Blinken: US Does Not Oppose Ukrainian Attacks Inside Russia With US-Supplied Missiles
By successfully winding down the clock babbling about what Ukraine has a right to do, Blinken avoided discussing the real issue of what the US itself is doing.
What’s being debated is whether the US should be backing those attacks, because doing so could lead to nuclear war.
Caitlin’s Newsletter CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, SEP 11, 2023
During an appearance on ABC’s This Week with Jonathan Karl, Secretary of State Tony Blinken explicitly said that the US would not oppose Ukraine using US-supplied longer-range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory, a move that Moscow has previously called a “red line” which would make the United States a direct party to the conflict.
“We understand that the United States is considering sending those long-range missiles that Ukraine has been asking for for a long time,” Karl said in the interview. “These are long-range missiles, 200 miles in range. Are you okay if those missiles allow Ukraine to attack deep into Russian territory?”
“In terms of their targeting decisions, it’s their decision, not ours,” answered Blinken after some bloviation………………………………………………………………………………..
By successfully winding down the clock babbling about what Ukraine has a right to do, Blinken avoided discussing the real issue of what the US itself is doing. Nobody disputes that Ukraine has a right to attack Russian territory; Russia is attacking Ukrainian territory, so of course Ukraine has a right to retaliate. That is not being seriously debated anywhere. What’s being debated is whether the US should be backing those attacks, because doing so could lead to nuclear war.
A year ago when Ukraine first started urging the United States to send it the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) — which has nearly four times the range of the HIMARS weapons the US has been supplying — Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova immediately responded with a warning that their use on Russian territory would make the US a direct participant in the conflict, and Russia would respond accordingly.
“If Washington decides to supply longer-range missiles to Kyiv, then it will be crossing a red line, and will become a direct party to the conflict,” Zakharova said, adding that Russia “reserves the right to defend its territory.”
As Michael Tracey noted on Twitter, Blinken was saying last year that Ukraine had provided assurances to the US that it would not use the other weapons systems the US has been supplying “against targets on Russian territory.” Going by Blinken’s current statements and the attacks we’ve been seeing from Ukraine inside the Russian Federation, this agreement appears no longer to be in place. Blinken has already previously voiced support for Ukrainian use of US-supplied weapons in Crimea, and now he’s saying the US is fine with any US-supplied weapons being used on any Russian territory.
Which means there appears to have been yet another massive escalation between nuclear superpowers, which is once again going alarmingly under-reported by the western press.
In an article published in Antiwar this past July titled “ATACMS: Be Very Afraid of This Acronym,” West Suburban Peace Coalition president Walt Zlotow wrote that this missile system “has potential to draw the US and NATO into all out war with Russia”:
ATACMS are long range US missiles that can strike up to 190 miles. Top US officials, likely including President Biden, are seriously considering giving ATACMS to Ukraine in their battle to take back all Russian gains in Ukraine, including Crimea. They can reach both Crimea and the Russian mainland.
If so used by Ukraine to attack Russia, it may be a missile too far that could ignite Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Further escalation into nuclear confrontation between Russia and the US/NATO alliance seeking Russia’s defeat becomes more likely.
The US and its allies keep providing Ukraine with more and more offensive weapons that they had previously refused to supply for fear of getting drawn into the war and provoking a nuclear conflict. Last year Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov correctly predicted that the US would wind up supplying the tanks, F-16s and ATACMS it had previously deemed too escalatory, because that had already been established as the trend from the beginning of the war.
“When I was in D.C. in November, before the invasion, and asked for Stingers, they told me it was impossible,” Reznikov told The New Yorker last year. “Now it’s possible. When I asked for 155-millimetre guns, the answer was no. HIMARS, no. HARM, no. Now all of that is a yes.” He added, “Therefore, I’m certain that tomorrow there will be tanks and ATACMS and F-16s.”
As Branko Marcetic explained earlier this year in an article for Responsible Statecraft titled “Mission Creep? How the US role in Ukraine has slowly escalated,” this continual pattern of escalation is actually incentivizing Russia to start taking aggressive action against western powers so that its warnings and red lines will cease being ignored.
“By escalating their support for Ukraine’s military, the U.S. and NATO have created an incentive structure for Moscow to take a drastic, aggressive step to show the seriousness of its own red lines,” Marcetic writes. “This would be dangerous at the best of times, but particularly so when Russian officials are making clear they increasingly view the war as one against NATO as a whole, not merely Ukraine, while threatening nuclear response to the alliance’s escalation in weapons deliveries.”
“Moscow keeps saying escalatory arms transfers are unacceptable and could mean wider war; U.S. officials say since Moscow hasn’t acted on those threats, they can freely escalate. Russia is effectively told it has to escalate to show it’s serious about lines,” Marcetic added on Twitter.
And it’s just so strange how this isn’t the main thing everyone talks about all the time. The fact that we are drawing closer and closer to nuclear conflict should dominate headlines every single day, and the subject of how to avoid planetary disaster should be the constant focus of mainstream political discourse. But it isn’t, because that would interfere with the grand chessboard maneuverings of a globe-dominating empire working to secure unipolar planetary domination by undermining disobedient nations like Russia and China.
It’s hard to think about the end of the world. It’s hard to even wrap your mind around it, much less stand staring into the harsh white light of deep contemplation about what it is and what it would mean. A lot of cognitive dissonance and discomfort comes up, and it’s easier to shift one’s attention to something easier to chew on like the presidential race.
But this is something that urgently needs to be looked at. Because the people steering our world today appear to be driving blind. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/blinken-us-does-not-oppose-ukrainian?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=136928224&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email
With long-range missiles for Ukraine, US crosses own red line
The US will reportedly send ATACMS to Ukraine — yet another advanced weapons system that the White House had previously ruled out.
Substack AARON MATÉ, SEP 12, 2023
The Biden administration is reportedly close to authorizing yet another weapons system for Ukraine that it had previously ruled out. According to ABC News and the Financial Times, the US will send Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, a high priority for Kiev and its most hawkish backers. The long-range missiles, which travel up to 190 miles, would bolster Ukraine’s capacity to hit Crimea and possibly mainland Russia.
The White House previously invoked that very capability to rule out the ATACMS as too dangerous an escalation. As National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan explained in June 2022, President Biden was “not prepared to provide” long-range missiles, given the “key goal” of avoiding “the road towards a third world war.”
Just over one year later, the road towards a third world war is no longer closed…………………….. (subscribers only) more https://mate.substack.com/p/with-long-range-missiles-for-ukraine?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=136923393&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&utm_medium=email
Women with medical education to be banned from leaving Ukraine and forced to sign up for military service – Kyiv Post
Exit from Ukraine may be restricted for some women – Kyiv Post
08.09.2023 https://www.voiceofeurope.com/exit-from-ukraine-may-be-restricted-for-some-women-kyiv-post/
Starting from October 1st, women with medical and pharmaceutical education may be required to register for military service but it is not yet clear whether they will be subject to travel restrictions from Ukraine. This might be similar to men aged 18-60 who are subject to mobilization, as reported by the Kyiv Post newspaper.
According to reports published on the parliament’s website and later removed, Fedir Wenisławski, the representative of the President of Ukraine in the Supreme Council and a member of the Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence of the Supreme Council, announced that women must register with military commissions and may not be allowed to leave the country from October 1st.
Wenisławski claimed that after registration, women would be considered conscripts and would be subject to specific procedures regarding foreign travel.
Since the outbreak of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the declaration of a state of emergency in Ukraine, men aged 18-60 have been unable to leave the country due to mandatory military conscription. However, Andrij Demczenko, the spokesperson for the Border Guard Service of Ukraine, expressed doubts about the implications of women’s registration with military commissions.
Demczenko stated that border guards have not been informed of any additional restrictions on the freedom to leave Ukraine due to women’s registration in military commissions.
He noted, however, that if such changes in regulations come into effect, border guards will monitor and enforce the new rules.
French nuclear cartel fined €31m
French watchdog issues 31 million euros fine against companies working on
nuclear dismantling. France’s antitrust watchdog on Thursday issued total
fines amounting to 31 million euros ($33.17 million) against six companies
for having engaged in cartel practices linked to the dismantling of a
nuclear site in Marcoule, southern France.
Reuters 7th Sept 2023
Construction Index 11th Sept 2023
https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/french-cartel-fined-31m
Ukraine war: Kyiv denounces G20 declaration as UN warns of potential nuclear safety threat
By Euronews with AFPPublished on 09/09/2023
G20 declaration on Ukraine: “nothing to be proud of” – Kyiv
Kyiv has criticised the G20 leaders’ statement on the war in Ukraine, in which they denounced the use of force, but neglected to mention Russia…………………………..
The text adopted by the G20 does not explicitly mention Russian “aggression” in Ukraine, a term used in 2022 during the previous G20 summit in Bali…………………. https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/09/ukraine-war-ukrainian-armed-forces-advance-as-zelenskyy-renews-calls-for-foreign-aid
Nuclear Free Local Authorities’ plea to new Energy Secretary: ‘Don’t make Sizewell C Suffolk’s nightmare.’
The UK / Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have written to the new Secretary of State for Energy Claire Continho MP asking her not to make Sizewell C ‘Suffolk’s nightmare’.
Ms Continho replaced Grant Shapps after the former Energy Secretary was sent to Defence following the resignation of Ben Wallace. She was only elected to Parliament in December 2019 for the safe Conservative seat of East Surrey and is largely unknown having previously saved in only a very junior ministerial post. With a background in banking, the new Energy Secretary does however have close connections with the Prime Minister having been an advisor and then a parliamentary aide to Rishi Sunak when he was at the Treasury, and a leading figure in Mr Sunak’s leadership campaign team.
Energy represents a massive promotion for Ms Continho, but it is a complex brief. In his letter the Chair of the NFLAs Councillor Lawrence O’Neill outlines why Sizewell C, and indeed the whole new nuclear programme, should not go ahead and urges the Secretary of State to ‘take up the offer made by local campaigners to visit the site and speak to local people about their serious concerns about this costly and foolhardy project’.
The NFLAs are also backing the campaign initiated by Stop Sizewell C to deprive the nuclear monster of private sector investment by lobbying pension funds. In this vein, we have previously contacted pension funds and last month we wrote also to the Chief Executive of Centrica, a previous commercial investor in nuclear plants, asking him to refrain from backing the project.
With recent unwelcome news of a further £300 million of government funding being awarded for preparatory works at Sizewell C, the campaign feels that ‘it is time to scale up’ the pensions campaign and is asking for public support. A bespoke platform has been developed featuring almost 70 pension funds, www.stopsizewellc.org/goodpension which is now backed by a short animated video voiced by Fiona Turnbull https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LjV_WbyWkUsGf7ClwPuinU_Dq_sY7NZ9/edit .
Stop Sizewell C is asking campaign supporters who make pension contributions or receive pensions to write to their fund managers urging them NOT to invest in Sizewell C. However, the most pressing priority is to expand the reach of the campaign so Stop Sizewell C is asking supporters to raise awareness of it by sharing the links on their social media accounts.
The links to the latest pensions campaign post are:
Twitter/X – https://twitter.com/StopSizewellC/status/1699788799654637820?s=20
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cw5KbW6s6wq/
Facebook – https://fb.watch/mVA8OdaiP7/
LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7105240738447114240
Councillor O’Neill added: “Sizewell C can be seen as many-headed like the mythical hydra; many of the heads represent a possible financial investment. It we can cut off the heads we can kill the monster!”
1000 Sellafield Ltd. contractors to be balloted for strike by Unite
AROUND 1,000 contractors at Sellafield are being balloted for potential
strike action, after Unite have criticised an ‘unacceptable offer’ from
management. More than 3,000 engineering construction workers nationally,
operating under the National Agreement for Engineering Construction
Industry (NAECI), are being balloted for strike action overpay, Unite, the
UK’s leading union, said on Thursday, September 7. This includes about
1,000 Sellafield Ltd. contractors who the union say conduct critical repair
and maintenance at the site.
Whitehaven News 10th Sept 2023
Ukraine’s defeat could mean the end of NATO in its current form
The ‘shift focus to another enemy’ narrative is the simplest and most obvious – that will be China. NATO is already trying to expand its influence in Asia, including via a planned ‘liaison office’ in Japan. The ‘China is the real threat’ narrative is bubbling steadily to the surface in Western media.
The bloc has too much riding on Kiev’s highly-unlikely success, and that’s why it’s doing all it can to prolong the conflict
By Chay Bowes, journalist and geopolitical analyst, MA in Strategic Studies, RT correspondent
As the West’s proxy war in Ukraine slips inexorably towards utter failure, the neocons behind the debacle are faced with dwindling avenues of retreat.
Early confidence that Russia, in its current form, would collapse under the pressure of the harshest sanctions regime in history failed to materialize. Early Russian miscalculations on the battlefield were not followed by a military meltdown, but by a pragmatic display of strategic adaptability, which is begrudgingly admired in the military war rooms of the West. The Russian army, far from falling apart, has steeled itself into making bold decisions to retreat when prudent and advance when required, both of which have proven devastating for their Ukrainian opponents. It follows that, as the Western political elites that cultivated this conflict peer into another winter of political, military, and potentially economic discontent, it is now that we potentially face the most dangerous period in Europe since the outbreak of WWII.
The catalyst for a wider war in Europe isn’t, in fact, a limited conflict in Ukraine in itself, one that started in 2014 and, notably, had been largely ignored by Western powers for almost a decade. The real issue is that NATO, which is currently engaged in a proxy War with Russia, is facing a ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ scenario regarding its growing military involvement in Ukraine. If the US-led bloc escalates further as defeat looms, it could likely lead to direct confrontation with Russia. If it doesn’t, its proxy will collapse and leave Russia victorious, a fate once utterly unthinkable in Brussels, Washington, and London, but now becoming a nightmarish reality.
Such a defeat would be devastating and potentially terminal for the prestige and reputation of the whole NATO brand. After all, despite the Soviet Union having long ceased to exist, the bloc still markets itself as an indispensable bulwark against imagined Russian expansionism. In the event of an increasingly likely Ukrainian defeat, that ‘essential partner’ in ‘countering Russia’ will have been proven utterly impotent and largely irrelevant. More cynically, the vast US arms industry would also be denied a huge and lucrative market. So, how does a multi billion-dollar machine that has prophesied absolute victory against Russia even begin to contemplate defeat? And how do senior EU bureaucrats like Ursula Von der Leyen climb down from their quasi-religious devotion to the ‘cause’ of utterly defeating Russia, which she has shamelessly evangelized for over a year and a half? Lastly, how does the American administration, which has gone politically, morally, and economically ‘all in’ against Russia in Ukraine, contemplate what amounts to an increasingly inevitable European version of Afghanistan 2.0?
They will need to do two things: Firstly, find someone to blame for their defeat and secondly, find a new enemy to deflect public opinion onto. The ‘someone to blame’ will be quite easy to identify – the narrative will be flush with attacks on states like Hungary, China, and to some extent India, who will be accused of “undermining the unified effort needed to isolate and defeat Russia.”
Blaming Ukraine itself will also be central to this narrative. Western media will insure it’s singled out as incapable of ‘taking the medicine’ proffered by NATO and therefore suffering the consequences, not listening to Western military advice, failing to utilize Western aid correctly and, of course – given that little has been done by Zelensky to tackle the endemic corruption in Ukraine – this fact will be easily weaponized against him and used to lubricate a slick narrative of ‘we tried to help them, but they simply couldn’t be saved from themselves’.
The ‘shift focus to another enemy’ narrative is the simplest and most obvious – that will be China. NATO is already trying to expand its influence in Asia, including via a planned ‘liaison office’ in Japan. The ‘China is the real threat’ narrative is bubbling steadily to the surface in Western media.
And, most worryingly, should Western powers fail to make their case for ‘plausible deniability’ around the culpability for this war, there is always the option of further escalating it. Such an escalation could rapidly lead to direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, an outcome no lucid observer on either side of the debate could or should be contemplating. The problem is, rational assessment and negotiation seem to have become so rare in Washington and Kiev that a devastating escalation could, quite remarkably, be considered an option by the deluded neocon think-tank advisers wielding disproportionate influence over an increasingly desperate political class in Washington and Brussels. In the event that NATO does indeed sanction a direct intervention into Ukraine, it will, of course, be justified as a ‘peacekeeping’ or humanitarian intervention by Polish or Romanian troops, but the categorization of the ‘mission’ will become gloriously irrelevant when the first clashes with Russian forces occur, followed by a potentially rapid spiral into all-out war between Russia and NATO.
It could be argued that the process to disassociate from Ukraine has already started, beginning with the embarrassment Zelensky faced at the recent NATO summit and progressing with the open spats between Western ‘partners’ over whether to give Ukraine ever deadlier weapons to essentially insure its self-destruction.
From here on out one thing is abundantly clear, nothing will happen by accident when it comes to the EU and NATO’s interaction with the Zelensky regime. Whatever comes next may need to be spun both ways, to either pull out or to escalate. A case in point is the blame game being openly acted out around the obvious failure of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, with open finger-pointing in the Western media by Ukrainian officials like the ambassador to Germany, Aleksey Makeev. Kiev’s top man in Germany recently blamed the West for the bloody failure of the ill-fated project, suggesting it was solely due to European and American delays in shipping weapons and cash to Kiev. According to the ambassador, it was this Western failure that apparently allowed the Russians to build their defenses in eastern Ukraine, where tens of thousands of unfortunate Ukrainian conscripts have met their fate in the past three months.
In the real world, the counteroffensive, which has now become a slow-motion calamity, had been telegraphed to the Russians and the wider world for almost a year and will surely be recalled as one of the greatest military misadventures in history. The fact that the Ukrainian regime openly advertised its intentions, even loudly pointing out the avenue of assault and strategic goals, is conveniently ignored by the likes of Makeev. It now seems apparent that Kiev believed that its overt saber-rattling would stimulate faster and larger weapons shipments from its increasingly concerned partners – it didn’t, and by the time those very same sponsors’ patience ran out with Kiev’s lack of progress on the battlefield, it was glaringly obvious any offensive against long-prepared Russian defenses was doomed to fail. Yet, because of Kiev’s PR need and demands from Western political elites, the counteroffensive began, wiping out entire battalions of Ukrainian troops and burning through a huge portion of the Western heavy weapons previously provided.
The situation evokes a kind of tragic romantic folly, with Ukraine desperate to woo NATO and the EU to the point of suicide, NATO and the EU playing the aloof lover; never having really considered marriage but willing to allow its admirer to throw itself onto the spears of the real object of their attention – Russia. Of course, the real concern now preoccupying the EU-NATO cabal is how to survive this tawdry affair and move on. While the hapless Jens Stoltenberg would have us believe NATO has never been stronger, the reality is far less rosy for the ‘defensive alliance’ that has bombed its way across Europe and the Middle East, and now seeks to expand to the Pacific. The reality is that the Ukraine conflict could destroy NATO. It has become something of a modern day League of Nations, adept at admonishing small fish, but utterly incapable of standing toe to toe with any peer adversary, a failed political institution, posing as a military alliance, that in reality would collapse in the face of a direct challenge from either Russia or China. Of course, it seems that NATO has also willfully fallen under the spell of its own propaganda.
The big question now is whether the bloc would in reality contemplate a direct confrontation with Russia in Ukraine? Or will the Western political elites who built the scaffold the Ukrainian conflict is now blazing on choose to reverse through blame or escalate through desperation?
One thing is indisputable: The fate of NATO and its credibility as a ‘defensive alliance’ is irrevocably intertwined with the outcome of the Ukrainian conflict, yet because NATO is, in reality, a political rather than military institution, these crucial issues will never be debated openly, as the answers would be akin to a priest announcing the nonexistence of God from the pulpit.
USA & NATO responsible for Ukraine war, German & French public say in poll
Most people in Germany and France blame the United States and/or NATO for the war in Ukraine, according to a poll conducted not by a pro-Russian group but rather by anti-Putin activists.
BEN NORTON, SEP 10, 2023, Geopolitical Economy Report
Original shows tables of poll results.
Most people in Germany and France blame the United States or NATO for the war in Ukraine, according to a poll conducted not by a pro-Russian group but rather by anti-Putin activists.
This public opinion is unlikely to have a significant impact on government policy, however.
Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated bluntly in a NATO-funded conference in 2022 that Berlin would support Ukraine “no matter what my German voters think”.
In the German poll, respondents were only allowed to pick one answer. In France, the poll was a bit different, and people could blame multiple parties for starting the war in Ukraine. (This explains why the sum of the latter poll is greater than 100%.)
Among the French surveyed, 43% blamed the USA, 36% NATO, 19% Ukraine, and 19% other European countries, while 40% blamed Putin.
These results suggest that many average Europeans can see clearly that the conflict in Ukraine is not merely a battle between Kiev and Moscow, but rather a proxy war that the NATO military alliance, led by the United States, is waging against Russia.
The outcome of these polls is even more striking when one considers who sponsored them.
The so-called “Anti-Corruption Foundation” was founded by Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, a regime-change activist who is openly supported by Western governments…………………………………………………………………………………………….more https://geopoliticaleconomy.substack.com/p/us-nato-responsible-ukraine-war-poll?r=nxsz
IAEA warns of nuclear safety threat as combat spikes near Ukraine nuclear power plant
The United Nations atomic watchdog warned of a potential threat to nuclear
safety from a spike in fighting near Europe’s largest nuclear power plant
in Ukraine, whose forces continued pressing their counteroffensive on
Saturday. The International Atomic Energy Agency said its experts deployed
at the Russia-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant reported hearing
numerous explosions over the past week, in a possible indication of
increased military activity in the region. There was no damage to the
plant.
PBS 9th Sept 2023
Ukrainian Dissident Resists NATO’s Proxy War
September 10, 2023, By Max Blumenthal / YouTube
Ukrainian journalist and exiled antiwar dissident Ruslan Kostaba has been jailed and brutally attacked for his years of opposition to his government’s war in the Donbas, and his calls for peace with Russia. From exile, he speaks to The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal about the growing movement in Ukraine against escalating the war, and the price his countrymen face for attempting to escape the war.
Comment. Kalen
Thanks for the first on SP post about peace activism in Ukraine although it is very diverse with many angles and ideologies. Most of them acquired legitimacy many years ago when they did what real peace peace movements must do namely tried to promote peace like Minsk agreements and prevent wars not freezing them. They failed among other things because their voice was suppressed in the western peace movements that actually fueled the war. Now Ukrainians for peace and that also includes non-pacifists are appalled by Ukraine being used by NATO as bloody battlefield to preserve US hegemony over Eurasia.
The western peace movements’ silence and betrayal of gruesome fate of thousands of Ukrainian peace activists exiled, hundreds murdered and imprisoned by Kiev regime while protesting eight years of Donbas war against civilians, Kiev escalation of war financed by US and in last 18 months calling for peace talks with Russia is one of darkest chapters of western peace movements already tarnished by adopting nonsense of just wars and humanitarian killings.
The old western anti war movements are all dead, some act like war craving zombies. They burned to ashes. There is nothing to resurrect as they were always fundamentally wrong and morally highly ambiguous as long as they were judging foreign societies they had no idea about pushing supposedly universal superiority of western liberalism they were themselves clueless about. As a result they often externally fueled conflicts, prevented any solutions of social peace to be achieved by local communities’ cooperation free of dogmatic political or religious influences.
UK / ‘No Easy Options’ For Disposal Of Plutonium Stockpile, Says Report
“simpler and cheaper to consider it a waste material alongside the other legacies from the nuclear industry, and safely dispose of it.”
NUCNET, bBy David Dalton, 6 September 2023
There are no easy options when it comes to the “unavoidably complex” task of managing the UK’s plutonium stockpile, but more research, development and innovation is needed to underpin any decision, a report says.
The report, prepared by the Dalton Nuclear Institute at Manchester University, calls for a national dialogue led by “trusted voices” and based on a clear view of the government’s thinking of the role, if any, plutonium might play in meeting future UK energy needs.
The stockpile could be used as fuel for existing or future thermal reactors. It could also be combined with the UK’s 100,000 tonne supply of depleted, natural and low-enriched uranium to fuel new fast reactors, which has the potential to power the UK for centuries. Both options could lead to the reduction of the UK’s nuclear legacy burden.
Another option is to dispose of the stockpile in the planned UK deep geological repository.
Professor Clint Sharrad, acting director of the Dalton Nuclear Institute, said while this all sounds promising, successfully delivering such outcomes would take time, money, organisation, and commitment.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a government body, is in the process of repackaging the plutonium stocks, stored at Sellafield in northwest England, into more robust containment.
“Being wary of the current global political and economic climate, it may be that extracting the energy from UK plutonium in the not-too-distant future becomes unnecessarily expensive and political barriers may be too difficult to overcome,” Prof Sharrad said.
“Therefore, it might be simpler and cheaper to consider it a waste material alongside the other legacies from the nuclear industry, and safely dispose of it.”
The stockpile originates from reprocessing spent fuel from the UK’s reactor fleets, plus some material derived from outside the UK….. https://www.nucnet.org/news/no-easy-options-for-disposal-of-uranium-stockpile-says-report-9-3-2023
Is Ukraine’s new long-range missile technology bringing us closer to WW3? Experts say Putin ‘might try something desperate’ amid US fears it will convince Vladimir to use nuclear weapons
- Kyiv last month blew up Russian air defence system with modified cruise missile
- The new missile gives Ukraine the capacity to strike deep into Russian territory
- Experts told MailOnline what the missiles mean for war and potential retaliation
Daily Mail By DAVID AVERRE and RACHAEL BUNYAN 10 September 2023
Ukraine’s development of a newly modified cruise missile that could strike targets hundreds of miles across the Russian border has sparked fears that Vladimir Putin could resort to the nuclear option if he becomes ‘desperate’.
Dr. Alan Mendoza, executive director at the Henry Jackson Society think tank, said that although the nuclear threat is unlikely, it remains on the table should the Kremlin chief feel backed into a corner amid attacks on Russian cities.
‘It is not likely Russia would strike Ukraine or NATO allies with nuclear weapons simply in response to Neptune missiles being used – to do so would mean a response from the West that would surely hasten the demise of the Putin regime.
‘That said, if Putin felt that his grip on power was loosening beyond his control he might try something desperate. At that point, it would be hoped that saner forces within the Russian hierarchy would step in to relieve him of command,’ he said.
Meanwhile, former US Defense Attaché to Moscow and retired US Army Brigadier General Kevin Ryan said Washington was alarmed by Ukraine’s new strike capability.
‘The US administration is concerned that successful attacks by Ukraine into Russia could give Putin justification to expand his war to the West or even use nuclear weapons.
‘Deploying the Neptune in attacks against Russian infrastructure will escalate the war and force Putin and his military leadership to also escalate their attacks against Ukrainian cities.’
t comes after Ukraine last month destroyed a state-of-the-art Russian air defence system nestled in the occupied Crimean peninsula, scoring a direct hit on the S-400 ‘Triumf’ and blasting it sky-high in an impressive strike.
Putin‘s state-media mouthpieces and war-bloggers railed against the attack, labelling it the result of a British-supplied Storm Shadow missile and threatening retaliation against the West for its support of Kyiv.
But it was later revealed that the weapon behind the destruction of the S-400 was not a British projectile, but instead a modified version of a Neptune cruise missile – the kind that sunk the Moskva, pride of Russia‘s Black Sea Fleet last year.
By converting the Neptune anti-ship missile to be fired from land positions on land targets, Ukraine’s engineers have provided Zelensky‘s army with the capability to strike deep within Russian territory – something they’ve shown they can do already with drones – with devastating effect.
Senior Research Leader in Defence and Security at RAND Europe Bryden Spurling told MailOnline that the newly modified missile could enable Ukraine to destroy targets more than 200 miles inside Russian territory with near pin-point accuracy.
‘The earlier anti-ship version sank the Russian cruiser Moskva, so it is a precision weapon with a large warhead. The suggested range for this new land attack version seems to be somewhere between 170 and 190 miles – and could possibly grow to be as much as 225 miles according to some sources,’ Spurling said.
He added that the modified Neptune missiles unlock a new capability for Ukraine’s armed forces, whose access to Western weapon systems like Storm Shadow missiles is contingent on them being used exclusively to defend Ukrainian territory – not to strike across the border………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12479123/Is-Ukraines-new-long-range-missile-technology-bringing-closer-WW3-Experts-say-Putin-try-desperate-amid-fears-convince-Vladimir-use-nuclear-weapons.html
NATO isn’t able to help Ukraine win
Russia has the upper hand on the front lines as the bloc is no longer able to meet Kiev’s needs
Rt.com By Ilya Kramnik, military analyst, expert at the Russian International Affairs Council and researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences 10 Sept 23
More than 18 months into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, NATO military aid to Kiev remains a constituent part of the war. This factor seeps into public consciousness, influences the political perception of the conflict, and affects the situation on the battlefield, whichever side of the hostilities people find themselves on. All these aspects are important in their own right, and each will influence the course of the conflict and its eventual outcome. But how long will NATO be able to provide military assistance to Ukraine?
Gloomy prospects for Ukraine
NATO began providing assistance to Kiev as soon as the conflict started in 2022, and the volume of aid increased throughout the course of last year. This assistance largely influenced the attitude of ordinary Ukrainians toward the hostilities and reinforced the myth of a speedy and inevitable “victory” for Kiev, certain to happen because “the whole world supports us.”
The same attitude prevailed in the area of public policy – the aid provided by a particular country indicated whose side it was on: Ukraine’s “allies” in NATO (primarily the US) provided direct military assistance, while “neutral” countries offered only financial and organizational assistance, or no help at all.
On the battlefield, NATO aid is fully responsible for the combat capabilities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (UAF). If this aid is discontinued, the Ukrainian army will lose its combat capability within a few weeks, or as soon as the current ammunition stocks run out.
How likely is it that NATO assistance will continue? To answer this question, we need to understand the stocks of weapons and military equipment among members of the bloc – and it is important to note that many are lacking in this regard.
The US stands out for its available resources, and its weapons arsenal is larger than that of all other NATO countries. However, even though Washington has provided Kiev with large quantities of weapons and ammunition, it is still only supplying a relatively small share of what it has. Other countries with large weapons arsenals are Greece and Turkey. However, these stocks exist because of age-old tensions between the two countries, which limits their possible transfer to Ukraine.
In most other NATO countries, military stocks are relatively small and are intended mainly for export, particularly when the buyer is interested in used equipment which can be put to use in its existing condition or modernized.
These factors impose a limit on the volume of aid allocated to Ukraine, and are why military assistance to Kiev, which started in 2022 and peaked in early 2023, has begun to decline. It also means that unless the US starts handing over reserve military equipment, or, together with other allies, finds alternative suppliers, assistance will be cut further.
…………………………………………………………………………………… the Ukrainian counteroffensive was launched with a clear lack of artillery, tanks, and particularly engineering equipment, despite the fact that NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Christopher Cavoli declared that Ukrainian troops were fully equipped.
On the other hand, NATO made a number of decisions and signed contracts to equip Ukrainian troops on a long-term basis. This included the transfer of missile defense systems and other weapons which, due to insufficient production capacities, will not be available for several years. Like the decision to transfer fighter jets – which hasn’t yet been publicly finalized in terms of volume and timing – these contracts were assessed by numerous experts as “post-war,” i.e. intended to compensate after the conflict for the losses sustained.
However, the unsuccessful course of the Ukrainian counteroffensive launched in July makes the full-scale implementation of these contracts and intentions uncertain. Their prospects will be even more doubtful in the event of a successful Russian offensive in the coming fall or winter……………………………………
Will NATO be able to significantly increase aid to Ukraine in the near future? No. Military production is an inertial industry, and even if the decision to considerably increase the production of weapons were made tomorrow, it would take up to two years to yield any results. Considering the unfavorable public image of Ukraine’s unsuccessful counteroffensive, it may take even longer.
……….. It is quite likely that the initiative to transfer Western fighter jets to Ukraine will be quietly abandoned, since the AFU will no longer be able to use them. Russia knows full well that this is the case. In theory, this state of affairs should increase the willingness of the US to negotiate, although the upcoming election season will greatly complicate any potential talks.
So, unless something extraordinary happens, the West will most likely continue to support the Ukrainian armed forces to the extent necessary to continue resistance. This means Ukraine will not have enough equipment and weapons to launch a large-scale new counteroffensive unless the US decides to share its weapons arsenals.
Such a decision, however, would go against US practice in recent years as well as its strategic planning, which sees China as the main rival on which to focus its financial, military, and technological resources. https://www.rt.com/russia/582368-nato-ukraine-russia-front-lines/
Counter-offensive threatened by slow Western aid – Zelensky
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that Russia was slowing down the Ukrainian counter-offensive, blaming the “slowness” of Western arms deliveries. The leader also renewed calls for long-range weapons as well as new sanctions against Moscow.
Speaking on Friday, Zelenskyy also stressed that time was against Ukraine, with Russia banking on a Republican victory in the 2024 presidential election to weaken American support for Kyiv.
According to him, “the processes are becoming more complicated and slower when it comes to economic sanctions against Moscow or the supply of weapons” from the West.
Ukraine has complained in particular for months about the slowness of negotiations on the delivery of F-16 fighters. Several dozen of these American aircraft will ultimately be delivered by European countries, but the crews must now be trained for months in order to use them effectively.
The Ukrainian counter-offensive, launched in June, came up against powerful defence lines built by the Russians, including minefields and anti-tank traps…………………
American Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was in Kyiv on Wednesday and Thursday, judged the “significant progress” of the offensive “very, very encouraging”.
He promised $1 billion (approximately €933m) in new aid. Washington also confirmed the supply of depleted uranium shells to give “momentum” to the offensive……………………….. more https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/09/ukraine-war-ukrainian-armed-forces-advance-as-zelenskyy-renews-calls-for-foreign-aid
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- April 2026 (356)
- 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)
-
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 