Could Hungary’s fight over oil change course of Ukraine War?
If Budapest doesn’t play ball, the EU can’t impose new sanctions on Russia, nor loan Kyiv 90 billion euros to keep fighting.
an Proud, Feb 26, 2026, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/hungary-eu-ukraine/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The EU’s plan to impose its 20th package of sanctions against Russia crashed against a seemingly immovable wall of Hungarian resistance this week, when the Central Europe country used its veto to block it.
That is not necessarily the end of the matter, yet I hope it is the beginning of the end, with Europe finally choosing peace over war.
At a fraught EU Council meeting on February 23, agreement could not be reached on a new round of EU sanctions, leading the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security, Kaja Kallas, to announce, “I deeply regret that we did not reach an agreement today, given that tomorrow [February 24] is the solemn anniversary of the start of this war.”
Hungarian resistance to collective decisions on Ukraine policy has been overcome before. In June 2025, Prime Minister Viktor Orban stepped out of the European Council meeting to allow a unanimous vote of those present to extend existing EU sanctions against Russia. Yet, this latest blockage is fueled by growing bad blood between Hungary and its eastern neighbour Ukraine, over the issue of oil.
It is an uncomfortable reality that Europe has continued to purchase Russian oil and gas throughout the war, in the face of President Trump’s exhortations to stop purchases. Gas imports still accounted for 12% of Europe’s total as of October 2025. And while Hungary and Slovakia are the largest importers, other western European powers such as France, the Netherlands, and Belgium, have also continued purchases. The addiction is a hard habit to break, and for largely domestic reasons.
As Gladden Pappin, the American President of the Hungarian Institute for International Affairs, has pointed out, if Hungary agreed to sanction Russian oil and gas, “Hungarian gas at the pump doubles overnight. Household energy prices triple or quadruple, and the German industry moving to Hungary immediately halts. Whatever government imposes that policy will collapse within weeks.”
While sanctioning Russia is a geopolitical tool, it has real world consequences for regular citizens across Europe. Germany has seen its economy tip into deindustrialization since the start of the war in Ukraine and the progressive cutting off of access to Russian, shedding over 250,000 industrial jobs, a contraction of 4.3%, amid widespread factory closures.
Sanctions require European states voluntarily to choose economic self-harm ahead of an end to the war in Ukraine. And in Hungary and Slovakia, that is not a palatable choice, not least ahead of a hotly contested election in Hungary on April 12. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has framed the election as a choice between “war or peace.“
Four years after the war in Ukraine started, increasing numbers of Europeans are desperate for peace and not war, not just for their long-term personal security, but for the benefits to their check books.
Yet that runs counter to Ukraine, which frames the war as existential to them. So, they have pushed Europe to go tougher and faster against Russia’s economy and are doing everything they can to add further pressure. Ukraine launched drone attacks against the Druzhba pipeline network which supplies oil to Hungary and Slovakia, cutting this supply route on January 27.
It is a statement of the crazy world in which we live, that Ukraine can attack facilities that supply EU and NATO countries without opprobrium in the west. Unfortunately, out of sympathy for Ukraine’s war plight, EU member states are quick then to criticize Hungary and Slovakia for taking retaliatory action. Poland’s Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, labeled the Hungarian veto as “an escalation.” And yet he doesn’t have to answer to Hungarian voters.
Blocking the EU’s 20th sanctions package is one measure. Hungary and Slovakia have also blocked the promised 90 bln euro loan package for Kviv to keep the war effort going. They have also threatened to cut off supplies of gas, electricity, and diesel to Ukraine (as it no longer imports gas from Russia, Ukraine relies of supplies piped in from proximate EU countries). Ukrainian media has predictably labeled this energy blackmail. Not least given the enormous electricity and heating shortages Ukraine faces in light Russia’s campaign of strategic bombing against their energy infrastructure.
At a TV interview that I attended recently, a Ukrainian MP pointed out that she uses a local app that tells her how many hours of electricity her building will receive each day. Who in Europe would want to live in such conditions, not the least during a bitterly cold winter?
Of course, the stark brutality of the air attacks and Ukraine’s energy crisis drives Europe’s mainstream politicians to pursue more punitive actions against Russia, including economic sanctions. Yet the inescapable reality is that the EU’s 20th sanctions package amounts to more of the same — tactical scrapes at the bottom of the barrel — to bear down on Russia’s energy exports and financial services sector, together with small beer restrictions on some other goods’ exports.
The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, claims that Russia’s energy exports were cut by 24% in 2025. And yet, look at the real data, and you’ll see that Russia’s exports in 2025, at $419.4 billion, were down just 3.3% on 2025, with an overall current account surplus of $41.4 billion. That surplus will go into purchases of gold, which now accounts for almost one half of Russia’s soaring international reserves, which stand at $833 billion.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s current account deficit more than doubled to $31.9 billion in 2025, or 14.9% of GDP, liquidity that will need to be met by printing money or donations from Europe.
At some point, European leaders need to ask themselves, after 19 rounds of sanctions already, “is this really working?”
It’s not only that economic sanctions against Russia hit diminishing marginal returns soon after the war in Ukraine started four years ago. But that the addition of new sanctions, self-evidently, disincentivizes Putin from settling for peace. Yes, Russia’s economy is undoubtedly feeling the pain, through high inflation and interest rates, plus slowing growth. But there has never been a time when it appeared that, for economic reasons, Russia was under greater pressure to end the war than Ukraine and its European sponsors.So, and as I have said before, sanctions, and their phased removal, could play a positive role in leveraging an end to the war. Continuing to blame Hungary and Slovakia for the continued intransigence in blocking yet another round of EU sanctions misses this point.
Ian Proud was a member of His Britannic Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. He served as the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019. He recently published his memoir, “A Misfit in Moscow: How British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019,” and is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute.
Renewables projected to overtake gas on cost within five years, report finds
20 February 2026, https://eibi.co.uk/news/renewables-projected-to-overtake-gas-on-cost-within-five-years-report-finds/
Renewable electricity is set to become the most economically favourable source of power in the UK by 2028 to 2029, according to new analysis by the Renewable Energy Association (REA), even after accounting for the full costs of expanding grids, storage and transmission.
The findings are set out in the Renewable Energy Association’s Renewable Cost Analysis Report 2025, which models two scenarios for the electricity system. Under a ‘Clean Power 2030’ pathway, annual investment of about £40bn would expand renewable capacity and cut the share of unabated gas to below 5%.
An alternative ‘No New Renewables’ scenario assumes no additional wind or solar capacity until 2040, with natural gas meeting future demand, which would mean lower upfront spending but higher ongoing fuel costs.
The REA concludes that although electricity generation will remain expensive across all technologies, renewables represent the most cost-effective long-term option. Including employment impacts, the analysis suggests renewable generation becomes the net economic winner by the end of the decade.
The modelling assumes flat gas prices over the next five years. If gas prices fall by 25% between 2025 and 2030, the point at which renewables become cheaper is delayed by only one year when excluding job benefits.
The report says its analysis includes all additional grid, transmission, storage and system costs associated with higher renewable deployment, in contrast to traditional levelised cost estimates that focus on generation costs alone.
It also highlights wider benefits from renewables, including reduced exposure to volatile international gas markets, improved energy security and environmental gains such as lower carbon emissions and cleaner air.
The REA recommends continued government support to manage short-term electricity costs, including possible reductions to green levies and value added tax, alongside stable policy to encourage investment. It says early investment in renewables would deliver long-term economic benefits, domestic employment and greater energy security for the UK.
Read REA’s Renewable Cost Analysis Report 2025.
“Selling a dream”: the French nuclear start-up that ran aground
Naarea’s unravelling provides cautionary tale for dozens of small reactor
developers racing to bring designs to fruition.
In December 2023 the founder of French nuclear start-up Naarea gathered employees and investors
in Paris for a black-tie dinner and dance at which it revealed a large
model of the mini reactor it hoped would revolutionise the world of energy.
The gala capped an ebullient year for the group after it scored €10mn in
public subsidies and encapsulated the verve of its chief executive Jean-Luc
Alexandre, according to people who know him and a person who attended the
party.
Then came a cash squeeze and a brutal unravelling. The six-year-old
company, which had pledged to start rolling out reactors by the start of
the next decade, is now a step away from a court-managed liquidation.
The downfall of Naarea — “Nuclear Abundant Affordable Resourceful Energy
for All” — comes as more than 100 nuclear ventures around the world
race to bring their designs for small reactors to fruition. Yet the
technical challenges of some projects, and the huge funding many will need
to withstand years without revenues, are becoming increasingly apparent.
Earlier experiments with microreactors were largely abandoned in the 1970s
as the atomic energy industry sought economies of scale by moving towards
much bigger plants, including in France, home to Europe’s biggest fleet of
57 nuclear power stations.
FT 26th Feb 2026, https://www.ft.com/content/a782639d-1ac1-4252-a7ef-e8052925bbce
Appeal court refuses TASC’s appeal against the High Court’s Sizewell C JR application decision
23rd February 2026. https://tasizewellc.org.uk/appeal-court-refuses-tascs-appeal-against-the-high-courts-sizewell-c-jr-application-decision-23-02-26/
Together Against Sizewell C Ltd (TASC) is extremely disappointed to learn that our appeal against the Secretary of State, Ed Miliband’s, decision not to subject Sizewell C’s secret sea defences to public scrutiny and assessment has been refused. We are, however, thankful that our legal challenge has helped to expose the Sizewell C project’s lack of resilience to extreme climate change.
TASC spokesperson, Chris Wilson, said, “TASC fear for the safety of our descendants and the precious Suffolk coastline because this judgement leaves future generations to rely on the developer’s ‘hypothetical’ i.e. ’imaginary or suggested’ (note 1), unassessed sea defences to protect Sizewell C and its 3,900 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from flooding in an extreme sea level rise scenario over the next 150 years.
This decision rules out consideration of alternatives, such as raising the platform height, an option that will be lost once the plant has been built – a raised platform height will likely be less impactful on the environment and would negate the need for future generations to build the two additional huge sea defences.
“The Appeal Court’s decision sanctions the Government and developer’s choice to push ahead with £40 billion Sizewell C in the full knowledge that the project currently under construction is not resilient to a ‘credible maximum climate change scenario’ – contrary to Habitat Regulations, government policies and Labour’s claims that infrastructure projects are resilient to climate change impacts (note 2). Yet here, the project approved in the Development Consent Order (DCO) makes no provision for the two additional sea defences.
“Sizewell C is sited on one of Europe’s fastest eroding coastlines. Recent rapid erosion at nearby Thorpeness has resulted in many homes having to be demolished and in front of the development site the beach may need to be replenished before the nuclear plant has even been built (note 3) – demonstrating the threat of erosion is real and immediate and should be a wake-up call for government that Sizewell is not a suitable site for new nuclear “This government wants to ‘rip up the rules to fire-up nuclear power’ (also refer to note 5). TASC, however, believe there should be an inquiry into how the developer, EDF, was allowed to exclude the additional sea defences from their 2020 DCO application, even though national policy statements require developers to include plans for adaptive sea defences to deal with a credible maximum climate change scenario – EDF knew as far back as 2015 that the site requires additional flood defences in an extreme sea level rise scenario but chose to keep them secret, thereby avoiding public scrutiny and environmental impact assessment. One would have hoped that any sensible government would want to guarantee that there is a viable, fully assessed plan to ensure the plant and its spent fuel can be kept safe for its full lifetime to avoid a catastrophic event.
“It is imperative we all speak up for future generations, who have no voice in the decision-making of today, to ensure it is demonstrated that there is a fully assessed, viable option to keep the Sizewell C site and its 3,900 tonnes of spent fuel safe from flooding throughout its full lifetime. By not doing so, this government is placing an immoral burden on our descendants who will be forced to clear up the mess resulting from ill thought-out choices made today.”
Nuclear energy is a distant prospect – wind and solar are here now
Sceptics don’t outright deny climate change but dismiss solutions as unrealistic
Sadhbh O’Neill, Irish Times 26th Feb 2026
Recent commentary on Ireland’s energy system is a reminder that not everyone is comfortable with change.
For people unconvinced by the potential of renewable energy to provide all our energy needs, the focus of energy policy should still be on large-scale sources of generation, as it was in the glory days of the ESB when it ran everything (and it took up to 18 months to get a grid connection).
Amid nostalgia for a simpler past, there are still voices making the case that fossil fuels and nuclear energy should form the backbone of the grid. This case is made on the basis that renewables can only match demand up to a certain point due to their intermittency, low energy densities and the challenges of integrating them into the grid.
And it is always hard to make the case for energy efficiency and demand management when fossil fuels, on paper at least, are plentiful, and there is no sign yet of the big energy producers slowing down extraction or divesting from fossil energy………………………………………………..
With regard to nuclear energy, there is a lot of interest in small modular reactors (SMRs), which, at approximately 400MW generating capacity, would be much more appropriate in scale for Irish electricity needs. The problem with nuclear energy is that traditional power plants, at about 1.3GW, are too individually large for Ireland, not to mention the likelihood of a nuclear plant taking decades to secure the required approvals and get built.
The ESB in its 2025 Emerging Technology Insights report notes that SMRs remain unproven due to a lack of demonstration projects. None of the SMR projects to date will have a demonstration plant completed before 2030.
Given that we are just four years away from key climate deadlines, nuclear power is so unrealistic in the context of what we need to do right now that it might as well be irrelevant.
The SEAI Energy in Ireland 2025 report highlights that Ireland needs proven, immediate solutions to avoid missing its second carbon budget (2026–2030). Luckily for Ireland, we have abundant renewable resources, which have never been so cheap to develop.
Renewable energy costs have come down so fast and by so much that even when you factor in the grid upgrades required, in 90 per cent of the world they outcompete new fossil fuel infrastructure easily, including the US. This is because wind and solar technologies are proven, scalable and cost-competitive over the long run, making them more attractive to investors…………………………………………. https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/climate-crisis/2026/02/26/nuclear-energy-is-a-distant-prospect-wind-and-solar-are-here-now/
Babcock CEO responds to Rosyth nuclear handling concerns
Dunfermline Press 25th Feb 2026, By Hannah Shedden
Babcock International Group’s CEO has sought to reassure residents who are concerned about the potential presence of nuclear weapons or waste at Rosyth Dockyard.
Fears were raised after SNP councillor Brian Goodall said that iodine tablets to counteract the effects of radiation would need to be given to “half the population of Rosyth” if proposals to bring more nuclear subs to the dockyard went ahead.
Cllr Goodall highlighted the “seriousness of the implications” of providing a contingency dock for the Dreadnought class of vessels that could be carrying Trident missiles.
His comments last year then prompted a row between the councillor and Labour MP, Graeme Downie, who accused Cllr Goodall of spreading “misinformation” and “arguing against highly skilled nuclear jobs in the safe dismantlement of nuclear subs at Rosyth”.
The Press spoke to Babcock CEO, David Lockwood, and asked him what his response would be to those who are fearful about nuclear materials in Rosyth.
He said: “I would say that we are the largest nuclear company in the UK and probably have the most experience handling civilian and military waste than anyone else, so I think you can take a lot of assurance from that…………………..
https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/25885325.babcock-ceo-responds-rosyth-nuclear-handling-concerns/
Britain must rethink its disastrous nuclear expansion – public protest can make it happen!
Sophie Bolt, CND General Secretary, 24 Feb 26, https://cnduk.org/britain-must-rethink-its-disastrous-nuclear-expansion-public-protest-can-make-it-happen/
Caroline Lucas is a former leader of the Green Party of England and Wales and a vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Here she writes ahead of Saturday’s national demonstration against Britain’s nuclear jets at RAF Marham and why public protest can make the government rethink its nuclear expansion plans.
With the end of the New START Treaty, the last remaining arms control agreement between the US and Russia, we now face the prospect of a new nuclear arms race without any limits on the two biggest nuclear armed states, who together own 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. Given the world-destroying power of these nuclear arsenals it is critical that pressure is brought to bear on both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to support its voluntary extension for at least another year. This would give space to kick-start a formal extension of the Treaty, bringing an element of stability and transparency to what is an increasingly dangerous and unstable world in which the threat of nuclear weapons being used is higher than at any time since the Cold War.
The expiry of New START was one of the reasons given by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to push forward the hands of the Doomsday Clock by four seconds. Now standing at 85 seconds to midnight, it acts as a stark warning of just how close we are to an irreversible catastrophe caused by humanity – through nuclear war or climate collapse. Rather than pursuing policies that will help push back the clock, nuclear states spent over $100 billion on these weapons in 2024, replacing and modernising them. Meanwhile, challenges to the nuclear taboo are intensifying with increasing calls for the use of so-called ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
Shamefully, Britain is part of the problem, with the ongoing replacement of its nuclear-armed submarine fleet and the announcement last summer of its decision to purchase US nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets. Based at RAF Marham in Norfolk, the first 12 jets will be delivered by 2030 and a total of 75 will be bought over the course of the programme’s 40-year lifespan.
Even before the first delivery, expenditure on the programme has already spiralled out of control. The MoD initially costed the F-35 programme – which also includes non-nuclear F-35Bs – at £57 billion. However, this failed to include any sustainment costs, including staff, fuelling and maintenance. The National Audit Office has now estimated the programme will cost at least £71 billion. But this still doesn’t cover any of the costs for the lengthy, involved process of NATO integration. As the Public Accounts Committee revealed, this is because the MoD themselves have yet to figure this out. Footing the bill for this ‘blank cheque’ purchase will be the British public, at the expense of public services and climate action.
The purchase also ties us closer to the dangerous leadership of Donald Trump. These jets and their crews will be assigned to NATO’s nuclear Dual Capable Aircraft mission and RAF pilots will be trained to carry US B61-12 nuclear bombs now likely deployed to RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk. One of these bombs has the destructive power three times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Modelling from Princeton University found that the use of these so-called ‘battlefield nukes’ could quickly escalate into a wider nuclear confrontation, leading to 2.6 million deaths in the first few hours alone. Rather than keeping us safe, these nuclear weapons undermine our security and ensure we are firmly on the frontline of a nuclear war.
The expansion also breaches international law. As a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Britain is obliged to pursue disarmament in good faith. However, a new legal opinion argues ‘[t]he decision of the UK to purchase F-35A fighter jets rather than any other model is precisely because the aircraft can “deliver both conventional and nuclear weapons” and thereby enable the RAF to reacquire “a nuclear role for the first time since 1998.” Reinstating a nuclear role for the RAF represents a reversal of the UK’s long-term commitment to nuclear disarmament, including under the NPT.’
Given the grave consequences of this expansion, this would surely warrant a robust and serious debate in Parliament. Yet MPs were not consulted about the purchase ahead of Starmer’s announcement at last summer’s NATO summit. Since then, the government has stated it has no plans for such a debate.
Not surprisingly, there is widespread opposition to the decision, including from the Green’s Party Leader, Zack Polanski, and our MPs and Peers. They join many trade union leaders, faith communities, civil society and climate groups all calling for the government to rethink this disastrous nuclear expansion and instead pursue a foreign policy based on de-escalation, diplomacy, and international cooperation.
That’s why I’m urging all those who want to halt this deadly nuclear expansion to join CND’s upcoming demonstration at RAF Marham, in Norfolk, on Saturday 28 February. Not only is this base the central hub for the government’s notorious F-35 fighter jet programme, from where parts for these jets have been transported to Israel. It is also where these new nuclear-capable jets will be stationed. Of course, the government doesn’t want you to know what goes on at this base. And it certainly doesn’t want peaceful protesters shining a spotlight on it. But protest has always been central in making political leaders step back from the nuclear brink and take action to disarm nuclear weapons. It is a rich part of Britain’s history. And we need this now more than ever.
US-UK tech talks restart with a focus on nuclear projects.
London and Washington have tentatively restarted work on their
multibillion-pound “tech prosperity deal”, which was paused last year
after President Donald Trump piled pressure on the UK to cede ground in
wider trade talks.
Senior US and UK officials have initiated discussions
about collaboration on civil nuclear technologies and on hosting a joint
summit on fusion technologies, according to multiple people briefed on the
talks. They described the deal as “unsticking”. The US-UK “tech
prosperity deal”, which was announced in September last year during
Trump’s state visit, aimed to spur co-operation between the two countries
in areas including AI, quantum computing and nuclear energy.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said at the time that the two nations were
embarking upon a “golden age of nuclear” energy, with more
transatlantic co-operation and speedier regulatory approvals for atomic
projects. The deal was touted by the UK as including £31bn worth of
investment from America’s top technology companies.
However, the US
suspended the deal in early December, with UK officials claiming the Trump
administration was pushing for wider trade concessions outside the tech
partnership. One of the projects announced was an agreement between UK
energy company Centrica and US nuclear group X-energy to build advanced
high-temperature, gas-cooled reactors in Hartlepool. Aerospace and
engineering company Rolls-Royce also said it had entered the US regulatory
process for its small modular reactors, signalling its intent to roll them
out in the US.
The tech deal was paused late last year after US officials
became increasingly frustrated with the UK’s lack of willingness to address
so-called non-tariff barriers in its wider trade negotiations, including
regulations governing food and industrial goods.
FT 25th Feb 2026, https://www.ft.com/content/0992b6d0-5d10-4a7a-a505-6cda84946e6d
DOOMSDAY: The Suicide Pact Nobody Voted For
COMMENT. I really do not know what to think about this one.
I am aware that Russia busily does lots of propaganda – which we must read with a sceptical eye. But so does the West.
And I’m sorry to say it -but the idea that the West might supply Ukraine with some sort of covert nuclear weaponry – that’s not such a wayout idea.
Islander Reports, Gerry Nolan, Feb 25, 2026, https://islanderreports.substack.com/p/doomsday-the-suicide-pact-nobody
Russia accuses Ukraine of seeking to acquire nuclear weapon with help from UK and France
Reuters, Wed, February 25, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-accuses-ukraine-seeking-acquire-nuclear-weapon-with-help-uk-france-2026-02-24/
DOOMSDAY is the only word that fits — but let’s name the madness with the surgical clarity this moment demands. On the fourth anniversary of a war they have already lost, London and Paris have apparently decided the answer is not negotiation, not dignity, not the elementary statecraft of knowing when you are beaten — but nuclear escalation into the abyss. We are well past the point of any strategy on NATO’s part — there is only one word to describe the insanity, and that word is pathology.
Russia’s SVR names the weapon with the kind of clinical specificity that cannot be dismissed as propaganda: France’s TN75 miniaturized thermonuclear warhead, the crown jewel of the M51 submarine-launched ballistic missile — to be covertly dismembered, smuggled in components, transferred to Kyiv, and cosmetically disguised as a Ukrainian “indigenous development.”
A lie so architecturally transparent it insults every arms inspector, every treaty signatory, every breathing human being who has spent eighty years constructing the fragile scaffolding of nuclear non-proliferation. Kiev on cue calls it an absurd lie. Paris calls it blatant disinformation. London says there is “no truth to this.” And yet not one of them has called an emergency press conference to repudiate. Not one has or will provide anything of material and consequence to clear their name. They have issued banal statements — the diplomatic equivalent of a man caught with his hand in the vault saying he was simply checking the lock.
And here is the question that neither London nor Paris can answer — because no democratic process on earth has ever asked it. No voter in France went to the polls to authorise the covert transfer of thermonuclear warheads to an active war zone. No British citizen marked a ballot for a policy that Russian doctrine formally classifies as a joint act of war against a nuclear power. No electorate in Europe or America — not one — was consulted on the decision to sleepwalk their children to the edge of the nuclear precipice. Power of this magnitude, exercised in this darkness, over consequences this irreversible, was simply taken — pocketed in the corridor of an intelligence briefing, ratified by no one, answerable to nothing.
These are not the moves of men who believe they are winning. These are the desperate, clock-burning sacrifices of players who have already lost the board — and are now reaching across the table to upturn it entirely, praying the chaos spares them the humiliation of checkmate. Four years of weapons, treasure, blood, and Western credibility fed into the Ukrainian furnace — and the front line tells the only truth that matters. The empire of narrative cannot survive contact with artillery mathematics. They know the position is lost. This is what lost looks like when the men responsible have nuclear access and no accountability.
And Germany — Germany, the nation that carries within its civilizational bone marrow the precise and irreversible cost of catastrophic military hubris — said no. Berlin walked. The SVR records it with almost contemptuous brevity: Germany “wisely refused to participate in this dangerous adventure.” Let that land like a sentence from a war crimes tribunal. The country that gave the twentieth century its two defining lessons in what happens when European leaders mistake belligerence for strategy — that country looked at the plan, looked at the men presenting it, and quietly pushed back its chair. The defeated always betray themselves in their final moves. Nothing in the entire arc of this conflict has announced strategic bankruptcy with more devastating eloquence than the moment your most historically scarred, most catastrophe-literate ally looks at your masterstroke and walks out without a word.
Russia’s nuclear posture requires no interpretation, no Kremlinology, no specialist decoder. It is written in language so unambiguous that ignorance is impossible and innocence is forfeit: aggression by a non-nuclear state backed by a nuclear power constitutes a joint attack — on both. Not metaphor. Not negotiating flourish. A published military-legal framework with four years of enforced red lines behind it. A wall of iron. The Federation Council has formally called on London, Paris, the UN Security Council, and the IAEA to investigate. Peskov has confirmed it enters the Geneva room. Medvedev has said what follows in language requiring no translation. They are not bluffing. They have never needed to. And yet here are Starmer and Macron — Dr. Strangelove without the self-awareness, without the dark comedy, without even the saving grace of fictional distance — triggering, knowingly, what their own doctrine names as nuclear war.
Look at the photograph used by Reuters capturing the arrogance and incompetence like so many other photos do. Four incompetent men outside the black door of Number 10 — handshakes, dark suits, the performance of gravity. They do not look like men who know they are already ghosts. That is the most terrifying thing about them — they never do. What we are witnessing in real time, on the precise anniversary of the war’s ignition, is not statecraft. It is not strategy. It is not even desperation with a plan. It is a collective suicide pact authored by a defeated establishment so hollowed out by its own mythology, so physically incapable of absorbing the verdict of the battlefield, that they are still pushing pawns across a board with no squares remaining — too blind to see the checkmate, too arrogant to hear the piece hit the floor.
History will not struggle to name what this was. The tragedy is that there may be no historians left to write it.
Nuclear power station workers ‘failed to ensure safety’ after incident.
Nuclear watchdog said the electrical cabling failing presented a ‘significant potential risk’
Matthew Fulton, STV News, Feb 25th, 2026
Workers at a nuclear station in Ayrshire “failed to ensure safety” after an electrical cabling incident, according to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).
The ONR issued an improvement notice to EDF Energy following the incident at its Hunterston B site near West Kilbride.
In November, workers failed to ensure that the electrical cabling was “deployed safely” while undertaking work on the cooling water valves in one of the facilities on the site.
The independent nuclear regulator said that although no injuries were sustained, the incident presented a “significant potential risk to worker safety”.
The notice requires EDF Energy to review, revise and implement arrangements to ensure that all 415V portable equipment at Hunterston B is appropriately constructed, maintained, tested and controlled.
ows an incident at Hunterston B .
Feb 25th, 2026 at 10:59
Share this story
Posted in
Last updated Feb 25th, 2026 at 11:02
Workers at a nuclear station in Ayrshire “failed to ensure safety” after an electrical cabling incident, according to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).
The ONR issued an improvement notice to EDF Energy following the incident at its Hunterston B site near West Kilbride.
In November, workers failed to ensure that the electrical cabling was “deployed safely” while undertaking work on the cooling water valves in one of the facilities on the site.
The independent nuclear regulator said that although no injuries were sustained, the incident presented a “significant potential risk to worker safety”.
The notice requires EDF Energy to review, revise and implement arrangements to ensure that all 415V portable equipment at Hunterston B is appropriately constructed, maintained, tested and controlled.
Ad
The ONR called for EDF to “strengthen its risk assessment processes” and improve arrangements for personnel undertaking electrical work on the site.
Tom Eagleton, ONR’s Head of Safety Regulation, Decommissioning, Fuel and Waste sites, said: “The safety of workers at nuclear licensed sites is a key priority for us. While no one was hurt on this occasion, the potential for serious harm was significant.
“It’s essential that EDF Energy implements the necessary improvements to ensure this cannot happen again.”
The energy firm is required to comply with the notice by March 20……………….. https://news.stv.tv/west-central/hunterston-nuclear-station-workers-failed-to-ensure-safety-after-electrical-cabling-incident
Sizewell C power to cost almost double today’s prices
Nuclear plant is an ‘appalling waste of electricity consumers’ and taxpayers’ money’, experts claim
Electricity generated by the Sizewell C nuclear power station will
cost roughly double the normal price of power, according to a new
Government report.
Estimates suggest that the power Sizewell C produces
will cost £120 per megawatt hour (MWh) in today’s prices, compared with the
current wholesale price of about £60 to £70. The extra costs will be added
to energy bills.
The disclosure was made in a review of the business case
for Sizewell C published by the Department for Energy Security and Net
Zero. It is understood to be the first time Sizewell C’s power output has
been costed. It refers to the so-called “strike price”, which is likely
to be awarded to the nuclear power station under the contracts for
difference system. This is where generators get a guaranteed minimum price
for electricity, whatever the market value.
The cost is then covered by a
levy on consumer bills, meaning it effectively acts as an energy subsidy.
Nuclear supporters, including Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, have
argued that nuclear power is worth the extra money because it acts as a
secure energy source for decades – potentially a century in the case of
Sizewell C.
However, critics have raised concerns that prices for nuclear
will continue to rise, arguing that early estimates for constructing power
stations are always significant underestimates. They have pointed to
Sizewell C’s predecessor, Hinkley Point C, where original costs of £18bn
have soared to £50bn – a figure announced last week – with start-up delayed
from 2026 to 2031.
The Government report for Sizewell C said estimates
assumed no escalation in costs, which would be a first for UK nuclear
construction projects. The report also warned that consumers were likely to
be charged more than the £120 per MWh rate because the strike price was
calculated net of all the tax, business rates and other payments to the
Government.
Prof Stephen Thomas, the editor-in-chief of Energy Policy, an
academic journal, said: “Sizewell is an appalling waste of electricity
consumers’ and taxpayers’ money. If you want to justify a premium price for
nuclear, you have to estimate the costs of achieving the same factors –
energy security and reliability.
“Of course, nuclear power plants aren’t
always reliable and the most insecure power source is the one that isn’t
built yet. Without the assumptions behind these cost guesses [of £120 per
MWh], they are worthless and far from transparent.” Alison Downes, of
Stop Sizewell C, a local campaign group, said: “Hinkley’s cost has soared
to £50bn with completion dates slipping and five years still to go.
Sizewell C’s costs will rise higher still when it inevitably overruns its
£40bn construction budget.”
Telegraph 25th Feb 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/02/25/sizewell-c-power-to-cost-almost-double-todays-prices/
EDF pledges new £15bn UK investment as falling energy prices hit profits
The energy firm reported a 12 per cent decrease in nuclear output
Anna Wise, Independent UK, Monday 23 February 2026
French energy giant EDF saw its UK profits decline last year, attributed to a combination of falling energy prices and a significant outage at one of its nuclear power stations.
Despite this setback, the company has announced plans for a substantial £15 billion investment in the country over the next three years.
The energy firm reported a 12 per cent decrease in nuclear output from its five operational power stations during the period.
While its Sizewell B facility in Suffolk and Torness in Scotland performed strongly, the overall output was significantly impacted by an extended outage at the Hartlepool power station.
The Teesside-based station, which began generating power 43 years ago and supplies electricity to approximately two million homes, experienced a prolonged shutdown.
Despite these operational challenges, Hartlepool recently secured a one-year extension to its operational lifespan, now expected to generate electricity until March 2028.
This extended downtime, primarily due to issues affecting one of its two reactor systems, was identified as the main driver for EDF‘s overall decline in nuclear generation last year.
Furthermore, a decline in earnings was also down to the prices it charges for nuclear power being lower than in 2024.
It is understood that average prices were down by approximately 20 per cent.
Energy prices in the UK have been gradually coming down after spiking in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
EDF said that in its UK business, earnings before
interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) were £1.9 billion for 2025, down about a third from £2.9 billion in 2024……………………………………………………….. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/edf-hinkley-point-energy-prices-profits-b2925974.html
Rapid UK coastal erosion throws spotlight on £40bn nuclear plant
More than 27 metres of cliff lost over a year in area just 2km from Sizewell C.
Swaths of the eastern UK coastline are eroding faster than expected,
forcing the demolition of homes and putting the spotlight on the risks
surrounding a £40bn nuclear power plant being built at Sizewell.
The coast
around Norfolk and Suffolk is one of the fastest eroding in Europe but the
disintegration has intensified in several parts in recent months including
an area just 2km from the Sizewell C construction site.
More than 27 metres
of cliff at the village of Thorpeness has been lost since December 2024,
compared with an erosion rate of 2 metres a year on average, according to
East Suffolk Council, which said the “sudden and significant pace”
meant safety levels were breached far more quickly than expected. Ten homes
in the upmarket area, including two flats that sold within the last few
years for more than £600,000, have been knocked down since October.
FT 24th Feb 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/7f093296-41cd-498c-ba81-f3707204eca9
UK regulators to begin formal assessment of TerraPower’s 345MWe sodium-cooled fast reactor.
New Civil Engineer 23rd Feb 2026, By Thomas Johnson
UK regulators have been asked to begin a formal assessment of the Natrium nuclear reactor design developed by US company TerraPower.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) told the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales to prepare for a Generic Design Assessment (GDA) of the sodium-cooled fast reactor after a readiness review concluded the design is prepared to enter the regulatory process. The GDA will not start until the regulators have agreed timetables and resourcing.
The GDA is a multi-year scrutiny process in which regulators examine the safety, security and environmental arrangements for a reactor design before any site-specific consents or construction are made. It has been used for previous new-build designs and is intended to give investors and potential operators clearer regulatory certainty.
TerraPower, co-founded by Microsoft’s Bill Gates, is developing the Natrium design as part of a US public–private partnership. The company’s first demonstration plant is being built with support from the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP). The ARDP allows up to $2bn (£1.5bn) in federal funding for the project on a 50:50 cost-share basis; TerraPower and its partners are expected to match that investment……………………………………………………………………………………
sodium-cooled reactors pose different technical and regulatory challenges to light-water designs. Liquid sodium reacts chemically with water and air, which requires specialised handling, testing and safety arrangements…………………………..
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/uk-regulators-to-begin-formal-assessment-of-terrapowers-345mwe-sodium-cooled-fast-reactor-23-02-2026/
Hinkley Point C faces further delays as costs continue to mount
Hinkley Point C, the UK’s first nuclear plant in a generation, is now not expected to start generating electricity until 2030 at the earliest in yet another delay to the project.
French energy giant EDF, which has been overseeing construction on the nuclear plant, blamed the delay on lower-than-expected productivity on its major electromechanical installation programme.
The programme includes installation works such as piping, cabling and system integration for both reactor units – although only Unit 1, the first reactor, is expected to begin generating in 2030.
Unit 2 is generally expected to come online about one year after Unit 1, which suggests it will be the early 2030s based on how the project timeline is currently understood. Workers only lifted the 245-tonne steel dome onto Unit 2 in July 2025, roughly 18 months after Unit 1.
Last month, Hinkley Point C received the second and final nuclear reactor that will be welded into place in the coming years. The power station received its first nuclear reactor in 2023, which has subsequently been installed in Unit 1……………………………………………………………………………………..https://eandt.theiet.org/2026/02/23/hinkley-point-c-faces-further-delays-costs-continue-mount
-
Archives
- May 2026 (72)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 