Zelensky resists ceding Donbas, after abandoning it years ago
Zelensky objects to ceding the Donbas region under Trump’s peace plan. But when offered the chance to keep the region under a compromise with Russia, he adamantly refused.
Aaron Maté, Dec 13, 2025
Since the Trump administration began pressuring him to reach a peace deal with Russia last month, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has refused to cede any territory to Moscow. On Thursday, after a new round of salvos from President Trump, Zelensky appeared to leave some wiggle room. “The Russians want the whole of Donbas — we don’t accept that,” Zelensky told reporters. However, for the first time, he floated the idea of putting the issue to a national vote: “I believe that the Ukrainian people will answer this question. Whether in the form of elections or a referendum, the Ukrainian people must have a say.”
Any Ukrainian-administered referendum on the fate of the Donbas would exclude most of its population, who now live under Russian rule. While Zelensky insists that he will not reward what he sees as an illegal Russian land grab, the Ukrainian leader has squandered several opportunities to keep his borders intact. The February 2015 Minsk accords would have left the Donbas within Ukraine by granting it limited autonomy and abandoning Kyiv’s chances of joining NATO. Under the threat of ultra-nationalist violence, successive Ukrainian governments instead opted to retake Donbas by force and demonize the ethnic Russians who live there……………………………………………………………(Subscribers only) https://www.aaronmate.net/p/zelensky-resists-ceding-donbas-after?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=181439166&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The Moral Urgency of Compromise in Ukraine.
George Beebe, December 05, 2025
At the heart of the public debate over the latest twists and turns in the Trump administration’s ongoing discussions with Russian and Ukrainian negotiators is a fundamental moral question on which there is no consensus: Is it wrong to seek a compromise to end the war in Ukraine? To judge from the anguished reactions to the leak of the White House’s “28-point plan”—which was not really a plan so much as a rough snapshot in time of what US negotiators thought might bridge the gaps between Ukrainian and Russian demands—much of the Western commentariat believes the answer is yes.
In fact, the foreign policy establishments in Europe and Washington—which until recent years had presided over the West’s post-Cold War foreign policies—appear to view compromise itself as anathema. They insist that Russia should not gain in any way from its invasion of Ukraine, arguing that any other outcome would reward aggression, which would not only tempt Russia to resume its military conquests at some future date, but also invite similar aggression by China and others.
As a result, they argue, Ukraine should not withdraw from territory in Donetsk it now holds, even if that is reciprocated by Russian withdrawals outside the Donbass region, as Moscow has offered.
Nor should Russian-occupied territory be recognized as Russian in any way. Moscow should have no say in how Ukraine treats its linguistic and religious minorities or over whether Ukraine joins NATO, hosts Western combat forces, or has caps on its military holdings. All of these, it is argued, should be sovereign Ukrainian decisions, regardless of whether Russia drops its objections to Ukraine joining the European Union, as President Vladimir Putin has pledged. Moreover, Russia must pay war reparations, and its leaders must face trial for war crimes.
……………………………….. There are three big problems with this uncompromising stance. First, there is a yawning gap between what the opponents of a compromise insist must happen in Ukraine and their willingness to undertake the risks and sacrifices necessary to make it so. Neither the United States nor Europe has been willing to go to war with Russia to force its unconditional surrender, understanding that this would very likely end in nuclear conflict………………………..
Second, having ruled out both direct military intervention and compromise, Ukraine’s rejectionist benefactors assume that they can sustain a prolonged battlefield stalemate that will ultimately exhaust Russia’s resources or its patience. That assumption is wishful thinking at best. Ukraine’s military efforts suffer from two increasingly problematic shortages: manpower and air defenses. The West cannot remedy Ukraine’s recruitment and desertion problems without sending hundreds of thousands of its own forces to fight.
It cannot plug Ukraine’s growing air defense gap because Russia is building attack missiles, drones, and glide bombs faster than Western factories can manufacture air defense systems. This is not a formula for a prolonged stalemate; it is a recipe for Ukraine’s collapse, probably within months rather than years.
Third and most important: The principle that lies at the root of the Ukraine conflict, which the opponents of compromise claim to defend—the principle that every nation has a sovereign right to choose its military allies—was never intended to be absolute, and the United States historically has not treated it as sacrosanct.
……………………………………………… That [the Cuban missile]crisis was resolved through a compromise in which the Soviets agreed to remove their missiles from Cuba in return for America’s pledge to remove its own missiles from Turkey and to refrain from efforts to overthrow the Castro regime.
……………………………….A truly principled approach to ending the war in Ukraine cannot be uncompromising. It has to find a reasonable balance between principles that are by their very nature in tension with one another, such as Ukraine’s freedom to choose its allies and Moscow’s insistence that this freedom be limited by Russia’s security concerns………………………………………….. https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-moral-urgency-of-compromise-in-ukraine/
Japan rejects EU plan to steal Russian assets – Politico.
09 Dec 2025, https://www.sott.net/article/503419-Japan-rejects-EU-plan-to-steal-Russian-assets-Politico
The bloc wants to use Moscow’s funds immobilized in the West to cover Ukraine’s budget deficit.
Japan has reportedly dismissed a European Union initiative to tap frozen Russian sovereign assets to help finance Ukraine’s massive budget shortfall.
Brussels hopes to issue a so-called “reparation loan” backed by Russian funds immobilized in the West – a plan that Moscow has denounced as outright theft. Belgium, where most of the money is held by the Euroclear clearinghouse, has refused to greenlight the proposal unless other nations agree to share associated legal and financial risks.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has said broader international backing, particularly from non-EU countries holding Russian assets, would bolster the European Commission’s case for what he called the effective confiscation of a foreign state’s funds. But at a meeting of G7 finance ministers on Monday, Japan’s Satsuki Katayama made clear her government would not support the plan due to legal constraints, Politico reported, citing EU diplomatic sources.
Officials told the outlet they believe Japan’s stance aligns with that of the United States, which also opposes the EU approach and views the frozen assets as leverage in negotiations with Moscow.
France has reportedly likewise declined to touch any assets held on its soil, while Canada and the UK have signaled possible participation if the EU ultimately pursues the scheme.
Ukraine’s parliament last week adopted a 2026 budget with a staggering $47.5 billion deficit, expecting foreign donors and creditors to fill the gap. Roughly half that anticipated support – an estimated $23.6 billion – remains uncertain pending the fate of the EU loan plan.
Ukrainian media noted that lawmakers pushed the budget through despite unresolved questions over foreign financing, in part to project stability following the removal of Andrey Yermak, formerly the most powerful aide to the country’s leader, Vladimir Zelensky. Yermak was dismissed as a corruption scandal engulfed Kiev’s political establishment.
Cashing in on war: Why stealing Russia’s assets actually makes things worse for the EU.
The loan is also, implicitly, seen as an invitation to keep the war going – thus not only keeping the Kiev regime afloat but complicating the prospects for a comprehensive settlement.
03 Dec 2025 , https://www.sott.net/article/503422-Cashing-in-on-war-Why-stealing-Russias-assets-actually-makes-things-worse-for-the-EU
For bloc taxpayers, it could mean Brussels has walked them into a fait accompli where they simply have to stump up for funding a corrupt regime in Kiev.
After a week of humiliation in which her much-touted plot to sequester Russian assets to fund Kiev’s war chest was outright rejected by both Belgium and the European Central Bank, European Commission boss Ursula von der Leyen has told EU member states they have two choices, both of which would send cash to Kiev’s coffers.
According to the embattled EC president, either EU countries will have to borrow cash for Ukraine and make their taxpayers foot the bill, or allow her to push through her – potentially illegal – “reparations plan” and kick the repayment can down the road.
Let’s take a look at what all the talk is about.
Russia’s frozen assets: How much is where?
It is known that Belgium-based clearinghouse Euroclear holds some €180 billion in Russian central-bank funds. Reports that Luxembourg held some €20 billion in Russian assets was denied by the country itself, which claimed it holds “less than €10,000.”
Switzerland, which is in neither the EU nor G7 and thus not subject to von der Leyen’s demands, has declared some 7.45 billion Swiss Francs (€8 billion).Germany has refused to disclose what it holds, citing data protection laws. Japan is thought to hold some €30 billion, while former French Finance Minister Bruno de Maire has spoken about immobilizing some €22.8 billion. The US is believed to hold around $5 billion.
What are the Russian assets frozen in the EU?
The assets mainly consist of European short- and mid-duration bonds that have mostly already come due. When the bonds matured, the principal was paid. Because Euroclear wasn’t prepared to hold that much money itself, the proceeds were invested by Euroclear’s house bank in an account at the European Central Bank. The money is earning interest that legally belongs to Euroclear, although in ordinary circumstances the clearinghouse would send those funds (minus fees) to the client (the Russian central bank).
What is the proposed reparations loan?
The plan entails the EU loaning Ukraine up to €140 billionusing the Russian assets as collateral. Technically, this would involve Euroclear making an interest-free loan of the same value as the Russian assets it holds.
The EU would sign for the cash and give it to Kiev where it would ostensibly be used to fight the war and cover budget expenses, although past experience indicates that much of it could end up in offshore accounts belonging to insiders close to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky.
The sweetener for Kiev is that Ukraine only has to pay back the EU in the highly unlikely event that Russia loses the war and agrees to pay Ukraine reparations. In that case, Kiev would then have to pass those reparations back to Brussels, which would pay back Euroclear, which, in turn, would be able to honor its liability to the Russian central bank.
Why is Belgium afraid to go through with the scheme?
Continue readingZelensky’s rush to elections is an effort to cling to power and keep the money flowing
Signing a peace deal that takes NATO off the table will kill his chance of re-election
Ian Proud, The Peacemonger, Dec 11, 2025
In a recent interview with Politico, President Trump said, ‘they’re (Ukraine’s government) using the war as an excuse not to hold an election.’
This is not a new criticism. Republican figures who have long opposed open-ended financial aid to Ukraine have often targeted Zelensky’s lack of a democratic mandate. This includes Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, a long-standing critic who once labelled Zelensky an ‘unelected dictator’ in a video prior to the US Presidential elections.
Always a slick media operator, Zelensky has responded to the US President’s criticism by offering to hold a plebiscite while Ukraine remains under martial law, if European states and the US can guarantee security. Mainstream media have, predictably, seized on this as further proof of Zelensky’s democratic credentials and his commitment to deliver peace under the most difficult circumstances of war.
However, only around 20% of Ukrainians favour an election prior to any peace deal, according to an August poll, compared to 75% who believe elections should happen after the war. Until recently, Zelensky used this data to shoot down critics who called him out as anti-democratic. Now, he’s willing to sidestep the will of his people and go to the polls while war is still raging.
Trump’s criticism doesn’t, in my eyes, represent a challenge to hold elections now, but first to sign a peace deal with Russia, paving the way for elections upon the cessation of martial law.
Right now, only, 20.3% of Ukrainians would vote for Zelensky, a drop of 4% since October polling, in the light of collapsing support for the war effort and the ongoing corruption scandal.
That still makes Zelensky the most popular candidate from a long list, his closest rival being former military commander Zaluzhny. Although the same poll suggests that a new political party headed by the current Ukrainian Ambassador to London would defeat Zelensky’s Servant of the People faction.
The New York Times’ recent investigation has shown Zelensky’s government has actively sabotaged oversight, allowing corruption to flourish. This story was eye-opening both for the depth of the investigation and its source – a newspaper that had hitherto backed the Ukrainian President’s endeavours to the hilt. Now, rather than sitting above the issue, blind to the activities of his closest political allies, Zelensky is increasingly viewed as an integral part of Ukraine’s corruption problem.
He may be gambling on running for the polls early to increase his dwindling chance of clinging on to power. Despite the logistical challenges, a vote under martial law might work in his favour.
………………………………………………………………………………. In a country as corrupt as Ukraine, anyone who seriously believes that Zelensky wouldn’t attempt to rig the vote in his favour is, I fear, worryingly naïve.
And holding elections under martial law would also allow the war train to keep rumbling forward, and the billions from Europe to keep flowing in
At no point since he rejected the draft Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022 has Zelensky appeared like he wanted to see the war conclude. High on promises from Joe Biden, Boris Johnson and others to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, greeted as a hero wherever he travelled, Zelensky watched the billions in foreign aid roll into his country, while his closest aides grew rich and purchased Bugattis and other hypercars that tool around Monaco, according to Donald Trump Jr in recent televised remarks.
All of Zelensky’s pronouncements since mid-2022 have sought to position himself as on the side of the angels, to situate President Putin as the aggressor, to keep western leaders at his back every step of the way, and to keep the money flowing.
A natural actor, he has a line for every occasion.
‘No one wants peace more than me.’
‘Putin doesn’t want peace.’
‘Putin refuses to talk to Ukraine.’
‘Only pressure on Russia will force Putin to make compromises.’
‘Ukraine can win!’
Yet for over two years, after a failed summer counter-offensive that the UK military helped to plan, it has been clear that Ukraine cannot win.
Even if you gave Ukraine the same amount of foreign funding that was provided in previous years, that would at best allow it to continue to lose slowly on the battlefield.
But fighting to the last Ukrainian appears a better bet politically, for Zelensky. A peace deal in which, at the very least, Ukraine gives up its aspiration to join NATO will be catastrophic politically for Zelensky, almost certainly ruining his chance of re-election. He knows it. Everyone in Ukraine knows it. And, of course, Putin knows it
Meanwhile, Russia can afford to wait it out…………………………………………………………. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/zelenskys-rush-to-elections-is-an?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=181320366&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Nuclear power? Its account is (almost) OK
In France, it has been decided that widespread electrification will mean a nuclear revival. But the feasibility and viability of this revival are questionable. Technically, industrially… and also economically and financially. Laure Noualhat delivers a damning indictment of the cost of nuclear power for the coming years and envisions France defaulting on its debt due to this investment choice. A provocative statement designed to shock: intrigued, the public might be inclined to watch her documentary, ”
Nuclear Power Will Ruin France, ” or read her book of the same name to discover figures recently validated by the Court of Auditors. Perhaps even underestimated.
Science involving nuclear power is nothing but the ruin of the state.
This new nuclear perspective rests on a risky gamble, devoid of any studies or clearly established facts. The long-awaited third multi-year energy program (PPE) has not yet been published, but the decision is already considered final:
three pairs of EPR2 reactors have been announced, with four more expected to follow. And the current dithering at the highest levels of government will not allow for the swift publication in the Official Journal of the implementing decrees for the corresponding laws passed in 2019 and 2021, relating to renewable energies and nuclear power. While the second PPE was largely dominated by the question of the pace of reducing the share of nuclear energy in electricity production, this third version intends to prioritize nuclear power, while curbing the development of wind and solar power.
Plans drawn up without much detail regarding the financial arrangements. A vague understanding of the economic impact of such investments in France. This is the general observation, which is hardly reassuring given the sums involved.
Aside from the future design and construction of new reactors ( whose final design is not yet complete ), the nuclear sector faces expenses related, for example, to the annual operating costs of the existing fleet. While considered minor compared to the initial investment and expected to decrease continuously, these costs are actually increasing each year for an aging fleet due to so-called “refurbishment” investments and safety upgrades (the “major overhaul” plan). These are all bills to be paid, essential for ensuring the fleet’s operation beyond 40 or 50 years and beyond, and considerably larger than initially anticipated.
This is clearly considered in the numerous reports conducted by the Court of Auditors (CC) on EDF (
2012 report ,
updated in 2014 ,
2021 report ). Given the difficulty of extracting the precise elements for a comprehensive analysis of the situation from EDF’s financial reports, the Court’s reports prove to be a valuable journalistic contribution. Valuable, but still incomplete. The Court of Auditors itself admits that the reports are systematically produced with little cooperation from the national company: the CC emphasizes that projections sometimes had to be established “without EDF’s data,” disregarding “hidden costs,” “concealed amounts,” and “difficult calculations,” despite the various accounting methods that are always prone to significantly altering the evolution of the different parameters.
So much so that the CC finally admits to having to put forward the figures ‘with caution’, not without difficulty since EDF is playing with the withholding of sensitive information…………….
From this murky situation, Laure Noualhat takes on the almost sacred mission of reconstructing the future burden of nuclear power in France. And, in addition to the costs of the EPR2 reactors, it turns out that costs are also rising through operating expenses, maintenance investments, the cost of future expenses (decommissioning, waste and spent fuel management), changes in the fleet’s production, the level of economic lease payments…
This interview returns to the investment problems raised, the growing financial consequences of this technology, deemed totally unreasonable by Laure Noualhat.
Published in the Reporterre media collection , the bias with which the book could be accused easily falls away: the figures are corroborated by the Court of Auditors itself.
The goal would therefore be to find €200-250 billion, a conservative estimate reconstructed by Laure Noualhat. This is equivalent to the investment costs for the construction of the 58 existing civilian reactors (€106 billion in 2018; the two reactors at Fessenheim have since been shut down ). However, the national electricity provider remains heavily indebted (by approximately €54 billion) and cannot claim to finance the new nuclear program on its own. Furthermore, the cost has increased by 100% since the announcement in 2019 (the initial estimate was €52.7 billion). Undoubtedly, all of this will require guarantees from the State.
However, there is nothing very attractive about it for investors given the hypothetical financial returns which could be considered insufficient over a period running from the construction phase to the operation phase, i.e. more than 60 years.
The costs of existing reactors will increase, particularly in the event of generic defects, combined with the risks associated with the aging of the fleet that will inevitably come to light. This growth will be difficult to control and anticipate. Therefore, given the significant investments it may require, this issue has become urgent, as it will severely impact the budget.
The risk of insufficient performance of the nuclear fleet is among the most critical in the group’s risk assessment. It is directly affected by the occurrence of generic faults, which can reduce fleet availability while they are being addressed. This risk has been assigned the highest impact level and a control level ranging from medium to low.
It’s an open secret that all this is because the premature aging of internal materials and components has been known since 1986. The Energy Regulatory Commission itself noted that EDF believed that with the aging of the fleet, generic hazard problems would become more structural: this was the case during the episode of stress corrosion cracking discovered quite by chance, and there is reason to fear that others will occur.
Indeed. Just recently, an ASNR meeting revealed that new cracks measuring 2 to 3 millimeters had been detected and confirmed at the Civaux nuclear power plant on reactor 2 (1450 MW). The piping of the affected RRA circuit (the primary circuit under normal operating conditions) has reportedly already been dismantled and sent for analysis, suggesting that the cracks were detected well before this announcement. This specter of renewed stress corrosion cracking raises concerns about the technical and technological control of this accelerated aging process under irradiation and extreme operating conditions (temperature, pressure).
An already outdated figure
The Court of Auditors’ investigation into EDF is far from over. A new
report was just published at the end of September 2025. The findings are alarming: EDF faces a massive investment challenge of €460 billion over 15 years…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Protected like few others, supported by the political class, the nuclear sector deviates from certain minimal procedures in terms of accounting and transparent financing. It is decidedly not subject to any of the economic rules that prevail in other industrial sectors.
The aim of this investigation, led by Laure Noualhat, was to shed more light on the expenses generated by undebated political decisions. Mission accomplished.
Will these colossal investments put an end to the new nuclear program in France? https://homonuclearus.fr/nucleaire-compte-presque-bon/?utm_source=Homo+nuclearus&utm_campaign=3e0276f781-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_02_12_08_27_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_338d2a581d-3e0276f781-433658419
Search for UK fusion plant engineering partner to restart in 1-2 years after failed first attempt
09 Dec, 2025 By Thomas Johnson
The procurement for an engineering partner to construct the UK’s Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (Step) fusion power plant will resume “in a year or two” after a failed first attempt, but the choice of a construction partner is imminent.
……………………..
The government launched a competition to select engineering and construction partners for the prototype fusion energy plant in Nottinghamshire in May last year, with the contracts rumoured to be worth close to £10bn. Then in January, the shortlist for both partners was revealed.
The shortlisted organisations for Step’s engineering partner were:
- Celestial JV: consisting of Eni UK Limited as the lead member and AtkinsRéalis, Jacobs Clean Energy (now Amentum), Westinghouse and Tokamak Energy as other members.
- Phoenix Fusion Limited: consisting of Cavendish Nuclear as the lead member, KBR and Assystem Energy and Infrastructure as other members.
Engineering procurement hits the wall
Despite announcing the two-consortia shortlist, the project recently divulged that the process of selecting the engineering partner had broken down, with the approach being taken as being deemed “not suitable”…………………………………………………………..
Speaking at the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) annual conference on 4 December, UKIFS chief executive Paul Methven stated procurement for the engineering partner would resume “in a year or two”……………………………………………………………… https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/search-for-uk-fusion-plant-engineering-partner-to-restart-in-1-2-years-after-failed-first-attempt-09-12-2025/
Sizewell C sea defences at centre of High Court challenge
A campaign group against the project is due to raise concerns about flooding and rising sea levels.
Jasmine Oak, 10th Dec 2025, https://www.hellorayo.co.uk/greatest-hits/norfolk/news/sizewell-c-sea-defences-at-centre-of-high-court-challenge
A campaign group opposing the Sizewell C nuclear power station is due to challenge the government in the High Court over concerns about flooding and sea level rise.
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) will appear in court today (Tuesday, the 9th December), when a judge will decide whether the group can proceed to a full judicial review against the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband.
The legal challenge focuses on two additional sea defences that Sizewell C Ltd has committed to installing but were not included in the original planning application for the project.
Chris Wilson, from Together Against Sizewell C, said the hearing is a “permission hearing where the judge will decide whether we can go to a full judicial review”.
He said the group discovered at the end of 2024 that Sizewell C Ltd had committed to the Office for Nuclear Regulation to install additional coastal defences to prevent flooding in extreme sea-level rise scenarios.
“What we subsequently found out was that these additional sea defences had been known about by EDF, who put in the planning application for Sizewell C,” he said.
“They’ve known about them since 2015, and in 2017 they’d actually carried out an assessment for the platform height for Sizewell C, which is particularly relevant for flood protection.”
What’s the importance of these defences not being reviewed?
Mr Wilson said the approved platform height of 7.3 metres meant that, in an extreme sea level rise scenario caused by climate change, additional flood defences would be required.
He said these defences were not part of the original Development Consent Order (DCO) and had therefore not been assessed for their environmental or community impact.
“Sizewell C has been approved and got DCO approval to be built, but it doesn’t include these additional sea defences,” he said.
“That means they’ve never been assessed as to their environmental impact or impact on other places, like RSPB Minsmere or the village of Sizewell.”
According to Mr Wilson, one of the proposed sea defences could extend around 500 metres across the land.
Infrastructure across Suffolk
He also raised concerns about the concentration of energy infrastructure in east Suffolk.
“To have 30% of the whole nation’s energy infrastructure in one small area of Suffolk, with the wind farm infrastructure and Sizewell C, it doesn’t provide security of supply in our mind,” he said.
“It just seems to be a big target for someone who wants to disrupt us.”
Mr Wilson said the cumulative impact of ongoing and planned developments was already affecting the area.
“The area of outstanding natural beauty has long been recognised as a very special place, and it’s just been decimated by all the works going on at the moment,” he said.
He added that further infrastructure, including a proposed water pipeline, could disrupt residents’ lives and damage the local tourism economy.
Chris Wilson also expressed concern for future generations. He said decisions taken now would have long-term consequences in Suffolk and beyond.
He warned that delaying scrutiny of the additional sea defences could leave those in the future facing greater environmental damage, higher financial costs and fewer options. He said any infrastructure with a lifespan stretching into the next century should be fully assessed for climate change impacts from the outset, arguing that failure to do so risks passing the burden of unresolved problems, including coastal erosion and flood protection, onto people not yet born.”
What they want to see
TASC argues the Secretary of State should reconsider or amend the project’s consent order to allow for public scrutiny of the defences before construction continues.
Mr Wilson said the group wants the government to “actually listen to those that have raised concerns and have an objective review” of whether Sizewell C is needed.
He said: “If it was determined it was, which I don’t think it would be, there are other options. We’ve got renewables plus storage that could meet the requirement quicker and cheaper.”
Government response
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has previously said Sizewell C would provide secure, low-carbon electricity for millions of homes once operational.
The High Court will decide on Tuesday whether TASC can proceed to a full judicial review of the government’s decision.
Mr Wilson said he hoped the judge would allow the challenge to continue.
“I just hope that the judge can see the validity of our arguments and that we get a full judicial review hearing,” he said.
Examining myths about the war in Ukraine.
Peter Kuznick on the new National Security Strategy
ACURA December 9, 2025
ACURA’s James W. Carden spoke this week with Peter Kuznick, professor of history and director of the award-winning Nuclear Studies Institute at American University
“………………………………………………………………………………… JC: Over the past couple of weeks, you can see from certain stories published by the mainstream media about Ukraine that reality is now starting to slowly dawn on these people. Ukraine is corrupt. Well, that’s not news to people like you and me. Ukraine is not doing so well on the ground. That’s also not news. Ukraine has a population problem, also not news, but all of the sudden now we’re seeing stories in the New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, and amazingly the Telegraph (because Britain has the worst, most irresponsible media in the West) that things aren’t as rosy as the American people have been led to believe. With regard to Ukraine, what is your sense? We’re getting reports now that Russia is making gains slowly in the east, while Ukraine is having trouble fielding and raising an army.
PK: Yeah, I know they’re picking up people off the streets and forcing them to serve. We know that morale is very low and the desertion rates among Ukrainian troops is very, very high. They’re just totally outmanned, outgunned, out-strategized at this point. The New York Times just had a very extensive article about the extent—and also how close to the corruption scandal Zelensky is; how he has intervened to try to dismantle or weaken the agencies that try to monitor corruption. When Yermak resigned, that was a real sign of a significant problem. Even if Zelensky is not personally implicated, everybody around him has been implicated.
Plus, as you say, the support for Ukraine was based on several myths. The first myth is that it was a full scale Russian invasion, which it wasn’t for a long time. The second myth is that it was unprovoked. How many times have we read about an unprovoked invasion? It was the most highly provoked invasion imaginable going back to 2013-14; the third myth was that if we kept on giving enough support, Ukraine could win on the battlefield and claw back the territory that Russia had taken. That hasn’t been possible. We’ve known this for more than two years already, but they repeated it constantly. Then the last huge myth to me is that if Russia succeeds in Ukraine, it’s going to gobble up one piece of Europe after another.
That is not what this is about.
That is not Putin’s mindset. If Putin has this much difficulty gaining more than 20% of Ukraine in four years, does he really want to take on NATO? Even if the US security guarantee is not ironclad, this is not what Russia needs and it’s not what the Russian people want.
I was in Russia in April. I spoke to hundreds of Russian people. And what I heard was that they all wanted the war to end either on principle, because they hated war, or because they were weary of the war. They were not critical of Putin because they thought that Russia was forced into this position, but they were very ready and eager for this to end, even if Russia has to make some compromises that many of the leaders don’t want to see.
But I also know from friends of mine who have spoken to Putin recently that Putin sees himself as a kind of in the middle here. He’s got nationalists and hawks to his right who think he should be much more aggressive. It’s not just Medvedev—there are a lot of others who are putting pressure on Putin to be much more aggressive.
JC: So one last question. How do you see this thing ending? My own guess is that this goes on through the the spring and summer of next year. Russia finally frees the rest of the Donbas and then they call it a day. I don’t foresee any big push to Odessa or anything like that. How do you see this thing wrapping up?
“…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. I look at [German Chancellor] Merz and the things he says and what he’s doing, and it’s frightening to me.
Just a few weeks ago, Sergey Naryshkin who is the head of the Russian SVR, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Agency, said that this is the most fragile moment for international security since World War II. And he’s right. https://usrussiaaccord.org/acura-exclusive-peter-kuznick-on-the-new-national-security-strategy/
Tony Blair’s digital ID dream, brought to you by Keir Starmer
Why is Britain’s PM set on introducing such a wildly unpopular policy as digital ID? Parliament debated the issue last night after a petition against the policy was signed by three million people. It’s a policy that has done the improbable job of uniting Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson and Zack Polanski in opposition to the idea. In today’s column, Carole Cadwalladr joins the dots between Starmer’s policy and the Tony Blair Institute – and argues that the whole thing is a “techno-authoritarian’s wet dream”.
If Keir Starmer’s digital ID is the question, Tony Blair is the answer
The government’s wildly unpopular new policy is backed by Britain’s wildly unpopular former PM. It’s also a techno-authoritarian’s wet dream, argues Carole Cadwalladr
We live in polarising times. Britain is a nation united only by the occasional sporting fixture and intermittent bursts of outrage at the BBC. Yet somehow, Keir Starmer has achieved the impossible: he has announced new legislation so wildly unpopular that it has hit a mythical political g-spot, uniting not only Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn, but even more miraculously, it’s brought together Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana.
The issue at stake is digital ID. And if it has so far passed you by, it’s not because you’ve failed to pay attention, it’s because digital ID is a political ghost, a phantom that appeared from nowhere and now looks set to haunt what remains of Starmer’s credibility.
This is a policy that wasn’t in the Labour Party’s manifesto, that no party faithful campaigned for and that no voters were told about on the doorstep. Instead, after some brief ground softening by pet journalists in friendly newspapers, it appeared out of almost nowhere in late September.
Last week, the Office of Budget Responsibility calculated that it would cost £1.8bn over the next three years (a figure rejected by the government, who also couldn’t point to any savings). And yesterday evening, parliament debated the issue, not because the government had tabled it but because it had no choice: it had been forced to hold a ‘Westminster Hall’ debate, triggered by a petition signed by nearly three million people.
The obvious question is why? Why is Starmer pinning his political reputation on such a manifestly unpopular policy? When he announced it, he claimed it would stop illegal immigration by putting an end to illegal work, an argument so hopeless that even he’s abandoned it (people who employ illegal immigrants being the least obvious demographic to abide by any new rules).
Instead he’s tweeted a series of increasingly desperate reasons, all of which have been comprehensively ratioed (ie comments vastly outnumbering shares) and community noted (fact-checked by users).
I wish there was a more complicated reason behind Starmer’s kamikaze moves. But there’s a perfectly straightforward explanation behind all of this: Tony Blair.
The Nerve has mapped the political landscape to illustrate who’s for digital ID and who’s against it. And what our research shows is a web of influence that radiates out from Tony Blair’s Institute for Global Change. In the ‘for’ camp is a grab bag of people who are mostly associated with Blair. And against it…is everyone else.
The pro-Digital ID list includes William Hague who authors reports, for which he’s presumably being paid, with Tony Blair for TBI, including one on Digital ID – a report forgot to mention in his tweet claiming the concept is simply ‘common sense’.
There are also historic allies like Peter Mandelson and those in Blair’s grace and favour, including various Labour proteges in key cabinet positions, Peter Kyle, Wes Streeting and publications that include the Times and the Observer.
This list of those against includes not just Farage, Corbyn and Sultana but also Zack Polanski, Ed Davey and Boris Johnson.
The fight has only just begun, but digital ID is already shaping up to resemble less a policy than a suicide vest Tony Blair has strapped to Starmer’s back.
Digital ID is Blair’s pet policy. Cut it in half and you’ll find the letters T-O-N-Y running through the middle. It’s lodged deep in Blair’s political psyche – his obsession with a national ID card goes back to the 90s – but it’s also now the basis for a technology that is a surveillance capitalist’s wet dream.
“The £260m Larry Ellison has put into Tony Blair’s institute is an extraordinary amount of money. It dwarves the budget and expenditure of other UK think tanks“
And while it may look like a 90s throwback, it cleaves closely to the 21st century business goals of Blair’s billionaire patron. That billionaire patron is Larry Ellison, the man who’s backed Blair’s ‘Institute for Global Change’ to the tune of £260m.
We chose to launch the Nerve with an investigation into Starmer, Blair and Ellison because if Larry Ellison is the eminence grise behind Blair, Blair is the eminence grise behind Starmer.
Ellison, the founder of Oracle, has emerged as one of the most powerful of the broligarchs, close to both Trump and Netanyahu. He’s poised to take over American TikTok with Rupert Murdoch, while his son has bought Paramount and installed a right-wing commentator as the head of CBS News. He’s also the most powerful man in Britain that most people have never heard of.
The £260m he’s put into Tony Blair’s institute is an extraordinary amount of money by British standards. It dwarves the budget and expenditure of other UK think tanks. Digital ID is only the latest policy that’s been incubated in the steel and glass central London offices that seemingly operate a revolving door between TBI and the Starmer government, all closely align with Ellison’s.
Nor is TBI Ellison’s only UK venture. He’s also funded the Ellison Institute of Technology, a research institute at Oxford University that includes the life sciences, and a nationwide centralised database that incorporates health and other data that could have huge research possibilities.
Data is the raw fuel of AI foundation models and our personal data, the most intimate facts about us, is the most valuable data of all. (Especially to a man like Ellison who’s obsessed with ageing and is funding health research that he hopes will extend human life, including importantly his own.) Some of the worst companies on the planet will seek to exploit that data and digital ID is an irreversible step: a genie that once out of the bottle, is never going back.
It’s the techno-authoritarian possibilities of a centralised database that’s alarmed both the libertarian wing of the Conservative and Reform parties, spearheaded by David Davis, but also tech and press freedom organisations, including the Electronic Freedom Foundation, Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch and Article 19. It’s not hyperbole to say that creating a centralised database is what the Stasi would do because it is exactly what they did.
One doesn’t have to speculate about Ellison’s views on mass data collection and what it means for surveillance: he’s already said all the quiet parts out loud. “Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times,” he has said. “And if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behaviour because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”
Tony Blair is an undeclared lobbyist. Ellison is his client. And TBI is an influencing machine whose tentacles spread across both the political and media establishments: if you read any article about digital ID that doesn’t include the Blair/Ellison connection, ask yourself why.
Carole Cadwalladr is an award-winning investigative journalist and co-founder of the Nerve, a new platform for fearless, independent journalism.
Trump warns Ukraine is ‘losing’ Russia war, calls for new elections despite wartime prohibition.
Trump occasionally says something sensible, even if by accident.
New York Post, By Richard Pollina, Dec. 9, 2025
President Trump said in an interview Monday that Ukraine should hold new elections despite its ongoing war with Russia — prompting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to declare he’s “ready” for them to begin when voters can be safe.
“I think it’s time. I think it’s an important time to hold an election,” the president told Politico reporter Dasha Burns. “They’re using war not to hold an election, but, uh, I would think the Ukrainian people would, should have that choice.”
Under Ukraine’s constitution, elections cannot be held during period of martial law — which President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed in response to Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Under normal circumstances, the terms of Zelensky and Ukraine’s parliament would have ended in May and August 2024, respectively.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Zelensky said he has the “will and readiness” to hold elections. But he cited issues in Ukraine’s way, including the security of voters in a war zone at risk of missile strikes and Ukrainian law that prevents elections when the country is under martial law.
Zelensky said he’s seeking a legislative fix, and if he has help from the US on ensuring the safety of voters during a war, Kyiv would be ready to hold elections in “the next 60 to 90 days.”
“Maybe Zelensky would win,” Trump said of the prospect of a wartime election. “I don’t know who would win. But they haven’t had an election in a long time. You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.”
The president also responded to a weekend claim by first son Donald Trump Jr. that the commander-in-chief may be willing to walk away from Ukraine, saying: “It’s not correct. But it’s not exactly wrong.”
“We have to, you know, they have to play ball,” the president went on. “If they, if they don’t read agreements, potential agreements, you know, it’s not easy with Russia because Russia has the upper, upper hand. And they always did. They’re much bigger. They’re much stronger in that sense.
The president’s comments came as his administration makes another effort to end Europe’s deadliest conflict since the Second World War, with Trump telling reporters Sunday that Zelensky had yet to read the latest peace framework hashed out by US and Ukrainian negotiators.
“It would be nice if he would read it,” the president told Politico Monday. “You know, a lot of people are dying. So it would be really good if he’d read it. His people loved the proposal. They really liked it. His lieutenants, his top people, they liked it, but they said he hasn’t read it yet. I think he should find time to read it.”
Zelensky disputed the accusation on Thursday, telling reporters he has in fact “read many different versions of this plan.” https://nypost.com/2025/12/09/us-news/trump-says-ukraine-should-hold-elections-despite-wartime-prohibition/
Further delay in Finnish repository licence review
WNN, 5 December 2025
Finland’s Ministry of Employment and the Economy has granted the country’s nuclear regulator a third extension to the deadline to complete its assessment of Posiva Oy’s operating licence application for the world’s first used nuclear fuel repository. The regulator’s statement is now expected by mid-2026.
Radioactive waste management company Posiva submitted its application, together with related information, to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment on 30 December 2021 for an operating licence for the used fuel encapsulation plant and final disposal facility currently under construction at Olkiluoto. The repository is expected to begin operations in the mid-2020s. Posiva is applying for an operating licence for a period from March 2024 to the end of 2070.
The government will make the final decision on Posiva’s application, but a positive opinion by the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) is required beforehand. The regulator began its review in May 2022 after concluding Posiva had provided sufficient material. The ministry had requested STUK’s opinion on the application by the end of 2023. However, in January last year, STUK requested the deadline for its opinion be extended until the end of 2024. In December, the ministry extended the deadline for the regulator’s opinion to 31 December 2025.
The ministry has now extended the deadline until the end of June 2026, “if it is possible to do so by then”. According to STUK, the new timetable is possible, but tight, for both the authority and the licence applicant.
Although STUK’s assessment of the application is in the final stages, the statement and safety assessment cannot be completed until it has assessed and approved all of Posiva’s operating licence application materials……………
At the repository, used fuel will be placed in the bedrock, at a depth of about 430 metres. The disposal system consists of a tightly sealed iron-copper canister, a bentonite buffer enclosing the canister, a tunnel backfilling material made of swellable clay, the seal structures of the tunnels and premises, and the enclosing rock
…………… The operation will last for about 100 years before the repository is closed.
….STUK said. “In particular, the demonstration of the performance of the clay material, which acts as one of the barriers to the spread of radioactive substances, is still under way. Posiva replaced the clay material in the original plans with another, and the effects of the new material on the long-term safety of the final disposal still need to be assessed.” https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/further-delay-in-finnish-repository-licence-review#:~:text=Finland’s%20Ministry%20of%20Employment%20and,now%20expected%20by%20mid%2D2026
Britain’s AI boom is running straight into an energy wall
Nuclear power was supposed to act as its crutch to get around it. Instead, the government has hit pause, just as data centre demand is set to explode, leading investors wondering whether the UK risks talking itself out of its opportunity.
Recent analysis from the Nuclear Industry Association and
Oxford Economics warned that data-centre electricity demand will jump more than fivefold by 2030, swallowing nearly nine per cent of the UK’s total
power use.
The AI labs and hyperscalers behind that surge want plug
in-ready, 24/7 power, all within two years. Britain currently hands out
grid connections on a ten year timetable. This forms the backdrop to Rachel Reeves’ decision to stall a sweeping package of planning reforms that had promised to finally streamline nuclear development. Fingleton’s review, which coined the now-infamous ‘fish disco’ as a symbol of regulatory overreach, was meant to clear undergrowth.
City AM 9th Dec 2025,
https://www.cityam.com/britains-nuclear-lag-could-cost-its-ai-crown/
Activists fight plans for nuclear power station over threat to rare bird.
Ed Miliband’s plans to build the Sizewell C nuclear power station are facing a High Court legal threat over claims it will destroy a rare bird habitat.
Activists are seeking a judicial review to force the Government to revisit plans for the project, which they say is being built on land occupied by endangered marsh harriers. In a hearing on Tuesday, the Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) campaign group raised concerns over Sizewell C’s plans to build 10-metre-high flood defences on Suffolk marshland.
They argue that this will threaten the marsh harrier, a rare
bird that was almost driven to extinction before enjoying a recovery in recent years, particularly alongside the Suffolk coastline.
The group claims that details of the flood defences were Activists fight plans omitted from the original planning proposals in 2022. This now forms the basis of the group’s
argument, as it claims that work on Sizewell C should be paused while a further environmental assessment is carried out.
Chris Wilson, of TASC, said: “TASC’s legal challenge focuses on two additional sea defences that Sizewell C has committed to installing – but despite EDF, who is building Sizewell, being aware of the potential need for them since 2015,
they were not included in their planning application for the project.
Rowan Smith, the solicitor at Leigh Day representing TASC, said: “The failure to assess these impacts was alarming. “Our client is concerned about the revelation that provisions have been made for further flood defences at Sizewell C, which could harm the environment, yet the impact of this has never been assessed.”
Telegraph 9th Dec 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/12/09/activists-nuclear-power-station-threat-rare-bird/
Making Sense of The Après-Ukraine.
What it might mean and what it might not mean.
Aurelien, Dec 11, 2025
“…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Because I’m not a military specialist, I’m going to skip over very technical questions, where there is anyway a great deal of disagreement. Moreover, the way in which these questions are posed is often not very helpful, and frequently involves weapons fetishists flourishing performance statistics at each other. In the end, whether the planned FX69 or the planned Su141 is a “better” fighter isn’t really the point, unless you take the overall scenario into account. If dogfights (albeit at very long range) will be a feature of future conflicts, and these planned aircraft are involved, then performance characteristics have their place. But we know, for example, that Russian doctrine for air superiority relies very largely on missiles and, even if the FX69 were in some senses “better” when it arrived in service, it might not get near enough to Russian aircraft for that superiority to be useful. The real lessons of crises and conflicts are always at a more general level.
………………………………. let’s turn to Ukraine, repeating the very important provisos that “lessons” are only of value if we can expect future conflicts with at least some of the same features, and if the “lessons” are likely to be reasonably enduring, given the huge cost and time involved in developing and adapting military equipment.
………………….So far as the first is concerned, we have to remember that Ukraine is a very specific type of conflict.
It’s being fought between two advanced technology nations with indigenous defence industries, whose equipment is similar, and in some cases identical, and largely from the same technological tradition.
It’s being fought between countries with a shared military tradition, and a capacity for large-scale land/air operations, (less influenced by the West in the case of Ukraine than is sometimes thought) and between countries where patriotism and a willingness to fight for one’s country are still political forces.
And finally it’s being fought between the largest country in the world, mainly self-sufficient economically, and with the tacit acquiescence of China, and a smaller country backed financially and militarily by the entire western world.
So obviously the chances of exactly the same situation developing elsewhere are zero. The question, as always, is how far, if at all, the particularities of the Ukraine conflict are applicable to potential conflicts elsewhere.
The first question is obviously whether we are going to see any more heavy-metal conflicts of this kind anywhere the world. There are a number of nuances hidden in that question: the war in Ukraine has gone on as long as it has because the two sides are capable of raising and training large armies (Ukraine with more difficulty, certainly) and supplying and equipping them from stocks and new production (transferred in the case of Ukraine.) This means that very large forces can fight each other continuously for years, and, in the Russian case, more than replace losses of personnel and material.
Now the obvious place for such a future war is Europe against NATO forces, but it’s doubtful whether the scenario is very likely. As I’ll explain in a minute, it’s very hard to imagine NATO forces reconfiguring themselves to absorb the lessons of Ukraine, and in any event it’s not necessary for the Russians to attack NATO nations with ground forces. They can destroy NATO forces from a safe distance with missiles and drones. Moreover, NATO forces are small, and are unlikely to get much bigger, and their stocks of ammunition and logistics will be exhausted in a matter of days. (Unlike Russia, and in spite of planned increases in stocks, NATO nations cannot replace their losses and consumption in real time, as Russia can.) So a direct military clash would be, as they say, nasty brutish and short, even if NATO “learned the lessons” of Ukraine
It’s hard to imagine any wars of similar scale and intensity elsewhere in the world. One possibility is a ground war involving the two Koreas, where the level of technology, even on the Northern side, is generally high, although the terrain is very different. Moreover, whilst border clashes here and there in the world are obviously possible (India and Pakistan or China are illustrative examples) it’s hard to imagine a full-scale war of the type we are now seeing.
……………….. one thing that the Ukraine experience has demonstrated is the importance of these boring, mundane things like logistic support, resupply and sheer numbers of weapons………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It’s worth pointing out that drones did not feature much at the beginning of the conflict, but have now become a significant factor. (This is especially true for Ukraine, which would be in a much worse state without them.)
“drone” (Unmanned Air Vehicle until recently) is a very generic term. It’s clear, for example, that Russian drones that fly beyond Kiev are effectively pilotless aircraft, with significant destructive capability. At the other extreme, footage of a lot of Ukrainian drone attacks shows small, short-range craft dropping grenades onto small groups of soldiers. This leads us to one of the most important conclusions from the war so far: much depends on overall command and control and the ability to use capabilities together, as part of an overall plan.
……………………………………………………….In spite of the current excitement, it seems unlikely that the West will adopt drones in the way that the Russians and Ukrainians have. There are all sorts of reasons for this, but the principal one is that those two countries are fighting a war, and in wartime innovation tends to impose itself as a priority. Both sides, and especially the Russians, were caught unawares by the nature of the war as it developed in 2022, and as a consequence innovation has been very rapid in all areas. There is no chance of this happening in the West: the political urgency is not there.
………………………………….Effectively, either a NATO working group spends ten years trying to develop a concept, by which time the technology will have changed, or dozens of nations just decide to do their own thing……………………
…………………. Drone attacks on tanks are the latest iteration of a struggle between attack and defence which has been going on for fifty years and will no doubt evolve further. Defensive technologies are now being developed which may be able to disrupt and protect against drones to the point where so many would be needed to secure a kill that their use would be uneconomic. It would be unwise to write off the tank yet, and indeed unwise to jump to too many conclusions about drones.
……………………………………………………………………………………….. Finally, the technologies introduced in Ukraine, and those still being developed, will find uses that for the moment no-one can foresee, some good, some bad. (Organised crime may find drone technologies useful for transporting drugs, for example.) https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/making-sense-of-the-apres-ukraine?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=841976&post_id=181176162&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
1 This Month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (181)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 