“America First” Means Stomping Out Free Speech In The US In Order To Help Israel
Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix Caitlin Johnstone, Nov 17, 2024
There’s a video of Donald Trump going around where he says — while standing in front of an Israeli flag — that in his first week in office he’s going to stomp out “anti-semitic propaganda” on university campuses throughout the United States. As anyone who’s been paying attention knows, this of course means stomping out speech that is critical of Israel and its genocidal atrocities.
This clip has sparked controversy on social media, but the funny thing is it’s actually a resurrected older clip from a Trump campaign event back in September. Trump was elected while openly campaigning against free speech, even as his supporters promoted him as a champion of free speech. He campaigned on jailing flag burners as well, for the record.
Trump literally standing before an Israeli flag and vowing to kill free speech for the advancement of Israeli information interests makes a lie of everything the so-called “MAGA movement” has ever claimed to stand for and exposes it for the scam it has always been.
Trump supporters are already falling all over themselves to justify his warmongering cabinet picks and his vow to crack down on freedom of assembly on college campuses, and he’s not even president yet. These people will put zero pressure on Trump to end wars and fight authoritarianism. They’ll bootlick and make excuses throughout the entire four years, just like they did last time. They’re not anti-establishment populists, they just want to feel like anti-establishment populists.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Trump supporters are George W Bush supporters LARPing as Ron Paul supporters.
On Thursday The New York Times reported that Elon Musk had met with the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations on behalf of the incoming Trump administration to discuss the possibility of easing tensions in the middle east, much to the delight of Trump supporters everywhere. On Saturday CNN reported that Iran says no meeting took place between its UN ambassador and Elon Musk, and Financial Times reports that the Trump administration is actually set to ramp up aggressions against Iran as soon as Trump takes office.
Trump supporters have been citing the Musk story as evidence that Trump plans to make peace with Iran, and you can expect them to either ignore the Financial Times story or spin it as some 87-D chess maneuver designed to promote “peace through strength”……………………………………………………………………… more https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/america-first-means-stomping-out?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=151762666&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Secrecy ramping up as problems mount in the UK nuclear programme
David Cullen NIS 12th Nov 2024
The UK’s nuclear weapons programme is at a critical stage with mounting problems, and secrecy is being increased when transparency and accountability are more vital than ever. Routine public disclosures of information are now months overdue, nearly a year in one case. At the same time, the increasingly draconian approach to secrecy from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is limiting the information that they will disclose through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, or in response to Parliamentary Questions.
The current level of public disclosure about the programme is lower than any time since at least the early 1990s. Without proper scrutiny there is no meaningful way for the public to understand what is happening, or for elected representatives to challenge it, and the likely result will be greater mismanagement, increased safety risks and a waste of huge sums of public funds.
At Nuclear Information Service (NIS) we prefer to focus on the content of our work, rather than drawing attention to ourselves and what we do, but these levels of secrecy are unprecedented during the 24 years we have been operating and we have decided to speak out. Whatever your position on nuclear weapons, the current information black hole is antithetical to good governance, and fundamentally unacceptable in a democracy.
Missing updates to Parliament
From 2011 to 2023, the MOD published an annual update to Parliament on the progress of its nuclear weapon upgrade programmes. The first of these was the ‘Initial Gate’ report on what is now known as the Dreadnought Programme, summarising the first few years of scoping work undertaken by the MOD and the plans for the new submarine class. From 2012 to 2021 these were routinely published shortly before Christmas (with the exception of 2015, when the Strategic Security and Defence Review published that November was deemed to have included enough information that there was no separate update).
The 2022 update was not published that year. NIS submitted an FOI request in January 2023 asking for a publication date and we were told in early February the update was “expected to be released in the coming weeks”. In response to a Parliamentary Question in late February from John Healy, who has since become Minister for Defence, the MOD said the update was “undergoing final clearance procedures”. No reason was given for the delay, despite this being explicitly asked by Healy and in a subsequent question submitted by Baroness Blower. The update was finally published on 8th March. The end of the update stated that the MOD planned “to next report progress to Parliament in late 2023”.
The 2023 update has not been published at all. NIS contacted the MOD in early December 2023 to ask what the planned publication date was and were told the annual update was “an enduring commitment by the MOD to Parliament…[but] there is no prescribed timeframe for its release” and the MOD was “unable to provide a date for its publication”. It is now early November 2024, nearly two years after the time period covered by the last update. In what sense can the MOD credibly describe these updates as annual?
Major Projects data not yet released
The other annual release of information about the progress of the MOD’s nuclear upgrades is the government’s Major Projects Data releases. These are coordinated by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), a quasi-independent branch of government which sits under the Cabinet Office and is supposed to help ensure the government’s large projects are well managed and provide value for money. Projects are given a traffic-light colour rating, with many of the projects relating to the nuclear weapons programme being given ‘Amber’ or ‘Red’ rating, indicating respectively that they face serious problems, or appear unachievable.
Alongside the report published by the IPA which summarises the ratings for each programme and makes some general observations about programme management, data is published by each government department on their respective programmes. This includes predicted end dates, costs and a brief explanation of progress and/or problems. Since 2016 these have been published each July. Although the election this year may have interfered with the publication timetable, the data is typically assembled in March of each year, two months before the election was called. As it is now four months since the election, it is difficult to understand why the data has not been published.
Resistance to information disclosure
These missing information releases come at a time when the MOD is significantly more resistant to disclosing information to the public and parliamentarians than it has been in the past. In recent years key pieces of information have even been withheld in the MOD Major Projects releases. The 2022 release had redactions relating to the Astute, Dreadnought, Core Production Capability, Mensa, Pegasus and Teutates projects.
When NIS challenged these redactions we were told that that some were the consequence of an “anomaly” which caused them to be “withheld erroneously”. However, the planned end dates for the Astute and Dreadnought programmes were still withheld, as was the MOD narrative on the timetable for those two projects. The MOD took eight months to complete an internal review of this decision, instead of the maximum expected time of forty working days, and upheld the decision.
The FOI requests we submitted for our recent briefing on the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement were treated similarly, although the delays were shorter. No information has been disclosed to us on the transfer of nuclear materials under the MDA between 2014 and 2024, and only three years of data on the transfer of non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons has been released, with the excuse that extracting the information would take too much time……………………………………………………………………………………….
This antipathy to disclosure is reflected in the recent changes to the government’s stance on official figures relating to its nuclear stockpile. These came in the 2021 Integrated Review, alongside the announcement of an increase to the UK’s warhead stockpile cap, breaking with a decades-long trend of reductions. Figures for the numbers of operational warheads that the UK owns, for deployed warheads, or deployed missiles are no longer published. These changes are a breach of commitments made by the UK and other nuclear-weapon states at the 2000 and 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conferences to increased transparency about their capabilities.
Foreclosed FOI avenues
The questionable role of the ICO, which is responsible for regulating FOI matters in the UK, is sadly not limited to the dubious interpretation of the rule on ‘similar’ requests. Our appeals to the ICO over the missing data from the 2022 Major Projects release and on the transfer of nuclear material under the MDA have both been recently rejected………………………………..
Under the FOI Act, we technically have the right to appeal to the Information Tribunal, but in this case there is no prospect of us being meaningfully able to exercise that right. In previous Information Tribunal cases, such the 2019 case over the government’s withholding of reports from its internal nuclear safety regulator, the MOD can refrain from making its key arguments in open court, and will instead make them in a closed session which we would not be able to attend.
If we wished to make a meaningful case at tribunal with any realistic hope of success, we would face the kafkaesque prospect of needing to employ a barrister who we could not even properly instruct, as we do not know what arguments are being made by the MOD. The position of the ICO suggests that most of the case would be heard in closed session and we would have little chance of winning. As rulings of the tribunal create FOI case law, it would actually be irresponsible for us to bring a case under these circumstances.
State of the programme
It is not hard to think of reasons why the MOD wishes to minimise information in the public domain about the weapons programme, considering what we do know about the state of the programme and its upgrade projects. The reliability issues in the Vanguard fleet, and extended patrols they have caused, are the most visible issues, but there are many more.
HMS Vanguard has rejoined the fleet after its extended seven year deep maintenance and refuelling, but appears not to have been sent out on patrol for many months after rejoining the fleet. We saw a failed missile test-firing earlier this year and the fire on HMS Victorious in 2022. The entire Astute-class fleet was unable to put to to sea for five months this year, and it’s possible that the problems that caused this may surface in the incoming Dreadnought fleet. It seems likely that US submarines had to help during the recent change in Vanguard patrols. There may be additional delays to the Dreadnought programme, particularly after the recent fire at Barrow, which would put additional strain on the Vanguard fleet.
There may be additional details of, or implications from, any of these problems, or undisclosed connections between them, which could prove highly embarrassing to the MOD. There may also be additional issues beyond those we currently know about or suspect.
From the responses that we have had to our FOI requests, it seems the MOD’s argument in favour of its recourse to secrecy is fairly consistent in general terms. It claims that disclosing any information relating to the UK’s nuclear programme could allow ‘adversary’ states, particularly Russia, to draw conclusions about the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the programme. The so-called ‘mosaic effect’, where multiple pieces of individually inconsequential information can be drawn together to form a wider picture, is frequently invoked. These conclusions could then be leveraged by Russia or others to disrupt the weapons programme and degrade the UK’s ability to keep one nuclear-armed submarine at sea at all times.
It is not possible to know to what extent this hypothetical risk would remain credible when subjected to detailed critique and analysis. We only know that the MOD has been able to successfully convince the ICO and Information Tribunal of its veracity in closed forums with no external scrutiny. However, it stands to reason that this convoluted scenario would appear more credible if the UK is already struggling to maintain patrols. To what extent are the vulnerabilities the MOD cites to justify its secrecy a function of its own mismanagement? It is not possible to say, but a clear inference can be drawn from the conspicuous absence of the 2023 Update to Parliament: the MOD has chosen to say nothing rather than provide a basic overview of how its upgrade programmes are progressing.
Is the spectre of Russian interference being used as an excuse to hide MOD mismanagement and emerging problems in the programme from the public? How close is the programme to being unable to field its nuclear armed-submarines safely? What is the MOD trying to hide? The public deserve answers to these questions, and there is no reason that they cannot be given in a form that poses no risk to the security of the UK and its population. At NIS we will continue to seek what information we can to highlight these issues, but regular detailed parliamentary scrutiny is long overdue.
Members of the public have the right under the FOI Act to be provided with information on request, and ministers are expected to be candid and transparent towards Parliament under the ministerial code. When the approach of the government is to frustrate that right and avoid those obligations, and the ICO does not challenge them, this is a serious threat to democratic oversight and accountability. We welcome the recent calls from the House of Lords following the changes to the Mutual Defence Agreement, but as the Public Accounts Committee stated earlier in the year, there is also gap in the parliamentary scrutiny of government nuclear spending. We believe the gap is actually much wider, and it is time for regular and detailed scrutiny by Parliament of the whole UK nuclear weapons programme. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/comment/2024/11/secrecy-ramping-up-as-problems-mount-in-the-uk-nuclear-programme/
Inside the secret plan to re-open America’s most infamous nuclear power plant code named Tetris
Daily Mail, By RACHEL BOWMAN FOR DAILYMAIL.COM, 11 November 2024
The mastermind behind the plan to reopen the nuclear plant that caused America’s worst reactor accident hatched the idea after learning tech CEOs were desperately searching for energy to power artificial-intelligence.
Constellation Energy and Microsoft announced a power purchase agreement in September to reopen the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear plant in Pennsylvania.
The plant is home the worst commercial nuclear power accident after the Unit 2 reactor suffered a partial meltdown due to mechanical failure and human error in 1979.
Joe Dominguez, the chief executive of Constellation Energy, said he came up with the idea after OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman revealed data centers for some AI models would require as much power as a large city during a gathering for CEOs in May 2023. ……………………………………………………………………………..
The Unit 1 reactor located on TMI Unit 2 was shut down in 1979 after its partial meltdown. Its twin – the Unit 2 rector – was operating until 2019.
To restart Unit 2, Constellation will invest $1.6 billion in the turbine, generator, main power transformer and cooling and control systems.
Then Dominguez had to get Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s support for the move. The two met for the first time last December and the CEO said Shapiro questioned him on the plant conditions and if a restart could be done safely without cost to the state……………………………………………
The companies have not released the financial details of the deal, but analysts at Jefferies estimate Microsoft will pay between $110 to $115 per megawatt hour of electricity.
The plant is expected to start delivering energy in 2028 under the agreement, and Constellation said they will pursue license renewal that will extend plant operations to at least 2054. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14067243/Inside-secret-plan-open-Americas-infamous-nuclear-power-plant-code-named-Tetris.html
A ‘Cop of peace’? How can authoritarian, human rights-trashing Azerbaijan possibly host that?
The ‘theme’ chosen for Cop29 must be some kind of dark joke. This summit, like those before it, is a mere act of greenwashing.
Greta Thunberg, Guardian, 11 Nov 24
During rapidly escalating climate and humanitarian crises, another authoritarian petrostate with no respect for human rights is hosting Cop29 – the UN’s latest annual climate summit that starts today and is being held after the re-election of a climate-denier US president.
Cop meetings have proven to be greenwashing conferences that legitimise countries’ failures to ensure a livable world and future and have also allowed authoritarian regimes like Azerbaijan and the two previous hosts – the United Arab Emirates and Egypt – to continue violating human rights.
Genocides, ecocides, famines, wars, colonialism, rising inequalities and an escalating climate collapse are all interconnected crises that reinforce each other and lead to unimaginable suffering. While humanitarian crises are unfolding in Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan, Congo, Kurdistan, Lebanon, Balochistan, Ukraine, Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh, and many, many other places, humanity is also breaching the 1.5C greenhouse gas emissions limit, with no signs of real reductions in sight. Instead, the opposite is taking place – last year, global emissions reached an all-time high. Heat records have been shattered, and this year is “virtually certain” to be the hottest year ever recorded, with unprecedented extreme weather events pushing the planet further into uncharted territory. The destabilisation of the biosphere and the natural ecosystems we depend on to survive is leading to untold human suffering and further accelerating the mass extinction of flora and fauna.
Azerbaijan’s entire economy is built on fossil fuels, with the state-owned oil company Socar’s oil and gas exports accounting for close to 90% of the country’s exports. Despite what it might claim, Azerbaijan has no ambition to take climate action. It is planning to expand fossil fuel production, which is completely incompatible with the 1.5C limit and the goals of the Paris agreement on climate change.
Many attenders of this year’s Cop are scared to criticise the Azerbaijan government. Human Rights Watch recently published a statement explaining how it couldn’t be certain that attenders’ rights to peacefully protest would be guaranteed. In addition, Azerbaijan land and sea borders will remain closed during Cop29, making it only possible to travel in and out of the country by air, which causes pollution and which many Azerbaijan citizens can’t afford. The reason given for closing borders at all Cops since the start of the Covid pandemic is to maintain “national security”, but I’ve heard many Azerbaijanis describe the situation as being “kept in a prison”.
The Azerbaijan regime is guilty of ethnic cleansing, humanitarian blockades and war crimes, as well as repressing its own population and cracking down on the country’s civil society. The independent watchdog Freedom House ranks the country as the least democratic state in Europe, with the regime actively targeting journalists, independent media outlets, political and civic activists, and human rights defenders. Azerbaijan also accounts for about 40% of Israel’s annual oil imports, thus fuelling the Israeli war machine and being complicit in the genocide in Palestine and Israel’s war crimes in Lebanon. The Azerbaijan-Israel ties are mutually beneficial as the majority of weapons used by Azerbaijan during the second Nagorno-Karabakh war and likely those used in the September 2023 military operation into the Karabakh region were imported from Israel.
The “Cop of peace” is one theme chosen for this year’s climate conference by the host, which wants to encourage states to observe a “Cop truce”. It is gut-wrenching, to say the least, to talk of global peace after the terrible human rights violations committed by Azerbaijan’s Aliyev regime against ethnic Armenians living in the Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh region. Furthermore, Azerbaijan is planning to greenwash its crimes against Armenians by building a “Green Energy Zone” on territories where the population has been ethnically cleansed.
How did this country get to host the climate summit? It was eastern Europe’s turn. But Russia vetoed EU member states, so the options were either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Armenia lifted its veto against Azerbaijan and supported its bid in exchange for a release of prisoners, although a large number of Armenian political prisoners are still being held. Last year, the regime critic Gubad Ibadoghlu was imprisoned after criticising Azerbaijan’s fossil fuel industry. Other political prisoners include peace activist Bahruz Samadov, ethnic minority researcher Iqbal Abilov, political activists Akif Gurbanov and Ruslan Izzatli and journalists.
The climate crisis is just as much about protecting human rights as it is about protecting the climate and biodiversity. You cannot claim to care about climate justice if you ignore the sufferings of oppressed and colonised people today. We cannot pick and choose whose human rights to care for, and who to leave behind. Climate justice means justice, safety and freedom for everyone.
During Cop29, the picture of Azerbaijan reported by the media will be a whitewashed and greenwashed version that the regime is desperate to portray. But make no mistake – it is a repressive state accused of ethnic cleansing.
We need immediate sanctions targeted against the regime and a halt to the import of Azerbaijani fossil fuels. Diplomatic pressure must also be put on the regime to release its Armenian hostages and all political prisoners – and ensure the right to a safe return for Armenians.
- Greta Thunberg is a Swedish activist and international climate crisis campaigner
COP 29 chief exec filmed promoting fossil fuel deals
BBC 8th Nov 2024, Justin Rowlatt, BBC climate editor, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmzvdn9e18o
A senior official at COP29 climate change conference in Azerbaijan appears to have used his role to arrange a meeting to discuss potential fossil fuel deals, the BBC can report.
A secret recording shows the chief executive of Azerbaijan’s COP29 team, Elnur Soltanov, discussing “investment opportunities” in the state oil and gas company with a man posing as a potential investor.
“We have a lot of gas fields that are to be developed,” he says.
A former head of the UN body responsible for the climate talks told the BBC that Soltanov’s actions were “completely unacceptable” and a “betrayal” of the COP process.
As well as being the chief executive of COP29, Soltanov is also the deputy energy minister of Azerbaijan and is on the board of Socar.
Azerbaijan’s COP29 team has not responded to a request for comment.
Oil and gas accounts for about half of Azerbaijan’s total economy and more than 90% of its exports, according to US figures.
COP29 will open in Baku on Monday and is the 29th annual UN climate summit, where governments discuss how to limit and prepare for climate change, and raise global ambition to tackle the issue.
However, this is the second year in a row the BBC has revealed alleged wrongdoing by the host government.
The BBC has been shown documents and secret video recordings made by the human rights organisation, Global Witness.
It is understood that one of its representatives approached the COP29 team posing as the head of a fictitious Hong Kong investment firm specialising in energy.
He said this company was interested in sponsoring the COP29 summit but wanted to discuss investment opportunities in Azerbaijan’s state energy firm, Socar, in return. An online meeting with Soltanov was arranged.
During the meeting, Soltanov told the potential sponsor that the aim of the conference was “solving the climate crisis” and “transitioning away from hydrocarbons in a just, orderly and equitable manner”.
Anyone, he said, including oil and gas companies, “could come with solutions” because Azerbaijan’s “doors are open”.
However, he said he was open to discussions about deals too – including on oil and gas……………
“There are a lot of joint ventures that could be established,” Soltanov says on the recording. “Socar is trading oil and gas all over the world, including in Asia.
….. The UN climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, acknowledges there will be a role for some oil and gas up to 2050 and beyond. However, it has been very clear that “developing… new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5C”.
It also goes against the agreement the world made at the last global climate summit to transition away from fossil fuels.
Soltanov appeared eager to help get discussions going, telling the potential sponsor: “I would be happy to create a contact between your team and their team [Socar] so that they can start discussions.”
A couple of weeks later the fake Hong Kong investment company received an email – Socar wanted to follow up on the lead.
Attempting to do business deals as part of the COP process appears to be a serious breach of the standards of conduct expected of a COP official.
These events are supposed to be about reducing the world’s use of fossil fuels – the main driver of climate change – not selling more.
…………………………………… Christiana Figueres, who oversaw the signing of the 2015 Paris agreement to limit global temperature rises to well below 2C, told the BBC that she was shocked anyone in the COP process would use their position to strike oil and gas deals.
She said such behaviour was “contrary and egregious” to the the purpose of COP and “a treason” to the process.
The BBC has also seen emails between the COP29 team and the fake investors.
In one chain, the team discusses a $600,000 (£462,000) sponsorship deal with a fake company in return for the Socar introduction and involvement in an event about “sustainable oil and gas investing” during COP29.
………………… The findings come a year after the BBC obtained leaked documents that revealed plans by the UAE to use its role as host of COP28 to strike oil and gas deals.
COP28 was the first time agreement was reached on the need to transition away from fossil fuels.
Report: Trump Plans UK-Style Attack on Israel Criticism
The Washington Post reported in May that Trump told donors in New York that he would deport foreign students if they demonstrate for Palestine. “One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave,” Trump told the donors, the Post reported.
Their aim is to crush the anti-genocide movement within 12 to 24 months.
November 4, 2024, Consortium News. more https://consortiumnews.com/2024/11/04/report-trump-plans-uk-style-attack-on-israel-criticism/
Joe Lauria says the Heritage Foundation’s “Project Esther,” as covered by Drop Site News, replicates the U.K.’s use of a terrorism law to criminalize pro-Palestine speech and activism.
A second Trump administration could criminalize criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza as support for terrorism, along the lines of the British Terrorism Act, according to a report in Drop Site News.
The report says the plan is to “break the pro-Palestinian movement in the U.S.”
“The plan, dubbed ‘Project Esther,‘ casts pro-Palestinian activists in the U.S. as members of a global conspiracy aligned with designated terrorist organizations. As part of a so-called ‘Hamas Support Network,’ these protesters receive ‘indispensable support of a vast network of activists and funders with a much more ambitious, insidious goal — the destruction of capitalism and democracy,’ Project Esther’s authors allege.
This conspiratorial framing is part of a legal strategy to suppress speech favorable to Palestinians or critical of the U.S.-Israel relationship, by employing counterterrorism laws to suppress what would otherwise be protected speech, legal experts told Drop Site News.”
The authors of the plan are part of the right-wing Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, Drop Site says. Former President Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025 but he is a strong supporter of Israel, having moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and accepted Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights, considered illegal by the U.N. Security Council.
The Washington Post reported in May that Trump told donors in New York that he would deport foreign students if they demonstrate for Palestine. “One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave,” Trump told the donors, the Post reported.
The report in Drop Site News, written by Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain, quotes an attorney at Palestine Legal as saying that
“concepts like the ‘Hamas Support Network’ or ‘Hamas Supporting Organizations,’ another term that the authors use to describe pro-Palestinian activist groups, is intended to construct a narrative justifying the use of counterterrorism and sanctions laws to suppress the First Amendment rights of individuals involved in the pro-Palestine movement …”
‘They need to make a claim that these organizations are being directed and controlled by Hamas, which they’re not,’ attorney Dylan Saba said. ‘So their claim now is that these organizations are effectively serving as a propaganda wing for designated terrorist organizations.’”
This is precisely what the British government has been doing.
2000 Terrorism Act
Using the 2000 Terrorism Act, authorities have been stopping journalists and activists at border entry points to interrogate them, sometimes arresting them, or conducting raids on their homes all because they dare expose and condemn Israel’s ongoing barbarism in Gaza and now Lebanon and misconstrue it as support for proscribed organizations, namely Hamas and Hezbollah.
Among those interrogated under the Terrorism Act for this purpose have been Craig Murray, writer, former British diplomat, new Consortium News board member; journalist Richard Medhurst who was held in a cell for 24 hours; and Asa Winstanley, an editor at Electronic Intifada whose home was raided by counterterrorism police.
[See: Police Escalate Britain’s War on Independent Journalism]
As Trump wins we could expect the same thing as is happening in the U.K. from his second administration, according to Drop Site News.
“To achieve its goals, Project Esther proposes the use of counterterrorism and hate speech laws, as well as immigration measures, including the deportation of students and other individuals,” Drop Site News reported.
The draconian measures being planned also include using racketeering laws “to help construct prosecutions against individuals and organizations in the movement,” the site reported.
[Related: Georgia Frames Cop-City Protest as Criminal Conspiracy]
The project would first attempt to purge “propaganda” from schools, then intimidate students not to take part in protests. This process is expected to lead to a point where “both the U.S. public and a preponderance of Jewish community perceives HSOs” — short for Hamas Support Organizations — “as a threat to their safety.”
Their aim is to crush the anti-genocide movement within 12 to 24 months.
As with most things in the duopoly, the Biden administration has given Trump a head start by designating a Palestinian prisoner support group named Samidoun a terrorist organization, the site says.
Israel has been accusing any critic of being pro-Hamas, such as how they smeared U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Or they accuse you of being part of Hamas. What is even more disturbing is that Western governments have taken up these ludicrous claims to ensure Israel remains above criticism while it openly commits genocide.
It is one of the most transparent tricks going back millennia for a government to smear its legitimate critics as being card-carrying members of its most ardent enemies — and Western governments are willfully falling for it, criminalizing journalists who oppose the slaughter.
If Trump follows through with this plan he will be totally abrogating the First Amendment, which is supposed to separate the U.S. from the country it rebelled against a long time ago.
Witnesses say the Israeli army is using facial recognition technology in its assault on north Gaza
Witnesses told Mondoweiss that after the army scans people’s faces, most people are detained for field interrogations. During these encounters, soldiers use what Ishaaq al-Daour describe as “psychological tactics” to unsettle the people being questioned, claiming that they know everything about their lives and that if they lie in their answers, “they will be killed.”
Witness testimony from northern Gaza shows that Israel is using facial recognition technology to organize how it conducts mass arrests and forcible displacement. Some Palestinians say the technology is also being used to carry out field executions.
By Tareq S. Hajjaj October 31, 2024
Ishaaq al-Daour, 32, was sheltering with his family at the UN-run Abu Hussein School in Jabalia refugee camp when the Israeli army stormed the shelter on October 20, forcing over 700 hundred people out of the school and leading them into a large ditch that had been dug in advance by the military.
“They made all of the men go down into the ditch first,” al-Daour told Mondoweiss from the Remal neighborhood in Gaza City. “Then they ordered us to climb out of the ditch one by one and stood each of us in front of a camera that had been installed nearby.”
The army made the men stand in front of the “camera” for at least three minutes per person, al-Daour said, long enough for the cameras to scan their faces and reveal personal data seemingly already stored in the Israeli military’s system. After the scans, al-Daour said the soldiers would reveal information about each individual, including their “name, age, work, family members and names, place of residence, and even their personal activities.”
“When they suspected someone, they took him away [to an unknown location” al-Daour said. As for those who had relatives who belonged to Palestinian resistance movements or who personally belonged to resistance factions, al-Daour speculated that “their fate was immediate death,” citing stories he had heard from others in Gaza, whose friends and relatives were taken at checkpoints and had not been seen again, or who returned to Gaza in body bags.
Al-Daour is one of the thousands of people who were expelled from the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza and ordered to move south at gunpoint by the Israeli army. The forced exodus of thousands out of Jabalia is part of an Israeli offensive on northern Gaza that started on October 5. Its objective is to implement a proposal put forward by a group of senior Israeli generals that aims to empty northern Gaza of its inhabitants through starvation and bombardment, the so-called “Generals’ Plan.”
Survivors from Jabalia like al-Daour report that the Israeli army is using facial recognition technology to screen residents in the ongoing assault, often identifying people from long distances and picking them out from a crowd.
Witnesses say that the Israeli army has set up security checkpoints throughout northern Gaza where the facial recognition technology is being deployed. The military is also reportedly using this technology when it storms shelters for the displaced. Witnesses report that in these cases Israeli forces will corral people in enclosed places, usually ditches dug by military bulldozers, and process them individually.
Mondoweiss spoke to several survivors from Jabalia, who said that the Israeli army is using quadcopter drones to “identify people immediately from a distance,” and that soldiers are stopping people at checkpoints to conduct “camera scans” that lasts for several minutes. Witnesses say these were particularly unnerving as they stood awaiting an uncertain fate. Witnesses also report that the army picked people out of a crowd at checkpoints using what they described as a “red laser pointer” that was either mounted on a tank or on a soldier’s rifle.
Witnesses told Mondoweiss that after the army scans people’s faces, most people are detained for field interrogations. During these encounters, soldiers use what Ishaaq al-Daour describe as “psychological tactics” to unsettle the people being questioned, claiming that they know everything about their lives and that if they lie in their answers, “they will be killed.”
The questions are typically wide-ranging, al-Daour said. “They ask us about our relatives, our neighbors, the movements of the resistance fighters on the ground, who we know from them, and who they are. They convince us that they already know everything about us by mentioning intimate details about our lives, and then they threaten us with killing if we lie.”
Israel’s use of facial recognition throughout the war
While Mondoweiss could not independently verify the nature of the “cameras” being described by witnesses, the use of facial scanning and facial recognition technology by the Israeli army has been well documented.
Facial recognition technology used by Israel pulls from a database of information about Palestinians that has been built up over the years, including on Palestinians in the West Bank. One of those databases is called Wolf Pack, which according to Amnesty International, contains extensive information on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, “including where they live, who their family members are, and whether they are wanted for questioning by Israeli authorities.”
In the old city of Hebron in the southern West Bank, Israeli surveillance cameras use a facial recognition system called Red Wolf on Palestinians who pass through checkpoints in the city. “Their face is scanned, without their knowledge or consent, and compared with biometric entries in databases which exclusively contain information about Palestinians,” Amnesty described in a May 2023 report.
It is unclear whether the facial recognition technology used throughout the ongoing assault on northern Gaza is the Red Wolf system or the other systems that the Israeli army has been reported to have used throughout the war on Gaza. In March, the New York Times reported that Israel’s cyber-intelligence division Unit 8200 used facial recognition technology developed by Corsight, an Israeli company, in combination with Google Photos. Together, these technologies enabled “Israel to pick faces out of crowds and grainy drone footage,” the Times said.
Likewise, it’s unclear whether these facial recognition systems are drawing upon data from Wolf Pack or another Israeli database, but media attention has recently focused on how that data is being processed and generated through a number of controversial AI programs to identify potential targets. Programs like “Lavender,” “The Gospel,” and “Where’s Daddy” have pushed Human Rights Watch to warn against their use of “faulty data and inexact approximations to inform military actions.” Several media exposés have also shown how some of these AI systems loosely identify civilians as targets for assassination or alert the Israeli army to target members of Hamas when they are with their families.
Testimonies gathered by Mondoweiss for this report and in previous reporting confirm that the brutal Israeli invasion in northern Gaza is utilizing these technologies as a means of organizing how it conducts mass arrests, field executions, and ethnic cleansing.
‘It was the most terrifying moment in my life’
Hiba al-Fram is one of the displaced people who passed through the army’s checkpoints during the Jabalia invasion. She says she was subjected to a facial and retinal scan, an experience she described as terrifying.
“Everyone was standing in the line, men and women, and everyone held up their IDs in their hands. Soldiers were using lasers to check our ID cards from a distance before we reached them,” she told Mondoweiss. Mondoweiss could not confirm what lasers the military was using.
Al-Fram said that the army picked people out of the queue using a “laser” pointer affixed to a tank. She described the army shining the laser on the ID cards and calling on people to advance towards the checkpoint, where the soldiers set up a camera.
“The soldiers arrested over 100 men in front of my eyes; they arrested them in front of their wives, and they were beating them, cursing them, and threatening to kill them and their families. Many wives saw their husbands in this situation.”
“The soldiers were telling the women: ‘We will kill you by a sniper bullet, we will run over your skulls with tanks, we will stone you to death, we will make you bleed to death,’” al-Fram continued. “The women were terrified and thought they would be killed.”
Then, the soldiers would gather five women at a time and walk them to a security check or a scan of the face or eye. “They arrested two women in front of me from the crowd based on their face scans. People later said they were relatives of people known to be members of armed factions, but they were women. They were carrying children.”
“The soldiers ordered them to give their children to other women. The mothers started to panic like crazy. They looked around frantically for any woman they knew to give their children to,” al-Fram continued.
“We would walk towards the face-scanning point in utter terror in our hearts, walking between dozens of tanks and soldiers pointing their weapons at us. And we would stand there for 3 or 5 minutes. They were the worst minutes of my life. A person’s fate was decided based on that scan: either arrest, beating and humiliation, or release them and force them to leave towards the south.”
After the soldiers take the face scan, the questions about neighbors and relatives begin. “They asked us where they are, where we can find them, when we last saw them. We did not know anything about these details, so we did not lie when we said we did not know. They would threaten us that if we lied, they would uncover the lie and shoot us immediately.”
Of all the terrifying moments experienced by residents of northern Gaza, many say that they experienced their most terrifying moments when they were stopped at an Israeli checkpoint.
“The most terrifying and frightening moments were the moments when you stand in front of the camera to get your face scanned,” Abdul Karim al-Zuwaidi, a journalist in northern Gaza, told Mondoweiss.
Before al-Zuwaidi reached the facial recognition point on his way toward Gaza City, he saw many young men being arrested by the army. As a Palestinian journalist working in the Gaza Strip, he like many of his colleagues is at particular risk of being targeted.
“The minutes we stand in front of the camera feel like years,” al-Zuwaidi said. “As a journalist conveying our message to the world, I was terrified.”
Al-Zuwaidi said that during their march south, many Jabalia residents would attempt to avoid upcoming checkpoints, often to no avail. “We had heard the stories about the checkpoints and how they were arresting people, so we tried in whatever way possible to avoid passing through them, but there was no way of escaping.”
“When we are examined, and the scan shows that one of us will be arrested, the soldiers start beating and cursing them before they take them away and they disappear. We saw this scene play out in front of us for dozens of young men.” Al-Zuwaidi did not see himself what information was revealed to the soldiers by the scans, but he said the soldiers would repeat aloud what details they were seeing on their screens, including peoples’ personal information, names, relatives, and more.
While people were waiting for the scan, al-Zuwaidi said that soldiers would curse at and beat the young men. The army severely beat al-Zuwaidi while he was standing and waiting for his turn. “They were dirty in their treatment of us,” he said. “But what can we say in response to a military armed with all these weapons and ready to kill?”
“They used every humiliating method against ordinary people,” he added.
Congress Must Investigate Corruption in Nuclear Energy Industry
Real Clear Energy, By Craig Shirley, April 10, 2024
In their zeal to achieve a carbon-free environment, Democrats have done a big turnaround to promote nuclear energy as a safe, clean energy source. Some states are moving as fast they can to reactivate idle reactors. In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Relief Act (IRA) to grant $30 billion for nuclear subsidies.
Scandals involving bribery over nuclear energy have toppled high-level state officials and corporate executives in Ohio, Illinois and other places.
In 2020, federal prosecutors brought charges against officials on Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), an Illinois company, for offering jobs and favors to friends of the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives in exchange for a bill to bailout the company’s nuclear division.
At nearly the same time, Ohio-based FirstEnergy executives were charged with paying $60 million in bribes to state legislators. Former Ohio Speaker of the House Larry Householder is currently serving a 47 year prison sentence.
Floodlight, a non-profit environmental news service, wrote a piece that appeared in the liberal magazine Mother Jones that perfectly encapsulates the corruption in the nuclear industry:
“Utility fraud and corruption—in Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Ohio, and South Carolina—have cost electricity customers at least $6.6 billion, according to Floodlight’s analysis. Ratepayers have bankrolled nuclear plants that never got built, transmission systems that were over-engineered to beef up profits, and aging coal facilities that couldn’t compete with cheaper plants powered by methane, which the industry calls natural gas.”
Before these scandals erupted, and before Congress passed the Inflation Recovery Act, the nuclear industry had become so unpopular, it was a tempting target for political corruption.
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
“Changes in the economics of electricity markets are threatening the profitability of nuclear power plants, a shifting reality driving a demand for these financial bailouts. As the New Jersey-based energy company Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) explained in October 2020, across the nation “nuclear plants continue to struggle economically to survive. Since 2018, three nuclear plants have closed in the eastern US, all for economic reasons, and the impact has had a ripple effect.”
Over the past several years, the Justice Department and the courts have done their jobs in prosecuting and sentencing bad actors in the nuclear industry. It is time for Congress to investigate the root causes of the corruption. Executives and experts alike must be brought before congressional committees to explain why the nuclear industry has been allowed to fall into corruption at the expense of the taxpayer and the consumer……………………………………….
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2024/04/10/congress_must_investigate_corruption_in_nuclear_energy_industry_1024272.html
Lest we forget – Nuclear Power Runs on Dirty Money: The Corporate Scandal of the Proposed National Nuclear Subsidy
August 5, 2021
A few days ago, we published a piece showing the cost of federal nuclear bailout proposals. It’s a big, big number — $50 billion. But all of that money would not create a single new job, nor reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a single pound. In fact, as a new report released last month found, investing that $50 billion in wind, solar, and efficiency instead would accelerate our transition to a zero-emissions electricity system. And, as we showed last week, a national nuclear bailout would prevent the creation of 60,000 new jobs in renewable energy, efficiency, and other clean energy infrastructure.
So with all of these strikes against it, why are members of Congress pushing so hard to give a slate of old, uneconomical nuclear power plants so much money out of a large, but still limited, budget for energy investments needed for a just transition to a carbon-free future?
There’s one tried-and-true way to answer that question: follow the money. We wondered: who would actually receive the money proposed to bail out nuclear reactors? The answer is revealing.
From our analysis, we found that there are 33 reactors at 19 nuclear power plants, located in eight states, which would qualify for the proposed bailouts. Those power plants are owned and operated by only eight large power companies (along with four smaller companies that are minority co-owners of three of the plants). Note: because both proposed bailouts would subsidize the same group of reactors, we combined the amounts for our calculations. As a result, nearly the entire $50 billion–94% of the total–would go to these eight corporations.
However, because ownership of nuclear reactors is highly concentrated, over $35 billion of the bailout (70%) would go to just three of those corporations:
- Exelon $24.5 billion (49%)
- Energy Harbor $5.5 billion (11%)
- PSEG $5.1 billion (10%)
All three of these companies have been lobbying for subsidies for their nuclear reactors for years. As we speak, Exelon is pushing for a nuclear subsidy in Illinois and threatening to close four reactors within the next few months if the state legislature does not convene a special session and enact a new law with at least $700 million in nuclear subsidies within weeks.
In fact, both Exelon and Energy Harbor (a spinoff of FirstEnergy), are the subjects of federal corruption cases over billion-dollar nuclear bailouts for which they lobbied in Illinois and Ohio, respectively. In both cases, prosecutors have indicted former company lobbyists and staff to the Speakers of the House of Representatives in each state. Also in both cases, Exelon and FirstEnergy have signed deferred prosecution agreements with federal prosecutors to pay fines and restitution and to cooperate with the prosecutions. As the investigations proceed, more corporate executives, legislators, and lobbyists could be indicted.
In the case of FirstEnergy and Energy Harbor, there are also multiple state-level investigations of these nuclear bailout scandals. At the heart of that case, FirstEnergy made $61 million in bribes and payments to former House Speaker Larry Householder’s political action committee. Through the scheme, FirstEnergy helped win Householder the speakership after the 2018 election, by also buying the support of Republican legislators and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine. As a result, FirstEnergy was able to get Ohio to enact a $1 billion nuclear bailout, which was key in winning the support of the corporation’s creditors in a major bankruptcy proceeding. The bankruptcy settlement resulted in FirstEnergy spinning off its power plants into Energy Harbor, a new, unaffiliated corporation that only owns the unprofitable nuclear and coal power plants. As a result of the federal corruption case, Ohio legislators repealed the nuclear bailout earlier this year, leaving Energy Harbor without the subsidies its creditors were assured it would have when they agreed to the bankruptcy settlement.
In addition to the federal corruption case, states where FirstEnergy operates want to know where the $61 million in bribes came from. In April, under pressure in the federal case, FirstEnergy filed a report with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission indicating that “all 14 of its power-providing companies” in five states misappropriated ratepayer monies for a decade. State utility commissions in three of those states–Maryland, New Jersey, and Ohio–are investigating how much money the corporation misappropriated from state residents’ power bills to fund the nuclear bailout corruption scheme.
Back to Exelon
The corruption investigation in Illinois stems from two bills that have cost electricity consumers billions of dollars: a 2011 “smart grid” law, and a 2016 energy law. The latter awarded Exelon a 10-year, $2.35 billion subsidy for three uneconomical reactors that Exelon threatened to close without the bailout. Consumers have already paid out $1 billion over the last four years. Exelon awarded jobs to associates and relatives of former House Speaker Michael Madigan and other legislators, in exchange for lucrative legislative outcomes. Despite the ongoing investigation, Exelon is now pursuing subsidies in Illinois for its other eight reactors in Illinois, which it claims are also under economic pressure.
In the same year as the Illinois bailout, Exelon won a massive 12-year, $7.6 billion subsidy for four reactors in New York, and won final approval of a deal that has made it the largest utility company in the country. In those cases, there were eyebrow-raising reports of backroom lobbying, employment favors, and political contributions. And in 2018, Exelon and PSEG (the other big winner from a federal bailout) got New Jersey to enact a $300 million/year subsidy for three reactors in that state. Exelon pulls in about $85 million/year through its ownership stake in two of the New Jersey reactors.
In total, Exelon is receiving nearly $11 billion in nuclear subsidies at the state level. $24.5 billion in federal subsidies may assist Exelon in winning investors’ support for its plan to spin off its nuclear business, as FirstEnergy did. But how is any of this going to help the country solve the climate crisis?
With $30 billion of a federal nuclear subsidy accruing to two companies that are the subject of federal corruption cases over state-level nuclear subsidy laws, this could become an even larger scandal. President Biden and Congressional leaders should not risk the American Jobs and Families Plan being derailed over corporate corruption cases. And as we’ve shown, the infrastructure bills will do more for climate, jobs, and justice without a nuclear bailout, and by simply investing in the transition to 100% renewable energy.
There are many reasons why we cannot afford to sacrifice the climate to a nuclear bailout. Our economic future, justice for all communities impacted by climate chaos and the nuclear fuel chain, and our environment all depend on real action and true investment in clean energy, good jobs, and a just transition. Short-sighted corporate interests–once again–block the path towards the liveable, just, and equitable future. We cannot allow the pockets of nuclear corporations and their shareholders to grow as our window for climate action shrinks.
[Tables of subsidies etc included here on original]
Take Action!
We can’t let our leaders sacrifice the economy and environment to a corporate nuclear bailout scandal! Tell President Biden, Vice-President Harris, and your representatives in Congress: “No Corrupt Nuclear Bailouts in the American Jobs and Families Plan – Invest in American Jobs and a Just Transition to 100% Renewable Energy by 2035”
Yeah, Yeah, United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Is Hamas. Everyone Israel Hates Is Hamas.
Caitlin Johnstone Oct 30, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/yeah-yeah-unrwa-is-hamas-everyone?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=150919007&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The Israeli Knesset has banned UNRWA, an absolutely critical agency for getting humanitarian aid into Gaza, with the architect of the bill saying this was happening because “UNRWA equals Hamas”.
In addition to everything else this genocide has been, it’s been a colossal insult to our intelligence. UNRWA is Hamas. Hospitals are Hamas. Journalists are Hamas. Civilian infrastructure is Hamas. Ambulances, schools and mosques are Hamas. The women and babies — okay maybe they’re not technically Hamas, but Hamas is definitely hiding behind them and using them as human shields.
We are asked to believe self-evidently idiotic things, and if we don’t, we get called Nazi Jew-haters. We are being asked to turn ourselves into empty-headed morons to advance the information interests of a foreign state that’s allied with our government. Stupidity is being framed as a sign of patriotism. Gullibility is being framed as a sign of rejecting antisemitism. In this morally bankrupt and perverse civilization, the noblest thing you can be is a blithering imbecile.
Axios and its Israeli intelligence insider Barak Ravid have penned yet another White House press release disguised as a news story about how “concerned” the Biden administration is about Israel’s actions in Gaza.
“The Biden administration is ‘deeply concerned’ that two bills passed by the Israeli Knesset on Monday will exacerbate the already dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza and harm Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank,” Ravid writes.
Oh shit you guys the Biden administration is deeply concerned that Israel is doing something bad in Gaza! You’re in trouble now, Bibi!
Like I said. Just one nonstop insult to our intelligence
CNN has issued an apology after its panelist Ryan Girdusky told fellow panelist Mehdi Hasan “I hope your pager doesn’t go off” after Hasan said he supports Palestinians. Israel supporters have been directing this “hurr hurr you should be murdered with an explosive pager” wisecrack at Israel’s critics for weeks, and apparently Girdusky just forgot where he was in the heat of the moment.
CNN was like, This network is shocked and appalled that our panelist joked about murdering a British Muslim journalist with an explosive beeper. That kind of language is only appropriate when directed at Muslims who live in the middle east.
Per the rules of the western empire you are a religious extremist if you want to fight against an occupying force who has been abusing you your entire life, but you are not a religious extremist if you want to carpet bomb the middle east to help fulfill a Biblical prophecy.
❖
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is back to pushing her “Russians are interfering in the US election” narrative, so we know what we’ll be hearing again if Kamala loses. No matter who wins we can expect a bunch of outraged shrieking from the other side that the election was unfairly stolen from them.
The US presidential race is very openly a contest between two oligarch-owned Zionist war whores, and yet after the results are announced next week you’re still going to hear half the country going “OMG election interference! The election was stolen from us!”
It already was, you dopes. It was stolen before the race even started. The rest is just narrative.
I sure hope all the US progressives who obediently stopped talking about Gaza these last couple of months remember to start that thing up again after the election is over.
❖
I’m just gonna say this ahead of time so it’s out there: you don’t get to campaign on continuing a genocide and then blame other people when you lose. That is not a thing.
❖
“Trump will be worse on Gaza” is such an obnoxiously dishonest argument. It’s completely unfalsifiable and can’t even be tested after the election since abuses keep getting worse in Gaza anyway, and it’s based on nothing but the claim that very vague statements made by Trump prove he’ll facilitate Israeli atrocities more than the current administration already has been. It’s completely empty narrative fluff with no basis on the facts in evidence.
There are all kinds of legitimate cases to be made that Harris would be a little bit better than Trump on some aspects of domestic policy and the environment, but there is no case whatsoever to be made that he’ll be worse on Gaza than the administration that’s already committing genocide there. He could be worse, he could be a bit better, or he could be exactly the same. There’s no way to know, and there won’t be any way to know in a universe where we can’t observe alternate realities to compare what each presidential candidate would have done if they’d won. It’s an entirely unanswerable question that people are just pretending to know the answer to.
Harris and the Democrats have repeatedly attacked Trump for not starting a war with Iran when he was president. She criticized him for making John Bolton sad when he refused to bomb Iran. How is that less insanely pro-Israel than anything Trump has said?
If you want to argue that Harris will be better on reproductive rights or something then go ahead, but when it comes to Gaza don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
Literary Institutions Are Pressuring Authors to Remain Silent About Gaza
Requiring authors remain silent about war at the risk of losing their livelihoods is not only ironic but also sinister.
By Lisa Ko , Truthout, October 25, 2024
When writer and disability justice activist Alice Wong received a MacArthur Fellowship earlier this month, she shared a statement about accepting it “amidst the genocide happening in Gaza.” The backlash was swift, with a deluge of posts on X attacking Wong’s character and accusing her of antisemitism.
This conflation of opposition to Israel’s military action with hatred of Jewish people is only one part of a broader wave of political and social repression that is attempting to silence writers speaking out against the war. In the past month alone, authors who have criticized Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza — which is funded largely by the U.S. — have been labeled extremists, been suspended and fired from faculty jobs, and targets of defamation and harassment.
I had my own recent experience with the latter following an incident with the New York State Writers Institute’s Albany Book Festival. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://truthout.org/articles/literary-institutions-are-pressuring-authors-to-remain-silent-about-gaza/
US authorizes CIA mercenaries to run biometric concentration camps in Gaza Strip
A private intelligence corporation billed as “Uber for war zones” is preparing to create what Israel hopes will be the model for supplanting Hamas rule in Gaza.
Uncaptured Media, Dan Cohen, Oct 22, 2024
The Biden administration has approved the deployment of 1,000 CIA-trained private mercenaries as part of a joint U.S.-Israeli plan to turn Gaza’s apocalyptic rubblescape into a high-tech dystopia.
Starting with Al-Atatra, a village in the northwestern Gaza Strip, the plan calls to build what the Israeli daily Ynet calls “humanitarian bubbles” – turning the remains of villages and neighborhoods into tiny concentration camps cut off from their environs and surrounded and controlled by mercenaries.
This comes as Israel carries out daily massacres and ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza, enacting the proposal known as The Generals’ Plan, originally crafted by former national security chief Giora Eiland to turn Gaza into “a place where no human being can exist.”
The plan, approved by White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, calls for the Israeli military to clear out pockets of Palestinian resistance, which it has failed to achieve, demonstrated by the recent killing of Israeli Colonel Ehasn Daksa, the highest ranking officer to lose his life in the year long war.
48 hours after stamping out resistance, they plan to erect separation walls around the neighborhood, forcing its residents, and no one else, to enter and exit using biometric identification under the CIA contractors’ control. Those who do not accept the biometric regime would be refused humanitarian aid…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://open.substack.com/pub/uncaptured/p/us-authorizes-cia-mercenaries-to
Mini-Nukes, Big Bucks: The Interests Behind the SMR Push
The “billionaires’ nuclear club”
The 2015 Paris climate talks featured what cleantechnica.com called a “splashy press conference” by Bill Gates to announce the launch of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition (BEC) – a group of (originally) 28 high net-worth investors, aiming “to provide early-stage capital for technologies that offer promise in bringing affordable clean energy to billions.”
Though BEC no longer makes its membership public, the original coalition included such familiar names as Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Jack Ma (Alibaba), David Rubenstein (Carlyle Group), Tom Steyer, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerberg. Many of those names (and others) can now be found on the “Board and Investors” page of Breakthrough Energy’s website.
Why Canada is now poised to pour billions of tax dollars into developing Small Modular Reactors as a “clean energy” climate solution
by Joyce Nelson, January 14, 2021, story. Mini-Nukes, Big Bucks: The Interests Behind the SMR Push | Watershed Sentinel
Back in 2018, the Watershed Sentinel ran an article warning that “unless Canadians speak out,” a huge amount of taxpayer dollars would be spent on small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), which author D. S. Geary called “risky, retro, uncompetitive, expensive, and completely unnecessary.” Now here we are in 2021 with the Trudeau government and four provinces (Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Alberta) poised to pour billions of dollars into SMRs as a supposed “clean energy” solution to climate change.
It’s remarkable that only five years ago, the National Energy Board predicted: “No new nuclear units are anticipated to be built in any province” by 2040.
So what happened?
The answer involves looking at some of the key influencers at work behind the scenes, lobbying for government funding for SMRs.
The Carney factor
When the first three provinces jumped on the SMR bandwagon in 2019 at an estimated price tag of $27 billion, the Green Party called the plan “absurd” – especially noting that SMRs don’t even exist yet as viable technologies but only as designs on paper.
According to the BBC (March 9, 2020), some of the biggest names in the nuclear industry gave up on SMRs for various reasons: Babcock & Wilcox in 2017, Transatomic Power in 2018, and Westinghouse (after a decade of work on its project) in 2014.
But in 2018, the private equity arm of Canada’s Brookfield Asset Management Inc. announced that it was buying Westinghouse’s global nuclear business (Westinghouse Electric Co.) for $4.6 billion.
“If Wall Street and the banks will not finance this, why should it be the role of the government to engage in venture capitalism of this kind?”
Two years later, in August 2020, Brookfield announced that Mark Carney, former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor, would be joining the company as its vice-chair and head of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) and impact fund investing, while remaining as UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.
“We are not going to solve climate change without the private sector,” Carney told the press, calling the climate crisis “one of the greatest commercial opportunities of our time.” He considers Canada “an energy superpower,” with nuclear a key asset.
Carney is an informal advisor to PM Trudeau and to British PM Boris Johnson. In November, Johnson announced £525 million (CAD$909.6 million) for “large and small-scale nuclear plants.”
SNC-Lavalin
Scandal-ridden SNC-Lavalin is playing a major role in the push for SMRs. In her mid-December 2020 newsletter, Elizabeth May, the Parliamentary Leader of the Green Party, focused on SNC-Lavalin, reminding readers that in 2015, then-PM Stephen Harper sold the commercial reactor division of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) “to SNC-Lavalin for the sweetheart deal price of $15 million.”
May explained, “SNC-Lavalin formed a consortium called the Canadian National Energy Alliance (CNEA) to run some of the broken-apart bits of AECL. CNEA has been the big booster of what sounds like some sort of warm and cuddly version of nuclear energy – Small Modular Reactors. Do not be fooled. Not only do we not need new nuclear, not only does it have the same risks as previous nuclear reactors and creates long-lived nuclear wastes, it is more tied to the U.S. military-industrial complex than ever before. That’s because SNC-Lavalin’s partners in the CNEA are US companies Fluor and Jacobs,” who both have contracts with US Department of Energy nuclear-weapons facilities.”
But, states May, “Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan has been sucked into the latest nuclear propaganda – that ‘there is no pathway to Net Zero [carbon emissions] without nuclear’.”
Terrestrial Energy
Then there’s Terrestrial Energy, which in mid-October 2020 received a $20 million grant for SMR development from NRCan’s O’Regan and Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry). The announcement prompted more than 30 Canadian NGOs to call SMRs “dirty, dangerous, and distracting” from real, available solutions to climate change.
The Connecticut-based company has a subsidiary in Oakville, Ontario. Its advisory board includes Stephen Harper; Michael Binder, the former president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; and (as of October) Dr. Ian Duncan, the former UK Minister of Climate Change in the Dept. of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).
Perhaps more important, Terrestrial Energy’s advisory board includes Dr. Ernest Moniz, the former US Secretary of the Dept. of Energy (2013-2017) who provided more than $12 billion in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. Moniz has been a key advisor to the Biden-Harris transition team, which has come out in favour of SMRs, calling them “game-changing technologies” at “half the construction cost of today’s reactors.”
In 2015, while the COP 21 Paris Climate Agreement was being finalized, Moniz told reporters that SMRs could lead to “better financing terms” than traditional nuclear plants because they would change the scale of capital at risk. For years, banks and financial institutions have been reluctant to invest in money-losing nuclear projects, so now the goal is to get governments to invest, especially in SMRs.
That has been the agenda of a powerful lobby group that has been working closely with NRCan for several years.
The “billionaires’ nuclear club”
The 2015 Paris climate talks featured what cleantechnica.com called a “splashy press conference” by Bill Gates to announce the launch of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition (BEC) – a group of (originally) 28 high net-worth investors, aiming “to provide early-stage capital for technologies that offer promise in bringing affordable clean energy to billions.”
Though BEC no longer makes its membership public, the original coalition included such familiar names as Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Jack Ma (Alibaba), David Rubenstein (Carlyle Group), Tom Steyer, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerberg. Many of those names (and others) can now be found on the “Board and Investors” page of Breakthrough Energy’s website.
“As long as Bill Gates is wasting his own money or that of other billionaires, it is not so much of an issue. The problem is that he is lobbying hard for government investment.”
Writing in Counterpunch (Dec. 4, 2015) shortly after BEC’s launch, Linda Pentz Gunter noted that many of those 28 BEC billionaires (collectively worth some $350 billion at the time) are pro-nuclear and Gates himself “is already squandering part of his wealth on Terra Power LLC, a nuclear design and engineering company seeking an elusive, expensive and futile so-called Generation IV traveling wave reactor” for SMRs. (In 2016, Terra Power, based in Bellevue, Washington, received a $40 million grant from Ernest Moniz’s Department of Energy.)
According to cleantechnica.com, the Breakthrough Energy Coalition “does have a particular focus on nuclear energy.” Think of BEC as the billionaires’ nuclear club.
By 2017, BEC was launching Breakthrough Energy Ventures (BEV), a $1 billion fund to provide start-up capital to clean-tech companies in several countries.
Going after the public purse
Bill Gates was apparently very busy during the 2015 Paris climate talks. He also went on stage during the talks to announce a collaboration among 24 countries and the EU on something called Mission Innovation – an attempt to “accelerate global clean energy innovation” and “increase government support” for the technologies. Mission Innovation’s key private sector partners include the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, the World Economic Forum, the International Energy Agency, and the World Bank.
An employee at Natural Resources Canada, Amanda Wilson, was appointed as one of the 12 international members of the Mission Innovation Steering Committee.
In December 2017, Bill Gates announced that the Breakthrough Energy Coalition was partnering with Mission Innovation members Canada, UK, France, Mexico, and the European Commission in a “public-private collaboration” to “double public investment in clean energy innovation.”
Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources at the time, Jim Carr, said the partnership with BEC “will greatly benefit the environment and the economy. Working side by side with innovators like Bill Gates can only serve to enhance our purpose and inspire others.”
Dr. M.V. Ramana, an expert on nuclear energy and a professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at UBC, told me by email: “As long as Bill Gates is wasting his own money or that of other billionaires, it is not so much of an issue. The problem is that he is lobbying hard for government investment.”
Dr. Ramana explained that because SMRs only exist on paper, “the scale of investment needed to move these paper designs to a level of detail that would satisfy any reasonable nuclear safety regulator that the design is safe” would be in the billions of dollars. “I don’t see Gates and others being willing to invest anything of that scale. Instead, they invest a relatively small amount of money (compared to what they are worth financially) and then ask for government handouts for the vast majority of the investment that is needed.”
Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist at Beyond Nuclear, told me by email that the companies involved in SMRs “don’t care” if the technology is actually workable, “so long as they get paid more subsidies from the unsuspecting public. It’s not a question of it working, necessarily,” he noted.
Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, says governments “are being suckers. Because if Wall Street and the banks will not finance this, why should it be the role of the government to engage in venture capitalism of this kind?”
“Roadmap” to a NICE future
By 2018, NRCan was pouring money into a 10-month, pan-Canadian “conversation” about SMRs that brought together some 180 individuals from First Nations and northern communities, provincial and territorial governments, industry, utilities, and “stakeholders.” The resulting November 2018 report, A Call to Action: A Canadian Roadmap for Small Modular Reactors, enthusiastically noted that “Canada’s nuclear industry is poised to be a leader in an emerging global market estimated at $150 billion a year by 2040.”
At the same time, Bill Gates announced the launch of Breakthrough Energy Europe, a collaboration with the European Commission (one of BEC’s five Mission Innovation partners) in the amount of 100 million euros for clean-tech innovation.
Gates’ PR tactic is effective: provide a bit of capital to create an SMR “bandwagon,” with governments fearing their economies would be left behind unless they massively fund such innovations.
NRCan’s SMR Roadmap was just in time for Canada’s hosting of the Clean Energy Ministerial/Mission Innovation summit in Vancouver in May 2019 to “accelerate progress toward a clean energy future.” Canada invested $30 million in Breakthrough Energy Solutions Canada to fund start-up companies.
A particular focus of the CEM/MI summit was a CEM initiative called “Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy (NICE) Future,” with all participants receiving a book highlighting SMRs. As Tanya Glafanheim and M.V. Ramana warned in thetyee.ca (May 27, 2019) in advance of the summit, “Note to Ministers from 25 countries: Prepare to be dangerously greenwashed.”
Greenwash vs public backlash
While releasing the federal SMR Action Plan on December 18, O’Regan called it “the next great opportunity for Canada.”
Bizarrely, the Action Plan states that by developing SMRs, our governments would be “supporting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples” – but a Special Chiefs Assembly of the Assembly of First Nations passed a unanimous 2018 resolution demanding that “the Government of Canada cease funding and support” of SMRs. And in June 2019, the Anishinabek Chiefs-in-Assembly (representing 40 First Nations across Ontario) unanimously opposed “any effort to situate SMRs within our territory.”
Some 70 NGOs across Canada are opposed to SMRs, which are being pushed as a replacement for diesel in remote communities, for use in off-grid mining, tar-sands development, and heavy industry, and as exportable expertise in a global market.
Whether SMRs work or not, Mission Innovation members will be throwing tax-dollars at them like there is no tomorrow.
On December 7, the Hill Times published an open letter to the Treasury Board of Canada from more than 100 women leaders across Canada, stating: “We urge you to say ‘no’ to the nuclear industry that is asking for billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to subsidize a dangerous, highly-polluting and expensive technology that we don’t need. Instead, put more money into renewables, energy efficiency and energy conservation.”
No new money for SMRs was announced in the Action Plan, but in her Fall Economic Statement, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland touted SMRs and noted that “targeted action by the government to mobilize private capital will better position Canadian firms to bring their technologies to market.” That suggests the Canada Infrastructure Bank will use its $35 billion for such projects.
It will take a Herculean effort from the public to defeat this NICE Future, but along with the Assembly of First Nations, three political parties – the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Green Party – have now come out against SMRs.
Award-winning author Joyce Nelson’s latest book, Bypassing Dystopia, is published by Watershed Sentinel Books. She can be reached via www.joycenelson.ca.
Secrecy over radioactive pollution from nuclear bases
The Ferret, Rob Edwards, October 22, 2024
The Ministry of Defence has blocked the Scottish Government’s environmental watchdog from releasing information about radioactive pollution from the Clyde nuclear bomb bases for the last nine years.
Emails released under freedom of information (FoI) law reveal that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) asked the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) not to publish information about “environmental issues with radioactivity” at Faslane and Coulport near Helensburgh to protect “national security”.
In response to FoI requests from The Ferret, Sepa has refused to release more than 20 files about radioactive problems at the bases since 2016, and redacted others. We have appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner, David Hamilton…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Sepa’s refusal to release the files is under investigation by the Scottish Information Commissioner, following two appeals by The Ferret in August and September 2024.
‘Difficult’ to withhold information about radioactive pollution
Now, in response to another FoI request, Sepa has released email correspondence with the MoD about The Ferret’s FoI requests on Faslane and Coulport. These show that the MoD asked Sepa not to publish certain files.
Sepa emailed the MoD in October and November 2023 with files it proposed to release asking whether they “should be disclosed”. The MoD replied on 27 November saying that “HQ colleagues” wanted information withheld, though exactly how much or what has been redacted……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Secrecy over radioactive pollution ‘unacceptable’
Professor Campbell Gemmell was Sepa’s chief executive between 2003 and 2012 when it released more than 400 pages about safety at Faslane and Coulport. The MoD were “very challenging to deal with”, he recalled.
He said: “The UK ministry applied pressure repeatedly on radioactive waste issues seeking to keep relevant environmental information out of the public domain. Putting similar effort into remedy would be better.”………………………….
The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament pointed out that it was well known that the four nuclear-armed Vanguard-class submarines based on the Clyde were ageing and overstretched. They were more likely to leak, argued the group’s co-vice chair, David Kelly.
“This information is not a threat to national security. But it is a threat to the image of a responsible Ministry of Defence, that pollutes our environment with ever-increasing amounts of radioactive isotopes in the name of keeping us safe.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………
https://theferret.scot/radioactive-pollution-clyde-nuclear-bases/
Secrets and Lies: This is how the West doomed Ukraine
Glenn Diesen, By Glenn Diesen, professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway Wed, 16 Oct 2024, https://www.sott.net/article/495541-Secrets-and-Lies-This-is-how-the-West-doomed-Ukraine
The desire of the US and UK to conduct a proxy war destroyed the Istanbul+ process.
In February 2022, Russia started its military operation against Ukraine to impose a settlement after a group of NATO countries had undermined the Minsk II peace agreement for seven years. On the first day after the start of hostilities, Vladimir Zelenskyconfirmedthat Moscow had contacted him to discuss negotiations based on restoring Ukrainian neutrality.On the third day, Russia and Ukraineagreedto start peace negotiations based on a Russian military withdrawal in return for this. Zelensky responded favorably to this condition, and he even called for a “collective security agreement” to include Russia to mitigate the security competition that had sparked the war.
The talks that followed are referred to as the Istanbul negotiations, in which Russia and Ukraine were close to an agreement before the US and UK sabotaged it, according to numerous claims by people close to the process.
Washington rejects negotiations without preconditions
For Washington, there were great incentives to use the large proxy army it had built in Ukraine to weaken Russia as a strategic rival, rather than accepting a neutral Kiev. On the first day after the start of the military operation, when Zelensky responded favorably to starting negotiations without preconditions,US State Department spokesperson Ned Pricerejectedthis stance – saying Russia would first have to withdraw all its forces.
This was a demand for capitulation as the Russian military presence in Ukraine was Moscow’s bargaining chip to achieve the objective of restoring Kiev’s neutrality. Less than a month later, Price was asked if Washington would support peace talks, to which he replied negatively as the conflict was part of a larger struggle:
“This is a war that is in many ways bigger than Russia, it’s bigger than Ukraine… The key point is that there are principles that are at stake here that have universal applicability everywhere, whether in Europe, whether in the Indo-Pacific, anywhere in between.”
The US and UK demand a long war: Fighting Russia with Ukrainians
In late March 2022, Zelensky revealed in an interview with The Economist:
“There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”
Israeli and Turkish mediators have since confirmed that Ukraine and Russia were both eager to make a compromise to end the war before the US and UK intervened to prevent peace from breaking out.
Zelensky had contacted former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to help with the talks. Bennett noted that Putin was willing to make “huge concessions” if Ukraine would restore its neutrality to end NATO expansion. Zelensky accepted this condition and “both sides very much wanted a ceasefire.”
However, Bennett argued that the US and UK intervened and blocked the peace agreement as they favored a long war. With a powerful Ukrainian military at its disposal, the West rejected the Istanbul peace agreement and there was a “decision by the West to keep striking Putin” instead of pursuing peace.
The Turkish negotiators reached the same conclusion: Russia and Ukraine agreed to resolve the conflict by restoring Ukraine’s neutrality, but NATO decided to fight Russia with Ukrainians as a proxy. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusogluarguedthat some NATO states wanted to extend the war to bleed Russia:
“After the talks in Istanbul, we did not think that the war would take this long… But following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, I had the impression that there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue – let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine.”
Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy chairman of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s political party, confirmed that Zelensky was ready to sign the peace agreement before the US intervened:
“This war is not between Russia and Ukraine, it is a war between Russia and the West. By supporting Ukraine, the United States and some countries in Europe are beginning a process of prolonging this war. What we want is an end to this war. Someone is trying not to end the war. The US sees the prolongation of the war as its interest.”
Ukrainian Ambassador Aleksandr Chalyi, who participated in peace talks with Russia, confirms that Putin “tried everything” to reach a peace agreement and they were able “to find a very real compromise”. David Arakhamia, a Ukrainian parliamentary representative and head of Zelensky’s political party, said Russia’s key demand was Ukrainian neutrality.
“They were ready to end the war if we, like Finland once did, would accept neutrality and pledge not to join NATO. In fact, that was the main point. All the rest are cosmetic and political ‘additions.'”
Aleksey Arestovich, the former adviser of Zelensky, also confirmed that Russia was mainly preoccupied with restoring Ukraine’s neutrality.
The main obstacle to peace was thus overcome as Zelenskyofferedneutrality in the negotiations. The tentative peace agreement was confirmed by Fiona Hill, a former official at the US National Security Council, and Angela Stent, a former National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia. Hill and Stent penned an article inForeign Affairsin which theyoutlinedthe main terms of the agreement:
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
Boris Johnson goes to Kiev
What happened to the Istanbul peace agreement? On April 9, 2022, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson went to Kiev in a rush to sabotage the agreement and cited the killings in Bucha as the excuse. Ukrainian media reported that Johnson went to Kiev with two messages:
“The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the UK and US] are not.”
In June 2022, Johnson told the G7 and NATO:
“The solution to the war was ‘strategic endurance’ and now is not the time to settle and encourage the Ukrainians to settle for a bad peace.”
Johnson also published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journalarguing against any negotiations:
“The war in Ukraine can end only with Vladimir Putin’s defeat.”
Before Johnson’s trip to Kiev, historian Niall Ferguson interviewed several American and British leaders who confirmed:
“A decision had been made for the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin,” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime.“
Retired German General Harald Kujat, the former head of the German Bundeswehr and former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, confirmed that Johnson had sabotaged the peace negotiations. Kujat said:
“Ukraine had pledged to renounce NATO membership and not to allow any foreign troops or military installations to be stationed,” while “Russia had apparently agreed to withdraw its forces to the level of February 23.” However, “Boris Johnson intervened in Kiev on the 9th of April and prevented a signing. His reasoning was that the West was not ready for an end to the war.”
According to Kujat, the West demanded a Russian capitulation. He explained that this position was due to the US war plans against Russia:
“Now the complete withdrawal is repeatedly demanded as a prerequisite for negotiations. Perhaps one day the question will be asked who did not want to prevent this war… Their declared goal is to weaken Russia politically, economically, and militarily to such a degree that they can then turn to their geopolitical rival, the only one capable of endangering their supremacy as a world power: China… No, this war is not about our freedom… Russia wants to prevent its geopolitical rival USA from gaining a strategic superiority that threatens Russia’s security.”
What was Ukraine told by the US and UK?Why did Zelensky make a deal given that he was aware some Western states wanted to use Ukraine to exhaust Russia in a long war – even if it would destroy Ukraine? Zelensky likely received an offer he could not refuse:
If Zelensky would pursue peace with Russia, then he would not receive any support from the West and he would predictably face an uprising by the far-right/fascist groups that the US had armed and trained. In contrast, if Zelensky would choose war, then NATO would send all the weapons needed to defeat Russia, NATO would impose crippling sanctions on Russia, and NATO would pressure the international community to isolate Russia.
Zelensky could thus achieve what both Napoleon and Hitler had failed to achieve – to defeat Russia.
Arestovich explained in 2019 that a major war with Russia was the price of joining NATO. He predicted that the threat of Ukraine’s accession to NATO would “provoke Russia to launch a large-scale military operation against Ukraine,” and Ukraine could join NATO after defeating Russia.
Victory over Russia was assumed to be a certainty as Ukraine would merely be the spearhead of a wider NATO proxy war.
“In this conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West – with weapons, equipment, assistance, new sanctions against Russia and the quite possible introduction of a NATO contingent, a no-fly zone etc. We won’t lose, and that’s good.”
NATO turned on the propaganda machine to convince the public that a war against Russia was the only path to peace.
The Russian ‘invasion’ was “unprovoked”; Moscow’s objective was to conquer all of Ukraine to restore the Soviet Union; Russia’s withdrawal from Kiev was not a sign of good will to be reciprocated but a sign of weakness; it was impossible to negotiate with Putin; and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg subsequently asserted that “weapons are the way to peace.”
The Western public, indoctrinated with anti-Russian propaganda over decades, believed that NATO was merely a passive third party seeking to protect Ukraine from the most recent reincarnation of Hitler. Zelensky was assigned the role as new Churchill – bravely fighting to the last Ukrainian rather than accepting a bad peace.
The inevitable Istanbul+ agreement to end the war
The war did not go as expected. Russia built a powerful army and defeated the NATO-built Ukrainian army. Sanctions were overcome by reorienting the economy to the East, and instead of being isolated, Russia took a leading role in constructing a multipolar world order.
How can the war be brought to an end? The suggestions of a land-for-NATO membership agreement ignores that Russia’s leading objective is not territory but ending NATO expansion, as it is deemed to be an existential threat. NATO expansion is the source of the conflict and territorial dispute is the consequence, thus Ukrainian territorial concessions in return for NATO membership is a non-starter.
The foundation for any peace agreement must be the Istanbul+ formula. An agreement to restore Ukraine’s neutrality, plus territorial concessions as a consequence of almost three years of war. Threatening to expand NATO after the end of the war will merely incentivize Russia to capture strategic territory from Kharkov to Odessa, and to ensure that only a dysfunctional Ukrainian rump state will remain that is not capable of being used against Russia.
This is a cruel fate for the Ukrainian nation and the millions of Ukrainians who have suffered so greatly. It was also a predictable outcome, as Zelensky cautioned in March 2022.
“There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”
1 This Month
of the week – Shut Down Drone Warfare!
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- March 2026 (244)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
-
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 