Hundreds of rounds were fired at aid workers during a March 2025 massacre at Tal as-Sultan, an independent investigation says
Israeli soldiers fired over 900 rounds at a convoy of clearly marked emergency vehicles in Rafah in 2025, killing 15 Palestinian aid workers, some of them shot at close range, an independent investigation has found.
The attack took place on March 18, 2025 in the Tal as-Sultan area of southern Gaza, where local responders had been dispatched to collect wounded civilians. Fifteen Palestinian aid workers were killed, including medics from the Palestine Red Crescent Society and members of the Civil Defense.
The victims were traveling in five ambulances and one fire truck, all clearly marked and operating with emergency lights, when they came under sustained gunfire, according to a report released on Monday by independent research agency Forensic Architecture and audio investigation group Earshot.
Investigators reconstructed the incident using audio recordings, satellite imagery, video footage, and witness testimony. Some of the victims were reportedly “shot ‘execution-style’ from close range.”
Investigators analyzed footage recovered from the phone of one of the slain paramedics and identified at least 910 gunshots during the attack, with 844 bullets fired over five and a half minutes. “During this time, at least five shooters fired simultaneously, and witness testimonies suggest as many as thirty soldiers were present in the area,” according to the report.
The report said Israeli forces later crushed the vehicles with heavy machinery and tried to bury them along with the bodies. The victims, all wearing identifying uniforms or volunteer vests, were recovered from a mass grave nearby, the researchers said.
One of the two survivors was abducted by Israeli forces, and were held without charge for 37 days at the Israeli Sde Teiman detention facility and released in poor health. He testified that soldiers confiscated and buried his phone. The other was used as a “human tool” at an Israeli military checkpoint near the site, the report added.
The Israel Defense Forces said the area was an active combat zone and that troops believed they were facing security risks. They later claimed that one vehicle may have been linked to Hamas, which was disputed by the survivors and humanitarian organizations. An internal Israeli inquiry launched in April 2025 cited “professional failures” but rejected allegations of deliberate killings or criminal conduct and recommended no criminal action against the units involved.
The UN, Red Cross, and a number of human rights groups condemned the killings.
Hundreds of medical and emergency personnel have been killed or injured since October 2023, when the IDF began its campaign in the enclave in response to a Hamas incursion into Israel that left at least 1,200 people dead and 250 taken hostage. According to the Palestinian Health Ministry, more than 72,000 people have been killed since the war began.
The madness behind these attitudes is fuelled by the enormous profits earned by the arms industry, which seeks to modernise nuclear systems around the counterforce doctrine. A 2025 report by PAX and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) titled At Great Cost: The Companies Building Nuclear Weapons and their Financiers found that, between January 2022 and August 2024, 260 global financial institutions (including pension funds, insurance companies, and asset managers) financed 24 nuclear weapons producers, with investors holding just under $514 billion in shares and bonds and with around $270 billion provided in loans and underwriting.
With New START now expired, the United States’ withdrawal from arms control treaties and its embrace of nuclear ‘warfighting’ doctrines are raising the risk of catastrophic conflict between nuclear powers.
On 5 February 2026, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) expired, ending the last surviving legal constraint on the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Russian Federation. New START, which was signed in 2010 and entered into force in 2011, should have been replaced by a successor agreement. The treaty limited strategic warheads and delivery vehicles deployed by each side and established a verification regime of inspection, notification, and information exchange. These measures were not cosmetic; they were thin threads that restrained the most destructive machinery ever assembled.
These companies include Airbus, BAE Systems, Bechtel, Boeing, General Dynamics, L3Harris Technologies, Northrop Grumman, and Rolls-Royce. ICAN’s 2025 report Hidden Costs: Nuclear Weapons Spending in 2024 estimates that the nine nuclear-armed states spent $100.2 billion on their nuclear arsenals in 2024, with the private sector earning at least $42.5 billion from nuclear weapons contracts. That sum could have paid the UN’s budget 28 times and fed 345 million people facing the most severe hunger for nearly two years. The nuclear weapons industry is a striking waste of human resources.
Despite the collapse of the bilateral arms control regime, the global nuclear deterrence and eradication system has not vanished. But what remains is irradiated by US domination over the architecture of nuclear policy:
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT, 1970) remains in force even though it reinforces the system of nuclear apartheid (despite Article VI, which asks nuclear-armed countries to pursue disarmament). The expiration of New START deepens the NPT’s crisis of legitimacy and exposes the disarmament promise as perpetually deferred. India, Israel, and Pakistan never signed the NPT; the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) signed it in 1985 but withdrew in 2003.
The expiration of New START did not arrive suddenly. Due to the decade-long breakdown in US-Russia relations, on-site inspections were paused by both sides in March 2020 and never resumed. In February 2023, Russia suspended its participation in New START, and the US responded in kind (Russia has publicly said it intends to continue observing New START’s numerical limits, provided the US does the same). By the time the treaty formally lapsed, its verification spine had already been severed.
We now live in a world where the two largest nuclear powers are unrestrained by any binding treaty limits.
Since 2002, the United States has unilaterally exited one arms control treaty after another, eroding the architecture that helped stabilise deterrence. These treaties include the following:
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 – US withdrawal, June 2002.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 – US withdrawal, August 2019.
The Treaty on Open Skies of 1992 – US withdrawal, November 2020.
The New START of 2011 – expired, February 2026.
The end of New START unfolds within a broader turn toward nuclear ‘warfighting’ doctrines, including a renewed emphasis on the diabolical idea of counterforce – the outlines of which appear in the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The idea is simple: to attack an adversary’s nuclear forces and command systems rather than its cities. Such an attack is seen to be more rational and even more humane. In reality, an attack of this kind destabilises all deterrence systems. Counterforce doctrines reward speed, pre-emption, and first-strike advantage, thereby compressing decision-making time. The doctrine creates a use-it-or-lose-it pressure – the fear that you must launch before your forces are destroyed – that makes miscalculation structural, not accidental.
. As warfare technologies advance, this logic is amplified. Highly developed conventional strike systems, missile defences, hypersonic delivery systems, and integrated command-and-control networks (shared systems that link sensors, communications, and decision-making) blur the boundary between nuclear and non-nuclear war. A missile launched with conventional intent may be interpreted as a nuclear strike. Dual-use platforms – systems that can carry conventional or nuclear payloads – undermine signalling clarity by making it difficult to determine whether a launch is conventional or nuclear. Escalation ladders shorten. The margin for error narrows to seconds.
The counterforce doctrine is not merely an abstract debate but has materialised in government budgets and arms procurement contracts. The 2022 US NPR affirmed the modernisation of the nuclear triad: land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and nuclear-capable strategic bombers. Crucially, the 2022 NPR rejects ‘no first use’ and ‘sole purpose’ policies (‘no first use’ means committing not to use nuclear weapons first; ‘sole purpose’ means limiting their role to deterrence and, if necessary, for responding to nuclear attack). The current policy holds that the US would only consider the use of nuclear weapons, under ‘extreme circumstances’, to defend its vital interests or those of its allies and partners, but it does not foreclose first use, and leaves open a ‘narrow range of contingencies’ in which nuclear weapons may deter attacks with ‘strategic effect’. This posture preserves the option to target adversary military capabilities – including their strategic forces if necessary – without overtly committing to the counterforce doctrine.
The 2023 Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States took this further, arguing that US nuclear planning should continue to target what adversaries ‘value most’. In these texts, nuclear weapons are not presented as tragic necessities of modern statecraft but as normal tools that can be used in certain circumstances.
The madness behind these attitudes is fuelled by the enormous profits earned by the arms industry, which seeks to modernise nuclear systems around the counterforce doctrine. A 2025 report by PAX and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) titled At Great Cost: The Companies Building Nuclear Weapons and their Financiers found that, between January 2022 and August 2024, 260 global financial institutions (including pension funds, insurance companies, and asset managers) financed 24 nuclear weapons producers, with investors holding just under $514 billion in shares and bonds and with around $270 billion provided in loans and underwriting.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 1957) operates a safeguards regime of inspections, material accountancy, and monitoring. The 1997 Additional Protocol to the IAEA extends these capacities, yet this mechanism remains plagued by selective enforcement. The IAEA’s investigations of Iran, for instance, are not shaped by evidence but by the Global North’s hostility to the Iranian government.
The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG, 1975) is an informal export-control regime for sensitive technologies and dual-use materials used in nuclear fuel-cycle and weapons-related programmes. While the purpose of the NSG is to constrain proliferation (reinforced by UN Security Council resolution 1540), it ends up reinforcing technological hierarchies. The nuclear-armed states dominate the informal institutions, exercising their authority while insisting on restraint from others.
Some tattered norms remain outside the full control of the United States, but they are fractured and unable to advance a comprehensive agenda. These include:
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2017). This is a legally binding instrument that represents a categorical rejection of nuclear arms. As of late 2025, ninety-nine countries had either ratified or signed the treaty, but none of the world’s nine nuclear-armed states are among them. In Europe, only Austria, the Holy See (Vatican), Ireland, Malta, and San Marino have ratified the treaty. The treaty, which was driven by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, is largely a Global South initiative.
Nuclear Weapon Free Zones. Five regions of the world adopted treaties to make their territories free of nuclear weapons. These agreements are the Treaty of Tlatelolco (1967) covering Latin America and the Caribbean, the Treaty of Rarotonga (1985) covering the South Pacific, the Treaty of Bangkok (1995) covering Southeast Asia, the Treaty of Pelindaba (1996) covering Africa, and the Semipalatinsk Treaty (2006) covering Central Asia. These treaties are, in practice, among the most successful achievements in nuclear disarmament.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (1996). This treaty has not been able to enter into force because several required states have not ratified it, yet it remains politically significant because it prohibits nuclear test explosions and has helped make nuclear testing internationally taboo. The treaty’s monitoring system functions daily, detecting seismic and atmospheric signals, making tests harder to hide.
The post-New START landscape contains some institutions and norms, but the central restraint on the largest nuclear arsenals has vanished. What we have now are three overlapping crises:
A crisis of stability. With no transparency and verification on the largest nuclear weapons arsenals there is only suspicion between the major powers.
A crisis of legitimacy. The countries with the largest arsenals demand obedience to non-proliferation while abandoning their own treaty commitment to disarmament.
A crisis of conscience. Horrifyingly, nuclear weapons are now being spoken of as being usable, manageable, and necessary – as legitimate options on the battlefield.
A return to an arms control regime is necessary. But we need to consider a broader agenda. Even the best treaties only manage danger but do not eliminate it. The deeper contradiction remains intact: a world in which a few states claim the right to annihilate humanity in the name of security. The demise of New START strips away illusions to reveal a nuclear weapons order that preserves power and does not advance peace.
Libya abandoned its nuclear weapons programme in December 2003. Eight years later, a UN Security Council resolution (no. 1973) imposing an arms embargo and a no-fly zone was used by NATO to justify the military intervention that destroyed the Libyan state. It was logical, therefore, for the DPRK to test a nuclear weapon in 2006 and build a shield against the regime-change ambitions of the US and its East Asian allies. The counterforce doctrine of the US encourages countries to build such a shield, a painful reality in a world marinated in the anxieties provoked by hyper-imperialism.
In 2003, the British playwright Harold Pinter (1930–2008), exasperated by the Global War on Terror, wrote a powerful poem called ‘The Bombs’. I remember hearing Pinter read this poem in London, the cadence powerful, the hope in the ugliness clear. In his memory, here is the poem:
There are no more words to be said All we have left are the bombs Which burst out of our head All that is left are the bombs Which suck out the last of our blood All we have left are the bombs Which polish the skulls of the dead.
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Saudi Arabia could have some form of uranium enrichment within the kingdom under a proposed nuclear deal with the United States, congressional documents and an arms control group suggest, raising proliferation concerns as an atomic standoff between Iran and America continues.
U.S. Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden both tried to reach a nuclear deal with the kingdom to share American technology. Nonproliferation experts warn any spinning centrifuges within Saudi Arabia could open the door to a possible weapons program for the kingdom, something its assertive crown prince has suggested he could pursue if Tehran obtains an atomic bomb.
Already, Saudi Arabia and nuclear-armed Pakistan signed a mutual defense pact last year after Israel launched an attack on Qatar targeting Hamas officials. Pakistan’s defense minister then said his nation’s nuclear program “will be made available” to Saudi Arabia if needed, something seen as a warning for Israel, long believed to be the Middle East’s only nuclear-armed state.
“Nuclear cooperation can be a positive mechanism for upholding nonproliferation norms and increasing transparency, but the devil is in the details,” wrote Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association.
The documents raise “concerns that the Trump administration has not carefully considered the proliferation risks posed by its proposed nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia or the precedent this agreement may set.”
Saudi Arabia did not respond to questions Friday from The Associated Press.
Congressional report outlines possible deal
The congressional document, also seen by the AP, shows the Trump administration aims to reach 20 nuclear business deals with nations around the world, including Saudi Arabia. The deal with Saudi Arabia could be worth billions of dollars, it adds.
The document contends that reaching a deal with the kingdom “will advance the national security interests of the United States, breaking with the failed policies of inaction and indecision that our competitors have capitalized on to disadvantage American industry and diminish the United States standing globally in this critical sector.” China, France, Russia and South Korea are among the leading nations that sell nuclear power plant technology abroad.
The draft deal would see America and Saudi Arabia enter safeguard agreements with the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog — the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA. That would include oversight of the “most proliferation-sensitive areas of potential nuclear cooperation,” it added. It listed enrichment, fuel fabrication and reprocessing as potential areas………………………………………………………………………………..
Saudi-U.S. proposal comes amid Iran tensions
The push for a Saudi-U.S. deal comes as Trump threatens military action against Iran if it doesn’t reach a deal over its nuclear program. The Trump military push follows nationwide protests in Iran that saw its theocratic government launch a bloody crackdown on dissent that killed thousands and saw tens of thousands more reportedly detained.
In Iran’s case, it long has insisted its nuclear enrichment program is peaceful. However, the West and the IAEA say Iran had an organized military nuclear program up until 2003. Tehran also had been enriching uranium up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90% — making it the only country in the world to do so without a weapons program.
Iranian diplomats long have pointed to 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s comments as a binding fatwa, or religious edict, that Iran won’t build an atomic bomb. However, Iranian officials increasingly have made the threat they could seek the bomb as tensions have risen with the U.S.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, observes in an on-line interview, that “to be hated means that one does hateful things” and Israel’s leaders are behaving badly”.He noted that what Netanyahu means by peace is pacification [of Arab nations]. It is delusional and [shows] a complete lack of understanding of one’s enemies”.
Orono, Maine – It seems clear that Israeli proponents of conflict in the Middle East, as well as supporters in the US media and politics, are determined to take America to war with Iran. This observation was forcefully stated by the global affairs analyst, Patrick Henningsen, who has recently returned from Iran.
The causes of the protests have not so much to do with the regime itself but with economic conditions, including an inflation rate of 42% in December, 2025 while food prices rose by 72% and medical costs increased by 50%. The Iranian Rial has suffered sharp depreciation with poor fiscal policies and mismanagement being causes, although numerous sanctions have been taking a serious toll on Iran’s economy and its people.
Israel and the U.S. claim that Iran “poses an existential threat and therefore must give up its ballistic missile program, which is its primary deterrent”. In addition, Trump has renewed a claim that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon although they are not planning such a program according to Iran sources and U.S. intelligence assessments.
An additional justification for war is that thousands of protestors were injured or killed in recent demonstrations in Iran. Mai Sato, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Iran has cited “around 5000 deaths” while the “Human Rights Activists News Agency” states that there were 7,015 deaths. The Iran state media reports that 3117 died, including over 100 officers. Others report a “spiral of disinformation”, promoted by supporters of the former Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, who have grossly inflated the numbers.
Former CIA director, Mike Pompeo was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying that “every Mossad agent walks beside them [Iranian demonstrators] Mossad encouraged the anti-regime protestors: “Go out together into the streets. The time has come, “Mossad operatives are with the protestors “not only from a distance. We are with [them] in the field.”
Other extreme conservative views that have gained recent attention include those of Sen. Lindsey Graham: “The best answer to all the problems created by Iran is regime change ………………………
Israel’s Netanyahu has been, for some time, promoting conflict with Iran and is once again attempting to persuade American leaders to engage in an attack in order to bring about regime change in the Islamic Republic.
A writer for Israel’s Haaretz News has warned that the U.S. ”is approaching the precipice without articulating a vision as to what will follow …[and is] plunging toward a large-scale war against the Islamic Republic of Iran”
Iran is receiving support from China which has become dependent upon the 1.5 million barrels of oil being shipped daily. Henningsen noted that “Iran possesses advanced missile technology, including newer hypersonic generations not yet deployed, improved targeting systems capable of hitting moving naval targets, proprietary guidance systems, and Chinese-assisted navigation technology”. Despite these defenses, “it’s… clear that the Neocons and Israeli operatives in US media and politics seem determined to take America,…to war.” And this, in spite of the dire consequences, which are likely to be devastating, not only to Iran but also to Israel itself.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, observes in an on-line interview, that “to be hated means that one does hateful things” and Israel’s leaders are behaving badly”.He noted that what Netanyahu means by peace is pacification [of Arab nations]. It is delusional and [shows] a complete lack of understanding of one’s enemies”. Ambassador Freeman observes that: “Israel is an apartheid state and is enabling dictatorial decisions that are not the “will of the people”. The leaders believe in their own propaganda, but they are not hated because they are Jews but because of their behavior in the destruction of Gaza as well as their targeted assassinations. https://www.juancole.com/2026/02/american-catastrophic-consequences.html
Israel’s systematic use of internationally prohibited thermal and thermobaric weapons, often referred to as vacuum or aerosol bombs, capable of generating temperatures exceeding 3,500 degrees Celsius [6,332 degrees Fahrenheit].
“This is a global genocide, not just an Israeli one,”
Al Jazeera investigation reveals how US-supplied thermal and thermobaric munitions burning at 3,500C have left no trace of nearly 3,000 Palestinians.
At dawn on August 10, 2024, Yasmin Mahani walked through the smoking ruins of al-Tabin school in Gaza City, searching for her son, Saad. She found her husband screaming, but of Saad, there was no trace.
“I went into the mosque and found myself stepping on flesh and blood,” Mahani told Al Jazeera Arabic for an investigation that aired on Monday. She searched hospitals and morgues for days. “We found nothing of Saad. Not even a body to bury. That was the hardest part.”
Mahani is one of thousands of Palestinians whose loved ones have simply vanished during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed more than 72,000 people.
According to the Al Jazeera Arabic investigation, The Rest of the Story, Civil Defence teams in Gaza have documented 2,842 Palestinians who have “evaporated” since the war began in October 2023, leaving behind no remains other than blood spray or small fragments of flesh.
Experts and witnesses attributed this phenomenon to Israel’s systematic use of internationally prohibited thermal and thermobaric weapons, often referred to as vacuum or aerosol bombs, capable of generating temperatures exceeding 3,500 degrees Celsius [6,332 degrees Fahrenheit].
Grim forensic accounting
The figure of 2,842 is not an estimate, but the result of grim forensic accounting by Gaza’s Civil Defence.
Spokesperson Mahmoud Basal explained to Al Jazeera that teams use a “method of elimination” at strike sites. “We enter a targeted home and cross-reference the known number of occupants with the bodies recovered,” Basal said.
“If a family tells us there were five people inside, and we only recover three intact bodies, we treat the remaining two as ‘evaporated’ only after an exhaustive search yields nothing but biological traces—blood spray on walls or small fragments like scalps,” he added.
The chemistry of erasure
The investigation detailed how specific chemical compositions in Israeli munitions turn human bodies into ash in seconds.
Vasily Fatigarov, a Russian military expert, explained that thermobaric weapons do not just kill; they obliterate matter. Unlike conventional explosives, these weapons disperse a cloud of fuel that ignites to create an enormous fireball and a vacuum effect.
“To prolong the burning time, powders of aluminium, magnesium and titanium are added to the chemical mixture,” Fatigarov said. “This raises the temperature of the explosion to between 2,500 and 3,000 degrees Celsius [4,532F to 5,432F].”
According to the investigation, the intense heat is often generated by tritonal, a mixture of TNT and aluminium powder used in United States-made bombs like the MK-84.
Dr Munir al-Bursh, director general of the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, explained the biological impact of such extreme heat on the human body, which is composed of roughly 80 percent water.
“The boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius [212F],” al-Bursh said. “When a body is exposed to energy exceeding 3,000 degrees combined with massive pressure and oxidation, the fluids boil instantly. The tissues vaporise and turn to ash. It is chemically inevitable.”
Anatomy of the bombs
The investigation identified specific US-manufactured munitions used in Gaza that are linked to these disappearances:
MK-84 ‘Hammer’: This 900kg [2,000lb] unguided bomb packed with tritonal generates heat up to 3,500C [6,332F].
BLU-109 bunker buster: Used in an attack on al-Mawasi, an area Israel had declared a “safe zone” for forcibly displaced Palestinians in September 2024, this bomb evaporated 22 people. It has a steel casing and a delayed fuse, burying itself before detonating a PBXN-109 explosive mix. This creates a large fireball inside enclosed spaces, incinerating everything within reach.
GBU-39: This precision glide bomb was used in the al-Tabin school attack. It uses the AFX-757 explosive. “The GBU-39 is designed to keep the building structure relatively intact while destroying everything inside,” Fatigarov noted. “It kills via a pressure wave that ruptures lungs and a thermal wave that incinerates soft tissue.”
Basal of the Civil Defence confirmed finding fragments of GBU-39 wings at sites where bodies had vanished.
A ‘global genocide, not just an Israeli one’
Legal experts said the use of these indiscriminate weapons implicates not just Israel but also its Western suppliers.
“This is a global genocide, not just an Israeli one,” said lawyer Diana Buttu, a lecturer at Georgetown University in Qatar.
Speaking at the Al Jazeera Forum in Doha, Buttu argued that the supply chain is evidence of complicity. “We see a continuous flow of these weapons from the United States and Europe. They know these weapons do not distinguish between a fighter and a child, yet they continue to send them.”
Buttu emphasised that under international law, the use of weapons that cannot distinguish between combatants and noncombatants constitutes a war crime.
“The world knows Israel possesses and uses these prohibited weapons,” Buttu said. “The question is why are they allowed to remain outside the system of accountability.”
Collapse of international justice
Despite the International Court of Justice issuing provisional measures against Israel in January 2024, ordering it to prevent acts of genocide, and an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2024, the killing intensified.
Tariq Shandab, a professor of international law, argued that the international justice system has “failed the test of Gaza”.
“Since the ceasefire agreement [in October], more than 600 Palestinians have been killed,” Shandab said. He highlighted that the war has continued through siege, starvation and strikes. “The blockade on medicine and food is itself a crime against humanity.”
Shandab pointed to the “impunity” granted to Israel by the US veto power at the UN Security Council. However, he noted that universal jurisdiction courts in countries like Germany and France could offer an alternative path to justice, provided there is political will.
For Rafiq Badran, who lost four children in the Bureij refugee camp during the war, these technical definitions mean little. He was only able to recover small parts of his children’s bodies to bury.
“Four of my children just evaporated,” Badran said, holding back tears. “I looked for them a million times. Not a piece was left. Where did they go?”
If an Epstein document had revealed that Trump advanced Israeli interests as a political favor to the world’s richest Israeli in exchange for campaign funding, it would’ve been the biggest story in the world. But because he came right out and said it, it barely caused a blip.
One under-discussed ticking time bomb is the way Israel keeps saying it’s going to resume incinerating Gaza if Hamas doesn’t disarm while Hamas keeps saying it won’t disarm. Netanyahu’s office is saying that Hamas will soon be given a 60-day deadline to give up its arms, after which the full-scale bombing of the enclave will resume if these demands aren’t met.
A lot of people don’t understand that Hamas has never at any point agreed to give up its weapons. To give up its weapons would be to surrender, which is a very different thing from agreeing to a ceasefire. Israel’s demands and Hamas’ refusal are two diametrically opposed positions which put things on a collision course toward reigniting the Gaza holocaust at full scale.
Israel and its allies have no legitimate basis upon which to demand that Hamas surrender. All they can legitimately do is stop murdering and abusing the Palestinians. If Israel does resume the full-scale incineration of Gaza it will try to justify its actions, but those actions will be completely unjustifiable.
After a year of dishonest concern trolling about imaginary nuclear weapons in Iran, the so-called “President of Peace” Donald Trump has let the last remaining nuclear arms treaty between the US and Russia go the way of the dinosaur. The New START treaty has been allowed to fully collapse by the Trump administration, and has been replaced by nothing. This is infinitely more dangerous for our world than anything Iran has ever been accused of doing.
❖
Someone on Twitter tried to cite Cuba’s floundering economy as evidence that socialism doesn’t work. I told him, “Believing capitalism is better than communism because the US was able to strangle the Cuban economy is like believing you’re a better person than your neighbor because you beat the shit out of him in his driveway.”
There’s an infuriating video going around showing an AI program whose entire function is to monitor baristas using facial recognition software and make sure they’re maintaining maximum efficiency at the coffee shop.
We could have a utopia where robots do most of the labor. Instead we’ve got a dystopia where AI programs push human employees to work like robots.
If an Epstein document had revealed that Trump advanced Israeli interests as a political favor to the world’s richest Israeli in exchange for campaign funding, it would’ve been the biggest story in the world. But because he came right out and said it, it barely caused a blip.
Every news outlet, pundit and analyst who tries to tell you that Jeffrey Epstein was a Russian intelligence operative instead of an Israeli one is just telling you they’re a propagandist. View it as a big flashing sign that says “Never trust anything from this source ever again.”
❖
Israel supporters were overjoyed when the Bondi shooting happened, because they knew it would cause authoritarian laws to be passed. They were happier than the worst Nazis in Australia. They were flooding my replies excitedly telling me I’m going to prison for criticizing Israel.
❖
Every time those in power move to silence Israel’s critics, we must triple our criticism of Israel.
Every time they try to shut down pro-Palestine protests, we must triple our participation in the protests.
We need to make sure their efforts to silence us guarantees them MORE of the thing they’re trying to get rid of, not less.
Impose direct costs on their tyrannical behavior and show them with our actions that every effort to silence us only makes things worse for them.
And that’s as it should be. They’re coming after our rights now. If you attack the civil rights of the citizenry, the citizenry are going to fight you right back.
You don’t get to push without getting pushback. You don’t get to try to take away my rights and then just coast along like it’s no big deal. You get back what you give, thrice over.
The only governments who’ve been able to resist US imperial domination are the ones like China and Iran who forcefully control what goes on in their country, because that’s the only way to shut down US infiltration and subversion effectively. So now the US spends its time going “All our enemies are authoritarian dictatorships! We must be the Good Guys!”
Really they’re the ones who set the conditions which made it so that the only states which maintain their sovereignty are the ones who tightly restrict things like western media propaganda, National Endowment for Democracy influence operations, and other regime change ops. If the US wasn’t constantly trying to topple governments which don’t kiss the imperial boot, those nations could be a lot less restrictive in their laws and policies.
The US empire makes the whole world more tyrannical.
Trump frames the ongoing negotiations as designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This despite Trump’s bragging that he completely destroyed their nuclear program with his one-off bombing last June
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 17 Feb 26
Back in 2002 the US demanded Iraq give up its WMD, weapons of mass destruction, ostensibly to prevent another 911 attack a year earlier. To back up its demand the US threatened attacking the Iraqi regime to safeguard the Homeland.
Along with most Americans, I fell for the line that the US would stand down due to the weapons inspectors and intelligence resources in Iraq concluding Iraq had no WMD and was not a threat to America whatsoever.
Then in August 2002, I read a report buried deep in the Chicago Tribune describing America’s massive military buildup, concluding with the strong implication that such a buildup made attack on Iraq inevitable with nothing Iraq could do to prevent it.
At that moment I knew everything the Bush administration said about the Iraqi danger was a vicious lie in service of ousting Saddam Hussein and conquering Iraq. Seven months later, contrary to all the evidence, Bush did precisely that.
I’m getting the same ominous feeling when I hear Trump bragging out his massive buildup of air and naval forces near Iran poised to attack should Iran not capitulate to Trump’s non-negotiable demands that Iran give up its missile defense resources and cease supporting its regional allies.
Trump frames the ongoing negotiations as designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This despite Trump’s bragging that he completely destroyed their nuclear program with his one-off bombing last June in support of Israel’s 12 day war on Iran that utterly failed to topple the Iranian regime.
The current negotiations in Geneva have nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear weapons program since, like Iraq’s imaginary WMD program in 2002, Iran has none. Indeed, for verification Iran is willing to negotiate limited nuclear enrichment for peaceful domestic purposes; even allow inspections to verify compliance But they will never negotiate away their missile program which is their only defense against further Israeli, US attacks such as they incurred last June.
Another similarity to Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq 23 year ago? It had nothing to do with vital US national interests. It had to do with Israeli demands that successive US administrations, bought up with Israel Lobby money, take out any Israeli rivals for Middle East hegemony.
Trump’s fealty to Israeli demands, encouraged by their near quarter billion in campaign support, fueled Trump’s blowing up Obama’s sensible 2015 Iran nuclear agreement in 2018. He lied to us then how the deal favored Iran by not ending its nuclear bomb program that did not exist. Trump is lying to us now on the urgency of destroying Iranian sovereignty which includes the right to self-defense.
But there is one huge difference between Trump’s trumped up Iranian threat likely presaging all out war today and George W. Bush’s falsified Iraqi threat in 2002. Unlike Iraq which had no defensive military means and no powerful allies to assist his defense, Iran has both.
They have thousands of missiles scattered thruout their large country capable of inflicting massive damage on US and Israeli forces. In addition they are getting defensive support from Russia and especially China in the form of intelligence resources to track approaching US bombers and provide accurate targeting information in retaliation.
History shows that sending a military armada near a pretend enemy never gets recalled. Its sole purpose is to attack and destroy based on a tissue of lies. And any lie and any ludicrous demand to negotiate an impossible deal in furtherance of war will be used to justify attack.
George W. Bush got 4,497 soldiers and 1,487 civilian contractors killed for nothing in his made up Iraq war. Trump’s march to war with Iran may make Bush’s folly pale in comparison.
Some western pundits claim that, well, Russia is advancing so it is collecting its dead as it moves forward. But those same pundits are the ones who also claim that Russia is barely moving forward at all. In a different breath, you might also hear them claim that Russia is about to invade Estonia at any moment.
Those western pundits who also tell you that Russia will run out of money tomorrow – it really won’t – never talk about the fact that Ukraine is functionally bankrupt and totally dependent on financial gifts which the EU itself has to borrow.
Since the war started, voices in the alternative media have said that Ukraine cannot win a war against Russia. Indeed, John Mearsheimer has been saying this since 2014.
Four years into this devastating war, those voices feel at one and the same time both vindicated and unheard. Ukraine is losing yet western leaders in Europe appear bent on continuing the fight.
Nothing is illustrative of this more than Kaja Kallas’ ridiculous comment of 10 February that Russia should agree to pre-conditions to end the war, which included future restrictions on the size of Russia’s army.
Comments such as this suggest western figures like Kallas still believe in the prospect of a strategic victory against Russia, such that Russia would have to settle for peace as the defeated party. Or they are in denial, and/or they are lying to their citizens. I’d argue that it is a mixture of the second and third.
When I say losing, I don’t mean losing in the narrow military sense. Russia’s territorial gains over the winter period have been slow and marginal. Indeed, western commentators often point to this as a sign that, given its size advantage, Russia is in fact losing the war, because if it really was powerful, it would have defeated Ukraine long ago.
And on the surface, it might be easy to understand why some European citizens accept this line, not least as they are bombarded with it by western mainstream media on a constant basis.
However, most people also, at the same time, agree that drone warfare has made rapid territorial gains costly in terms of lost men and materiel. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that since the second part of 2023, after Ukraine’s failed summer counter-offensive, Russia has attacked in small unit formations to infiltrate and encircle positions.
Having taken heavy losses at the start of the war using tactics that might have been conventional twenty years ago, Russia’s armed forces had to adapt and did so quickly. Likewise, Russia’s military industrial complex has also been quicker to shift production into newer types of low cost, easy build military technology, like drones and glide bombs, together with standard munitions that western providers have been unable to match in terms of scale.
And despite the regular propaganda about Russian military losses in the tens of thousands each month, the data from the periodic body swaps between both sides suggest that Ukraine has been losing far more men in the fight than Russia. And I mean, at a ratio far greater than ten to one.
Some western pundits claim that, well, Russia is advancing so it is collecting its dead as it moves forward. But those same pundits are the ones who also claim that Russia is barely moving forward at all. In a different breath, you might also hear them claim that Russia is about to invade Estonia at any moment.
Of course, the propaganda war works in both directions, from the western media and, of course, from Russian. I take the view that discussion of the microscopic daily shifts in control along the line of contact is a huge distraction.
The reality of who is winning, or not winning, this war is in any case not about a slowly changing front line. Wars are won by economies not armies.
Those western pundits who also tell you that Russia will run out of money tomorrow – it really won’t – never talk about the fact that Ukraine is functionally bankrupt and totally dependent on financial gifts which the EU itself has to borrow, in order to provide. War fighting for Ukraine has become a lucrative pyramid scheme, with Zelensky promising people like Von der Leyen that it is a sold investment that will eventually deliver a return, until the day the war ends, when EU citizens will ask whether all their tax money disappeared to.
Russia’s debt stands at 16% of its GDP, its reserves over $730 billion, its yearly trade surplus still healthy, even if it has narrowed over the past year.
Russia can afford to carry on the fight for a lot longer.
Ukraine cannot.
And Europe cannot.
And that is the point.
The Europeans know they can’t afford the war. Ukraine absolutely cannot afford the war, even if Zelensky is happy to see the money keep flowing in. Putin knows the Europeans and Ukraine can’t afford the war. In these circumstances, Russia can insist that Ukraine withdraws from the remainder of Donetsk unilaterally without having to fight for it, on the basis that the alternative is simply to continue fighting.
He can afford to maintain a low attritional fight along the length of the frontline, which minimises Russian casualties and maximises Ukraine’s expenditure of armaments that Europe has to pay for.
That constant financial drain of war fighting is sowing increasing political discord across Europe, from Germany, to France, Britain and, of course, Central Europe.
Putin gets two benefits for the price of one. Europe causing itself economic self-harm while at the same time going into political meltdown.
That is why western leaders cannot admit that they have lost the war because they have been telling their voters from the very beginning that Ukraine would definitely win.
At the start of the war, had NATO decided to back up its effort by force, to facilitate Ukrainian accession against Russia’s expressed objection, then the war might have ended very differently.
NATO would simply not have been able to mobilise a ground operation of sufficient size quickly enough to force Russia back from the initial territorial advances that it had made in February and March of 2022. That means, the skirmishes at least for the first month would have largely been in the form of air and sea assets, including the use of missiles.
There is nothing in NATO doctrine to suggest that the west would have taken the fight to Russia, given the obvious risk of nuclear catastrophe.
While it is pointless to speculate now, my view is that a short, hot war between NATO and Russia would have led to short-term losses of lives and materiel on both sides that forced a negotiated quick settlement.
Europe avoided that route because of the risk of nuclear escalation and the great shame of the war is that our leaders were nonetheless willing to encourage Zelensky to fight to the last Ukrainian, wrecking our prosperity in the process.
Who will want to vote for Merz, Macron, Tusk, Starmer and all these other tinpot statesmen when it becomes clear that they have royally screwed the people of Europe for a stupid proxy war in Ukraine that was unwinnable?
What will Kaja Kallas do for a job when everyone in Europe can see that she’s a dangerous warmonger who did absolutely nothing for the right reason, and who failed at everything?
Zelensky is wondering where he can flee to when his number’s up, my bet would be Miami.
So if you are watching the front line every day you need to step back from the canvas.
There is still a chance that European pressure on Russia will prevail, which makes this whole endeavour a massive gamble with poor odds.
More likely, when the war ends, Putin will reengage with Europe but from a position of power not weakness.
nuclear deterrence is currently an act of power, an act of domination by “those who have” over “those who have not.”
03 Apr 2024, Trends, Pierre Boussel, Researcher, Associate Fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS), France
The nuclear bomb is one of the few weapons in the world that can claim to have spilled more ink than blood. Thousands of books written on the subject debate the validity of the original concept of ultimate chaos deterring mankind from provoking a global conflict.[1] Its tactical and strategic raison d’être remains unresolved.
The American nuclear bombing of Japan in 1945 and the establishment of a managed nuclear world order (IAEA, NPT, UN Security Council, CTBTO)[2] have not deterred warmongers from launching invasions, starving besieged populations, committing genocide, carrying out terrorist attacks, committing war crimes or provoking humanitarian crises. Israel’s nuclear arsenal did not prevent the Yom Kippur War, the First and the Second Intifada, and the Gaza War. The Uppsala Conflict Data Program estimates that since the Hiroshima tragedy there have been 270 to 300 state and non-state conflicts worldwide.[3]
Nuclear deterrence does not bring peace. It does not prevent frontal clashes and it does not speed up peace settlements. Countries wage war despite threats like Russian President Vladimir Putin’s words, “We will use them if necessary”[4] over Ukraine. At best, conflicts are limited to what the military calls “acceptable damage.”[5] When the Russian army targets the Zaporizhzhia power station and has its bombers modified to carry nuclear warheads, the U.S. limits the firepower of weapons delivered to the Ukrainians. This means that the war will continue as is, with several hundred people killed every day, and not escalate.[6]
Assuming the Worst
The atomic bomb embodies both the desire for hyper-power and the fear of chaos, and there has been no shortage of initiatives to curb its proliferation.[7] The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) came into force in 1970, signed by 191 nations. Arab countries have not been left behind. In the 1960s,[8] Egypt promoted the creation of a Middle East Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone (MENWFZ)[9] to protect the Middle East from nuclear proliferation. This did not prevent Israel from developing its first bombs at a secret site in Dimona (Beer Sheva).
In 1974, the Shah of Iran adopted the Egyptian idea of creating a nuclear weapon-free zone (ZEAN),[10] but it did not materialize. After the Israeli bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor,[11] several Arab chancelleries tried to resolve the issue of access to the atom. In 1991, Cairo called for a ban on weapons of mass destruction and demanded that Israel’s arsenal be exposed — in vain. It was as if the West had turned a deaf ear to Arab demands, preferring to entrust the IAEA with organizing disarmament forums and verifying suspected sites.[12] Once again, in vain: the only constant in these meetings has been, in the end, their ineffectiveness.[13]
The West has been ambivalent about nuclear energy. It has not responded to Arab diplomatic proposals and has not been very tough in condemning countries that have been tempted by military nuclear capabilities: Libya, Iraq, Syria, or Iran, whose military program was discovered by the IAEA in 2002-2003. Despite its ambivalence the West does fear insane behavior of a leader who appears ready to bring about the end of the world and considers that low and medium intensity conflicts increase the risk of escalation. The worst-case scenario for the West would be the use of tactical nuclear weapons, i.e., limited power (10 to 25 kilotons) with a ballistic capability of a hundred kilometers.[14] What would happen if the Afghan Taliban acquired tactical nuclear weapons? Would they use them against the local branch of the Islamic State group (IS-K)? How many warheads would have to be launched to defeat radical fighters hiding in deep, inaccessible mountains? What operational effectiveness would be recommended, and for what level of environmental disaster?
The West believes it can manage a war, for example, in Ukraine, because it considers itself to have the insight and maturity to avoid a nuclear conflagration. Anyone else who aspires to this capacity must demonstrate clarity and serenity to qualify for membership in the club of the powerful.
While the West enjoys the power of the atom and poor countries — suspected of being “irrational” or “slippery” — are exhausted by endless asymmetric wars, little attention is paid to India and Pakistan, two major nuclear powers fighting over control of Kashmir. This illustrates the differences in approach between the defenders of deterrence, who believe that the atom fulfills its deterrent mission and prevents the conflict from degenerating, and the detractors of deterrence, pointing out that these two countries have behaved beyond reproach. Meanwhile, Islamabad could be criticized for being unstable because of its alleged involvement in Afghanistan, and India for having mutated from Gandhian pacifism to unabashed nationalism.
The Vexation Strategy
Nuclear deterrence is, above all, vexatious, a notion too often overlooked in studies. Yet it has importance. One can imagine a country, say a poor, landlocked and indebted nation, that develops a weapon of unprecedented power — the ultimate weapon, the one that could replace all others. How would Washington, Moscow, Beijing, or Brussels react if the president of that country refused to share the new technology on the grounds that the superpowers are unreasonable and risk violating the principles of precaution and military proportionality? How would the nuclear giants react if they were deprived of this capability in the name of non-proliferation? Perhaps then the great powers would understand what it means to be offended: to be suspected of irresponsibility and forced to justify oneself and show their credentials in the vein hope of obtaining a new technology.
Access to the atom granted as a reward for good behavior raises the question of eligibility: the ability of a country to manage endogenous factors including terrorism, secessionism, and regional ambitions. This form of nuclear elitism is asserted with so much authority that we forget that the exemplarity on which the powerful pride themselves is shaky. On several occasions, humanity has come within a hair’s breadth of catastrophe. The history of nuclear power is littered with harrowing incidents: misunderstood orders that almost released chaos, technical errors corrected at the last minute (the Petrov affair), poorly applied procedures and even a simple airplane crash. On 17 January 1966, a U.S. Air Force Boeing B-52 collided with its tanker and crashed. Two of its four H-bombs spread radioactive material around the Spanish village of Palomares (250 hectares), where they fortunately fell without exploding. The United States, the world’s leading power, which never fails to show absolute intransigence on the conditions of access to nuclear energy, has lost at least six nuclear bombs.[15]………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The World Atomic Order
Ultimately, the fundamental question is: what regulates access to nuclear energy, and what are the right or wrong reasons for authorizing or prohibiting its use. History tells us that the great despots — Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin — engaged in destructive follies that were terribly rational and attracted considerable popular support (Thomas C. Schelling).[31] Caution is therefore called for. It is not only legitimate but necessary, given the specific characteristics of nuclear energy and the devastating uses to which it can be put.[32] There is unanimity on this point.
The problem is that the nuclear world order mechanically provokes defiant reactions, like those of Iran and North Korea, two nations that have deliberately chosen to continue their clandestine nuclear enrichment programs.[33] Not only international authorities (IAEA, UN) have no means to act, but worse still, Pyongyang, for instance, is in the process of reappropriating the concept of deterrence, with no limits other than those set by itself. It has created a de facto counter-system in which it can do as it pleases with minimal risk, keeping superpowers from considering the dismantlement of their nuclear arsenals.
The discretionary power of the major powers to grant nuclear licenses, like a “delegation of authority”, to countries in urgent need of energy, creates a sense of inequality. One example is the nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S., which operates under Article 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act (AEA),[34] nicknamed the “gold standard”. Washington reserves the right to terminate agreements at the first sign of non-compliance on uranium enrichment. So even when signed, this type of agreement is only partially secure. The same is true of the IAEA, which imposes highly restrictive charters on would-be nuclear-weapon states, while Russia is suspected of developing a space-based nuclear weapon[35] likely to reignite proliferation. Add to this the New Start Treaty expiring in 2026 with no prospect of reducing arsenals, and China, which continues to grow in power. It would not take much to write that we have entered into a re-nuclearization of the strategic chessboard, a new arms race, less spectacular, less media-friendly, but one that takes us further away from the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed by 92 states in 2017.[36]
At the end of the Second World War, the geopolitics of the blocs was based on the concept of Melian dialogue, which postulates that justice between men is exercised when their “forces are equal.” [37] When this is not the case, “the strong exercise their power and the weak must yield.”[38] This model has been eroded in recent decades. Weaker states (Vietnam, Afghanistan) have defeated superpowers and the uncertainty factor, by definition, remains unresolved. In the 1950s, the Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjöld declared that the great organizations dedicated to peace were working “not to create paradise, but to avoid hell.”[39] The uncertainty factor should not be underestimated, but nuclear deterrence is currently an act of power, an act of domination by “those who have” over “those who have not.” Nuclear power is all too often seen as a lever to exert pressure on countries that are being asked to make their energy transition as quickly as possible, but to which control and non-proliferation norms are being imposed — countries that, in most cases, are simply expressing the desire to have access to nuclear energy to support their economic development. All in all, a normal request.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has initiated talks with France on strengthening Europe’s nuclear deterrent as he urged the continent to bolster its defences and “repair” strained relations with the US. The discussions, centred on the possibility of Germany joining France’s nuclear umbrella, underline mounting anxiety in Europe over an expected reduction in the US military presence on the continent, as Russia’s full-scale war on Ukraine enters its fifth year.
The most sinister revelation from the article is that NATO’s Secretary-General maintains a “highly classified” contingency plan which allows giving the NATO Supreme Allied Commander broad emergency authority to unilaterally move forces around without a vote of the members:
The Munich Security Conference has kicked off, and not surprisingly the Brussels nomenklatura and its attendant apparatchiks and media flacks are pushing war hysteria. The purpose of this is to make the Ukrainian conflict feel existential to Europeans to jawbone them into parting with their dwindling eurobucks for the sake of bleeding Russia as much as possible.
BRUSSELS — Western countries increasingly believe the world is heading toward a global war, according to results from The POLITICO Poll that detail mounting public alarm about the risk and cost of a new era of conflict.
But while Politico smugly celebrates the convection toward war, the rag laments the unwillingness of the drowning masses to destroy what remains of their serfhood for the sake of funding these cabal-provoked wars:
But The POLITICO Poll also revealed limited willingness among the Western public to make sacrifices to pay for more military spending. While there is widespread support for increasing defense budgets in principle across the U.K., France, Germany and Canada, that support fell sharply when people learned it might mean taking on more government debt, cutting other services or raising taxes.
This leaves European leaders “in a bind”:
So European leaders are left in a bind — unable to rely on the U.S., unable to use that as a reason to invest domestically, and under higher pressure to urgently solve this for a world where conflict feels closer than before.”
Well, the conflict “feels” closer than before only because the European sock-puppet leaders are pushing it there themselves, every day, more and more aggressively.
Most concerning for the elites is that support for militarization is on a down-trend heading out of 2025:
The elites are in panic over how to convince their populaces to fan the flames of war ever higher. They are distraught that the peons are overly concerned with selfish pursuits like self-preservation, sustenance, taking care of their families, paying their mortgages, etc. Conclaves like the Munich Conference are meant to stoke debate over precisely how to more effectively connive the masses sell the necessity of war to the public; the going concensus seems to be to just pile on more hysteria, fake lies about the Russian threat, etc. It’s a reliable standby.
This was supported by fiery calls-to-arms from Ukrainian frontliners:
“You [Europe] need to prepare yourselves before war comes to you. And in this, we Ukrainians are your best partners, because we already live in the future of war” – Oleksandr Falshtynskyi, Chief of Medical Service of the 7th Rapid Response Corps of the Ukrainian Air Assault Forces, during Ukraine House at the Munich Security Conference.
He warns Europe to be ready for the coming war—but is Europe ready? Two recent simulations have shown that to woefully not be the case.
In the first, WSJ reports a single Ukrainian team of 10 drone operators was able to eliminate “two NATO battalions” in a single day without any losses:
Overall, the results were “horrible” for NATO forces, says Mr. Hanniotti, who now works in the private sector as an unmanned systems expert. The adversary forces were “able to eliminate two battalions in a day,” so that “in an exercise sense, basically, they were not able to fight anymore after that.” The NATO side “didn’t even get our drone teams.”
Multiple concurrent Wall Street Journal articles push war hysteria—it must be good for stock prices!
In the article, Germany’s “top military officer” General Carsten Breuer states explicitly that Russia will be ready to wage war on Europe in three years:
Breuer is racing to prepare Germany’s armed forces for war. And for the 61-year-old veteran of conflicts from Kosovo to Afghanistan, the clock is ticking.
Germany’s military-intelligence agency estimates that within the next three years, Russia, whose armies poured into Ukraine in 2022, will have amassed enough weaponry and trained enough troops to be able to start a wider war across Europe. Breuer says a smaller attack could come at any time.
“We have to be ready,” he says.
Besides the obvious fear-mongering, this does appear to indirectly confirm our thesis that Russia is building a large rear reserve force if NATO ‘intelligence’ continues to surmise that Russia “will have amassed enough weaponry and trained […] troops” for WWIII in three years’ time. Clearly, there is a surplus of force regeneration, which flies in the face of the contradictory narrative we’re fed daily that Russia’s losses are now vastly outpacing its recruitment. If that was the case, how could Russia possibly be building a force capable of tackling Europe so soon?
This quote from the article is just rich:
To that end, Breuer has been waging a multi-front campaign to rally Germany’s politicians, business people, soldiers and the general public behind efforts to speed the nation’s rearmament and persuade them that they must be prepared to fight Russia to preserve their democratic freedoms.
So, stoking WWIII to destroy Russia now retreads the same old phony and fatuous “freedums and liburty” ignis fatuus used by neocons time and again since the Iraq war days. Funny, given that it’s Germany now suffering from totalitarian restrictions on their so-called freedoms.
But while the article boasts of Germany raising its commitment level to provoke WWIII by stationing troops in Lithuania, the reality seems to be a bit different. Spiegel reports that Germany is in fact struggling to even find enough recruits to fill the brigade meant for the task:
On 13 February 1960, France detonated a nuclear weapon over the deserts of Algeria. It was the first of what were eventually 17 nuclear detonations across two sites. Four of these took place while Algeria’s fight for independence was still raging. To this day, communities harmed by the development of France’s nuclear weapons arsenal are seeking recognition, compensation and redress.
ICAN joins other organisations in a joint statement on the anniversary of France’s first nuclear detonations in Algeria, “66 Years Since the First French Nuclear Explosion in Algeria … No Truth Without Transparency, No Justice Without Reparation”
The statement recognises efforts to address the legacy of harm from French nuclear testing through parliamentary debates in both Algeria and France. The explosions exposed nearby communities, soldiers and workers to dangerous levels of radiation and left a long-lasting toxic legacy in the environment.
In France, steps are being taken to revise the compensation framework in order to make it fairer for victims of the tests in Algeria and French Polynesia, alongside calls to strengthen transparency and accountability.
In Algeria, the People’s National Assembly addressed this issue for the first time in February 2025 through a parliamentary session that resulted in 13 recommendations calling for enhanced transparency, justice for nuclear victims, the transmission of memory, and the development of research on health and environmental impacts. ICAN France, the Observatoire des armaments and the Heinroch Böll stiftung published The Waste From French Nuclear Tests in Algeria: Radioactivity Under the Sand to provide more information on the environmental legacy of French testing in the region.
The statement further calls on the French government to provide sustained technical and financial support for health monitoring and environmental remediation programs. It calls on the Algerian government to protect public health in affected areas through a national program of monitoring, early screening, and medical care, and to ensure that populations receive accurate information in national and local languages, with particular attention to vulnerable groups. Today, people in Algeria are still living with cancers, contaminated lands, and intergenerational health problems linked to those tests.
France is urged to sign and both countries are encouraged to ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
ICAN’s dedicated nuclear testing impacts website hosts stories of those who worked near the test sites in Algeria, as well as more detailed information on the tests carried out by France.
By Bill Gertz – The Washington Times – Wednesday, February 11, 2026
The U.S. Space Force is accelerating the deployment of counterspace weapons under a new Trump administration policy aimed at reasserting and ensuring American dominance over China and Russia in any potential orbital conflict.
The force is deploying three electronic satellite jammers and racing to match the more advanced space forces of China and Russia, which include arsenals of anti-satellite weapons.
Space Force Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, chief of space operations, said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently set the goal for the U.S. military to dominate in space.
“And the Space Force was created to do just that,” Gen. Saltzman told The Washington Times. “The service has and will continue to invest in a full range of counterspace capabilities to deter conflict in space and to win decisively if called upon.
“Continuing to train and equip combat-credible Guardians is essential to maintaining our warfighting readiness,” he said.
Mr. Hegseth said in a speech to workers at the space company Blue Origin last week that the $25 billion being spent on the Golden Dome national missile and drone defense system would produce “cutting-edge, space-based capabilities which we are going to need.”……………….
“That is how we will establish total orbital supremacy,” he said.
Golden Dome systems are expected to support Space Force counterspace arms.
A Space Force spokeswoman declined to provide details on Gen. Saltzman’s plans for counterspace weapons, but at this point, the newest branch of the American military — the force was founded in 2019 under the first Trump administration — has only limited capabilities with counterspace systems. The force will be challenged to match enemy systems…………………….
Funding for counterspace weapons in the recently passed $890.6 billion defense authorization bill is relatively meager and does not appear to support a space dominance policy.
Procurement for counterspace weapons in the current fiscal year is $2 million, and the research, development, testing and evaluation budget for counterspace systems spending is $31.2 million, according to a funding chart in the defense authorization act.
Developing space weapons is a priority for the Pentagon because U.S. space systems, including high-altitude Global Positioning System satellites — used for GPS targeting and navigation in military operations, missile warning satellites and key imagery and communications systems — were not designed for conflict in space…………..
A Pentagon official said a presidential directive requires U.S. space superiority and therefore “American leadership in space is nonnegotiable.”…………………………..
“The Department of War has and will continue to invest in a full range of capabilities — kinetic, non-kinetic, reversible and irreversible — to restore deterrence and, if necessary, prevail in conflict.”………………………………………………
Charles Galbreath, a retired Space Force colonel, said Mr. Hegseth’s comments on space power dominance are “probably some of the most aggressive language I’ve heard ever, openly, about conflict in the space domain.”………………………………………………………..
The orbital playbook
Space Force plans for waging warfare in space are outlined in a March 2025 report, “United States Space Force Space Warfighting: A Framework for Planners.”
The report defined three main types of counterspace operations as control of space using both offensive and defensive action.
“Counterspace operations are conducted across the orbital, link and terrestrial segments of the space architecture,” the report said, creating effects aimed at “space superiority.”……………………
The combat will include “orbital warfare” using fires, movement and maneuver to control space.
Also used will be electromagnetic warfare to defeat enemy space and counterspace threats.
Cyberwarfare will be a major part of space combat, with strikes and other actions aimed at gaining control of space.
Offensive space combat will include orbital strike operations, pursuit and escort of satellites, standoff attacks, interdicting space communications links, and maneuvering killer satellites that can grab and crush enemy systems.
Orbital attacks will use “pursuit operations” with an attacking system maneuvering to an enemy spacecraft before firing weapons. Alternatively, the Space Force will use standoff operations — space-based or ground long-range missiles that attack without a nearby orbital rendezvous.
Space link interdiction will use electromagnetic or cybernetwork attacks……………………………………………
For electronic attacks, high-powered lasers and microwave weapons are being built, and some reports indicate that electromagnetic pulse arms could be used to damage satellite electronics without causing debris.
Emil Michael, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, stated in a X post that the Pentagon has directed energy weapons………………………………………………………………………………..
Navy drone warship, undersea robot weapon unveiled
By Bill Gertz – The Washington Times – Wednesday, February 11, 2026
U.S. Navy efforts to deploy large numbers of drone weapons advanced this week with the disclosure of a coming autonomous warship and a new undersea drone.
Blue Water Autonomy, a shipbuilding startup, announced the first autonomous warship called the Liberty that the company says will provide advanced warfare capabilities for the Navy as soon as later this year.
The Boston-based technology firm and shipbuilder said construction of its first 190-foot Liberty drone ship will begin next month with the goal of delivering the first vessel to the Navy in 2026.
The ship will be 190-feet long with a range of over 10,000 nautical miles and can carry more than 150 tons of payload capacity, Blue Water said in a press release.
“As the U.S. Navy drives to expand fleet capacity, accelerating the deployment of unmanned systems that complement traditional crewed ships has become a critical effort,” the company said……..
Separately, defense contractor Lockheed Martin this week disclosed its development of a new class of smart, stealthy, multimission autonomous undersea drone.
The Lockheed vessel, called the Lamprey, is capable of launching drone aircraft from the surface and is described by the company as a “do-it-all” submersible, “built to disrupt and deny enemy forces at sea.”
The undersea drone will be used to detect, disrupt, decoy and target enemy forces in support of sea denial missions and “subsea seabed warfare,” Lockheed said on its website.
The Lamprey can be hitched to submarines or warships, will launch aerial drones for surveillance or attacks, and can conduct electronic warfare to disrupt underwater enemy sensors.
Both drone warfare platforms are likely to become part of what the commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Sam Paparo, has called a “hellscape” strategy to deter China.
The strategy, which remains mostly secret, calls for deploying thousands of low-cost armed drones as a deterrent and counter to any potential future Chinese attack on Taiwan or other locations in the region. The “hellscape” could also influence Chinese commanders’ decision-making on whether such attacks could be successful……………………………………….
“The Liberty class reflects our focus on building autonomous ships that are designed from the start for long-duration operations and repeat production,” said Rylan Hamilton, Blue Water Autonomy chief executive. “By adapting a proven hull and reengineering it for unmanned operations, we’re delivering a vessel that can operate for extended periods without crew while being produced at a pace the Navy urgently needs. This is a modern take on an old idea: building capable ships quickly and at scale.”
The drone warship will use artificial intelligence for its automated controls with limited human intervention for months-long deployments.
It was developed entirely with private capital without defense funding as part of push by Navy and Pentagon leaders on defense contractors to privately develop key military technology outside of a problematic procurement process.
By Bill Gertz – The Washington Times – Thursday, February 12, 2026
Current plans for U.S. bomber forces are inadequate for winning a future conflict with China and the Air Force needs 200 new B-21 bombers to bolster the strategic bomber shortfall, according to a new report by a think tank that supports the Air Force.
The larger bomber force is needed to attack Chinese inland sanctuaries should a war break out between the U.S. and China over Taiwan or other regional allies, the report by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies stated.
The U.S. military today lacks the post-Cold War combat aircraft power for conducting Air Force strikes deep inside enemy lines and denying operational sanctuary to enemies like China and its People’s Liberation Army………………………………………………
“A strong offense is the best defense, and a war-winning U.S. campaign must include strategic attacks against China’s military leadership, command and control, and long-range combat forces that now threaten the U.S. military’s ability to operate effectively in the Western Pacific,” the report said………………………………
“B-21s in sufficient numbers are necessary to seize the operational advantage in a conflict with China,” the report said.
Additionally, the Pentagon should build at least 300 of the new, sixth-generation F-47 jets.
nuclear-news 