Once seen as a symbolic protest, the nuclear ban treaty is growing teeth.
Olamide Samuel , Olamide Samuel leads network and engagement initiatives at Open Nuclear Network (ONN), a programme of PAX sapiens. April 3, 2025,
Amid Russia’s war in Ukraine, nuclear saber-rattling, and the United States’ sudden turn away from its longtime transatlantic alliances, fears of nuclear conflict are leading European governments to pursue new ways of protecting themselves. Last month, European Union leaders approved a massive new militarization independent of US support; France is considering extending its own nuclear deterrent over the whole continent; and some countries have resurrected Cold War-style civil defense plans. Germany, for example, has piloted a smartphone app to direct citizens to the nearest bomb shelter, while Norway is reintroducing a policy that requires bomb shelters in all new buildings. And the EU has called on its citizens to stockpile 72 hours-worth of supplies in the face of “emerging threats.”
But what of the rest of the world? Even so-called “limited” use of nuclear weapons is unlikely to stay limited to one region; a nuclear war of any kind will almost certainly not. Radioactive fallout, climate disruption, and economic shockwaves can cross borders and continents, meaning no country truly stands apart from the danger. Nations far from the blast zone—whether or not they participate in a nuclear conflict—could still face crop failures, mass migrations, and other cascading disasters. In short, if nuclear weapons are used anywhere, everyone’s safety is at risk.
Survival requires attention to larger, systemic issues—international cooperation, governance of risk, and global diplomacy—that offer more meaningful protection than any nuclear weapon or bunker can. The popularization of civil defense discussions, while potentially comforting in their simplicity, in fact exposes a collective failure to tackle the underlying causes of these fears. Humanity’s long-term survival depends on global efforts to reduce the risks that threaten us.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is one such global effort. Critics initially dismissed the treaty as a purely symbolic gesture—a “protest treaty” unlikely to affect real-world security. But recent developments suggest the ban treaty is growing some teeth. In November 2024, TPNW states prevailed on the United Nations General Assembly to launch a comprehensive scientific study on the effects of nuclear war. And at the treaty members’ most recent major meeting in March—which I attended—a detailed report articulating the security concerns of non-nuclear countries took center stage at the UN’s New York headquarters.
These steps represent a pivotal milestone for the treaty, which is now emerging as a key venue for serious diplomatic deliberations about nuclear security at a critical moment—a moment when many traditional arms-control agreements and forums have either collapsed or stalled. Thanks largely to the TPNW, a new space has opened up, in which frank and thorough examination of the catastrophic human and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons use can help expose the risks of nuclear deterrence itself.
Fixing the nuclear diplomacy gap. For decades, global arms control agreements have struggled to ease the fears of countries without nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—essentially a bargain between nuclear haves and have-nots—promised eventual disarmament, but progress has been glacial. Major powers have been backsliding: The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is history, and the last US-Russia arms pact, New START, is on life support and set to expire in less than a year. Traditional forums like the UN Conference on Disarmament have been deadlocked for years.
All the while, the security concerns of non-nuclear weapon states have been largely ignored. In meetings of treaties like the NPT, discussions tend to focus on keeping nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands—but what about the danger posed to everyone by the weapons the great powers already have? For a country with no nukes, the prospect of radiation drifting across its borders or a “nuclear winter” causing famine remains an existential threat. Yet, in the old forums, nuclear-armed states and their allies have often brushed aside these worries, insisting that their deterrence doctrines keep the peace.
Against this backdrop, the countries party to the TPNW have shifted focus to address these issues head-on. At the treaty’s third meeting of states parties in early 2025, they unveiled a report on the security concerns of states living under the shadow of nuclear weapons. This move signaled the ban-treaty states aren’t just pursuing disarmament ideals but are also eager to articulate their own concrete security priorities in a world with ongoing nuclear threats.
The report synthesizes the collected input of TPNW states, experts, and non-governmental organizations after the treaty’s second meeting at the end of 2023. The report’s findings challenge the notion that states consider deterrence a source of stability and security. The report notes that TPNW states consider that “nuclear deterrence is a dangerous, misguided and unacceptable approach to security.” It then recasts humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons as core national security concerns for non-nuclear nations and explains why: a single nuclear detonation wouldn’t just devastate the immediate target; it could knock out electrical grids with electromagnetic pulses and blanket entire regions in radioactive fallout. And the damage wouldn’t stop there. The authors describe the “transboundary” impacts: mass migrations of refugees fleeing irradiated zones, the breakdown of emergency services, global supply chains for food and medicine ruptured, and the potential collapse of public order far from ground zero.
In other words, nuclear war anywhere endangers people everywhere—and since the existential security of the world’s non-nuclear states continues to be entirely determined by the security priorities of a few nuclear powers, the report reframes those humanitarian consequences as fundamental security concerns for every state: “From the perspective of States parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, policy decisions regarding nuclear weapons should be based primarily on the available scientific facts about the consequences and risks of nuclear weapons rather than on the uncertain security benefits of nuclear deterrence.”
What we know and what we don’t know. The last UN-mandated study on nuclear war impacts, conducted by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) in 1988, was a landmark assessment that brought scientific consensus to the global threat of nuclear winter. However, the study is now outdated. In the 37 years since, we have made significant advancements in climate modeling and environmental science in ways that allow for higher-resolution simulations of atmospheric effects, such as those caused by soot and dust following nuclear detonations to better simulate the cascading impacts of nuclear conflict.
Subsequent studies have examined the global impacts of nuclear war, including influential work by Alan Robock and Brian Toon in the 2000s and 2010s on cooling and agricultural effects, and a 2019 study projecting severe global food and health consequences from an India-Pakistan nuclear conflict. Although these supplementary independent studies are important, there is still a lack of broader appreciation of the full-scale impact of nuclear detonations.
Our ignorance is, to some extent, by design. The effects of nuclear war are often viewed (especially by nuclear weapon states and their allies) through a military lens, focused primarily on the immediate consequences of a nuclear strike, without fully accounting for the long-term environmental, societal, and human impacts.
To address this gap, members of the TPNW’s Scientific Advisory Group recommended in 2023 that the UN mandate an assessment of the effects of nuclear war. In November of last year, a resolution establishing an independent Scientific Panel on the Effects of Nuclear War was brought to the General Assembly, cosponsored by 20 TPNW states. Apart from the nuclear weapons states, the resolution received overwhelming support: 144 countries voted in favor, 30 abstained.
Of the nuclear weapon states, France, the United Kingdom and Russia voted against the resolution; the United States did not record a vote; and with the exception of China, which voted for the study, other nuclear states (Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) all formally abstained.
In explaining their votes, both France and the UK curiously stated that a scientific panel would not provide any “new” insights into our understanding of the effects of nuclear war. The UK, in particular, raised concerns about the budgetary implications, despite the panel’s total operating cost being only $300,100—equivalent to the cost of operating the UK’s nuclear deterrent for two hours. Imagine then, if this panel (in conjunction with the World Trade Organization) were to reveal the economic impact of a limited nuclear war on global socioeconomic systems? Such findings are very feasible, given the broad mandate of the scientific panel: Article 7 of the resolution calls upon a range of global agencies to support the panel’s work beyond obvious ones like the International Atomic Energy Agency—including those that look at financial, health and agricultural effects, like the World Health Organization, the World Food Programme, the Food and Agricultural Organization, and the World Trade Organization.
Deterrence as science denial. Studies on self-deterrence have shown that political leaders’ decisions about nuclear weapons aren’t just shaped by military strategy—they’re deeply influenced by the moral and psychological weight of such decisions. Many leaders may hold back from using nuclear weapons not because they fear defeat, but because they want to maintaininternational legitimacy, avoid alienating allies, and protect the global non-proliferation system; and because they understand some of the devastating, irreversible consequences, especially for the environment and future generations. The idea of being the person who triggers the end of civilization or leaves the planet in ruins is something most leaders are reluctant to face.
Even Donald Trump has acknowledged the dangers of nuclear weapons, as when he said in October 2024, “getting rid of nuclear weapons would be so good … because it’s too powerful, it’s too much,” and his more recent statements suggesting that “the destructive capability is something that we don’t even want to talk about” and that the United States, China and Russia could denuclearize.
This, perhaps, explains why updated studies on the societal impact of nuclear war are so politically charged, and why some states opposed the new study (which after all, is just a study). To acknowledge the global societal impact of nuclear weapons is to confront the unmanageable consequences of their use and challenge the foundations of deterrence itself. As Robock notes in an interview with the Bulletin, if the US nuclear establishment “acknowledged the horrific impacts of nuclear war, their theory of deterrence would fail.”
Survival beyond bunkers. Ultimately, humanity’s safety depends not on geographical location, but on global efforts to reduce risks. Since its entry into force, the TPNW has begun to emerge as an unexpected yet indispensable forum for questioning whether the logic of deterrence itself makes sense in a world that cannot afford the consequences of failure.
Illuminating the true impacts of nuclear war has a way of cutting through abstract theories — as it did in the 1980s when public horror at nuclear winter nudged even hardline leaders toward arms control. In the same way, the convergence of the UN’s new impacts study and the TPNW’s security initiative could shatter any lingering illusion that nuclear war can be “managed.”
In just four years, the TPNW has evolved beyond the caricature of a “protest treaty.” It offers something the traditional forums often cannot: a willingness to confront the uncomfortable truths about nuclear weapons, from their humanitarian consequences to the fragility of deterrence itself. The TPNW is not about dismantling the system overnight; it’s about ensuring we have the courage and the foresight to imagine a future where nuclear arsenals—and the assumption that we need them—no longer exist.
Hegseth Orders Pentagon To Focus on Preparing for War With China Over Taiwan
In an internal memo, Hegseth called China the ‘sole pacing threat’
by Dave DeCamp March 30, 2025 , https://news.antiwar.com/2025/03/30/hegseth-orders-pentagon-to-focus-on-preparing-for-war-with-china-over-taiwan/
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth distributed a memo in mid-March ordering the Pentagon to put its focus on preparing for a war with China, a nuclear-armed power, by “assuming risk” in Europe and other parts of the world, The Washington Post reported on Saturday.
The Post didn’t publish the full memo, known as the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance, but said it “outlines, in broad and sometimes partisan detail, the execution of President Donald Trump’s vision to prepare for and win a potential war against Beijing and defend the United States from threats in the ‘near abroad,’ including Greenland and the Panama Canal.”
The Pentagon has considered China the top “threat” facing the US since the first Trump administration, but the Post report said the memo is “extraordinary in its description of the potential invasion of Taiwan as the exclusive animating scenario that must be prioritized over other potential dangers — reorienting the vast US military architecture toward the Indo-Pacific region beyond its homeland defense mission.”
The report said that the guidance from Hegseth says the Pentagon’s force planning construct “will consider conflict only with Beijing when planning contingencies for a major power war” and leave the “threat from Moscow largely attended by European allies.”
Hegseth wrote that China “is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the US homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.”
The memo reflects the Trump administration’s policy toward Europe and calls for NATO allies to take a “far greater” burden sharing. The document says that the US is unlikely to provide substantial support to Europe if Russia’s military advances in the region, saying the US will only provide nuclear deterrence.
The memo also calls for the US to pressure Taiwan to increase military spending “significantly.”
For years now, the US military has been openly preparing for war with China despite the risk of nuclear escalation. It has done this by expanding military bases in the Asia Pacific, building alliances, and increasing support for Taiwan. While being done in the name of deterrence, these steps have only increased tensions in the region, making conflict more likely.
The Post report says that Hegseth’s plans to prepare a “denial defense” of Taiwan include “increasing the troop presence through submarines, bombers, unmanned ships, and specialty units from the Army and Marine Corps, as well as a greater focus on bombs that destroy reinforced and subterranean targets.” His memo also calls for increasing the defenses of US troop positions in the region and establishing more weapons stockpiles.
It’s Official: Ukraine Conflict is British ‘Proxy War’
The investigation’s most striking passages highlight London’s principal role in influencing and managing Ukrainian – and by extension US – actions and strategy in the conflict. Both direct references and unambiguous insinuations littered throughout point ineluctably to the conclusion that the “proxy war” is of British concoction and design
As this journalist has exposed, Ukraine’s Kursk folly was a British invasion in all but name. London was central to its planning, provided the bulk of the equipment deployed, and deliberately advertised its involvement. As The Times reported at the time, the goal was to mark Britain as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – would follow suit, and “send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.”
Kit Klarenberg, Global Delinquents, Apr 02, 2025
On March 29th, the New York Times published a landmark investigation exposing how the US was “woven” into Ukraine’s battle with Russia “far more intimately and broadly than previously understood,” with Washington almost invariably serving as “the backbone of Ukrainian military operations.” The outlet went so far as to acknowledge the conflict was a “proxy war” – an irrefutable reality hitherto aggressively denied in the mainstream – dubbing it a “rematch” of “Vietnam in the 1960s, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Syria three decades later.”
That the US has since February 2022 supplied Ukraine with extraordinary amounts of weaponry, and been fundamental to the planning of many of Kiev’s military operations large and small, is hardly breaking news. Indeed, elements of this relationship have previously been widely reported, with White House apparatchiks occasionally admitting to Washington’s role. Granular detail on this assistance provided by the New York Times probe is nonetheless unprecedented. For example, a dedicated intelligence fusion centre was secretly created at a vast US military base in Germany.
Dubbed “Task Force Dragon”, it united officials from every major US intelligence agency, and “coalition intelligence officers”, to produce extensive daily targeting information on Russian “battlefield positions, movements and intentions”, to “pinpoint” and “determine the ripest, highest-value targets” for Ukraine to strike using Western-provided weapons. The fusion centre quickly became “the entire back office of the war.” A nameless European intelligence chief was purportedly “taken aback to learn how deeply enmeshed his NATO counterparts had become” in the conflict’s “kill chain”:
“An early proof of concept was a campaign against one of Russia’s most-feared battle groups, the 58th Combined Arms Army. In mid-2022, using American intelligence and targeting information, the Ukrainians unleashed a rocket barrage at the headquarters of the 58th in the Kherson region, killing generals and staff officers inside. Again and again, the group set up at another location; each time, the Americans found it and the Ukrainians destroyed it.”
Several other well-known Ukrainian broadsides, such as an October 2022 drone barrage on the port of Sevastopol, are now revealed by the New York Times to have been the handiwork of Task Force Dragon. Meanwhile, the outlet confirmed that each and every HIMARS strike conducted by Kiev was entirely dependent on the US, which supplied coordinates, and advice on “positioning [Kiev’s] launchers and timing their strikes.” Local HIMARS operators also required special electronic key [cards]” to fire the missiles, “which the Americans could deactivate anytime.”
Yet, the investigation’s most striking passages highlight London’s principal role in influencing and managing Ukrainian – and by extension US – actions and strategy in the conflict. Both direct references and unambiguous insinuations littered throughout point ineluctably to the conclusion that the “proxy war” is of British concoction and design. If rapprochement between Moscow and Washington succeeds, it would represent the most spectacular failure to date of Britain’s concerted post-World War II conspiracy to exploit American military might and wealth for its own purposes.
………………………………………………………………….. the British “had considerable clout” in Kiev and hands-on influence over Ukrainian officials.
This was because, “unlike the Americans,” Britain had formally inserted teams of military officers into the country, to advise Ukrainian officials directly. Still, despite Kiev failing to fully capitalise as desired by London and Washington, the 2022 counteroffensive’s success produced widespread “irrational exuberance”. Planning for a followup the next year thus “began straightaway.” The “prevailing wisdom” within Task Force Dragon was this counteroffensive “would be the war’s last”, with Ukraine claiming “outright triumph”, or Russia being “forced to sue for peace.”
……………………………………………………………………….Even Task Force Dragon’s Lieutenant General Donahue had doubts, advocating “a pause” of a year or more for “building and training new brigades.” Yet, intervention by the British was, per the New York Times, sufficient to neutralise internal opposition to a fresh counteroffensive in the spring. The British argued, “if the Ukrainians were going to go anyway, the coalition needed to help them.” Resultantly, enormous quantities of exorbitantly expensive, high-end military equipment were shipped to Kiev by almost every NATO member state for the purpose.
The counteroffensive was finally launched in June 2023. Relentlessly blitzed by artillery and drones from day one, tanks and soldiers were also routinely blown to smithereens by expansive Russian-laid minefields. Within a month, Ukraine had lost 20% of its Western-provided vehicles and armor, with nothing to show for it. When the counteroffensive fizzled out at the end of 2023, just 0.25% of territory occupied by Russia in the initial phase of the invasion had been regained. Meanwhile, Kiev’s casualties may have exceeded 100,000.
‘Knife Edge’
The New York Times reports that “the counteroffensive’s devastating outcome left bruised feelings on both sides,” with Washington and Kiev blaming each other for the catastrophe. A Pentagon official claims “the important relationships were maintained, but it was no longer the inspired and trusting brotherhood of 2022 and early 2023.” Given Britain’s determination to “keep Ukraine fighting at all costs”, this was bleak news indeed, threatening to halt all US support for the proxy war.
………………………………… Ukraine’s calamitous intervention in Russia’s Bryansk region was a “foreshadowing” of Kiev’s all-out invasion of Kursk on August 6th that year. The New York Times records how from Washington’s perspective, the operation “was a significant breach of trust.” For one, “the Ukrainians had again kept them in the dark” – but worse, “they had secretly crossed a mutually agreed-upon line.” Kiev was using “coalition-supplied equipment” on Russian territory, breaching “rules laid down” when limited strikes inside Russia were greenlit months earlier.
As this journalist has exposed, Ukraine’s Kursk folly was a British invasion in all but name. London was central to its planning, provided the bulk of the equipment deployed, and deliberately advertised its involvement. As The Times reported at the time, the goal was to mark Britain as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – would follow suit, and “send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.”
Initially, US officials keenly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion……………………………..
However, once Donald Trump prevailed in the November 2024 presidential election, Biden was encouraged to use his “last, lame-duck weeks” to make “a flurry of moves to stay the course…and shore up his Ukraine project.” In the process, per the New York Times, he “crossed his final red line,” allowing ATACMS and Storm Shadow strikes deep inside Russia, while permitting US military advisers to leave Kiev “for command posts closer to the fighting.”
Fast forward to today, and the Kursk invasion has ended in utter disaster, with the few remaining Ukrainian forces not captured or killed fleeing. Meanwhile, Biden’s flailing, farewell red line breaches have failed to tangibly shift the battlefield balance in Kiev’s favour at all. As the New York Times acknowledges, the proxy war’s continuation “teeters on a knife edge.” There is no knowing what British intelligence might have in store to prevent long-overdue peace prevailing at last, but the consequences could be world-threatening. https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/its-official-ukraine-conflict-is
What really happened in Bucha? The questions Western media won’t ask
By Petr Lavrenin, an Odessa-born political journalist and expert on Ukraine and the former Soviet Union – https://www.rt.com/russia/614967-what-really-happened-in-bucha/ 2 Apr 25 [illustrations]
The narrative on an event from three years ago is under scrutiny. Here’s a closer look at the evidence
On the first day of April in 2022, shocking videos began circulating on Ukrainian social media, showing the streets of Bucha, a town in Kiev region, strewn with dead bodies. The “Bucha massacre” quickly became one of the most widely discussed and controversial chapters of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Western media immediately accused the Russian army of mass killings, while Vladimir Zelensky declared that these acts were not only war crimes but a genocide against his country’s people.
However, a closer look at the situation raises numerous questions. An analysis of video footage, satellite images, and eyewitness accounts reveals significant inconsistencies that cast doubt on the official narrative adopted by Kiev and its Western allies. This article explores why it appears the so-called “Bucha massacre” has been fabricated.
What do we know
Bucha, with a population of 40,000 people, found itself on the front lines from the first days of the Ukraine conflict. To the north of Bucha lies the village of Gostomel, home to the strategically important Antonov Airport, where Russian paratroopers landed on the morning of February 24, 2022. This group soon joined the main Russian units advancing from Belarus.
In the days that followed, fierce battles broke out around Bucha as Russian troops attempted to establish a foothold in the town and push toward Irpin, a large suburb of Kiev. Nevertheless, the area remained under the control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) and territorial defense units.
Between March 3 and 5, Russian forces entered Bucha from the side of the village of Vorzel, setting up a base at a glass factory and along the southern outskirts of the city. From then on, Bucha became a transit point and rear base for Russian troops engaged in combat near Kiev.
On March 29, following a round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin announced a significant reduction in military activity around Kiev and Chernigov.
By March 30, Russian forces began withdrawing from Kiev Region due to the shifting priorities of the military operation.
However, just days after their retreat, shocking footage emerged that stunned the whole world.
When Ukrainian soldiers entered Bucha, international media outlets began publishing photo and video evidence of murdered civilians. Vladimir Zelensky and his team quickly accused Russian troops of committing mass murder, labeling it an act of genocide.
“This is genocide. The annihilation of an entire nation and people,” Zelensky declared on CBS’s Face the Nation. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitri Kuleba called on the G7 countries to impose immediate “new devastating sanctions” against Russia, including imposing a complete embargo on Russian oil, gas, and coal, closing ports to Russian vessels, and disconnecting Russian banks from the SWIFT system.
The Russian Foreign Ministry denied any involvement in civilian deaths. Press Secretary of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Peskov said that the images showed “signs of forgery” and manipulation.
From the beginning, the narrative surrounding the “Bucha massacre” was full of inconsistencies and peculiarities, many of which remain unclear to this day.
Timing discrepancies
Among the key arguments that cast doubt on the Ukrainian narrative of mass killings in Bucha are the timing discrepancies.
The Russian Ministry of Defense has consistently stated that all Russian units had left Bucha by March 30, 2022. This claim is supported by local authorities. On March 31, Bucha Mayor Anatoliy Fedoruk recorded a video message confirming the withdrawal of Russian forces but did not mention any mass killings or bodies. In the background of the video, the streets appear clear, and there are no signs of corpses or destruction. At the same time, Ukrainian MPs and military personnel were in Bucha, yet none of them reported seeing dead bodies. Local residents did not mention any mass shootings either.
The first images of the bodies emerged only on April 1-2, a couple of days after Ukrainian military personnel and activists entered the city. This raises questions about the timing and circumstances surrounding their deaths: if Russian troops left Bucha on March 30, how could evidence of the killings have come to light only several days later?
Analysis of video footage from the scene further shows that many bodies appear too “fresh” to have been lying there for over a week. Forensic experts point out that signs of decomposition should have manifested much earlier if the deaths truly occurred in mid-March. Photos and videos provided by Ukrainian and Western media show signs (such as drying skin in certain areas) that suggest death likely took place just hours or a day before the images were captured.
Controversial satellite images and social media data
On April 1, 2022, Maxar Technologies released satellite images dated March 19, allegedly showing bodies on Yablonskaya Street in Bucha. These images were cited by Ukrainian and Western media as key evidence of mass killings supposedly carried out by Russian forces.
However, these images are highly questionable. Independent researchers have noted that the images may have been manipulated or backdated.
Firstly, the March images from Maxar, published by The New York Times, are of very low quality compared to the February photos. This complicates analysis and raises suspicions of manipulation. The objects depicted in the images cannot be unequivocally identified as bodies, so claims about corpses that have been there for a long time rely solely on Western media reports and have not been independently verified. The images could have been altered or backdated to suggest that the bodies had been on the streets since March.
Secondly, the weather conditions captured in the videos do not match the meteorological data for the dates specified in Western media reports. This discrepancy indicates a possible mismatch in the timing of the recordings.
Thirdly, Maxar Technologies has close ties to US government structures, raising concerns about a potential bias and the use of its data for propaganda purposes.
Alexey Tokarev, who has a PhD in political science, and his team from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations conducted an analysis of media coverage, social media, and Telegram channels related to Bucha, and uncovered an intriguing pattern: there were no mentions of bodies on Yablonskaya Street prior to April 1. While there were reports of destruction, prisoners, and fighting, there was no information regarding mass killings.
“If we are to believe the Western media, the town has been full of corpses since April 1, and according to a leading American newspaper, even earlier – since March 11. So why is it that in a video captured by the Ukrainian police on April 2, which features 14 civilians, no one mentions any bodies or mass executions? The nearly eight-minute-long video shows nine different locations in the small town, but we don’t see a single corpse,” Tokarev says.
Discrepancies in visual evidence
The videos and photographs released by the Ukrainian side reveal numerous inconsistencies that suggest a possible staging. For instance, in one case, we see Ukrainian soldiers moving bodies between takes, while in another video, a “corpse’s” hand noticeably twitches. These signs indicate that the individuals depicted were not actually dead.
The Investigative Committee of Russia reported that the bodies did not display signs of having been outside for an extended period – there were no corpse marks and uncoagulated blood in wounds – casting doubt on the official Ukrainian narrative. Experts also noted the absence of shrapnel or explosive damage near the bodies, further contradicting claims of mass shootings.
Additionally, many victims, judging by photos, wore white armbands – a symbol typically associated with pro-Russian civilians. This suggests that Ukrainian forces might have targeted individuals suspected of “collaboration”, i.e., cooperating with Russian troops, and then accused the other side of the murders.
Moreover, in the initial days following the withdrawal of Russian troops from Bucha, a curfew was imposed, restricting locals from venturing into the streets. This created suitable conditions for the potential fabrication of events.
Eyewitness accounts and questionable sources
Adrien Bocquet, a French volunteer and journalist who was in Kiev Region during intense fighting, claimed that he personally witnessed Ukrainian forces staging mass killings in Bucha.
He recounted seeing bodies being brought into the city and arranged on the streets to create the impression of “mass deaths”. “When we drove into Bucha, I was in the passenger seat. As we passed through the city, I saw bodies lying on the roadside, and right before my eyes, people were unloading corpses from trucks and placing them next to those already on the ground to amplify the effect of mass casualties,” he said.
“One of the volunteers who had been there the day before – let me emphasize that this is not something I observed myself, but what I heard from another volunteer – told me he saw refrigerated trucks arriving in Bucha from other cities in Ukraine, unloading bodies and lining them up. From this, I realized that these were staged incidents,” he stated.
According to Bocquet, volunteers were prohibited from taking photos or videos.
Interestingly, in June 2022, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine stated that many claims made by former Ombudsman for Human Rights in Ukraine Lyudmila Denisova, including those related to the events in Bucha, were not accurate. “Law enforcement officials tried to carry out their own investigation. They went through all medical reports, police statements, and data on the deceased, attempting to find cases (…). However, all this work proved futile,” reported the news outlet Ukrainskaya Pravda.
Russian military correspondents, including Aleksandr Kots, have also referred to the so-called Bucha massacre as fake. Kots, who visited Bucha in February and March 2022, said “It’s not hard to verify what I’m saying. A forensic examination would determine the time of death of those poor people and align it with NATO’s objective monitoring data, which clearly indicates when Russian troops withdrew. But that’s if you’re looking for the truth. And who in the West wants that?”
Motives and geopolitical context
The story of the Bucha massacre emerged at a time when both the Ukrainian and Russian sides, albeit with varying degrees of optimism, were reporting progress in ceasefire negotiations.
“The Ukrainian side has become more realistic regarding issues related to Ukraine’s neutral and non-nuclear status, but the draft agreement is not ready for top-level discussions,” said Vladimir Medinsky, head of the Russian delegation and an aide to the President of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian negotiator David Arahamiya noted that the document was ready, and the two presidents could meet and discuss it.
However, following reports of the “Bucha massacre,” Zelensky withdrew from the peace talks.
The incident in Bucha became a pivotal moment that not only derailed peace negotiations in Istanbul but also intensified Russia’s diplomatic isolation in the West, led to the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats and tighter sanctions, and resulted in Ukraine receiving additional military aid from NATO states.
Without presenting sufficient evidence, Western media spread the narrative of the “atrocities” committed by Russian forces. This suggests that the events in Bucha may have been used as a propaganda tool.
To date, no independent investigation has confirmed the accuracy of Ukraine’s accounts. Additionally, a complete list of casualties and the circumstances surrounding their deaths has yet to be made public.
Analyzing timing discrepancies, satellite images, video footage, eyewitness accounts, and Ukraine’s motives suggests that the events in Bucha may have been fabricated or politically exploited.
Despite the extensive media coverage of the “Bucha massacre,” Ukraine’s official narrative raises many questions and demands an independent inquiry. Ukraine has failed to conduct a thorough investigation or provide any coherent explanation as to why Russian soldiers would kill innocent civilians. The argument of Russia’s deep-seated hatred and brutality towards Ukrainians simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, since no similar tragedies have been documented during the course of the conflict. Instead, the “massacre” has become part of a media campaign aimed at dehumanizing Russian soldiers and portraying them as occupiers.
Bucha stands as one of the key propaganda symbols in the anti-Russia campaign. However, a closer examination of the evidence reveals numerous unanswered questions that officials prefer to avoid. An independent investigation could shed light on the true circumstances, but given the ongoing information war, it is unlikely to happen soon.
By Petr Lavrenin, an Odessa-born political journalist and expert on Ukraine and the former Soviet Union
Hegseth Circulated Secret Pentagon Memo On Preparing For War With China
by Tyler Durden, Tuesday, Apr 01, 2025, https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hegseth-circulated-secret-pentagon-memo-preparing-war-china
Over the weekend The Washington Post revealed that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth distributed a memo in mid-March which ordered the Pentagon to prioritize its war-planning focus on potential future conflict with China.
The memo, called the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance “outlines, in broad and sometimes partisan detail, the execution of President Donald Trump’s vision to prepare for and win a potential war against Beijing and defend the United States from threats in the ‘near abroad,’ including Greenland and the Panama Canal.”
It’s nothing new that the Pentagon considers China a ‘top pacing threat’ – but it does confirm that the Trump administration would likely be willing to go to war in the event of a mainland invasion of the self-ruled island.
The memo interestingly presented a strategy of “assuming risk” in Europe and other parts of the world, to refocus efforts on top nuclear-armed rivals.
The Pentagon’s force planning and new focus “will consider conflict only with Beijing when planning contingencies for a major power war” and leave the “threat from Moscow largely attended by European allies” – according to the report.
Hegseth wrote that China “is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the US homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.”
The memo urges NATO allies take on a “far greater” burden-sharing on defense, and puts Europe on notice in the event of greater threats from Russia:
Hegseth’s guidance acknowledges that the U.S. is unlikely to provide substantial, if any, support to Europe in the case of Russian military advances, noting that Washington intends to push NATO allies to take primary defense of the region. The U.S. will support Europe with nuclear deterrence of Russia, and NATO should only count on U.S. forces not required for homeland defense or China deterrence missions, the document says.
A significant increase in Europe sharing its defense burden, the document says, “will also ensure NATO can reliably deter or defeat Russian aggression even if deterrence fails and the United States is already engaged in, or must withhold forces to deter, a primary conflict in another region.”
As for Taiwan specifically, it lays out ways the Pentagon intends to help its ally bolster defenses, short of outright entering any direct conflict.
WaPo and others have said the Heritage Foundation think tank is the driving force behind the strategic ideas presented in the memo.
Hegseth’s plans specify a “denial defense” of Taiwan – according to the memo – which will include “increasing the troop presence through submarines, bombers, unmanned ships, and specialty units from the Army and Marine Corps, as well as a greater focus on bombs that destroy reinforced and subterranean targets.”
Trump’s State Department Would Support Literally Any Israeli Atrocity
It’s clear that Trump’s State Department spokeswoman has been instructed to respond to any and all questions about Israeli atrocities in Gaza by blaming everything on Hamas, without even pretending to care whether the allegations are true.
For some background, Israel has just been caught perpetrating an atrocity so monstrous and so abundantly well-evidenced that even the mainstream western press have felt obligated to report on it. Outlets like the Guardian and the BBC are covering the story of how 15 medical workers for the Red Crescent, Civil Defense, and the UN were apparently handcuffed and executed one by one by Israeli forces in Rafah before being buried in a mass grave. According to Palestinian Civil Defense spokesman Mahmoud Basal, they were each shot more than 20 times.
(As an aside, the fact that Israeli forces have been known to bury the victims of their atrocities in order to hide the evidence is one of the many reasons why the official death toll from the Israeli onslaught in Gaza is definitely a massive undercount.)
Asked by the BBC’s Tom Bateman about these reports during a Monday press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce responded by babbling about how evil Hamas is and how they are to blame for everything bad that happens in Gaza.
Here’s a transcript of the exchange:
Bateman: On Gaza, the UN’s Humanitarian Affairs Office has said that 15 paramedics, Civil Defense, and a UN worker were killed — in their words, one by one — by the IDF. They have dug bodies up, they said, in a shallow grave that have been gathered up, and also vehicles in the sand. Have you got any assessment of what might have happened? And given the potential use of American weapons, is there any assessment of whether or not this complied with international law?
Bruce: Well, I can tell you that for too long Hamas has abused civilian infrastructure, cynically using it to shield themselves. Hamas’s actions have caused humanitarians to be caught in the crossfire. The use of civilians or civilian objects to shield or impede military operations is itself a violation of international humanitarian law, and of course we expect all parties on the ground to comply with international humanitarian law.
Bateman: But there’s specifically a question on any — it’s a question about accounting and accountability given there may have been the use of U.S. weapons, so it’s a question about the State Department rather than Hamas. Is there any actions —
Bruce: Well, every single thing that is happening in Gaza is happening because of Hamas — every single dynamic. I’ll say again — I’ve said it, I think, in every briefing — all of this could stop in a moment if Hamas returned all the hostages and the hostage bodies they are still holding and put down its weapons. There is one — one entity that could stop it for everyone in a moment, and that is Hamas. This is — all loss of life is regrettable — it’s key, obviously — whoever it is, wherever they live. And this has been the nature of what fuels Secretary Rubio and President Trump in their willingness to expend this kind of capital early on in this term to make a difference and to change the situation. So I think that’s — that is the one thing that remains clear in all of this.
At no time does Bruce attempt to deny that the atrocity happened or cast doubt on the veracity of the claims, only justifying Israel’s actions by blaming Hamas. Again, this is a story about medical workers being handcuffed and then executed by gunfire.
Tammy Bruce does this constantly; she did it in response to two separate questions at a press conference last week. When asked about Israel’s assassination of Palestinian journalists Hossam Shabat and Mohammad Mansour, Bruce responded by babbling about October 7 and saying “every single thing that’s happening is a result of Hamas and its choices to drag that region down into a level of suffering that has been excruciating and has caused innumerable deaths.” When asked about the fact that people in Gaza have been unable to access clean drinking water under the Israeli siege, Bruce said, “Hamas did not perform to make sure that the ceasefire could continue, that they did not do what they said they would do. So we know, of course, when it comes to the ground water, of course, this is — it’s a crisis. It’s exacerbated by the fact that you have a terrorist group that just doesn’t care.
She did it again at a press conference the week before when asked by journalist Said Arikat if the State Department considers Israel’s use of siege warfare on a civilian population a war crime, saying “For the horrible suffering of the Gazan people, we know where that sits: it sits with Hamas,” adding that the people of Gaza “have been suffering because of the choices that Hamas has made throughout the years.”
Arikat, by the way, has just tweeted that on Monday he was not called on to ask a question for the first time in nearly 25 years of attending State Department press briefings. He is one of the very few reporters at the State Department who regularly asks challenging questions about US foreign policy.
UK nuclear deterrent: the mutual defense agreement is at risk in a Trumpian age
Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently boarded one of the UK’s four
nuclear-armed submarines for a photo call as part of his attempts to
demonstrate the UK’s defence capabilities as tensions with Russia
continue. However, Starmer faces a problem. The submarine, and the rest of
the UK’s nuclear fleet, is heavily reliant on the US as an operating
partner. And at a time when the US becomes an increasingly unreliable
partner under the leadership of an entirely transactional president, this
is not ideal. The US can, if it chooses, effectively switch off the UK’s
nuclear deterrent.
The Conversation 27th March 2025 https://theconversation.com/uk-nuclear-deterrent-the-mutual-defense-agreement-is-at-risk-in-a-trumpian-age-252674
Nuclear war threat: why Africa’s pushing for a complete ban
Olamide Samuel, Track II Diplomat and Expert in Nuclear Politics, University of Leicester, April 1, 2025 , https://theconversation.com/nuclear-war-threat-why-africas-pushing-for-a-complete-ban-253171
At a time of heightened geopolitical tensions between Russia and Ukraine, intensified by strategic dynamics involving the US, Nato and Russia over Europe’s security, nuclear weapons are back on the agenda.
In recent times, Russia has openly threatened to use nuclear weapons. The UK and France are considering ways to rapidly increase their nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland, South Korea and Japan are now seeking nuclear weapons capabilities.
Even a limited nuclear war in Europe would lead to catastrophic global climatic effects. Huge amounts of debris thrown high into the atmosphere would block sunlight, causing global temperatures to drop sharply. It would be much harder to grow food around the world.
This would severely threaten Africa’s food security, exacerbating mass migration, disrupting supply chains and potentially collapsing public order systems.
How should African countries respond to this growing threat?
Based on my experience in nuclear non-proliferation and politics, I argue that African leaders need to proactively confront the risks, while there is still time.
All African states, except for South Sudan, abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is an international agreement which limits the spread of nuclear weapons. And 43 African states have gone further to join the African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba). This was negotiated in the belief that it would “protect African states against possible nuclear attacks on their territories”.
As conflict and uncertainty pushes many western leaders to support the madness of nuclear weapons proliferation, African leaders are in a unique position to push back against this.
Africa’s strength in numbers in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Nuclear Ban Treaty, is a vehicle the continent can use to address nuclear weapons risks, head-on.
Global divide
On one side, nuclear-armed states cling to deterrence for their national security. They insist that possessing nuclear arsenals keeps them safe.
At present, there are nine nuclear-armed states: the US, Russia, the UK, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. These countries possess around 12,331 nuclear warheads (as of 2025).
The use of only 10% of these weapons could disrupt the global climate and threaten the lives of up to 2 billion people.
On the other side, African countries and other non-nuclear-weapon states such as Ireland, Austria, New Zealand and Mexico highlight how deterrence creates unacceptable risks for the entire international community.
This global majority – the 93 countries that have signed the Nuclear Ban Treaty and 73 that are party to it – argue that real safety comes from eliminating nuclear threats.
The Nuclear Ban Treaty became international law on 22 January 2021. It is the first instance of international law challenging the legality and morality of nuclear deterrence.
Since 2022, states parties to the Nuclear Ban Treaty have held formal meetings to address current nuclear risks. In March 2025, at their third meeting, 17 African states officially recognised nuclear deterrence as a critical security concern. They called on nuclear armed states to end deterrence.
The deterioration of the international security environment is so palpable that there has been a noticeable shift in nuclear ban states’ perception of nuclear threats. Nuclear disarmament is no longer just a humanitarian or moral concern to these states, it is now a national security concern.
South Africa warned that
any use of nuclear weapons would result in catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would have a global impact.
Ghana likewise stressed that Africa is not immune to nuclear war’s fallout:
Africa, despite its geographic distance from the immediate hotspots of nuclear conflict, is not immune to the repercussions of nuclear weapons.
Africa bears a unique historical connection to nuclear issues. Nuclear testing in the Sahara Desert in the 1960s, when France detonated nuclear bombs in Algeria, had devastating consequences. Widespread radioactive contamination harmed local communities, caused long-lasting health problems, displaced populations, and left large areas environmentally damaged and unsafe for generations.
For its part, Nigeria recalled that Africa had “long acknowledged the existential threat nuclear weapons posed to human existence.”
The meeting determined that it is unacceptable that states parties are exposed to nuclear risks, “created without their control and without accountability”. It stressed that eliminating nuclear risks “is a prime and legitimate concern and national responsibility” of states.
Next steps
Delegates effectively asked whether their own national security concerns had less value than those of nuclear-armed states. I think this is a valid question.
Africa’s leaders and their allies in the Nuclear Ban Treaty are reframing what “national security” means in the nuclear age.
Rather than accepting a world perpetually held hostage by the madness of nuclear deterrence, they are asserting that the security of nations – and of peoples – is best served by dismantling this threat to humanity.
They are prioritising human life, development and international law over the threat of overwhelming force.
The outcome of this contest will have profound implications, not just for Africa but for the entire globe.
Britain is aiding Israel’s nuclear force
Israeli ministers may not see their nuclear weapons just as weapons of last resort, to be used if the country were threatened with annihilation.
In the months after the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023, several Israeli policymakers and commentators—including heritage minister Amihai Eliyahu who was later suspended from the cabinet—suggested that Israel should use nuclear arms against Hamas fighters in Gaza.
DECLASSIFIED UK, MARK CURTIS, 26 March 2025
When the government recently published its arms exports data for the period July to September last year, one item caught the eye: a licence to sell Israel £7.1m worth of “technology for submarines”.
Israel’s submarines are believed to house nuclear arms.
The government data included a footnote stating that the licence related to “marketing and promotional purposes, including demonstration to potential customers, temporary exhibitions”.
Whatever that might mean, what is clearer is that British ministers have authorised 77 export licences to supply Israel with components for its submarines since 2010. This makes that category of equipment the fourth most numerous for all UK military exports to Israel.
The total value of these licences is £8.96m, Declassified has established. Two of the licences are, however, “open” rather than “single”, meaning that unlimited quantities and values of such equipment can be exported from Britain.
These licences for Israel’s submarines were excluded from the UK’s restrictions on exports of military equipment for Israel announced last September during its bombardment of Gaza.
Also excluded were components from Israel’s F-35 warplanes used to devastating effect in the territory.
Israeli military officials are doubtless pleased that British companies can continue to support their submarines – since their underwater and nuclear arms programmes are both being upgraded.
Nuclear dolphins
Research institute SIPRI estimates that Israel has at least 90 nuclear warheads but that the number could reach as high as 300.
While Israel continues to deny it has nuclear arms, SIPRI says it is “believed to be modernizing its nuclear arsenal and appears to be upgrading its plutonium production reactor site at Dimona” in the Negev desert.
The Stockholm-based institute also notes unconfirmed reports that “all or some of the submarines have been equipped to launch an indigenously produced nuclear-armed sea-launched variant of the Popeye cruise missile, giving Israel a sea-based nuclear strike capability”.
It “assesses that around 10 cruise missile warheads might be available for the submarine fleet”………………………………………………………………………….
‘Armed with nuclear weapons’
Israel’s most recent, and sixth, submarine, known as the INS Drakon, is the country’s largest and was unveiled last November at the Kiel shipyard in northern Germany where it was built, and from where it will be delivered to Israel later this year.
“Israeli nuclear submarines have the capability to be armed with nuclear weapons as well as to perform clandestine spying missions all over the world”, the Jerusalem Post reported at the time.
Israeli ministers may not see their nuclear weapons just as weapons of last resort, to be used if the country were threatened with annihilation.
In the months after the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023, several Israeli policymakers and commentators—including heritage minister Amihai Eliyahu who was later suspended from the cabinet—suggested that Israel should use nuclear arms against Hamas fighters in Gaza.
Whitehall in denial
The UK government has consistently refused to acknowledge the open secret that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. One reason Whitehall can be certain, however, is that it helped Israel acquire nuclear arms in the first place.
In the late 1950s, Britain sold Israel 20 tonnes of heavy water, a vital ingredient for the production of plutonium at Israel’s top secret Dimona nuclear site.
In fact, Declassified previously found that staff in the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence have for over 40 years believed Israel has developed nuclear arms.
Britain has also aided Israel’s submarine development…………………………………………………………………….https://www.declassifieduk.org/britain-is-aiding-israels-nuclear-force/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Button&utm_campaign=ICYMI&utm_content=Button
Britain sent over 500 spy flights to Gaza
Exclusive: New study reveals the scale of British intelligence gathering above Gaza, raising fears of complicity in Israeli war crimes
DECLASSIFIED UK, IAIN OVERTON, 27 March 2025
- Flights have continued even after Israel broke the ceasefire
The Royal Air Force (RAF) has conducted at least 518 surveillance flights around Gaza since December 2023, an investigation by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) for Declassified UK has found.
The flights, carried out by 14 Squadron’s Shadow R1 aircraft from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, have been shrouded in secrecy, raising concerns about whether British intelligence has played a role in Israeli military operations that have resulted in mass civilian casualties in Gaza.
These revelations come as Israel faces allegations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and war crimes at the International Criminal Court (ICC), with warrants issued for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant.
The UK government insists that the flights are purely for hostage recovery, but the lack of transparency has done little to allay suspicions that the intelligence gathered may be facilitating Israeli attacks.
Surveillance sorties continued during and after the ceasefire, despite Israel’s renewed bombing of Gaza killing hundreds of children.
Over 500 missions in 15 months
AOAV’s analysis of flight-tracking data shows that between 3 December 2023 and 27 March 2025, the RAF carried out at least 518 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) flights over or close to Gaza’s airspace.
Both Labour and Conservative governments have enacted the policy, with at least 215 flights taking place during Keir Starmer’s tenure as prime minister and 303 under Rishi Sunak’s administration.
The frequency of flights remained high throughout 2024, with some months seeing as many as 49 sorties. The missions have typically lasted up to six hours, with the longest flight recorded at seven hours and four minutes.
While the Ministry of Defence (MoD) claims these flights are solely for locating Israeli hostages held by Hamas, AOAV found that the RAF conducted 24 flights in the two weeks leading up to and including the day of Israel’s deadly attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp on 8 June 2024, which reportedly killed 274 Palestinians and injured over 700.
Four Israeli hostages were rescued in the operation; it remains unclear whether British intelligence directly contributed to the attack or was solely used to locate hostages…………………………………
Parliamentary stonewalling
Parliamentary efforts to probe the true purpose of these flights have been repeatedly stonewalled by the UK government. ………………………………
This lack of transparency raises serious questions about whether the UK is complicit in violations of international law. If intelligence gathered by the RAF was used to facilitate war crimes, the UK could itself be liable under the Rome Statute of the ICC.
The ICJ’s genocide case against Israel, brought by South Africa, highlights mass civilian deaths, deliberate destruction of infrastructure, and obstruction of humanitarian aid as key components of the allegations.
The UK, as a signatory to the Arms Trade Treaty and the Geneva Conventions, is legally obligated to ensure its military intelligence is not used to facilitate war crimes. However, the UK government has admitted in court that “Israel is not committed to upholding international humanitarian law” – yet surveillance flights continue…………………………………………….
Calls for a public inquiry
Pressure is growing for a full public inquiry into the UK’s role in Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. This month, Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn called for a ‘Chilcot-style’ investigation into the UK’s military collaboration with Israel, warning that “parliament has been kept in the dark”.
Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have also demanded full transparency regarding UK surveillance flights and their potential role in Israeli operations.
Nuvpreet Kalra from campaign group CODEPINK told Declassified that when a bomb “massacres Palestinians sheltering in tents or a drone shoots dead a journalist, we have to ask where the intelligence to target these attacks come from…Britain must immediately stop the spy flights and shut down their colonial military bases on Cyprus.”……………………….
If UK intelligence has been used in any Israeli strikes that resulted in civilian deaths, the British government could be found complicit in war crimes. https://www.declassifieduk.org/britain-sent-over-500-spy-flights-to-gaza/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Button&utm_campaign=ICYMI&utm_content=Button
The US has the power to switch off the UK’s nuclear subs – a big problem as Donald Trump becomes an unreliable partner
Th Conversation, March 28, 2025 , Becky Alexis-Martin, Peace Studies and International Development, University of Bradford
Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently boarded one of the UK’s four nuclear-armed submarines for a photo call as part of his attempts to demonstrate the UK’s defence capabilities as tensions with Russia continue.
However, Starmer faces a problem. The submarine, and the rest of the UK’s nuclear fleet, is heavily reliant on the US as an operating partner. And at a time when the US becomes an increasingly unreliable partner under the leadership of an entirely transactional president, this is not ideal. The US can, if it chooses, effectively switch off the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
British and US nuclear history is irrevocably interwoven. The US and UK cooperated on the Manhattan project, under the 1943 Quebec agreements and the 1944 Hyde Park aide memoire. This work generated the world’s first nuclear weapons, which were deployed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
It also led to the first rupture. In 1946, the US classified UK citizens as “foreign” and prevented them from engaging in secret nuclear work. Collaboration with the UK immediately ceased.
The UK decided to develop its own arsenal of nuclear weapons. The successful detonation of the “Grapple Y” hydrogen bomb in April 1958 cemented its position as a thermonuclear power.
In the meantime, however, Russia’s launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957 had demonstrated the lethal reach of Soviet nuclear technology. This brought the US and UK back together as nuclear partners…………………………………………..
Serious concerns are now being raised about the UK’s nuclear capacity, given the unpredictability and potential unreliability of the new US administration. Trump could ignore or threaten to terminate the agreement in a show of power or contempt.
The UK’s nuclear subs
The UK’s Trident nuclear deterrence programme consists of four Vanguard nuclear-powered and armed submarines. The UK has some autonomy, as it is operationally independent and controls the decision to launch.
However, it remains dependent on the US because the nuclear technologies at the heart of the Trident system are US designed and leased by Lockheed Martin – and there is no suitable alternative. The Trident system therefore relies on the US for support and maintenance.
The UK is currently in the process of upgrading the current system. But its options seem limited. If the US were to renege on its commitments, the UK would either have to produce its own weapons domestically, collaborate with France or Europe or disarm. Each scenario creates new issues for the UK. Manufacturing nuclear weapons from scratch in the UK, for example, would be a costly and protracted activity.
Technical collaboration with France seems the most plausible back-up option at the moment. The two countries already have a nuclear collaboration treaty in place. France has taken a similar submarine-based approach to deterrence as the UK and French president Emmanuel Macron has suggested its deterrent could be used to protect other European countries. Another alternative would be to spread the cost across Europe and create a European deterrence – but both strategies just re-embed the UK’s current nuclear reliance.
While these weapons may deter a hostile nuclear strike, they have failed to prevent broader acts of aggression. Nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare for 80 years. Perhaps it is time to completely and permanently unshackle the UK from nuclear deterrence, and consider alternative forms of defence.
The UK’s nuclear arsenal is expensive to maintain. The cost of replacing Trident is £205 billion. In 2023, the Ministry of Defence reported that the anticipated costs for supporting the nuclear deterrent would exceed its budget by £7.9 billion over the next ten years. This funding could be channelled into more pressing security threats, such as cybersecurity, terrorism or climate change.
Nuclear weapons will become strategically redundant if the UK cannot act independently. As Nato and the US dominate the global nuclear stage, the UK’s capacity to respond has become contested. The time has come to decide whether the US is really our friend – or a new foe. https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-the-power-to-switch-off-the-uks-nuclear-subs-a-big-problem-as-donald-trump-becomes-an-unreliable-partner-252674
Is your insurance company funding Israeli war crimes?
13 March 2025, Paula Lacey, https://newint.org/arms/2025/your-insurance-company-funding-israeli-war-crimes
A new campaign called Boycott Bloody Insurance exposes the extent of the insurance sector’s financial support for Israel’s assault on Palestine. Paula Lacey reports.
A new report has exposed the extent of the insurance sector’s financial support for Israel’s assault on Palestine. The newly-launched Boycott Bloody Insurance campaign reveals investments totalling over $1.7 billion, from a range of multinational insurers, into companies supplying military equipment used by Israel since 7 October 2023.
‘Insurance giants claim to protect communities, but they’re funnelling our money into war, exploitation, and violence,’ says Monika Nielsen, lead researcher at Boycott Bloody Insurance.
The research details how global insurers such as Allianz, Zurich, AIG, RSA, Aviva and AXA underwrite and fund firms such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Elbit Systems and BAE Systems. Many of these companies are already the subject of national campaigns due to their direct implication in documented war crimes in the Gaza Strip, such as attacks on civilians using white phosphorus and precision guided munitions.
Besides those that explicitly supply weaponry and military equipment, other companies such as Maersk – insured by AIG – provide logistical and shipping support to the Israeli military. The Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) have incorporated the report’s findings into their ongoing campaign ‘Mask off Maersk’.
‘Insurance, just like logistics, is crucial for arms transfers to oppressive regimes,’ says Yara Derbas of the PYM. ‘Our actions target the corporate complicity enabling Israel’s ongoing crimes. This isn’t just about Palestine – it’s about global justice and ending corporate exploitation.’
The Boycott Bloody Insurance campaign calls for urgent civic action against the companies named in the report, as a way of ‘demand[ing] accountability from insurers profiting from human suffering,’ explains Nielsen. Co-ordinated actions across the UK are set to take place on 25 March to urge institutions, charities, and businesses to shift to ethical insurers, incurring reputational damage and financial cost to complicit firms.
This call joins a wider chorus to enact Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS) against all companies and institutions complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. PYM stands alongside a number of pro-Palestine organizations in endorsing the report and campaign, along with the Palestinian BDS National Committee and the Watermelon Index.
This week’s report is the first in a damning series set to be released by Boycott Bloody Insurance over the coming months, with future reports promising similar analyses of the insurance sector’s financial support for harmful industries such as fossil fuel companies, controversial weapons manufacturers and the UK detention industry.
Calls to restart nuclear weapons tests stir dismay and debate among scientists
Testing “has tremendous symbolic importance,” says Frank von Hippel, a physicist at Princeton University. “During the Cold War, when we were shooting these things off all the time, it was like war drums: ‘We have nuclear weapons and they work. Better watch out.’ ” The cessation of testing, he says, was an acknowledgment that “these [weapons] are so unusable that we don’t even test them.”
A U.S. return to underground detonations would have wide-ranging implications.
Science News, By Emily Conover, March 27, 2025
hen the countdown hit zero on September 23, 1992, the desert surface puffed up into the air, as if a giant balloon had inflated it from below.
It wasn’t a balloon. Scientists had exploded a nuclear device hundreds of meters below the Nevada desert, equivalent to thousands of tons of TNT. The ensuing fireball reached pressures and temperatures well beyond those in Earth’s core. Within milliseconds of the detonation, shock waves rammed outward. The rock melted, vaporized and fractured, leaving behind a cavity oozing with liquid radioactive rock that puddled on the cavity’s floor.
As the temperature and pressure abated, rocks collapsed into the cavity. The desert surface slumped, forming a subsidence crater about 3 meters deep and wider than the length of a football field. Unknown to the scientists.
working on this test, named Divider, it would be the end of the line. Soon after, the United States halted nuclear testing.
Beginning with the first explosive test, known as Trinity, in 1945, more than 2,000 atomic blasts have rattled the globe. Today, that nuclear din has been largely silenced, thanks to the norms set by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, or CTBT, negotiated in the mid-1990s.
Only one nation — North Korea — has conducted a nuclear test this century. But researchers and policy makers are increasingly grappling with the possibility that the fragile quiet will soon be shattered.
Some in the United States have called for resuming testing, including a former national security adviser to President Donald Trump. Officials in the previous Trump administration considered testing, according to a 2020 Washington Post article. And there may be temptation in coming years. The United States is in the midst of a sweeping, decades-long overhaul of its aging nuclear arsenal. Tests could confirm that old weapons still work, check that updated weapons perform as expected or help develop new types of weapons.
Meanwhile, the two major nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, remain ready to obliterate one another at a moment’s notice. If tensions escalate, a test could serve as a signal of willingness to use the weapons.
Testing “has tremendous symbolic importance,” says Frank von Hippel, a physicist at Princeton University. “During the Cold War, when we were shooting these things off all the time, it was like war drums: ‘We have nuclear weapons and they work. Better watch out.’ ” The cessation of testing, he says, was an acknowledgment that “these [weapons] are so unusable that we don’t even test them.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
“A single United States test could trigger a global chain reaction,” says geologist Sulgiye Park of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group. Other nuclear powers would likely follow by setting off their own test blasts. Countries without nuclear weapons might be spurred to develop and test them. One test could kick off a free-for-all.
“It’s like striking a match in a roomful of dynamite,” Park says.
The rising nuclear threat
The logic behind nuclear weapons involves mental gymnastics. The weapons can annihilate entire cities with one strike, yet their existence is touted as a force for peace. The thinking is that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent — other countries will resist using a nuclear weapon, or making any major attack, in fear of retaliation. The idea is so embedded in U.S. military circles that a type of intercontinental ballistic missile developed during the Cold War was dubbed Peacekeeper…………………………………………………
….. . The last remaining arms-control treaty between the United States and Russia, New START, is set to expire in 2026, giving the countries free rein on numbers of deployed weapons………………………………………………………………………………..
The United States regularly considers the possibility of testing nuclear weapons……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Is there a need to test nuclear weapons?
Subcritical experiments are focused in particular on the quandary over how plutonium ages. Since 1989, the United States hasn’t fabricated significant numbers of plutonium pits. That means the pits in the U.S. arsenal are decades old, raising questions about whether weapons will still work.
An aging pit, some scientists worry, might cause the multistep process in a nuclear warhead to fizzle. For example, if the implosion in the first stage doesn’t proceed properly, the second stage might not go off at all.
Plutonium ages not only from the outside in — akin to rusting iron — but also from the inside out, says Siegfried Hecker, who was director of Los Alamos from 1986 to 1997. “It’s constantly bombarding itself by radioactive decay. And that destroys the metallic lattice, the crystal structure of plutonium.”
The decay leaves behind a helium nucleus, which over time may result in tiny bubbles of helium throughout the lattice of plutonium atoms. Each decay also produces a uranium atom that zings through the material and “beats the daylights out of the lattice,” Hecker says. “We don’t quite know how much the damage is … and how that damaged material will behave under the shock and temperature conditions of a nuclear weapon. That’s the tricky part.”
One way to circumvent this issue is to produce new pits. A major effort under way will ramp up production. In 2024, the NNSA “diamond stamped” the first of these pits, meaning that the pit was certified for use in a weapon. The aim is for the United States to make 80 pits per year by 2030. But questions remain about new plutonium pits as well, Hecker says, as they rely on an updated manufacturing process………………………
the benefits of performing a test would be outweighed by the big drawback: Other countries would likely return to testing. And those countries would have more to learn than the United States. China, for instance, has performed only 45 tests, while the United States has performed over 1,000. “We have to find other ways that we can reassure ourselves,” Hecker says…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Underground tests are not risk-free
Tests that clearly break the rules, however, can be swiftly detected. The CTBT monitoring system can spot underground explosions as small as 0.1 kilotons, less than a hundredth that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. That includes the most recent nuclear explosive test, performed by North Korea in 2017.
Despite being invisible, underground nuclear explosive tests have an impact. While an underground test is generally much safer than an open-air nuclear test, “it’s not not risky,” Park says……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Even if the initial containment is successful, radioactive materials could travel via groundwater. Although tests are designed to avoid groundwater, scientists have detected traces of plutonium in groundwater from the Nevada site. The plutonium traveled a little more than a kilometer in 30 years. “To a lot of people, that’s not very far,” Park says. But “from a geology time scale, that’s really fast.” Although not at a level where it would cause health effects, the plutonium had been expected to stay put.
The craters left in the Nevada desert are a mark of each test’s impact on structures deep below the surface. “There was a time when detonating either above ground or underground in the desert seemed like — well, that’s just wasteland,” Jeanloz says. “Many would view it very differently now, and say, ‘No, these are very fragile ecosystems, so perturbing the water table, putting radioactive debris, has serious consequences.’ ”…………………………………..
more https://www.sciencenews.org/article/nuclear-weapons-tests-comeback-threats
Walt Zlotow: UK to push 250,000 Brits into poverty to increase unneeded defense spending.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 28 Mar 25
Now that President Trump has bailed on endless US funding of failed Ukraine war, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has picked up the slack.
Starmer is delusional that Russia seeks to recreate the Soviet empire. He joins equally delusional French President Emmanuel Macron that the EU must replace the disappearing $175 Billion in US treasure to continue the lost Ukraine war.
Starmer wants to boost UK defense spending to 3% of GDP from the current 2.3% tho no foreign enemy is anywhere in sight. To pay for this senseless squandering of UK treasure, Starmer proposes cuts in welfare spending. He appears oblivious of reports that such cuts may push 250,000 Brits into poverty, including 50,000 kids.
Alas, Starmer also remains oblivious that the hundreds of billions the US and EU has squandered in Ukraine has merely cost Ukraine hundreds of thousands of casualties, 10 million fled and 45,000 lost square miles of land. But the only words echoing in Starmer’s brain are: ‘The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.’
Netanyahu’s nuclear gamble: The risks of escalation with Iran
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/netanyahus-nuclear-gamble-the-risks-of-escalation-with-iran 27 Mar 25
While Netanyahu convinces the Israeli public and the U.S. administration to wage war on Iran, it cannot be known ‘for whom the bells will toll’ at the end of such an escalation.
n 1992, when he was a 42-year-old Knesset member, Benjamin Netanyahu raised concerns about Iran’s nuclear threat, stating, “Iran is close to producing a nuclear weapon within three to five years, and this threat needs to be uprooted by an international front led by the U.S.” In 1995, in his book, he discussed Iran’s nuclear threat and emphasized that it was a vital issue for Israel. A year later, he came to power for the first time.
The Israeli prime minister’s political career has been marked by security-focused rhetoric. In a country like Israel with high security concerns, this is not unusual, but what makes Netanyahu different is his constant focus on issues like Iran, Hamas and Palestine, and his personalization of the message that “only I can protect Israel.” So much so that rabbis like Nir Ben Artzi and Moshe Ben Tov preach, “Netanyahu must remain prime minister until the Messiah comes.”
Last year, Netanyahu’s posing with Lubavitch movement leader Rebbe Schneerson’s book in the Knesset and claims that Schneerson had prophesied 30 years ago that Netanyahu would “become Israel’s prime minister and transfer the duty to the Messiah” have added apocalyptic meanings to Israel’s war environment.
Factors such as Netanyahu’s brother being Israel’s national hero and his father being one of the important figures of Revisionist Zionism make the situation even more mystical. Revisionist Zionism essentially argues that Jewish rights can only be protected by force; that reconciliation with Arabs is impossible and that the Jewish state encompasses all the historical Eretz Yisrael territories. All these arguments align quite well with Netanyahu’s policies.
Throughout his 40-year political career, Netanyahu’s emphasis on “the last few years” for Iran to become a nuclear threat has led to criticism, especially from his political rivals, that he is exploiting this issue and using it to consolidate power. However, today, Netanyahu appears closer than ever to achieving this goal. Over the past 30 years, Netanyahu has faced three obstacles to his hawkish steps regarding Iran’s nuclear capacity: convincing the bureaucracy and domestic public opinion, convincing the U.S. and convincing the international community.
It is known that in 2010-2011, Netanyahu, together with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, ordered the military to prepare to strike Iran. The order to put the Israeli Air Force on alert for a long-range airstrike was made with a small group of advisors within the security bureaucracy. However, figures such as Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and Mossad Chief Meir Dagan objected, characterizing such an operation as an “illegal war decision” before the necessary military preparations were completed. Netanyahu was forced to back down. It is also known that the U.S. repeatedly restrained Netanyahu.
Plans of a warmonger
Today, there is a broad consensus in Israel, both from the government and the opposition, that Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons is unacceptable. The rhetoric “we will strike alone if necessary” resonates with society, and the developments in October reinforced this determination. Netanyahu’s threat at the U.N., “If you strike us, we’ll strike you,” has gone beyond rhetoric and has been implemented. This has given Israelis the confidence that “we can defend ourselves, we can act preemptively if necessary.” A significant portion of public opinion polls and media support Israel taking unilateral action if diplomacy fails and Iran reaches the nuclear threshold. Especially after Iran’s direct attack, a psychology of “there’s nothing to fear anymore, if they did it, we can do it too” has emerged. All this indicates that Netanyahu has been highly successful in socializing the issue.
Another obstacle for Netanyahu was bureaucratic issues. As mentioned above, Netanyahu’s desired steps had been stuck in domestic politics and bureaucracy. Netanyahu, who was cornered before the Oct. 7 attacks, has used the attacks as a significant lever and has begun taking radical steps to leave his political legacy as the one who solved the “problems” of Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah, (if possible) the West Bank and Iran. In this process, he has virtually crushed anyone who stood in his way without regard to domestic politics. His newly appointed Chief of Staff, Eyal Zamir, has declared 2025 a “year of war” and indicated that they will focus especially on Gaza and Iran. Zamir’s 2022 report for the Washington Institute, titled “Countering Iran’s Regional Strategy: A Long-Term, Comprehensive Approach,” is quite noteworthy. Every step Zamir proposed in this report has been taken after Oct. 7.
Lastly, Israel has significantly neutralized Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north. Both the Israeli Air Force and the U.S. Air Force are conducting “exercises” for long-distance attacks with their strikes on Yemen. The distance between Tel Aviv and Sanaa is 2,000 kilometers (just over 1,240 miles), while the distance between Tel Aviv and Tehran is 1,500 kilometers.
Strike before being struck
During President Donald Trump’s first term, the U.S. came to Netanyahu’s desired line, and radical steps such as withdrawing from the nuclear agreement, declaring Jerusalem as the capital, and the killings of Qasem Soleimani and Mohsen Fakhrizadeh were taken. The fundamental question is: What has changed from yesterday to today that would make Trump take a different step from his 2018-2020 line? In other words, Netanyahu’s thesis since 1992, “this can’t be done without the U.S.,” seems to be coming true. The U.S. administration is now openly threatening Iran with military intervention. Internal objections and opposition in Israel seem to be of no concern to the Netanyahu government. Therefore, Netanyahu faces the third and final obstacle: convincing the international community.
Netanyahu’s U.N. speeches were also aimed at convincing the international community that Iran would not comply with nuclear negotiations and that diplomacy was “not a path.” The revelation of nuclear documents smuggled from Iran in 2018 by himself and the emphasis that Iran was a “liar” who did not abandon its intentions despite the agreement are diplomatically significant.
From Israel’s perspective, it is necessary to be sure that Russia will not provide support to Iran at this point. Recent developments in Ukraine are likely to keep Russia away from Iran. The U.S. government may also be providing suggestions to Russia on this matter. The Iranian domestic public opinion does not trust the Russians on this issue. Especially the events in Karabakh and Syria have created great disappointment among Iranians.
As for the other actors, European countries do not appear to be able to actively get involved at this stage due to the security crisis they are in. Although China has been providing covert diplomatic and technological support to Iran against Israel for some time, it does not seem possible to expect it to directly enter the field militarily in such an intervention. Therefore, Iran presents an image that has lost its proxy forces in the region, largely lost its effectiveness in the field, and lacks popular support.
The Iranians are aware of the approaching threat. On the one hand, they are conducting tremendously flexible diplomacy. On the other hand, they complain about the threats made against them, saying, “There can be no negotiation with threats.” They express at every opportunity that they do not want war, but on the other hand, they conduct military exercises almost every week. They particularly focus on air defense and naval forces in these exercises. Commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) say they will not bow to threats and will give a clear response to any attack.
According to Zamir, Iran’s center of gravity is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). He thinks that if the center of gravity is targeted, the regime will dissolve on its own. Indeed, the IRGC dominates almost every corner of the country and, although not openly stated, is at odds with civilian politics and institutions in the country. The dominant figure in the IRGC is Mojtaba Khamenei.
Triggering the unplanned
Israel’s first step will be covert activities, similar to Lebanon. At this point, it is very likely that assassinations and sabotage (especially targeting leading IRGC figures) will be seen very soon. Indeed, information in this direction is also reflected in open sources. Likewise, ethnic fault lines in many parts of Iran, such as Urmia, can break very violently. It is a known fact that Iran is concerned about pan-Turkist movements within it. So much so that the election engineering of Masoud Pezeshkian, who was vetoed in the parliamentary elections a week before the late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s death, and frequent emphasis on the “Iranian Turkishness-Anatolian Turkishness” distinction through events such as the Chaldiran commemorations, are results of this concern.
Whatever happens, if popular movements follow the chaos created by the paralysis of the political mechanism (or vice versa), the regime in Iran may be seriously at risk. Because both in the 2009 protests and the Mahsa Amini protests, the influence of Khamenei and those under his command is known. With the elimination of this influence, the ground in Iran may completely change.
In conclusion, all experts agree that the Netanyahu government cannot end Iran’s nuclear capacity by striking nuclear facilities. However, the basic strategy is to completely paralyze Iran by directly targeting the regime and rendering all its activities, from ballistic missiles to nuclear, from proxy forces to drone work, dysfunctional.
However, this situation can open Pandora’s box. If things don’t go as planned and Iran enters a total war by mobilizing all its available means, it may not be able to deliver fatal blows to Israel, but it will cause tens of thousands of Israelis who already find Israel unsafe to leave their country, companies to withdraw their investments from Israel, and in the medium and long term, the establishment of a climate of insecurity. Therefore, Netanyahu is taking a huge gamble and paving the way for a path that could make Israel more insecure. Because the biggest risk is an uncalculated risk, these steps threaten the future of the region from beginning to end. As the famous poet John Donne said: “And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
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 (251)
- 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 