nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Putin Offers Reasonable Peace Terms to Ukraine; Zelenskiy Instantly Rejects Them; West Prepares for War.

OLIVER BOYD-BARRETT, JUN 14, 2024, https://oliverboydbarrett.substack.com/p/putin-offers-reasonable-peace-terms?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=305689&post_id=145649348&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=cqey&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Putin’s Conditions for Peace

At a meeting yesterday, June 13th, with the board of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Putin has laid out Russia’s condition for peace in the Ukraine conflict. Although Ukraine’s foreign minister has already rejected these conditions as “absurd,” they are clearly very significant. Ukraine’s rejection comes from the representative of a government whose legislative record includes a prohibition of any kind of negotiation with the current Russian government and whose only recently stated terms of settlement are a complete Russian withdrawal from all the territories that Russia has occupied, payment of reparations and punishment for alleged war crimes.

Putin’s terms, on the other hand, build on the Istanbul peace agreement of March 2022, drafts of which were endorsed by both Russian and Ukrainian signatories, but which were then undermined by Washington through the agency of former British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson who told Ukraine that NATO could not support the terms of the agreement, that Ukraine should fight on, and that NATO would supply all the weapons that Ukraine would need to win the war.

Well, here we are, over two years later. Ukraine has clearly not won the war. NATO weapons have not been sufficient for it to win the war. The Ukrainian army is showing some indications of collapse, as is the nation of Ukraine itself, still under the charge of a President whose legitimate (and, indeed, constitutionally permitted) term of office has now expired and who has refused to call elections that would almost certainly have replaced him.

Why? Because Ukraine has become a mere vassal to Washington, with very little agency over how to fight the war and no agency whatsover in how to fund it; it has lost well over half a million men, dead and wounded, on the battlefields; millions have fled; Ukraine’s recent mobilization is highly unpopular; the country is subject, on a very regular basis, to missile and drone attacks across the entire territory of Ukraine that are highly damaging in their consequences for what remains of Ukrainian industry and commerce; the country has lost 20% of its territory and a good deal more of its wealth; the regime has suppressed political parties it does not like, and any free speech it does not like, even worship it does not like.

If that was not enough let us not forget that Zelinskiy, considered by Scott Ritter to be an agent of Western intelligence, came to power on the back of financial support from a Ukrainian oligarch, promising a peaceful settlement of the conflict with Russia.

Putin is saying to Ukraine that it could achieve an immediate ceasefire if it withdraws all its troops from the four former oblasts of Ukraine that Russia currently occupies and which Russia has integrated into the Russian Federation, and publicly abandons its quest to join NATO. It is clear that Russia would expect to retain Crimea, whose governing body in 2014 sought integration into the Russian Federation for protection from a virulently anti-Russian coup regime in Kiev. All these territories are either predominantly Russian-speaking or have substantial populations of Russian-speakers and whose cultures (including, formerly, Russian language mass media) are significantly associated with that of Russia. There is very little evidence of resistance from the populations of these territories to Russian control and numerous surveys have confirmed that the people of Crimea are content with their 2014 choice.

Long ago, Ukraine rejected the possibility of a far more peaceful outcome to the conflict which had started out, primarily, as a conflict between two antagonistic peoples who had been cobbled together first, by the Soviet Union and then, by Kiev. That peaceful outcome would have been a de-concentration of central power in Kiev – a form of federalization if you will – that would have allowed what were then the People’s Republics of Luhansk and Dontetsk (formed in the immediate aftermath of the illegal, US-supported, US-funded, violent and anti-democratic coup d’etat of 2014) greater autonomy within the umbrella of Ukraine.

An arrangement along these lines was agreed by Ukraine, Russia and, through OSCE (The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), the European powers (notably Germany) in the so-called Minsk accords of 2014 and 2015, following defeat of Kiev by militia of the People’s Republics. These were never implemented. Both Ukrainian and European leaders are on record as saying that they never intended that Minsk should be implemented; that the intention of Kiev and Europe was to sign the Minsk accords simply to buy more time for Ukraine, with Western assistance, to rebuild its armed forces and to retake the People’s Republics. Indeed, the threat of imminent attack by Ukraine on the People’s Republics was one factor that compelled Putin to launch the Special Military Operation in February, 2022. Other factors included the rejection by the US to honor a commitment given Putin by Biden that the US would not establish nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and to enter into dialog about other such threats to Russian national security interests in Poland and Romania.

If Ukraine today withdraws from what it regards as Russian occupied territories and promises to forego efforts for membership of NATO, then an immediate ceasefire will come into effect. This would not be a “frozen conflict,” Putin has explained. It would be the start of a period of negotiations and in these negotiations Russia would still advance its other demands namely demilitarization of Ukraine, and its de-nazification, all this within a broader compass that would involve not just European but also other nations in discussions about the construction of, and guarantees for, a new European security architecture. On considering the outcome of the GT meeting (see below), I wonder whether Russian interests might actually be better served in the context of a complete victory, given that this would obviate, in the “dictation of terms” all questions of reparations and war crimes, and include the unfreezing and return of Russian assets in Europe and the US.

G7 Meeting

There have been at least two important outcomes of the G7 meeting that occurred in Apulia, Southern Italy, still in progress, from June 13 to June 15th. Significantly, Putin delivered his address (see above) to the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 13th. The meeting comes shortly before the so-called Swiss Peace Conference in Bürgenstock on June 15th and 16th, and ahead of the NATO Summit in Washington from July 9th to July 11th. It is relevant to note that the next meeting of the BRICS will be in October, in Kazan at which the agenda will include considerations of the admission of BRICS of over 30 countries that are interested in joining (which include Turkey, which would have to give up its membership of NATO were it to join), and the construction of an international financial order in which countries could trade freely outside the petrodollar zone (which BRICS member Saudi Arabia has just abandoned).

$50 Billion Loan for Ukraine

The New York Times report of July 14 specifies that the United States, the EU and other G7 countries plan to give Ukraine a $50 billion loan to help it buy weapons and begin to rebuild damaged infrastructure. The money will be repaid over time with the profits earned from Russian assets, some $300 billion, about two-thirds of which are in Europe. Interest on matured bonds is already creating a return of return, depending on the interest rate, of $3 billion to $4 billion a year. Rather than just providing Ukraine that relatively small yearly sum, the G7 countries have adopted the concept of loan. This could be provided to Ukraine by the end of this year. Ukraine’s current financial and military needs are estimated at about $100 billion a year.

The G7 countries have agreed to put up the money for the loan. At the moment, it seems that the European Union is prepared to put up half, about $25 billion to $30 billion, with the Americans and others putting up the rest. Since most of the assets are in Europe, the Europeans want to ensure that, as the proceeds are spent, European companies get a fair share, especially European arms manufacturers. Ukraine therefore will be the beneficiary of the profits from the Russian assets, but will not be responsible for repaying the loan.

Liability is expected to be shared among the countries that issue it. In effect, therefore, the collective West will use interest on Russian assets for the purposes of fighting and weaponizing the war, to pay off the country’s budgetary deficit (which might include, therefore, payments due on aid that Ukraine has so far received in the form of other loans from Western countries) and to pay for post-war reconstruction. This money would be lent to Ukraine but Ukraine would not be expected to pay it back because those countries through whom the loan is distributed will also guarantee it – in other words, would take responsibility of paying off the loan. My guess is that the ultimate intent is to pay it back, once again, by drawing on interest or on the frozen assets themselves.

The loan will go to Ukraine by the end of the year and will be used to support Ukraine militarily, including helping it establish arms factories on its territory; cover the country’s budgetary deficit; and in reconstruction of infrastructure. Disbursement is supposed to depend in part on Ukraine’s ability to use the money to good effect. We don’t yet know through which agencies the money will be disbursed and whether Ukraine would decide for itself how to use the money (surely not). Whether the legality of this procedure can be supported in countries whose financial industries are not held captive by Western politicians is questionable, as well as the willingness of third-party nations to park any assets of any kind in the countries or the financial institutions of the collective West.

Bilateral Security Agreement between US and Ukraine

US President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement on 13 June aimed at strengthening Kyiv’s defence capabilities. The United States is the 16th country with which Ukraine has signed a bilateral security agreement. The agreement has been promoted as a step towards “Ukraine’s eventual membership in the NATO alliance” (something which some representatives of NATO members have said would take up to thirty years) and as reaffirmation of US support for Kyiv. More specifically the agreement is intended to sustain significant military force and capabilities. It also states that the:

United States intends to provide long-term materiel, training, and advisory, technical, intelligence, security, defence-industrial, institutional, and other assistance to “develop Ukrainian security and defence forces that are capable of defending a sovereign, independent, democratic Ukraine and deterring future aggression.”

… in the event of an armed attack on Ukraine or the threat of such an attack, American and Ukrainian authorities will meet within 24 hours to consult and determine what extra defence necessities Ukraine has.

This latter is somewhat loose and probably meaningless language. The agreement falls well short of membership of NATO. It is time-limited and, even so, recognises that a future US president can withdraw from a security agreement with Ukraine since it does not provide for ratification by Congress.

Question about NATO membership

From before and during this conflict, the US and NATO, at least from 2008, have encouraged Ukraine to think that it can become a member of Ukraine or even be considered eligible for entry into a membership action plan (until recently a required step prior to membership). Yet this has been consistently refused. Membership of NATO was heavily promoted by Zelenskiy even though until 2014 majority opinion in Ukraine was firmly against this. Not only was the measure unpopular then and for many is still, but conditions of membership precluded Ukraine from joining, given that it is a country that is currently in a conflict. Many NATO members, wiser than the US, Germany, France and the UK, are reluctant to anger Russia over something – i.e. violation of Ukraine’s neutrality – that Russia has consistently argued is a Red Line for Russia.

But all NATO decisions are consensual. At NATO’s Bucharest summit later in 2008, member countries did not reach a consensus on Ukraine’s request.

In July 2023 NATO agreed to a new multi-year assistance programme to “facilitate the transition of the Ukrainian armed forces from Soviet-era to NATO standards and help rebuild Ukraine’s security and defence sector, covering critical needs like fuel, demining equipment, and medical supplies…and agreed to establish the new NATO-Ukraine Council. Allies also reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, and agreed to remove the requirement for a Membership Action Plan. This process in the past has effectively opened the door to membership. Yet membership has to be something on which all existing members must agree.

For a few years starting in 2010, Ukraine adopted a non-aligned status that was codified into law with Yanukovych as president, meaning it could not join military alliances. After the 2014 coup that ousted Yanukovych Ukraine scrapped the non-aligned status. Ukraine has since amended its constitution to explicitly spell out its desire to join NATO, and joining NATO remains the official policy of Ukraine.

Swiss Peace Conference: What is Victory

Ukraine

For Zelenskiy – and this is the position he has taken in advance of the Swiss co-called Peace Conference – the only acceptable peace terms are a complete Russian withdrawl to 1991 borders, payment of reparations, and punishment for what he says are Russian war crimes. We should note in passing that it seems that Zelenskiy’s own office has been at least as influential in determining the framework of this meeting as has the Swiss government, and that its most important objective has probably to do with providing a stage for the collective West and other world leaders’ endorsement of Zelenskiy as a legitimate leader of Ukraine.

160 countries were invited, 90 will attend. Those that will not attend include the US President (who is sending Vice President Kamala Harris and national security adviser Jake Sullivan), Russia (which was not invited; although there was talk of presenting Russia with the conclusions of the conference), China, Brazil nor I believe, India’s Prime Minister Modi. Of the 10 points in the Ukrainian government’s peace plan only three will be formally discussed: nuclear safety, food security (i.e. Ukraine’s ability to export its food by sea) and the return of Ukrainian children transferred to Russia. Zelenskiy’s other demands for complete Russian military withdrawal, war crimes trials, reparations for war damages, and security guarantees have all been omitted from the agenda.

In an article today in Responsible Statecraft, Anatol Lieven (Lieven) notes that a previous Western attempt to rally support in the Global South for Ukraine’s “peace plan” at a confidential meeting in Riyadh in December 2023 was snubbed by most invitees.

Lieven argues that “for Ukraine to recover any significant portion of the land it has lost to Russia now looks highly unlikely given the balance of military and economic strength between the two sides, and the complete failure of last year’s Ukrainian offensive”.

Ukraine’s demand for war crime trials (not to be discussed at the Swiss conference) now has to be set against the contributions of the US and EU to Israeli crimes in Gaza, including genocide, charges of which have now been endorsed, or on the path towards being endorsed, by (1) a United National investigative committee headed by the UN head of human rights (see article today by Andre Damon (Damon) – UN commission finds Israel guilty of “extermination,” “crimes against humanity,” killing Palestinians and Israeli hostages, (2) the International Criminal Court, and (3) the International Court of Justice. U.S. rejection of the right of the International Criminal Court to investigate and judge these crimes, and U.S. previous rejection of the jurisdiction of the ICC over American citizens has long subverted Washington’s moral authority or credibility in this area.

Russia

Putin has just told us what Russian strategy is. Ukraine can settle now by conceding what was always the obvious solution – the integration of the four oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zapporizhzhia and Kherson into the Russian Federation, and acceptance of Crimea (whose people specifically asked to be integrated into the Federation) as Russian. Long ago, Ukraine missed its chance, under Poroshenko and the threats to Poroshenko from Ukrainian Nazi militia such as Azov, simply to allow Luhansk and Donetsk greater autonomy within Ukraine. Ukraine has always been at least two nations – one looking towards the West, the other looking eastwards – governed by an over-centralized State.

Ukraine is nowhere near accepting Russian conditions. Zelenskiy has even legislated against the possibility that there could ever be negotiations with the current Putin-led Russian government. Putin has also indicated that Zelenskiy is an unacceptable interlocuter for Russia as he is illegitimate. Meantime, even as there are indications that the collective West is getting tired of Zelenskiy, of his erratic behavior and his ever strident demands, Zelenskiy is ever more dependent on the collective West for his own domestic security and perceived legitimacy. He is, in fact, an illegimate and unelected President, whose regime suppresses political parties, free speech and religious affiliation.

Assuming that neither that Zelenskiy nor the West show serious interest in Putin’s most recent statement of peace conditions, then I propose we should take Putin at his word, namely, that Russia will continue to fight and to move westwards until Ukraine is defeated and forced to accept terms. At this point it is not even certain that there would still be a Ukraine.

June 15, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Ukraine confirms deep strikes into Russia with Western weapons

 https://www.rt.com/russia/599214-ukraine-deep-strikes-russia-budanov/ 13 June 24

The head of Kiev’s military intelligence claims Moscow is “already feeling” the attacks

Ukraine is already using Western-supplied weapons for long-range strikes on Russian territory, the head of Kiev’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) confirmed on Wednesday.

Asked by reporters how the use of foreign weapons has changed the situation on the battlefield and how Moscow is planning to respond to these attacks, Kirill Budanov said the Russian forces are “already feeling them.” 

He added that easing of restrictions on the use of Western-made munitions against Russian forces has “definitely made the situation easier” but “no more or less than that.”

The intelligence chief was also asked how Russia might perceive the crossing of a potential “red line.” Budanov argued that no such lines actually exist, claiming they have already been crossed multiple times.

Several of Kiev’s Western backers recently gave Ukraine the green light to use weapons supplied by them to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. The US and other countries claimed the move was needed to stall Moscow’s push into Kharkov Region, which borders on Russia’s Belgorod Region.

Russian forces have recently been making advances near Kharkov, Ukraine’s second-largest city, taking over key settlements and inflicting heavy casualties on the Ukrainian military. The cross-border operation, announced in response to Kiev’s repeated attacks on Belgorod, is aimed at creating a buffer zone to prevent further artillery and missile strikes on Russian cities. 

Top Ukrainian officials, including Budanov, have admitted that the situation in Kharkov Region is critical, and have ramped up demands for longer-range Western weapons. In late May the Biden administration granted permission to use the munitions on parts of Russia not claimed by Ukraine.

Russia, however, has repeatedly warned against using Western-produced weapons to strike deep into its territory, with President Vladimir Putin warning that such attacks amount to direct Western participation in the conflict and could lead to disastrous consequences.

“If someone deems it possible to supply such weapons to the war zone, to strike our territory… why shouldn’t we supply similar weapons to those regions of the world, where they will be used against sensitive sites of these countries?” the Russian president said last week. “We can respond asymmetrically. We will give it some thought.”

June 15, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia ready to strike NATO airfields hosting Ukrainian jets – MP

13 June 24

The head of Kiev’s air force, Sergey Golubtsov, previously stated that some F-16s donated to his country will be based abroad

Any airfields hosting Ukraine’s F-16 fighter jets, whether they are in or outside the country, will be legitimate targets for the Russian military if they participate in combat missions against Moscow’s forces, the chairman of the Russian State Duma Defense Committee, Andrey Kartapolov, has warned. 

The comments come as Kiev prepares to receive the first delivery of US-made fighter jets from its Western backers, after Ukrainian pilots were trained to fly them.   

In a statement to RIA Novosti published on Monday, Kartapolov clarified that if the F-16s “are not used for their intended purpose” or are simply held in storage at foreign airbases with the intent to transfer them to Ukraine, where they will be equipped, maintained, and flown from Ukrainian airfields, then Russia would have no claims against its “former partners” and would not target them.  

However, if the jets take off from foreign bases and carry out sorties and strikes against Russian forces, both the fighter planes and the airfields they are stationed at will be “legitimate targets,” according to Kartapolov. 

“As for [our ability] to shoot [them] down, we can shoot down anyone, anywhere,” the MP insisted. 

Kartapolov’s statement comes after the chief of aviation of Ukraine’s Air Force Command, Sergey Golubtsov, stated in an interview with Radio Liberty on Sunday that some of the F-16 fighter jets donated to Kiev by the West would be stationed at foreign airbases. 

He explained that only a portion of the jets would be stationed directly on Ukrainian territory, corresponding to the number of pilots trained to operate the aircraft. The other jets would be kept in reserve at “safe airbases” abroad so that they are not targeted by the Russian military. 

Golubtsov stated that so far four countries have agreed to transfer F-16s to Ukraine, namely Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands. While he did not specify exactly how many aircraft would be donated, he claimed it was between 30 and 40 planes, with potentially more to come in the future. 

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also warned that Moscow would perceive the deliveries of F-16 fighters to Ukraine as a nuclear threat, given that the jets have long been used as part of the US-led bloc’s joint nuclear missions. 

At the same time, the minister stressed that the US-designed jets would not change the situation on the battlefield, and would be shot down and destroyed like any other foreign weapons supplied to Ukraine.

June 15, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

NATO chief insists that use of F-16 fighter jets over Russian territory is ‘not escalation’ –

Use of F-16s over Russian territory ‘not escalation’ – NATO chief

Ukraine has the right to defend itself, and this includes “striking legitimate military targets” on the territory of Russia, Stoltenberg declared. “Self-defense is not escalation,” he added.

Andrey Kartapolov, the chairman of the Russian State Duma Defense Committee, said last week that Moscow would consider any bases used by Kiev to fly donated F-16s as legitimate military targets regardless of what country they are located in.

Any airfields hosting Ukraine’s F-16 fighter jets, whether they are in or outside the country, will be legitimate targets for the Russian military if they participate in combat missions against Moscow’s forces, the chairman of the Russian State Duma Defense Committee, Andrey Kartapolov, has warned.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also warned that Moscow would perceive the deliveries of F-16 fighters to Ukraine as a nuclear threat, given that the jets have long been used as part of the US-led bloc’s joint nuclear missions. 

Use of F-16s over Russian territory ‘not escalation’ – NATO chief. 13 Jun, 2024 HomeWorld News

Donating fighter jets to Kiev will not involve members of the alliance in the conflict, Jens Stoltenberg has insisted

Ukrainian strikes anywhere inside Russia using Western-donated F-16 aircraft would not be an escalation of the conflict and would not make NATO member states parties to it, the military bloc’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has claimed.

Several European nations intend to provide dozens of the warplanes once Ukraine has pilots and ground infrastructure to fly them.

Speaking ahead of a NATO defense ministers’ gathering in Brussels, Stoltenberg said “different allies have different types of restrictions on the use of their weapons,” and welcomed the recent relaxation of these rules by some member states.

Washington reportedly gave Kiev the green light to fire American weapons at targets outside of what the two nations insist is Ukrainian territory, allowing strikes inside Russia’s Belgorod Region as part of the fight for the neighboring Kharkov Region. Other Western nations have also said their weapons can be used in similar ways.

Ukraine has the right to defend itself, and this includes “striking legitimate military targets” on the territory of Russia, Stoltenberg declared. “Self-defense is not escalation,” he added.

“And we have the right to help Ukraine,” he continued. “By doing that, NATO allies don’t become party to the conflict.”

Moscow perceives the entire conflict as part of a US-initiated proxy war against Russia. It considers NATO’s increasing military presence in Ukraine and its intention to eventually bring the nation into the fold as major national security risks.

NATO member states arming Ukraine, providing “mercenaries” to bolster its troops, and helping Kiev to plan and deliver attacks against Russia are de facto participants in the hostilities, senior Russian officials have claimed.

Russian President Vladimir Putinhas warned that any attacks using Western weapons deep inside Russia will be retaliated against.Moscow could supply long-range weapons from its own arsenal to third parties, who would then use them against Western military assets, he suggested. Such tit-for-tat escalation could lead to a major disaster for all parties involved, Putin has warned.

Andrey Kartapolov, the chairman of the Russian State Duma Defense Committee, said last week that Moscow would consider any bases used by Kiev to fly donated F-16s as legitimate military targets regardless of what country they are located in.

——

https://swentr.site/russia/599085-russia-strike-nato-airfields-f16/

June 15, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

U.S. – NATO threats ignore ‘red lines’ in Ukraine.

NATO’s long-range missiles target Russia

Stoltenberg was explicit: “We are giving weapons to Kyiv and consider them Ukrainian from this moment, so Ukraine can do whatever it wants with these arms, in part, strike at Russian territory where it deems necessary.” (bne IntelliNews, May 31)

Previously, the United States, Germany and other NATO members had forbidden the Ukrainian military from using the weapons delivered to them to strike targets inside Russia.

Workers World, By Sara Flounders  June 7, 2024

Front lines are collapsing for the Ukrainian army, whole units surrendering. Top commanders are fired. Faced with complete disarray of the U.S.-NATO instigated war in Ukraine, U.S. militarists are doubling down.

 According to the Ukrainian constitution, President Volodymir Zelensky’s term in office is over. But he remains in power by martial law. This has led Ukrainian workers to hold strikes and work stoppages. But this news is ignored in the Western media.

A national truckers’ work slowdown inside Ukraine moved traffic to a 5-mile-an hour crawl and halted grain exports based on national anger at the expanded draft mobilization made by Zelensky, now an unelected president. (yahoonews.com, May 18) 

Ukraine’s combat units are so severely understaffed that the government would have to triple its mobilization in order to continue the current level of fighting, according to Eric Ciaramella, former U.S. National Intelligence Council official. The draft can’t fill the current gap,…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

U.S.-NATO plans are in total disarray. Rather than reconsider their strategy, which has brought setbacks and defeats in Ukraine and for Israel in Gaza, this has led to an ominous escalation in U.S. military threats. 

The threat to dangerously escalate the war in Ukraine arises from the plans to give Ukraine high-speed missiles and allow the Kyiv regime to use the weapons to strike inside Russia. This threat is not just from a single statement or one delivery of weapons.

The statements promoting strikes with the U.S.-supplied weapons to targets inside Russia are being made directly by President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who is a former prime minister of Norway, but acts as if he were a U.S. official.

Ukraine at center of 75th Anniversary NATO Summit

NATO officials are frantic that Ukrainian defense lines of Kharkov, the second-largest city in Ukraine, located in the northeast of the country, are about to fall. 

Kharkov is a majority Russian-speaking city. It is the industrial, energy, science, rail and transport hub. It lies east of the Dnieper River on the Donetsk-Donbass Canal. Kharkov is the key industrial center still under Ukrainian control east of the Dnieper River.

According to a May 16 New York Times article, fear of Kharkov’s imminent collapse is what is driving U.S. threats. This loss is decisive in any control of Ukraine’s east, including the entire Donbass industrial region.  

Adding to the urgency is that at the 75th Anniversary NATO Summit, July 9-11 in Washington, D.C., NATO plans to unveil a “Security Package” for Ukraine involving 32 countries’ bilateral agreements with Ukraine. These bilateral agreements would serve as a bridge for Ukraine’s entry into NATO. 

Ukrainian entry into NATO would allow Kyiv to invoke the alliance’s collective defense clause, potentially triggering a broader regional conflict with Russia. During an April visit to Kyiv, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg vowed that “Ukraine will become a member of NATO.” (defensenews.com, June 3)

All these elaborate plans would be dashed if Ukrainian defense lines crumbled before the NATO Summit in Washington, D.C. This 75th anniversary NATO Summit is a grand plan to showcase U.S. and Western imperialist dominance.

NATO’s long-range missiles target Russia

NATO’s dangerous escalation is galloping forward on several fronts.

Stoltenberg was explicit: “We are giving weapons to Kyiv and consider them Ukrainian from this moment, so Ukraine can do whatever it wants with these arms, in part, strike at Russian territory where it deems necessary.” (bne IntelliNews, May 31)

Previously, the United States, Germany and other NATO members had forbidden the Ukrainian military from using the weapons delivered to them to strike targets inside Russia.

In the past, the Ukrainian military command had violated NATO’s official statements and used U.S. Stinger air defense missiles, M142 HIMARS, MLRS and other multiple launch rockets to strike the Belgorod region of Russia. The Russian Army’s air defense forces destroyed more than 10 missiles in the sky over Belgorod and displayed the U.S. stamped shells. 

Weeks ago, the British government allowed Ukraine to use its long-range Storm Shadow missile systems for attacks anywhere in Russia. Now France and Germany have taken the same position as Britain. The Storm Shadow cruise missile has a range of over 180 miles, triple the range of the missiles Ukraine has used until now. 

French President Emmanuel Macron further escalated the threat by stating the West must not exclude sending NATO ground troops to Ukraine…………………………………………………………………………………..

Internationally, many voices are sounding the alarm. Such attacks are of the most extreme danger, because the slightest targeting slip up, a misinterpretation of instructions, a rogue operator on the ground, could lead to a global conflagration.

These attacks require a satellite-based military network that Ukraine does not have.  Only U.S. and NATO forces under U.S. command are capable of conducting such attacks against Russia.  

Divisions appear inside NATO

Divisions within the U.S. commanded and dominated NATO military alliance are appearing. Frustration and failure are intensifying the infighting even among members of the G7 and major NATO participants. 

Many NATO countries’ leaders, reacting to mass pressure from below, have already sharply expressed opposition to U.S. total support of Israel’s genocidal campaign against Palestine.

Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini objected to Stoltenberg’s call for allies to lift restrictions on using Western-supplied weapons against targets in Russia. “It is out of the question to lift the ban on Kyiv to strike military targets in Russia. … We want peace, not the antechamber of World War III” (Ukrainian Pravda, May 27)

Italian Foreign Minister Antonia Tajani reinforced this position: “We will send no Italian soldier to Ukraine, and the military tools that Italy sends are used inside Ukraine. We are working for peace.” (Italian news agency Ansa, as reported by European Pravda, May 25)


On May 28, Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo told Biden during talks in Washington, D.C., that he rules out the use of Belgium’s weapons, including F-16 fighter jets, outside Ukraine. To reinforce his point, De Croo reminded the reporters that the bilateral security agreement Belgium signed with Ukraine means, “We are sending 30 F-16s, and we will thus become the biggest supplier of fighter aircraft for the Ukrainian air force. But the agreement is very clear. It is about fighter aircraft that can be used by the Ukrainians on Ukrainian territory.” (belganewsagency.eu, May 31)

Phony ‘Peace Summit’

Zelensky’s effort to call a “Peace Summit” on June 15 and 16 in Lucerne, Switzerland, exposes Ukraine’s dwindling support. The “Peace Summit” bars Russian participation. The effort is so flimsy that not even Biden is bothering to attend.

In desperation, Zelensky has blamed China’s decision not to participate as the reason other countries are ignoring the phony event.

Russian Foreign minister Sergey Lavrov dismissed the Lucerne summit, saying, “This conference in Switzerland has no meaning. The only meaning it can have is to try to preserve this anti-Russian bloc which is in the process of crumbling.”

Silence continues to prevail in Western corporate media regarding the four negotiation offers made by President Putin in the past two weeks.

RAND Corporation: ‘Pour it on’

The Rand Corporation, a powerful think tank for the major military industries, confirms the cynical calculations that justify war profits, regardless of the danger.

U.S. escalation will push the Europeans to ante up, the Rand article said. Even more ominous: “From a narrow U.S. perspective, greater U.S. involvement is an opportunity to test new capabilities and gain experience helping a partner facing a numerically superior foe. Such experience could be very relevant for helping Taiwan resist Chinese aggression.”  (Rand, May 22, defenseone.com, “How to win in Ukraine: pour it on, and don’t worry about escalation”)

Russia warns NATO

President Putin delivered Russia’s strongest warning to date against the NATO escalation. He chose a meeting in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, with top Uzbek officials. With 37 million people, Uzbekistan is the second most populous country of the former Soviet Union. ……………………….. At a large press conference following the meetings, Putin said, “Long-range precision weapons cannot be used without space-based reconnaissance. … Final target selection and what is known as launch mission can only be made by highly skilled specialists who rely on this technical reconnaissance data. It can happen without the participation of the Ukrainian military.

“Launching other systems, such as ATACMS, for example,” Putin continued, “also relies on space reconnaissance data. Targets are identified and automatically communicated to the relevant crews. … The mission is put together by representatives of NATO countries, not the Ukrainian military. This unending escalation can lead to serious consequences. If Europe were to face those serious consequences, what will the United States do, considering our strategic arms parity? It is hard to tell…………………………………………..

Rather than reassess their deteriorating global position, U.S. strategists seem determined to put the fate of the world at risk.  https://www.workers.org/2024/06/79079/

June 14, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia broadens tactical nuclear weapons drills

Reuters, By Guy Faulconbridge and Lidia Kelly, June 12, 20247

MOSCOW, June 12 (Reuters) – Russia said on Wednesday that soldiers and sailors from its northern Leningrad military district bordering NATO members Norway, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania took part in drills to deploy tactical nuclear weapons.

The move appears to broaden the disclosed geography of the nuclear drills to include soldiers from military districts which cover almost all of Russia’s European border, which stretches from the Arctic Ocean down to the Black Sea.

President Vladimir Putin ordered the drills, which were announced last month to take place in the Southern Military district bordering Ukraine, after what Russia said were signals from Western officials that they would allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russia with Western weapons.

“The personnel of the Leningrad Military District missile unit are practicing combat training tasks,” Russia’s defence ministry said in a statement about the drills…………………………………….. more https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-non-strategic-nuclear-drills-involve-iskander-missiles-2024-06-12/—

June 14, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Great British Nuclear Small Reactors competition timeline delayed for General Election, amid doubts on their viability

There have been some doubts cast, with the Environmental Audit Committee claiming that SMRs will not be able to help the UK decarbonise by 2035. Additionally, US think tank Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has said that SMRs are “too expensive, too slow, and too risky”.

10 JUN, 2024 BY TOM PASHBY

The six small modular reactor (SMR) developers shortlisted in Great British Nuclear’s (GBN’s) competition now have an extra two weeks to submit documentation due to the General Election.

The competition winner will receive government backing to deploy a fleet of SMRs in the UK. At the time of the competition announcement, GBN chief executive Gwyn Parry-Jones
said parties would be “aiming for a final contract agreement in the
summer”. Even if not successful in GBN’s competition, many of the
shortlisted firms have signalled intent to deliver SMRs in the UK.

Rolls-Royce SMR recently announced a prototype module testing facility at
the University of Sheffield and Holtec has shortlisted four UK sites for
its SMR module factory. Westinghouse has plans to deploy the first
privately funded SMRs in North Teesside by the 2030s.

There have been some doubts cast, with the Environmental Audit Committee claiming that SMRs will not be able to help the UK decarbonise by 2035. Additionally, US think tank
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has said that
SMRs are “too expensive, too slow, and too risky”.

New Civil Engineer 10th June 2024

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/great-british-nuclear-smr-competition-timeline-delayed-for-general-election-10-06-2024/

June 14, 2024 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

Top civil servant joins EDF after running department that struck nuclear deal

Alex Chisholm, who led business office during Hinkley Point C negotiations, appointed UK chair of energy firm

Rowena Mason Guardian, Whitehall editor, Wed 12 Jun 2024

One of the UK’s most senior civil servants, Alex Chisholm, has been revealed as the new UK chair of the energy company EDF, after having previously run the department that struck a deal for it to build a new nuclear power station.

Chisholm was permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, and before that led the business department, which worked on the government deal for EDF to go ahead with the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset. The agreement was struck in 2016 with UK bill payers bearing the cost of the construction over a 35-year period.

The long-delayed project’s costs have soared from an estimated £18bn to at least £31bn and it is due to be completed in 2031 – about 14 years after EDF thought it would be up and running.

The French state-owned company is a specialist in nuclear power, and one of the “big six” energy providers that have been criticised for huge profits during the energy crisis sparked by the war in Ukraine.

Chisholm’s departure is one of a number of high-profile exits from the civil service before a likely change of governing party. Alex Aiken, a former longstanding head of government communications, recently left Whitehall for a job as an adviser on communications to the government of the United Arab Emirates.

There is also speculation about the future of Simon Case, the cabinet secretary and former royal aide installed by Boris Johnson, given incoming prime ministers often want their own preferred candidate in the job.

Chisholm’s EDF role was approved by the watchdog on post-government jobs, known as the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. But the watchdog said he must wait three months after departing government to take up the job and observe a ban on lobbying the government or involvement in negotiating government contracts for two years after leaving office.

The watchdog said: “In 2016, his department was responsible for the decision on finalising the first contract for difference [a pricing mechanism], with respect to EDF and the construction of Hinkley Point C. However, this was ultimately a decision for the secretary of state and followed the 2014 approval from the European Commission and was based on terms agreed then, 10 years ago.

“Significantly, due to the period of time that has elapsed, the committee did not consider Sir Alex could reasonably be seen to have influenced this decision in anticipation of an offer of work a decade later.”

Chisholm said his appointment came “at a time of great change and opportunity in the energy sector”……….https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/11/top-civil-servant-edf-department-nuclear-deal-alex-chisholm

June 13, 2024 Posted by | politics international, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Alarm over 174 security breaches at Clyde nuclear bases

Rob Edwards, June 10, 2024,  https://theferret.scot/security-breaches-clyde-nuclear-bases/—

Two nuclear bomb bases on the Clyde recorded 174 security breaches over five years, according to information released by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Between 2018 and 2022 there were 130 breaches reported at the Trident submarine base at Faslane, near Helensburgh, and a further 44 breaches at the nearby nuclear weapons store at Coulport.

The MoD has not given any details of the incidents, but suggested that some were “minor”. They could include lost identity cards, misplaced documents and data protection breaches, it said.

The MoD stressed that it investigated every incident “no matter how small” with the aim of continuously improving security.

Campaigners, however, warned there were “risks of major catastrophe” at Faslane and Coulport. They called on whoever wins the general election to “get to grips” with security problems.

The Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all support the UK’s nuclear weapons programme. The Scottish National Party and the Greens oppose it.

A freedom of information response released by the MoD in May revealed that the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport recorded the highest number of security breaches – 13 – in 2019. Since then, there were 11 in 2020, nine in 2021 and nine in 2022. 

Coulport is where around 200 of the UK’s arsenal of nuclear warheads are kept in underground bunkers. Spread across the slopes above Loch Long, the site is dotted with watchtowers and protected by a series of barbed wire fences.

The latest MoD release also confirmed a previous report that there were 60 security breaches at Faslane in 2022. Another report in 2022 said that there were 16 breaches at Faslane in 2021, and 18 in each of the previous three years.

Faslane, on the Gareloch, is the home port for the UK’s four Vanguard-class submarines that carry nuclear-armed Trident missiles. One submarine is meant to be continuously on patrol at sea, but in recent years the service has been stretched.

The numbers of security breaches in 2023 and so far in 2024 have not been published by the MoD. But it has previously released figures for nuclear safety incidents that have also plagued the Clyde bases.

The Ferret reported in April that Faslane and Coulport logged 843 “nuclear site events” from 2019 to April 2024. Twelve of them were classified by the MoD as having “actual or potential for radioactive release to the environment”.

We also revealed in August 2023 that the MoD’s Defence Nuclear Organisation, which oversees the UK nuclear weapons programme, had recorded 113 “security concerns” since 2017-18. Again, no details were given.

The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament warned that security breaches should not be “shrugged off” as minor. “Faslane and Coulport combine nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and missiles – radioactivity, explosives and highly flammable rocket fuel – always presenting potential targets and risks of major catastrophe,” said the campaign’s chair, Lynn Jamieson. 

“At these most dangerous places, regular breaches signal either a grossly-inappropriate casual culture or the impossibility of 100 per cent security. Incidents rising to 60, averaging more than one a week, is a warning and calls for public investigation.”

Jamieson also attacked the MoD failure to provide details of the breaches. “Secrecy cloaks the reality of the everyday risks in our own backyard,” she told The Ferret. 

“Secrecy is convenient for politicians who spout the myth that threatening to destroy half the planet with nuclear weapons keeps us safe.”

Some nuclear security breaches ‘serious’

The Nuclear Information Service, which researches and criticises nuclear weapons, argued that any security breaches were concerning. “If, as the MoD imply, some of these incidents were relatively minor, why have no further details been disclosed?” asked the service’s director, David Cullen.

“The obvious inference is that some of the incidents were much more serious. Whoever wins the election, I hope the incoming government will get to grips with this.”

The large increase in security breaches at Faslane between 2021 and 2022 was “especially worrying”, he said. A report by the London news broadcaster, LBC, in September 2023 suggested that this could be linked to Russian activity in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

According to the MoD, incidents “can include minor breaches”. They can also include “the mis-accounting of documentation, loss of identity cards, inadvertent use of personal electronic devices and breaches in general data protection,” it said.

A spokesperson for the Royal Navy added: “Security is of paramount importance and we investigate every incident, no matter how small, to ensure we learn from experience and continuously improve our security.”

June 13, 2024 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Will NATO member states individually or collectively go to war against Russia?

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | 31 MAY 2024,  https://www.voltairenet.org/article220954.html
Spokesman for the German government Steffen Hebestreit said his country opposed the deployment of NATO’s anti-missile system on Ukrainian territory.

The German point of view matches that of Secretary General of the Alliance Jens Stoltenberg who said in an interview with The Economist: “The time has come for allies to reflect on whether they should lift some of the restrictions on the use of weapons given to Ukraine (…) Especially now, when a lot of fighting is taking place in Kharkov, near the border, denying Ukraine the ability to use these weapons against legitimate military targets on Russian territory makes it very difficult to defend it.”

He also said: “We have no intention of sending NATO ground troops to Ukraine because our objective… is twofold: to support Ukraine as we do, but also to ensure that it does not escalate into a full-scale conflict”

According to the New York Times, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken would be in favor of this second proposal. Steffen Hebestreit, for his part, evaded journalists’ questions on this subject.

☞ Extending the protection of the Atlantic anti-missile shield to Ukrainian territory would mean going to war collectively against Russia. But allowing Ukraine to attack Russia with weapons supplied by NATO member states would mean their individual entry into war against Russia.

For his part, Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini commented: “This gentleman [Jens Stoltenberg] is dangerous because talking about World War III, Western weapons capable of striking and killing inside Russia, seems to me very, very dangerous and reckless (…) NATO cannot force us to kill in Russia, nor can anyone force us to send Italian soldiers to fight or die in Ukraine.”

Russian president Vladimir Putin told reporters: “This constant escalation can lead to serious consequences. If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the United States behave, given our parity in the field of strategic weapons? It’s hard to say. Do they want a world conflict?”. “Let them [European NATO member states] remember that their territory is small and their population is dense,” he continued.

Russian senator Dmitry Rogozin, former director of Roscosmos, directly warned Washington: “We are not only on the threshold, but already on the edge, beyond which, if the enemy is not stopped in such actions, an irreversible collapse of the strategic security of the nuclear powers will begin.”

In all likelihood, Poland is expected to be the first NATO member state to allow Ukraine to strike Russia with the weapons it has supplied. Moscow would then have to retaliate by striking at least the NATO logistics center on Polish territory in Rzeszów. It will be up to the other NATO member states to consider whether or not to activate Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and start World War III.

From a strategic point of view, the deployment of US medium-range missiles on the borders of Russia and China now exposes them to this eventuality. That is why Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that the two countries reached a joint defense agreement during President Vladimir Putin’s last visit to Beijing. In addition, Russia is currently conducting simulations with Belarus of the use of tactical (not strategic) nuclear weapons.

June 13, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Biden hits ‘new low’ in arming ‘pro-Nazi’ Azov: US Congressman

ByAl Mayadeen English, Source: Agencies, 12 Jun 2024  https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/biden-hits–new-low–in-arming–pro-nazi–azov–us-congressm

Paul Gosar says the Biden administration’s decision to lift a ban on arms supplies to Ukraine’s Azov battalion prolongs the war.

US President Joe Biden has reached a new low after his administration decided to remove restrictions on arms supplies to Ukraine’s Azov battalion, US Congressman Paul Gosar pointed out on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post, citing the US State Department, reported that the Biden administration has lifted the ban on arms supplies to and training of the Azov battalion.

Established in 2014 by Ukrainian ultra-nationalists in the wake of the Western-backed Maidan riots, the Azov Battalion was included in the National Guard of Ukraine in November of that year.

The battalion has come under severe criticism for its support of Nazi ideology and symbols, as well as its human rights violations against the Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine.

Russia’s Supreme Court designated Ukraine’s Azov Battalion as a terrorist organization in August 2022.

Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov called the reported decision by the United States outrageous, adding that it raises serious concerns about US readiness to fight terrorism.

The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office last year accused Azov militants of employing prohibited means and methods of warfare, including the torture of civilians and the killing of children.

The battalion’s symbol is the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel, a black swastika against a yellow background. Founded by Andriy Biletsky, who vowed to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semite-led Untermenschen,” the group is a pack of neo-Nazis working with the US-backed Ukrainian military.

June 13, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

MP’s claim of support for nuclear power in Highlands challenged

 By John Davidson john.davidson@hnmedia.co.uk, Northern Times 11th June 2024

https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/msp-s-claim-of-support-for-nuclear-power-in-highlands-challe-352901/

An anti-nuclear campaigner has hit out at a claim made by Highland MSP Edward Mountain that people in the region want nuclear power.

The Conservative MSP hosted an energy summit in Strathpeffer last Friday, bringing together industry experts and members of the public.

The aim was to discuss the future of energy production and provision in the Highlands, with panellists including representatives from SSEN, Storegga, Highland Fuels, Highland Renewables, and the Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association.

June 13, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Scottish Greens brand Labour’s commitment to nuclear weapons ‘obscene and immoral’

Chris Jarvis 9 June 2024  https://bright-green.org/2024/06/09/scottish-greens-brand-labours-commitment-to-nuclear-weapons-a-obscene-and-immoral/

Labour’s commitment to the UK’s nuclear arsenal has been branded an ‘obscene and immoral waste of money’ by the Scottish Green Party. The party’s external affairs spokesperson Ross Greer went on to say that nuclear weapons are a ‘moral evil’ and urged voters who support a nuclear-free world to vote Green.

Greer said: “Nuclear weapons are a moral evil and an obscene and immoral waste of hundreds of billions of pounds. It is a vast money pit that could be far better spent eradicating poverty, tackling the climate crisis and transforming public services like the NHS.

“Trident does nothing to make us safer, and has no place in Scotland. The so-called ‘triple-lock’ that Labour is proposing is a multi-billion bung to a weapons industry already enjoying eye watering profits from the UK’s aggressive foreign policy.

The message from Sir Keir Starmer is very simple. If you care about peace and global security, don’t vote Labour.”

Greer added: “With Labour and Tories in lockstep on nuclear weapons, the only way we will disarm Scotland’s waters is as an independent nation.

“I look forward to the day when an independent Scotland can finally take its place on the world stage and join the dozens of other nations who have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons.”

June 12, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Macron Says France Working To ‘Finalize’ Plan To Send Troops to Ukraine

The French leader says other NATO countries have agreed to send troops to train Ukrainian forces

by Dave DeCamp June 9, 2024,  https://news.antiwar.com/2024/06/09/macron-says-france-working-to-finalize-plan-to-send-troops-to-ukraine/

On Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron said France was working to “finalize a coalition” of NATO countries that are willing to send troops to Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, a step that would mark a huge escalation in the proxy war.

During a press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Paris, Macron said Ukraine’s request for NATO trainers was “legitimate” and downplayed the risk of escalation.

“It’s much more efficient and practical for certain capacities in certain conditions to train on Ukrainian soil, it’s a legitimate request,” Macron said. “We’re going to use the coming days to finalize the broadest possible coalition.” He added that several NATO countries have already agreed to the plan.

Moscow has said that any French trainers deployed to Ukraine would be legitimate targets of the Russian military, but Macron dismissed the warning. “This is not deploying … European soldiers on the front line. It is recognizing the sovereignty of Ukraine over its territory,” he said. “Who would we be to give in to the invocations or threats of Russia?”

Reuters reported on May 30 that France planned to initially send a few dozen troops to asses the training mission before sending hundreds of soldiers. The talk of sending French troops to Ukraine has highlighted the fact that there are already a small number of NATO special operations soldiers inside Ukraine (97 as of March 2023), but a larger public deployment will take NATO involvement in the war to another level.

The advancement of France’s plans to send troops to Ukraine comes after the US gave Ukraine the greenlight to strike Russian territory with US-provided missiles, which also risks a major response from Russia. So far, the Biden administration has said it has no plans to send trainers to Ukraine, but it has taken escalatory steps that it’s previously ruled out throughout the conflict

June 12, 2024 Posted by | France, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer’s policy on nuclear weapons

Prof Nick Megoran
School of geography, politics and sociology, Newcastle University

It is ironic that news of Keir Starmer’s plan to restate Labour’s commitment to “a ‘triple lock’ for the UK’s nuclear deterrent” (Keir Starmer to declare Labour as ‘party of national security’, 2 June) emerged on the same day that Toshiko Tanaka, a survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, addressed a spellbound meeting in London – organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Quakers – about her childhood experiences in 1945.

She spoke of seeing the initial explosion that killed every one of her classmates. She recounted regaining consciousness with a mouth full of dirt, running home to a mother who could not recognise her own badly burnt daughter, and smelling the lingering stench of burning flesh as bodies were cremated. To this day, she struggles to sleep as new sores break out on her skin, and cannot see a grilled tomato without remembering the ghastly sight of skin peeling off the dying who staggered through her neighbourhood like zombies.

Through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the UK is committed to the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world. Starmer should formulate policy based on our legal and moral obligations, not a calculating attempt to win votes by looking tougher than the Tories.

Norman Rimmell
Darley Dale, Derbyshire

 Jeremy Corbyn is right – our political leaders are sticking their heads deeply in the sand. He could have added that if it’s possible for something to go wrong then you can be certain that one day it will. We may escape nuclear war, but accidental nuclear attack will, one day, happen. We’ve been extremely lucky to have escaped this so far, but eventually our luck will run out, unless we put a stop to this madness.

June 12, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »