Blinken Confirms Biden Change On Policy Toward Ukraine Using U.S. Weapons Inside Russia

Radio Free Europe, By Mike Eckel and Rikard Jozwiak 31 May 24

PRAGUE — U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says President Joe Biden has given Ukraine the go-ahead to use U.S. weapons to strike inside Russia for the limited purpose of defending the eastern city of Kharkiv amid pleas from Ukraine to allow its forces to defend the country against attacks originating from Russian territory.
Speaking in Prague on May 31 at an informal meeting of NATO-member foreign ministers, Blinken said Ukraine had asked Washington for authorization to use U.S. weapons to strike inside Russia as it tries to defeat Russian troops that began a full-scale invasion in February 2022.
“Over the past few weeks, Ukraine came to us and asked for the authorization to use weapons that we’re providing to defend against this aggression, including against Russian forces that are massing on the Russian side of the border and then attacking into Ukraine,” Blinken said.
nd that went right to the president, and as you’ve heard, he’s approved use of our weapons for that purpose. Going forward, we’ll continue to do what we’ve been doing, which is as necessary adapt and adjust,” Blinken said.
Blinken’s confirmation came after media reports quoting U.S. officials — including one who spoke to RFE/RL — that Biden has partially lifted the ban.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg had already added his backing to such a move saying during the Prague meeting that allies should consider lifting restrictions on the use of NATO weapons by Ukraine to hit targets on Russian territory.
The decision is a reversal of the U.S. refusal to let Ukraine use American weapons to hit targets inside Russia over fears that it would cause an escalation in the conflict.
Germany, for example, has expressed opposition to allowing the use of NATO-provided weapons to strike inside Russia, though a government spokesman on May 31 said it had also agreed that Kyiv could now use weapons supplied by Berlin to defend itself against strikes from positions just inside Russia………………………………………..
Russian President Vladimir Putin has promised a response, warning of “serious consequences,” especially for what he called “small countries” in Europe.
Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency quoted Andrei Kartapolov, the head of the Russian parliament’s lower house Defense Committee as saying on May 31 that Biden’s decision would have no impact on Moscow’s military operations against Ukraine. https://www.rferl.org/a/us-biden-policy-ukraine-strikes-inside-russia/32974016.html
UK’s nuclear deterrent key to Starmer’s plans to keep Britain safe

Labour leader Keir Starmer will meet with forces veterans and a group of his party’s candidates when he campaigns in the North West of England on Monday
Independent, Richard Wheeler, 3 June 24
Sir Keir Starmer will pitch Labour as the “party of national security” as he seeks to switch attention to defence matters during the general election campaign.
The Labour leader is expected to meet with forces veterans and a group of his party’s candidates when he campaigns in the North West of England on Monday.
Sir Keir will reaffirm his commitment to a “nuclear deterrent triple lock” as well as his ambition to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the size of the economy.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made clear he wants to meet the 2.5 per cent target by 2030 although Labour has so far declined to outline its timeline, only noting they would do so when economic conditions allow.
Labour says its nuclear deterrent triple lock involves: a commitment to construct the four new nuclear submarines in Barrow-in-Furness; maintaining Britain’s continuous at-sea deterrent; and the delivery of all future upgrades needed for the submarines to patrol the waters.
The Vanguard-class submarines are due to be replaced by the bigger Dreadnought-class submarines in the 2030s.
Between £31 billion and £41 billion has been set aside for the wider programme of replacing the Vanguard-class submarines, according to figures from the House of Commons Library.
Sir Keir has been attempting to shift perceptions of Labour’s defence stance following the party’s time under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, a long-standing critic of Nato and Trident………………………………..
” alongside our unshakeable commitment to Nato, an incoming Labour government will introduce a ‘triple lock’ commitment on our nuclear deterrent – providing vital protection for the UK and our Nato allies in the years ahead, as well as supporting thousands of high paying jobs across the UK.”
Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said: “Twelve members of Starmer’s front bench team, including Angela Rayner and David Lammy, voted against Trident. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-keir-starmer-nuclear-deterrent-monday-b2555401.html
Labour pledges to launch Great British Energy ‘within months’ of general election victory: it includes nuclear power.
The Labour Party has unveiled more details on its plans to set up a
publicly owned energy company, Great British Energy, confirming its
intention to launch the firm as a priority should the Party win July’s
general election.
The Great British Energy website went live late on
Thursday night (30 May), providing more information on how the company
would work and the benefits it could bring in terms of lower energy bills,
new green jobs and future-proofing the UK.
Labour leader Kier Starmer has
stated that setting up Great British Energy would be one of his
government’s first steps after the election on 4 July. Great British
Energy would focus on energy generation in the first instance, the website
confirms. It would be backed with public funding from Labour’s
slimmed-down multi-billion-pound annual green investment coffers.
This funding would be raised through an enhanced windfall tax on North Sea oil
and gas operators, who already pay a 75% tax rate which would be hiked to
78% under a Labour Government. Labour wants to use Great British Energy
support both mature renewable and nuclear technologies, and emerging
technologies such as floating offshore wind, tidal and renewable hydrogen.
Regardless of a technology’s maturity, the aim will be to crowd in
private investment by offering the public funding and government expertise
needed to reduce risks for investors. Great British Energy would be based
in Scotland, and Labour has a vision to ensure that it supports energy
generation assets in all UK regions. It will partner with other
organisations to deliver at least 8GW of community renewables over the
course of the next Parliament.
Edie 31st May 2024
Call for next UK government to make ‘big decisions’ on nuclear power projects

The manifesto also pressed for the building of a fleet of Small Modular Reactors.
Independent, Alan Jones, 1 June 24
The next government is being urged to make “big decisions” on nuclear power projects to help deliver jobs and energy security.
The Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) has published its manifesto, saying it was important to ensure continued momentum.
The association called for measures including pressing ahead with the planned Sizewell C power station, as well as extending the life of current power stations.
The manifesto also pressed for the building of a fleet of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) across the country and a third large-scale station at Wylfa on Anglesey in north Wales.
Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the NIA, said: “Big decisions on new nuclear projects are needed as a matter of urgency during the next parliament……………………………….. https://www.independent.co.uk/business/call-for-next-government-to-make-big-decisions-on-nuclear-power-projects-b2554453.htm
On the Brink: The NATO-Russia Ukrainian War Comes to Europe
Russian and Eurasian Politics, by GORDONHAHN, June 2, 2024
The NATO-Russia Ukrainian for, the war for and against NATO expansion, is on the brink of expanding to the NATO countries that provoked Russia to invade Ukraine on 24 February 2024 and have supported its continuation ever since, save one—the United States of America—ironically, the real force behind the war’s genesis. Sixteen years ago today’s CIA Director, at the time US Ambassador to Moscow, William Burns was ignored when he informed Washington:
“Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face. ….“Russia’s opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is both emotional and based on perceived strategic concerns about the impact on Russia’s interests in the region. It is also politically popular to paint the U.S. and NATO as Russia’s adversaries and to use NATO’s outreach to Ukraine and Georgia as a means of generating support from Russian nationalists. While Russian opposition to the first round of NATO enlargement in the mid-1990’s was strong, Russia now feels itself able to respond more forcefully to what it perceives as actions contrary to its national interests” (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html).
Rather than heed Burns’s warning and that of numerous objective experts, the US and NATO tried to remake Ukraine, funding anti-Russian forces and backing what became a violent, terrorist coup led by neofascists in February 2013, confounding an agreement worked out by regime, opposition, Europe, and Russia that would have resolved the crisis.
The post-coup NATO involvement in Ukraine was discussed in unusual pieces. One had purposes beyond the present discussion, The New York Times (NYT), acknowledged that the CIA was involved in Maidan Ukraine no later than immediately after the coup (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html).
In one rare objective opinion published in NYT on the subject, it was noted: “Over the next decade, the US and its allies built a powerful Ukrainian army while sabotaging the Minsk agreement and later (after the Russian invasion) also sabotaged the Istanbul negotiations. Weapon systems poured in, Ukrainian ports were modernised to fit American warships, and Ukraine was becoming a de facto NATO member. Top Ukrainian officials like Arestovich argued openly they were preparing for a war with Russia. A top adviser to former president Nicolas Sarkozy, warned that the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership of November 2021 convinced Russia that it must attack or be attacked’” (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/us-ukraine-putin-war.html).
The decision to supply nuclear capable F-16 fighter jets to Kiev and the recent French and presumably other Western countries’ coming declarations making official their previous and future deployments of ‘instructors’ and ‘advisors’ to the Ukrainian front is dangerously escalatory enough. Moscow is required to respond with an answering escalation to save face internally before the Russian people and externally before the world. Now NATO, in the person of its GenSec, has opened up the Overton window by way of convening discussions with member-states on the introduction of troops and the use of Western-supplied mid-range rockets to hit deep inside Russian territory.
Poland is on the verge of deploying its missile defense systems to protect Ukraine from Russia attacks. Moreover, a claim is being circulated to the effect that decision of 12 NATO countries (UK, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania so far) to allow Kiev to use Western missiles to strike deep into Russia — as far as Moscow and Russia’s ‘second capitol’ of St. Petersburg. Germany, not included in the list, has apparently changed its position and now supports attacks on Russia using Western weapons, as Chancellor Olaf Shultz stated standing next to French President Emmanuel Macron last week. Berlin also is still considering sending long-range Taurus missiles to Kiev.
For its part, the US is considering giving permission to Kiev to use US weapons, such as ATACM missiles (180-mile range), against military targets deep inside Russia (https://www.wsj.com/world/blinken-signals-u-s-may-allow-ukraine-to-strike-inside-russia-with-u-s-weapons-61fedb10). The US has announced that it will allow the use of weapons it has supplied to Ukraine for attacks on Russian proper in the battle in the Kharkov (Kharkiv) border region now the focus of a Russian counteroffensive.
Otherwise, for the moment Washington will continue to pretend it is opposed to Ukraine’s use of American weapons against Russia proper, using official statements and media plants to this tune: “a U.S. official said Washington had expressed concerns to Kyiv over Ukraine’s strikes — using its own weapons — on Russian radar stations that provide conventional air defense and early warning of nuclear launches by the West.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/05/30/ukraine-us-strategy-disagreement-corruption/).
Ukraine’s armed forces could not have made this attack without US assistance. The US also will soon conclude a US-Ukraine Security Pact likely intended to institutionalize US weapons, training, intelligence, operational, and financial support to Kiev for the ‘long war.’ Fifteen European states have already concluded such long-term security agreements with Kiev over the last few months (https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2024/05/31/7458547/).
All this —added to the Western weapons, intelligence, training, operational planning, and undercover military personnel contributed to Kiev — makes Ukraine de facto a full-fledged NATO member-state. In other words, NATO countries — and thus de facto NATO itself — are preparing to do officially what they have been doing clandestinely since February 2022: fight Russia in Ukraine for the right to expand NATO when and where Washington and Brussels want. Before all this, Western countries — all the leading members of NATO — were de facto and de jure co-belligerents with Ukraine against Russia. Suffice it to note that Ukraine does not have space based reconnaissance data for targeting but is receiving such from French, German, US and other NATO militaries.
It appears that the recent Western escalations are driven in part by the need to prevent a Russian victory at all costs in order to save face for the US and NATO and, perhaps no less importantly, to salvage US President Joe Biden’s career in the coming presidential elections—a career that has been so disastrous for his family, Americans in general, and now the world. ………………………………………………
………………….. A kind of perfect storm is coming. This autumn there likely will be: the collapse of the Ukrainian front and/or army and/or regime; the Russian army’s approach to the Dniepr and perhaps encirclement of Zaporozhe, Kharkiv, even Kiev; and an American political crisis (given the guilty verdict against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump). The possibilities are almost endless, and some rather dire ones are becoming increasingly more probable.https://gordonhahn.com/2024/06/02/on-the-brink-the-nato-russia-ukrainian-war-comes-to-europe/
Biden Lets Ukraine Strike Russia With US Weapons While Ukraine Attacks Russian Nuclear Defenses

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, MAY 31, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/biden-lets-ukraine-strike-russia?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=145149954&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Well it finally happened: Biden is now letting Ukraine strike Russian territory with US-supplied weapons. Escalations in nuclear brinkmanship which would have been unthinkable a few short years ago are becoming increasingly common as Ukraine loses more and more territory and runs out of soldiers to fight.
In a new report from Politico titled “Biden secretly gave Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia with US weapons” which cites multiple anonymous US officials, the article’s authors correctly describe the new White House authorization as a “stunning shift the administration initially said would escalate the war by more directly involving the U.S. in the fight.”
This report comes shortly after an article by The New York Times titled “From Allies and Advisers, Pressure Grows on Biden to Allow Attacks on Russian Territory,” in which David E Sanger accurately forecast that “Biden is edging toward what may prove to be one of his most consequential decisions in the war for Ukraine: whether to reverse his ban on shooting American weapons into Russian territory.”
Politico reports that the approval for these attacks is limited to “solely near the area of Kharkiv,” but, again, these escalations were once unthinkable even for this administration, and every time a new escalation is authorized the warmongers are already well on their way to pushing for a further one. We will surely see increasing calls for Biden to authorize US-backed strikes deeper into Russian territory in the coming weeks.
This new development comes just after we learned that Ukraine has been repeatedly attacking Russia’s early warning systems for incoming nuclear strikes, with Ukrainian drones targeting Russian radar sites hundreds of miles from Ukrainian-controlled territory.
Just a few years ago if I had told you that a NATO proxy would soon be attacking Russia’s nuclear defense infrastructure, you’d probably have assumed we’d be pretty close to another Cuban Missile Crisis-level nuclear standoff, and that it would be receiving high levels of alarm and attention. But this report is barely in the news, and hardly anyone in the west even knows it’s happening.
This also comes as Reuters reports that France is preparing to send “several hundred” troops to Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, which of course means we may soon be seeing the armed forces of a NATO power getting killed by the Russian military.
Any of these three new developments has the potential to lead to unpredictable events which spiral out of control into a nuclear war between NATO and the Russian Federation, which would be the single worst thing that could possibly happen on planet Earth. There is no excuse for anyone to be playing around anywhere remotely close to such a precipice, and yet here we are.
As we discussed last year, the terrifying thing about the west’s pattern of continually escalating against Russia every time it doesn’t get a nuclear ICBM in the kisser for the last escalation naturally incentivizes Russia to attack NATO directly in order to re-establish its credibility for deterrence. So far Russia has been content to respond to NATO’s escalations by just tearing into Ukraine with greater and greater ferocity, but if the western empire keeps interpreting every time Russia doesn’t attack NATO forces directly as a sign that it’s safe to keep escalating, at some point Russia’s going to have to hit NATO.
It is not sane or acceptable that any of this is happening. The empire knowingly provoked this war, and now it’s getting more and more casual about risking the life of everyone on this planet as its proxy runs out of lives to throw into its gears.
And it’s so hard to draw attention to this, because there are so many other horrible things happening in the world which the western empire is also directly responsible for. The empire is increasingly acting like a wounded, cornered animal as China rises and the US slowly sinks into post-primacy, the only major difference being that wounded, cornered animals have teeth and claws instead of weapons of armageddon.
The UK Is Ramping Up Its Nuclear Energy Ambitions

The cost of development has increased significantly since EDF first gained project approval in 2012, which could make it the world’s most expensive nuclear plant……..$58.4 billion earlier in the year. Its completion date has also been delayed by three to four years, expected to be completed by 2031. …….a government spokesperson …… the plant is “not a government project” and stated, “any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners and will in no way fall on taxpayers.”
Oil Price, By Felicity Bradstock – May 30, 2024,
- The U.K. government aims to rapidly expand its nuclear energy sector, with two nuclear plants slated for the next decade and discussions around a third.
- The government hopes to meet up to 25 percent of the country’s electricity demand using nuclear power sources by 2050.
The U.K. government has ambitious plans for the rapid expansion of the country’s nuclear energy sector, with two nuclear plants slated for the next decade, and discussions around a third. EDF’s Hinkley Point C in Somerset and Sizewell C in Suffolk have both been approved by the government, expected to support the U.K.’s transition away from fossil fuels to greener alternatives in line with national climate pledges.
The U.K. government has announced ambitious nuclear plans in recent years, aiming for the biggest expansion in nuclear power for 70 years. It hopes to meet up to 25 percent of the country’s electricity demand using nuclear power sources by 2050. This will mean a fourfold increase in the U.K.’s nuclear power production, to achieve an output of 24 GW by the mid-century. The Civil Nuclear Roadmap outlines the government’s nuclear plans, including the development of major nuclear facilities, as well as its small modular reactor (SMR) technology. The government also plans to invest up to $381 million in the domestic production of the fuel required to power high-tech new nuclear reactors, known as HALEU, currently only commercially produced in Russia.
The cost of development has increased significantly since EDF first gained project approval in 2012, which could make it the world’s most expensive nuclear plant. EDF previously stated that it expected the plant to cost around $22 billion, but it increased that estimate to around $58.4 billion earlier in the year. Its completion date has also been delayed by three to four years, expected to be completed by 2031. The firm blamed inflation, Covid, and Brexit for cost increases and project delays. While there were some public concerns for the price increase, a government spokesperson made it clear that the plant is “not a government project” and stated, “any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners and will in no way fall on taxpayers.”
In May, EDF was granted a site license by the U.K.’s nuclear regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), for the development of its Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, in the south of England. This is the first of this type of license to be granted in over a decade. Sizewell C is expected to be a replica of the company’s Hinkley Point C. EDF is racing to reach a final investment decision on the project by the end of 2024.
Unlike Hinkley, EDF holds just under a 50 percent stake in Sizewell, with the government holding just over 50 percent. The company is now seeking new investment following the banning of China’s CGN from funding the development due to security concerns. The French firm hopes to use lessons learned from the development of Hinkley to construct Sizewell within around nine years.
Now, the U.K. government is in discussion over another potential nuclear plant development in Wales. The government announced it is holding conversations with major energy companies about the construction of a third new nuclear plant on a site at Wylfa on Anglesey in north Wales. The development of an additional site would help the U.K. to achieve its nuclear energy goals by the mid-century. There are reports that South Korea’s state-owned nuclear developer has been involved in early-stage discussions with the government about the multi-billion construction using APR1400 reactor technology. However, the American nuclear firm Westinghouse and the construction group Bechtel have shown interest in developing the project using Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor technology………………………………….. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-UK-Is-Ramping-Up-Its-Nuclear-Energy-Ambitions.html
Tribunal judge accused of covering up complaints – about bullying at Sellafield nuclear plant and other sites.
Seven women who claim they were bullied and intimidated by an employment
tribunal judge have accused the senior judiciary of trying to cover up
their complaints.
The allegation coincides with the Ministry of Justice and
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) being referred to the
Information Commissioner after failing to disclose the number of complaints
made about tribunal judges in response to a freedom of information request.
Both the ministry and the JCIO said that neither holds the information. But
a consultation on judicial discipline, published by both bodies two years
ago, revealed that the figure is estimated to be between 700 and 800
annually.
Of those complaints — which equate to an average of three every
working day — only a fraction result in action. The women who have spoken
to The Times have accused Judge Philip Lancaster of bullying and sexist
behaviour at separate hearings before him at the employment tribunal in
Leeds — with one claiming that he shouted at her 16 times.
Alison McDermott, formerly a human resources consultant at the nuclear fuel
reprocessing plant at Sellafield, first drew attention to Lancaster’s
alleged behaviour after he rejected her claim for whistleblowing detriment
in 2021. McDermott lost the case, but was allowed to appeal on 13 grounds.
Although she lost most of her appeal, the judge said that there were errors
and problems in the way her case was handled. That judge also criticised as
“unsafe” the award of costs against her and said that the tone of
Lancaster’s remarks on the issue were “troubling”.
Times 30th May 2024
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/complaints-covered-up-against-tribunal-judges-zkhmlz8bc
Top Biden aides signal openness to letting Ukraine strike Russia with US weapons

No final decision has been made, but the consideration comes amid mounting pressure from allies and Democrats.
Politico, By MATT BERG, ALEXANDER WARD and NAHAL TOOSI, 05/29/2024
Two senior Biden administration officials Wednesday opened the door to allowing Ukraine to use American-donated weapons to strike inside Russia.
The move, if made, would come as European allies, lawmakers and Ukrainian officials exert pressure on the White House to lift the restrictions, and as Russia has made major advances on the battlefield. It also suggests that President Joe Biden and his team are increasingly worried about Kyiv’s ability to fend off Russia’s attacks, especially its latest advance in Ukraine’s second-largest city of Kharkiv.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken signaled the possible change during a visit to Moldova when pressed by reporters. A “hallmark” of the Biden administration’s approach toward Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion two years ago “has been to adapt as the conditions have changed, as the battlefield has changed, as what Russia does has changed.”
“We’ve adapted and adjusted, too, and we’ll continue to do that,” he continued.
Shortly afterward, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby, while stating that there’s “no change” in the current policy that says Ukraine can’t use U.S.-supplied weapons to strike inside Russian territory, also noted that America’s “support to Ukraine has evolved appropriately.”
Two other Biden administration officials cautioned that no final decision has been made and that Blinken and Kirby were describing a general trend of American support for Ukraine during the war — one of initial caution followed by permission. They were not necessarily guaranteeing a forthcoming shift.
The topic is “under consideration,” a U.S. official familiar with the issue said. Both were granted anonymity to speak about sensitive internal deliberations.
Kyiv hasn’t seen concrete movement on the matter from the Biden administration, according to a person close to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office. Zelenskyy, during a visit to Belgium on Tuesday, begged Western governments to “please give us permission” to use their weapons to strike targets in Russia’s sovereign territory………………………………………..
This month, U.K. Foreign Minister David Cameron said Kyiv could use British weapons to strike sovereign Russian territory. Then on Monday, NATO’s parliamentary assembly adopted a resolution calling on Western countries to allow Ukraine to use weapons to strike military targets inside Russia.
The issue gathered momentum on Tuesday, when French President Emmanuel Macron opened the door to Ukraine using donated weapons to “neutralize” Russian military sites…………………………………………………………………
Many top U.S. lawmakers are publicly supportive of the idea……………………………………. more https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/29/biden-aides-signal-openness-to-allowing-ukraine-to-strike-russia-with-us-weapons-00160462
Ukrainian Grad Students Complete Nuclear Internship Program in the United States

MAY 28, 2024
Eight university students from Ukraine recently completed their nuclear energy internship program with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
The program was implemented through Argonne National Laboratory and is designed to assist Ukraine’s nuclear power industry in growing its nuclear energy workforce.
A Long Overdue Visit
The two-year internship program was tailored to Ukrainian university graduate students pursuing nuclear energy-related degrees that specialize in areas such as small modular reactors, accident tolerant fuels, and even misconceptions of nuclear energy.
The students selected for the program were supposed to spend their first summer in the United States taking extra courses and the second summer working with U.S. nuclear energy companies.
A Country Rebuilding
Ukraine’s 15 nuclear reactors generate more than half of the country’s electricity, but the plants are old and so is the country’s aging nuclear workforce.
The grad students returned to their country to continue their studies and careers in Ukraine’s nuclear energy program as they work to pursue new technologies independent of Russia.
Ukraine’s entire fleet of reactors is based on old Russian VVER pressurized water reactor technology. Six of the reactors were seized by Russian forces during the war and placed in cold shutdown.
The U.S.-Ukraine nuclear energy internship program was funded by the Office of Nuclear Energy’s Office of International Cooperation, which collaborates with international partners to support the safe, secure, and peaceful use of nuclear energy. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/ukrainian-grad-students-complete-nuclear-internship-program-united-states—
Drone sightings reported over British nuclear facilities

UK Defence Journal, By George Allison, May 29, 202
Recent data acquired under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA 2000) unveils a number of drone sightings over UK nuclear facilities from 2021 to 2023.
The Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) has kept specific location details confidential, citing national security implications.…………………………………………………………………..
In the context of the UK, nuclear sites generally refer to a range of facilities associated with the nuclear energy industry and defence establishments. These can include:
- Nuclear Power Stations: These are plants where nuclear energy is converted into electricity. Examples include Hinkley Point, Sizewell, and Dungeness.
- Nuclear Research Facilities: These are centres where nuclear research takes place, such as the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy or the Dalton Nuclear Institute.
- Nuclear Reprocessing Plants: Sellafield in Cumbria is a prime example, where nuclear fuel is reprocessed.
- Nuclear Submarine Bases: The UK operates a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, and these vessels are based at certain naval docks, notably HM Naval Base Clyde (sometimes referred to as Faslane).
- Defence Establishments: Some sites are associated with the development or storage of nuclear weapons, such as the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield.
- Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Sites: Locations where nuclear waste is stored, treated, or disposed of.
- Decommissioned Nuclear Sites: Former nuclear facilities which are no longer operational but might still have nuclear materials or be under decommissioning.
These sites are of strategic importance to the UK, both in terms of energy supply and national security. As such, they are heavily regulated, monitored, and protected. Any unauthorised activity, such as drone flights, in the vicinity of these sites is taken very seriously due to the potential security and safety risks involved.
What drives these flights near such sensitive areas? Are they a product of curiosity, deliberate reconnaissance, or mere coincidence? https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/drone-sightings-reported-over-british-nuclear-facilities/
Italy opposes Ukraine using long-range weapons to strike Russia
https://www.rt.com/russia/598477-italy-opposes-ukraine-strike-russia-nato-weapons/ 31 May 24
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has specified where missiles his country sends to Kiev can be used
Italy will never send troops to Ukraine and any weapons it has supplied to Kiev should not be used deep inside Russian territory, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said on Thursday.
He made the remarks as pressure builds on NATO members to allow Kiev use long-range Western weapons to strike targets inside Russia. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg last week urged Western arms donors to allow attacks against targets behind the conflict zone on Russian soil.
“All the weapons leaving from Italy [to Ukraine] should be used within Ukraine,” Tajani said in an interview with public broadcaster RAI.
Italy, although a staunch supporter of Ukraine, has rebuked Stoltenberg over his call for more strikes on Russia with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and other top officials accusing him of escalating tensions with Moscow.
“I don’t know why Stoltenberg said such a thing, I think we have to be very careful,” Meloni told Italy’s RAI 3 TV channel on Sunday.
Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini described the NATO chief as “dangerous.”
French President Emmanuel Macron however said on Tuesday that Kiev should be allowed to hit military sites deep inside Russia.
“We think we should allow them neutralize military sites from which missiles are fired, military sites from which Ukraine is attacked,” he told a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
The German leader now also supports Ukrainian strikes with Western long-range weaponry deep inside Russia, despite his earlier concerns about escalation with Moscow. Speaking alongside Macron, Scholz said that “if Ukraine is attacked, it can defend itself” under international law.
Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics told CNN on Monday that he sees “no rational pragmatic reason not to allow Ukraine to use those weapons against Russia in a way that is the most efficient.”
Ukrainian officials have claimed that the limitations imposed by the West are responsible for Russia’s recent advances in Kharkov Region. Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly called for increased NATO involvement in the conflict and has argued that the West should not fear Russia’s reaction.
According to Moscow, claims that restrictions on the use of US munitions are in place are false and designed to maintain the illusion that the West is not part of the conflict.
The ghost of Concorde stalks the Franco-British nuclear renaissance
Critics fear history is repeating itself as Flamanville opens late and vastly over budget
AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD, 29 May 2024
Critics fear history is repeating itself as Flamanville opens late and
vastly over budget. France’s first nuclear plant for a quarter century is
finally going ahead at Flamanville on the coast of Normandy, 12 years late
and six times over budget.
EDF has loaded the fuel of the giant European
Pressurised Reactor or EPR1. The first nuclear reaction will take place
within weeks, reaching full power of 1.65 gigawatts (GW) by year’s end.
It will be the most powerful reactor on the planet, to be joined eventually
by two sister reactors at Hinkley Point, and another at Sizewell C if
anybody can find the money.
To fans, Flamanville is an ultra-safe feat of
advanced engineering, with three layers of protective barriers. It can
withstand an earthquake, a tsunami, a head-on crash by an Airbus A380, or
even (arguably) a meltdown of the core. It is built to last 60 years,
perhaps a century.
To critics, it is a ruinous misadventure, the ultimate
over-refinement of obsolete fission technology that can never compete on a
commercial basis.
Delays have left France dependent on old reactors that
are literally falling apart. EDF has racked up debts of €54bn (£46bn)
and had to be renationalised in 2022. To those of us in the middle –
friendly to nuclear, if cheap enough – it is striking that Korea seems
able to roll out workhorse reactors relatively quickly at half the cost.
Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power’s modified APR1000 reactor was certified in
Europe last year. All is forgiven, apparently, even though a parallel EPR1
plant at Olkiluoto in Finland – opened last year – had similar delays
and cost overruns, and even though the Taishan I variant in China had to
shut down for a year due to damaged fuel rods.
Emmanuel Macron began his
presidency by closing a working reactor near the German border in order to
please Angela Merkel. He had a Damascene conversion after Putin’s
invasion of Ukraine. Mr Macron now wants to build 14 modified EPR2 reactors
– supposedly cheaper – in a repeat of France’s “dash for nuclear”
under premier Pierre Messmer in 1974.
It is a heroic undertaking for a
country with a structural budget deficit of 5pc of GDP and a debt ratio
stuck at 112pc, with rating agencies on the prowl. Much the same can be
said about Britain’s nuclear renaissance, targeting 24 GW by mid-century.
The bet is that the average cost per EPR will fall by 30pc as the series
rolls out a scale. That would cut the putative bill for Sizewell C to £85
MWh in today’s money, or lower if you treat it as a 60-year venture in
accounting terms. Reste à voir, as the French say.
Telegraph 29th May 2024
U.S. concerned about Ukraine strikes on Russian nuclear radar stations

Washington conveyed to Kyiv that attacks on Russian early-warning systems could be destabilizing.
By Ellen Nakashima and Isabelle Khurshudyan, May 29, 2024 https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/05/29/us-ukraine-nuclear-warning-strikes/
The United States fears that recent Ukrainian drone strikes targeting Russian nuclear early–warning systems could dangerously unsettle Moscow at a time when the Biden administration is weighing whether to lift restrictions on Ukraine using U.S.-supplied weapons in cross-border attacks.
“The United States is concerned about Ukraine’s recent strikes against Russian ballistic missile early-warning sites,” said a U.S. official, who spoke on thecondition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
Washington has conveyed its concerns to Kyiv about two attempted attacks over the last week against radar stations that provide conventional air defense as well as warning of nuclear launches by the West. At least one strike in Armavir, in Russia’s southeastern Krasnodar region, appeared to have caused some damage.
“These sites have not been involved in supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine,” the U.S. official said. “But they are sensitive locations because Russia could perceive that its strategic deterrent capabilities are being targeted, which could undermine Russia’s ability to maintain nuclear deterrence against the United States.”
A Ukrainian official familiar with the matter, however, said that Russia has used the radar sites to monitor the Ukrainian military’s activities, particularly Kyiv’s use of aerial weaponry, such as drones and missiles. The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive security matter, confirmed that Ukraine’s Military Intelligence Directorate, known by its initials as GUR, was responsible for the strikes.
Ukraine is facing a continuing threat to its existence from a Russian enemy force — which boasts the world’s largest nuclear arsenal — that has gained ground of late, in part due to its sophisticated radar and weapons-jamming technology, which has rendered virtually useless some U.S.-provided guided missiles and artillery shells. This capability has also enhanced Moscow’s ability to track British and U.S.-provided longer-range weaponry and drones, which have caused serious damage to Russia’s Black Sea fleet and military installations in Crimea, the southern peninsula illegally seized from Ukraine in 2014.
The Ukrainian official said the goal of the strikes was to diminish Russia’s ability to track the Ukrainian military’s activities in southern Ukraine. The drone that targeted the radar station near Orsk, in Russia’s Orenburg region along Kazakhstan’s northern border, traveled more than 1,100 miles, making it one of the deepest attempted strikes into Russian territory. The Ukrainian official declined to say whether the strike, on May 26, caused any damage.
U.S. officials said they are sympathetic to Ukraine’s plight — administration officials are actively weighing whether to lift restraints on the use of U.S.-provided weapons to strike inside Russia. But were Russia’s early-warning capabilities to be blinded by Ukrainian attacks, even in part, that could hurt strategic stability between Washington and Moscow, the U.S. official said.
The perception issue is likely fueled by “an erroneous conviction that Ukraine’s targeting is directed by Washington,” said Dmitri Alperovitch, security analyst and chairman of Silverado think tank. “But that means attacks by Kyiv on Russian nuclear deterrence infrastructure has potential to trigger a perilous escalation with the West. At the end of the day, nuclear command and control and early-warning sites should be off-limits.”
Some analysts were puzzled at the targets: While Krasnodar is close enough to Ukraine to track missiles and drones, the radar station near Orsk is focused on the Middle East and China, they said.
Asked why they would target a site so far away, the Ukrainian official asserted that Russia “switched all of its capabilities for war against Ukraine.”
Following Ukraine’s disappointing counteroffensive last year, Russia has regained the initiative on the battlefield in recent months, advancing in the eastern Donetsk region and recently launching a new assault in the northeastern Kharkiv region along the border. Kyiv, meanwhile, has with increasing frequency targeted sites deep in Russia — a capability many doubted was possible without Western support and sign-off.

About three weeks ago, shortly after Russia began its assault on Kharkiv, Ukraine asked the United States to ease long-standing restrictions on using U.S.-provided weapons to attack targets inside Russia. Some senior officials favor such a move, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who has urged President Biden to agree to lift the restraints. The White House is considering such a proposal, but no action has been taken yet, officials say.
At a news conference Wednesday in Moldova, Blinken said the United States has “not encouraged or enabled strikes outside of Ukraine, but Ukraine, as I’ve said before, has to make its own decisions about the best way to effectively defend itself.”
Blinken added that the United States has “adapted and adjusted” to changing conditions on the battlefield and that as Russia pursues new tactics of “aggression” and “escalation,” was “confident that we’ll continue to do that.”
There is no restriction on Ukraine using U.S.-supplied air defenses to shoot down Russian missiles or fighter jets over Russian territory “if they pose a threat to Ukraine,” the U.S. official said.
But U.S. officials have previously expressed concern to Ukrainian officials over Kyiv’s attacks on Russian soil, sometimes even intervening during the planning stage. Ahead of the one-year mark of the war, theGUR was planning attacks on Moscow, according to a leaked classified report from the U.S. National Security Agency that was later confirmed by two senior Ukrainian military officials.
Days before the attack, U.S. officials asked Kyiv to scrub their plans, fearing it could provoke an aggressive response from the Kremlin; the Ukrainians complied, according to the leaked U.S. documents and the senior Ukrainian officials.
In a more recent example, Washington took exception to Ukrainian drones targeting oil refineries inside Russia — a request that came directly from Vice President Harris to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Munich Security Conference in February, according to officials familiar with the matter. U.S. officials believed the strikes would raise global energy prices and invite more aggressive Russian retaliation inside Ukraine.
Amid growing concern over Russia’s battlefield advances, Washington is facing pressure from NATO and several key European allies to allow Ukraine to use the full force and range of U.S.-provided weapons.
If you cannot attack the Russian forces on the other side of the front line because they are on the other side of the border, then of course you really reduce the ability of the Ukrainian forces to defend themselves,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s top political official, said during a visit to Bulgaria on Monday.
Khurshudyan reported from Kyiv. Siobhán O’Grady in Kyiv and Alex Horton in Washington contributed to this report.
Let Ukraine freely strike Russia with Western arms – NATO chief
https://www.rt.com/news/598218-nato-ukraine-stikes-russia/ 26 May 24
Moscow has dismissed claims that Kiev’s sponsors somehow restrict its use of weaponry.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has argued that members of the US-led military bloc should let Ukraine freely use their weapons to launch strikes deeper into Russian territory.
“The time has come for allies to consider whether they should lift some of the restrictions they have put on the use of weapons they have donated to Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said on Friday in an interview with The Economist.
“Especially now when a lot of the fighting is going on in Kharkov, close to the border, to deny Ukraine the possibility of using these weapons against legitimate military targets on Russian territory makes it very hard for them to defend themselves.”
Stoltenberg noted that some NATO members have already lifted restrictions on using their weapons to attack targets in Russian territory. Asked whether he was referring to the US as the one major holdout, he said, “I think what we see now demonstrates the need to reconsider those restrictions, not least because we have fighting going on along the border between Russia and Ukraine.”
However, according to Moscow, the rhetoric about restrictions on the use of US munitions are false and designed to maintain the illusion that the West is not part of the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that US weapons, such as ATACMS missiles armed with cluster warheads, have already been used on attacks inside Russia, including strikes against civilian targets.
“We proceed from the fact that American and other Western weaponry strikes targets on the territory of Russia, primarily civilian infrastructure and residential areas,” he told reporters on Friday.
The NATO chief’s comments come at a time when Western leaders are making increasingly bold statements about attacks on Russian territory. US President Joe Biden held back on sending long-range weapons to Ukraine in the early days of the conflict with Russia, citing concern over the possibility of triggering a wider conflict. When more advanced weaponry was later approved, it came with strings attached, including a prohibition on hitting Russian territory. However, as the New York Times reported on Thursday, views on those restrictions have shifted as Russian forces make battlefield gains.

After making a “sobering” visit to Ukraine earlier this month, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reportedly began urging the administration to let Kiev’s forces use American weapons as it sees fit. A group of US lawmakers sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin earlier this week, pressing him to give the Ukrainians the permissions they have requested.
Stoltenberg said he believes NATO members can thread the geopolitical needle by supporting Ukraine’s defense without becoming direct parties to the conflict. “We provide training, we provide weapons, ammunition to Ukraine, but we will not be directly involved from NATO territory in combat operations over or in Ukraine,” he said. “So, that’s a different thing.”
-
Archives
- April 2026 (338)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS




