No one is safe from the ‘Russian propaganda’ sanctions – even those who never touch Russian sources. Baud is one of nearly 60 public figures under sanctions from the EU
On December 15, 2025, the European Union slapped sanctions on former Swiss intelligence officer and ex-NATO employee Jacques Baud. No day in court, no charges filed, just abrupt, suffocating, sanctions.
Why did the EU sanction Baud? For “Russian propaganda,” of course, although many of the sources he cites in his reports on the West provoking war with Russia years prior to Russia’s military operation are Western and Ukrainian – including the SBU and Aleksey Arestovich, a former adviser to Vladimir Zelensky.
Welcome to the latest EU insanity.
Widely respected for his deep knowledge and analysis, much of which is based on his own research while working with NATO, Baud has grown increasingly popular over the years, appearing on numerous podcasts and interviews, authoring numerous books and articles as well.
Since Russia began its military operation in Ukraine, Western media have been howling about an “unprovoked invasion.” Baud has written and spoken extensively about realities which counter this claim: facts on the ground prior to February 2022, going back (unlike most legacy media who have developed selective amnesia) to even before the 2014 Maidan coup.
What is interesting about Baud is he does not use Russian sources to back his claims and he has not taken a public position in favor of either Russia or Ukraine.
He has simply analyzed the situation, based on information he had access to. How did he have access to this information? In 2014, when working for NATO in charge of countering proliferation of small arms, he was tasked with investigating accusations of Russia supplying arms to Donbass resistance.
He wrote of this in 2022, noting, “The information we received then came almost entirely from Polish intelligence services and did not ‘fit’ with the information coming from the OSCE – despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.”
“The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists.”
As a result of his research, he was also able to unequivocally debunk accusations of Russia sending military units into Donbass, by quoting the SBU (Ukrainian security service) itself as well as other Ukrainian sources.
In a September 2024 interview I did with Baud, he spoke of this.
“I can categorically say no, there were no Russian forces in Donbass. The guy you encountered (I had mentioned meeting one sole Russian former soldier when I went to the Donbass in 2019) represents exactly the kind of Russian presence that was at that time, recognized by the SBU and recognized also by the Ukrainian Chief of Staff.
“In a public interview in 2015, just after the signature of the Minsk Agreement 2, the head of the Ukrainian General Staff said publicly that there were no Russian military units fighting in Donbass; that there were only individual soldiers exactly the same case as the one you just mentioned.”
It is clear he is not citing Russian information (or “propaganda”) but Ukrainian and Western sources. An even better illustration of this is what he had to say about the prelude to Russia commencing its Special Military Operation in February 2022.
Referring to a March 2021 decree by Zelensky (to take back Crimea and the south of Ukraine), Baud spoke of an interview two years prior with Zelensky’s former adviser, Arestovich.
“He says in order to join NATO, we had to have a war with Russia. When the interviewer asked him when would this conflict happen, Arestovich says end of 2021 or 2022.” A position, Baud noted, which aligned with a March 2019 300-page document published by the Rand Corporation, “that explains how to defeat and to destabilize Russia.
The EU is almost certainly pissed off that Baud likewise demolished the Western propaganda claims about Russia invading Crimea in 2014. He told me, “The Ukrainian army at that time was a conscript army, meaning that within the Ukrainian army you had both Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers. When the army was ordered to shoot or to fight against demonstrators, those who were Russian speakers just defected, they just changed side. They just went to support the protesters and they became in fact those the famous ‘little green men’.”
Keep in mind that Baud was working for NATO then. “There was absolutely not the slightest indication that Russia brought new troops to Crimea. Based on the status of force agreement signed between Russia and Ukraine, you had up to 25,000 Russian troops stationed in the Crimean peninsula. At that time they were not even 25,000, there were 22,000. A Ukrainian lawmaker on Ukrainian TV said that out of the 20,000 (sic) Ukrainian soldiers that were deployed in Crimea, 20,000 defected to the Russian-speaking side.”
As for “Russian propaganda,” it is a term bandied about quite easily by legacy media and NATO mouthpieces to taint reputations or lead to censorship of voices. The war backers are upset that their own “Russia started it” propaganda isn’t working
Sanctions prevent Baud from even buying food
Baud lives in Brussels, and now as a result of the sanctions is unable to even buy food for himself. Nor can well-intending people do so on his behalf. In an interview on Dialogue Works at the end of December, 2025, Baud said:
“Yesterday, a friend of mine tried from Switzerland to buy food for me, to be delivered to my home (in Belgium). She could order, but the payment was blocked. Any delivery to my home is prohibited, even if the funds come from Switzerland.”
People who are aware of his unjust situation have been physically bringing him food, to alleviate his inability to purchase it himself.
In a more recent interview on Judging Freedom, Baud highlighted that his case was a foreign policy decision, denying him due process.
“This is not a decision that has been taken by any court. I was not judged by anybody. In fact I was not in front of a jury. I could not present my case. I could not defend my case. This decision was not taken by a court but by the council of the foreign ministers of the European union.”
The most he can do, Baud explained, is, “go to the European Court of Justice and try to make my case saying that the decision was not just, and the court of justice may then study the case and have an assessment on that.” Even if the court concludes the sanctions are not justified, all it can then do is “advise the council of foreign ministers to change their mind.”
Given that the sanctions against Baud are punitive for his not toeing the line, it is unlikely minds will be changed.
Rachel Reeves ordered a review of the quango that handles Britain’s nuclear waste amid concerns about project overruns and spiralling budgets. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is in charge of taking apart old nuclear power stations and storing their radioactive waste securely – including at Sellafield, the nuclear waste site in Cumbria.
In 2022, a Treasury report estimated the NDA’s liabilities to be £237bn – a colossal sum that raised questions over all nuclear spending. The following year, the Treasury revised that figure down to £124bn simply by applying an increased discount rate – an accounting device used to reduce the apparent cost of future spending. Since then, however, costs have jumped again.
In 2024, the National Audit Office found that the budget for Sellafield’s clean-up had leapt to £136bn.
The new review will be led by Tim Stone, the chairman of Nuclear Risk Insurers and a former expert adviser to several government departments. In documents published online, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said the review presented an “opportunity to address concerns” with the NDA’s performance. They added: “Given the significance and complexity of the NDA’s task, it is essential to ensure that the NDA operates effectively and efficiently, delivering value for money to the taxpayer while also maintaining standards of openness and transparency.”
The UK has no shortage of ambition when it comes to infrastructure. From Net Zero commitments and energy security to rail modernisation, water resilience and nuclear new build, the pipeline of nationally significant projects is substantial. Yet beneath the headlines lies a constraint that threatens to undermine delivery across all of them: a critical shortage of skilled labour. While capital allocation, planning reform and supply chains dominate much of the public debate, workforce capability is increasingly the factor that determines whether projects progress as planned — or drift into delay and cost escalation.
Since 2021, EDF has detected more than 80 significant cracks on its French nuclear reactors, and will likely find more in the future, officials from the Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Authority (ASNR) said on Tuesday.
A ROSYTH councillor is calling for a public consultation on plans to temporarily base the UK’s new nuclear submarine fleet at the dockyard.
Brian Goodall highlighted the “seriousness of the implications” of providing a contingency dock for the Dreadnought class of vessels that will carry Trident missiles.
He said emergency plans to be put in place in the event of a radiological accident “could require urgent protective actions, like arrangements for sheltering local people and the distribution of potassium iodide tablets to the local community”.
He has submitted a motion to next week’s South and West Fife area committee, calling on the convener to write to the “Secretary of State for Defence requesting that a public consultation be held on the proposals”.
Cllr Goodall also wants the committee to acknowledge the “seriousness of the implications of these plans and the impact any radiological accident or event would have on the local population”.
Rosyth will “bridge a gap” by offering a temporary home for the new subs and Babcock said the dock needs to be ready by 2029.
Long term the vessels will be maintained at Faslane, however the site on the Clyde won’t be ready until the mid 2030s.
The UK Government are investing £340 million in the dockyard which includes funding for the contingency dock.
Cllr Goodall’s motion explains the dock will be used for the “Dreadnought-class nuclear submarines from the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear Trident missile programme”.
He said the UK Government plans included information on the need for a “Detailed Emergency Planning Zone” which was still being calculated but was likely to include parts of the town within 1.5km.
The SNP councillor added that “emergency plans both on and off site will also be needed to reduce and/or prevent the escalation of the impact of any radiological accident or event”.
They also confirmed residents would be given potassium iodate tablets to block radiation in the event of an emergency.
The MoD was giving an update on the plans for Rosyth to be the temporary repair base for the UK’s new fleet of nuclear deterrent submarines.
This work would be alongside the submarine dismantling project, which is cutting up an old nuclear sub, Swiftsure, at the dockyard and removing the radioactive waste left within it.
There are another six decommissioned subs laid up at Rosyth – and 15 at Devonport – still to be dismantled and although no decision has been made, local Labour MP Graeme Downie has called for that work to be done here.
He said the yard could become a “centre of excellence” for submarine dismantling which would secure highly paid skilled jobs for decades to come.
This week Cllr Goodall posted: “I’ve said that this (motion) should include an update from Babcock and the Ministry of Defence, following the local Labour MP’s really concerning call for all of the UK’s decommissioned nuclear submarines to be brought to Rosyth for the dismantling, and so, the storage of radioactive materials that goes with it, to go on in Rosyth indefinitely.”
Statistics from the formerly known JCCC, now called “The Department for Documentation of War Crimes of Ukraine of the Administration of the DPR Head and Governme
NOTE: From February 17, 2022-January 26, 2026, in the DPR (so not including Lugansk or elsewhere in Russia):
–5520 CIVILIANS KILLED by Ukrainian attacks, including 159 CHILDREN
–8630 CIVILIANS INJURED, including 574 CHILDREN
–192 CIVILIANS MAIMED, including 11 CHILDREN, by Ukrainian-fired PFM-1 “Petal” mines (warning, graphic: look at this photo to see what a maimed foot looks like)—THREE of whom DIED as a result of their injuries.
Michael Parenti, who died on Saturday at 92, wrote for Consortium News what appears to be his last article on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the end of WWI.
Michael Parenti, a giant on the American left, who influenced generations of activists, scholars and ordinary Americans, died on Saturday in Berkeley, California. He was 92. Parenti wrote for Consortium News what is believed to be his last article, about the horrors of World War I. It appeared on U.S. Memorial Day, May 28, 2018, and we republish it here ahead of a tribute Consortium News is preparing.
On Memorial Day 2018, in the year marking the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, Michael Parenti contemplates the trenches and the oligarchs who caused so much unnecessary misery.
Looking back at the years of fury and carnage, Colonel Angelo Gatti, staff officer of the Italian Army (Austrian front), wrote in his diary:
“This whole war has been a pile of lies. We came into war because a few men in authority, the dreamers, flung us into it.”
No, Gatti, caro mio, those few men are not dreamers; they are schemers. They perch above us. See how their armament contracts are turned into private fortunes — while the young men are turned into dust: more blood, more money; good for business this war.
It is the rich old men, i pauci, “the few,” as Cicero called the Senate oligarchs whom he faithfully served in ancient Rome. It is the few, who together constitute a bloc of industrialists and landlords, who think war will bring bigger markets abroad and civic discipline at home.
One of i pauci in 1914 saw war as a way of promoting compliance and obedience on the labor front and—as he himself said—war, “would permit the hierarchal reorganization of class relations.”
Just awhile before the heresies of Karl Marx were spreading among Europe’s lower ranks. The proletariats of each country, growing in numbers and strength, were made to wage war against each other.
What better way to confine and misdirect them than with the swirl of mutual destruction.
Then there were the generals and other militarists who started plotting this war as early as 1906, eight years before the first shots were fired.
War for them means glory, medals, promotions, financial rewards, inside favors, and dining with ministers, bankers, and diplomats: the whole prosperity of death.
When the war finally comes, it is greeted with quiet satisfaction by the generals.
Moguls and Monarchs Prevail
But the young men are ripped by waves of machine-gun fire or blown apart by exploding shells. War comes with gas attacks and sniper shots: grenades, mortars, and artillery barrages; the roar of a great inferno and the sickening smell of rotting corpses.
Torn bodies hang sadly on the barbed wire, and trench rats try to eat away at us, even while we are still alive.
Farewell, my loving hearts at home, those who send us their precious tears wrapped in crumpled letters. And farewell my comrades. When the people’s wisdom fails, moguls and monarchs prevail and there seems to be no way out.
Fools dance and the pit sinks deeper as if bottomless. No one can see the sky, or hear the music, or deflect the swarms of lies that cloud our minds like the countless lice that torture our flesh.
Crusted with blood and filth, regiments of lost souls drag themselves to the devil’s pit. “Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate.” (“Abandon all hope, ye who enter” as our Dante delivered his painful message).
Meanwhile from above the Vatican wall, the pope himself begs the world leaders to put an end to hostilities, “lest there be no young men left alive in Europe.” But the war industry pays him no heed.
Finally the casualties are more than we can bear. There are mutinies in the French trenches! Agitators in the Czar’s army cry out for “Peace, Land, and Bread!” At home, our families grow bitter. There comes a breaking point as the oligarchs seem to be losing their grip.
At last the guns are mute in the morning air. A strange almost pious silence takes over. The fog and rain seem to wash our wounds and cool our fever. “Still alive,” the sergeant grins, “still alive.” He cups a cigarette in his hand. “Stack those rifles, you lazy bastards.”
He grins again, two teeth missing. Never did his ugly face look so good as on this day in November 1918. Armistice embraces us like a quiet rapture.
Not really a quiet rapture with smiling sergeants. Many troops on both sides continued killing to the bitter end, with a fury that had no mercy.
In one day, November 11, the last day of war, some 10,900 men were wounded or killed from both sides, a furious rage in the face of peace, years of slaughter; now moments of vengeance.
The Fall of Eagles
A big piece of the encrusted aristocratic world breaks off. The Romanovs, Czar and family, are all executed in 1918 in Revolutionary Russia. That same year, the House of Hohenzollern collapses as Kaiser Wilhelm II flees Germany. Also in 1918, the Ottoman empire is shattered.
And on Armistice Day, November 11th, 1918, at 11:00 a.m.—the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month—we mark the end of the war and with it the dissolution of the Habsburg dynasty.
Four indestructible monarchies: Russian, German, Turkish, and Austro-Hungarian, four great empires, each with millions of bayonets and cannon at the ready, now twisting in the dim shadows of history.
Will our children ever forgive us for our dismal confusion? Will they ever understand what we went through? Will we? By 1918, four aristocratic autocracies fade away, leaving so many victims mangled in their wake, and so many bereaved crying through the night.
Back in the trenches, the agitators among us prove right. The mutinous Reds standing before the firing squad last year were right. Their truths must not be buried with them. Why are impoverished workers and peasants killing other impoverished workers and peasants?
Now we know that our real foe is not in the weave of trenches; not at Ypres, nor at the Somme, or Verdun or Caporetto. Closer to home, closer to the deceptive peace that follows a deceptive war.
Now comes a different conflict. We have enemies at home: the schemers who trade our blood for sacks of gold, who make the world safe for hypocrisy, safe for themselves, readying themselves for the next “humanitarian war.”
See how sleek and self-satisfied they look, riding our backs, distracting our minds, filling us with fright about wicked foes. Important things keep happening, but not enough to finish them off. Not yet enough.
The 2.2 million men that are currently on the run amounts to 6.8% of the Ukrainian population and is slightly larger than the percentage of Asians in the US.
New Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov shockingly revealed that 200,000 men have already deserted thus far and ten times more (2 million) are actively dodging the draft, which are probably an underestimate but are in any case still very large numbers. To put that into context, Ukraine claimed in early 2025 to have had a population of 32 million, likely an overestimate, so the 2.2 million men who either deserted or dodged the draft amounts to at least 6.8% of the population currently on the run.
Rada Deputy Dmitry Razumkov claimed during a parliamentary session last month that his country had already lost half a million troops by then with an equal number wounded, possibly also an underestimate, while Ukraine is thought to currently field around 900,000 active troops. All of this data enables observers to better understand the significance of these “voluntary losses” since it should be clear by now that 2.2 million more troops would have certainly made a major difference for Ukraine.
That’s not to imply that it would have been able to reverse the military-strategic dynamics of the conflict that have trended in Russia’s favor since the epicfailure of Ukraine’s NATO-backed counteroffensive in summer 2023, but perhaps it might have been able to decelerate the pace of its losses afterwards. Ukraine could have thus also been in a comparatively better diplomatic position too going into Trump 2.0 a year ago and that might have in turn predisposed him to a relatively harder line towards Russia as well.
For that reason, while the scale of its desertions and draft-dodging can’t credibly be described as a game-changer, it can still be considered a significant variable that adversely affected Ukraine’s fortunes. By contrast, this was never a relevant factor for Russia, which hasn’t conscripted anyone unlike Ukraine. On that topic, it’s worthwhile reminding readers about Ukraine’s forcible conscription policy that’s been made infamous by viral videos showing officials snatching young and old men alike off the streets.
This footage and stories that draft-eligible males (25-60 years of age) heard through the grapevine are partly why 2 million of them decided to go on the run and dodge the draft. They’ve also seen drone footage of the conflict zone and are therefore well aware of how likely it is that they’ll be killed shortly after being deployed to the front. These men might sincerely consider themselves to be Ukrainian patriots in their hearts, however they conceptualize it, but they’re not willing to die for nothing.
This segues into the plummeting popularity of the conflict among the populace and increasing support for a quick end thereto per recent Gallup polling. Trump just blamed Zelensky for stalling peace talks, which is in direct opposition to the will of the same people in whose name he still acts despite the expire of his term in May 2024. Other than his authoritarian tendencies, corruption is likely responsible for his obstinance since he’s thought to be profiting from the conflict and might thus fear charges once it ends.
Whenever he’s asked about the conflict, Trump usually says that he wants to end it as soon as possible in order to stop the killing, which it’s now known has spooked at least 2.2 million Ukrainian men into either deserting or dodging the draft. The 6.8% of the population that’s currently on the run is slightly larger than the Asian population in the US (6.7%) per the last census. The sooner that the conflict ends, the sooner that they can re-enter the economy and help rebuild their country, unless they flee abroad first.
An employment tribunal has ordered the taxpayer owned company tasked with safely decommissioning the UK’s first-generation nuclear power sites pay more than £10,800 in compensation to a worker who was banned from speaking Swahili. The Glasgow tribunal found that Nuclear Restoration Services Limited (NRS) discriminated against Mr K Ruiza after his line manager instructed him to only speak English while on site. The judge said the order left him humiliated, distressed and fearful he would lose his job. The tribunal ruled the company must pay £9,000 for injury to feelings, plus £1,875.94 in interest, bringing the total award to £10,875.94.
In a sweeping and unsparing conversation with Glenn Diesen, economist and longtime geopolitical analyst Jeffrey Sachs dissects the accelerating rupture between Europe and the United States — a crisis triggered not by Russia or China, but by Washington’s own imperial overreach. Speaking with Glenn, Sachs argues that Europe is finally confronting the consequences of “riding on the back of a predator,” a metaphor he borrows from President Kennedy’s 1961 warning that those who try to ride the tiger often end up inside it.
A Crisis Europe Helped Create
Sachs traces Europe’s current panic — triggered by Trump’s threats toward Greenland and open hostility toward NATO — to decades of European complicity in U.S. militarism. For years, he argues, European leaders “said not a word” as Washington toppled governments, invaded sovereign states, and shredded international law from Iraq to Libya to Syria.
One of Sachs’ most pointed observations captures the hypocrisy now on display:
“When the United States said, ‘We want Greenland,’ suddenly Europe rediscovered international law.”
The same governments that lectured Iran about “restraint” after being bombed, or applauded the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president, now find themselves shocked that the empire they enabled is turning its gaze toward them.
The End of the ‘Rules‑Based Order’
One of the most striking developments Sachs highlights is Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s admission in Davos that the so‑called “rules‑based international order” was never neutral — it was a Western privilege system. With the world shifting toward multipolarity, even U.S. allies are reassessing their dependence on Washington.
Carney’s outreach to China, Sachs notes, signals a geopolitical realignment that Europe has been too timid — or too captured — to attempt.
NATO’s Identity Crisis
The interview exposes a NATO leadership class that continues to praise U.S. power even as Trump openly calls the alliance America’s “enemy from within.” European leaders like Mark Rutte, Sachs argues, have responded with “pathetic” deference, hoping to appease Washington rather than assert independent interests.
Meanwhile, the EU’s political imagination has shrunk to a single unifying principle: Russophobia. Sachs calls this a catastrophic strategic error:
“Europe has no diplomacy with Russia, no diplomacy with the United States — basically no diplomacy at all.”
Germany’s Pivotal Role — and Repeated Failures
Sachs lays particular responsibility at Germany’s feet. From violating its reunification assurances on NATO expansion, to abandoning the 2014 Yanukovych agreement, to failing to enforce the Minsk II settlement, Berlin repeatedly chose alignment with Washington over European stability.
Yet Sachs insists the path to peace still runs through Berlin — joined by France, Italy, and the Central European states already calling for diplomacy.
Economic Warfare as Regime Change
One of the most explosive moments in the interview comes when Sachs quotes U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant openly bragging about collapsing Iran’s economy:
“This is economic statecraft… their economy collapsed… and this is why the people took to the streets.”
For Sachs, this is not policy — it is gangsterism. And Europe’s silence in the face of such actions has only emboldened Washington.
Despite Sachs bleak assessment, in the end there is room for conditional optimism: Europe could still reclaim sovereignty, pursue diplomacy, and avoid becoming collateral damage in America’s imperial decline. But doing so requires courage — something in short supply among current European elites.
The 2026 Winter Olympics will rely on millions of cubic metres of artificial snow. Climate crisis is threatening the future of the Winter Olympics, with warming winters already forcing heavy reliance on artificial snow at the upcoming games in Italy and raising questions about long-term viability of traditional skiing venues.
The 2026 Winter Olympics, co-hosted by Milan and the Alpine town of Cortina d’Ampezzo, will rely on millions of cubic metres of artificial snow…………………………..(Registered readers only)
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL , 24 Jan 26
Every day Ukraine sinks deeper into shattered rump state status. Every day brings more death, lost territory and degraded living conditions with no hope of prevailing against Russia.
Yet, instead of settling on Russia’s terms to end the war, end more casualties, end more lost land, Ukraine President Zelensky keeps shuttling between Europe and the US begging for weaponry to take the war deep into Russia.
The US has already bailed on investing in Ukraine’s lost cause. Europe is edging closer to bailing as well even as they continue the lie that a Ukraine victory is critical to keeping Russia from marching westward into NATO countries. They know the war is lost but cannot publicly admit that truth. In addition, without the US, they don’t have sufficient military resources to have any meaningful impact on the outcome.
Near four years into Ukraine’s demise, Zelensky may simply be delusional that Ukraine can prevail in expelling Russia from lost territories. It’s more likely he’s simply taking orders from his ultra-nationalist Kyiv handlers to keep demanding weaponry to continue Ukraine’s lost cause.
Zelensky’s recklessness was epitomized by his refusal to conclude the Istanbul Agreement with Russia in April 2022 that would have ended the 2 month conflict with a minimum of casualties, no lost territory and economy intact. All Zelensky had to do was give up NATO membership, guarantee Ukraine neutrality between Europe and Russia, and grant regional autonomy to the Russian cultured Ukrainians in Donbas being brutalized by Kyiv for 8 long years.
But instead of statesmanship, Zelensky chose recklessness, acquiescing in US, UK demands to keep the war going till Russia was defeated with US, NATO weaponry. But even with over $200 billion in such aid, Ukraine is nearing collapse, running out of soldiers that its western backers will never replace. $200 billion yes, but not one drop of western blood.
Zelensky’s recklessness in destroying Ukraine is exceeded by his dangerousness, putting the world at risk of nuclear war every day now for nearly 4 years. Every NATO bomb, tank, missile, gun given to Zelensky to attack Russia continues the threat of nuclear war between Russia and NATO. This was most irresponsibly demonstrated in 2022 when an errant Ukraine missile landed in Poland killing two Polish citizens. Zelensky immediately claimed it was a Russian missile which could have triggered a direct Article 5 NATO response against Russia. Tho the US quickly refuted Zelensky’s false claim, Zelensky has never wavered from demanding long range NATO weapons to attack deep into Russia, a prescription for all out NATO, Russia war that could go nuclear.
Continuing Ukraine’s inevitable collapse while keeping the whole world hostage to the possibility of nuclear war makes Volodymyr Zelensky the most reckless and dangerous leader in the world.
“The Kremlin has tried every which way to bring its ‘special military operation,’ along with its broader confrontation with the West, to a mutually beneficial conclusion.”
The Europeans have run out of postures and gestures in the way of performative statecraft: This is my conclusion. And the Russians, evidently sharing it in one or another form, see no point in indulging them any further.
The Europeans have run out of postures and gestures in the way of performative statecraft, and the Russians see no point in indulging them any further.
Sometimes wars have occasions that can be read — immediately, soon or in time — as turning points, clarifying moments. D–Day, June 6, 1944, is an obvious case: The Allies and the Red Army were in Berlin less than a year later.
The Tet Offensive, which began 58 years ago next week (Can you believe it?), is another: All the victory-is-near illusions the American command had cultivated for years collapsed. There were many more casualties at the altar of imperial delusion, but the war in Southeast Asia was on the way to over.
On Jan. 8 Russia attacked Lviv, the city in western Ukraine, with an Oreshnik missile. To me this looks very like a clarifying event in the Ukraine war — Moscow’s announcement that it has decided to begin the beginning of the end.
The Oreshnik is a new-generation weapon that already wears a little of the mystique of Ares, the Greek god of war. It travels at hypersonic speeds and is undetectable by air-defense systems. It is capable of carrying nuclear warheads, although the missile that hit Lviv wasn’t armed with one.
This was not Russia’s first use of the Oreshnik in Ukraine. Its first was in November 2024, when the target was a munitions factory in Dnipro, not far from the front lines. That blew minds as well as production lines.
But the missile that hit Lviv seemed to have more to say to the regime in Kiev and its Western backers, notably all those supercilious Europeans. Lviv, Ukraine’s cultural capital, has been a safe haven these past four years of conflict. Not to be missed, it lies roughly 45 miles from the border with Poland.
Russia’s declared intent in launching its second Oreshnik was to respond to the Dec. 29 drone attack the Ukrainians, with the usual assistance of the Americans and Brits, launched on President Vladimir Putin’s secondary residence in Valdai, northwest of Moscow.
Parenthetically, Kiev and the C.I.A., two famous truth-tellers, deny any such attack took place, but let us not waste any time with this silliness. The Russians have reportedly presented Western officials with evidence of the event.
Would Putin raise it in a telephone exchange with President Trump were it, as corporate media now have it, just another disinformation operation?
These things said, the Oreshnik hit in Lviv merits a broader reading, in my view.
Here is an account of the Oreshnik as it descended through the winter clouds above Lviv. It is written by Mike Mihajlovic, who publishes, edits and writes frequently for Black Mountain Analysis, a Substack newsletter I have found worth looking at on previous occasions.
This passage is based on Mihajlovic’s apparently diligent study of digital evidence and eyewitness accounts. Good enough we know what happens when these things arrive, as there may be more of them in the skies above Ukraine as the war begins its fifth year:
“As the hypersonic penetrators broke through the cloud layers, each was enveloped in a luminous plasma sheath, producing brief but violent flashes that momentarily illuminated the surrounding atmosphere. These flashes were not explosions in the conventional sense, but visual signatures of extreme velocity, friction, and compression as the warheads tore through dense air at hypersonic speed.
Observers on the ground reported an unsettling soundscape that followed the visual phenomenon. Rather than a single detonation, there were sharp, cracking noises that seemed to ripple across the terrain, as if the ground itself were fracturing under stress.
“What made the event particularly striking was the setting. The impacts occurred against the backdrop of an idyllic winter landscape: fields and forests blanketed in snow, small settlements dimly lit, and a horizon that, moments earlier, conveyed calm and stillness.
Against this muted palette, the light generated by the strike stood out with almost surreal intensity. Reflections danced across the snow, briefly turning the ground into a mirror that amplified the event’s brightness. Witnesses described the glow as unnatural, a cold, shimmering illumination that lingered just long enough to be noticed and remembered.”
The Lviv attack seems to be part of an intensifying campaign to cripple Ukraine’s power grids, energy infrastructure and productive capacity. The Russians have been hitting such targets for years, of course, but these new operations suggest Moscow is after the endgame now.
Moscow’s Attempts to End Conflict
The Kremlin has tried every which way to bring its “special military operation,” along with its broader confrontation with the West, to a mutually beneficial conclusion. You can go back to the spring of 2022, when was ready to sign an accord with Kiev a few months into the war — only for the Brits, with American consent, to scotch it.
Or December 2021, when it sent Washington and NATO draft treaties as a basis of negotiating a new security framework between the Russian Federation and the West. They were dismissed as “nonstarters,” a British-ism the Biden regime thought was clever.
Or the Minsk Protocols, September 2014 and February 2015, which the British and French sabotaged. Or back to the early 1990s, when Michail Gorbachev hoped to bring post–Soviet Russia into “a common European home.”
The Kremlin has proven exceptionally restrained, not to say forebearing, through all of this. And it would be a mistake now to conclude the Russians have lost their patience.
No, in my read they have simply concluded there is no point waiting around while the Western powers indulge themselves in pantomime statecraft or — maybe better put —some kind of group onanism they seem to find satisfying.
And in public, no less.
For weeks toward the end of last year we read incessantly of the intense diplomatic work Kiev, the Europeans and the Trump regime’s contingent were getting up to. The swashbuckling Musketeers cooked up a 20–point peace plan that was supposed to supersede Trump’s 28–point document.
Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s unconstitutional president, went from one European capital to another and then to Washington and then to Mar-a–Lago and then back to Europe, all along asserting he and his backers were “90 percent there.”
Ninety percent there on security guarantees providing for European troops to serve as peacekeepers on Ukrainian soil. Ninety percent there on a territorial settlement. And so on.
You watched all this with your jaw dropping. None of it had anything to do with fashioning an accord Moscow would find even preliminarily negotiable. The 20–point plan’s intent, indeed, was to subvert the 28–point plan, the first pieces of paper since the spring 2022 attempt that Moscow appeared to find worth its time.
Not Enough Delusion
No, the Trump plan was too realistic as a draft of a settlement accord in recognizing that Moscow was the victor in its war with Ukraine, Kiev the vanquished. There wasn’t enough delusion in it.
And now, roughly since the start of the year, more or less complete silence from Zelensky and the Musketeers — Kier Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz, a prime minister, a president and a chancellor.
There is no establishing any certain causality between the Oreshnik attack in previously safe — relatively speaking — western Ukraine, and this nothing-to-say lapse in Kiev, London, Paris and Berlin (and for that matter Washington). But the point may prove the same.
The Europeans have run out of postures and gestures in the way of performative statecraft: This is my conclusion. And the Russians, evidently sharing it in one or another form, see no point in indulging them any further.
As to the Trumpster, it seemed to me unimaginable from the outset that the national security state in all its appendages would ever allow him to reach a comprehensive settlement with Moscow that would open into a new era in East–West relations.
So has the war turned. So do matters clarify. So does the war in Ukraine appear set to end — not with a single detonation, no, rather with sharp cracking noises that seemed to ripple across the terrain.
Nearly 100 UK newspaper editorials were published opposing climate action in 2025, a record figure that shows the scale of the backlash against net-zero policies in the right-leaning press.
Carbon Brief examined editorials published since 2011. These included those written by external columnists and those acting as a publication’s official editorial ‘voice’.
In 2025, it identified 98 editorials rejecting climate action, compared with 46 in support. This was the first year in which opposition overtook support across the 15 years of data.
All 98 editorials opposing climate action appeared in right-leaning titles. The largest contributors were the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, followed by the Times and the Daily Express.
By contrast, almost all of the editorials pushing for more climate action were published in the Guardian and the Financial Times, which have far smaller circulations than several of the conservative papers.
Overall, 81% of climate-related editorials in right-leaning newspapers in 2025 rejected climate action – either overall, or due to specific policy interventions.
Carbon Brief said this marked a sharp change from a few years earlier, when many of the same papers showed increased enthusiasm for climate policy as Conservative governments under Theresa May and Boris Johnson introduced the net-zero by 2050 target and backed measures to deliver it.
Reform UK has also been rising in the polls while pledging to “ditch net-zero”. Carbon Brief said the positions taken by right-leaning newspapers tend to reflect and reinforce the politics of the parties they support.
None of the editorials opposing climate action questioned the existence of climate change or the science behind it. Instead, they criticised the policies designed to address it, a position Carbon Brief describes as “response scepticism”.
In many cases, newspapers attacked “net-zero” without mentioning climate change at all.
Economic arguments dominated the opposition. Carbon Brief found that more than eight in ten of 2025’s editorials rejecting climate action cited cost as a reason, describing net-zero as “ruinous” or “costly” and blaming it for driving up energy bills.
Earlier this month, several national newspapers also gave prominent coverage to a pamphlet from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) on the “cost of net-zero” that misrepresented the work of the National Energy Systems Operator (NESO).
The IEA claimed net-zero costs could exceed £7.6trn, but the figures were based on the flawed assumption that no investment would be made in energy systems if the UK did not have its 2050 climate target.
Critics also say the IEA mischaracterised NESO’s analysis. Regardless, the pamphlet appeared on the front page of the Daily Express and was reported by political correspondents at the Express, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph without scrutiny of the underlying energy data.
Miliband under sustained attack
Alongside criticism of policy, newspapers also targeted the Labour Government’s energy security and net-zero secretary, Ed Miliband.
In 2025, UK newspapers published 112 editorials taking personal aim at him, nearly all in right-leaning titles. The Sun alone published 51.
Six in ten editorials opposing climate action used criticism of climate advocates as part of their justification, and almost all of these mentioned Miliband.
Miliband was described as a “loon”, a “zealot” and the “high priest of net-zero”, and accused of “eco insanity” and “quasi-religious delusions”.
Newspapers frequently framed policies as “Ed Miliband’s net-zero agenda”, “Mr Miliband’s swivel-eyed targets” or “Mr Miliband’s green taxes”, presenting climate measures as being imposed on the public by the energy secretary. This is despite the fact that many targets and initiatives were kick-started under the Tories.
Renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels
Carbon Brief additionally analysed editorials on specific energy technologies.
There were 42 editorials criticising renewable energy in 2025. For the first time since 2014, anti-renewables editorials outnumbered those supporting them.
Cost was the dominant argument, with 86% of critical editorials using economic justifications.
The Sun referred to “chucking billions at unreliable renewables”, while the Daily Telegraph warned of an “expensive and intermittent renewables grid”.
At the same time, right-leaning newspapers continued to support nuclear power despite its high costs. There were 20 editorials backing nuclear energy in 2025, nearly all in conservative titles, and none opposing it.
The Times was the only right-leaning newspaper to publish any editorials backing renewables.
Support for fracking also reappeared. After falling away in 2023 and 2024, there were 15 editorials in 2025 arguing that fracking would be economically beneficial, even as the Government plans to ban the practice permanently.
North Sea oil and gas remained a major focus. Thirty editorials, all in right-leaning newspapers, mentioned the issue, with most arguing for increased extraction while also opposing climate action or renewable expansion.
January 2026, Research commissioned by The Wildlife Trusts
“…………………………………………………. Large nuclear projects, using potentially risky technology, have potential for significant environmental impacts on sensitive places and so it is right for there to be robust environmental assessments of these projects. The Government has an ambitious programme of nuclear deployment. It has published a new National Policy Statement for nuclear power.3 It has removed the restriction on new nuclear power to eight sites around the UK. It has said it will aid the completion of Hinkley Point C, provide additional funding for Sizewell C, and consider one large new nuclear power plant alongside the deployment of Small Modular Reactors. Due to their requirements and the types of site needed, nuclear projects have often impacted on ecologically sensitive areas. The new National Policy Statement on nuclear reiterates the importance of the Habitats Regulations and the protection of legally protected sites and wildlife.
As part of its efforts to boost nuclear deployment, the Government commissioned John Fingleton to lead a taskforce review of nuclear regulation. The final report of the Nuclear Regulatory Review was published in November 2025. It diagnosed environmental regulations as a blocker to nuclear deployment and included recommendations to water down those regulations. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that the Government accepts the principles of the Review, that within three months a plan will be published by DESNZ to implement the Review, and that its recommendations will be implemented within two years using legislation.6 Environmental groups are very concerned the recommendations will be adopted for the nuclear sector using legislation and potentially applied to other types of major infrastructure.
The Nuclear Regulatory Review is part of a wider pattern of the Government adopting the arguments of developers to pinpoint where delays are coming from; however, it is inaccurate and does not represent reality. Research by The Wildlife Trusts already shows that – despite the headlines and claims by the Chancellor and others – bats and newts, for example, were a factor in just 3.3% of planning appeals.7 This briefing will highlight how the claims made by the Nuclear Regulatory Review are similarly short on evidence and, if adopted, will do little to speed up planning decisions but, instead, will turn the nature crisis into a catastrophe. Many industries already say that the uncertainty caused by constantly changing regulations holds back development; the Nuclear Regulatory Review threatens to do just that.
Flaws and Inaccuracies in the Nuclear Regulatory Review The Review, commissioned by the Government, identifies three major areas for reform: risk aversion, process over outcomes, and a lack of incentives. The Review also turns nature into a scapegoat for a failure to deliver nuclear projects.
Recommendation 11 calls for various changes to the Habitats Regulations, including removing the requirement for compensation to be like-for-like. Recommendation 12 calls for nuclear developers to be allowed to comply with the regulations simply by paying a fixed sum (an amount per acre), which would be used by Natural England for nature somewhere else. When it comes to local planning, The Wildlife Trusts remain concerned with the related idea of payments for Environmental Delivery Plans as a way for developers to meet their legal obligations. A strategic approach might be appropriate when it comes to, for example, pollution impacts, but would not be suitable for irreplaceable habitats or species that cannot re-establish elsewhere easily.8
Recommendation 19 would remove the duty on Local Authorities to seek and further National Parks and Landscapes, returning to the old language of “have regard to”. The combination of these changes would not only substantially weaken protections for nature but would also introduce significant uncertainty in the nuclear sector and for other sectors about whether standards and regulations that are bedding in and increasingly becoming well understood are in fact about to change.
The Review was produced without enough environmental expertise – and this shows. It contains a number of errors when it comes to environmental evidence, which has led to a misdiagnosis of the problem and to damaging recommendations about environmental regulations.
The Review relies heavily on the case study of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. It is quick to use the case study to blame nature without examining the actions and decisions of the developer. A large amount of confusing and misleading information has been issued to the media and in the Review itself to further this narrative.
Here are some of the facts:
Hinkley Point C is on the edge of one of the most highly ecologically protected sites in Europe and will draw through a swimming pool’s worth of water every second for 70 years of operation. This will have enormous impacts on surrounding ecosystems, fish, and other species.9
A £700 million figure has been widely circulated in the press relating to fish deterrents and is quoted in the Review. This is incorrect. The cost of the fish deterrent system is £50 million.10
EDF themselves unilaterally decided in 2017 not to proceed with the fish deterrent system, despite it being a requirement. They then proceeded to apply for permit variations, undertake further environmental assessments and initiate a public inquiry to attempt to remove the requirement. These developer decisions have caused selfinflicted delays.11
Hinkley Point C’s original budget was £18 billion. It has since risen to an estimated £46 billion. The fish deterrent (at £50 million) comes to just 0.1% of this increased £46 billion budget. Nearly £30 billion in cost increases for Hinkley Point C have nothing to do with nature.12
The Nuclear Regulatory Review says (for example) that just 0.08 salmon, 0.02 trout, and 6 lamprey per year would be saved. This deliberately downplays the impact on nature. This statement relies on analysis by the developer EDF, who captured fish and put trackers on them and used old data from Hinkley B power station. Since then ,a more thorough analysis has been completed for the Environment Agency, who have found that 4.6 million adult fish per year being killed is a more accurate number, or 182 million fish in total over sixty years.13 These fish populations are a foundation stone for the wider ecosystem of the Severn Estuary, supporting internationally important migratory bird populations and other species. Many of the fish are rare or endangered. Damage on the scale suggested by the Environment Agency figures could have calamitous impacts on that ecosystem and the economic and social activities that rely on it………………………………………………………………………………
Environmental Damage of Nuclear Regulatory Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Conclusion
The Nuclear Regulatory Review recommendations 11, 12 and 19 will harm nature and biodiversity. They are based on flawed evidence relating to environmental regulations and how they have been applied. As discussed, the true reasons for nuclear delay lie elsewhere. Implementing the Nuclear Regulatory recommendations would devastate nature without speeding up the nuclear planning and delivery process. The Government must reject the three Nuclear Regulatory Review’s recommendations on environmental regulations and end its confected war on nature as a barrier to planning.
nuclear-news 