A fire has been put out at a nuclear power plant in Russia’s western Kursk region and air defences have shot down a Ukrainian drone, Russian officials have said. The drone detonated when it fell and damaged a transformer, but radiation levels were normal and there were no casualties, a post from the plant’s account on messaging app Telegram said.
Given that the whole basis for Russia launching the war was to put a hard red line in the sand that NATO would not be expanded to include Ukraine, there is no reason to believe that Russia would attack Ukraine in future, if its core underlying concern was resolved.
But security guarantees will need to be realistic and sanctions removal must form part of the plan.
The need for Ukraine’s postwar security has become a major talking point since President Trump’s historic meeting with President Putin in Alaska on 15 August.
U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff spoke of a ‘game-changing’ commitment by President Putin to accept Security guarantees by NATO states. This meant that ‘the United States and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5 like language’.
It is clear that security guarantees are vital for all sides, including for Russia.
Security guarantees are important to European nations, precisely to reduce the risk of Europe being engulfed in a senseless and, frankly, avoidable war with Russia. There has never been any evidence that Russia wants to invade Europe, despite that being a comfortable go-to line for European propagandists.
So, for Europe in particular, the offer of security guarantees must represent a meaningful act of deterrence. A commitment by western nations to fight, so as to prevent the possibility of future war. What this deterrence does not mean is to station NATO troops permanently or even temporarily inside of Ukraine, whether they be called a Reassurance Force, Peacekeeping Force or anything else.
If this war was provoked by a desire by Russia to stop NATO advancing to its western border through Ukraine, why then would Russia agree to have NATO troops inside Ukraine? NATO has large armies on Ukraine’s border already and mounts air patrols as it is.
So, security guarantees don’t need to mean boots on the ground, but rather a willingness to defend Ukraine against a future war which was absent during the current war.
And that is why security guarantees are important for Ukraine.
That country will be forgiven for scepticism about whether NATO states such as France, the UK or Germany would come to their military rescue in the event of a future war having gone to extreme lengths not to come to their military rescue in this war.
If NATO countries are going to make commitments to Ukraine’s future security, then they will have to mean it if they ever want to be taken seriously again.
This is important to Ukraine specifically because upon the cessation of hostilities, and whether it wants to or not, it will need to reduce the size of its army. Ursula von der Leyen has spoken about turning Ukraine into a ‘steel porcupine’ that Russia can’t swallow.
But who is going to pay for this, as Ukraine cannot?
In peacetime, European citizens will rightly press for their governments to refocus spending on domestic priorities, and to cease channeling funds into the woefully corrupt gravy train of Ukraine.
Ukrainian defence spending – $54.5bn for this year – already makes up over 67% of Ukraine’s budget and 31% of GDP. Ukraine needs yearly cash injections from western nations of at least $40bn just to stay afloat. Much of that, now, is in the form of concessionary loans which Ukraine, one day in the distant future, will need to pay back.
Ukraine is otherwise cut off from international capital markets. You don’t need to be a maths genius to see that if western funds dry up, Ukraine will have less than $15bn available each year for defence.
Ukraine’s army was around two hundred thousand before the war broke out and now counts at almost one million. Salary costs will come down after the war ends, because soldiers likely will lose the lucrative frontline bonuses they receive which can effectively quadruple their normal pay, if they survive long enough to spend it.
That in itself will present another major social problem for Ukraine to demobilise soldiers who will find themselves in a shattered country that is in a dire economic state. But specifically, Ukraine will need to trim the size of its army, because it won’t be able to afford to pay for it. It is completely unrealistic to expect western nations to continue to pump tens of billions each year into Ukraine to maintain an army of one million in peacetime.
So, this undoubtedly presents huge challenges, but it must surely be in Ukraine’s interest to sue for peace and to start a complicated and, I fear, long and rocky road to EU membership, reconstruction and growth. As a country, it gains nothing but death and destruction by keeping the war going and losing ground and lives each day.
Security guarantees are vitally important to Russia too. President Trump’s unequivocal stance that Ukraine won’t join NATO must be backed up by a Treaty to ensure that Russia will have confidence that this commitment to Ukrainian military neutrality is real and permanent,
Given that the whole basis for Russia launching the war was to put a hard red line in the sand that NATO would not be expanded to include Ukraine, there is no reason to believe that Russia would attack Ukraine in future, if its core underlying concern was resolved.
Conquering all of Ukraine has never been a core aim in this war, in my opinion. Even though it has the military upper hand, I believe that Russia wants peace too. Peace will mean a long and fraught process of normalisation of relations with Ukraine, Europe and with the U.S. Indeed, the reengagement in peaceable economic, social and cultural relations would surely prevent the need for a future war.
But there’s texture here, of course, both Russia and Ukraine would need to resist provocations that precipitated a future conflict. Let’s not forget that from the onset of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, and after the Minsk II agreement was reached in February 2015. It became a goal of Ukraine and western powers to impose economic sanctions on Russia.
As we seem to enter the final furlong towards peace in Ukraine after a devastating war, pressure continues from both Europe and Ukraine to continue to sanction Russia to maintain the pressure. In recent days, President Zelensky has urged more sanctions if President Putin does not meet him in person. The European Union is preparing its 19th round of sanctions since 2022, despite the prospect of peace seemingly on the horizon.
This is one of the reasons that any peace deal needs a plan for sanctions removal, not addition. As I have said many times before, setting out a clear plan to reduce Russian sanctions that do not provide Ukraine with a veto will be vital to incentivising President Putin to cut a deal.
It is deluded to believe, more than eleven years after the first sanctions were imposed on Russia, that threatening Russia with more sanctions will incentivise a peace deal. It must surely be obvious that further threats of sanctions will simply encourage President Putin to order his troops on in their campaign.
So, if a peace deal is to be agreed, despite the pain of agreeing it, it must facilitate peace or, at the very least, the absence of war. It must ensure that Europe is serious about honouring its commitment to Ukraine in the future, it must give Ukraine the confidence that it can move its army to a peacetime footing, and it must manifestly promote a normalisation of relations with Russia that is so long overdue.
Comment:Trump’s angry, and yet, as we learned from NYT and WaPo reports earlier this year, HIMARS launches rely on American satellites for targeting and delivery to conduct such attacks, it’s possible that this key pipeline delivering oil to one of Trump’s ‘allies’ in eastern Europe… was effectively carried out by the Americans.
Kiev has struck the Druzhba conduit supplying oil to Hungary and Slovakia at least three times this month.
US President Donald Trump has expressed outrage over Ukrainian strikes on a key pipeline supplying Hungary and Slovakia with Russian oil, according to a senior official in Budapest.
On Friday, Balazs Orban, political director to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (no relation), shared a letter from his boss to Trump raising the issue of the Ukrainian attacks on the Druzhba pipeline. “Hungary supports Ukraine with electricity and petrol, in return they bomb pipeline that supply us. Very unfriendly move!” the Hungarian leader wrote.
On the same letter, Trump reportedly replied in his own hand:
“Viktor – I do not like hearing this. I am very angry about it. Tell Slovakia. You are my great friend,” alongside what appeared to be his signature.
“The Druzhba pipeline is a vital source of Hungary’s crude oil supply, without which our energy security cannot be guaranteed. Hungary will not allow its security to be undermined,” Balazs Orban wrote.
Ukraine has carried out at least three strikes this month on the Druzhba (‘Friendship’) pipeline, which stretches for more than 4,000km from Russia through Belarus and Ukraine to Poland, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic.
The Druzhba controversy has become yet another source of tension in the already strained relations between Budapest and Kiev, which are marred by Hungary’s reluctance to support EU sanctions on Russia and by sharp disagreements over the rights of ethnic Hungarians living in western Ukraine.
In response to the attacks on the Druzhba pipeline, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said he and Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar were pressuring Brussels to force Kiev to stop the raids.
“With these attacks Ukraine is not primarily hurting Russia, but Hungary and Slovakia… Brussels must understand: they are the European Commission, not the Ukrainian Commission.”
Moscow has also denounced the attacks as “outrageous,” portraying them as proof that Kiev sees no bounds when engaging in malignant activities.
Meanwhile, Slovak officials have said the section of the Druzhba pipeline damaged in the latest attack is expected to be repaired by Monday.
The KGB secretly plotted to attack the UK at the height of the Cold War by polluting Scotland’s coastline with radioactive waste, it was revealed this weekend.
Masterminded by a Soviet spy based in London, the plan involved dumping nuclear waste into Holy Loch on the Clyde, which was a crucial base for US nuclear-armed submarines.
The proposed attack was designed to fracture the UK’s ‘special relationship’ with America, by falsely implicating the US military in a devastating radioactive incident, and to stoke Britain’s anti-nuclear movement.
Details of the shocking plot have been unearthed from declassified FBI files by security expert Richard Kerbaj and are revealed in an explosive book about the extraordinary life of Oleg Lyalin, a Soviet agent who defected from the KGB in 1971.
Lyalin claimed to be a ‘knitwear’ specialist with Russia’s trade delegation in London. But in reality he was a spy attached to Department V, a top secret KGB unit tasked with assassinations, kidnappings and sabotage.
A heavy-drinking partygoer engaged in a string of extramarital affairs, Lyalin defected, aged 33, after his wife secretly told his Soviet colleagues that he was a liar and a cheat and that he was dissatisfied with his work for the KGB.
During his debriefing by MI5 he revealed how he had been tasked by Moscow with drawing up plans for a series of attacks to destabilise the UK and spread panic if a war looked imminent.
Lyalin’s bombshell revelations led to the UK’s expulsion of 105 suspected Soviet intelligence officers from Britain – the largest ever such expulsion by a single country and a turning point in MI5’s fight against Soviet spy networks during the Cold War.
The KGB agent’s dramatic defection came at the height of the Cold War, with the West and the Soviet Union locked in an arms race amid fears of nuclear conflict.
Official MI5 files on Lyalin remain under lock and key in Britain. However, information the Security Service passed to the FBI has now been unearthed by Kerbaj after painstaking research.
A file with hundreds of pages of intelligence reports and memos related to Lyalin’s defection gathered dust in an FBI warehouse until it was declassified in 2018.
One three-page FBI report, written in September 1971 and stamped ‘Secret’, revealed how ‘Lyalin revealed that on one occasion a proposal was submitted to headquarters for an operation to contaminate Holy Loch with radioactive material with a view to implicating US Naval forces’.
Holy Loch, a sea loch 25 miles from Glasgow, was used by the US Navy as a ballistic missile submarine base between 1961 and 1992.
Home to up to ten submarines carrying Polaris nuclear missiles, a floating dry dock and a depot ship, it was the epicentre of protests by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).
Crucially, unlike other KGB plans designed to sow chaos after the outbreak of war, the plot to poison Scottish waters would have been launched during peacetime.
The Kremlin had already targeted the base, obtaining a secret submarine manual in 1967, which led to the arrest and jailing of three KGB agents.
In his book, entitled The Defector, Kerbaj writes that the KGB ‘believed they could stoke the ongoing fears held by anti-nuclear protesters, who had been warning for years about the potential release of radioactive debris from the nuclear submarines in the Firth of Clyde’.
CND and other anti-nuclear protesters had established a camp on Holy Loch and tried to intercept US support ships using kayaks.
In May 1961, Michael Foot, one of the founders of the CND who later became Labour Party leader, led 2,000 people in a huge protest against the submarines in nearby Dunoon. Around 350 protesters were arrested later that year during another big demonstration.
Protest in Britain has become dangerous of late. Shaky lawmakers minding their elected positions, displaying decorative ignorance, have been criminalising protests against the war in Gaza, branding certain groups “terrorist” in inclination. While the laws dealing with criminal damage to property and such are already more than adequate, the government of Sir Keir Starmer thought it wise to enlarge them. There are people dying in large numbers in Gaza, and those protesting that situation have become a nuisance.
The keen obsession of this government – and a majority of the cerebrally softened legislators in the House of Commons – is that a group called Palestine Action is somehow worthy of being bracketed as a terrorist group under the Terrorist Act 2000. On June 20, members of the outfit broke into a Royal Airforce base at Brize Norton, Oxfordshire and spray painted two military aircraft alleged to be aiding US and Israel in refuelling tasks. This seemingly minor display of indignation by the organisation was enough to warrant its proscription by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper three days later under section 3 of the Terrorism Act.
United Nations experts linked to the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, among them Francesca Albanese, Ben Saul and Irene Khan, issued a press release on July 1 calling the labelling of a protest movement as “terrorist” an unjustified measure. “According to international standards, acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.” Despite there being no binding definition of terrorism in international law, the experts were of the view that it would be limited to such acts as would cause death, serious personal injury, or involve the taking of hostages “in order to intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
Were a national law to criminalise property damage in democracies, it would have to exclude acts of advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action not causing death or serious injury, an approach approved by the UN Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate. In the case of banning Palestine Action, individuals would be needlessly “prosecuted for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and opinion, assembly, association and participation in political life.”
A leaked report by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), obtained by human rights activist and former diplomat Craig Murray, further showed the decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act as one marked by mendacity and panic on the part of the Starmer government. While JTAC is not sympathetic to Palestine Action, it did note that “The majority of the group’s activity would not be classified as terrorism under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.” While it assesses the group as having “promoted terrorism”, the primary focus of the direct action, according to the sanitised version of the report, is on inflicting property damage. Serious damage to property could bring the group within the legislation, but even then, as the UN experts have noted, that would not meet necessary international standards to warrant the label of terrorism.
According to Murray, had Palestine Action, as claimed or implied by the government, deliberately attacked individuals, received foreign funding from Iran or any hostile power, attacked Jewish-owned businesses based on racism, or planned a “future unspecified appalling terrorist acts”, then JTAC’s report would have made mention of it. “Palestine Action,” insists Murray, “is what it says it is: a non-violent direct action group which targets the Israeli weapons industry and its support and supply line.”
The High Court has granted Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori judicial review regarding the proscription of the organisation on two grounds: that it arguably amounts to a disproportionate interference with Article 10 and 11 rights of the claimants, which guarantee free speech and peaceful assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights; and that the proscription was made in breach or natural justice and/or contrary to article 6 the ECHR, which entitles all to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Home Secretary, it was noted, had failed to even consult PA in making the decision.
The decision by the Starmer government was astonishing and, as with all bad laws, the foundry of astonishingly stupid results. It has made the police imbecilic enforcers; it has turned prosecutions into a dismal circus. Protesters otherwise regarded as very English and very middle class have found themselves facing arrests and charges. Over the course of one weekend this month, section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was used to arrest over 500 people, most of them carrying a placard supporting PA. That provision criminalises the wearing of clothing items or the wearing, carrying or displaying of any article, and the publishing of an image of an item of clothing or any other article “in such way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.” Sentences range from six-month imprisonment to a fine.
One particularly absurd arrest was that of retired head teacher John Farley, who was carrying a placard making reference to Palestine Action. Farley was eventually released on bail pending charges, which were never pressed. The incident last month did not even involve the proscribed organisation but was connected with another organised protest group.
The protest held in Leeds began as a solemn, silent march. Two police caught sight of Farley holding the placard. They proceeded to drag Harley away, and, typical of those types of recruits, refused to listen to any explanation: that the cartoon on the placard was a replica from the satirical magazine Private Eye, commenting on the banning of Palestine Action. The Private Eye piece, brutal, grim, and apposite, sought to explain what “Palestine Action”entailed: “Unacceptable Palestine Action” involved “spraying military planes with paint”;“Acceptable Palestine Action” entailed “shooting Palestinians queuing for food.”
Private Eye’s editor, Ian Hislop, roundly condemned the arrest as “mind-boggling” and “ludicrous”. The cartoon had been “a very neat and funny little encapsulation about what is and isn’t acceptable, and it’s a joke about – I mean, it’s quite a black joke – but about the hypocrisies of government approach to any sort of action in Gaza.”
A spokesman for West Yorkshire Police expressed some contrition for Farley’s consternation, and went on to express a view in tortured middle management speak. “As this is a new proscribed organisation, West Yorkshire Police is considering any individual or organisational learning from this incident.” That ship would seem to have sailed into the waters of sheer lunacy, leaving the judges to decide in November whether the proscription order for Palestine Action struck a proportionate balance. Till then, this egregious application of the law will continue to make pro-Palestinian protests in Britain a perilous affair.
Ukrainian commanders have consistently complained of manpower shortages while recent reports suggest the country has lost nearly 2 million troops.
Ukraine plans to rely on robotic systems to offset persistent manpower shortages on the battlefield,commander-in-chief Aleksandr Syrsky has said.
His comments come amid reports of a deepening crisis in Ukraine’s armed forces and a recently leaked report suggesting Kiev has lost nearly 2 million servicemen since 2022.
In an interview with RBC-Ukraine on Monday, Syrsky admitted that the situation at the front line is “really complicated” as Russia continues its strategic offensive. The general pointed to the Pokrovsk axis in northern Donetsk Region as the most difficult section of the front, noting that Moscow’s forces have conducted nearly 50 assaults there each day.
Syrsky acknowledged that Ukraine has far fewer mobilization resources than Russia and argued that one way of compensating is to rely on weapons that can be operated without personnel or controlled remotely. He claimed Kiev plans to deploy 15,000 ground robotic platforms this year in order to minimize human losses.
Ukrainian commanders have repeatedly reported persistent manpower shortages. Kiev’s general mobilization, which requires all able-bodied men aged 25 to 60 to serve, has failed to make up for battlefield losses. Desertions have also continued to mount, with officials stating that nearly 400,000 servicemen have abandoned their units, many of whom have no intention of returning.
The Telegraph reported last week that at least 650,000 Ukrainian men of fighting age have fled the country since the escalation of the conflict in 2022.
On Wednesday, several media outlets cited a leaked digital card index of Ukraine’s armed forces, allegedly obtained by Russian hackers, which claimed Kiev has lost over 1.7 million troops killed and missing since 2022.
Moscow has repeatedly accused Kiev of sacrificing its people as “cannon fodder” to advance the interests of the West, characterizing the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war against Russia.
Comment: Insanity has taken a new turn. Here is another great idea: Foreign recruitment
Ukraine should recruit for its military “millions” of foreigners willing to fight against Russia, lawmaker Aleksey Goncharenko has proposed. The MP was addressing Kiev’s frontline manpower crisis and the harsh ongoing conscription campaign, which he likened to the Nazi Gestapo.
Speaking at a Ukrainian parliamentary session on Wednesday, Goncharenko, a member of the European Solidarity party led by former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko, voiced outrage over the brutality of press gangs and proposed that Kiev could sidestep the issue by relying on foreign fighters:
“We need to engage in foreign recruitment – there are millions of people in the world who are ready to fight against Russia, especially given the financial compensation…This is realistic.”
Referring to the secret police of Nazi Germany that was notorious for its numerous atrocities, Goncharenko earlier proposed dismantling Ukraine’s current military-managed recruitment system and replacing it with a civilian-run one.
“Instead of all this, there are the shameful Territorial Recruitment Centers, which are already behaving just like the Gestapo. This cannot continue. It must be immediately corrected, because otherwise, if the people stop believing in the state, we will lose the state.”
A Ukrainian MP, Artem Dmytruk, has admitted the loss of “several generations” in the country’s three-year conflict with Russia.
Russian media outlets on Wednesday cited a digital card index allegedly acquired by hacker groups from Ukraine’s Chief of Staff said to contain names of dead or missing soldiers, details of their deaths, and personal data of their families.
The entries suggested 118,500 troops were killed or went missing in 2022, 405,400 in 2023, 595,000 in 2024 and a record 621,000 so far this year.
Commenting on the reported losses, Dmytruk said:
“The lists of the missing today contain more than a million people, and of course these people are most likely dead, while their families remain in complete ignorance. The situation is tragic, the situation is frightening.”
He warned that villages had been emptied of men, including the elderly and disabled, and that Ukraine was facing “huge losses” and a “demographic crisis.”
“We have lost several generations,” he said, urging peace on the grounds that both Ukrainians and Russians were dying.
The reported figures far exceed official estimates. In February Zelensky told CBS News that 46,000 of his soldiers had been killed since 2022, alongside about 380,000 wounded – numbers questioned in Western media. Moscow has also claimed higher Ukrainian losses, putting the toll at more than 1 million killed or wounded as of early this year.
Commenting on the outcome of the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky declared: “The Constitution of Ukraine does not allow the surrender of territories or the trading of land.”
On paper, that sounds noble. The message is clear: Kiev won’t let others decide Ukraine’s fate behind its back. But take a closer look, and this principled stance starts to look less like constitutional fidelity – and more like political theater.
Because the very Constitution that Zelensky has suddenly invoked as sacred… has long been on hold. And that’s not an accusation – it’s his own admission.
Back in December 2022, while addressing Ukraine’s ambassadors, Zelensky quipped: “All the rights guaranteed by the Constitution – are on pause.” The context? He was joking about how diplomats don’t get holidays. But the phrase stuck. Because it turned out to be more than a joke – it became official policy.
Since then, Ukraine’s democratic institutions haven’t just been “paused” – they’ve been systematically dismantled under the banner of wartime necessity.
National elections? Canceled indefinitely. Not just presidential or parliamentary – even local races were suspended, eliminating the public’s ability to hold any level of government accountable. Zelensky’s current term, once set to expire, has been extended without a vote – and without a clear end date.
Opposition media? Silenced or outlawed. Dozens of TV channels and online outlets critical of the government were shut down or merged into a state-approved broadcasting platform. Independent journalism in Ukraine now walks a legal tightrope – with one foot over prison.
Religious freedom? Eroded beyond recognition. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, seen as too closely linked to Moscow, has been harassed, evicted from centuries-old monasteries, and branded a security threat. Worshippers face criminal charges for sermons, symbols, or even prayers deemed “unpatriotic.”
Military conscription? Brutal and indiscriminate. Young men are pulled off the streets by recruiters, sometimes beaten or coerced into enlisting. Videos of forced mobilizations circulate regularly – and are met with silence or spin from the authorities.
Political dissent? Treated as treason. Opposition politicians have been arrested, exiled, or sanctioned without trial. Entire parties have been banned. Ukraine’s Security Council now acts as judge and jury – blacklisting citizens, freezing assets, and deciding guilt without a courtroom.
Rights didn’t just get paused. They were overwritten.
To be fair, this erosion didn’t start with Zelensky. It began back in 2014 when President Yanukovich was ousted in a manner that skipped any constitutional procedure. The army was then deployed – for the first time in post-Soviet history – against a domestic protest. The rule of law quickly gave way to rule by necessity. Courts rubber-stamped sanctions lists. Parliament became a formality. The Constitution was increasingly treated as a suggestion, not a boundary.
Zelensky merely completed what others started. Under his watch, Ukraine is no longer governed by its Constitution – it’s governed by presidential decree. The Constitution hasn’t been a check on executive power for years. Instead, it’s become a stage prop: Shelved when inconvenient. Quoted when useful.
That’s precisely what happened after the Trump–Putin summit. As it became clear that the fate of the conflict was being discussed without Kiev at the table, Zelensky rushed to invoke constitutional law – not to restore legality, but to cling to legitimacy.
And it wasn’t just critics in Moscow who noticed the contradiction.
Donald Trump, speaking a few days before the summit, couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdity:
“I was a little bothered by the fact that Zelenskyy was saying I have to get constitutional approval. He has approval to go to war and kill everybody but he needs approval to do a land swap. Because there will be some land swapping going on.”
Crude? Maybe. But not wrong.
Trump’s sarcasm cuts to the core. Zelensky governs under emergency powers, suspends elections, cracks down on the opposition, yet suddenly needs constitutional sign-off to negotiate peace?
In reality, Zelensky isn’t protecting the Constitution – he’s using it. It’s not a framework that restrains him. It’s a card he plays when cornered. When it’s time to justify canceling a vote? The Constitution “gets in the way.” When it’s time to refuse compromise? Suddenly, it becomes “untouchable.”
And while the optics may still work in Western capitals – “a democracy under siege” sounds good on TV – the internal picture is far less flattering. Ukraine today is run by decree, not debate. By security councils, not courts. By urgency, not accountability.
The Constitution, once a blueprint for law and liberty, has become little more than a sign on a boarded-up storefront – left hanging so no one has to admit the place is empty inside.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 22 Aug 25
Zelensky has never acted for the betterment of his people. He was elected in 2019 garnering a majority of votes from the Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas.…..Then he betrayed them by caving to the neo fascists in Kyiv seeking to wipe out their culture, language, religion, livelihood
The only chance Ukraine President Zelensky has to prevent the further destruction of Ukraine is to surrender on Russia’s terms.
The war is lost with no chance of reversing Ukraine’s impending battlefield defeat. Since Ukraine loses more soldiers and territory every day, surrendering now will end that destruction and allow Ukraine to begin rebuilding its shattered country. Since the US and NATO forced this war upon Ukraine, they should have the moral decency to fund the rebuilding.
Russia’s terms are fair and achievable. No NATO for Ukraine which must agree to be neutral between Russia and Western Europe. It precludes any return of the 4 eastern Ukraine oblasts in and around Donbas which are now irrevocably part of Russia. Some western portion of the Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts may be returned to Ukrainian control as a concession.
Lost territory was set to remain under Ukraine sovereignty under the Istanbul Agreement of April 2022. But the US and UK vetoed that settlement and forced Zelensky to continue the war on the promise US/NATO aid would achieve a Ukraine victory. Colossal mistake.
The third major term is the trickiest; security arrangements for the remaining Western Ukraine rump state and Russia going forward. The European deadenders in UK (Starmer), France (Macron) and Germany (Merz) seek NATO soldiers in Ukraine to keep the peace. Trump will have none of that nonsense. Russia rightly views the European plan as Ukraine NATO membership by a different means, making it a nonstarter.
Trump wants out of a war he knows is lost and represents no national security threat to the US or the European countries. They seek to keep it going in perpetuity for reasons mysterious to any sane observer of Ukraine’s impeding collapse. Since Trump has signaled he’ll be pulling the plug on endless tens of billions for Ukraine to lose more soldiers and territory, the European leaders will eventually face reality and go along with a sensible settlement to end the fighting. Without US largesse, cash poor Europe will fold PDQ.
So will Zelensky. But the clueless US puppet, who sold out his country to US/NATO promises he could defeat the Russian behemoth, shouldn’t wait another day for the surrender orders to arrive from his bosses in Washington and Brussels. Surrendering will definitely end his presidency he extended by decree but hopefully not his life from Ukraine’s real rulers in Kyiv.
Zelensky has never acted for the betterment of his people. He was elected in 2019 garnering a majority of votes from the Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas. They believed his promises to treat them inclusively with West leaning Ukrainians in Western Ukraine. Then he betrayed them by caving to the neo fascists in Kyiv seeking to wipe out their culture, language, religion, livelihood.
Zelensky has never acted for the betterment of his people. He was elected in 2019 garnering a majority of votes from the Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas. They believed his promises to treat them inclusively with West leaning Ukrainians in Western Ukraine. Then he betrayed them by caving to the neo fascists in Kyiv seeking to wipe out their culture, language, religion, livelihood.
Three years, six months on he’s still demanding back the land lost from his delusional reliance on his US, NATO masters. Ukraine’s battlefield collapse is months, possibly just weeks away.
Zelensky shouldn’t wait for Trump to finally pull the plug on their failed joint venture. He shouldn’t let Ukraine’s destruction last one more day.
Will Zelensky finally do the right thing by his beleaguered people and capitulate to the victorious Russians? Nothing in his 6 years in office, the last 2 as a self-appointed dictator, suggests that he will short of a complete US withdrawal from America’s failed proxy war against Russia.
While a lot of the nuclear public relations relates to nuclear as a sort of savior of climate change, unfortunately, the reverse is true,’ says expert Paul Dorfman
Operations of nuclear plants are being strained by warming rivers, storm surges and rising sea levels,
ISTANBUL
As the summer sun scorches Europe, the effects of a warming planet are becoming increasingly tangible – and while nuclear energy is often touted as part of the solution, it too is buckling under the heat.
“While a lot of the nuclear public relations relates to nuclear as a sort of savior of climate change, unfortunately, the reverse is true,” Paul Dorfman, chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group and a senior academic at the University of Sussex, told Anadolu. “Nuclear will be a significant and early climate casualty.”
This year, several European plants have reduced output or shut down altogether – not due to technical faults, but because the rivers that cool them are either too shallow or too hot.
France, where nuclear accounts for around 65% of electricity, has been particularly affected, with nearly all of its 18 nuclear sites reporting capacity reductions this summer.
Cooling crisis: Rivers too warm for reactors
Europe hosts around 166 operable nuclear reactors with a combined capacity of nearly 149 gigawatts (GW), approximately one-third of the global total.
France leads with 57 reactors, followed by the UK with nine. Other major operators include Spain, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Belgium, with smaller but strategic fleets in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia.
Most were designed decades ago without climate resilience in mind, and rely heavily on water – often drawn from nearby rivers – to cool the systems that produce electricity.
After absorbing heat from the reactor, this water is typically returned to the environment. But when river levels drop or water temperatures rise too high, the cooling process becomes less effective, and in some cases, dangerous.
“If that … superheated water is discharged back to the rivers, basically it kills the river ecology,” said Dorfman. “So, there are regulatory temperature thresholds – and France has breached those numbers.”
He explained that inland reactors are already suffering due to “low flow and heating” in rivers such as the Rhone and the Loire, two of the country’s most crucial cooling sources.
While France may be the worst hit, the same situation played out in several countries this summer.
In Switzerland, at the Beznau plant on the Aare River, one reactor was halted entirely and the other reduced to 50% capacity. Other inland reactors across Central Europe, including those in countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, face similar vulnerabilities.
Europe especially vulnerable
The issue is compounded by projections that Europe’s extreme heat events will only intensify in the coming decades.
According to the European Environment Agency, Europe is the fastest-warming continent in the world, with temperatures rising at roughly twice the global average rate.
Recently, the UK Met Office said that scorching temperatures are becoming the new normal, along with more frequent extreme events like drought, flash flooding and storms.
“We know what will happen in the next 10 to 20 years. We know that inland rivers will suffer. This is absolutely going to happen,” Dorfman said.
He added that even coastal plants are not safe from climate volatility.
“Coastal reactors will be increasingly subject to climate-driven storm surge flooding,” Dorfman warned. “We know that sea level rise, glacier melt, and storm surges will increasingly threaten nuclear sites. This is not speculative. It’s already happening.”
The majority of nuclear power plants were constructed long before climate change was evident. Now, he said, “they’re at greater risk.”
Demand soars, output drops
Europe’s energy dilemma is further complicated by surging electricity demand during heat waves, driven largely by air conditioning. Just as power is needed most, nuclear output often declines.
According to a new report by energy think tank Ember, the June-July 2025 heat wave caused electricity demand to surge by 14% in Spain, 9% in France and 6% in Germany. Peak demand was even higher.
The current energy model is showing its limits during temperature extremes, said Pawel Czyzak, Ember’s interim Europe Program director.
“Any thermal power plant draws water from a lake, river or the sea to cool its systems, like a car engine. But if the river is already hot, then it can’t cool efficiently,” he told Anadolu. “If you have a week of 35C (95F)-plus, rivers warm up, and you have issues with the cooling systems.”
The result, Czyzak explained, is that nuclear output is often scaled back.
“Normally that’s okay in summer, but during a heat wave, demand grows – and that causes a lot of stress for the power system.”
He explained that France is particularly vulnerable since it relies on nuclear for the bulk of its energy. “If nuclear goes down … then you don’t really have anything else to switch on,” he said.
Turning to renewables
But there are signs of a shift. According to Ember, solar power accounted for 22% of the EU’s electricity generation in July, narrowly surpassing output from the bloc’s nuclear power plants.
Combined generation from natural gas and coal fell short of both solar and nuclear. Meanwhile, electricity produced from wind and hydropower sources exceeded that of all fossil fuels combined.
“We know that 94.2% of all new worldwide electricity capacity last year was renewables,” Dorfman said.
“Nuclear takes 13 to 17 years to build, and that’s much too late for our climate needs,” he added.
He argues that renewables, paired with energy efficiency measures and grid innovations like battery storage and improved interconnectors, can help build a more resilient power system.
“It’s looking like a significant investment in renewables of all kinds – and in energy efficiency – is urgently needed,” said Dorfman.
Czyzak added that solar power is a particularly strong ally during heat waves.
“This year, pretty much every year, we’re seeing more solar power deployed and record generation volumes,” he added.
Still, he acknowledges the transition will not happen overnight. “I think maybe the next five years are a bit difficult, and then it will get better,” he said. “Generally, the countries that don’t have very flexible and diversified power systems are at most risk.”
Part of Zelensky’s motive for wearing a suit Monday to the White House has become clearer with fresh reporting in the Financial Times, which reviewed a document showing Ukraine will promise to buy $100 billion of American weapons financed by Europe in a bid to obtain robust US security guarantees.
Additionally, “Under the proposals, Kyiv and Washington would also strike a $50bn deal to produce drones with Ukrainian companies that have pioneered the technology since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022,” the report continues. Ukraine pitched its plan during the Monday White House summit, which also involved seven EU leaders – and the $100BN arms deal became part of the key talking points pushed by the European allies.
This is an effort by design meant to ensure Ukraine can procure what it wants – and that its war efforts can still be funded uninterrupted – while still ultimately appeasing Trump. “We’re not giving anything. We’re selling weapons,” Trump had said Monday in response to a reporter’s question on the matter.
It remains very obvious that Europe’s demands of keeping up huge pressure on Russia, including through sanctions, are intended to stymie any US-backed deal seen as too favorable to Moscow. The FT report comments on this as follows:
The document details how Ukraine intends to make a counter-pitch to the US after Trump appeared to align himself with Russia’s position for ending the war following his meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Alaska last week.
It reiterates Ukraine’s call for a ceasefire that Trump had espoused but then dropped after his Putin meeting in favor of the pursuit of a comprehensive peace settlement.
Geopolitical analyst and commentator Glenn Diesen has pointed out, however, that Kiev is essentially attempting to create leverage out of nothing.
“Europe will spend $100 billion it does not have, to buy weapons from America that it does not have, to arm soldiers that Ukraine now lacks,” he wrote, explaining further: “This is to confront Russia, which for 30 years warned it would respond to NATO militarizing its borders.”
Diesen followed by doing something that Washington policy-makers refuse to do, and that is look at the big picture of how we got here [emphasis ZH]:
There was no threat to Ukraine before 2014, as only a tiny minority of Ukrainians wanted to join NATO, and Russia laid no claim to any of Ukraine’s territory. Western governments then supported a coup to pull Ukraine into NATO’s orbit – something that CIA Directors, Ambassadors, and Western state leaders had warned would instigate a security competition and likely trigger a war.
Russia predictably reacted fiercely. Ever since then, the only acceptable narrative has been that Russia wants to restore the Soviet Union and that Putin is Hitler. Any dissent is labelled as “disinformation”, “propaganda”, “hybrid warfare”, or even treason.
The war has now been lost, and the Americans are pulling away from it, asking the Europeans to absorb the consequences. How do the Europeans respond? By doubling down on this madness, which will destroy Ukraine, our economies, and our relevance in the world – and possibly trigger a nuclear war. – What is the strategy? More of the same? The best thing for Ukraine is to remove it from the frontlines of the geopolitical struggle over where to draw the new dividing lines in Europe: End the war, rebuild Ukraine, and replace expansionist military blocs with the principle of indivisible security.
This week, as negotiations proceed and Europe keeps up its drive to pile more and more pressure on Putin, the big question will be whether the Western side can indeed understand that it has lost the proxy war.
Many immense hurdles remain, and one could also point out there are too many cooks in the kitchen (judging by the over a half-dozen European leaders present in the Oval yesterday), making things all the more unnecessarily complicated – and that’s probably by design.
Glenn Greenwald agrees with this bleak assessment of Europe’s role in thwarting peace… DC foreign policy elites now know that Ukraine cannot win, but they would rather continue fueling a fruitless and deadly war than admit they were wrong and delusional about Ukraine’s prospects against Russia.
THE SNP have demanded urgent answers in a letter to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) after the UK Government confirmed a serious nuclear incident took place at Faslane earlier this year. Figures released to The Herald last week revealed that a Category A event – the most serious category – took place between January 1 and April 22 this year.
The MoD have since claimed it posed no risk to the public. It came a week after it was also forced to admit that Loch Long, which is next to the UK’s nuclear bomb store at Coulport, is now contaminated with radioactive tritium following years of infrastructure decay. Bill Kidd, a longtime campaigner against nuclear weapons and SNP MSP (below), has condemned these revelations as a “damning indictment of Westminster’s disregard for Scotland’s safety and environment” and said it was proof that nuclear weapons are “dangerous, immoral, and completely incompatible with the values of the people of Scotland”.
it is something Trump understands but Ukraine, the Europeans and the hawks in Washington simply refuse to accept: However long the fighting may drag pointlessly on, Ukraine is the vanquished in this war; Russia the victor.
No Western leader, if you have not noticed, has ever called for an end to the war. None among them has ever mentioned a peace accord for the simple reason the Western powers do not want peace with Russia.
Zelensky’s intent as he made plans to see Trump Monday was to persuade him to pull him back from the frightening idea of a peace agreement
SCHEERPOST, Patrick Lawrence: August 19, 2025,
No, the Trump–Putin summit at a joint-forces military base in Anchorage last Friday did not produce an agreement on a ceasefire in Ukraine. President Trump made no reference to “severe consequences” if Vladimir Putin did not consent to such an accord. Nothing was said about new sanctions against Russia and nothing about sanctions against nations that trade with Russia. Trump appears not to have mentioned those nuclear-armed submarines he ordered to “appropriate regions” a couple of weeks ago, and Putin seems not to have asked about them.
No, there was no such talk at Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson. After not quite three hours behind closed doors with the Russian president, Trump departed Anchorage ahead of schedule, dropping the thought that he and Putin might linger so that Volodymyr Zelensky, president of the autocratic Ukrainian regime, could join them for further talks.
How yesterday, how swiftly passé all that early coverage proves but three days after Trump returned to Washington and Putin to Moscow. As of follow-on talks at the White House Monday with Zelensky and a swarm of European leaders, Trump seems to have rendered a ceasefire utterly beside the point in favor of an agreement he is fashioning with Putin that, if it comes to be — and we must stay with “if” for now — will prove stunningly concrete. Trump is after an enduring peace now — this as a subset of a new era in U.S.–Russian relations. Pull this off and he will improve his place in the history texts by magnitudes.
We do not know, and may never know, precisely what the two leaders said to one another behind closed doors as their interpreters and their foreign ministers, Sergei Lavrov and Marco Rubio, sat beside them. But it did not take long for Trump to start unpacking the plan he and Putin began to fashion during their talks. In post-summit interviews and social media posts, and in his encounters with Zelensky and his European sponsors at the White House Monday, Trump has made it plain as rain that an awful lot of something was discussed at a summit where nothing was reported to get done.
Within hours of the summit, Trump said in an interview with Fox News that he and Putin were near an agreement on an exchange of territories between Russia and Ukraine and that there would be security guarantees for the latter after the cessation of hostilities. “There are points that we negotiated and those points that we largely have agreed on,” Trump told Sean Hannity.
There is no telling how close or far Washington, Moscow, Kiev and (to the extent they matter) the Europeans may be from a comprehensive settlement. “Largely” covers an infinitude of near misses and failures, and Donald Trump is, after all, Donald Trump. But I read in this quick pencil-sketch a suggestion of the give-and-take dynamic between Trump and Putin: Russia will get some of the land it has fought for these past three years, which, if you look at a map, amounts to a security guarantee against the aggressions of viscerally Russophobic Ukrainians; the United States and the Western powers will cease arming the Kiev regime — another kind of guarantee. The Ukrainians will give up land but get security guarantees of their own.
Does this strike you as an unbalanced proposition? It should. Implicit in it is something Trump understands but Ukraine, the Europeans and the hawks in Washington simply refuse to accept: However long the fighting may drag pointlessly on, Ukraine is the vanquished in this war; Russia the victor.
We have had a slow roll of revelations since the Fox News interview. Reuters reported a day after the summit that Trump told Zelensky during a post-summit telephone call that it was time to “make a deal” with Moscow, which must include ceding some land to Russian sovereignty. “Russia is a very big power, and you’re not,” Trump reportedly told the Ukrainian president. Reuters said it reflected Putin’s demand in Anchorage that the Kiev regime recognize Russian sovereignty over all of the Donbas, the eastern regions of Ukraine that Russia formally annexed in September 2022 and parts of which, but not all, are under Russian military control.
Later Saturday came the big one, or a big one, as the post-summit situation is nothing if not kinetic. “It was determined by all,” Trump declared on his Truth Social platform, “that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which oftentimes do not hold up.”
“A mere ceasefire.” Wow. So much for that. A peace agreement instead of a ceasefire, cap “P” and cap “A,” if you please. Wow times 10. This is a major, major departure from the demands long advanced by all of the Western powers and Ukraine — an implicit rejection, this is to say, of the prevalent anti–Russian orthodoxy. No Western leader, if you have not noticed, has ever called for an end to the war. None among them has ever mentioned a peace accord for the simple reason the Western powers do not want peace with Russia. It is with this statement, then, that Trump signaled his determination to chart new territory.
Zelensky’s intent as he made plans to see Trump Monday was to persuade him to pull him back from the frightening idea of a peace agreement and reinvest in the demand for a ceasefire. This was also what the crew from across the Atlantic had in mind. Kier Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz: The British, French and German leaders were there. So were Mark Rutte, the NATO sec-gen, and Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission. Hawks all, this crowd. They arrived, as news reports indicated, in a state somewhere between alarm and panic.
Trump appears to have heard these people out on the ceasefire question, as was to be expected. But there is no indication that the thought went much beyond hypothetical notions of what might be discussed in an also hypothetical summit between Zelensky and Putin. And there is every indication Trump holds to his early post-summit disclosures, of which there is now more yet-to-be-confirmed detail, notably in the land-for-guarantees line and what Trump has meant in his mentions of “land swaps.”………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………….. The “centrist” leadership in Washington and the European capitals has refused to listen to Moscow for many years now; the media that publish the bulletins of these trans–Atlantic elites routinely make the case that anything Putin says is by definition the opposite of true and that listening to the Russians on any topic is beyond all the fence posts, irretrievably out-of-bounds. It is hard to overstate the magnitude of Trump’s transgression against this background.
Trump’s second sin is his evident embrace of reality. And reality, like listening, has also been off-limits for the centrist elites and those clerking for them in media on both sides of the Atlantic. This has been so at last since the U.S.–cultivated coup that brought the current regime of crooks and neo–Nazis to power 11 years ago. Those dwelling in the Kingdom of Pretend have carried on for months as if the Kiev regime can set the terms for any kind of settlement and Moscow will have no choice but to accept them. “Ukraine is also determined not to let Russia set the terms and structure of future peace talks,” The Times reported from Kiev in a pre-summit curtain raiser.
Not to let Russia…?
……………………………………………….. To say Trump aligned with Putin, or got played or otherwise capitulated, is another way, a simpleton’s or cynic’s way, of denying or veiling reality. In my read, Trump listened to Putin’s case and has concluded, Yes, he is right. This is the ultimate reality long at issue and long unsayable. Trump has done no less and no more than speak this truth at last. The rest is rubbish.
Let us sin along with Trump, then, if we haven’t already. Let us all look past the mountain ranges of propaganda, cognitive warfare, perception management and what have you and say what Trump is now saying: It is time to acknowledge forthrightly that Putin is right about the war and its causes, about the Biden regime’s purposeful provocations, about the larger questions of which it is merely a subset and about how most sensibly to negotiate a lasting settlement in the borderlands between Europe and Russia and altogether between West and East. https://scheerpost.com/2025/08/19/patrick-lawrence-that-big-beautiful-summit-in-alaska/
“It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.”
The Dwarfs had to slink away. Will they, at long last, tell Zelensky they cannot back up their rhetoric with the needed arms and financial support?
I shall not make the de-rigueur disclaimer lest anyone infer that I think President Donald Trump is Snow White. Nor do I feel a need to assure readers that I am not “in Putin’s pocket.” In the tradition of a “current intelligence” analyst, I shall simply “call ‘em like I see ‘em.” And there are lots of dots to put together.
It has been clear since the Alaska summit that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have come to an overall agreement on Ukraine and that it is now being fleshed out in plain sight. And both are acutely aware of the many forces wishing to sabotage moves toward a negotiated settlement.
They have agreed to call it “Biden’s war” and then to conduct themselves as though they have bigger fish to fry – first and foremost improving U.S.-Russia relations.
Why have so many observers been unable to grasp the significance of this key sentence in the first paragraph of the readout from the Aug. 6 Putin-Witkoff meeting – the meeting that set these hopeful events in train?
“Once again, it was noted that Russia-US relations could be placed on a totally different, mutually beneficial footing, which would be in stark contrast with the way these relations have evolved in recent years.” (Emphasis added.)
(Pardon the pedantry, but it is not widely known that the Kremlin’s Russian-to-English translator erred in using the subjunctive could. The word in the Russian readout is stronger; it means can – the indicative, not the subjunctive mood.) This is, well, indicative.
The shared, overriding objective to improve bilateral ties came through clearly both at the summit on Friday and at the “March of the Gnomes” on Monday when seven European leaders arrived at the White House to back Volodymyr Zelensky (no offense to garden gnomes – or dwarfs).
Enroute Alaska
On Air Force One, Trump told Fox’s Bret Baier, “I won’t be happy if I walk away without some form of a ceasefire.” Nyet, was Putin’s answer.
Perhaps the president thought he could work his persuasive powers on Putin one-on-one and change his mind. More likely, Trump knew his gambit had zero prospect of success, and merely wanted to be able to tell the foot-draggers later that he had thrown one last Hail Mary pass, but in vain.
Just a few hours later Trump wrote on truthsocial:
“It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.”
The New York Times and other media were quick to point out that Trump was “siding with Putin.”
Maps … and Charts
While Putin used the Alaska summit to make clear Russia’s core interests on Ukraine and to argue that he had no option other than to invade, it is a safe bet that he also showed Trump a map depicting the “order of battle;” that is, the disposition of forces along the contact line and in reserve.
This morning Trump hinted that Russia should be allowed to hold onto the territory it has occupied in Ukraine, a concept so far anathema to Zelensky and most of the European leaders.
THE Map
“The Ukrainian soldiers were brave as hell because it’s fighting a force that’s much, much bigger and clearly much more powerful,” Trump said of the Russian military … “And you know, it’s not like they’ve stopped. If you, I assume you’ve all seen the map, you know, a big chunk of territory is taken, and that territory has been taken.
“Now they’re talking about Donbas. But Donbas, right now, as you know, is 79 percent owned and controlled by Russia,” Trump added. “So they understand that.”
Zelensky and the Seven Dwarfs
The Dwarfs had to slink away. Will they, at long last, tell Zelensky they cannot back up their rhetoric with the needed arms and financial support? It will take a while, but in the end they will have to do so.
The end is near.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27 years as a C.I.A. analyst included leading the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and conducting the morning briefings of the President’s Daily Brief. In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Electricite de France SA will likely cut nuclear power production in northern parts of the country this week because of forecast shallow waters on the Meuse River.
Low flows may affect output from the Chooz plant located near the Belgian border starting Friday, according to a company statement.
“The Meuse is quite far north for this sort of restriction, so it’s notable for that reason,” said William Peck, senior power analyst at Energy Aspects Ltd. “But given the weather forecasts and the time of year, I don’t think we’ll see a major ongoing issue or much additional upside risk from it.”
The country’s atomic power plants have been disrupted recently amid weather-related pressures. A heat wave forced several reactors to curb output because the river water used to cool them became too warm.
In addition, four reactors were shut down after a swarm of jellyfish clogged the filter drums. Their growing numbers can be linked to climate change.
nuclear-news 