe restrictions in Israel.

While some of Israel’s accusers are also serial abusers of human rights, this should not detract from the sheer weight of world opinion against nuclear proliferation.

Only the US, Canada and the US military protectorates of Micronesia and Palau joined Israel in opposing the NPT resolution. Britain, India and most European countries abstained.

An even more momentous UN vote occurred during the same session, when 124 member states affirmed their support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Once again, all the nuclear-armed powers (the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) opposed the aim of a nuclear weapons-free world. They were joined for the first time by Finland and Sweden, now pledged to enter Nato together.

This backward step is yet another consequence of Russia’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine, which has strengthened reactionary forces across Europe, Ukraine and — at least for the time being — Russia itself.

On a brighter note, Australia turned towards sanity by abstaining on the TPNW for a change. The US Pentagon is not happy, but Australia’s vigorous peace movement can celebrate this symbolic blow against the US-UK-Oz anti-China military pact.

Naturally, this decision by most of the “international community” to accelerate the drive to multilateral nuclear disarmament has been ignored by the mainstream media in Britain.

There will be no US or EU sanctions against those rogue states — such as themselves — who brazenly flout UN resolutions and international law when it suits them.

Once upon a time, we would have heard Labour voices at Westminster speaking out against Britain’s nuclear weapons and Nato’s war-mongering.

Alas, silence now reigns as the ghosts of Sydney Silverman, Ian Mikardo, Joan Maynard, SO Davies and Emrys Hughes look on in despair.

October 31, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia suspends participation in grain deal after Ukrainian attack

The decision was made following a Ukrainian assault on Moscow’s Black Sea fleet. Rt.com 28 Oct 22

Russia announced on Saturday that it has halted its compliance with a grain deal, brokered by the UN and Türkiye earlier his year. The move came after Ukraine launched a major drone attack on ships involved in securing safe passage for agricultural cargo, the Russian Defense Ministry explained.

In a post on its Telegram channel, the ministry said Russia “is suspending its participation in the implementation of agreements on the export of agricultural products from Ukrainian ports”. 

It explained that the move was prompted by “a terror attack” against the ships of the Black Sea Fleet and civilian vessels involved in ensuring the security of the grain corridor. The ministry also alleged that the bombing was organized with the involvement of British military………………………………..

Earlier on Saturday, Russia’s Agriculture Minister Dmitry Patrushev signaled that Moscow is ready, with Türkiye’s help, to send the world’s poorest countries up to 500,000 tons of grain within the next four next months.

He noted that considering this year’s harvest, Russia “is fully ready to replace Ukrainian grain” and arrange deliveries to “all interested countries” at a reasonable price.

……………………… following the blast on the strategic Crimean Bridge, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that if turns out that Ukraine – the country that Moscow accused of carrying out the attack – used grain corridors to transport explosives, “it would put the very existence of these corridors in question”.

The breakthrough deal between Moscow and Kiev was reached in Istanbul in July with mediation by the UN and Türkiye. It aimed to unlock agricultural exports via the Black Sea from Russia and Ukraine – two of the world’s leading grain exporters – which had ground to halt due to the conflict between the two nations.  https://www.rt.com/russia/565588-russia-suspends-grain-deal/

October 31, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

Kremlin reveals possible basis for Putin-Biden talks

 https://www.rt.com/news/565611-russia-talks-biden-putin/ 28 Oct 22, Russia’s proposals on security guarantees could serve as a springboard for re-engagement, Dmitry Peskov says

Potential talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Joe Biden would depend on Washington’s willingness to hear Moscow’s security concerns, the Kremlin press secretary said on Sunday.

Speaking to the Rossiya-1 TV channel, Dmitry Peskov said high-level re-engagement could happen if the United States “pays heed to our concerns.”

It would be contingent on “the US desire to go back to the state of things as of December-January and ask the question: what the Russians are offering may not suit all of us, but maybe we should still sit down with them at the negotiating table?”

The spokesman explained that he was referring to the draft documents on security guarantees that Moscow submitted to both Brussels and Washington before the Ukraine conflict broke out in late February.

In mid-December last year, the Russian Foreign Ministry published the drafts of two treaties – one with the US and one with NATO – with a list of Moscow’s security demands, in a bid to lower tensions in Europe.

At the time, Russia wanted the West to ban Ukraine from entering NATO and limit the deployment of troops and weapons on the bloc’s eastern flank. It also insisted that the military alliance retreat to its borders as of 1997, before it expanded eastwards.

While neither the US nor NATO gave written responses to Russia’s proposals, they both rebuffed Moscow’s demand that Ukraine should be barred from the bloc.

Earlier this month, Putin said he saw no need for talks with his US counterpart, explaining that “there is no platform for any negotiations yet.” The statement was echoed by the White House, which stated that Joe Biden does not plan to meet with the Russian leader at the G20 summit next month, despite earlier refusing to rule out the possibility.

The last time the two leaders met in person was in June 2021 in Geneva, Switzerland. The talks were followed up by a virtual summit in December, with Ukraine being one of the topics on the agenda.

October 31, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

USA’s Westingouse likely to build and fund 49% of Poland’s first nuclear power station

Poland is likely to choose the United States engineering firm Westinghouse
Electric to build its first nuclear power plant and provide 49% equity
financing for the project. State-owned Korea Hydro Nuclear Power (KHNP) may
also be involved in a separate and parallel private nuclear project, Polish
Deputy Prime Minister Jacek Sasin said earlier this week. Warsaw has also
been talking to France’s state-owned EdF utility which has built and
operates the country’s nuclear power plants. After years of shelved plans
to build a civil nuclear capacity in Poland from scratch, the energy crunch
caused by the war in Ukraine, lower gas supplies from Russia and lack of
immediate renewable substitutes, have kicked the issue back up the
political agenda.

Deutsche Welle 28th Oct 2022

https://www.dw.com/en/us-south-korean-firms-to-operate-nuclear-plants-in-poland/a-63576093

October 31, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »