nuclear-news

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

WAS RUSSIA’S SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION “UNPROVOKED”?

AI is a tool that many use to research the historical facts behind contentious issues. What does it say about Russia’s claims it was endlessly provoked into its conflict with the Ukrainian regime?

Aearnur, Jan 03, 2026, https://aearnur.substack.com/p/was-russias-special-military-operation?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=312403&post_id=183250361&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

AI Overview.

Archival material declassified by the US National Security Archive and other Western institutions has established that multiple Western leaders gave Mikhail Gorbachev a “cascade of assurances” in 1990 and 1991 that NATO would not expand eastward beyond a reunified Germany.

The declassified records, which include contemporaneous memoranda of conversation (memcons) and telegrams (telcons), show that these discussions were not limited to East Germany but addressed Central and Eastern European security as a whole.

Key Documents and Assurances

Secretary James Baker’s “Not One Inch” (Feb 1990): US archival transcripts confirm that on February 9, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev that if the US maintained a presence in a unified Germany within NATO, there would be “no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east”. Baker repeated this formula three times during the meeting.

The Bush-Gorbachev Malta Summit (Dec 1989): Records show President George H.W. Bush assured Gorbachev that the US would not seek “unilateral advantage” from the rapid changes in Eastern Europe.

Chancellor Helmut Kohl (Feb 1990): Declassified West German records show Chancellor Kohl told Gorbachev on February 10, 1990, that “NATO should not enlarge the sphere of its activity”.
British and French Leaders: Declassified documents show British Prime Minister John Major told Soviet Defense Minister Yazov in March 1991 that he did not foresee circumstances where Eastern European countries would join NATO. French President François Mitterrand also expressed support for dismantling military blocs and ensuring Soviet security.

AI Overview.

The original stated purpose of the Minsk process (Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015) was to secure an immediate ceasefire and provide a roadmap for a permanent political resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

According to the official 12-point and 13-point “packages of measures,” the primary goals included:

Military De-escalation: An unconditional ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weaponry to create a security zone, and the pullout of all foreign armed formations and mercenaries.

Political Reintegration: Decentralization of power in Ukraine through constitutional reform, granting a “special status” to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and holding local elections under Ukrainian law.

Sovereignty Restoration: The return of full control over the state border to the Ukrainian government, contingent upon the completion of the political settlement.

The Russian Understanding of the Process

For Russia, the Minsk process was understood as a vehicle to achieve several strategic objectives that differed from Ukraine’s interpretation of sovereignty:

Institutional Influence (the “Trojan Horse”): Russia understood “special status” as granting the Donbas regions comprehensive autonomy, including their own legal systems and the right to cross-border cooperation with Russia. This was intended to give these regions a de facto veto over Ukraine’s national foreign policy, specifically to prevent Ukraine fromjoining NATO or the EU.

Legitimacy for Proxies: Russia insisted on the inclusion of the self-proclaimed “People’s Republics” (DPR/LPR) in the negotiations. Moscow viewed this as a step toward their formal recognition and a way to frame the conflict as a “civil war” rather than a Russo-Ukrainian war.

Sequencing of Control: A fundamental part of Russia’s understanding was that political concessions (elections and autonomy) must occur before Ukraine regained control of its border with Russia, effectively securing the separatist enclaves while they were still under Russian influence.

“Freezing” the Conflict: Western analysts noted that for Russia, the accords served to consolidate control over captured territories and “freeze” the conflict at a level that favored Moscow’s interests while avoiding further international sanctions.

Following the 2022 invasion, Russian officials asserted that the true purpose of the West was to use the accords as a “ruse” to buy time for Ukraine to rearm, while they maintain their original stated goal was a genuine political settlement for the Donbas.


AI Overview.

In a series of interviews following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel clarified that the primary purpose of the

Minsk Accords (2014–2015) was to buy time for Ukraine to strengthen itself against future Russian aggression.

In a December 2022 interview with The Kyiv Independent, former French President François Hollande stated that the Minsk Accords were successful in providing Ukraine with the “precious time” needed to strengthen its military.

His comments corroborated earlier revelations by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, confirming that the agreements served as a temporary respite to prevent further Russian territorial gains while the Ukrainian army underwent a total transformation.

Key Revelations by Hollande

Buying Time for Rearmament: Hollande agreed with Merkel’s assessment that the primary merit of the Minsk agreements was giving the Ukrainian army the opportunity to become “completely different” from what it was in 2014. He noted that by 2022, the army was better trained and equipped, which he directly attributed to the diplomatic respite provided by the accords.


In 2022 and 2023, former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko made several public statements revealing that the primary purpose of the Minsk Accords from his perspective was to buy time for Ukraine to rebuild its military and avoid a total collapse of the state.

His detailed revelations include:

Read more: WAS RUSSIA’S SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION “UNPROVOKED”?

Buying Time for Rearmament: Poroshenko stated that when he signed the agreements in 2014 and 2015, Ukraine effectively “did not have armed forces at all”. He revealed that the truce provided a “precious” window of several years to invite NATO instructors, purchase weapons, and transform the Ukrainian military into a modern fighting force capable of resisting a large-scale invasion.

Strategic Deception: Poroshenko described the agreements as a “forced position” but a “success for diplomats”. He admitted that the goal was to “buy time” and “slow down Russia’s advance” while stalling on the most unacceptable political obligations of the deal, such as granting constitutional autonomy to the Donbas republics.

Preventing Immediate Defeat: He recalled that the 2015 Minsk II agreement was signed under extreme duress, specifically when thousands of Ukrainian soldiers were surrounded by regular Russian forces at the battle of Debaltseve. The primary goal at that moment was to stop the Russian offensive and prevent the “annihilation” of his forces.

International Legitimacy: Poroshenko revealed that another goal of the accords was to demonstrate to the world that Russia was the aggressor. By signing a peace plan, Ukraine gained the international solidarity needed to implement and maintain Western sanctions against Russia for its non-compliance with the deal.

These admissions, similar to those made by Angela Merkel and François Hollande, have been used by the Russian government to argue that the West and Ukraine negotiated the peace process in bad faith to prepare for eventual war.

AI Overview.

As of January 2, 2026, Russia continues to frame its invasion of Ukraine as a defensive and corrective measure necessitated by Western aggression and humanitarian crises. These justifications have evolved throughout the conflict, combining long-standing grievances with recent allegations of “state terrorism” by the Ukrainian government.

1. Security Architecture and NATO Expansion

Russia’s primary long-term justification is the perceived threat from NATO’s eastward expansion.

“Red Lines” and Broken Promises: Russian officials cite declassified 1990 archival records as proof that Western leaders promised NATO would not move “one inch eastward.” Russia argues that by 2021, Ukraine’s “de facto” integration into NATO through military training and infrastructure had reached an existential threat level.

The 2021 Security Proposals: In December 2021, Russia requested formal treaties with NATO and the US to halt expansion and return to 1997 troop positions. The Kremlin justifies the 2022 invasion as a result of the West’s dismissal of these proposals.

Buffer Zones (2026 Update): In early 2026, the Kremlin emphasized the need for an expanded “buffer zone” in the Sumy and Kharkiv regions to protect Russian territory from cross-border shelling and drone strikes.

2. Humanitarian Protection and “Genocide”

Russia claims its intervention was a legal necessity to protect ethnic Russians and Russian speakers.

Protecting the Donbas: Putin asserted that the 2022 “Special Military Operation” was launched to end eight years of “humiliation and genocide” by the “Kyiv regime” against people in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Independence Recognition: Russia argues that because it recognized the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as independent states just before the invasion, its military action was a lawful request for assistance under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

3. “Denazification” and “Demilitarization”

The Kremlin uses these terms to frame the Ukrainian government as illegitimate and a threat to European peace.

Regime Change: Russia claims the 2014 Euromaidan revolution was a Western-backed “unconstitutional coup” that installed a “neo-Nazi” leadership.

Sovereignty Denial: Putin has repeatedly claimed that Ukraine is an “artificial state” created by the Soviet Union and that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people,” suggesting the current government is a foreign-imposed anomaly.

4. Recent Allegations of “State Terrorism” (Late 2025–2026)

Since December 2025, Russia has introduced new justifications to harden its stance in potential peace talks:

Attack on Putin’s Residence: In late December 2025, Russia accused Ukraine of launching a drone strike targeting President Putin’s residence in the Novgorod region. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov characterized this as “state terrorism,” using it to justify retaliatory strikes and a “more rigorous” negotiating position.

For official updates and historical documents, the National Security Archive provides records of 1990 assurances, while current statements are often published by the Russian Foreign Ministry.


AI Overview.

In January and February 2022, the Donbas region in south-eastern Ukraine experienced a massive and rapid escalation in shelling and ceasefire violations. Reports from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) indicated that after a period of relatively low activity in early January, violations surged by over 340% in the week leading up to the full-scale Russian invasion on February 24.

January 4, 2026 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump Praises Putin, Promises Peace—Kyiv Still Under Fire

As Russian missiles continued to strike Ukrainian cities, the contrast between diplomatic rhetoric and battlefield reality remained stark. While Trump projected confidence that peace may be within reach, Kyiv once again faced burning apartments, shattered infrastructure, and a winter night without heat—underscoring how far any deal may still be from the ground truth of the war.

 December 29, 2025, By Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/29/trump-praises-putin-promises-peace-kyiv-still-under-fire/

Trump’s Peace Optimism Collides With Russia’s Intensifying Assault on Kyiv

Another morning has arrived with no peace between Ukraine and Russia, despite President Trump repeatedly suggesting that an agreement is either incredibly close—or may never happen at all.

It is a familiar refrain, delivered as Russian forces continue to bombard Kyiv and while President Vladimir Putin remains absent from the negotiations. Yet Trump has positioned himself as vouching for Putin, a stance that produced an awkward moment during his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

According to The Daily Beast, Trump told reporters, “Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed,” prompting Zelenskyy to visibly raise an eyebrow. Trump then added, “It sounds a little strange,” as Zelenskyy grinned, nodded, and replied dryly, “Yeah.”

The exchange followed comments Trump made Sunday, when he said he had told Zelenskyy that “President Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding.”

Yet as of yesterday at least two people were killed in Kyiv during a 10-hour Russian aerial assault that unfolded as diplomatic optimism surrounding a potential U.S.-brokered peace deal briefly surged. Forty-four others—including two children—were injured, according to Ukrainian officials, while hundreds of thousands of residents were left without heat or electricity amid near-freezing temperatures.

With Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy saying Russia launched nearly 500 drones overnight—many of them Iranian-designed Shahed drones—along with around 40 missiles, including hypersonic Kinzhals. The primary targets were Kyiv’s energy facilities and civilian infrastructure.

“Regrettably, there have been hits, and ordinary residential buildings have been damaged,” Zelenskyy said in a statement posted on X. Rescuers were still searching for at least one person believed to be trapped under rubble. In several districts of the capital and surrounding region, electricity and heating remained unavailable as emergency crews worked under ongoing air-raid alerts.

Zelenskyy framed the assault as Russia’s answer to recent international peace overtures.

“There have been many questions over the past few days—so where is Russia’s response to the proposals to end the war offered by the United States and the world?” he said. “Russian representatives engage in lengthy talks, but in reality, Kinzhals and ‘Shaheds’ speak for them.”

The Ukrainian president accused Russian President Vladimir Putin and his inner circle of having no genuine interest in ending the war, arguing that Moscow is instead using diplomacy as cover while escalating attacks designed to inflict maximum suffering.

“If Russia turns even the Christmas and New Year period into a time of destroyed homes and ruined power plants, then this sick activity can only be responded to with truly strong steps,” Zelenskyy said, calling on the United States, Europe, and allies to intensify pressure and accelerate air-defense support.

Yet just hours later, Zelenskyy struck a noticeably different tone following meetings with U.S. President Donald Trump, thanking him and his team for what he described as constructive negotiations.

“I thank President Trump and his team for the negotiations,” Zelenskyy wrote. “Together, we must—and can—implement our vision for the sequencing of steps toward peace.”

Also saying “Thank you to President Trump for the wonderful meeting. We had a meaningful discussion on all issues and highly appreciate the progress achieved by the Ukrainian and American teams over the past weeks. Special thanks to Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner for their engagement and full commitment to the cause, as well as to our team, primarily Rustem Umerov and Andriy Hnatov.”

Trump, speaking after meetings at Mar-a-Lago, offered an upbeat assessment of the talks, saying a deal was “maybe very close.” He said he had spoken with Putin for more than two hours prior to meeting Zelenskyy and claimed the Russian leader expressed a strong desire to reach an agreement.

“He told me very strongly,” Trump said of Putin. “I believe him.”

However, the optimism appeared premature. Reports indicated that a joint U.S.-Ukraine framework remained incomplete, with Russia rejecting several core proposals. Trump himself acknowledged lingering obstacles, echoing familiar language he has used throughout the conflict.

“There are one or two very thorny issues,” Trump said. “Very tough issues. But I think we’re doing very well.”

He added that clarity would emerge soon—another timeline critics say has repeatedly failed to materialize.

“In a few weeks, we’ll know one way or another,” Trump said. “It’s possible it doesn’t happen.”

One of the most contentious unresolved issues remains the territory. Asked directly what stood in the way of an agreement, Trump pointed to land occupied by Russian forces. With CNBC reporting,

“Some of that land has been taken,” he said. “Some of that land is maybe up for grabs, but it may be taken over the next period of a number of months, and you are better off making a deal now.”

That issue is one Zelenskyy has consistently refused to bend on, often stating that he has no authority to do so under Ukraine’s constitution. The Ukrainian president has repeatedly ruled out surrendering territory, saying he has “no right” to give up land under either Ukrainian or international law. Kyiv has instead said it is prepared to propose alternative arrangements.

Zelenskyy’s stance comes as Ukraine continues to grapple with internal challenges, including ongoing corruption concerns, even as the war drags on with no clear end in sight. While territorial concessions remain a red line, Zelenskyy has previously floated ideas aimed at reducing hostilities without formally ceding land.

As part of his current peace plan,Zelenskyy has suggested the creation of a demilitarized free economic zone in contested areas. Speaking to reporters earlier this week, he said such a zone could require the withdrawal of heavy forces by an agreed distance.

“If we establish a free economic zone here, and it envisages a virtually demilitarized zone—meaning heavy forces are removed from this area—and the distance, for example, is 40 kilometers, it could be five, 10, or 40 kilometers,” Zelenskyy said. “Then if these two cities, Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, are our free economic zone, the Russians would have to pull back their troops accordingly.”

Zelenskyy, meanwhile, said he requested security guarantees lasting up to 50 years, describing discussions on that front as “100% agreed.” Trump offered a more cautious assessment, suggesting the guarantees were still under negotiation.

As Russian missiles continued to strike Ukrainian cities, the contrast between diplomatic rhetoric and battlefield reality remained stark. While Trump projected confidence that peace may be within reach, Kyiv once again faced burning apartments, shattered infrastructure, and a winter night without heat—underscoring how far any deal may still be from the ground truth of the war.

So much for a president who boasted about ending wars—specifically claiming he would end the Ukraine conflict within 24 hours, before taking office, or on “day one.” When President Donald Trump was reminded of those promises in an April interview with Time magazine, he said the remark was never meant to be taken literally. And CNN found 53 other times that president stated this as a fact.

“Well, I said that figuratively, and I said that as an exaggeration, because to make a point,” Trump said, according to Time’s transcript. He added that the comment was “said in jest,” while maintaining that the war would still ultimately be ended. Heres hoping that the war will end soon, but with the three leaders seemingly entrenched in their positions, that hope may prove fleeting.

Here is the wrap-up from the two leaders, with Donald Trump praising those in the audience possible war criminal Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio, who is leading the neocon push back into “forever wars” and supporting Trump’s aggressive foreign policy. The same man Rubio once called a “peacemaker” is now actively bombing nine countries. I wrote about this the other day. Here is their press conference—believe what you want—but with this president, the approach can change day to day. At least, for now, the war has not gone nuclear.

January 4, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why talk of a Japanese nuclear option is resurfacing – and why it alarms critics

Conservatives are calling for a rethink of nuclear taboos, while critics warn of risks to the global non-proliferation regime

Julian Ryall, SCMP,3 Jan 2026

An editorial in the Sankei Shimbun has reopened a long-taboo debate in Japan over whether the country should even discuss acquiring nuclear weapons, after off-the-record remarks by a senior security official arguing the country should have them sparked domestic and regional backlash.

The conservative daily argued that growing threats from Japan’s neighbours mean no option for protecting the public should be beyond discussion, a stance that has drawn praise from some on the right and alarm from critics who warn that even signalling such intent could destabilise the global non-proliferation system.

The editorial, published on Monday, was accompanied by a graphic comparing regional nuclear forces, stating that Russia has an estimated 5,580 nuclear warheads, North Korea around 50 and China about 500, with the latter figure projected to rise to more than 1,000 by 2030.

It appeared 10 days after the senior national security official in the Prime Minister’s Office said – in an off-the-record remark reported by Japanese media during a background briefing – that he personally believed Japan should possess nuclear weapons.

The remarks prompted a fierce reaction at home and abroad, including from Beijing, where Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, told reporters the situation was a “serious issue that exposes the dangerous attempts by some in Japan to breach international law and possess nuclear weapons”.

“China and the rest of the international community must stay on high alert and express grave concern,” he added.

Japan has for decades adhered to its three non-nuclear principles – not possessing, producing or permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons – while relying on the United States for extended deterrence and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which commits non-nuclear states to forgo developing or acquiring nuclear arms.

The Sankei editorial urged Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi not to “give in” to calls for the aide to be dismissed, arguing that doing so would “stifle free debate on how best to protect the Japanese people”.

It dismissed objections from China and North Korea as “ludicrous” and “hypocritical”, noting that both possessed nuclear weapons and were strengthening their arsenals.

“For Japan, the point of the debate is how to safeguard the public, not merely whether or not to actually possess nuclear weapons,” it added. “From that standpoint, making it taboo to merely mention the nuclear weapons option is the worst possible stance to adopt.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3338570/why-talk-japanese-nuclear-option-resurfacing-and-why-it-alarms-critics

January 4, 2026 Posted by | Japan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Jeffrey Sachs: U.S. Attacks Venezuela & Kidnaps President Maduro

January 3, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel Bans Dozens of Aid Groups from Operating in Gaza, Including Doctors Without Borders.

Other groups that are being banned include the Norwegian Refugee Council, the Catholic charity Caritas, and Oxfam

by Dave DeCamp | December 30, 2025 , https://news.antiwar.com/2025/12/30/israel-bans-dozens-of-aid-groups-from-operating-in-gaza-including-doctors-without-borders/

Starting on January 1, Israel will ban 37 international aid groups and charities from operating in Gaza in its latest effort to add to the misery for the Palestinian civilians living in flimsy tents and bombed-out buildings in the Strip.

The groups being banned include several prominent international aid organizations: Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the Catholic charity Caritas, the Norwegian Refugee Council, and Oxfam. The NGOs will also be barred from working in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Israel will stop the groups from operating in Gaza for failing to comply with its stringent new requirements, which include handing over information about their Palestinian employees. The new Israeli rules also include vague ideological requirements that can disqualify any NGO that “promotes delegitimization campaigns” against Israel, or if it, or any officeholder, has called for a boycott of Israel.

An Israeli official claimed, without providing evidence, that an investigation revealed “employees of certain organizations were involved in terrorist activity… in particular, Doctors Without Borders.” The action against MSF is seen in part as an Israeli reaction to the organization’s criticism of Israel’s genocidal campaign in the Strip.

In a statement warning of the consequences of banning it from Gaza, MSF said that it has served hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza this year.

“If Israeli authorities revoke MSF’s access to Gaza in 2026, a large portion of people in Gaza will lose access to critical medical care, water, and lifesaving support,” the group said. “MSF’s activities serve nearly half a million people in Gaza through our vital support to the destroyed health system. MSF continues to seek constructive engagement with Israeli authorities to continue its activities.”

Israel’s move to ban the NGOs comes as Israel continues to violate the US-backed ceasefire deal by continuing to launch attacks on Palestinians and maintaining restrictions on aid and shelter materials entering the Strip.

January 2, 2026 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

Ukraine Takes Part in NATO War Games, Further Integrating Into Collective Defense Architecture

by Kyle Anzalone | Dec 28, 2025, https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/ukraine-takes-part-in-nato-war-games-further-integrating-into-collective-defense-architecture/

Ukrainian representatives participated in NATO war games simulating the alliance’s response to an attack.

According to a NATO press release, 1,500 soldiers and civilians from multiple European countries participated in the Loyal Dolos 2025 drills that were conducted at the beginning of the month. 

On Sunday, the General Staff of the Armed Forces posted on Facebook that Ukrainian officials participated in Loyal Dolos. “Ukraine is becoming part of the collective defense architecture of NATO. Ukrainian JATEC experts have, for the first time, joined the work of the mechanisms of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty on the training LOYAL DOLOS 2025,” the post explained. 

Senior National Representative of Ukraine in JATEC, director of Implementation of the programs of the Joint Center NATO-Ukraine Colonel Valery Vyshnivsky said, “The participation of Ukrainian JATEC experts in the LOYAL DOLOS 2025, which is one of the key elements of NATO’s preparation according to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, has strategic significance for us, as for the first time Ukrainian representatives have been involved in the work of the Alliance’s collective security mechanisms.” 

Kiev’s military ties to NATO countries are one of the primary reasons Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Kremlin has demanded that Kiev agree to neutrality as a condition for ending the war. 

President Zelensky recently announced that Ukraine would agree to stop seeking formal membership in the North Atlantic Alliance if members of the bloc agreed to bilateral agreements with Kiev that are similar to NATO’s Article 5. Article 5 is considered the mutual defense pact in the NATO charter. 

That Ukraine is continuing its integration into NATO suggests that Kiev is still seeking to become an informal member of the bloc. 

January 2, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Trillion Dollar War Machine (w/ William D. Hartung) The Chris Hedges Report

 December 31, 2025 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxti7sPPD0

Once warned against as a looming danger to democracy, the military-industrial complex has evolved into a vast and entrenched system of power that shapes U.S. policy, budgets, and global conflict. Now far beyond what even its earliest critics imagined, the question is no longer whether it exists, but how far it will go — and whether anything can meaningfully restrain it. In this analysis, Chris Hedges interviews arms-industry critic William D. Hartung in a wide-ranging conversation on how runaway military spending and the power of the military-industrial complex drive U.S. foreign policy and perpetual war.

January 2, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia claims to have moved nuclear-capable missile system into Belarus

Guardian, 30 Dec 25

Assertion comes after the Kremlin accused Ukraine of attacking Vladimir Putin’s palace in Novgorod

Russia said its latest nuclear-capable missile system has been deployed in Belarus, a day after Moscow claimed that Ukraine had carried out a large-scale drone attack on Vladimir Putin’s residence.

Footage released by Russia’s ministry of defence showed the new Oreshnik missile trundling through a snowy forest. Soldiers were seen disguising combat vehicles with green netting and raising a flag at an airbase in eastern Belarus, close to the Russian border.

The video appeared part of a choreographed attempt to intimidate Europe and to prepare Russians for a further escalation in the already brutal war against Ukraine. The deployment, if true, would symbolically reduce the time it would take for a Russian missile to hit an EU capital.

Belarus’s president, Alexander Lukashenko, said 10 Oreshnik systems would be stationed in his country. Putin announced they were entering active service at a meeting on Monday with his generals, where he reaffirmed his intention to capture more Ukrainian territory, including the southern city of Zaporizhzhia.

Earlier Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, warned that “reprisals” would be carried out against Kyiv and that targets were already prepared. They followed what he said was an attack on Sunday night involving 91 Ukrainian drones on the Russia’s president’s palace in the Novgorod region.

The Kremlin has not produced evidence to back up its allegations. Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, said on Tuesday that no proof would be offered since all the missiles had been shot down. He said he could not comment on the lack of debris.  Guardian 30th Dec 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/30/russia-claims-moved-nuclear-capable-missile-system-belarus

January 2, 2026 Posted by | Belarus, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Pentagon In Panic: China Just Delivered The Final Blow

Br decode, 29 Dec 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEa9E9vhQ0U

“Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.” The US Military just learned this lesson the hard way.

In this video, we analyze the “Supply Chain War” that has erupted between Washington and Beijing. While the US focuses on financial sanctions, China has just sanctioned 9 major US defense firms and is restricting the export of **Antimony**—a critical mineral essential for armor-piercing bullets, missiles, and night-vision goggles.

We expose the “Industrial Suicide” of the Pentagon: How the US shut down its own mines to save money, leaving its entire military industrial base 100% dependent on China for critical resources. We look at the “Sanction Boomerang,” the failure of the US National Defense Stockpile, and why the “Arsenal of Democracy” is running on empty.

The US has the money. China has the minerals. And in a real war, you can’t build missiles out of paper.

January 1, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

When the USSR and China saved humanity: How they won the World Anti-Fascist War.

December 28, 2025 , By Ben Norton, https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/12/26/ussr-china-world-anti-fascist-war/

It was the Soviet Union and China that defeated fascism in WWII. Their heroic contribution was later erased by the West. In the First Cold War, the US recruited former Nazis.

2025 marked the 80th anniversary of the defeat of fascism in World War Two. Unfortunately, the history of this extremely important conflict is not very well understood today.

It was not the United States and its Western allies that defeated fascism in WWII. That is a myth that is promoted by Hollywood movies.

In reality, it was the Soviet Union and China that defeated fascism in WWII. However, their heroic contribution was later erased by the West, when the US waged the First Cold War against the global socialist movement.

The vast majority of Nazi casualties, approximately 80%, were on the Eastern Front, in the Third Reich’s savage, scorched-earth battles against the Soviet Red Army.

More than 26 million Soviets died in the Nazi empire’s genocidal war. Compare that to the just over 400,000 US Americans who died, and the roughly 450,000 Brits who lost their lives.

This means that 62 Soviets were killed for every US American who died in WWII. Yet, tragically, their sacrifice has been forgotten in the West – or, better said, erased from public consciousness for political reasons.

The fact that the USSR defeated Nazi Germany was even admitted by the inveterate anti-communist Winston Churchill, an explicit racist, colonialist, and erstwhile admirer of Hitler who oversaw the British empire’s extreme crimes, including a famine in Bengal in 1943.

In a speech in August 1944, Churchill acknowledged:

“I have left the obvious, essential fact to this point, namely, that it is the Russian Armies who have done the main work in tearing the guts out of the German army. In the air and on the oceans we could maintain our place, but there was no force in the world which could have been called into being, except after several more years, that would have been able to maul and break the German army unless it had been subjected to the terrible slaughter and manhandling that has fallen to it through the strength of the Russian Soviet Armies”.

Then, in October 1944, Churchill said, “I have always believed and I still believe that it is the Red Army that has torn the guts out of the filthy Nazis”.

Read more: When the USSR and China saved humanity: How they won the World Anti-Fascist War.

In fact, the USSR wanted to crush fascism even earlier by proposing a surprise attack on Nazi Germany in 1939, weeks before Hitler invaded Poland. Soviet military officers made an official request to British and French officials to form an alliance against Nazi Germany in August 1939, but London and Paris were not interested. The USSR had a million troops ready to fight, but the Western European powers were not prepared.

What the capitalist countries in Western Europe and North America had hoped for was that Nazi Germany would attack the Soviet Union, which they considered their main enemy. This is why the Western imperial powers had long appeased Hitler, signing shameful deals like the 1938 Munich Agreement, which allowed the Nazi empire to expand in Europe.

What the Western capitalist “liberal democracies” and the fascist regimes shared in common was mutual hatred of communism. The rich oligarchs who controlled Western governments feared that they would lose their privileges if workers in their countries were inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution.

In the 1930s, the US State Department spoke positively of fascism as an alternative to communism, and the US chargé d’affaires in Germany praised the supposedly “more moderate section of the [Nazi] party, headed by Hitler himself … which appeal[s] to all civilized and reasonable people”.

It must be emphasized that, when the Japanese empire officially allied with Nazi Germany in 1936, the name of the deal they signed was the Agreement Against the Communist International, or the Anti-Comintern Pact. Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy subsequently signed the agreement in 1937, and the fascist regimes in Spain, Hungary, and other European countries joined in the following years. It was extreme, violent anti-communism that united all of these fascist powers.

While there is widespread ignorance about the Soviet Union’s leading role in crushing Nazi Germany in WWII, the heroic contribution that the people of China made to the defeat of the Japanese empire is even less well known.

For Europe, WWII began in 1939, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. For the people of China, the war started much earlier, in 1931, when the Japanese empire invaded the Manchuria region of northern China.

For 14 years, the people of China resisted Japan’s aggression, as the imperial regime sought to colonize more and more Chinese territory.

By the end of the war in 1945, roughly 20 million Chinese had lost their lives. This means that approximately 48 Chinese were killed for every US American who died in WWII.

In China, WWII is known as the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, and it was part of a larger conflict called the World Anti-Fascist War.

China held an important event on 3 September 2025 commemorating the 80th anniversary of the defeat of fascism. It featured key leaders of countries that are today, once again, fighting against imperialism and fascism, including China’s President Xi Jinping, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, the DPRK’s leader Kim Jong-un, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, and officials from other countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, including Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel and Nicaragua’s representative Laureano Ortega Murillo.

The United States has long taken credit for the defeat of the fascist Japanese empire, but this erases the enormous, heroic, 14-year contribution made by the Chinese people.

Although it is true that the United States was briefly allied with the USSR and China during WWII, and it did provide significant military assistance through its 1941 Lend-Lease Act, Washington immediately terminated that partnership in 1945.

In fact, even before WWII officially ended, the United States had already started to recruit fascists to help them wage the First Cold War. US intelligence agencies saved many Nazi war criminals in the infamous Operation Paperclip. Instead of facing justice, these genocidaires assisted Washington in its subsequent attacks on the Soviet Union and its communist allies in Eastern Europe.

Later, the CIA and NATO created Operation Gladio, in which they used fascist war criminals as foot soldiers of their new global imperialist war on socialism. The former top Nazi military officer Adolf Heusinger was appointed the chair of NATO’s military committee, and the ex Nazi Hans Speidel became commander of NATO’s land forces in Central Europe.

The United States even rehabilitated Nazi war criminal Reinhard Gehlen, who had directed Hitler’s military intelligence on the Eastern Front in WWII, and who later led the CIA-backed Gehlen Organization to help Washington wage its cold war against communists.

The United States did not defeat fascism; it rehabilitated and absorbed fascism into the capitalist empire that Washington built after WWII, centered in Wall Street and based on the dollar.

The contemporary German government published the results of a study in 2016, called the Rosenberg project, which sifted through classified documents from 1950 to 1973. It found that, at the height of the Cold War, the government of capitalist West Germany, which was a member of NATO, was full of former Nazis.

In fact, 77% of senior officials in West Germany’s Justice Ministry had been Nazis. Ironically, there had been a lower percentage of Nazi Party members in the Justice Ministry in Berlin when the genocidal dictator Adolf Hitler himself was in charge of the Third Reich.

Similarly, in Japan after WWII, US occupation forces released Japanese war criminals from prison and used them to construct an imperial client regime. The CIA helped to create and fund the powerful Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has essentially governed Japan as a one-party state, with few exceptions, since 1955.

Notorious war criminal Nobusuke Kishi had overseen genocidal crimes against humanity against the Chinese people as an administrator of the Japanese empire’s puppet regime of Manchukuo, in Manchuria, during WWII. After the war ended, the United States strongly supported Kishi, who led the LDP, established the de facto one-party state, and became prime minister of the country.

Still today, the Kishi dynasty is one of the most powerful families in Japan. Kishi’s grandson Shinzo Abe also led the LDP and served as prime minister from 2012 and 2020, closely allying Japan with the United States, while antagonizing China and rewriting the history of WWII.

In short, after the Soviet Union and China led the fight to defeat fascism in WWII, the US empire recruited fascists to fight its global war against socialism.

Today, it is extremely important to learn these facts and correct the historical record, because 2025 is the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII, and it is clear that the proper lessons have not been learned in the West.

The planet is still plagued by extreme imperial violence, and closer than ever to another world war.

The United States and Israel have been carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, committing atrocities that are reminiscent of the fascists’ crimes against humanity in WWII.

Fascism has its roots in European colonialism. The genocidal tactics that the European empires used in Asia, Africa, and Latin America were later used by the fascists inside Europe.

Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was inspired by the genocidal crimes that the German empire had committed in southern Africa, and also by the genocide that the US colonialists had carried out against indigenous peoples in North America. The Nazis were likewise influenced by the US government’s racist laws against Black Americans, in its apartheid system known as Jim Crow.

Given the close links between fascism and Western imperialism, it is not surprising to see that, today, the US regime has become increasingly fascist. Politicians in Washington scapegoat immigrants and foreigners for the many domestic problems in their country, including the significant growth in inequality, poverty, and homelessness. They have no solutions other than more violence, racism, and war.

The increasing political desperation and instability in Washington is combining in a toxic mixture with the greed of US corporations in the military-industrial complex, which profit from war, and are thus incentivized to push for more conflict, not for peace.

The United States, as the leader of NATO, has already been waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukrainian territory, using the people of Ukraine as cannon fodder in an imperial war, tragically destroying an entire generation of Ukrainians in a vain attempt to maintain US global hegemony.

The US empire has also used its Israeli attack dog to wage war on the people of Iran, in an attempt to overthrow the revolutionary government in Tehran and impose a puppet regime, like the former king, the shah, who was propped up by Washington.

The number one target of the US empire today, however, is the People’s Republic of China. US imperialists fear that China is the only country powerful enough to not only challenge but to defeat Washington’s global hegemony.

The US empire is waging a Second Cold War against China, and it has weaponized everything in this hybrid war, imposing sanctions and tariffs to wage economic war, using its control over the dollar system in a financial war, and exploiting the media to spread disinformation and fake news as part of an information war.

Part of the US empire’s strategy in this information war is to erase the Chinese people’s major contribution to the defeat of fascism and imperialism in WWII.

This is why it is so crucial to defend the facts, and to teach the true history of WWII to people today. If we don’t correct the historical record, the fascists and imperialists of the 21st century will weaponize ignorance in order to carry out the same crimes that their ideological brethren committed in the 20th century.

December 31, 2025 Posted by | China, history, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump’s Peace? More Like Bombs, Blockades, and Bullying

December 27, 2025, By Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/27/trumps-peace-more-like-bombs-blockades-and-bullying/

President Donald Trump’s aggressive foreign policy has now extended to Nigeria, marking the ninth country he has bombed during his tenure. Once trying to portray himself as a peace president, Trump is proving to be just another in a long line of imperialist war criminals.

A year ago he proudly called himself a peacemaker:

On Christmas, the United States launched a “powerful and deadly strike” against ISIS militants in northwestern Nigeria. Trump himself described the attack as a “Christmas present” for terrorists, rattling local communities and reigniting debates about the administration’s militaristic stance abroad.

On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump framed the attack almost as a holy war:
“The United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians at levels not seen for many years, and even centuries!”

He bragged that the strike was delayed on his order:
“They were going to do it earlier,” Trump told reporters. “And I said, ‘nope, let’s give a Christmas present.’ They didn’t think that was coming, but we hit them hard. Every camp got decimated.”

Residents in the affected Nigerian villages described terrifying scenes. “Our rooms began to shake, and then fire broke out,” one villager told the Associated Press. “The Nigerian government should take appropriate measures to protect us as citizens. We have never experienced anything like this before.” Another resident, Kagara, said, “We couldn’t sleep last night. We’ve never seen anything like this before.”

Villagers also emphasized their religious unity: “In Jabo, we see Christians as our brothers. We don’t have religious conflicts, so we weren’t expecting this,” one said.

This is a man who thought he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize? The neo-crusade he is launching worldwide is unhinged. Yet, like many bullies, if he doesn’t get his way, he throws a tantrum—except in this case, he has the world’s largest arsenal of weapons in which to do it.

About the Nobel Prize this from October from the Guardian newspaper: “Everybody has been talking about: ‘Will he get the Nobel peace prize?’” said Brian Mast, a Republican congressman of Florida, on Fox News Thursday morning. “Those … academics and elites sitting in Norway, that board of people that decide it, they need to give President Trump the Nobel peace prize.”

That was partly due to the ceasefire in Gaza, which now appears to effectively allow Israel to act with impunity. Since that fateful day in October, the genocide has continued—with more than 300 killed and 1,000 wounded—as Israeli forces expand and seize more territory. Dalia Abu Ramadan, writing for Truthout, describes the so-called “ceasefire” in Gaza as little more than a fiction.

This military aggression starkly contrasts with Trump’s August claims during an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, where he boasted, “I’ve done six wars, I’ve ended six wars.” He later added, “If you look at the six deals I settled this year, they were all at war. I didn’t do any ceasefires.”

The Nigerian airstrike comes amid ongoing tensions in Trump’s handling of international relations, especially concerning Ukraine and Russia. With drone strikes accumulating and Ukraine recently proposing a 20-point peace plan, Trump remains controlling, stating about Zelenskyy’s plan:
“He doesn’t have anything until I approve it. So we’ll see what he’s got.” Regarding his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump expressed optimism:
“I think it’s going to go good with him. I think it’s going to go good with [Vladimir] Putin,” adding that he expects to speak with the Russian leader “soon, as much as I want.”

The recent airstrikes coincide with Trump’s confirmation that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit the U.S. this weekend. “I have Zelenskyy and I have Bibi coming. They’re all coming. They all come,” Trump said. “They respect our country again.” Netanyahu’s visit is widely seen as an effort to convince Trump to re-engage in a potential war with Iran.

Trump’s hawkish rhetoric and military actions dangerously escalate global conflicts, undermining diplomatic solutions and raising the risk of catastrophic outcomes—especially in a world already threatened by nuclear weapons. Rather than enhancing security, his approach fuels instability and reckless power plays under the guise of combating terrorism.

As the world watches the fallout from the Christmas airstrikes, questions remain about the broader consequences of Trump’s foreign policy—especially as tensions with Russia persist and conflicts in the Middle East and Africa continue to simmer. As the empire known as the United States continues to decline, hopefully, future generations will witness its peaceful end. The president who once called himself the peacemaker and promised to end forever wars continues to reveal his true colors. He is a bully whose mantra isn’t about ending conflicts but about using bombs and blockades to batter and belittle those who refuse to bow to his twisted worldview.

Just so you don’t think we’ve lost our minds, this praise came from “Little Marco” and his State Department, calling the president the “Peacemaker-in-Chief” back in August—quite a shift from today.

December 30, 2025 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US Launches Christmas Strikes on Nigeria—the 9th Country Bombed by Trump

“By framing Nigeria’s conflict as an existential threat to Christians alone, Trump is not shining a spotlight on the victims,” she added. “Instead, he is weaponizing right-wing conspiracy theories to stoke Islamophobia, the same toxic playbook he used to fuel his ban on Muslims, and which left refugee families shattered at America’s borders.”

December 27, 2025 , By Brett Wilkins for Common Dreams

President Donald Trump—the self-described “most anti-war president in history”—has now ordered the bombing of more countries than any president in history as US forces carried out Christmas day strikes on what the White House claimed were Islamic State militants killing Christians in Nigeria.

“Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!” Trump said Thursday in a post on his Truth Social network.

“I have previously warned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was,” the president continued. “The Department of War executed numerous perfect strikes, as only the United States is capable of doing.”

“Under my leadership, our Country will not allow Radical Islamic Terrorism to prosper,” Trump added. “May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues.”

A US Department of Defense official speaking on condition of anonymity told the Associated Press that the United States worked with Nigeria to conduct the bombing, and that the government of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu—who is a Muslim—approved the attacks.

It was not immediately known how many people were killed or wounded in the strikes, or whether there are any civilian casualties.

The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that “terrorist violence in any form, whether directed at Christians, Muslims, or other communities, remains an affront to Nigeria’s values and to international peace and security.”

The US bombings followed a threat last month by Trump to attack Nigeria with “guns-a-blazing” if the country’s government did not curb attacks on Christians.

Northwestern Nigeria—including Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina, and parts of Kaduna State—is suffering a complex security crisis, plagued by armed criminal groups, herder-farmer disputes, and Islamist militants including Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP/ISIS) and Boko Haram. Both Christians and Muslims have been attacked.

Since emerging in Borno State in 2009, Boko Haram has waged war on the Nigerian state—which it regards as apostate—not against any particular religious group. In fact, the majority of its victims have been Muslims.

“According to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, more Muslims than Christians have been targeted in recent years,” Chloe Atkinson recently wrote for Common Dreams. “Boko Haram has massacred worshipers in mosques, torched markets in Muslim-majority areas, and threatened their own coreligionists.”

“The crisis in Nigeria is not a holy war against Christianity.”

“It is true that Christian communities in the north-central regions have suffered unimaginable horrors as raids have left villages in ashes, children murdered in their beds, and churches reduced to rubble,” she said. “The April massacre in Zike and the June bloodbath in Yelwata are prime examples of the atrocities taking place in Nigeria.”

“The crisis in Nigeria is not a holy war against Christianity,” Atkinson continued. “Instead, it’s a devastating cocktail of poverty, climate-driven land disputes, and radical ideologies that prey on everyone and not just any distinct group.”

“By framing Nigeria’s conflict as an existential threat to Christians alone, Trump is not shining a spotlight on the victims,” she added. “Instead, he is weaponizing right-wing conspiracy theories to stoke Islamophobia, the same toxic playbook he used to fuel his ban on Muslims, and which left refugee families shattered at America’s borders.”

Former libertarian US Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) noted on X that “there’s no authority for strikes on terrorists in Nigeria or anywhere on Earth,” adding that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—which was approved by every member of Congress except then-Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—“is only for the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.”

“The War Powers Resolution doesn’t grant any authority beyond the Constitution,” Amash added. “Offensive military actions need congressional approval. The Framers of the Constitution divided war powers to protect the American people from war-eager executives. Whether the United States should engage in conflicts across the globe is a decision for the people’s representatives in Congress, not the president.”

In addition to Nigeria, Trump—who says he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize—since 2017 has also ordered the bombing of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, LibyaPakistanSomaliaSyria, and Yemen, as well as boats allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Trump has also deployed warships and thousands of US troops near Venezuela, which could become the next country attacked by a president who campaigned on a platform of “peace through strength.”

That’s more than the at least five countries attacked during the tenure of former President George W. Bush or the at least seven nations attacked on orders of then-President Barack Obama during the so-called War on Terror, which killed more than 940,000 people—including at least 432,000 civilians, according to the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.

Trump continued the war on ISIS in Iraq and Syria started by Obama in 2014. Promising to “bomb the shit out of” ISIS fighters and “take out their families,” Trump intensified the US campaign from a war of “attrition” to one of “annihilation,” according to his former defense secretary, Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis. Thousand of civilians were killed as cities such as Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria were flattened.

Trump declared victory over ISIS in 2018—and again the following year.

Some social media users suggested Trump’s “warmongering” is an attempt to distract from the Epstein files scandal and alleged administration cover-up.

“Bombing Nigeria won’t make us forget about the Epstein files,” said one X user.

December 30, 2025 Posted by | Nigeria, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

How Corporations View (and Own) the U.S. Military

The most famous example in recent years is the 2023 NDAA, which contained several provisions regarding Taiwan. One provision allowed Taiwan to receive foreign military financing (FMF) from the U.S. government. FMF usually goes to independent countries, not breakaway provinces. FMF consists of loans and/or grants from the U.S. government for a country to purchase goods and services from the U.S. war industry.

And, just like that, the 2023 NDAA increased U.S. belligerence toward Beijing and made war more likely, profiting corporations all the while.

Corporate Capture Is Not Just Lobbying

Christian. Dec 27, 2025, https://thebusinessofwar.substack.com/p/how-corporations-view-and-own-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769284&post_id=179499875&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

A for-profit corporation is a business organization designed to maximize short-term profit. The job of corporate executives is to maximize that profit, while the board of directors makes sure they do so.

The number one way that a corporation maximizes profit is by underpaying its workers.1 Workers create the profit, but don’t receive it. The executives funnel that profit to investors and themselves.

It goes without saying that the workers are not in charge. They are not allowed to make the business decisions in a given corporation. The executives make those decisions. There is no democracy in the workplace.

This is the situation in any industry, including the war industry.

What You Know about Corporate Capture

Big business works hard to influence the U.S. government. Corporate capture happens when it succeeds. Massive corporations work together to influence the government’s institutions and decision-making so that policy and regulation (or lack thereof) increase corporate profit instead of public well-being.

You likely know about think tanks, lobbying, and legal bribery.

  • think tank issues information favorable to those who fund it. Corporations and the super-rich fund think tanks, which create and inflate threats and justify the broad deployment of U.S. troops and sky-high military and intel budgets.
  • Corporations and the super-rich hire lobbyists to swarm U.S. Congress and the Pentagon. Lobbyists even draft legislation, which they hand over to politicians.
  • Corporations and the super-rich fund the two political parties and individual candidates. Once in office, elected officials pass laws favorable to these big business interests.

Think tanks, lobbying, and legal bribery are a powerful combination, but corporate capture is much more than that. War corporations (known as “military contractors” or “defense companies”) control the mind and the body in several ways.

Control the Mind

  • Corporations regularly open (and close) offices and factories. Corporate executives promise a number jobs at a given location, particularly when seeking state and local tax breaks (though the fine print makes sure they never have to come through with all of those jobs or keep workers employed for the long run). Playing the “jobs” card is a way for big business and its politicians to pretend to care about workers.
  • Legally designated as 501(c) nonprofits, trade groups (e.g., NDIAAIAAUSA) excel at networking active-duty military officers and industry officials, further blurring the line between government and corporate. Corporate viewpoints reign supreme at networking events, such as seminars, breakfasts, and arms fairs. (Additionally, 501(c)4 nonprofits are skilled at using dark money to influence politics.)
  • Corporations help to craft policy and strategy on the inside. Corporations have had a hand in strategic initiatives and planning for Navy leadership, strategic plans and policy support for the Air Force, acquisition policy and program development for the Marine Corps, assessments and policy recommendations for the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics, and more!
  • The Pentagon gives corporations free labor from military officers. The corporations are allowed to propagandize these officers with recommendations about military policy, which the officers take with them when they return to their military unit.
  • Greedy tycoons, including prominent war profiteers, sit on different boards that advise the Pentagon. The Defense Policy Board is one such grouping.

Control the Body

  • The U.S. military doesn’t move, bomb, or communicate without corporations. In fact, it doesn’t do anything without corporate goods and services — from the largest aircraft carrier (itself a platform for innumerable goods and services) to the smallest microchip. Comprising the militant body, corporations gobble up more than half of the military budget. There still are uniformed troops (soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardians), but they are merely users of corporate products… in the eyes of top executives.
  • Corporate personnel are everywhere. These “contractors” even outnumber the troops in many military locations.
  • The U.S. military isn’t allowed to repair most of its own equipment. Corporations must do it. This is just like corporations preventing farmers from repairing their tractors or you from putting a new battery into your old laptop.
  • In the same vein, corporations do their best to hog the data pertaining to big-ticket weapons. The most famous example is the Lockheed Martin F-35 jet, the most expensive weapon of all time. The corporation owns the software code and the technical data for the jet. The U.S. military therefore is unable to operate, maintain, or upgrade the jet on its own.
  • If you don’t own it, it’s not yours. Many corporations require the U.S. military to license their software, not purchase it outright. Licenses cover everything from accounting software and data integration software to products that monitor communications network and Oracle databases for a massive counterintelligence bureaucracy. Licensing is more profitable than a one-time sale.
  • Capitalists move from industry to government and back again. When in government, they implement profit-over-people policies and they acquire knowledge to profit better whenever they leave government. (Top military officers also flock to war corporations in retirement, often becoming executives.)

Corporations don’t just run the show. Corporations are the show.

The Resulting Behavior

This corporate capture — mind and body — guarantees that government policy will help to maximize corporate profit.

The annual military policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is crafted in the environment described above. Corporate lobbyists and U.S. Congress pack the NDAA with section after section designed to increase corporate profit.

Year after year, the NDAA requires the Pentagon to:

1. Train and arm foreign militaries or paramilitary groups. This increases arms sales and can give the Pentagon some influence over those being trained/armed.

A few examples of many include: training Iraqi forces and Kurdish Peshmerga (2024 NDAA); expanding the training of Eastern European “national security forces” (2025 NDAA); and reinforcing Lebanese military training and equipping (2026 NDAA).

2. Maintain or expand the U.S. military’s presence around the world.

The hundreds of U.S. military bases worldwide increase corporate sales — remember, corporations comprise most U.S. military activity2 — and allow the Pentagon to further bully governments/groups that chart an independent foreign policy or resist corporate domination of their land and resources.

No region is off-limits.

For example, the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, established through the 2021 NDAA and enhanced in all subsequent ones, is the main way the Pentagon militarizes the Pacific. It focuses on building up military infrastructure in the Pacific, purchasing and placing weaponry there, expanding military training and exercises there, and fostering and co-opting regional leaders.

3. Spend money on goods and services made by U.S. war corporations.3 For example, section 1640 of the 2024 NDAA required the Pentagon to establish a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile program. (Sections 1513 of the 2025 NDAA and 1633 of the 2026 NDAA refined the program’s goals.) Guess which corporations the military will pay to develop this weapon!

4. Assess what the official enemies are doing in a given region.

  • Assess, for example, what Moscow and Beijing are up to in Latin America and the Caribbean (2024 NDAA, section 7342).
  • Devise a strategy for “exposing, and, as appropriate, countering” China’s “malign activities” (2025 NDAA, section 1254).
  • Evaluate [alleged] fentanyl trafficking by the Chinese government (2026 NDAA, section 8313) and plan to “respond” to China’s “global” military bases (section 8367).

These are just a few examples.

The assessments are then used to create fear and hype up such “threats.” Look out! [Country you’re taught to fear] is doing X, Y, and Z in [region U.S.-based capitalists want to dominate]! Bigger budgets follow. More money for war corporations.

5. Spend tax dollars on researching more technology for war and espionage. For example, the past three NDAAs have mandated research in artificial intelligence, microelectronics, nuclear weaponry, and much more. Industry does the research. And charges a pretty penny for it. (Meanwhile, corporations don’t use much of their own profit for R&D. Profit goes to execs and investors.)

The most famous example in recent years is the 2023 NDAA, which contained several provisions regarding Taiwan. One provision allowed Taiwan to receive foreign military financing (FMF) from the U.S. government. FMF usually goes to independent countries, not breakaway provinces. FMF consists of loans and/or grants from the U.S. government for a country to purchase goods and services from the U.S. war industry.

And, just like that, the 2023 NDAA increased U.S. belligerence toward Beijing and made war more likely, profiting corporations all the while.

Every subsequent NDAA increased the likelihood of all-out war with China. The 2026 NDAA, for example, further weaponized Taiwan by $1 billion, accelerated U.S.-Taiwan drone and counter-drone programs, encouraged the Pentagon to invite Taiwan to the massive annual military exercise known as RIMPAC, and more.

Full-court Press

Corporate capture is thorough.

It is lobbying; funding political parties and campaigns; establishing and funding think tanks; lying about jobs; using trade groups to imbricate military and industry; crafting policy and strategy on the inside; using boards to advise the Pentagon; flooding the military with corporate goods, services, and personnel; hogging data and requiring licensing; occupying the top Pentagon positions; and propagandizing military officers directly.

The troops are users of corporate goods and services.

Military bases are avenues of corporate profit.

That is how big business sees the U.S. military. And it has achieved its vision.

Christian Sorensen is a researcher focused on the U.S.-based corporations profiting from war. A U.S. Air Force veteran, Sorensen is associate director of the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN), a group of military and intel veterans who disagree with U.S. foreign policy and believe a better world is possible.

December 30, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Europe’s nuclear sites on high alert for drone threats in the year ahead

Western countries scramble to bring in new defences as experts see rise of autonomous threats everywhere

Thomas Harding, December 26, 2025. https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/europe/2025/12/26/europes-nuclear-facilities-put-on-a-2026-drone-alert/

It was a taste of what could become one of the decisive threats next year, when the flight path between Dublin and Britain’s Sellafield nuclear reactor was disrupted by unidentified drones.

On the incoming jet was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his wife, minutes away from landing at Dublin Airport, slightly ahead of schedule.

After an Irish naval vessel reported that a number of drones were manoeuvring 36km north-east of the city – Sellafield is just 200km from the capital – Ireland’s Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan said it was a “co-ordinated threat” to “put pressure” on Europe and Ukraine.

Just days later, the menace shifted. The French Navy opened fire on drones detected over a highly sensitive site housing the country’s fleet of nuclear submarines.

The drones at Ile Longue naval base were ultimately intercepted with jamming systems, but their presence over one of the continent’s most heavily protected sites sent a clear message: Europe is waking up to significant vulnerabilities to its military and civilian nuclear sites, and Russia is widely suspected to be behind the activity.

Nuclear threat

France has19 nuclear power stations, Britain has five − including Sellafield, in Cumbria, north-west England − and many more are spread across the continent. Defence analysts have warned that a hostile state could target a vulnerable power station rather than resorting to the outright belligerence of launching a nuclear weapon.

Causing a nuclear incident with several drone strikes would be difficult, but even a limited attack could cause symbolic and economic damage. Fallout could include enforced shutdowns, mass evacuations and financial market panic, all without a state crossing the nuclear threshold.

“What if Russia just blows up one of the nuclear power plants in the UK using drones that are flown from within the UK?” said Ed Arnold, a senior military analyst at the Royal United Services Institute think tank. “That’s a different vector of threat, but it would achieve the same result from a Russian perspective.”

He added that the sites’ “vulnerabilities are really quite critical, because this is hard to defend against,” and that even just flying drones over sensitive sites “is cheap, deniable and has a high economic impact”.

Ukraine, on one level, is responsible for tactics that were previously the stuff of imagination. Its remarkably successful Operation Spider-Web in June demonstrated the changed boundaries of warfare.

The operation used more than 100 short-range kamikaze drones launched from lorries parked within 10km of several Russian airbases, destroying 11 Russian long-range bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

“Although it was a costly lesson, it likely opened Moscow’s eyes to the opportunities afforded by these capabilities,” wrote Dr Daniel Salisbury in an International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank paper on the growing threat. “Even minimal capability can use emerging technologies to hold nuclear assets at risk,” he added.

A year ago, the idea of a head of state being targeted for assassination by drones seemed like a plot from a Tom Clancy novel. Not any more. Presidential security details now carry drone jammers that resemble oversized guns.

But it is not just the French and Irish incidents that are setting off a wave of concern over Europe. Last month, drones were spotted over Kleine-Brogel Air Base in Belgium on three consecutive nights.

New modes

In the Netherlands, guards fired at drones over Volkel Air Base, which hosts US nuclear weapons under Nato’s nuclear-sharing arrangements. Earlier this month, Dutch F-35 fighter jets were scrambled to intercept a drone.

Similar incidents have been reported around RAF Lakenheath in eastern England, which is likely to soon host US nuclear weapons after a two decade absence.

What is troubling the authorities is that the flights are clustered around high-value nuclear and military sites, with drones larger and more capable than those usually used by hobbyists.

“These are not people flying toys,” said Belgium’s Defence Minister, Theo Francken, after the Kleine-Brogel incursion. “They came to spy, to see where the F-16s are, where the ammunition is and other highly strategic information.” Furthermore, some of the UAVs flew higher and proved resistant to jamming.

This adds to a series of incidents since September in which drones flew over civilian airports across Eastern Europe, as well as Germany and Scandinavia.

The flights, likely conducted by criminal gangs and paid for in cryptocurrency by Moscow, could well be construed as “hostile reconnaissance” to look into sites or indeed test their anti-drone technology for a future conflict.

Drones can also gather real-time imagery that satellites cannot and if one could capture either a French nuclear-armed submarines leaving Ile Longue or a Royal Navy one departing Faslane in Scotland it would give enemies a significant tracking advantage.

Drones everywhere

Hostile states can also use the rapidly expanding civilian drone market to blend into the noise to hide their true intentions. In Britain it is estimated that by 2030 there could be 76,000 commercial drones operating in its airspace, according to The Economist. And across Europe, more than 3,800 close encounters between drones and aircraft were recorded last year − more than double the previous year.

Drones, Mr Arnold argued, are perfectly suited to “grey zone” operations, those activities that fall short of open warfare but inflict disruption and apprehension.

Annabelle Walker, an analyst at the intelligence company Sibylline, also suggested that Russia has a strong interest in probing Nato’s readiness.

“The use of drones has exposed a particular gap in European countries,” she said. “Testing response times, decision-making and co-ordination tells you a lot and it can all be done below the threshold of war.”

Shoot ’em down?

Shooting down drones risks collateral damage. Main defences include jamming or “spoofing”, in which drones are tricked into misidentifying their location. Jamming is less effective against autonomous drones programmed to strike or that are using fibre-optic control − as seen widely in the Ukraine-Russia war.

Defenders can use physical countermeasures such as guns that shoot nets, and shotguns, which are broadly carried in Ukraine. The National understands that Kyiv is set to unveil next year a state-of-the art interceptor drone. The counter-drone industry is now becoming a major market for defence companies.

To defend against a serious attack on a nuclear site, governments must identify vulnerable locations then use a layered defence of radar, electronic warfare and trained personnel dedicated to counter-drone operations, said Douglas Barrie of the IISS.

But air defence was an area where European states had underinvested for decades since the Cold War ended. “Western Europe and the UK really need to pay more attention as this is back on the agenda in a big way,” Mr Barrie told The National.

“Moscow is clearly in the frame, and they’re testing the boundaries of what they can get away with before the other side pushes back,” he added.

Mr Zelenskyy’s near-miss over Dublin was not necessarily an act of war but it was a warning − as were the other incidents − and Moscow may well consider further disruptive operations that avoid open conflict.

It is now a question of whether Europe can strengthen its defences against a threat that will only intensify.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israeli Occupation Intensifies: Defense Minister Vows Permanent Gaza Presence as Settler Violence Escalates in West Bank.

by Dave DeCamp | December 23, 2025 , https://news.antiwar.com/2025/12/23/israeli-defense-minister-vows-permanent-israeli-occupation-of-gaza-establishment-of-settlements/

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz vowed on Tuesday that the Israeli military will “never leave all of Gaza” and will eventually establish settlements in the northern part of the Strip.

“We are deep inside Gaza and will never leave all of Gaza – that will not happen. We are here to defend and to prevent what happened,” Katz said during an event in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

“With God’s help, when the time comes, also in northern Gaza, we will establish Nahal pioneer groups in place of the settlements that were evacuated,” Katz added, referring to an IDF program that establishes communities for Israeli soldiers. “We’ll do it in the right way, at the appropriate time.”

Katz also vowed that Israel would not withdraw “one millimeter” from Syria, referring to the territory it has captured in southwest Syria since the fall of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

After his remarks sparked backlash, Katz appeared to walk back the comments on settlements. “The government has no intention of establishing settlements in the Gaza Strip,” his office said in a statement, though it added that he made the comments in a “security context,” suggesting it wasn’t a complete walk back about what he said about establishing military communities.

An unnamed US official criticized Katz’s comments, saying that he was “provoking” the Arab world. “The more Israel provokes, the less the Arab countries want to work with them,” the US official said in a statement to journalists.

“The United States remains fully committed to President Trump’s 20-Point Peace Plan, which was agreed to by all parties and endorsed by the international community. The plan envisions a phased approach to security, governance, and reconstruction in Gaza. We expect all parties to adhere to the commitments they made under the 20-Point Plan,” the official added.

Katz did not walk back his comments about a permanent Israeli occupation of Gaza, and other Israeli officials have made similar vows. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said earlier this month that the so-called “yellow line,” the vague boundary separating the Israeli-occupied side of Gaza from the rest of the Strip, is a “new border.”

The IDF currently occupies more than 50% of Gaza, and Palestinians, for the most part, have been cleansed from the area, besides the Israeli-backed anti-Hamas militias and gangs and a small number of civilians living with them. If Israel’s occupation doesn’t end, Israeli settlers will continue to push for the establishment of settlements on the IDF side of the yellow line.

The Nachala movement, a group of settlers pushing for Jewish settlement in Gaza and the complete expulsion of the Palestinian population, welcomed Katz’s initial comments, saying it was a “step in the right direction toward returning Jewish settlement in Gaza.” Settlers with the Nachala movement recently entered Gaza and raised an Israeli flag.

Nachala has strong support among members of the Israeli government and the Knesset. Senior members of the Israeli government have been explicit in their desire for ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the establishment of Jewish settlements. A few days after the Gaza ceasefire deal was signed, which Israel has continued to violate by killing over 400 Palestinians, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich vowed there would be “Jewish settlements in Gaza.”

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment