Expert Warns of ‘Rubber Stamp’ Approvals as Ontario Expands Nuclear Spending

the changes effectively shift final authority from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to cabinet if concerns arise during assessment. It also shifts accountability if those decisions eventually go wrong—although the elected officials involved would likely be out of office by the time the full impacts were known.

the budget “goes on at some length about how wonderful [nuclear projects] are in terms of their economic contributions, but never actually talks about costs.”

the combination of the proposed new builds, the SMR pilots, and refurbishments will push capital expenditures “north of $400 billion”.

June 3, 2026, Nathaniel Crouch, https://www.theenergymix.com/expert-warns-of-rubber-stamp-approvals-as-ontario-expands-nuclear-spending/?utm_source=The+Energy+Mix&utm_campaign=7f479c951f-TEM_RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc146fb5ca-7f479c951f-510028305

Federal impact assessment reviews for two Ontario nuclear projects risk serving as little more than procedural approvals, a Toronto environmental studies professor says, as they move through the process without first identifying the reactor types to be built.

Ontario’s Wesleyville Project in Port Hope has several reactor technologies under consideration, and the Bruce C expansion near Kincardine has not yet selected a technology, either. Both are undergoing federal impact assessment.

Mark Winfield, a professor at the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change at York University, told The Energy Mix he is also concerned that proposed federal approval reforms, combined with Bill C-5 passed last summer, and the newly announced National Electricity Strategy, could lead to what he called “the explicit politicization of decision-making on nuclear projects.” Where “once projects are designated as being in the national interest,” he said, “they will be approved regardless of what the technical reviews find.”

That would be “a very dangerous situation when dealing with what will be first-of-kind reactors in Canada, or in some cases globally,” he added.

Winfield said the changes effectively shift final authority from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to cabinet if concerns arise during assessment. It also shifts accountability if those decisions eventually go wrong—although the elected officials involved would likely be out of office by the time the full impacts were known.

“The implication of going to cabinet is that the regulator’s concerns could be overridden for political or economic reasons,” he said, recalling Harper government’s 2008 decision to fire the CNSC chair after the rejection of the MAPLE reactors at Chalk River.

Winfield said Canada’s new electricity strategy seemed to “aggressively skate over” the cost implications of its nuclear heavy focus, as nuclear energy continues to be subject to enormous capital costs and construction delays.

“Essentially the federal strategy seems to be following Ontario’s lead—a heavy emphasis on gas and nuclear, and mostly ignoring the global movement in the direction of renewables.”

Ontario, Ratepayers Confront Growing Nuclear Costs

Critics have warned that Ontario’s nuclear expansion strategy could carry major long-term financial consequences.

In May, the Ontario government announced a $300-million cost-sharing agreement with Bruce Power to advance early planning for the expansion of the Bruce C nuclear complex, a project the province said would support 18,900 jobs and help make Ontario home to the largest nuclear generating facility in the world.

The announcement marked one of the clearest signals yet that Premier Doug Ford’s government sees large-scale nuclear expansion as the backbone of Ontario’s future electricity system. It also landed amid criticism that the province is shifting billions in electricity costs onto taxpayers, obscuring the long-term price of nuclear refurbishments, new reactors, and small modular nuclear projects.

Ontario’s 2026 budget led the province into a $13.8-billion deficit, with energy expenditures— and nuclear energy in particular—central to the shortfall. The government’s budget documents flagged large “amounts for electricity cost relief” and related line items, but stopped short of detailing long-term capital costs. That omission drew sharp criticism from electricity system experts.

Winfield said the budget “goes on at some length about how wonderful [nuclear projects] are in terms of their economic contributions, but never actually talks about costs.” Using figures the province provided for electricity supports, Winfield calculated that electricity-related spending accounted for roughly half the deficit—about $6.9 billion on the books—but said it would be difficult to figure out exactly how much of that line item in the budget is nuclear related because the figures are “deliberately opaque.”

Environmental Defence Canada Programs Director Keith Brooks too linked the deficit to rising nuclear and legacy refurbishment costs, as well as growing use of gas power plants to meet growing demand while the nuclear plants are being brought online.

29% Rate Hike

Last November, Ontario raised its basic electricity rate by 29% and simultaneously expanded rebate programs, which the government framed as short-term relief and a change in cost allocations. Both Winfield and Brooks said those measures masked the underlying driver: rising costs tied to refurbished and new nuclear plants. “What they seem to be doing is setting a precedent—allowing the costs for these projects to be charged to ratepayers before they’re built,” Winfield said, adding that the combination of the proposed new builds, the SMR pilots, and refurbishments will push capital expenditures “north of $400 billion”.

the combination of the proposed new builds, the SMR pilots, and refurbishments will push capital expenditures “north of $400 billion”.

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Revealed: USAID, National Endowment for Democracy & Open Society Quietly Bankroll Cuba’s “Independent” Media In Push for Regime Change

All this, however, pales in comparison to the resources the U.S. has dedicated to Radio and TV Martí. Founded in 1985 by the Reagan administration, the Miami-based network boasts dozens of full-time employees and receives tens of millions of dollars from Washington annually.

Anti-government media are only a small portion of the huge array of groups Washington secretly funds and supports. From musicians and academics, to civil society, educational, and religious groups, to think tanks, charities and NGOs, there exists a vast nexus of organizations receiving vast sums of money from the U.S. government.

Alan Macleod, 6 June 26, https://www.mintpressnews.com/revealed-usaid-ned-open-society-quietly-bankroll-cubas-independent-media-in-push-for-regime-change/290942/

Amid escalating U.S. aggression towards the Cuban island through a maximum pressure campaign and the threat of military intervention, the United States government has been covertly funding a huge network of Cuban media outlets that claim to be independent in a push for regime change against the independent socialist government.

These outlets present themselves as unbiased investigative journalism, but are quietly being financed by Washington through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Open Society Foundation in order to sow discontent across the Caribbean nation, softening it up for a potentially “imminent” invasion by the Trump administration.

Cuba faces some of its worst energy blackouts in its history, thanks to the U.S. blockade, which is attempting to strange the island into submission. As a Communist state defying U.S. orders, Cuba has, since 1959, been in the crosshairs of Washington, who are attempting to overthrow the government. MintPress sheds light on this shady regime change nexus.

CubaNet is one of the most influential and well-established news outlets covering affairs on the Caribbean island. Founded by anti-government activists in 1994, the site has become the go-to source of information for corporate media, who regularly cite it, and present it as an objective and unbiased independent media (e.g., The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and The Los Angeles Times). CubaNet reporters have written op-eds in major U.S. newspapers such as USA Today, calling for an immediate change in government on the island.

‘Independent Journalism,’ Brought To You By The U.S. State Department

But CubaNet is not as independent as it seems. The outlet is bankrolled by the U.S. national security state. CubaNet has received millions of dollars in funding from USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as the Open Society Foundation.

One currently active $500,000 USAID grant, for instance, was awarded to CubaNet to “engage on-island young Cubans through objective and uncensored multimedia journalism.” While ostensibly a laudable goal, even the grant’s own one-sentence description hints that its purpose is to undermine and attack the Cuban government. It states that it will (emphasis added) “increase the free flow of information to and from Cuba in order to offset the regime’s disinformation campaigns.”

Another news organization receiving huge sums of money from Washington is ADN Cuba. Literally meaning “Cuba’s DNA,” the outlet has amassed a significant following online, boasting over 100,000 subscribers on YouTube, over 200,000 on Instagram, and over 1.3 million on Facebook. It describes itself as “an independent media outlet committed to freedom and democracy in Cuba.” Yet it is actually based in Spain. And it does not seem particularly committed to transparency about its funding.

What is clear, however, is that ADN Cuba has received millions of dollars from the U.S. national security state. In September 2024, USAID approved a $1.1 million grant to ADN Cuba – a gigantic amount of money for an organization that publishes barely one story per day on its website. This was on top of a $1.5 million allocation for the 2022-2024 period. Indeed, since 2020, ADN Cuba has received in excess of $3 million from USAID alone. This relationship is not disclosed to readers– even in stories directly covering USAID funding Cuban media– and is relegated to the footnotes of obscure U.S. government funding databases.

Diario de Cuba is another Spanish-based news outlet that publishes a wide variety of stories, all with one thing in common: a deep aversion to the Cuban government. The BBC describes it and CubaNet as key sources for impartial news, run by journalists who “report without censorship and to paint a broader picture on the country’s reality.”

And just like CubaNet, Diario de Cuba has received seven-figure funding from Washington. Between 2016 and 2020, Diario de Cuba received $1.3 million in USAID cash – almost as much as CubaNet over the same period. This generous funding has allowed it to reach a global audience, with over 600,000 followers on Facebook alone.

Regime Change Networks

The Central Intelligence Agency used to directly (and secretly) sponsor hundreds of media outlets across the world. However, after a series of scandals and more information about its nefarious activities came to public attention, Washington decided to outsource many of its most controversial foreign operations to organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA,” Carl Gershman, the NED’s longtime president, said, explaining the 1983 decision to create his organization. NED co-founder Allen Weinstein agreed: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” he told The Washington Post.

Under the guise of democracy promotion and human rights, the U.S. government channels money to political and social groups across the world in order to maximize its strategic goals, including regime change.

In recent years, the U.S. has used the twin organizations of the NED and USAID to bankroll anti-government protests in Hong Kong, to attempt a color revolution in Belarus, to overthrow the government of Ukraine in 2014, and to organize riots across Iran earlier this year.

In Cuba, the NED and USAID played a critical role in organizing a (failed) uprising against the government in 2021. USAID in particular spent millions of dollars funding, organizing and promoting the San Isidro Movement – a collective of musicians, artists, and journalists– to lead a counter-revolution on the island.

San Isidro members were at the forefront of a wave of nationwide protests that July. The demonstrations were immediately signal boosted by Western corporate media, top celebrities, and U.S. politicians, including President Biden. Neitzens were flooded with the astroturfed “SOS Cuba” campaign, that trended across the Internet for days.

In the end, however, the coordinated efforts of the U.S. failed to convince ordinary Cubans to take to the streets, and the movement quickly petered out.

Esteban Rodríguez, a key member of the San Isidro movement, is a producer at ADN Cuba.

When U.S. Money Is Paused, “Independent” Media Immediately Collapse

The importance of U.S. government money to the survival and operations of these outlets was underlined early last year when the Trump administration chose to freeze funding to USAID and the NED. Announcing the decision, Elon Musk, then head of the Department of Government Efficiency, described USAID in particular as a “viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America.”

The effect on Cuban media was immediate. As soon as the money stopped flowing, dozens of organizations faced immediate liquidation. CubaNet published an emergency editorial asking readers to make up the shortfall. “We are facing an unexpected challenge: the suspension of key funding that sustained part of our work.” they wrote; “If you value our work and believe in keeping the truth alive, we ask for your support.” “Without [USAID] funds, it will be extremely difficult to continue,” CubaNet director Roberto Hechavarría Pilia added.

Diario de Cuba was in similarly dire straits. Its director, Pablo Díaz Espí, noted that “aid to independent journalism from the government of the United States has been suspended, which makes our work more difficult,” asking readers to donate.

Musk’s decision accidentally revealed a sprawling network of over 6,200 reporters and nearly 1,000 outlets worldwide that were quietly being trained, supported, and bankrolled by the CIA front, all under the banner of promoting “independent” media and freedom of information.

Another supposedly independent Cuban outlet plunged into crisis was El Toque (The Touch). Founded in 2014 and receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NED, El Toque publishes in Spanish and English, and attempts to manipulate the exchange rates in Cuba.

The funding cut hit them badly, with editors announcing that they would immediately have to lay off half their staff (15 people) and stop working with dozens of freelancers, while looking for alternative funding sources.

El Estornudo (The Sneeze), is also generously financed by NED. In 2021 alone, the endowment awarded the investigative journalism outlet $180,000. It also receives copious support from the Open Society Foundation, although it insists that none of this U.S. money comes with any strings attached or affects its output.

While Western media often portray the Cuban media landscape as a David-and-Goliath fight between plucky independent media facing repression, and a sprawling state-sponsored propaganda apparatus, the gigantic sums handed out to these “underdogs” make them by far and away the best funded outlets on the island. A 2023 Guardian article, for instance, profiled 24-year-old photojournalist Pedro Sosa, who worked for both El Toque and El Estornudo. It presented the pair as “offer[ing] real reporting over stodgy state media” and journalists as poor and vulnerable truth tellers standing up for “freedom,” and facing a “crackdown” from the state.

But it also let slip that working for U.S.-backed media is not as bad a career move as portrayed, and is, in fact, an extremely lucrative profession. It casually mentions that salaries at tiny El Toque are ten times that of even the most senior journalists working in Cuban state media. In reality, then, these oppressed free speech warriors are actually some of the richest individuals on the entire island, thanks to the power of the U.S. dollar, which pays them handsomely to produce a constant stream of anti-government news.

In the end, the U.S.-backed outlets need not have worried, and NED and USAID funding resumed after some restructuring.

Jobs For the Boys

Unlike the rest of the journalism industry, workers at Radio and TV Martí enjoy strong job security and six-figure wages, despite the fact that the Cuban government is able to jam and block many of their broadcasts from reaching Cuba, meaning precious few people consume its content.

Since its creation, Washington has spent at least $800 million on Radio and TV Martí.

The outlets profiled make up only a small portion of the network of anti-government media being funded by the United States. Most of the recipients of American money remain anonymous – a decision taken in part to hide their identities and preserve their credibility inside Cuba.

The National Endowment for Democracy considers Cuba a “long-standing priority,” and is currently officially funding 32 separate projects on the island.

Media related grants include one $80,000 project titled “Strengthening Access to Information,” which promises to:

“[E]nhance access to information and promote critical thinking, the organization will produce daily reporting and analysis across various formats, providing independent perspectives on issues affecting citizens’ daily lives, including freedom of expression, public safety, human rights, and other pressing social concerns.”

Another $115,000 grant, titled “Expanding Access to Uncensored Media” notes that it will:

“[P]romote independent information, the organization will provide narrative journalism on censored topics, conduct investigations, and produce in-depth articles, photo essays, and opinion pieces while strengthening the media’s operational capacity.”

Thirty-one of the thirty-two projects hide the recipient’s name and identification, meaning that those groups working with the CIA cutout organization are generally only ever identified if they advertise this relationship, or, like when U.S. money was temporarily halted in 2025, they call for help.

Two of these bodies include The Observatorio Cubano de Derechos Humanos (Cuban Observatory of Human Rights, or OCDH) and lawyers’ group, Cubalex.

Both groups produce reports denouncing the Cuban government, and are regularly cited as impartial authorities on human rights on the island in Western outlets, such as The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post. But what readers are not told is that both organizations are bankrolled by the U.S. national security state.

Records show that USAID has given almost $1.5 million to the OCDH. NED support, meanwhile, was crucial to Cubalex’s inception in 2010, and Washington continues to pay its staff wages to this day. As the company’s executive director, Laritza Diversent said last year,

“Without the support of National Endowment for Democracy, Cubalex would not have existed; to do the work we do requires resources. For 14 years, NED has been supporting us. Last October, after trying a lot of times, we [also] achieved a state Department grant.”

Thus, there is barely a corner of the anti-government Cuban opposition that has not been reached by U.S. money, either through government organizations such as the NED or USAID, or through institutions such as the Ford Foundation and Open Societies Foundation, which have historically performed a similar role in promoting American interests abroad.

Many of these groups are headquartered in South Florida, where U.S. government money is helping to subsidize thousands of jobs for the Cuban-American community. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that a significant part of Miami economy is propped by taxpayer money funding counter-revolutionary forces. Ironic, considering that conservative Cubans often vehemently object to government welfare programs in both the U.S. and Cuba.

Digital Bombardment

In 2010, a new social media and messaging app, Zunzuneo, took Cuba by storm. From nowhere, it went viral, picking up tens of thousands of users – a very large number for the time on such an internet-sparse island.

None of its users, however, were aware that the platform had been secretly created by USAID in order to promote regime change. Their plan was to first provide an excellent service that would capture the market, then to slowly drip feed Cubans anti-government messaging, and finally to direct them to join “smart mobs”, aimed at triggering a color revolution.

In an effort to hide its ownership of the project, the U.S. government held a secret meeting with Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, aimed at getting him to invest in the project. It is unclear to what extent, if any, Dorsey helped, as he has declined to speak on the matter.

Zunzuneo was abruptly shut down in 2012, perhaps because the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (which oversees TV and Radio Marti) had already created a new program called Piramideo.

Piramideo marketed itself as an app that allowed Cubans to receive world news for free, and without censorship. Almost immediately, however, locals reported being deluged with fake news about anti-government protests that never happened. Piramideo was shut down in 2015, after reporting on U.S. government meddling in Cuba caused a scandal and diplomatic embarrassment.

Today, however, with Cubans increasingly using American social media apps, this kind of subterfuge is largely unnecessary, as it can be done out in the open. During the 2021 San Isidro protests, apps such as Instagram and Twitter were openly participating in the attempt to overthrow the government, taking no action against a massive boom of clearly fake bot accounts parroting the exact same messages (down to the typos) and using the same astroturfed hashtag. Twitter’s editorial team even placed the protests – which drew barely a few thousand people into the streets nationwide – at the top of its “What’s Happening” for over 24 hours, meaning that every user worldwide would be notified. The failed putsch has come to be known as the “Bay of Tweets.”

Unending War on Cuba

In October, for the 33rd consecutive year, the United Nations voted overwhelmingly (165-7) to call for an end to the American blockade against Cuba. This economic war was established by the Eisenhower administration, in response to the Cuban Revolution of 1959, which overthrew the U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista.

These illegal unilateral coercive measures, which an internal U.S. government memo states are designed to “decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government,” cost Cuba billions every year, and severely impede its development.

The U.S. attempted to invade Cuba in 1961, and brought the world to the brink of annihilation during the subsequent Cuban missile crisis. It reportedly attempted to kill its leader Fidel Castro hundreds of times, and carried out waves of terror attacks against the country, including using biological weapons on the island.

Successive administrations continued the economic war against Cuba, which was ramped up after the fall of the Soviet Union. But the Trump State Department, run by Cuban-American Marco Rubio, has taken it to a new level, declaring the island to be one of its top priorities.

Trump himself has declared that Cuba is “next” on the list of countries being targeted for regime change. “We may stop by Cuba after we’re finished” with Iran he said last month.

In response, Cuban president Miguel Díaz-Canel said his country was ready to repel any U.S. invasion, as it did during the Bay of Pigs, stating:

“The moment is extremely challenging and calls upon us once again, as on April 16, 1961, to be ready to confront serious threats, including military aggression. We do not want it, but it is our duty to prepare to avoid it and, if it becomes inevitable, to defeat it.”

It is in this context that the U.S. government’s funding of a vast array of media outlets targeting Cuba should be seen; the media attack is just one facet of Washington’s multipronged approach to regime change.

Many of the organizations profiled here publish in English, and nearly all are used as supposedly credible sources of information on Cuba for Western corporate media, meaning that U.S. State Department narratives are laundered into the public consciousness through this network.

Many Cubans and Americans are completely unaware that their news about the island comes largely through a matrix of shady outlets quietly funded by the U.S. national security state via the NED and USAID. Their purpose is to keep up the flow of negative stories in order to soften the public up into accepting regime change on the island. After all, in war, truth is always the first casualty.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. He completed his PhD in 2017 and has since authored two acclaimed books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams. Follow Alan on Twitter for more of his work and commentary: @AlanRMacLeod.

Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

3 CommentsMay 15th, 2026

Alan Macleod

What’s Hot

Hezbollah’s Cheap FPV Drones Are Making Israel’s High-Tech Military Obsolete

The Battle for Bint Jbeil: Israel Revisits A Symbolic Defeat As Resistance Holds The Line

Iranian Jewish Association Describe Israel as “Ominous Zionist Regime” After Israeli Strikes Destroy Historic Synagogue on Passover

US & Israel Bomb 307+ Medical Facilities in Iran Carrying on Long Tradition of Targeting Medical Workers

Hezbollah Destroys 50 Israeli Merkava Tanks in Three Weeks As Israel Fails to Occupy South Lebanon

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | media, SOUTH AMERICA, USA | Leave a comment

Rolls-Royce is turning a quiet Welsh site into a nuclear bet, and the strange part is how many homes three small reactors could power

Public money is carrying the risk

SMRs are often promoted as cheaper and faster than conventional nuclear plants, but the first projects still need heavy financing, regulatory work, supply-chain confidence, and buyers willing to believe the model can scale.

By Indux, June 3, 2026, https://www.vozpopuli.com/indux/en/rolls-royce-is-turning-a-quiet-welsh-site-into-a-nuclear-bet-and-the-strange-part-is-how-many-homes-three-small-reactors-could-power/5488/

Rolls-Royce SMR and Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) have moved the United Kingdom’s first small modular reactor (SMR) project into a new phase, signing a contract that starts technology design work for three units planned at Wylfa in North Wales.

The project is expected to deliver at least 1.4 gigawatts of electric output, enough to power the equivalent of around 3 million homes for more than 60 years.

This is not a finished power plant, and it is not yet the final investment decision, but it is a big marker for a country trying to cut its exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets, rebuild industrial capacity, and keep the lights on without making the electric bill feel like a monthly shock. The material provided for this story described Wylfa as the centerpiece of a new British nuclear push.

Wylfa gets its second act

Wylfa is not new to nuclear power. The site on Anglesey once hosted a nuclear station that helped feed the British grid for decades before its last reactor shut down in 2015, leaving the area with the familiar question that follows many old industrial sites. What comes next?

The answer, at least for now, is a factory-built nuclear project led by Rolls-Royce SMR. The British government confirmed Wylfa in November 2025 as the home of the first small modular reactor plant in the program, with an initial three units and possible room for up to eight in the future.

That matters because Wylfa has had false starts before. Earlier replacement plans collapsed, and the local community was left waiting for a project big enough to bring jobs, training, and long-term investment back to the coast.

The Rolls-Royce design is called small, but the numbers are not tiny. Each unit is a 470 MWe pressurized water reactor, which means the first three units would add up to roughly 1.4 gigawatts of electric capacity.

The pitch is simple. Build much of the plant in factory conditions, move the pre-tested pieces to the site, and reduce the risk that has made traditional nuclear megaprojects expensive and slow.

World Nuclear News reported that about 90% of the SMR would be built away from the site, with the reactor unit measuring about 52 feet by 13 feet. That modular approach is supposed to make schedules more predictable and limit disruption around Wylfa, although nuclear projects rarely become easy just because the parts are smaller.

Jobs are part of the sell

The government says the first SMR project could support around 3,000 jobs at peak construction, along with thousands more across the national supply chain. Rolls-Royce SMR has put the wider employment impact even higher, saying its Wylfa program will support an average of almost 8,000 skilled jobs across the United Kingdom during the build program.

That difference matters. One figure is centered on peak construction at the project, while the other looks more broadly across the build program and the wider supply chain.

For Anglesey, the local promise is easy to understand. Big energy projects do not just bring engineers in hard hats. They bring apprenticeships, local contracts, traffic on access roads, new pressure on housing, and, ideally, years of steady work rather than a short construction rush.

Public money is carrying the risk

The program is also a test of how much public backing is needed to get new nuclear technology moving. The 2025 Spending Review allocated about $3.5 billion to enable the contract and wider SMR program, while the National Wealth Fund is committing up to about $805 million to support Rolls-Royce SMR’s reactor development.

That public support is not just a footnote. SMRs are often promoted as cheaper and faster than conventional nuclear plants, but the first projects still need heavy financing, regulatory work, supply-chain confidence, and buyers willing to believe the model can scale.

At the end of the day, the government is trying to turn Wylfa into more than one power station. It wants a repeatable British nuclear product that can be built at home and exported abroad.

The timeline is still long

The contract allows Rolls-Royce SMR to begin site-specific design, regulatory engagement, and planning work ahead of a future final investment decision. That last phrase is important. It means the project has momentum, but it still has key approvals and financial steps ahead.

GBE-N has said work is set to start at the site in 2026, while the government has pointed to the mid-2030s for grid connection. So this is not a quick fix for today’s energy bills.

Still, nuclear power is being pitched as the steady partner for wind and solar. When the wind drops or demand spikes during a cold evening, the grid still needs reliable generation that can run day and night.

Why Rolls-Royce wants this win

For Rolls-Royce, Wylfa is more than a domestic contract. Chris Cholerton, chief executive of Rolls-Royce SMR, said the deal “unlocks the delivery” of the first three units and gives the U.K. program certainty, while also pointing to plans for up to six units in Czechia.

That is the bigger business angle. If Rolls-Royce can prove the model at Wylfa, it could strengthen its case in a global market where governments are looking for cleaner baseload power, industrial heat, and energy security.

Proof, however, is the key word. The SMR promise has been talked about for years. Wylfa is where Britain is trying to show whether the factory-built nuclear idea can move from slide decks into steel, concrete, regulation, and power lines.

Wylfa is now the test case

The United Kingdom is betting that small modular reactors can help solve several problems at once. Cleaner electricity, more energy independence, skilled jobs, and a stronger industrial base are all part of the same package.

That is a lot to ask from one coastal site. BHowever, Wylfa has become the place where those promises will start being measured against deadlines, budgets, and public confidence.

The official statement was published on GOV.UK.

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

The Israelization of the United States Military Is Proceeding. “Where and How Will it All End? Ask Donald Trump!”

By Philip Giraldi, Global Research, June 02, 2026, https://www.globalresearch.ca/israelization-united-states-military/5928401

Thank You Congress and President Trump!

Few Americans know the history of how Israel’s “wag the dog” relationship with the United States developed.

Israel’s 1967 successful war against its neighbors demonstrated to military planners in Washington how a qualitative edge in weapons could enable a small country to resist much larger and seemingly more powerful adversaries. Israel was largely supplied with French weapons at the time that reportedly out-performed the Russian equipment in the hands of Syria and Egypt.

As a consequence, in 1968, with strong support from a heavily lobbied Congress, Zionist influenced US President Lyndon B Johnson approved the hitherto blocked sale of F-4 Phantom fighters to Israel, establishing the precedent for continuing US support of Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, generally referred to by the acronym QME, over its Arab and Christian neighbors.

Five years later, in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the United States and Israel came to an understanding whereby they tacitly adopted the doctrine of active US maintenance of Israel’s QME. After that war, the United States also quadrupled its foreign aid to Israel, effectively replacing France as Israel’s largest arms supplier.

This de facto commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge was subsequently made explicit by President Ronald Reagan and has been confirmed by every US administration since that time. Substantial supplementary weapons shipments under Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump have even supported Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its attacks on non-threatening Syria and Lebanon. This policy was in part justified initially based on a US adoption of the Cold War strategy of opposing Arab client states of the Soviet Union and was also due to the growing power of Israel’s US Lobby. Today, Israel is by far the largest recipient of US foreign military aid, receiving $3 billion per year guaranteed plus many extra weapons in support of specific needs and initiatives which many have linked to the enablement of a policy of systematic aggression by Israel and the commission of war crimes.

So what was once seen as a form of security guarantee for Israel has now become a monster, with Israel using the support provided by the relationship to initiate wars against its neighbors, to include most recently Lebanon, Syria and Iran. The White House and Congress have invariably supplied Israel with all the weapons it seeks as well as providing money for its economy and political support in international organizations like the United Nations. Israel’s Lobby, regarded as the most powerful foreign policy lobby deployed against Congress and the White House, has used its access to power to constantly expand its role in weapons development to satisfy what Israel sees as threats against it. And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has become the dominant partner in the relationship, including regarding the decision making about war and peace.

Currently Israel and its friends in Washington are moving to complete integration of many aspects of how our military operates at various levels with Israeli counterparts. No other US “ally,” which the Jewish state is not technically, including NATO members, has anything like this access and ability to influence developments.

Those who think Israel has too much power have a point as it is even strong enough to shut down First Amendment Freedom of Speech, both by suppressing or even criminalizing what it regards as criticism of itself. Few Americans are aware that even though Israel is widely known to be a major nuclear weapons power, members of the US government are not allowed to state that that is the case because it would embarrass the Jewish state and plausibly trigger legal restrictions on the weapons that the US could supply it with. And the irony is that Israel only has the weapons because it stole the nuclear fuel and timers from the United States. President John F Kennedy tried to stop the nuclear weapons program and many believe he was assassinated by Israel as a result!

And the one-way street benefitting Israel gets worse! Per the story that I reported recently, Congress is considering passing a bill that will give Americans serving in the Israeli army US government provided full benefits like education, jobs and medical care just as if they had been serving in the United States military. Indeed, the legislation currently working its way through Congress would, for the first time in American history, treat service in a foreign army both legally and in practice as equivalent to service in the US armed forces — but only where that foreign army is Israeli. House Resolution 8445, sponsored by Republican Congressmen Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania and Max Miller of Ohio, would amend existing legislation so that Americans who enlist in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) are treated “in the same manner as service in the uniformed services” of the US. Not surprisingly, many of the “Americans” involved are also dual national Israeli citizens. If the changes come into effect the result will be to considerably and uniquely narrow the gap between Israel and the US in terms of rights and benefits but with benefits going only in one direction, i.e. to serve Israeli interests and with the US taxpayer paying the bill!

In addition to that, the most recent US government gift to Israel sponsored by the United States House of Representatives, a misnomer as the House is actually the Knesset West, is the national Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027 released on May 13^th. Section 224 of the House version of the Act entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” integrates “US-Israeli military research and development, co-production of weapons systems, licensing agreements, AI, directed energy, data integration, and missile defense.” It creates the framework for “bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of US-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation.”

The result is to completely connect the functionality of the US military with that of the Israeli military. The implementation of the agreement would arguably do more to irreversibly link the US military to the Israeli military than the $200 billion in military assistance Israel has received from the United States since its founding in 1948.

Critics note how Section 224 would combine the US and Israeli defense sectors in many areas particularly vital to the battlefields of the future, including autonomous systems and cyberwarfare. It would also greatly increase Israeli influence over the US beyond what it already has through the Israel Lobby and its dominance of the mainstream media. It would enable Israel to expand or start new co-production facilities like it already has in a number of states, giving the Israeli government additional leverage through providing jobs in the US, thereby securing friends in Congress whose districts are affected. The result could well be a White House backed by Congress that is even more prone to go to war based on the Eretz “Greater” Israel fantasies of people like Netanyahu and his insane Security Chief Itamar Ben-Gvir.

A persistently pro-Zionist Congress has accomplished this shift in the relationship quietly, almost secretly. Though it has been done clearly channeling through the White House and Netanyahu’s leadership, it has been obtained without the knowledge and consent of the American people to whom the US government is allegedly responsible. And, of course, all the integration expenses will be borne by the US taxpayer. Interestingly, of course, it should also be noted that the integration of the US military with that of Israel comes at a time when the American public is expressing unprecedented levels of distrust in and dislike of the Israeli government. That is perhaps no coincidence as Netanyahu seeks to create unbreakable legal and administrative ties between the two countries though with little in the way of obligations on the part of Israel.

Ben Freeman at the Quincy Institute observes how

“The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously deeper and less transparent. And this all comes at a time when the Israeli military has repeatedly used U.S. weapons in strikes that have violated international humanitarian laws in Gaza, and as Israel has repeatedly violated ceasefires (as has the US itself) in the Trump administration’s unnecessary war with Iran.”

So there you have it. The United States is on a downward spiral engineered by its own government in collusion with a tiny apartheid state that specializes in crimes including torture, genocide and assorted other offenses against humanity.

Where and how will it all end?

Ask Donald Trump!

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Is Israel planning to reoccupy the Gaza Strip? This is what’s happening behind the ‘yellow line

an occupying power must preserve the demographic composition of the territory it controls. In this specific case, international law prohibits the removal of a population (the Palestinians) and the transfer of another population (Israeli settlers) onto occupied land.

Michelle Burgis-Kasthala, Professor of International Law, La Trobe University, 4 June 26, https://theconversation.com/is-israel-planning-to-reoccupy-the-gaza-strip-this-is-whats-happening-behind-the-yellow-line-284086?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20June%204%202026%20-%203792338838&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20June%204%202026%20-%203792338838+CID_84a191247b774c7af7d936d593de2bdf&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Is%20Israel%20planning%20to%20reoccupy%20the%20Gaza%20Strip%20This%20is%20whats%20happening%20behind%20the%20yellow%20line

In recent days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the Israeli army to seize 70% of Gaza – a sizeable increase from the 60% it currently controls.

This follows an updated map sent to aid agencies in Gaza in late March featuring a new “orange line” demarcating the restricted area under military control – about 11% larger than the area agreed to with the “yellow line” in the October ceasefire with Hamas.

Israel’s defence minister has also confirmed in recent days the government’s intention to move large numbers of Palestinians out of Gaza “at the right time and in the right manner”.

All of this is happening in a charged political environment in Israel: the Knesset dissolved itself on May 20, creating the possibility of an early election in September.

Israel’s actions are in clear violation of the 20-point Gaza peace plan, which called for a staged withdrawal of Israeli troops and actively “encouraged” residents to stay. It reads:

No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has acknowledged as much, telling a congressional hearing this week that the peace plan “doesn’t call for” expanded military control of the strip.

The 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza are being squeezed into an ever-smaller pocket of the decimated, overcrowded territory. And it appears the international community is doing little to stop it.

Laws against conquering territory

International law permits militaries to occupy foreign territory in pursuit of war aims, but there are two key limitations here.

First, an occupying force cannot pursue a legal claim to the territory it holds. The UN Charter has clearly outlawed the right to conquest under Article 2(4). Breaches of this article are treated very seriously, as the world’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shown. This can be considered a war crime – the crime of aggression.

For Israel, this means its control of Gaza cannot result in a claim to sovereignty over any part of the strip. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) underscored this in its 2024 advisory opinion on Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Second, any occupying military power must comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law in a conflict. This means ensuring the welfare of the population under its control.

This has been the case in Gaza since Israel captured it from Egypt in the Six-Day War in 1967, beginning a decades-long occupation of the strip.

In fact, Israel’s obligations as an occupying power continued even after it pulled out its troops and dismantled its settlements in 2005.

As part of these obligations, an occupying power must preserve the demographic composition of the territory it controls. In this specific case, international law prohibits the removal of a population (the Palestinians) and the transfer of another population (Israeli settlers) onto occupied land.

A flawed peace plan

Despite these clear legal principles, enforcement of Israel’s obligations will be at best difficult, slow and piecemeal.

In its 2024 advisory opinion, for instance, the ICJ ordered Israel to withdraw fully from the occupied Palestinian territories, saying its presence is in breach of two key legal principles – self-determination and the prohibition against conquest. The UN General Assembly endorsed the findings and set a deadline of September 14 2025 for the withdrawal. Israel ignored the deadline.

The general assembly can’t enforce an ICJ ruling, only the security council can. And this avenue is blocked due to the US veto power.

More worrying is that the clarity provided by international law – prohibiting conquest, genocide, settlements and forced displacement – is being blurred by the 20-point peace plan mediated by US President Donald Trump and the so-called Board of Peace overseeing the process.

Last November, the UN Security Council endorsed Trump’s plan to end the conflict, disarm Hamas and establish a new transitional government system under the auspices of the Board of Peace and an International Stabilisation Force to keep the peace.

But the ceasefire agreement was flawed from the start. The text, for instance, did not include any specifications about Israel’s presence in the strip, accountability for alleged crimes or demilitarisation of Palestinian groups.

Since the ceasefire, the entire process has predictably stalled. Israeli strikes have continued, killing more than 900 Palestinians. Aid delivery is far below the needs of a desperate population. And Hamas refuses to disarm without firm guarantees on future Palestinian self-determination.

Behind the ‘yellow line’

This stalemate suits Israel perfectly. Under the map of the ceasefire agreement, Israel was permitted to keep its troops in areas behind a “yellow line” encircling the majority of the population along the coast. This gave Israel military control of just over half of Gaza.

Then, in the area under its control, Israel began two activities that speak to its longer-term political aspirations.

First, it levelled entire neighbourhoods and hundreds of buildings, turning this part of Gaza into a wasteland devoid of inhabitants and any recognisable landmarks.

Second, on this blank canvas, it constructed an impressive array of military roads, outposts and barriers, including permanent earthen berms (walls).

This gives Israel the possibility of perpetual control of a territory devoid of Palestinians. If this status quo continues, it would amount to forced displacement and conquest.

Day by day, Palestinian Gaza is shrinking and a new Gaza is being forged through bulldozers and barriers. Netanyahu has indicated Israel may not stop at 70% depopulation and control. It may seek to preserve a large “buffer” zone in Gaza – as it is doing in Lebanon and Syria – or perhaps revive the project of Israeli settlement of the strip, which is in full swing across the West Bank.

All of this is happening in violation of international law and a “peace” plan that has no clear vision for a long-term solution for the Palestinian people.

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Gaza, Israel, politics | Leave a comment

Police at Hinkley Point C as thousands of workers locked out

Police attended Hinkley Point C on Wednesday (June 3) as part of an
ongoing industrial dispute that has seen thousands of workers locked-out of
the site. MEH Alliance workers staged a sit-in protest in the site canteen
on Tuesday (June 4).

The protest related to several issues alleged by
workers, including a change in shift patterns to include weekends. Workers
had previously held a vote to overwhelmingly reject the shift pattern
change. Following the protest, EDF has barred MEH Alliance workers from
attending site without pay this week – with no decision made on when they
can return.

Bridgwater Mercury 6th June 2026, https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/26169782.police-hinkley-point-c-thousands-workers-locked/

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Up to 2,000 workers temporarily kicked off Hinkley Point C site after protest

EDF has told around 2,000 mechanical and electrical (M&E) workers to stay
away from the Hinkley Point C construction site until next Monday (8 June)
after they downed tools in a dispute over shift patterns and other
grievances, Construction News understands.

The client for the £46bn
Somerset nuclear project suspended the passes of workers from the MEH
Alliance who took part in a sit-down protest on Tuesday (2 June). It is
understood that operatives refused to undertake scheduled tasks on site and
instead sat down for long periods in areas including the canteen and
changing rooms.

The workers are believed to be unhappy with a proposed
change to shift patterns being introduced in July that will see them on
duty for 10 days in a row every fortnight.

Construction News 4th June 2026, EDF has told around 2,000 mechanical and electrical (M&E) workers to stay
away from the Hinkley Point C construction site until next Monday (8 June)
after they downed tools in a dispute over shift patterns and other
grievances, Construction News understands. The client for the £46bn
Somerset nuclear project suspended the passes of workers from the MEH
Alliance who took part in a sit-down protest on Tuesday (2 June). It is
understood that operatives refused to undertake scheduled tasks on site and
instead sat down for long periods in areas including the canteen and
changing rooms. The workers are believed to be unhappy with a proposed
change to shift patterns being introduced in July that will see them on
duty for 10 days in a row every fortnight.

Construction News 4th June 2026 EDF has told around 2,000 mechanical and electrical (M&E) workers to stay
away from the Hinkley Point C construction site until next Monday (8 June)
after they downed tools in a dispute over shift patterns and other
grievances, Construction News understands. The client for the £46bn
Somerset nuclear project suspended the passes of workers from the MEH
Alliance who took part in a sit-down protest on Tuesday (2 June). It is
understood that operatives refused to undertake scheduled tasks on site and
instead sat down for long periods in areas including the canteen and
changing rooms. The workers are believed to be unhappy with a proposed
change to shift patterns being introduced in July that will see them on
duty for 10 days in a row every fortnight.

Construction News 4th June 2026, https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/supply-chain/up-to-2000-workers-temporarily-kicked-off-hinkley-point-c-site-after-protest-04-06-2026/

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | employment, UK | Leave a comment

First Minister pressed over Welsh Government support for Wylfa small modular reactors

Wrexham.com 3rd June 2026

Wales’ new First Minister has been urged to provide clarity on the Welsh Government’s position on proposed small modular reactors at Wylfa.

During his inaugural First Minister’s Questions, Rhun ap Iorwerth, was asked by interim Welsh Labour Leader Ken Skates to confirm whether the new Plaid Cymru-led administration supports plans for up to eight small modular reactors at the Anglesey site……………………………………………………………………

Mr ap Iorwerth said he had “always taken the approach of fighting for the economic benefits” that could come from any development at Wylfa and stressed that the site remained a reserved matter for the UK Government.

The First Minister stopped short of explicitly backing the construction of eight SMRs, but said the government would “work positively” on proposals because of the potential economic benefits for Anglesey and the wider region…………………………………………………………………………………………… https://wrexham.com/news/first-minister-pressed-over-welsh-government-support-for-wylfa-small-modular-reactors-293228.html

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Battle for Kiev 2022: The Battle That Never Was [i]

How the west got it wrong… again…

Mike Mihajlovic, Black Mountain Analysis, Jun 06, 2026

Since the opening days of the Special Military Operation (or often called Full-Scale Russian Invasion in the West), the dominant Western narrative has portrayed the Russian advance toward Kiev as the main effort of the invasion: a bold attempt to seize the Ukrainian capital, decapitate the government, and force a rapid Ukrainian surrender. According to this interpretation, the Russian withdrawal from northern Ukraine in March and April 2022 represented a major strategic defeat and one of the most consequential failures of the war.

However, a closer examination of the campaign raises a fundamental question: was the operation around Kiev ever intended to be the decisive battle that many believed it to be?

A realistic analysis suggests that what became known as the “Battle for Kiev” was not a battle for Kiev at all. Rather than constituting the main effort of the invasion, the operation appears to have functioned as a large-scale diversionary and fixing operation designed to tie down Ukrainian forces while Russia pursued its primary strategic objectives elsewhere, particularly in southern Ukraine.

Looking Beyond the Headlines

One of the fundamental problems in analyzing the war is that many commentators and self-proclaimed experts begin by defining Russia’s objectives according to their own assumptions rather than examining what Russian leaders and military planners actually stated or appeared to prioritize. Once these assumed objectives are established, it becomes easy to claim that Russia has failed simply because it did not achieve goals that may never have been part of its original strategy.

This approach often leads to circular reasoning. Analysts first decide what Russia intended to accomplish, then evaluate the campaign against those self-defined objectives. If the battlefield outcome differs from those expectations, the conclusion is presented as evidence of failure. However, serious military analysis requires a different methodology.

The starting point should be facts rather than assumptions. This means examining official statements, force deployments, operational patterns, logistics, resource allocation, and the strategic outcomes that were actually pursued and achieved. Military campaigns are rarely as simple as they appear in headlines, and intentions cannot be determined solely by observing the direction of an advance on a map.

The opening phase of the war provides a clear example. Much of the public discussion focused on the assumption that the capture of Kiev was Russia’s primary objective. Yet a closer examination of force ratios, operational priorities, and the enduring gains achieved elsewhere raises legitimate questions about whether the campaign was intended to accomplish what many Western observers believed.

Regardless of one’s conclusions, objective analysis requires separating assumptions from evidence. Before determining whether a strategy succeeded or failed, it is necessary to establish what the strategy actually was. Only then can the results be evaluated fairly and accurately.

In military history, appearances can be deceiving. Large troop movements, dramatic airborne assaults, and advances toward politically significant objectives often create perceptions that differ from actual operational intent.

The Russian advance from Belarus toward Kiev certainly appeared threatening. Columns of armored vehicles moved south, airborne troops attempted to seize Hostomel Airport, and Russian forces approached the capital from multiple directions. For political leaders, journalists, and outside observers, the conclusion seemed obvious: Russia intended to capture Kiev.

Yet military operations are not judged by appearances alone. They must be examined in terms of force structure, logistics, operational priorities, and the strategic outcomes ultimately achieved.

When viewed through this lens, the campaign begins to look very different.

The Force Problem

Capturing a modern city of nearly three million people is among the most demanding operations in warfare. History demonstrates that urban assaults require overwhelming manpower, extensive logistical support, sustained artillery operations, and sufficient forces not only to seize a city but also to occupy and control it afterward.

Kiev was not Baghdad in 2003, where coalition forces enjoyed complete air superiority and overwhelming technological advantages. Nor was it Prague in 1968, where Soviet forces entered a largely non-resistant city. Kiev was a large, heavily defended capital whose population and military were fully mobilized.

The force allocated to the northern axis raises important questions. While substantial enough to pose a credible threat, it appeared insufficient for the prolonged capture and occupation of a city the size of Kiev.

This discrepancy becomes difficult to ignore. If the objective was truly to seize and hold the Ukrainian capital, why was a force of such limited size assigned to the task?

The answer may lie in understanding what military planners call a fixing operation.

The Art of Fixing the Enemy

A fixing operation is designed not to capture territory but to compel an opponent to commit forces to a particular sector, preventing them from reinforcing other areas where decisive operations are taking place.

Throughout history, armies have used demonstrations, feints, and diversionary offensives to manipulate enemy decision-making. The goal is psychological as much as military. By creating a credible threat, a commander forces the opponent to react.

In the case of Kiev, the threat itself may have been the objective.

No government can risk abandoning its capital during the opening phase of a war. As long as Russian forces remained near Kiev, Ukrainian leaders had little choice but to keep substantial military formations defending the city and its approaches.

Every brigade positioned around Kiev was a brigade unavailable elsewhere.

From this perspective, the operation’s success did not depend on entering Kiev. It depended on convincing Ukraine that Russia intended to do so.

The Real Campaign in the South

While global attention focused on Kiev, some of the war’s most consequential developments occurred hundreds of kilometers away……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Conclusion

The events of early 2022 are likely to remain the subject of debate for decades, especially among the “Western experts”. Access to additional Russian operational records may eventually provide definitive answers regarding Moscow’s intentions.

Yet one conclusion already appears increasingly difficult to ignore: the campaign around Kiev was not the decisive battle it was presented as in much of the Western media.

The threat to Kiev tied down Ukrainian forces, shaped strategic decisions, and dominated international attention. Meanwhile, the most significant territorial and operational gains were made in southern Ukraine, where Russia secured objectives that continue to shape the course of the war.

Whether one views the northern operation as a failed offensive, a successful diversion, or a combination of both, the notion that the war’s opening phase can be understood solely through the lens of a Russian attempt to seize Kiev is increasingly difficult to sustain.

The “Battle for Kiev” may ultimately be remembered not as the battle that determined the war, but as the battle that was never truly intended to be fought in the way the world believed.https://bmanalysis.substack.com/p/battle-for-kiev-2022-the-battle-that?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1105422&post_id=200763450&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Guardian view on NHS records: patients are not raw material for Palantir big tech

Ministers should end Palantir’s contract before medical confidentiality is sacrificed to Silicon Valley’s appetite for public data

Editorial, 5 June 26 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/04/the-guardian-view-on-nhs-records-patients-are-not-raw-material-for-big-tech

Ministers should end Palantir’s contract before medical confidentiality is sacrificed to Silicon Valley’s appetite for public dataFri 5 Jun 2026 03.54 AESTShare

Alarm bells ought to have rung when it emerged last month that Palantir engineers could gain “unlimited access” to identifiable NHS patient data. Such sensitive medical information was only supposed to be available either to someone involved in a patient’s care or with the patient’s informed consent. NHS England’s new position appears to have changed that, extending access to private companies because it may make data processing easier. Convenience is not a basis for undermining medical confidentiality.

Nicola Byrne, the government’s national data guardian, clearly thought the NHS had broken its promise that its £330m deal with Palantir would see “identifiable patient information … limited to NHS staff with a legitimate need”. Patients tell doctors things they may tell no one else. If they think that sensitive details can be disclosed to US tech corporations, trust will suffer – and patients will say less when the truth matters most.

This risk helps explain why MPs on parliament’s science, innovation and technology committee warned this week that Palantir had become an “unacceptable point of weakness”. The business model is simple. Britain supplies the raw material: NHS patient data. Silicon Valley monetises it. The problem is that the benefits – better models, new products – accrue not to the British public, but to US shareholders.

The MPs also argued that Palantir is not just another software firm. In the US it has worked with the military and immigration authorities on controversial programmes. Its co-founder, Peter Thiel, the committee noted, has disparaged the idea of a national health service. The report recommends that ministers should activate the February 2027 break clause in its £330m NHS Palantir contract – ending its relationship with the company and moving to either an in-house or UK-owned provider. The government should heed this advice.

The committee ought to be thanked for making it clear that this is no one-off scandal, but part of a wider pattern. Public bodies, it warns, have become dependent on a few powerful technology companies which the state lacks the capacity to challenge or replace. Officials often struggle to understand the systems they buy. Allowing critical public infrastructure to rest on foreign-owned platforms undermines state autonomy. Accountability is blurred when decisions on data access and procurement are buried in technical briefings and dense contracts.

This is especially concerning when assessing the government’s claim that a new £1.8bn digital ID system would make “public services quicker, easier and more secure to access”. Given the chequered history of big government IT projects, it is unsurprising that the committee is sceptical of its successful launch. Its report, correctly, views mandatory adoption as wrongheaded. The public sector holds citizens’ data on trust, MPs say, “and should therefore hold itself to a higher standard”. With patient data, that seems not to be the case.

Ministers have offered various reasons for digital ID: stopping illegal working, easing access to vehicle records and even checking bin collection days. None has stuck. The deeper problem is that digital transformation is treated as an exercise in efficiency, not one requiring public consent and parliamentary scrutiny. Infrastructure built around a person’s identity must not expand by bureaucratic drift. The committee’s call for separate parliamentary votes on each use of digital ID is the democratic lock missing from the NHS’s Palantir deal.

June 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Starve, Strangle, Invade: How Washington’s Siege of Cuba Is Pushing a Nation to the Brink

What makes the situation particularly tragic, Benjamin argued, is Cuba’s long history of providing medical assistance to the world. She recalled being treated by Cuban doctors while working in Africa and noted that Cuba has trained physicians and deployed medical missions across dozens of countries. Even under severe economic constraints, Cuba has maintained a reputation for international medical solidarity that far exceeds what might be expected from a small island nation.

Yet today, she says, the country that has helped save lives around the globe is struggling to obtain the fuel and medical supplies needed to care for its own people.

June 3, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/03/starve-strangle-invade-how-washingtons-siege-of-cuba-is-pushing-a-nation-to-the-brink/

Medea Benjamin warns that a decades-long economic war against Cuba has escalated into what she calls a “medieval siege,” as fuel shortages cripple hospitals, food systems and daily life while U.S. officials openly discuss military options.

For more than six decades, Washington has tried to force Cuba to its knees. Today, according to peace activist Medea Benjamin, that campaign has reached a new and dangerous stage. Fuel shipments have been blocked, foreign companies threatened, humanitarian aid obstructed and military rhetoric intensified, creating what Benjamin describes as a modern-day siege designed to break the Cuban economy and the Cuban people alike.

In this wide-ranging conversation with Dr. Margaret Flowers, Benjamin argues that the crisis unfolding on the island is not the result of natural disaster or governmental incompetence, but of deliberate U.S. policy. She details how shortages of fuel have crippled transportation, disrupted hospitals, spoiled food supplies and contributed to worsening public health conditions. The goal, she says, remains largely unchanged from the earliest days of the Cold War: create enough hardship that Cubans turn against their government.

But the discussion goes beyond Cuba. Benjamin places the escalating pressure on Havana within a broader pattern of U.S. foreign policy — one that relies on sanctions, coercion and military power to maintain global influence even as that influence declines. From Venezuela and Iran to Palestine and beyond, she argues that economic warfare has become a preferred tool of empire, inflicting immense humanitarian costs while remaining largely invisible to the American public.

At a moment when reports of possible military action against Cuba are once again circulating, Benjamin issues a stark warning: what is happening in Cuba today is not simply a foreign policy dispute. It is a test of whether the United States will continue down a path of punishment, intervention and regime change, or whether ordinary people can build enough pressure to choose diplomacy, solidarity and peace instead.

For more than sixty years, the United States has sought to isolate, punish and ultimately reshape Cuba through economic warfare. Yet according to longtime peace activist and CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin, what is happening today goes far beyond the familiar story of sanctions and diplomatic hostility. Speaking with Margaret Flowers on Clearing the FOG, Benjamin described a rapidly escalating campaign that she says has pushed Cuba into a humanitarian emergency while raising fears that Washington could be laying the groundwork for direct military intervention.

Benjamin did not mince words when describing current U.S. policy.

“I struggle to find the correct adjective,” she said. “It is so horrific that there’s almost no words.” What began decades ago as an attempt to create economic pressure on Cuba has, in her view, evolved into something far more extreme: a policy designed to systematically cut off every possible source of fuel, trade, investment and survival.

The consequences are visible throughout Cuban society.

According to Benjamin, the island is facing severe fuel shortages that have crippled transportation, disrupted industrial production and created rolling blackouts that affect nearly every aspect of daily life. Hospitals struggle to maintain services. Refrigerators stop working, causing food to spoil. Public transportation becomes unreliable or nonexistent. Families living in apartment buildings face interruptions in water supplies because pumps cannot operate consistently without electricity.

Perhaps most alarming, Benjamin pointed to rising infant mortality rates as evidence of a public health crisis that she believes is directly connected to the tightening blockade. Cuba once boasted one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Western Hemisphere, often outperforming wealthier nations including the United States. That achievement, she warned, is now being undermined by shortages of medicine, medical equipment and basic necessities.

Yet today, she says, the country that has helped save lives around the globe is struggling to obtain the fuel and medical supplies needed to care for its own people.

At the center of the crisis is oil.

Benjamin explained that the Trump administration has effectively declared that “not one drop of oil” should reach Cuba. Since January, she said, only a single Russian tanker has successfully delivered oil to the island, while other shipments have reportedly been pressured, delayed or canceled. Countries that might normally assist Cuba have faced threats of sanctions, tariffs or other forms of retaliation from Washington.

The blockade’s reach extends beyond governments. New sanctions target foreign companies operating in key Cuban sectors such as energy and mining. Benjamin cited the example of a Canadian company that had worked in Cuba for decades but is now severing ties under mounting U.S. pressure. The strategy, she argued, is designed not merely to isolate Cuba economically but to make normal commerce virtually impossible.

China has attempted to provide assistance, sending rice and helping construct solar energy projects, while solidarity groups continue delivering humanitarian aid. But Benjamin stressed that food aid alone cannot solve the crisis. Without sufficient fuel, transportation networks collapse, power grids remain unstable and basic economic activity becomes impossible.

The contradiction at the heart of U.S. policy became especially clear when Flowers asked about Washington’s proposal to provide roughly $100 million in assistance to Cuba through selected organizations.

Benjamin called the offer deeply hypocritical.

The economic damage caused by sanctions, she argued, amounts to billions of dollars annually. Offering a fraction of that amount while continuing the policies responsible for the suffering is akin to creating a crisis and then presenting oneself as the rescuer. She noted that Cuban officials estimated the proposed aid represented only a tiny portion of what sanctions cost the country.

While humanitarian groups continue delivering food and medicine under limited exemptions to U.S. sanctions, Benjamin warned that aid alone cannot address the scale of the crisis. Organizations including CODEPINK, Global Exchange, Global Health Partners and others have mobilized delegations and donations, but they are attempting to fill a gap created by a policy that deliberately restricts Cuba’s access to international trade and finance.

More troubling still is the growing discussion of military action.

Benjamin pointed to reports that U.S. military assets have been repositioned in the Caribbean and that officials connected to Southern Command have indicated preparations exist for a possible operation against Cuba. While she acknowledged uncertainty about whether Washington intends a full-scale invasion, targeted regime-change operation or continued economic strangulation, she argued that the rhetoric itself creates instability and fear.

She believes advocates of regime change are hoping that worsening conditions will eventually provoke unrest and political upheaval on the island.

The recent U.S. indictment of Raul Castro, now 94 years old, further fuels those concerns. Benjamin argued that reviving a decades-old case involving the “Brothers to the Rescue” aircraft serves less as a legal action than as a political pretext. She compared it to earlier efforts to criminalize leaders in other targeted countries before pursuing broader interventionist objectives.

The larger issue, however, extends far beyond Cuba.

Throughout the interview, Benjamin repeatedly returned to a theme that has defined much of her activism: the connection between U.S. foreign policy and domestic inequality.

America’s military spending, she argued, continues to grow even as political leaders claim there is insufficient money for healthcare, affordable housing, education and other public needs. She pointed to a Pentagon budget that now exceeds one trillion dollars annually and questioned why basic social investments remain politically impossible while military expenditures expand almost without debate.

Benjamin also linked foreign intervention to migration, surveillance, policing and the erosion of civil liberties at home. The consequences of empire, she suggested, do not remain overseas. They eventually return to shape life inside the United States itself.

Yet despite her grim assessment of current events, Benjamin ended on a note of cautious optimism.

She argued that the global balance of power is shifting. Countries across the Global South are developing alternatives to U.S. dominance through new economic partnerships and institutions. China, BRICS nations and other emerging centers of influence are creating a world that is increasingly multipolar, reducing Washington’s ability to dictate outcomes unilaterally.

At home, Benjamin believes ordinary people must build new forms of solidarity and political engagement. She highlighted the “Summer of Peace and Love” initiative, which seeks to create community spaces for organizing, education, mutual aid and antiwar activism. Drawing inspiration from movements such as Occupy Wall Street, she argued that people need opportunities not only to protest existing systems but to model alternatives rooted in cooperation and democracy.

As the interview concluded, Benjamin delivered a straightforward message: Americans who oppose military escalation should pressure Congress to support measures that would block any invasion of Cuba and reject another chapter of interventionist foreign policy.

Whether one agrees with her analysis or not, the warning she offers is unmistakable. Cuba is not simply facing another round of sanctions. According to Benjamin, the island is confronting a coordinated campaign of economic suffocation whose human costs are already being measured in shortages, blackouts, deteriorating health conditions and growing uncertainty about what comes next. In a world already scarred by war and confrontation, she argues that the last thing the Caribbean needs is another conflict manufactured in Washington.

June 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, SOUTH AMERICA, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear Startups Are in “Advanced Negotiations” to Buy Cold War Plutonium

While it seems like a win-win for nuclear waste cleanup and clean energy development in the United States, some critics are concerned about safety and security implications of the deal. Currently, this highly dangerous, weapons-grade material is kept in a highly regulated and secure environment. Selling it to energy companies would significantly compromise oversight. “The plan has generated debate and some unease among nonproliferation experts,” the New York Times reports. “If finalized, it would mark the first time the U.S. government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies.”

By Haley Zaremba – Jun 03, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Startups-Are-in-Advanced-Negotiations-to-Buy-Cold-War-Plutonium.html

The Trump administration is in “advanced negotiations” with nuclear startups, including Oklo, to convert more than 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium into commercial reactor fuel — the first time the U.S. government would make such material available to private companies.
The move is framed as a fix for a critical nuclear fuel supply chain bottleneck, with Russia controlling roughly half of global uranium conversion capacity and squeezing Western reactor development.
Nonproliferation experts are raising safety and security concerns, warning that moving weapons-grade material out of tightly controlled government facilities significantly reduces oversight.

As nuclear energy regains favor around the globe, competition for nuclear fuel is heating up. In an era of multiple and compounding energy crises driven by conflict, climate, and the power-hungry artificial intelligence boom, nuclear has resurfaced as a highly strategic option for building up energy security and independence for many nations around the world. But nuclear fuels supply chains are highly concentrated, and many of them are controlled by Russia, presenting critical geopolitical tradeoffs.

Today, there are only five plants in the world that operate large-scale uranium conversion, and half of that capacity is in the hands of the Kremlin, resulting in a critical resource bottleneck and geopolitical pain points. Accordingly, “U.S. nuclear energy faces fuel supply chain vulnerabilities, with tight uranium supplies, geopolitical risks, and rising costs threatening both existing reactors costs and advanced reactor development,” according to a January report from Stanford Energy.

It is therefore in the United States’ strategic interest to build up alternative nuclear fuel supply chains, preferably home- and friend-shored ones. But it’s a little late for the United States to get a foothold in alternative uranium markets, as Russia and China, which never saw a decline in their respective nuclear sectors, have already been cornering them for years.

“Russian and Chinese players have been very keen to secure access to resources in central Asia and Africa, creating a very aggressive competitive environment,” Benjamin Godwin at Prism Strategic Intelligence told the Financial Times last year.

The United States is taking steps to build up its own uranium supply chains, as the country is home to plentiful natural reserves of the 92nd element. But the country is also home to another vast reserve of nuclear fuel that is far more readily accessible — decades of stockpiled nuclear waste. Research into recycling spent nuclear fuel indicates that resource utilization could be boosted by a jaw-dropping 95 percent.

“Used nuclear fuel is an incredible untapped resource in the United States,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Ted Garrish told World Nuclear News back in February. “The Trump Administration is taking a common-sense approach to making sure we’re using our resources in the most efficient ways possible to secure American energy independence and fuel our economic growth.”

And now the Trump administration is looking to a new, and significantly more controversial, source of recycled nuclear fuel — cold-war era nuclear warheads. The government wants to convert weapons-grade plutonium into viable nuclear fuel as part of the Trump administration’s aim to “reestablish the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy.

The United States is sitting on more than 50 tons of plutonium left behind by nuclear weapons programs. The Department of Energy had previously planned to dilute and bury the hazardous material, but the Trump administration wants to give it new life in nuclear reactors and has entered into “advanced negotiations” with a handful of nuclear startups to begin the process of selling the plutonium for use as nuclear fuel.

“A lack of fuel is one of the biggest choke points in expanding nuclear power right now,” said Jacob DeWitte, the chief executive of Oklo, one of the companies in conversation with the Trump administration about acquiring plutonium to power its next-gen small nuclear reactors. “This will help us get more nuclear power online faster.”

June 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | - plutonium, USA | Leave a comment

The U.S. ally getting nuclear submarines with no AUKUS deal

How South Korea’s plan for nuclear-powered submarines compares to AUKUS

ABC News, By Doug Dingwall, 6 June 26

The South Korean city of Gyeongju is famous for its uncanny, grass-covered burial mounds bearing the tombs of ancient kings.

It will also go down in history as the place where the United States finally agreed to South Korea’s long-held aspirations to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ meeting last year.

Months later, South Korea’s government has announced its plan to build the submarines by the mid-2030s, but it did not reveal how many, nor the expected cost.

As with the AUKUS agreement, the United States will help a close ally gain a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

But beyond that, South Korea and Australia are taking different paths to building their new vessels, and they’re acquiring them for different reasons.

So what is Seoul’s plan, and how does it compare to Australia’s AUKUS submarine endeavour?

Unknown unknowns

South Korea’s ambitions for nuclear-powered submarines go back 20 years, but it had been unable to secure approval from the US, which was concerned about nuclear proliferation.

However, US President Donald Trump broke with previous administrations and in October agreed to South Korea having nuclear-powered submarines, framing it as a win for American industry.

“South Korea will be building its Nuclear Powered Submarine in the Philadelphia Shipyards, right here in the good ol’ USA,” he posted on Truth Social.

Plans have changed since then, with South Korea’s Defence Minister Ahn Gyu-back announcing the submarines will be developed and built by his country.

The submarines would use low-enriched uranium fuel and the first would be launched in about a decade, he said.

Other than that, experts say the details are scant, maybe intentionally so.

“Most importantly, they haven’t put a dollar figure on it,” said Euan Graham, senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).

In contrast, the AUKUS submarine program comes with a $368 billion price tag, one that Dr Graham expects won’t reflect the final cost.

“That ambiguity [in the South Korean plan] is, in a funny way, more honest because they don’t know what they don’t know,”

he said.

Observers agree the cost is one of the major risks in Seoul’s plan to build nuclear-powered submarines.

The vessels are expensive, not only to build, but also to operate, maintain and support over their entire life cycle, said Jihoon Yu, research fellow at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses.

“South Korea will need to balance this program with other defence priorities, including air and missile defence, conventional submarines, unmanned systems, cyber capabilities, and space-based surveillance,” Dr Yu said.

Why nuclear-powered submarines?

Unlike AUKUS, South Korea’s plan is not about replacing a fleet of aging submarines.

Dr Yu said it was already modernising its diesel-electric submarines, including the KSS-II and KSS-III class, which were expected to remain operational for decades.

Instead, South Korea wants nuclear-powered submarines because it believes they are better suited for deterring the changing threat posed by North Korea.

That’s because nuclear-powered submarines can stay underwater longer, experts said.

“North Korea has invested heavily in submarine-launched ballistic missile capabilities, and tracking those platforms requires prolonged underwater endurance and sustained speed,” said Seong-Hyon Lee, associate in research at Harvard University’s Asia Center………………………..

Dr Yu said nuclear-powered submarines could also cover vast distances, and this would let South Korea contribute more to security beyond its immediate coastal waters.

“Nuclear-powered submarines could contribute to sea lane protection, regional maritime stability and broader allied deterrence missions,” he said.

That might appeal to the Trump administration, which wants US allies to take on more responsibility for their defence and security, including in the Asia-Pacific region.

Will South Korea’s plan rely less on the US?

Australia’s pathway to nuclear-powered submarines relies deeply on the US and the United Kingdom for technology and training.

“AUKUS is not just a submarine acquisition program; it is also a long-term strategic, industrial and technological integration project among three countries,” Dr Yu said.

“South Korea would likely seek a more domestically driven model, although it would still need close cooperation with the United States, especially on nuclear fuel,, safeguards, regulatory arrangements and political approval.”…………………………………………………………………….

know-how in building diesel-electric submarines, and in civilian nuclear technology, will only take South Korea so far.

It would have to solve questions such as reactor miniaturisation, acoustic quieting, shock resistance and integrating complex propulsion systems, Dr Lee said.

“These are highly demanding technical areas where even established naval powers have faced considerable hurdles.”

Mr Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung agreed last year the US would work with Seoul on the project, including on “avenues to source fuel”.

“The most important unresolved issue concerns the nuclear-fuel framework under which any future submarine program would operate,” Dr Lee said.

South Korea has an agreement with the US that restricts its uranium enrichment.

“More broadly, the political, legal and technical details of any US-South Korea cooperation in this area have yet to be fully defined,” Dr Lee said.

Different plan, different problems

Experts say there’s a risk that South Korea’s nuclear-powered submarines program could be misunderstood in the region………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-06/how-south-korea-submarine-plan-compares-to-aukus/106764594

June 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | South Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Repetitive Folly: Israel’s Futile War in Lebanon Deepens

4 June 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/repetitive-folly-israels-futile-war-in-lebanon-deepens/

Call it a repeating script, a rusty template, or simply a creaky model to emulate time and again. The structural and homicidal destruction of Gaza undertaken by Israeli forces is now finding full expression in southern Lebanon, a cause of concern even for those in Washington. The war’s increasing savagery is a reminder of how hollow the exhortations by the Netanyahu government seem following the official cessation of hostilities against Hezbollah in November 2024.

Israel’s pre-emptive war on Iran, commencing on February 28 with the full and criminal connivance of the United States, took place alongside an incursion into southern Lebanon that has become a burgeoning invasion ostensibly to create a chunky buffer against Hezbollah’s attacks. Presumably, the wishful thinking here was to eliminate Iran as a threat, thereby removing Hezbollah’s most ardent patron and sponsor. At the time, coteries of commentators and Israeli leaders lavished praise on the country’s technical and military achievements, forgetting the central point that Hezbollah remains an idea as much as a physical movement, a deep well rather than defined, terminable cul-de-sac. Ideas, which can only really be battled by better ones, prove sleekly stubborn before tanks, missiles and jets.

From March, the southern part of Lebanon was subjected to infrastructural degradation, population displacement and the wholesale destruction of villages, all on the spurious premise that the security of Israeli settlements near the border will be somehow improved. In April, in the long cast shadow of the Iran War, another ceasefire was brokered between Israel and Lebanon, with another extension to the truce for another 45 days agreed to mid-May. This farcical theatre has taken place amidst ongoing IDF operations which have, as of June 1, displaced over a million Lebanese and seen more than 3,300 deaths. Israel has lost 24 soldiers and 4 civilians during that time.

With Iran resiliently stubborn in diplomacy, collaterally backed by its continued blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, and Hezbollah showing signs of renewed martial vigour, the two-pronged plan has been defanged. Hezbollah’s revivified hunger for battle has taken the form of lethal attacks on the IDF with drones resistant to electronic jamming. These explosive-laden fibre-optic First-Person View drones, connected to their operators with a bare yet lengthy optical wire, permit visibility and manoeuvrability for miles. Israeli soldiers, long seen as having immune breastplates against Hezbollah’s attacks, are now dying.

Former Israeli national security official Orna Mizrahi, who heads the Lebanon program at Tel Aviv’s Institute for National Studies, accepts that “the drones made for some confusion, because it was a surprise. The IDF didn’t think that it would be such a dangerous weapon.In Israel, they looked at it as a toy.” Remarks from the IDF reported in the Times of Israel show that the military has been disabused of this notion. The FPV drones posed “a dynamic and evolving threat, characterized by inexpensive, readily made tools with a high rate of variability.”

The BBC reports the troubled account of a council chief from the northern Israeli town of Shomera, Sami Zanetti: “The problem is you don’t feel them coming. You’re sitting there, and suddenly it arrives. And if you run away, it follows you.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, acknowledging the dangers posed by these economical, effective packages of death, promises that a “special team” is labouring away to “solve this.”

Despite the increasingly attritive toll on its forces, the propaganda channels on Israeli triumphs continue to prove thick and hefty, attempting to justify a campaign described by Michael Koplow of the Israeli Policy Forum as “a political imperative in search of a strategy.” The May 31 seizure of the Beaufort Castle area and the Ali al-Taher Ridge was celebrated by the Israeli Alma Research and Education Center as one of “operational significance, as it constitutes a strategic zone in southern Lebanon and psychological significance for all parties involved in the conflict.” The “loss of control over the Beaufort area” was deemed “a direct operational setback for” Hezbollah.

These ground operations, false heralds of decisiveness, barely conceal the increasing desperation within the Netanyahu government, culminating in threats made on June 1 to attack the Lebanese capital. On June 2, the Israeli Minister of Defence, Israel Katz, told a gathering at the Defense Export Conference that the bombing of certain neighbourhoods of Beirut with alleged ties with Hezbollah was in the offing. “The proof of this policy in protecting the settlements [near the border] will be simple and will become clear in the coming days: if the shooting against the settlements ceases, or if it continues and we attack Dahiyé in Beirut, this equation will become a reality.”

Currently, another counterfeit, jejune ceasefire is in play, one that was only reached after a ranting call of colour and invective between US President Donald Trump and Netanyahu on June 1. (According to a US official quoted by Axios, Trump is said to have bellowed the following: “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”) While Trump finds himself held in an Iranian lock, tightened by Tehran’s insistence on tying a halt of Israeli hostilities in Lebanon with a broader cessation of conflict, Israel has been ensnared by its own too-clever-by-half logic in Lebanon. The un-snaring will be sanguinary and ugly.

June 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

15TH INTERNATIONAL URANIUM FILM FESTIVAL RIO DE JANEIRO AWARDS

Uranium Film Festival, Jun 03, 2026

Films from Canada, Spain, Germany, Brazil and the USA won the top awards at the 15th International Uranium Film Festival of Rio de Janeiro. The awards ceremony took place on Saturday, May 30, 2026, at the Cinematheque of the renowned Museum of Modern Art (MAM Rio). Bye, Bye Rio, hello Las Vegas. For those who could not make it to the Rio de Janeiro International Uranium Film Festival in time this year, you may join us in Las Vegas, Nevada. The 3rd International Uranium Film Festival in Vegas will be held this fall at the University of Nevada Boyd School of Law in cooperation with Principal Man Ian Zabarte from the Western Bands of the Shoshone Nation of Indians. The Shoshone are the most atomic bombed nation on earth. More than 900 atmospheric and underground nuclear explosions were conducted on their territory in Nevada by the US and 28 nuclear full-scale nuclear weapon detonations by the United Kingdom.

And these are the winners of the 15th International Uranium Film Festival of Rio de Janeiro, May 21 – 30, 2026.

EMERGING FILMMAKER AWARD

ALBRAUM

Germany, 2026, Directed by Maja Hohenberg, Poetic Documentary, 20 min. (Photo: Maja Hohenberg)

BEST INVESTIGATIVE DOCUMENTARY FILM

BOMBSHELL

USA, 2025, Directed by Ben Loeterman & Gaia De Simoni, Documentary Feature, 80 min.

BEST EXPERIMENTAL DOCUMENTARY

OUT OF CONTROL. REPORTS ON THE ATOMIC BOMB

Spain, 2023, Directed by Beatriz Caravaggio, Experimental Documentary, 50 min.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE FILM

THE ATOMIC SCREEN

Canada, 2025, Directed by Alain Vézina, Documentary, 52 min.

NATIVE SPIRIT AWARD

THE MOTH

Canada, 2025, Directed by: Michelle Derosier and Zoe Gordon, Short Fiction, 20 min. (Photo: Zoe Gordon)

HONORABLE MENTIONS

HIBAKUSHA – WANDERING SOUL

Brazil, 2025, Director: Joel Yamaji, Short documentary, 20 min. (Photo: Joel Yamaji)

HOLLYWOOD BOMB – HOW PRESIDENT TRUMAN AND GENERAL GROVES DESTROYED THE FIRST NUCLEAR EPIC

USA, 2026, Director: Greg Mitchell, Short documentary, 15 min.

THE ALPACA CONNECTION

USA, 2025, Director: Tom Brown, Comedy thriller short, 18 min.

TOO LATE TO LEARN

USA, 2026, Director: Thomas Kanady, Documentary, 68 min.

Statements of the Award Winners…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.filmfestivals.us/blog/uranium_film_festival/15th_international_uranium_film_festival_rio_de_janeiro_awards

June 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | media, SOUTH AMERICA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries