Sizewell C nuclear costs could hit £100bn including financing, modelling shows

Total for nuclear power station project set to be billions of pounds higher
than official government estimates.
The true cost of the Sizewell C power
station in Suffolk could be tens of billions of pounds higher than official
government estimates once financing costs are factored in, according to
official modelling seen by the Financial Times.
The UK government last week
said the mostly debt-funded project would cost an estimated £38bn in real
2024 prices to build. Under the financial structure of the deal, investors
will be rewarded if the project is built for less than £40bn, and not
obliged to put in further funds if costs rise above £47.7bn — which is
considered unlikely.
But financial modelling — prepared as part of the
wider fundraising process and seen by the Financial Times — gives a range
of roughly £80bn-£100bn in nominal terms over the period of construction
for the two scenarios, once debt interest and payments to shareholders are
factored in. That would imply costs of roughly £65bn-£80bn in real 2024
terms, although the exact costs will depend on inflation rates and spending
rates across the lifetime of the project.
FT 2nd Aug 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/5f54592e-50ba-4a1e-8219-7a4eb01f74ed
US, UK in secret talks with Ukrainian officials to ‘replace Zelensky’: Report

Three years into the war with Russia, the Ukrainian president has experienced his fortunes turn amid heavy human losses on the battlefield and intense Russian assaults.
JUL 29, 2025, https://thecradle.co/articles/us-uk-in-secret-talks-with-ukrainian-officials-to-replace-zelensky-report
Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has revealed that US and British officials recently held a meeting in the Alps with top Ukrainian officials to discuss “replacing” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
According to a statement made available to TASS, the meeting involved Andrey Yermak, head of the Ukrainian president’s office, Kirill Budanov, chief of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s Main Directorate of Intelligence, and Valery Zaluzhny, the country’s ex-commander-in-chief who is now Ukraine’s ambassador to London..
“The Americans and the British announced their decision to propose Zaluzhny to the Ukrainian presidency. Yermak and Budanov ‘snapped a salute,’ while securing promises from the Anglo-Saxons to let them keep their present positions, as well as to take their interests into account in the course of making decisions over other personnel issues,” TASS reports.
The Ukrainian participants were reportedly promised they would retain their positions and influence over future personnel appointments following Zelensky’s ouster.
The SVR said Yermak helped prepare the ground for Zaluzhny by persuading Zelensky to weaken Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies. Zelensky signed the new law, but Ukrainian MPs said the measure has not appeared on the parliament’s official website.
According to the SVR, the secret talks with UK and US officials aim to restructure Ukraine’s ties with the west, especially the US, and have established removing Zelensky as a prerequisite for continued western support in the war with Russia, after ceasefire talks between Moscow and Kiev in Istanbul last week ended without a breakthrough.
The SVR report comes a day after US President Donald Trump shortened his 50-day deadline for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine to “10 or 12 days,” warning of stalled progress and approving expanded weapons shipments to Kiev, including US-made Patriot systems financed by European partners and coordinated through NATO.
Former Ukrainian prosecutor general’s adviser Andriy Telizhenko said the plan to replace Zelensky predated Donald Trump’s return to office, adding, “Once the strings are cut, the puppet must be replaced.”
Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in The End of Zelensky? that Zaluzhny “is now being viewed as Zelensky’s most reliable successor,” citing “well-informed Washington sources” confirming the role could be offered to him.
Mystery grows around state of Russian nuclear submarine base that is just 75 miles from epicentre of 8.8-magnitude megaquake
A colossal 8.8-magnitude earthquake rocked Russia’s far eastern Kamchatka
Peninsula early yesterday morning – raising serious questions about the
condition of Russia’s key nuclear submarine bases, located alarmingly close
to the epicentre. The quake, tied for the sixth strongest in recorded
history, struck just 75 miles from Avacha Bay, where some of the Russian
Navy’s most strategic nuclear assets, including Borei and Delta-class
ballistic missile submarines, are based. Though Russian authorities are
insisting the situation is under control, with ‘no reported fatalities or
serious injuries’, military analysts and international observers are
sounding the alarm over the potential impact on these high-security naval
installations.
Mail 31st July 2025, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14956551/Russian-nuclear-submarine-base-earthquake.html
Court hears Uzbek group attempted to sell nuclear bomb material uranium on black market
An Uzbek court has convicted a group of individuals who sought to sell 120
grams of natural uranium, the heavy metal element required in the making of
a nuclear bomb. While the amount they were attempting to sell, at a price
of $2,000 per gram, would only make up a tiny fraction of the uranium
volume a nuclear bomb maker would need for enrichment, national security
officials the world over are wary of such black market sales reaching a
frequency that would enable terrorist, or other malign actors, to source
the volume of material needed for an atomic weapon from an assortment of
sellers.
Intellinews 29th July 2025, https://www.intellinews.com/court-hears-uzbek-group-attempted-to-sell-nuclear-bomb-material-uranium-on-black-market-393499/
Sizewell C will cost more than Hinkley: Is it worth it?


Priced in ‘real’ terms today, the £47.7bn cost ceiling will rise further with inflation,
potentially over £60bn. The total tally for the UK’s latest bet on
nuclear power, Sizewell C, is highly likely to rise above the cost of
Hinkley Point C.
The question is, will the potential savings for low-carbon
power next decade justify the cost? Taken together, the impact of project
overruns and inflation could push up the estimated £38 billion price tag
of the nuclear power project, in 2024 prices, by between almost £10bn and
£20bn or more.
That is because the £47.7bn upper cost threshold set for
the project by government – which Energy Voice reported on the day a
final investment decision was made would be funded by £36.6bn of new debt
finance from the UK National Wealth Fund (NWF) – is a moving target.
Priced in ‘real’ terms today, that cost ceiling will rise further with
inflation, making the true cost of Sizewell C likely to be far greater than
the incomplete nuclear power station in Somerset, despite the fact that as
a replica it was meant to be cheaper due to economies of scale. Independent
analysis from the House of Commons Library shows energy bills would need to
rise to cover the extra spend. SNP Energy spokesperson Graham Leadbitter MP
said: “This toxic overspend now totals £48bn.” A major financier of
the project, the sovereign fund NWF, has conceded that the ultimate cost of
the Suffolk project could balloon well above the £38bn price tag confirmed
by ministers this month, already nearly double the initial £20bn estimate.
Energy Voice 30th July 2025. https://www.energyvoice.com/all-news/577297/sizewell-c-will-cost-more-than-hinkley-is-it-worth-it/
Russia is staying quiet on Trump’s nuclear move
BBC, Steve Rosenberg, Russia editor in Moscow, 2 Aug 25
Could this be the first time in history a social media spat triggers nuclear escalation?
President Donald Trump, offended by posts by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, says he’s ordered two nuclear submarines to move closer to Russia.
So, how will Moscow respond? Are we on a path to a nuclear standoff between America and Russia? An internet-age version of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?
I doubt it, judging by initial reaction in Russia.
Russian news outlets have been rather dismissive of Trump’s announcement.
Speaking to the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, a military commentator concluded that Trump was “throwing a temper tantrum”.
A retired lieutenant-general told Kommersant that the US president’s talk of submarines was “meaningless blather. It’s how he gets his kicks”.
“I’m sure Trump didn’t really give any orders [about submarines],” a Russian security expert suggested to the same paper.
Kommersant also mentions that in 2017, Trump said that he’d despatched two nuclear submarines to the Korean peninsula as a warning to North Korea.
Yet not long after, Trump held a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
So, bizarrely, might Donald Trump’s latest submarine deployment be a precursor to a US-Russia summit?
I wouldn’t go that far.
But the reaction from the Russian authorities has been interesting.
At time of writing, there hasn’t been any.
Not from the Kremlin. Not from the Russian foreign ministry. Nor the defence ministry.
And I’ve seen no announcement about Russian nuclear submarines being positioned closer to America.
Which suggests that either Moscow is still studying the situation and working out what to do, or that Moscow doesn’t feel the need to react.
The Russian press reaction I mentioned earlier suggests it’s the latter……………………………. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly4kgv9238o
Energy firm newcleo will suspend its programme to develop lead-cooled fast reactors (LFR) in Britain.

Energy firm newcleo said on Wednesday it would suspend its programme to
develop lead-cooled fast reactors (LFR) in Britain and substantially wind
down its UK activities due to the lack of support and funding from the
government.
LFRs are a type of advanced nuclear reactor technology which
are smaller and more efficient than conventional nuclear reactors and can
be built in factories and assembled on site to provide heat for industrial
processes and hydrogen production.
The firm, established in 2021 and
headquartered in Britain, said it had planned to develop up to four such
reactors in the UK, producing a total of 800 megawatts, enough to power
around 1.6 million homes, and representing around 4 billion pounds ($5
billion) of investment.
The company said it had engaged with successive UK
governments on access to the country’s stock of stored plutonium which it
had planned to recycle for use in the reactors. “Sadly, despite many
attempts to engage with political stakeholders, the UK government has
decided to not make its plutonium available for the foreseeable future and
to lend its political support and considerable funding to other
technologies,” Stefano Buono, founder and CEO of newcleo, said in a
statement.
In addition, support and funding have been made available to
other small modular reactor technologies but they have not been forthcoming
for LFR developers such as newcleo in Britain, the firm said. Instead, it
will focus on other important markets. In Slovakia, newcleo said it had
created a joint venture with state-owned nuclear company JAVYS to build up
to four LFRs powered by the country’s spent nuclear fuel stocks, which
has received endorsement from government officials. In June, an agreement
with the Lithuanian government was signed based on a similar strategy.
Reuters 30th July 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/energy-firm-newcleo-says-it-will-suspend-uk-lead-cooled-fast-reactor-development-2025-07-30/
Nuclear power drive obsesses over baseload: Do we need it?

Lately there has been a mounting noise on behalf of more nuclear power in
Scotland, pleas for John Swinney to do a u-turn on his ruling out of new
nuclear reactors.
Calls for Scotland to embrace nuclear have been greeted
with a certain amount of enthusiasm in some quarters, including many SNP
voters. But what troubles me, in the current debate, is that all too often
it feels like we are stuck in an old vision of the grid – and one of the
terms that suggests this is ‘baseload’.
Baseload is defined as the
minimum amount of electricity required by a grid to meet the continuous
demand for power over a day. Currently, it’s mostly used to refer to the
generating capacity that we need to always be there if the wind stops and
the sun doesn’t shine. Britain Remade, for instance, talks about nuclear
in terms of “clean, reliable baseload power”.
But what if nuclear is actually a technology that does not suit a modern renewable grid? What if wind and nuclear are not good bedfellows and, as a baseload, new plants
will only make our electricity more expensive?
In a recent Substack, David Toke, author of Energy Revolutions: Profiteering versus Democracy, described the “accepted truth” in the media that new nuclear power is
needed because there is no other practical or cheaper way to balance
fluctuating wind and solar power, as “demonstrably false”.
He said it
“runs counter to the way that the UK electricity grid is going to be
balanced anyway” – which, he noted, is by gas engines and turbines
“that are hardly ever used”. Simple gas fired power plants, he said,
are many times cheaper per MW compared to nuclear power plant.
Toke advocated for a system balanced by more batteries and other storage as well
as gas turbines or engines which will proved “capacity” rather than
generate much energy. He has a strong point. Of course, the problem with
gas, is that it is, famously, a fossil fuel and produces greenhouse gas
emissions.
However, if, as Toke says, that gas is an increasingly small
percentage of electricity generation, about handling the moments when
demand is not met by wind and solar, the 5% predicted by the UK
Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, to be what we require, perhaps
that’s no big deal. It’s a bigger deal, though, if the gas power
station emissions required to balance the grid are, as another Substack
write calculated recently more like 19 percent.
Interestingly, Toke, whose
main criticisms of nuclear are its high cost of electricity generation and
lack of grid balancing flexibility, also noted that if we are thinking
about the financial costs of reducing emissions we might be better off
spending our money in other ways. For instance: “setting up a scheme to
pay £15000 each to 500,000 residents not on the gas grid to switch to heat
pumps will likely save as much carbon as Sizewell C is likely to
save”.
But it seems to me the question is not whether nuclear power is
simply right or wrong, but what its place is within the kind of modern grid
we are developing, a grid which faces transmission challenges between
Scotland, already producing more energy than it uses, and elsewhere, and
whether the costs are worth it. Too often those that argue for nuclear sell
it via the concept ‘baseload’.
But you only have to do a quick scan of
the internet to see it is brimming also with articles about how baseload is
extinct or outdated. These critics point out that what the grid actually
needs is more flexible sources, both of storage and power. One of the
problems is that traditional nuclear power stations tend to be all on or
all off. Torness, for instance, has either one or both of its reactors,
either at full or zero capacity.
That kind of inflexibility in nuclear
plants has already led to constraint payments being made to wind farms,
which have been switched off because there was too little demand even as
the nuclear power stations kept producing. In 2020 energy consultants
Cornwall Insight estimated the quantity in MWh of constraints that could
have been avoided had nuclear power plants in Scotland been shut during two
recent years. It found that, in 2017, 94 per cent worth of windfarm output
that had been turned off (constrained) could have been generated had
nuclear power plant not been operating.
Herald 29th July 2025, https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/25350226.nuclear-power-drive-obsesses-baseload-need/
Sizewell C to build further education campus in Leiston.

Education and employment leaders have hailed new plans for an education campus in Leiston as a “landmark moment”.
The education campus will include College on the Coast, a new permanent further education college delivered in partnership with Suffolk New College, that will provide technical, vocational, and academic pathways aligned to the workforce needs of the new nuclear power plant and the wider energy, infrastructure and engineering sectors.
Sizewell C announced further details of the centre, which will include a post-16 college, at a well-attended public exhibition in July.
A planning application for the College on the Coast and Apprentice Hub, on the eastern edge of Leiston, will be submitted in the coming months. ………..
East Anglian Daily Times 31st July 2025, https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/25353049.sizewell-c-build-education-campus-leiston/
Russian nuclear submarine base hit by tsunami.
Waves triggered by 8.8 magnitude earthquake damaged base that houses Pacific Fleet
Russia’s far east nuclear submarine base appears to have been damaged by
the tsunami that swept the country’s Pacific coast on Wednesday,
according to satellite imagery obtained by The Telegraph. The waves,
triggered by an 8.8 magnitude earthquake, hit the Rybachiy base in
Kamchatka peninsula, which houses most of the nuclear submarines in
Russia’s Pacific Fleet. A section of one pier has bent away from its
original position, possibly indicating that it was detached from its
moorings, images taken by the Umbra Space satellite on Thursday morning
have revealed.
It does not appear that a submarine was moored alongside at
the time of impact and experts said damage to the structure alone would
have little military significance. However, questions were raised about
whether the tsunami caused any further harm to the base, which was thought
to have been hit within 15 minutes of the earthquake.
Telegraph 1st Aug 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/08/01/russian-nuclear-submarine-base-earthquake-satellite/
Radiation dangers at “Sea Fest” in Cumbria
Campaigners have sent a letter to Cumbria Wildlife Trust urging them to
inform families of the dangers at “Sea Fest” on 2nd August. Radiation
Free Lakeland have been writing to the wildlife charity for many years and
even taken direct action at the Sand Sculpture events on St Bees Beach
producing their own sand sculpture of “The Scream” and presenting
Cumbria Wildlife Trust with a “Blinky” statue.
The letter asks that
Cumbria Wildlife Trust inform families of the risks of encountering
radioactive particles whilst spending hours digging sand sculptures.
Campaigners point to Sellafield’s own recent Particles in the Environment
Reports which outline alpha and beta rich finds one of which is Cesium-137
with an activity of 1.23 ± 0.25 MBq “the 2nd highest Cs-137 activity
measured in any find since the programme (of monitoring and retrieval)
began”. Also stated by Sellafield: “Alpha-rich particle find rates at
Sellafield beach and Northern Beaches appear higher than those measured in
recent years” as reported in Sellafield Particles in the Environment
Update (1-Jan to 1-April 2025).
Radiation Free Lakeland 1st Aug 2025, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2025/08/01/cumbria-wildlife-trust-sand-castle-event-where-alpha-rich-particle-find-rates-at-sellafield-beach-and-northern-beaches-appear-higher-than-those-measured-in-recent-years/
An unwanted visitor to Britain’s shores – a harbinger of death

28th July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/an-unwanted-visitor-to-britains-shores-a-harbinger-of-death/
Not reference to the recent visit of US President Donald Trump to Scotland, but instead the Nuclear Free Local Authorities are highlighting the delivery of US nuclear weapons to RAF Lakenheath earlier this month. Fortunately Mr Trump will be leaving after a short stay, unfortunately the B-61 nuclear weapons will not.
RAF Lakenheath is, despite its cover name, the United States Air Force’s largest airbase in the United Kingdom, a home to two squadrons of the F35A nuclear capable fighter bomber able to carry the B61-12 ‘tactical’ nuclear bomb. Rather than being a weapon designed for delivery as part of a strategic nuclear exchange, the B-61 is intended for use as a ‘battlefield’ weapon for more immediate employment in a direct conflict in Europe with Russia.
Given the current ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia with heightened tensions between Russia and the USA and its NATO allies, this makes it employment frightening more likely in the present than it was in the past.
Anti-nuclear campaigners at Nukewatch have published a detailed expose of a recent flight of a giant C-17 Globemaster from the United States which observed by the Nukewatchers on its arrival at the Suffolk airbase. As the aircraft was operated by a specialist unit authorised to transport nuclear weapons and had travelled in-bound from the US Air Force’s main nuclear weapons storage site at the Kirtland Air Force base in New Mexico to Suffolk, Nukewatch believe that this aircraft was carrying nuclear weapons. This would be the first deployment of US nuclear weapons in the UK since 2008.
Nukewatch ‘judge that the evidence publicly available from our observations and flight-tracking data now supports the conclusion that nuclear weapons are based at the Lakenheath US airbase.’
Their excellent report can be found at https://www.nukewatch.org.uk/how-the-us-air-force-brought-nuclear-weapons-to-lakenheath-air-base-the-inside-story/
In response, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has launched a campaign calling on the UK Government to make a full public disclosure and hold a debate and a vote in Parliament about the acceptance of this deployment. These nuclear weapons will be available for use at the command of US President with the British Prime Minister Starmer has zero say on the matter. This makes Lakenheath an obvious future target for a pre-emptive nuclear attack in the event of a future conflict with Russia. In recent polling, 61% of Britons surveyed were opposed to any deployment of US nuclear weapons in the UK.
CND is inviting its supporters to sign an online petition to their local MP at https://cnd.eaction.org.uk/dontmakeusatarget
CND previously uncovered through a legal challenge that the US military – as ‘visiting forces’ – have a blanket exemption from nuclear safety regulations. This was issued in March 2021 by the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. It means that there is no requirement for the USAF to carry out emergency planning on nuclear matters.
UK Government abandons plan to greenwash nuclear in a new taxonomy

28th July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/government-abandons-plan-to-greenwash-nuclear-in-a-new-taxonomy/
Much to the delight of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, the UK Government has abandoned the latest plan to introduce a new taxonomy for ‘green’ energy technologies. Why? Because, in the small print, Ministers wanted to include nuclear so the plan would have amounted to ‘greenwashing’ the industry.
The government recently published its response to a consultation conducted earlier this year by the Treasury. In the consultation, a taxonomy was described as ‘a classification tool which provides its users with a common framework to define which economic activities support climate, environmental or wider sustainability objectives.’
It should have been a mechanism to facilitate further investment in ‘green’ energy projects, but the proposal was in the NFLA’s view fatally flawed as in the small print the consultation document obliquely included nuclear.
28th July 2025
Government abandons plan to greenwash nuclear in a new taxonomy
Much to the delight of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, the UK Government has abandoned the latest plan to introduce a new taxonomy for ‘green’ energy technologies. Why? Because, in the small print, Ministers wanted to include nuclear so the plan would have amounted to ‘greenwashing’ the industry.
The government recently published its response to a consultation conducted earlier this year by the Treasury. In the consultation, a taxonomy was described as ‘a classification tool which provides its users with a common framework to define which economic activities support climate, environmental or wider sustainability objectives.’
It should have been a mechanism to facilitate further investment in ‘green’ energy projects, but the proposal was in the NFLA’s view fatally flawed as in the small print the consultation document obliquely included nuclear.
The NFLAs opposed this plan and Dr Paul Dorfman, who kindly drafted our response, explained why: ‘The ‘UK Green Consultation’ document stated that, ‘Subject to stakeholder feedback on the value and use cases of a UK Green Taxonomy, the government proposes that nuclear energy will be classified as green in any future UK Green Taxonomy’ – a ‘horse and cart’ situation that brought into question the role, process and purpose of consultation, with all that has implications for trust in government.
Now Emma Reynolds MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, has stated that Ministers have abandoned the plan: ‘the government has concluded that a UK Taxonomy would not be the most effective tool to deliver the green transition and should not be part of our sustainable finance framework.’ Ms Reynolds claimed that ‘other policies were of higher priority to accelerate investment into the transition to Net Zero and limit greenwashing.’
The NFLAs support the aspiration to achieve Net Zero, but nuclear, as a technology associated with resource intensive activities, environmental damage and contamination, and a deadly legacy of radioactive waste, is in the NFLA’s view most certainly not ‘green’ and its inclusion would have amounted to ‘greenwashing’.
Dr Paul Dorfman succinctly expressed our relief at the government’s U-turn: ‘In this contest, it seems fair that Government has taken a considered step back and has made the right decision not to pursue this Taxonomy.’
The decision appeared to have a near immediate impact with Schroders Greencoat, which describes itself as ‘a specialist renewables infrastructure investor’, widely reported to have decided to withdraw as a prospective investor in Sizewell C. Stop Sizewell C executive director Alison Downes said: “It’s welcome news that Schroders Greencoat won’t be investing in Sizewell C. Based on our dialogue with Schroders, we attribute this to the government deciding not to adopt a green taxonomy, which thankfully has the outcome that nuclear energy cannot be erroneously labelled ‘green’”.
Zelensky’s end goal is in sight, and so is his end.

Tarik Cyril Amar, 23 July 25, https://www.rt.com/news/621881-zelensky-wont-go-down-quietly/
The Ukrainian leader is not “turning” to authoritarianism – it has always been his goal, and when he has it, he won’t let go.
When the US picks clients, vassals, and proxies, it needs men or women ready to trade in the interests, even the welfare and lives of their compatriots. Vladimir Zelensky is such a man. A look at the elites of EU-NATO Europe shows he is not alone. But he is an especially extreme case.
It is much less than a decade ago that the former media entrepreneur and comedian – often crude instead of witty – advanced from being a pet protégé of one of Ukraine’s most corrupt oligarchs to capturing the country’s presidency. As it turned out, never to let go of it: Zelensky has used the war, which was provoked by the West and escalated in February 2022, not only to make himself an indispensable if very expensive and often obstreperous American puppet but also as a pretext to evade elections.
And yet, now signs are multiplying that his days of being indispensable may be over. For one thing, Seymour Hersh, living legend of American investigative journalism, is reporting that Zelensky is very unpopular where it matters most, in US President Donald Trump’s White House. This is not surprising: Trump’s recent turn against Russia – whatever its real substance or marital reasons – does not mean a turn in favor of Ukraine and even less so in favor of Zelensky, as attentive observers have noted. According to the Financial Times, “Western allies of Ukraine” still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin “as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.”
And according to “knowledgeable officials in Washington” who have talked to Hersh, the US leadership is ready to act on that problem by getting rid of Zelensky. And urgently: Some American officials consider removing the Ukrainian president “feet first” in case he refuses to go. Their reason, according to Hersh’s confidants: to make room for a deal with Russia.
Hersh has to make do with publishing anonymous sources. It is even conceivable that the Trump administration is leaking this threat against Zelensky to pressure him. Yet even if so, that doesn’t mean the threat is empty. Judging by past US behavior, using and then discarding other countries’ leaders is always an option.
Another, also plausible, possibility is that Zelensky will be discarded to facilitate not ending, but continuing the war, so as to keep draining Russian resources. In this scenario, the US would prolong the war by handing it over to its loyally self-harming European vassals. After, that is, seeing to the installation of a new leader in Kiev, one it has under even better control than Zelensky. Just to make sure the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not start understanding each other too well and end up slipping from US control. The Ukrainian replacement candidate everyone whispers about, old Zelensky nemesis General Valery Zaluzhny – currently in de facto exile as ambassador to the UK – might well be available for both options, depending on his marching orders from Washington..
Meanwhile, as if on cue, Western mainstream media have started to notice the obvious: The Financial Times has found out that critics accuse Zelensky of an “authoritarian slide,” which is still putting it very mildly but closer to the truth than past daft hero worship. The Spectator – in fairness, a magazine with a tradition of being somewhat more realistic about Ukraine – has fired a broadside under the title “Ukraine has lost faith in Zelensky.” The Economist has detected an “outrage” in Zelensky’s moves and, more tellingly, used a picture of him making him look like a cross between a Bond villain and Saddam Hussein. Even Deutsche Welle, a German state propaganda outlet, is now reporting on massive human rights infringements under Zelensky, with the impaired systematically targeted for forced mobilization.
Full disclosure: Knowing Ukrainian and Russian – Ukraine’s two languages – well and having written about the realities of Zelensky’s misrule for years already, my immediate response to these sudden revelations is “what took you so long?” My first articles explaining Zelensky’s obvious authoritarian tendencies – and practices, too – date back to 2021, and I have repeatedly pointed out that his popularity was slipping. All it took was to pay attention to Ukrainian polling.
But then, I know the reason for the mainstream’s delay: The bias induced by Western information warfare and media career conformism, which only weakens a little – or is redirected – when the geopolitics of the powerful change. In that sense, the increasingly sharp public criticism of Zelensky is yet another sign that he has fallen – and remains – out of favor with the American leadership that rules the West.
Zelensky’s recent actions may well indicate, as Hersh also suspects, that he knows he is in great danger – and not from Russia but his “friends” in the West. Just over the course of the last two weeks, Zelensky has reshuffled his government and, at the same time, started a devastating campaign against institutions and individuals that have two things in common: the mission to combat corruption and a well-deserved reputation for being particularly open to US influence.
Indeed, it is when Zelensky escalated his attacks on the latter that the Financial Times woke up from years of sweet slumber to discover there’s something authoritarian about the West’s top man in Ukraine. By now, things have only gotten worse: The domestic intelligence – and, of course, repression – service SBU has raided key anti-corruption organizations and made arrests. Simultaneously, Zelensky’s absolutely obedient majority in the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law to completely neuter these institutions by putting them under the president’s control, which the president then signed rapidly. By now, Ukraine is witnessing widespread protests against Zelensky’s attempt to combine maximum greed with unfettered if petty despotism.
For the Ukrainian news site Strana.ua – a media rarity, as it has managed to resist the Zelensky regime’s aggressive attempts to subdue and streamline it – the SBU raids on the anti-corruption agencies alone were a powerplay, designed to consolidate Zelensky’s one-man rule. That is correct, and he wasn’t even done.
At the same time, it is, obviously, also very convenient to remove the last feeble restraints on Ukraine’s fabulously pervasive graft, since whatever the West – that is, the Europeans – will now spend on Ukraine will be misappropriated even more wildly than before. That could come in handy especially if there should be a need to stay rich in exile.
This gangster-economic aspect of Zelensky’s fresh power grab has not escaped even his Western friends: the OECD has already warned the Ukrainian regime that the stifling of the anti-corruption agencies will harm Western investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction in general and its arms industry in particular. Likewise, the International Renaissance Foundation, a Soros power structure that has been all too active in Ukraine for more than three decades now, has also called for a repeal of the new law.
In essence, these and similar Western complaints all mean the same: We know you are robbing us blind already but we’ve made our peace with that because you serve our geopolitics. But if you try to take an even larger cut, we may reconsider.
Taken together, Zelensky’s government reshuffle and his assault on the anti-corruption agencies seem to reflect a double strategy: On one side, the endangered puppet is signaling submission to the US in at least some of his recent personnel moves, but on the other, he is also consolidating his power at home by insulating it from too much direct American influence. It is as if he were sending a message to Washington: “I really am your man. But if you try to choose another, I’ll fight.”
The historic irony is that, with Zelensky succeeding in finally razing the last pitiful remnants of pluralism in Ukraine, he – the once hysterically idolized darling of the “value-based” West – will be the president achieving a complete authoritarianism like no Ukrainian leader before him. And all that while propped up with hundreds of billions from the West.
Any displays of surprise or shock by Ukrainian and Western politicians or mainstream media betray either that they have been dozing under a rock for years or that they are being disingenuous. Because today’s Zelensky is not “turning” to authoritarianism. On the contrary, authoritarianism has always been his default disposition and his aim. Zelensky has been working on his personal assent to unchecked power – and, of course, its material spoils as well – since he became Ukraine’s president. That means, long before the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (and behind and through it the West) escalated in early 2022.
How do we know? Because it was already obvious, including to many Ukrainians, by 2021 at the very latest. It was then that Zelensky’s Ukrainian critics – not Russians or those with sympathy for Russia – attacked him and his political party “Servant of the People” for erecting a “mono-vlada,” that is, in essence, an authoritarian political machine to control not only the state but the public sphere as well.
By 2021, Zelensky had already engaged in all of the following: vicious lawfare against Ukraine’s opposition and his personal political rivals, such as former president Petro Poroshenko; massive media censorship and streamlining, while targeting with repression and chicanery any outlets, editors, and journalists daring to resist, for instance Strana.ua; systematically and illegally abusing emergency powers and unaccountable but powerful institutions (most of all, the National Security Council) to stifle criticism; and, last but not least, the fostering of a dictatorial personality cult which was boosted by the West.
Since then, things have only gotten worse. Zelensky has steadily fastened his hold over Ukraine, while prolonging and losing an avoidable and catastrophic war for a Western strategy to demote Russia. Ukraine has been bled dry for a cynical and (predictably) failing Western scheme; Russia, meanwhile is not only winning but has greatly increased its autonomy from the West.
The war may end soon or it may drag on. For the sake of Ukraine we have to hope it will be over soon. Zelensky, if he were a decent man, would then have to hand himself over to postwar Ukrainian justice or be his own judge, the old-fashioned way. But Zelensky is no decent man. If rumors now swirling are not only plausible but truthful, then his masters in Washington may be the ones preparing an appropriately indecent end for him. If the protests against him accelerate, Zelensky may even end up “color-revolution-ed.” How ironic.
French nuclear weapons, 2025

Bulletin, By Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, Eliana Johns, Mackenzie Knight-Boyle | July 15, 2025
France’s nuclear weapons stockpile has remained stable over the past decade and contains approximately 290 warheads for delivery by ballistic missile submarines and aircraft. Nearly all of France’s stockpiled warheads are deployed or operationally available for deployment on short notice. In addition, up to 80 warheads—the older TN75 warheads assumed to have been recently removed from the Le Vigilant submarine—are believed to be in the dismantlement queue and are likely no longer considered part of France’s stockpile.
The current force level is the result of adjustments made to France’s nuclear posture following former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s announcement on March 21, 2008, that the arsenal would be reduced to fewer than 300 warheads (Sarkozy 2008). As Sarkozy said in 2008, the 300-warhead stockpile is “half the maximum number of warheads [France] had during the Cold War” (Sarkozy 2008). By our estimate, the French warhead inventory peaked in 1991-1992 at around 540 warheads, and the size of today’s stockpile is about the same as it was in 1984, although the composition is significantly different.
President Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed the Sarkozy formulation of “under 300 nuclear weapons” in a speech on February 7, 2020 (Élysée 2020) (see Table 1 –on original). Under President Macron, France has engaged in a long-term modernization and strengthening of its nuclear forces, which have included significant budget increases to the deterrent force in recent years (Assemblée Nationale 2024). It is possible but unclear if the decision to add another nuclear air base will increase the stockpile.
Research methodology and confidence
The analyses and estimates made in this Nuclear Notebook are derived from a combination of open sources: (1) state-originating data (e.g. government statements, declassified documents, budgetary information, and military operations and exercises); (2) non-state-originating data (e.g. media reports, think tank analyses, and industry publications); and (3) commercial satellite imagery. Because each of these sources provides different and limited information that is subject to varying degrees of uncertainty, we crosscheck each data point by using multiple sources and supplementing them with private conversations with officials whenever possible.
As a democracy with an active civil society and media landscape, it is possible to obtain relatively higher-quality information about France’s nuclear arsenal compared to many other nuclear-armed countries. France is one of only two countries (the other being the United States) that have publicly disclosed the size of their nuclear stockpile. French policy and military officials also offer regular statements on France’s nuclear doctrine and associated modernization programs.
Despite these positive steps, some challenges persist in obtaining reliable information about France’s nuclear arsenal. France’s freedom of information laws are more restrictive than in the United States and United Kingdom, and since 2008, a law initially designed to limit proliferation of French nuclear information has in practice been implemented on such a broad scale that it has restricted the ability of researchers and journalists to effectively analyze and disseminate data about discrete elements of France’s nuclear stockpile (Cooper 2022; Légifrance 2008). As a result, it is highly challenging to verify information presented by official sources, particularly as such statements rarely contain technical details………………………………………………….
……………………………………The role of French nuclear weapons
Successive heads of state, including Presidents Sarkozy, Hollande, and now Macron, have periodically described the role of French nuclear weapons. The Defense Ministry’s 2017 Defense and National Security Strategic Review reiterated that the nuclear doctrine is “strictly defensive,” and that using nuclear weapons “would only be conceivable in extreme circumstances of legitimate self-defense,” involving France’s vital interests. What exactly these “vital interests” are, however, remains unclear. During and after the Cold War, French leaders considered France’s “vital interests” to extend beyond its national boundaries; this discourse has been revived in earnest with the presidency of Emmanuel Macron. In February 2020, President Emmanuel Macron announced that France’s “vital interests now have a European dimension,” and sought to engage the European Union on the “role played by France’s nuclear deterrence in [its] collective security” (Élysée 2020).
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the heightened possibility of nuclear use in Europe, this discourse came under greater scrutiny and analysis. In October 2022, Macron clarified that France’s vital interests “would not be at stake if there was a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine or in the region,” apparently attempting to avoid being seen as expanding French nuclear doctrine (France TV 2022). Explicitly ruling out a nuclear role in case of Russian nuclear escalation in Ukraine appeared to contradict France’s statement at the August 2022 Review Conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which explained that “for deterrence to work, the circumstances under which nuclear weapons would [or would not] be used are not, and should not be, precisely defined, so as not to enable a potential aggressor to calculate the risk inherent in a potential attack” (2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 2022).
The discussion around the role of France’s deterrent in Europe has intensified after the election of Donald Trump as US President, and even more so given the Trump administration’s open disdain for the United States’ European allies, overtures toward Russia, and threats to stop supporting Ukraine. While the broad contours of France’s nuclear posture will likely remain largely unchanged for the near future, how it is communicated and demonstrated appear to be evolving (Maitre 2025).
In addition to statements about France’s vital interests in Europe, Macron announced in March 2025 the addition of a nuclear air base at Luxeuil in eastern France, which will become the first base to house France’s new hypersonic nuclear cruise missile by 2035 (Élysée 2025). And when French jets (including Rafale jets from the nuclear base at Saint Dizier) deployed to northern Sweden in April 2025, France’s ambassador to Sweden explicitly stated: “As President Macron has said, it is of course the case that our French vital interests also include the interests of our allies. In that perspective, the nuclear umbrella also applies to our allies and of course Sweden is among them” (Granlund 2025)…………………….
………………..France does not have a no-first-use policy and reserves the right to conduct a “final warning” limited nuclear strike to signal to an adversary that they have crossed a line—or to signal the French resolve to conduct further nuclear strikes if necessary—in an attempt to “reestablish deterrence” (Élysée 2020; Tertrais 2020). Although France is a member of NATO, its nuclear forces are not part of the alliance’s integrated military command structure. …………………………..
……………………………………………………………………….. Command, control, and communication
France maintains strict and centralized control over its nuclear arsenal, with the president having sole and final authority as to the decision to use nuclear weapons. However, in practice, the implementation of such a decision would involve additional military personnel—namely the highest- and second-highest-ranking military officers: the Chef d’État-Major des Armées (CEMA) and the Chef de l’État-Major Particulier du Président de la République (CEMP), who is the president’s top military advisor.
Only one of those officials—the CEMA—is enshrined in the French defense code as the responsible official for ensuring that the president’s order is executed (Légifrance 2025). However, conflicting accounts appear to exist regarding the CEMP’s role, with testimony reportedly indicating that under previous administrations, the president and the CEMP each carried one half of the nuclear codes (Pelopidas 2019; Wellerstein 2019).
The primary command post for the president to transmit nuclear orders is called “Jupiter” and is located underneath the Élysée Palace ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Submarine-launched ballistic missiles
The French force of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) constitutes the backbone of the French nuclear deterrent. Under the command of the Strategic Ocean Force (Force Océanique Stratégique, or FOST), the French Navy (Marine Nationale) operates four Triomphant-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) equipped with nuclear-armed long-range ballistic missiles—Le Triomphant (hull number S616), Le Téméraire (S617), Le Vigilant (S618), and Le Terrible (S619)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Air-launched cruise missiles
The second leg of France’s nuclear arsenal consists of nuclear ASMPA (air-sol moyenne portée-amélioré) air-launched cruise missiles for delivery by fighter-bombers operated by the Strategic Air Forces and the Naval Nuclear Aviation Force………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The nuclear weapons complex
France’s nuclear weapons complex is managed by the Direction des Applications Militaires (DAM), a department within the Nuclear Energy Commission (Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies renouvelables, or CEA). DAM is responsible for research, design, manufacture, operational maintenance, and dismantlement of nuclear warheads………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2025-07/french-nuclear-weapons-2025/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=French%20nuclear%20arsenal%20today&utm_campaign=20250724%20Thursday%20Newsletter%20%28Copy%29
-
Archives
- April 2026 (194)
- 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




