UK datacentres will create just 25% of jobs predicted by tech sector, analysis finds
Facilities likely to employ 10,400 workers, compared with 40,000 in industry estimates, thinktank says
Datacentres in the UK will
create just a quarter of the jobs predicted by the tech sector, while
consuming vast amounts of energy, according to new research. Environmental
thinktank Verdant predicts that all the datacentres currently planned are
likely to directly employ 10,400 workers – compared with the more than
40,000 cited in projections by the industry lobby group TechUK. Labour has
defended the rapid rollout of AI datacentres in the face of growing public
scepticism, amid concerns about their demand for water and energy. The
government has also echoed TechUK’s claims about job creation.
Verdant’s analysis is based on 20 projects for which data on staffing
levels are publicly available, including via planning applications, company
accounts and press releases – as well as international comparisons.
Guardian 9th Sept 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/09/uk-datacentres-will-create-just-25-of-jobs-predicted-by-tech-sector-analysis-finds
Hinkley Point C seeking appeal against environmental data transparency tribunal ruling

08 Sep, 2026 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hinkley-point-c-seeking-appeal-against-environmental-data-transparency-tribunal-ruling-08-09-2026/
EDF’s Hinkley Point C has told NCE it has requested permission to appeal against a tribunal ruling in favour of an argument from campaigners which would subject the nuclear power station to environmental information transparency rules.
The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) decided on 26 June, following a hearing on 29 April, that NNB Generation Co (HPC) Ltd is a public authority according to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs).
NNB Generation Company (NNB GenCo) is the company that owns Hinkley Point C. EDF is the majority owner of the company, with China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) as a minority owner.
The EIRs are operated in a similar but different way to the Freedom of Information Act.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) had decided that NNB GenCo was subject to the EIRs after it made a ruling on behalf of environmental group Fish Legal, which was seeking environmental information about the nuclear power plant.
It announced its position in a decision notice published on 5 September 2024.
The ICO’s decision notice followed a complaint from Fish Legal, which represents anglers and has been repeatedly denied information from the developers of the nuclear power station about its methods of deterring fish from the site.
Hinkley Point C will require vast volumes of water to cool its nuclear reactors. Tunnels for water intake and outfall will circulate 120,000l of water per second. There are concerns this will lead to marine life being sucked into the system and killed.
NNB GenCo had a legal obligation to use an acoustic fish deterrent, based on its approved development consent order, but changed its plans to building a saltmarsh instead. It has now switched back to a plan for an acoustic fish deterrent, having discovered a new “safe and effective” method for implementing it.
Despite this, Fish Legal is continuing to support the ICO position because it covers matters broader than just the fish deterrent at Hinkley Point C – it believes that foreign-owned private companies building and operating nuclear power plants in the UK must comply with domestic environmental information laws and therefore provide details on environmental plans when asked.
A Hinkley Point C spokesperson told NCE: “We have now sought permission to appeal against the tribunal’s decision.
“Hinkley Point C has already made extensive amounts of environmental information available to the public and it will continue to keep stakeholders fully informed about the project.”
Reacting to Hinkley Point C’s decision to seek an appeal, Fish Legal head of policy and strategy Zoe Wedderburn-Day told NCE: “We are aware that NNB Generation Company, the EDF subsidiary responsible for Hinkley Point C, has sought permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal’s decision and we will be watching developments closely.
“The Upper Tribunal judgment was an important decision for environmental transparency, confirming that a privately owned company entrusted with significant public functions and statutory powers can be subject to the Environmental Information Regulations.
“We will consider the implications of any further proceedings once the appeal position becomes clearer.”
An ICO spokesperson told NCE that the ICO noted the judgment but didn’t make any further comment.
Reacting to NNB Gen Co’s request for an appeal, Nuclear Industry Association chief executive Tom Greatrex told NCE: “The single biggest driver of biodiversity loss and habitat destruction is climate change.
“By delaying the deployment of nuclear power, which has the lowest carbon emissions, land use, and overall impact on ecosystems of any electricity source across its lifecycle, we are accelerating that damage and prolonging our reliance on higher-carbon energy sources.”
He added: “To reduce cost and accelerate delivery, we must ensure proportionate regulation.
“To achieve this, the government must fully implement the Nuclear Regulatory Review recommendations to strengthen the UK’s energy security with clean power and enable new nuclear projects to progress at pace while maintaining high environmental standards.”
Gates-backed TerraPower targets British nuclear power plant start by 2034

Sodium cooled nuclear reactors are not necessarily safer. https://blog.ucs.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-plant-accidents-fermi-unit-1/
By Susanna Twidale, September 7, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/gates-backed-terrapower-targets-british-nuclear-power-plant-start-by-2034-2026-09-07/
- Summary
- Companies
- Britain would be TerraPower’s first market outside United States
- First UK plant could be operational by 2034
- Electricity cost expected under £100 per megawatt hour
ONDON, Sept 7 (Reuters) – TerraPower, the U.S. nuclear developer backed by Bill Gates, expects its Natrium reactors to begin generating electricity in Britain by 2034, its CEO told Reuters, making the UK its first market outside the United States.
Britain has backed the development of small modular reactors (SMRs) to help to increase energy security and meet climate targets, launching an Advanced Nuclear Framework this year to support privately funded projects.
Chris Levesque, TerraPower’s president and CEO, said progress on the company’s first Natrium reactor, due to be completed in 2031, showed that “2034 nuclear electricity in the UK from Natrium is very possible”.
The technology has cleared regulatory requirements in the United States, where the first plant is being constructed in Wyoming and is currently being assessed under Britain’s Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process.
Each sodium-cooled Natrium reactor generates 345 megawatts of baseload power and includes storage capable of boosting output to 500 MW for more than five hours. The reactors run on high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU).
Britain and the U.S. are both building plants to produce the fuel, which was previously only commercially available from Russia.
Levesque said electricity generated by Natrium plants would be competitive with other low-carbon technologies, including combined solar-and-battery projects, at less than £100 ($135.32) per megawatt hour.
TerraPower has yet to choose a site for its first UK project, but said its British subsidiary is likely to be based in Liverpool, northwest England, close to the country’s nuclear regulator.
In the U.S., the company has an agreement with tech giant Meta (META.O), opens new tab to develop up to eight reactors. Levesque said TerraPower could seek similar partnerships in Britain.
They Can’t Stop the War. They Can’t Survive It.
So European leaders have deployed – to use an Ursula von der Leyen saying – all means possible. Except that those means were never enough to meet Ukraine’s needs.
‘if I give the promise to the people in Ukraine, “we stand with you, as long as you need us,” then I want to deliver. No matter what my German voters think.’
Europe has also closed off access to a consumer market of 143 million people in Russia – Europe was Russia’s biggest trade partner before the Ukraine crisis began – because we can’t stand to trade with those Russians.
The AfD win in Germany and Reform’s landslide in Britain show why Europe’s liberal governments are trapped — continue Ukraine and they lose the voters; end it and they lose them anyway.
Ian Proud, The Peace Monger, Sep 08, 2026
The victory of AfD in a local election in Germany was as consequential as the Reform Party’s landslide in local elections in Britain in May.
Why? Because a nationalist party won. This is another sign that liberalism is dying in Europe. What does this mean for the politics of Europe and for the war in Ukraine?
Politics in Europe Is Changing – The Ukraine War Is Driving a Shift Away from Liberalism
I have said for some time that the changing politics of Europe will ultimately decide the outcome of the war in Ukraine. Foreign policy always starts and ends at home.
And what I mean by that is, even if our governments support a proxy war in Ukraine, they are limited by essentially domestic considerations in how much support they can give.
European states have shown themselves unwilling to commit to direct war with Russia principally because they can’t guarantee they will garner political support at home, not least given the large number of casualties that would result.
Liberalism is predicated on a stable capitalist system, and a direct war would have devastating consequences for the economies of Europe.
Liberal European governments can’t give Ukraine as much money and equipment as they would prefer, as they are heavily indebted and don’t have the fiscal space to do this at a time when ordinary people feel that public services are being ignored.
So European leaders have deployed – to use an Ursula von der Leyen saying – all means possible. Except that those means were never enough to meet Ukraine’s needs.
Ukraine will lose the war against Russia because European leaders decided they could not bear the financial, human and political cost of direct war. That they encouraged war to continue for so long reflects the essential liberalism of Europe, that Ukraine was a prized project in the bid to create another liberal democracy on the periphery of Europe as a counterpoint to nationalist Russia. And that helps to explain why ordinary, often working-class, citizens are turning against liberalism.
Put simply, even though European governments have avoided a direct war with Russia, they haven’t been able to shield their citizens from the consequences of proxy war, nor deliver the strategic defeat that they promised, and this leaves ordinary people poorer, uncertain about their future employment prospects, worried about their children and feeling less safe.
It would be impossible for them not to make a connection with the war in Ukraine because that is the topic their leaders seem to talk about most when travelling abroad to grand summit meetings that never seem to resolve the world’s problems.
Indeed, Annalena Baerbock, while foreign minister, said in 2022, ‘if I give the promise to the people in Ukraine, “we stand with you, as long as you need us,” then I want to deliver. No matter what my German voters think.’
She was roundly criticised by parties like AfD at the time who were accused of a disinformation campaign. But her words were on the record. And the message that sent to ordinary Germans was that the Federal government cares about Ukrainian people more than you, which was a politically suicidal thing to say.
In this day of high-speed media, ordinary people can see what is going on.
Even though national priorities have placed some limited guardrails on liberal foreign policy hegemony, specifically the temptation to get sucked into a general war across Europe – that foreign policy consensus has nonetheless still funded a dreadful war in Ukraine for four-and-a-half years which is held aloft as more important than domestic concerns despite the severe consequences for ordinary German people.
Ordinary people are not stupid and can make the connection between their condition of life and the need to keep funnelling money and weapons into a war that shows no end in sight, which their leaders refuse to bring to a close.
In terms of the feeling of being poorer and less secure about the future, Europe has chosen economic warfare instead of actual warfare, and this has backfired. In the process, sanctions have rendered European industry uncompetitive through the closing off of cheap sources of energy. Europe has also closed off access to a consumer market of 143 million people in Russia – Europe was Russia’s biggest trade partner before the Ukraine crisis began – because we can’t stand to trade with those Russians.
German unemployment is now at its highest level in well over a decade. Germany was Russia’s biggest trading partner before the Ukraine crisis started.
Let’s be clear, cutting off supplies of Russian energy doesn’t benefit the people of Ukraine; that country is energy dependent too and also, by the way, bankrupt, which means that European capitals have to subsidize its expensive energy costs as well as its own.
It doesn’t hurt Russia, which has diverted its energy supply to Asia.
It only hurts the economies of Europe and, in doing so, the cost of living and job security of ordinary European citizens.
Meanwhile, ordinary people see the threat of future war with Russia dangled before them in the mainstream press which conjures up all sorts of fake news stories on a near-daily basis about Russia’s plan to invade and conquer Europe.
While all this is happening, people can see that the rest of the world – particularly in Asia – is powering ahead.
Outside of West Asia and the Middle East they see a part of the world relatively free of conflict where economic growth is lifting the living standards of millions each day.So ordinary people in Europe are starting to ask ‘why are we losing out?’
And the answer that increasing numbers keep coming back to is the war in Ukraine.
Europe has chosen economic stagnation, unemployment, falling living standards and the fear of war as a price to pay to weaken Russia, even though Russia has managed the shock of conflict and war far better, has a bigger industry, plentiful supplies of energy and access to the largest market in the world, in Asia.
More and more people in Europe are starting to see that their liberal governments do not have the interest of their citizens at heart.
And liberal governments have no way out of the Ukraine war. In fact, they are terrified of the war ending.
Liberalism’s Ukraine War Trap
European government have found themselves caught in a Ukraine War Trap in which they face electoral obliteration whether they end the Ukraine war or if they continue it.
What is devastating for liberal political leaders is that they have no way out of the cycle of electoral suicide they have put themselves in.
If they continue the war, they will get devastated in the polls.
If they end the war, they will also get devastated in the polls.
Firstly, what will happen if they continue the war?
Energy.
Even if Donald Trump ends his damaging war in Iran, Europe will remain locked into high energy prices. Indeed, an end to the Iran war will simply accentuate the difference between Europe, stuck in an era of uncompetitive high energy costs, and the rest of the world, which will start to benefit from a gradual normalisation of energy prices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/they-cant-stop-the-war-they-cant?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=214714777&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
THE “KIEV REGIME” – A JOKE THAT’S NO LONGER FUNNY
if the agencies intended to provide security are shooting one another in the capital, who is left to protect ordinary people?
In conversation with Marta Havryshko
Ian Proud, Sep 09, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/the-kiev-regime-a-joke-thats-no-longer?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=214839408&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
On 6 September, Davyd Arakhamia sat down with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in a T-shirt reading “Kyiv regime.” Volodymyr Zelensky’s team then handed the same shirts to the American envoys. Officially, it was “trolling” Putin, who uses the phrase to delegitimise Ukraine’s government. Inside Ukraine, a lot of people did not laugh. The regime in Kiev is now a joke that uses theatre and illusion to cling to power at all costs, while stealing the nation’s future
I caught up with historian Marta Havryshko who, said the first reaction on Ukrainian social media to the ‘Kiev Regime’ t-shirt stunt was disbelief. Many thought the pictures were fake. When they realised they were real, the mood turned sour.
Focus.ua wrote that Zelensky and Arakhamia were “torn apart” over the shirt. On Threads and Facebook, the complaint was not that the men supposedly negotiating life and death issues around the war’s ending looked as if they lived in another country.
Children still do lessons in basements. Families still count explosions at night. Working-class men are still pulled off the street like dogs. And at the peace table: a joker in a souvenir t-shirt. gag.
Marta’s suggests that irony worked in 2022. Remember Zelensky’s video on the day the war started with his team in Central Kiev? It may still have worked in 2023 before teh failed summer counter-offensive.
In 2026, after unsuccessful offensives, overflowing military cemeteries and a war that no longer looks winnable to many ordinary Ukrainians, that same irony reads as indifference.
She described visiting her native village two years ago and finding at least ten new graves under Ukrainian flags in a place of two thousand people. Some of the dead she had known. That, she said, is the price people see every day.
The timing of the T-shirt stunt also appears cynically deliberate, coming after yet another corruption scandal; Havryshko claims that war is now a business model for Zelensky’s corrupt regime.
Zelensky publicly speaks of around 50,000 Ukrainian dead. At the same time, Kyrylo Budanov has said Ukraine needs at least 30,000 men a month just to hold the line. Havryshko’s question is the one families ask: if the war is going well and few people are dying, why do you need so many new bodies each month for the meat grinder?
She argues the government hides the scale of loss because the truth would further collapse support for the in Ukraine and also in the west.
That helps to explain why the resistance to forced mobilisation — busification — is growing all the time. The fiercest resistance, she notes, is often in western Ukraine, the old heartland of the ethno-nationalist far-right elements associated with Azov, UPA etc. Draft officers have been attacked. The people in the streets are working-class men and the women trying to keep husbands and sons out of the grinder. Class and gender, she insists, explain the war better than slogans about national resilience.
The T-shirt was not the only story to hit the headlines. On 2 September, Ukraine’s two most powerful spy services opened fire on each other in a Kyiv residential street. Three HUR officers were wounded. When a drone later hit an SBU building, Western headlines rushed to blame Russia. She says Ukrainians mostly laughed as the strike came straight after the shootout.
Two versions spread at once: a HUR revenge drone ordered as a warning, or an SBU false flag to strengthen Zelensky’s hand against Budanov. She does not claim to prove either. Her point is that if the agencies intended to provide security are shooting one another in the capital, who is left to protect ordinary people? That, she argues, is why anti-war journalists in Ukraine now live on high alert — and why a joke T-shirt at peace talks landed like an insult.
Marta saw little prospect of Presidential elections any time soon. Fedorov’s call for a vote, in her telling, was a shot at Zelensky, not a plan. Millions are abroad, occupied, or at the front. Men of draft age will not walk into polling stations for fear that they will be busified. Zelensky, she argues, has no incentive for peace or a ballot. War protects him from leaving office and losing his immunity to prosecution for corruption. Why end it now or, indeed, ever?
On European hypocrisy and warmongering
Not only is the idea of an endless war immoral, but it plays with an immense risk of nuclear escalation.
Branko Milanovic, Aug 27, 2026, https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/on-european-hypocrisy-and-warmongering
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the world reactions were predictable. The strongest reaction came from the United States, that saw itself as a guardian of the old system and possibly as a guarantor of Ukraine’s NATO eventual membership. Europe’s reaction was several octavos lower as it generally was during the Cold War. Finally, the rest of the world, while mostly condemning Russia for an obvious violation of the international law and UN rules, was not overly concerned.
Things have changed. They began changing already under Biden who, while very critical of Russia, including through the imposition of the most radical sanctions ever (with the seizure of private property and property of a government with which the United States was not at war), still observed some rules from the Cold War—namely avoidance of unnecessary escalations with a nuclear-armed power. This was evident in Biden’s policy that did not allow strikes on Russian territory. But even under Biden that policy was gradually abandoned and the US de facto entered the war through its selection and direct targeting of places in Russia.
Over the past two years, the situation has further evolved. The US has continued with a policy where it is a de facto participant in the war but has also shown a desire to wrap-up the conflict in one form or another. What was surprising is that the thirst for war has become almost insatiable in several European countries, principally in the Nordic and Baltic countries, but more recently also in Germany, and, for long-term historical reasons that go to the 18th century, in the UK too.
The role of small countries—that through their geopolitical irresponsibility can wreck great damage to the world—tends to pass under the radar. The Nordic-Baltic coalition is essentially calling for a war with Russia, citing its own fears and traumas of Russian/Soviet control and occupation. Leaving aside the discussion about the full one-sidedness of such claims (could not Russians argue that the Latvian riflemen played a key role in the Russian revolution?), this type of warmongering by small nations is extraordinarily hypocritical. It is based on the idea that one can advocate for war but bear no consequence of such a war. It tries to do everything possible to make interests of great powers become entangled with interests of small powers so that great powers can fight it out, millions die, yet the objectives of small countries be satisfied after a general war.
This attitude is bad enough in itself—but what is worse is that there are clear historical precedents in Eastern Europe and the Middle East of similar policies that brought global cataclysms. Serbia was playing off Russia in the run-up to the First World War. Poland and Hungary participated in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia which paved the way for Nazi Germany to continue with aggressions. Israel has been playing up the United States for several decades in the Middle East, most obviously right now when the US entered the war against Iran –very similarly to the way Russia entered the war against Ukraine—without knowing why, or what are the political aims of that war. But the outcome arranges Israel because it weakens another Middle Eastern power and deepens the chaos in the region.
The world is now facing a similar situation where several countries, whose combined populations hardly reach the number of inhabitants of a Tier II Chinese city, want, in order to cure their frustrations and traumas, to plunge the entire world into a catastrophe that may more or less end civilization. It is an incredibly irresponsible policy. It is also hypocritical because it is based on the assumption that somebody else (in this case, the United States) will fight for them. For if they were so keen on the war and convinced of its moral value, why don’t enter it themselves? Why don’t they attack Russia directly and see what happens? It would be madness but at least it would not be irresponsible towards the rest of the world and not hypocritical.
Of course, the argument for a war (fought by somebody else) is that accepting to speak of a ceasefire along the current lines gives the advantage to the aggressor. But according to that logic, all wars should be fought until the end, until everybody is destroyed. There should never have been any negotiations. Diplomacy should not exist. The Korean war should be still fought—in fact, it probably would not because had the policies advocated by the Nordic-Baltic alliance been followed then (as McArthur wanted), we would have never been born and our parents or grandparents would have all died long ago.
The Nordic-Baltic alliance also forgets that if the cease-fire is established along the current lines of control, the territory of the Donbass etc. will indeed be controlled by Russia but no single country in the world would officially recognize it. Did they not notice that no country from the Commonwealth of Independent States has recognized it? Did they not notice that not even Belarus recognizes it? Such, indeed fragile, peace not only puts an end to today’s carnage, but leaves open a possibility of eventual long-term solution between Russia and Ukraine. Neither Putin, nor Zelensky, nor the social forces that support them are eternal. Things will change in Russia, and in Ukraine. Negotiations can take place in ten or twenty years—but at least people would be alive rather than dead.
They mention that it would lead to a “frozen conflict”. But is a frozen conflict worse than an open conflict? Is absence of death inferior to continued carnage? There are dozens of frozen conflicts all around the globe, from Cyprus to Kosovo to Western Sahara to Malvinas to Kashmir. Should we reopen them all? They are loath to answer the moral questions because the implicit value they place on Ukrainian lives is zero, and the implicit value they place on Russian dead is a plus. Consequently, an endless conflict is a positive sum game from their point of view.
Not only is the idea of an endless war immoral, but it plays with an immense risk of nuclear escalation. During the Cold War that risk was taken seriously by the two major powers. That’s why they had four binding nuclear agreements, all of which have lapsed. Today, people assume that nuclear weapons do not exist. This is an entirely invalid assumption, but even if there were just one-millionth probability of nuclear war happening, the costs of such a war are so immense (since such a war is uncontrollable), that every rational person’s calculation must be to do everything to avoid it.
The Nordic-Baltic warmongering under the current conditions is therefore (i) irresponsible, (ii) hypocritical, (iii) immoral, and (iv) flirts with a disaster of immense proportions.
France’s 47 Rafale F5s Will Carry Hypersonic Nuclear Missiles, Command Stealth Drones
France is preparing at least 47 Rafale F5 fighters to carry the ASN4G hypersonic nuclear missile, command stealth combat drones and penetrate advanced air defences by 2035.
(DEFENCE SECURITY ASIA Sep 7, 2026) — France plans to field at least 47 Rafale F5 fighters by 2035, creating a nuclear-certified combat fleet designed to penetrate advanced air defences, command stealth drones, and preserve sovereign strike options as Europe’s future airpower architecture fractures.
The programme converts Rafale from a networked 4.5-generation fighter into an airborne command node integrating the ASN4G hypersonic nuclear missile, enhanced sensors, digital electronic warfare, resilient connectivity, and manned-unmanned teaming for contested operations through the 2040s.
Under the revised 2024–2030 Military Programming Law adopted in July 2026, France targets at least 47 aircraft built or upgraded to F5 standard within a wider 225-aircraft combat fleet comprising 185 air-force and 40 naval fighters.
The figure represents a minimum F5-standard inventory rather than a discrete order for 47 newly manufactured jets, because existing airframes may be upgraded while approximately 20 previously scheduled F4 deliveries shift from 2031–2032 into 2033–2034 production slots.
That industrial rescheduling makes nuclear readiness, rather than conventional fleet expansion, the programme’s decisive pacing requirement, since Rafale F5 must integrate ASN4G by 2035 while maintaining sufficient aircraft availability across land-based squadrons and France’s carrier aviation force.……………………….
France prioritises the Strategic Air Forces for F5 deployment, but naval Rafale M aircraft must eventually share the standard, enabling nuclear and conventional missions from Charles de Gaulle and later the future PA-NG carrier without dependence upon allied aircraft.
This force posture matters beyond France because the F5 combines national nuclear command authority with forward-deployment potential, giving Paris a more visible European signalling instrument while remaining outside NATO’s American B61 nuclear-sharing arrangements and associated operational dependencies
The accompanying stealth combat drone provides the battlespace mechanism behind that posture, penetrating defended airspace, stimulating hostile radar emissions, supporting suppression or destruction of enemy air defences, and transmitting targeting information while the crewed Rafale remains farther from concentrated threats.
However, public information leaves important uncertainties unresolved, including the drone’s final size, funding trajectory, production quantity, control architecture, conformal-tank adoption, sensor performance, and whether every proposed F5 capability will reach operational maturity simultaneously by the stated 2035 objective.………………………………………………………………….. https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/france-47-rafale-f5-asn4g-hypersonic-nuclear-missile-stealth-drones/
Boris Johnson Continues to Lie About Subverting Ukraine Peace Talks

The origin of the Johnson sabotage story is not Russian propaganda. It was first reported by Ukrainska Pravda. The Ukrainian paper says that as soon as Ukraine and Russia had “agreed on the structure of a future possible agreement in general terms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning.” He told Zelensky that Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with” and that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
Johnson also wooed Zelensky with promises of “influence” and “fame” as a great war hero.
The charge against Johnson is supported not only by Ukrainian testimony, but by British testimony
Columnist Ted Snider takes on the former PM
Ted Snider is a columnist for The Libertarian Institute and a contributing editor for The American Conservative. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and other outlets.
In a recent interview, former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson repeated his denial that he discouraged Ukraine from negotiating peace in the first days of the war. “This is complete, utter nonsense,” Johnson said. He insisted that the story was just the Kremlin spreading allegations.
Johnson has used that defense before. In January 2024, he told The Times that “This is nothing but total nonsense and Russian propaganda.”
But none of the sources of the charge are Russian. They are all either Ukrainian or British.
Johnson denies that he encouraged Zelensky to fight. He says that Zelensky’s mind was already set on fighting and that “there was not a single European or Western leader who could have stopped the Ukrainians from fighting for their country.”
That was not true at the time. In a February 25, 2022 address to Ukrainians, Zelensky said, “We are not afraid to talk to Russia. We are not afraid to say everything about security guarantees for our state. We are not afraid to talk about neutral status.”
The origin of the Johnson sabotage story is not Russian propaganda. It was first reported by Ukrainska Pravda. The Ukrainian paper says that as soon as Ukraine and Russia had “agreed on the structure of a future possible agreement in general terms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning.” He told Zelensky that Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with” and that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
That story, first reported in the Ukrainian press, was confirmed by the head of the Ukrainian negotiating team, Davyd Arakhamia, who says that when the Ukrainian team “returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight.” He adds that the West “actually advised us not to go into ephemeral security guarantees.”
Far from Russian propaganda, the charge against Johnson has a Ukrainian media source backed by primary source confirmation from the lead Ukrainian negotiator.
Though it carries less weight because she was not there and because she was no longer in office at the time, there is also secondary source confirmation from within Zelensky’s administration. Iuliia Mendel, Zelensky’s press secretary from 2019-2021, retells the story of Johnson rushing to Kiev to urge the Ukrainians to keep fighting. She also adds the claim, without support or attribution, that Johnson also wooed Zelensky with promises of “influence” and “fame” as a great war hero.
The charge against Johnson is supported not only by Ukrainian testimony, but by British testimony. A senior government source told The Times at the end of March 2022 that the British government warned Zelensky not to be bullied into concessions and that it was the position of the UK that he shouldn’t be “too eager… to settle” and that “Ukraine needs to be in the strongest possible position militarily before those talks can take place.”
Johnson did say that the UK “would back Ukraine a thousand percent.” But he also said, “I could not see for the life of me what the deal could be, and I thought that any deal with Putin was going to be pretty sordid.” He then told Zelensky that “as far as I am concerned, Putin must fail and Ukraine must be entitled to retain full sovereignty and independence.” Johnson then made the promise of providing the Ukrainian armed forces with military supplies.
In The Russo-Ukrainian War: Follies of Empire, Richard Sakwa reports an earlier phone conversation in which Johnson told Zelensky that the UK “would not stand as a guarantor power and urged Zelensky to refuse the deal.”
It is important to set Johnson’s perjury straight not just to correct the historical record, but to remember that, at a time when the war is becoming increasingly hopeless for Ukraine, before most of the death and destruction, there was the chance of peace, and that Johnson contributed to discouraging it and encouraging this horrible war.
Does Britain really face an imminent Russian threat?
By Anatol Lieven, 8 Sept 26, . https://unherd.com/newsroom/does-britain-really-face-an-imminent-russian-threat/
Diane Abbott has been subjected to ferocious attacks on her character for claiming on Wednesday that “the imminent threat from Russia is a Nato fiction.” The Labour MP added that the alliance was attempting “to justify their complete capitulation to Trump’s demands for more military spending. The increase should not go ahead.” Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch branded the comments “reprehensible”, while another Tory, Ben Obese-Jecty, labelled Abbott “Putin’s useful idiot”. The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP even received criticism from her own Labour colleagues.
Many of the responses to Abbott are little more than attempts to shut down public debate on a question of vast importance to the United Kingdom. However, it is also true that she would have been much closer to the facts had she emphasised one word and added another: “The imminent conventional threat from Russia is a Nato fiction.”
Put like this, the argument is persuasive. Any suggestion of a Russian invasion or sustained air campaign in Western Europe is absurd. The Russian military and air force are already occupied with a grinding war in Ukraine: where is Moscow supposed to find a new army with which to attack Nato? How would the Kremlin pay for the resulting war when Nato has practically shut down Russia’s maritime trade?
Had she phrased her statement in these terms, Abbott would have been close to what sensible Nato figures and analysts have been saying. In June, the American Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACEUR), General Alexus Grynkewich, said that “Russia is not looking for a conflict […] They do understand the term ‘defensive alliance’, and they do understand that we have a number of asymmetric advantages.” Really, Russia’s threats have been intended to deter a direct war with Nato in Ukraine, not to start one.
Russian-organized hybrid attacks in Europe and Britain are a much more realistic danger, one which Abbott should have mentioned. Moscow has engaged in cyber warfare, as well allegedly organizing arson attacks and the sabotage of railway lines and undersea cables. Last month, explosive drones were discovered close to Ukrainian planes with military supplies at Leipzig/Halle Airport in Germany.
So far, however, the effects have been small, suggesting that Russia’s campaign has been either highly incompetent or deliberately restrained. If the latter, this is presumably because the Kremlin still wants to maintain some element of plausible deniability, and because these attacks are meant to be warnings rather than attempts to do serious damage and cause casualties.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has threatened that “the response to Ukrainian strikes using British missiles on Russian territory may become [attacks on] any military sites and equipment of Britain in Ukraine, or beyond its borders.” This would mean making Russian hybrid attacks overt — a strategy Vladimir Putin has thus far avoided, both because of the risk of a radical increase in Western help to Ukraine, and perhaps because his instincts as a former intelligence officer are more geared towards covert operations.
In war, accidents happen. On the first day of the American-Israeli war on Iran, the US unintentionally destroyed an Iranian elementary school, killing 120 children. In 1988, American forces mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 people. Russian contacts assure me that if a British missile were to destroy a school or an airliner in Russia, a direct response against the UK would be unavoidable.
At present, though, a direct threat from Russia to Britain is far from imminent. What is needed is a realistic public debate about the escalation of British support for Ukraine and its possible consequences, and a serious negotiating strategy rather than one that sabotages US initiatives. Support for Ukraine is legitimate, but it is the interests and security of the British people that ministers should be prioritizing. https://unherd.com/newsroom/does-britain-really-face-an-imminent-russian-threat/
Anatol Lieven is a former war correspondent and Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC.
Nature at risk

by beyondnuclearinternational,
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/09/06/nature-at-risk/
UK Nuclear regulations will destroy havens for wildlife. This needs to be stopped, argues The Wildlife Trusts
The following is a position statement put out by The Wildlife Trusts in Britain, after the UK government published its response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025. (Note: Ed Miliband is no longer the the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero since the departure of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.) After a massive public outcry, the most environmentally damaging proposals have been watered down. However, the Labour government has committed to new guidance about how to apply nature rules. This tinkering with protections could still lead to damage to nature-rich spaces. Writes the The Wildlife Trusts, “Resistance to this dismissive approach to nature is growing and we’ll keep sticking up for nature.” Their statement:
Recommendations in the Nuclear Regulatory Review put nature at risk
Wildlife and natural places need more protection, not less. But the UK Government is thinking about making it even easier and cheaper for developers to destroy our last few natural spaces.
A report called the Nuclear Regulatory Review is suggesting that protections for nature should be weakened. It says these protections result in unnecessary costs for developers. This is not true. We can’t afford to destroy the few havens we have for wildlife.
This isn’t policy yet – there’s still time to stop this from happening. That’s why we encouraged our supporters to take our simple action to send an email to Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and help us to stop this in its tracks.
The Nuclear Regulatory Review proposes weakening the Habitat Regulations
The Review proposes amending the Habitats Regulations so that developers don’t have to worry about avoiding harm to nature sites when they build nuclear plants. It also proposes removing a duty on public bodies to further the conservation and public access purpose of National Parks and National Landscapes.
Nature cannot afford this. Evidence continues to show that nature is in decline, and damage to nature is also damage to climate.
The Prime Minister previously suggested he wants the proposals to apply beyond the nuclear sector
In a speech on 1st December, the [then] Prime Minister said he agreed with all recommendations in the Nuclear Regulatory Review and also asked the Business Secretary to apply them to sectors beyond nuclear in the upcoming Industrial Strategy. This means the harmful recommendations could be extended beyond potential new nuclear energy sites.
If Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) gives the green light for the harmful Nuclear Regulatory Review recommendations, it makes a second damaging Planning Bill inevitable. This will slam the door on nature’s recovery and make net zero even harder to achieve.
If those proposals go ahead, people will suffer as well as wildlife

The recommendations in the Review will make natural spaces less safe from development and more vulnerable to damage and loss. These spaces might be close to where you live, or special landscapes that you visit and care about. The UK has already lost more biodiversity than any other country over the last few decades.
The risks of environmental damage through these recommendations will also have knock-on impacts for economic stability, which affects everyone through the cost of living.
Allowing the natural world to be neglected in this way will only benefit a handful of developers who can cut costs by bending the rules in future.
In the last year, the UK Government has targeted nature and wildlife, calling spiders and bats and newts ‘blockers’ and deliberately getting rid of legal safeguards and policies that are supposed to help nature recover. This goes against all evidence, and the public’s views that nature is necessary to everyone. Evidence shows a healthy environment underpins our economy and our wellbeing, and that building with nature in mind helps to ensure development is high quality and sustainable.
The original published statement can be read here on The Wildlife Trusts website.
Local ceasefire in place for Zaporizhzhia power line repairs

World Nuclear News 7th Sept 2026
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a seventh ceasefire is in place to allow demining and repair work to take place to restore external power to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
“……………….. The last remaining external power line was disconnected on 20 August “after military activity on the northern side of the Dnipro River”, which has left the plant relying on its fleet of emergency diesel generators to provide the power required for the six-unit plant.
Grossi said: “As the ZNPP’s emergency generators drained the available diesel to little more than a week of supplies, forcing its cooling pumps to be run only intermittently, I continued my persistent efforts to broker a ceasefire so that the Ferosplavna-1 power line could be repaired.”……
Repairs were carried out on a second line in June during another ceasefire, but it remains unavailable because of damage at a substation, he said.
“It goes without saying that nuclear power plant staff must be able to carry out their essential work without being attacked or placed at risk. I solemnly call on all military commanders in the region to stop attacks on nuclear power plants and their staff, and to exercise maximum military restraint. I say this because last month a drone explosion at a bus stop used by plant staff and subcontractors travelling to Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant caused multiple casualties. The ZNPP informed the IAEA team at the plant that the explosion caused 20 casualties, including one death and three serious injuries………….
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has been under Russian military control since early March 2022. It is located on the frontline of Russian and Ukrainian forces and has lost offsite power on 26 occasions since the war began, including 10 times since June.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/local-ceasefire-in-place-for-zaporizhzhia-power-line-repairs
Small modular reactor client lines up £1.1bn Wylfa early works deal

07 Sep 2026 By Harmsworth,
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/buildings/small-modular-reactor-client-lines-up-1-1bn-wylfa-early-works-deal-07-09-2026/
CGI of former plans for a nuclear site at Wylfa Newydd
Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has outlined plans for an early works contract worth up to £1.1bn as part of its small modular reactor (SMR) programme.
The government-owned nuclear developer said the package would cover civil engineering, infrastructure, buildings, mechanical and electrical work and earthworks at the Wylfa site in Anglesey, north Wales.
The contract has an indicative value of £730m-£1.1bn and is expected to run from June 2028 until June 2034, GBE-N said in a preliminary market engagement notice.
It also included an option to extend the contract until June 2037.
The client said it had previously considered splitting the work into two packages but ultimately decided to combine them to reduce interfaces between contractors.
The successful supplier will take responsibility for design from RIBA stage four and delivery of site-enabling works.
07 Sep 2026 By Harmsworth
CGI of former plans for a nuclear site at Wylfa Newydd
Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has outlined plans for an early works contract worth up to £1.1bn as part of its small modular reactor (SMR) programme.
The government-owned nuclear developer said the package would cover civil engineering, infrastructure, buildings, mechanical and electrical work and earthworks at the Wylfa site in Anglesey, north Wales.
The contract has an indicative value of £730m-£1.1bn and is expected to run from June 2028 until June 2034, GBE-N said in a preliminary market engagement notice.
It also included an option to extend the contract until June 2037.
The client said it had previously considered splitting the work into two packages but ultimately decided to combine them to reduce interfaces between contractors.
The successful supplier will take responsibility for design from RIBA stage four and delivery of site-enabling works.
Work will include species relocation, remediation, site clearance, site establishment, construction utilities, drainage and haul roads supporting bulk earthworks.
The works are intended to establish ground levels, provide construction access and create the physical platform required for later phases.
GBE-N said the programme will cover planning, licensing, design and construction needed before its technology partner installs and commissions SMR technology.
Key parts for a new UK nuclear power station will be made in the North East.
The Siemens Energy plant in Byker, Newcastle, will manufacture steam turbines for Rolls-Royce’s flagship small modular reactors (SMRs) being built on Anglesey in North Wales.
It is the first time that such components will be produced for a small modular reactor anywhere in Europe.
Energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh visited Siemens Energy’s Shields Road facility on Thursday morning and said that the deal showed “what our golden age of nuclear looks like in practice”…………….
Ms Fahnbulleh said that the SMR station, which is due to open in the mid-2030s, would help deliver long-term energy bill savings for families……………
Rolls-Royce SMR selected Siemens Energy as its global turbine supplier in 2025 and has also secured contracts for similar nuclear power stations in Sweden and Czechia……………………
Rolls-Royce SMR CEO, Chris Cholerton, called Siemens Energy a “world class” supplier.
He said: “This is a perfect example of reindustrialisation and the golden age of nuclear bringing that to life.” https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/politics/nuclear-power-station-parts-to-be-built-in-the-north-east-under-deal-for-siemens-energy-factory-8960138
Norway seizes Russian research ship in Arctic waters at Kiev’s request
Signs of the Times, 3 Sept 26
The Professor Molchanov, which was carrying scientists, passengers and vital supplies, was seized in Svalbard as Ukraine’s Naftogaz pursues Russian assets.
Norway has seized a Russian research vessel in Svalbard at the request of Kiev, prompting Russian President Vladimir Putin to denounce the capture of civilian vessels as “state terrorism.”
The vessel, called the Professor Molchanov, was detained while docked in Barentsburg, a Russian-operated settlement on the Norwegian-administered Arctic archipelago. The ship has been barred from leaving after a local court granted a request by Ukraine’s state-owned energy company Naftogaz.
Moscow has since summoned Norway’s ambassador in protest and vowed to challenge the seizure.
Why was a Russian state vessel in Norway in the first place, why does Kiev want it, and what could happen to the ship now?
What exactly happened
The Professor Molchanov arrived in Barentsburg on Tuesday on a scheduled voyage from Murmansk carrying scientists, passengers and supplies for the Russian settlements on the Norwegian-administered Arctic archipelago of Svalbard.
Norwegian officials first boarded the vessel for what Svalbard Governor Lars Fause described as an ordinary border and customs inspection, of a kind the ship had undergone numerous times before.
On Wednesday, Norwegian police, accompanied by an interpreter, boarded the ship again and read a court order to its captain, barring the vessel from leaving. Nobody aboard was arrested.
The order was issued on August 31 by the Nord-Troms and Senja District Court after an application from Ukraine’s Naftogaz.
What happened to the passengers and crew
The exact number of people on board when the ship arrived in Barentsburg has not been officially confirmed. The Professor Molchanov can accommodate up to 80 people, including at least 20 crew members and as many as 60 scientists and other expedition personnel.
Norwegian media have reported that around 50 passengers and crew were affected by the seizure………………………………………………
The Professor Molchanov
The ship, named after renowned Soviet meteorologist Pavel Molchanov, is a Russian state-owned, ice-strengthened research vessel with more than four decades of experience operating in polar waters.
Built in Finland for the Soviet hydrometeorological service and launched in late 1982, the 71-meter-long ship was designed for Arctic oceanographic and weather research. It carries four laboratories on board and can accommodate dozens of researchers alongside its crew.
The ship continues to be actively used in Arctic research, including studies of weather, marine ecosystems, microbiology, biodiversity and environmental conditions in the Barents and Kara seas…………………..
Why is goes to Svalbard
The voyage to Svalbard was part of a regular route between Murmansk and Barentsburg, a Russian mining settlement where the state-owned Arktikugol trust has operated for decades.
Since 2025, the Professor Molchanov has carried scientists, Arktikugol employees, contractors, family members and supplies to Barentsburg and another Russian settlement called Pyramida. Ten round trips were planned for 2026………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.sott.net/article/508230-Piracy-Norway-seizes-Russian-research-ship-in-Arctic-waters-at-Kievs-request
Consortium formed for Swedish SMR project

Thursday, 3 September 2026
Studsvik has selected GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Samsung C&T as its strategic partners for an initial four-unit BWRX-300 small modular reactor project, either at its existing licensed nuclear site in Nyköping or at the Målma site in Valdemarsvik.
Swedish nuclear technical services provider Studsvik, GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GVH), GE Vernova Financial Services, DS Investment Partners and Samsung C&T announced the signing of an agreement to advance the ReFirm nuclear programme at Studsvik’s sites in Sweden. The agreement is exclusive for a fixed period, which the parties may extend.
ReFirm is a multi-site small modular reactor (SMR) and new nuclear development programme that became part of the Studsvik Group through the acquisition of Kärnfull Next earlier this year. The programme is focused on light-water SMR technology, with plans for multiple units at “SMR parks”. Its plan is for the first unit to be commissioned in the mid-2030s. Kärnfull Next has worked with GE Vernova Hitachi on BWRX-300 deployment in Sweden since 2022 and entered a strategic teaming agreement with Samsung C&T in December 2024.
Under the new agreement, the partners will begin joint development work immediately, including commercial, technical, regulatory and financing activities during the exclusivity period. Studsvik will lead permitting, the environmental impact assessment, site rights, community engagement and the dialogue with the Swedish state. GVH will lead reactor design, licensing support and cost estimation and acts as design authority, and, together with Samsung C&T, acts as the execution team, giving the project single-point responsibility for design and construction delivery. During the exclusivity period, South Korean investment firm DS Investment Partners will lead the investment and GE Vernova Financial Services participates in an advisory and financial structuring capacity in support of the consortium.
A joint project company will be established to support development, financing, construction, ownership and operation of the plants, with details to be finalised in definitive agreements, Studsvik said. It noted that the agreement marks the next phase of development and does not constitute a final investment decision or authorisation to construct.
-
Archives
- September 2026 (184)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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
