The 2.2 million men that are currently on the run amounts to 6.8% of the Ukrainian population and is slightly larger than the percentage of Asians in the US.
New Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov shockingly revealed that 200,000 men have already deserted thus far and ten times more (2 million) are actively dodging the draft, which are probably an underestimate but are in any case still very large numbers. To put that into context, Ukraine claimed in early 2025 to have had a population of 32 million, likely an overestimate, so the 2.2 million men who either deserted or dodged the draft amounts to at least 6.8% of the population currently on the run.
Rada Deputy Dmitry Razumkov claimed during a parliamentary session last month that his country had already lost half a million troops by then with an equal number wounded, possibly also an underestimate, while Ukraine is thought to currently field around 900,000 active troops. All of this data enables observers to better understand the significance of these “voluntary losses” since it should be clear by now that 2.2 million more troops would have certainly made a major difference for Ukraine.
That’s not to imply that it would have been able to reverse the military-strategic dynamics of the conflict that have trended in Russia’s favor since the epicfailure of Ukraine’s NATO-backed counteroffensive in summer 2023, but perhaps it might have been able to decelerate the pace of its losses afterwards. Ukraine could have thus also been in a comparatively better diplomatic position too going into Trump 2.0 a year ago and that might have in turn predisposed him to a relatively harder line towards Russia as well.
For that reason, while the scale of its desertions and draft-dodging can’t credibly be described as a game-changer, it can still be considered a significant variable that adversely affected Ukraine’s fortunes. By contrast, this was never a relevant factor for Russia, which hasn’t conscripted anyone unlike Ukraine. On that topic, it’s worthwhile reminding readers about Ukraine’s forcible conscription policy that’s been made infamous by viral videos showing officials snatching young and old men alike off the streets.
This footage and stories that draft-eligible males (25-60 years of age) heard through the grapevine are partly why 2 million of them decided to go on the run and dodge the draft. They’ve also seen drone footage of the conflict zone and are therefore well aware of how likely it is that they’ll be killed shortly after being deployed to the front. These men might sincerely consider themselves to be Ukrainian patriots in their hearts, however they conceptualize it, but they’re not willing to die for nothing.
This segues into the plummeting popularity of the conflict among the populace and increasing support for a quick end thereto per recent Gallup polling. Trump just blamed Zelensky for stalling peace talks, which is in direct opposition to the will of the same people in whose name he still acts despite the expire of his term in May 2024. Other than his authoritarian tendencies, corruption is likely responsible for his obstinance since he’s thought to be profiting from the conflict and might thus fear charges once it ends.
Whenever he’s asked about the conflict, Trump usually says that he wants to end it as soon as possible in order to stop the killing, which it’s now known has spooked at least 2.2 million Ukrainian men into either deserting or dodging the draft. The 6.8% of the population that’s currently on the run is slightly larger than the Asian population in the US (6.7%) per the last census. The sooner that the conflict ends, the sooner that they can re-enter the economy and help rebuild their country, unless they flee abroad first.
An employment tribunal has ordered the taxpayer owned company tasked with safely decommissioning the UK’s first-generation nuclear power sites pay more than £10,800 in compensation to a worker who was banned from speaking Swahili. The Glasgow tribunal found that Nuclear Restoration Services Limited (NRS) discriminated against Mr K Ruiza after his line manager instructed him to only speak English while on site. The judge said the order left him humiliated, distressed and fearful he would lose his job. The tribunal ruled the company must pay £9,000 for injury to feelings, plus £1,875.94 in interest, bringing the total award to £10,875.94.
In a sweeping and unsparing conversation with Glenn Diesen, economist and longtime geopolitical analyst Jeffrey Sachs dissects the accelerating rupture between Europe and the United States — a crisis triggered not by Russia or China, but by Washington’s own imperial overreach. Speaking with Glenn, Sachs argues that Europe is finally confronting the consequences of “riding on the back of a predator,” a metaphor he borrows from President Kennedy’s 1961 warning that those who try to ride the tiger often end up inside it.
A Crisis Europe Helped Create
Sachs traces Europe’s current panic — triggered by Trump’s threats toward Greenland and open hostility toward NATO — to decades of European complicity in U.S. militarism. For years, he argues, European leaders “said not a word” as Washington toppled governments, invaded sovereign states, and shredded international law from Iraq to Libya to Syria.
One of Sachs’ most pointed observations captures the hypocrisy now on display:
“When the United States said, ‘We want Greenland,’ suddenly Europe rediscovered international law.”
The same governments that lectured Iran about “restraint” after being bombed, or applauded the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president, now find themselves shocked that the empire they enabled is turning its gaze toward them.
The End of the ‘Rules‑Based Order’
One of the most striking developments Sachs highlights is Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s admission in Davos that the so‑called “rules‑based international order” was never neutral — it was a Western privilege system. With the world shifting toward multipolarity, even U.S. allies are reassessing their dependence on Washington.
Carney’s outreach to China, Sachs notes, signals a geopolitical realignment that Europe has been too timid — or too captured — to attempt.
NATO’s Identity Crisis
The interview exposes a NATO leadership class that continues to praise U.S. power even as Trump openly calls the alliance America’s “enemy from within.” European leaders like Mark Rutte, Sachs argues, have responded with “pathetic” deference, hoping to appease Washington rather than assert independent interests.
Meanwhile, the EU’s political imagination has shrunk to a single unifying principle: Russophobia. Sachs calls this a catastrophic strategic error:
“Europe has no diplomacy with Russia, no diplomacy with the United States — basically no diplomacy at all.”
Germany’s Pivotal Role — and Repeated Failures
Sachs lays particular responsibility at Germany’s feet. From violating its reunification assurances on NATO expansion, to abandoning the 2014 Yanukovych agreement, to failing to enforce the Minsk II settlement, Berlin repeatedly chose alignment with Washington over European stability.
Yet Sachs insists the path to peace still runs through Berlin — joined by France, Italy, and the Central European states already calling for diplomacy.
Economic Warfare as Regime Change
One of the most explosive moments in the interview comes when Sachs quotes U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant openly bragging about collapsing Iran’s economy:
“This is economic statecraft… their economy collapsed… and this is why the people took to the streets.”
For Sachs, this is not policy — it is gangsterism. And Europe’s silence in the face of such actions has only emboldened Washington.
Despite Sachs bleak assessment, in the end there is room for conditional optimism: Europe could still reclaim sovereignty, pursue diplomacy, and avoid becoming collateral damage in America’s imperial decline. But doing so requires courage — something in short supply among current European elites.
The 2026 Winter Olympics will rely on millions of cubic metres of artificial snow. Climate crisis is threatening the future of the Winter Olympics, with warming winters already forcing heavy reliance on artificial snow at the upcoming games in Italy and raising questions about long-term viability of traditional skiing venues.
The 2026 Winter Olympics, co-hosted by Milan and the Alpine town of Cortina d’Ampezzo, will rely on millions of cubic metres of artificial snow…………………………..(Registered readers only)
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL , 24 Jan 26
Every day Ukraine sinks deeper into shattered rump state status. Every day brings more death, lost territory and degraded living conditions with no hope of prevailing against Russia.
Yet, instead of settling on Russia’s terms to end the war, end more casualties, end more lost land, Ukraine President Zelensky keeps shuttling between Europe and the US begging for weaponry to take the war deep into Russia.
The US has already bailed on investing in Ukraine’s lost cause. Europe is edging closer to bailing as well even as they continue the lie that a Ukraine victory is critical to keeping Russia from marching westward into NATO countries. They know the war is lost but cannot publicly admit that truth. In addition, without the US, they don’t have sufficient military resources to have any meaningful impact on the outcome.
Near four years into Ukraine’s demise, Zelensky may simply be delusional that Ukraine can prevail in expelling Russia from lost territories. It’s more likely he’s simply taking orders from his ultra-nationalist Kyiv handlers to keep demanding weaponry to continue Ukraine’s lost cause.
Zelensky’s recklessness was epitomized by his refusal to conclude the Istanbul Agreement with Russia in April 2022 that would have ended the 2 month conflict with a minimum of casualties, no lost territory and economy intact. All Zelensky had to do was give up NATO membership, guarantee Ukraine neutrality between Europe and Russia, and grant regional autonomy to the Russian cultured Ukrainians in Donbas being brutalized by Kyiv for 8 long years.
But instead of statesmanship, Zelensky chose recklessness, acquiescing in US, UK demands to keep the war going till Russia was defeated with US, NATO weaponry. But even with over $200 billion in such aid, Ukraine is nearing collapse, running out of soldiers that its western backers will never replace. $200 billion yes, but not one drop of western blood.
Zelensky’s recklessness in destroying Ukraine is exceeded by his dangerousness, putting the world at risk of nuclear war every day now for nearly 4 years. Every NATO bomb, tank, missile, gun given to Zelensky to attack Russia continues the threat of nuclear war between Russia and NATO. This was most irresponsibly demonstrated in 2022 when an errant Ukraine missile landed in Poland killing two Polish citizens. Zelensky immediately claimed it was a Russian missile which could have triggered a direct Article 5 NATO response against Russia. Tho the US quickly refuted Zelensky’s false claim, Zelensky has never wavered from demanding long range NATO weapons to attack deep into Russia, a prescription for all out NATO, Russia war that could go nuclear.
Continuing Ukraine’s inevitable collapse while keeping the whole world hostage to the possibility of nuclear war makes Volodymyr Zelensky the most reckless and dangerous leader in the world.
“The Kremlin has tried every which way to bring its ‘special military operation,’ along with its broader confrontation with the West, to a mutually beneficial conclusion.”
The Europeans have run out of postures and gestures in the way of performative statecraft: This is my conclusion. And the Russians, evidently sharing it in one or another form, see no point in indulging them any further.
The Europeans have run out of postures and gestures in the way of performative statecraft, and the Russians see no point in indulging them any further.
Sometimes wars have occasions that can be read — immediately, soon or in time — as turning points, clarifying moments. D–Day, June 6, 1944, is an obvious case: The Allies and the Red Army were in Berlin less than a year later.
The Tet Offensive, which began 58 years ago next week (Can you believe it?), is another: All the victory-is-near illusions the American command had cultivated for years collapsed. There were many more casualties at the altar of imperial delusion, but the war in Southeast Asia was on the way to over.
On Jan. 8 Russia attacked Lviv, the city in western Ukraine, with an Oreshnik missile. To me this looks very like a clarifying event in the Ukraine war — Moscow’s announcement that it has decided to begin the beginning of the end.
The Oreshnik is a new-generation weapon that already wears a little of the mystique of Ares, the Greek god of war. It travels at hypersonic speeds and is undetectable by air-defense systems. It is capable of carrying nuclear warheads, although the missile that hit Lviv wasn’t armed with one.
This was not Russia’s first use of the Oreshnik in Ukraine. Its first was in November 2024, when the target was a munitions factory in Dnipro, not far from the front lines. That blew minds as well as production lines.
But the missile that hit Lviv seemed to have more to say to the regime in Kiev and its Western backers, notably all those supercilious Europeans. Lviv, Ukraine’s cultural capital, has been a safe haven these past four years of conflict. Not to be missed, it lies roughly 45 miles from the border with Poland.
Russia’s declared intent in launching its second Oreshnik was to respond to the Dec. 29 drone attack the Ukrainians, with the usual assistance of the Americans and Brits, launched on President Vladimir Putin’s secondary residence in Valdai, northwest of Moscow.
Parenthetically, Kiev and the C.I.A., two famous truth-tellers, deny any such attack took place, but let us not waste any time with this silliness. The Russians have reportedly presented Western officials with evidence of the event.
Would Putin raise it in a telephone exchange with President Trump were it, as corporate media now have it, just another disinformation operation?
These things said, the Oreshnik hit in Lviv merits a broader reading, in my view.
Here is an account of the Oreshnik as it descended through the winter clouds above Lviv. It is written by Mike Mihajlovic, who publishes, edits and writes frequently for Black Mountain Analysis, a Substack newsletter I have found worth looking at on previous occasions.
This passage is based on Mihajlovic’s apparently diligent study of digital evidence and eyewitness accounts. Good enough we know what happens when these things arrive, as there may be more of them in the skies above Ukraine as the war begins its fifth year:
“As the hypersonic penetrators broke through the cloud layers, each was enveloped in a luminous plasma sheath, producing brief but violent flashes that momentarily illuminated the surrounding atmosphere. These flashes were not explosions in the conventional sense, but visual signatures of extreme velocity, friction, and compression as the warheads tore through dense air at hypersonic speed.
Observers on the ground reported an unsettling soundscape that followed the visual phenomenon. Rather than a single detonation, there were sharp, cracking noises that seemed to ripple across the terrain, as if the ground itself were fracturing under stress.
“What made the event particularly striking was the setting. The impacts occurred against the backdrop of an idyllic winter landscape: fields and forests blanketed in snow, small settlements dimly lit, and a horizon that, moments earlier, conveyed calm and stillness.
Against this muted palette, the light generated by the strike stood out with almost surreal intensity. Reflections danced across the snow, briefly turning the ground into a mirror that amplified the event’s brightness. Witnesses described the glow as unnatural, a cold, shimmering illumination that lingered just long enough to be noticed and remembered.”
The Lviv attack seems to be part of an intensifying campaign to cripple Ukraine’s power grids, energy infrastructure and productive capacity. The Russians have been hitting such targets for years, of course, but these new operations suggest Moscow is after the endgame now.
Moscow’s Attempts to End Conflict
The Kremlin has tried every which way to bring its “special military operation,” along with its broader confrontation with the West, to a mutually beneficial conclusion. You can go back to the spring of 2022, when was ready to sign an accord with Kiev a few months into the war — only for the Brits, with American consent, to scotch it.
Or December 2021, when it sent Washington and NATO draft treaties as a basis of negotiating a new security framework between the Russian Federation and the West. They were dismissed as “nonstarters,” a British-ism the Biden regime thought was clever.
Or the Minsk Protocols, September 2014 and February 2015, which the British and French sabotaged. Or back to the early 1990s, when Michail Gorbachev hoped to bring post–Soviet Russia into “a common European home.”
The Kremlin has proven exceptionally restrained, not to say forebearing, through all of this. And it would be a mistake now to conclude the Russians have lost their patience.
No, in my read they have simply concluded there is no point waiting around while the Western powers indulge themselves in pantomime statecraft or — maybe better put —some kind of group onanism they seem to find satisfying.
And in public, no less.
For weeks toward the end of last year we read incessantly of the intense diplomatic work Kiev, the Europeans and the Trump regime’s contingent were getting up to. The swashbuckling Musketeers cooked up a 20–point peace plan that was supposed to supersede Trump’s 28–point document.
Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s unconstitutional president, went from one European capital to another and then to Washington and then to Mar-a–Lago and then back to Europe, all along asserting he and his backers were “90 percent there.”
Ninety percent there on security guarantees providing for European troops to serve as peacekeepers on Ukrainian soil. Ninety percent there on a territorial settlement. And so on.
You watched all this with your jaw dropping. None of it had anything to do with fashioning an accord Moscow would find even preliminarily negotiable. The 20–point plan’s intent, indeed, was to subvert the 28–point plan, the first pieces of paper since the spring 2022 attempt that Moscow appeared to find worth its time.
Not Enough Delusion
No, the Trump plan was too realistic as a draft of a settlement accord in recognizing that Moscow was the victor in its war with Ukraine, Kiev the vanquished. There wasn’t enough delusion in it.
And now, roughly since the start of the year, more or less complete silence from Zelensky and the Musketeers — Kier Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz, a prime minister, a president and a chancellor.
There is no establishing any certain causality between the Oreshnik attack in previously safe — relatively speaking — western Ukraine, and this nothing-to-say lapse in Kiev, London, Paris and Berlin (and for that matter Washington). But the point may prove the same.
The Europeans have run out of postures and gestures in the way of performative statecraft: This is my conclusion. And the Russians, evidently sharing it in one or another form, see no point in indulging them any further.
As to the Trumpster, it seemed to me unimaginable from the outset that the national security state in all its appendages would ever allow him to reach a comprehensive settlement with Moscow that would open into a new era in East–West relations.
So has the war turned. So do matters clarify. So does the war in Ukraine appear set to end — not with a single detonation, no, rather with sharp cracking noises that seemed to ripple across the terrain.
Nearly 100 UK newspaper editorials were published opposing climate action in 2025, a record figure that shows the scale of the backlash against net-zero policies in the right-leaning press.
Carbon Brief examined editorials published since 2011. These included those written by external columnists and those acting as a publication’s official editorial ‘voice’.
In 2025, it identified 98 editorials rejecting climate action, compared with 46 in support. This was the first year in which opposition overtook support across the 15 years of data.
All 98 editorials opposing climate action appeared in right-leaning titles. The largest contributors were the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, followed by the Times and the Daily Express.
By contrast, almost all of the editorials pushing for more climate action were published in the Guardian and the Financial Times, which have far smaller circulations than several of the conservative papers.
Overall, 81% of climate-related editorials in right-leaning newspapers in 2025 rejected climate action – either overall, or due to specific policy interventions.
Carbon Brief said this marked a sharp change from a few years earlier, when many of the same papers showed increased enthusiasm for climate policy as Conservative governments under Theresa May and Boris Johnson introduced the net-zero by 2050 target and backed measures to deliver it.
Reform UK has also been rising in the polls while pledging to “ditch net-zero”. Carbon Brief said the positions taken by right-leaning newspapers tend to reflect and reinforce the politics of the parties they support.
None of the editorials opposing climate action questioned the existence of climate change or the science behind it. Instead, they criticised the policies designed to address it, a position Carbon Brief describes as “response scepticism”.
In many cases, newspapers attacked “net-zero” without mentioning climate change at all.
Economic arguments dominated the opposition. Carbon Brief found that more than eight in ten of 2025’s editorials rejecting climate action cited cost as a reason, describing net-zero as “ruinous” or “costly” and blaming it for driving up energy bills.
Earlier this month, several national newspapers also gave prominent coverage to a pamphlet from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) on the “cost of net-zero” that misrepresented the work of the National Energy Systems Operator (NESO).
The IEA claimed net-zero costs could exceed £7.6trn, but the figures were based on the flawed assumption that no investment would be made in energy systems if the UK did not have its 2050 climate target.
Critics also say the IEA mischaracterised NESO’s analysis. Regardless, the pamphlet appeared on the front page of the Daily Express and was reported by political correspondents at the Express, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph without scrutiny of the underlying energy data.
Miliband under sustained attack
Alongside criticism of policy, newspapers also targeted the Labour Government’s energy security and net-zero secretary, Ed Miliband.
In 2025, UK newspapers published 112 editorials taking personal aim at him, nearly all in right-leaning titles. The Sun alone published 51.
Six in ten editorials opposing climate action used criticism of climate advocates as part of their justification, and almost all of these mentioned Miliband.
Miliband was described as a “loon”, a “zealot” and the “high priest of net-zero”, and accused of “eco insanity” and “quasi-religious delusions”.
Newspapers frequently framed policies as “Ed Miliband’s net-zero agenda”, “Mr Miliband’s swivel-eyed targets” or “Mr Miliband’s green taxes”, presenting climate measures as being imposed on the public by the energy secretary. This is despite the fact that many targets and initiatives were kick-started under the Tories.
Renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels
Carbon Brief additionally analysed editorials on specific energy technologies.
There were 42 editorials criticising renewable energy in 2025. For the first time since 2014, anti-renewables editorials outnumbered those supporting them.
Cost was the dominant argument, with 86% of critical editorials using economic justifications.
The Sun referred to “chucking billions at unreliable renewables”, while the Daily Telegraph warned of an “expensive and intermittent renewables grid”.
At the same time, right-leaning newspapers continued to support nuclear power despite its high costs. There were 20 editorials backing nuclear energy in 2025, nearly all in conservative titles, and none opposing it.
The Times was the only right-leaning newspaper to publish any editorials backing renewables.
Support for fracking also reappeared. After falling away in 2023 and 2024, there were 15 editorials in 2025 arguing that fracking would be economically beneficial, even as the Government plans to ban the practice permanently.
North Sea oil and gas remained a major focus. Thirty editorials, all in right-leaning newspapers, mentioned the issue, with most arguing for increased extraction while also opposing climate action or renewable expansion.
January 2026, Research commissioned by The Wildlife Trusts
“…………………………………………………. Large nuclear projects, using potentially risky technology, have potential for significant environmental impacts on sensitive places and so it is right for there to be robust environmental assessments of these projects. The Government has an ambitious programme of nuclear deployment. It has published a new National Policy Statement for nuclear power.3 It has removed the restriction on new nuclear power to eight sites around the UK. It has said it will aid the completion of Hinkley Point C, provide additional funding for Sizewell C, and consider one large new nuclear power plant alongside the deployment of Small Modular Reactors. Due to their requirements and the types of site needed, nuclear projects have often impacted on ecologically sensitive areas. The new National Policy Statement on nuclear reiterates the importance of the Habitats Regulations and the protection of legally protected sites and wildlife.
As part of its efforts to boost nuclear deployment, the Government commissioned John Fingleton to lead a taskforce review of nuclear regulation. The final report of the Nuclear Regulatory Review was published in November 2025. It diagnosed environmental regulations as a blocker to nuclear deployment and included recommendations to water down those regulations. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that the Government accepts the principles of the Review, that within three months a plan will be published by DESNZ to implement the Review, and that its recommendations will be implemented within two years using legislation.6 Environmental groups are very concerned the recommendations will be adopted for the nuclear sector using legislation and potentially applied to other types of major infrastructure.
The Nuclear Regulatory Review is part of a wider pattern of the Government adopting the arguments of developers to pinpoint where delays are coming from; however, it is inaccurate and does not represent reality. Research by The Wildlife Trusts already shows that – despite the headlines and claims by the Chancellor and others – bats and newts, for example, were a factor in just 3.3% of planning appeals.7 This briefing will highlight how the claims made by the Nuclear Regulatory Review are similarly short on evidence and, if adopted, will do little to speed up planning decisions but, instead, will turn the nature crisis into a catastrophe. Many industries already say that the uncertainty caused by constantly changing regulations holds back development; the Nuclear Regulatory Review threatens to do just that.
Flaws and Inaccuracies in the Nuclear Regulatory Review The Review, commissioned by the Government, identifies three major areas for reform: risk aversion, process over outcomes, and a lack of incentives. The Review also turns nature into a scapegoat for a failure to deliver nuclear projects.
Recommendation 11 calls for various changes to the Habitats Regulations, including removing the requirement for compensation to be like-for-like. Recommendation 12 calls for nuclear developers to be allowed to comply with the regulations simply by paying a fixed sum (an amount per acre), which would be used by Natural England for nature somewhere else. When it comes to local planning, The Wildlife Trusts remain concerned with the related idea of payments for Environmental Delivery Plans as a way for developers to meet their legal obligations. A strategic approach might be appropriate when it comes to, for example, pollution impacts, but would not be suitable for irreplaceable habitats or species that cannot re-establish elsewhere easily.8
Recommendation 19 would remove the duty on Local Authorities to seek and further National Parks and Landscapes, returning to the old language of “have regard to”. The combination of these changes would not only substantially weaken protections for nature but would also introduce significant uncertainty in the nuclear sector and for other sectors about whether standards and regulations that are bedding in and increasingly becoming well understood are in fact about to change.
The Review was produced without enough environmental expertise – and this shows. It contains a number of errors when it comes to environmental evidence, which has led to a misdiagnosis of the problem and to damaging recommendations about environmental regulations.
The Review relies heavily on the case study of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. It is quick to use the case study to blame nature without examining the actions and decisions of the developer. A large amount of confusing and misleading information has been issued to the media and in the Review itself to further this narrative.
Here are some of the facts:
Hinkley Point C is on the edge of one of the most highly ecologically protected sites in Europe and will draw through a swimming pool’s worth of water every second for 70 years of operation. This will have enormous impacts on surrounding ecosystems, fish, and other species.9
A £700 million figure has been widely circulated in the press relating to fish deterrents and is quoted in the Review. This is incorrect. The cost of the fish deterrent system is £50 million.10
EDF themselves unilaterally decided in 2017 not to proceed with the fish deterrent system, despite it being a requirement. They then proceeded to apply for permit variations, undertake further environmental assessments and initiate a public inquiry to attempt to remove the requirement. These developer decisions have caused selfinflicted delays.11
Hinkley Point C’s original budget was £18 billion. It has since risen to an estimated £46 billion. The fish deterrent (at £50 million) comes to just 0.1% of this increased £46 billion budget. Nearly £30 billion in cost increases for Hinkley Point C have nothing to do with nature.12
The Nuclear Regulatory Review says (for example) that just 0.08 salmon, 0.02 trout, and 6 lamprey per year would be saved. This deliberately downplays the impact on nature. This statement relies on analysis by the developer EDF, who captured fish and put trackers on them and used old data from Hinkley B power station. Since then ,a more thorough analysis has been completed for the Environment Agency, who have found that 4.6 million adult fish per year being killed is a more accurate number, or 182 million fish in total over sixty years.13 These fish populations are a foundation stone for the wider ecosystem of the Severn Estuary, supporting internationally important migratory bird populations and other species. Many of the fish are rare or endangered. Damage on the scale suggested by the Environment Agency figures could have calamitous impacts on that ecosystem and the economic and social activities that rely on it………………………………………………………………………………
Environmental Damage of Nuclear Regulatory Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Conclusion
The Nuclear Regulatory Review recommendations 11, 12 and 19 will harm nature and biodiversity. They are based on flawed evidence relating to environmental regulations and how they have been applied. As discussed, the true reasons for nuclear delay lie elsewhere. Implementing the Nuclear Regulatory recommendations would devastate nature without speeding up the nuclear planning and delivery process. The Government must reject the three Nuclear Regulatory Review’s recommendations on environmental regulations and end its confected war on nature as a barrier to planning.
More than a dozen environmental groups and over 60 MPs are questioning the ‘Fingleton recommendations’ set out in the recent Nuclear Regulatory Review.
Led by economist John Fingleton, the Nuclear Regulatory Review made several recommendations designed to ease the path of nuclear development. Among these were proposals to weaken the Habitats Regulations which protect nature sites. But environmental groups, led by The Wildlife Trusts, claim that the review is based on flawed evidence, and that the recommendations could have a catastrophic effect on nature across the UK.
“The dice were loaded from the start – the nuclear review confirms a false narrative that was already being circulated by certain industry lobby groups and think tanks,” said Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts.
“The errors in the review form a clear pattern: repeated exaggeration of the costs of preventing harm to nature – and minimisation of the impact to wildlife of nuclear development without those measures. The fact that no environmental experts served on the panel is a disgrace and the resulting distorted picture obscures the value the natural world delivers for economic stability and net zero.”
A new report from The Wildlife Trusts points to specific examples where it believes the nuclear review falls short. It claims that, rather than £700m, Hinkley C’s much-debated fish deterrent system would actually cost £50m. This is against a total project cost of £46bn, up from an original estimate of £18bn.
The Nuclear Regulatory Review also claims that the fish deterrent system would save just 0.08 salmon, 0.02 trout and 6 lamprey per year. However, The Wildlife Trusts cites a report from the Environment Agency that suggests up to 4.6 million adult fish per year could be killed per year if no protective measures are put in place.
“There is limited evidence that environmental protections impose undue costs on infrastructure developers,” said Bennet. “In fact, evidence shows that frequently cited examples of expensive mitigation measures originated from developer mistakes and were unconnected to environmental issues. Blaming nature is unacceptable and a way of avoiding accountability.
“The developers of Hinkley C are trying to blame everyone but themselves for their own failure to think about nature from the outset. When developers think about nature too late in the design process, they end up creating bolt-on engineering solutions for ecological problems, which tend to be more expensive and less effective than committing to make infrastructure nature positive from the very start of the designing process. It’s pretty pathetic that the government is now trying to bail out energy infrastructure developers for this failure of commitment and imagination.”
The Wildlife Trusts’ campaign to save the environmental protections that are threatened by the recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Review is supported by 14 other organisations: Wildlife and Countryside Link, Rivers Trust, Campaign for National Parks, Marine Conservation Society, Plantlife, Buglife, Bat Conservation Trust, Amphibian Reptile Conservation, Badger Trust, Beaver Trust, Bumblebee Conservation Trust, Butterfly Conservation, Open Spaces Society, and Client Earth.
German companies have already begun negotiations with their connections in Russia to resume trade once the sanctions are lifted. Thus German business leaders plainly ignore Chancellor Merz and his bellicose provocations toward Russia.
Funding and arms for Ukraine from NATO countries have all but dried up. The pipeline of conscripts in Ukraine has likewise run short of victims.
Zelensky continues to flit from one European capital to another seeking more billions in handouts. But his veneer of propaganda has grown thin at best. The warm wet kisses and embraces he received from neocons and Democrats in the U.S. as well as the WEF puppets of Europe, Macron, Starmer, Merz, Von der Leyen no longer present the same appeal.
Kiev Mayor Klitschko has advised everyone to evacuate the capital city, as electrical power has been cut off. This can only increase the flow of Ukrainians into Europe, already weary from hosting millions of Ukrainians for the past 4 years.
Anyone paying attention has seen the wretched excess of corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs in expensive sports cars with Ukrainian license plates in Monaco and various other luxury European holiday locales.
The U.S. has cut off the Ukraine grift while all of Europe is tapped out. Von der Leyen’s insatiable greed for more billions from Europeans and her plans to steal ‘frozen’ Russian assets have petered out once the European banks understood that doing so would be an existential threat to the Euro and themselves.
Momentum for the end of the war in Ukraine keeps building. The only question that remains is if Ukraine can negotiate any of their surrender terms with Russia or if the government will finally collapse as the economy collapses and the battle front recedes toward Kharkiv, Odessa and Kiev.
Nuclear energy does not appear in any of the 19 EU sanctions packages, thanks to a key individual. Former nuclear power executive Henri Proglio has maintained several consulting offices in Moscow, the heart of Putin’s power, for the past 10 years. The former head of the state-owned Électricité de France (EdF) still sits on the international advisory board of Putin’s nuclear power conglomerate Rosatom.
Déjà vu: A wave of outrage swept through Germany when the “family business owners” tested the boundaries by extending an invitation to the AfD. The business lobby group eventually backtracked. The German “corporate families” may have been inspired by French far-right extremists who have been casting their nets into corporate boardrooms for some time. The French trial balloon was launched two years ago, a few months before the elections, and provoked a media frenzy. Marine Le Pen, the presidential candidate of the National Rally (RN), orchestrated a meeting with an extremely polarizing manager: Henri Proglio. He was one of the country’s most powerful business leaders until he was deemed inferior at the nuclear power company Électricité de France (EdF).
Critics consider the self-proclaimed Putin supporter, who calls himself a “killer ,” to be “not as successful as he would have people believe .” They claim he has “developed a system of clans, gangs, and sinecures” that promoted nuclear technology exports to crisis regions. Under his leadership (2009-2014), he forged ties with Chinese rulers, the Libyan dictator Gaddafi , the Saudi Bin Laden Group, and other dubious business partners. His mentor, Nicolas Sarkozy, was imprisoned over the Libya affair. Another key figure in this corrupt clique, the secret protector of Proglio’s career, “Monsieur Alexandre,” also received a prison sentence. Proglio’s enforcer, a former gang leader from the Parisian suburbs , knows prison from the inside. The middleman rose from the underworld to the highest circles of politics and business: “I hold them all by the balls .”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Proglio and the National Rally (RN) are advocating for a “Frexit,” wanting to withdraw from the EU electricity market and give preferential treatment to French companies. These ideas of European division are welcomed by the Kremlin. ………………………………
the fact that “the fuels that power our nuclear power plants largely come from Russia”amounts to nothing less than import dependency . And this is with a high-risk technology of civil-military relevance.
“Why is the nuclear industry spared?” Investigate Europe and Tagesspiegel asked back in 2022. Nuclear power does not appear in a single one of the (now 19) EU sanctions packages. In their joint research, they show: “ The close connection between the French and Russian nuclear industries is exemplified not least by Henri Proglio , the former CEO of the French state-owned electricity supplier EDF, who still sits on the international advisory board of Rosatom ,” the Russian nuclear conglomerate used by Vladimir Putin as a geopolitical instrument to expand his influence in Europe.
No nuclear sanctions – thanks to import dependency and a key personnel decision
In addition to his position at Rosatom, Proglio has maintained several consulting offices in Moscow for the past ten years, profiting handsomely from Putin’s war in Ukraine and orchestrating shady deals, including in the nuclear sector. This is particularly sensitive because he is privileged to the most closely guarded secrets of France, a civilian-military nuclear power. While he can keep secrets—he even concealed the lucrative activities of companies like ‘Henri Proglio Consulting’ and ‘HP Energy Advisory’ in Moscow from the parliamentary inquiry committee—it is highly questionable whether this is always in the best interests of France or Europe.
……………………….He believes the existing reactors should be allowed to operate until a medium-power reactor (1000 MW) is developed. He himself is responsible for the sale of the intellectual property rights for precisely this technology to China. That was the death knell for the French reactor manufacturer Areva.
Trump has placed tariffs on Europeans nations that oppose the US seizing Greenland
Amid threats from President Donald Trump to take over Greenland, a Danish politician said that if the US seized the colony, a war would break out.
Danish MP Rasmus Jarlov said that if the US military invades Greenland, “it would be a war, and we would be fighting against each other.”
“There’s no threat, there’s no hostility. There’s no need, because the Americans already have access to Greenland, both militarily and in all other ways.” He continued, “There are no drug routes. There is no illegitimate government in Greenland. There is absolutely no justification for it– no historical ownership, no broken treaties, nothing can justify it.”
In recent weeks, President Trump said the US will take control of Greenland. The President argues it is a matter of national security, as Russia or China will seize Greenland from Denmark if the US does not gain control first. In response to Trump’s threats, Denmark has begun increasing its military presence in Greenland.
Trump’s plan to take Greenland has met stiff opposition in Europe. The President has slapped 10% tariffs on eight European countries. Trump said the tariffs would increase if those nations did not change policy and support the US seizure of Greenland.
An executive at Deutsche Bank suggested that European countries could pressure the US to back away from Greenland by refusing to buy US bonds. George Saravelos, head of FX research, explained, “For all its military and economic strength, the US has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits.”
Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the risk of a currency war with Europe. “The media has latched on to this. I think it is a completely false narrative. It defies any logic,” he said Tuesday.
“If you look, the US Treasury market was the best-performing market in the world, or the best G7-performing bond market, and we had the best performance since 2020. It is the most liquid market.” Bessent continued,” It is the basis for all financial transactions, and I am sure that the European governments will continue holding it.”
The President said he did not expect Europe to push back too much if he annexed Greenland. “I don’t think they are going to push back too much,” he said, adding, “We have to have it.”
The Chernobyl power plant has lost its external power supply after a series of Russian attacks on Ukraine‘s energy infrastructure, the IAEA has warned.
The International Atomic Energy Agency Director General, Rafael Grossi, reported this morning that several Ukrainian power substations had been affected by large-scale military activity.
One of these was the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, which lost all external power supply, as well as several other power lines to other nuclear plants.
‘The IAEA is actively monitoring developments to assess the impact on nuclear safety,’ added Director General Grossi.
It comes just a day after military intelligence officers in Ukraine warned that Russian missile strikes against the country’s power grid could lead to a ‘second Chernobyl’.
Ukrainian experts say that Vladimir Putin‘s ongoing bombardment of Ukraine’s power grid, cutting electricity and heating in freezing temperatures, could trigger a major disaster.
Serhiy Beskrestnov, a Ukrainian expert in electronic warfare, said that the missiles being launched at energy infrastructure are landing in close proximity to nuclear reactors – some just 300 metres away.
If a Russian strike against sucha substation were to miss, it could trigger a disaster, he warned.
He compared the impact of such an attack to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, when a catastrophic explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant unleashed huge amounts of radiation, forcing hundreds of thousands of evacuations.
Taking to his Telegram channel on Monday, he said: ‘A miss by an Iskander or a Kinzhal could turn into a second Chernobyl’.
He added that the combination of a Russian strike against such substations, in an attempt to cause a nationwide blackout, as well as their track record for missing targets, made for a very dangerous situation……………………………………….
Ukrainian officials have introduced emergency measures, including temporarily easing curfew restrictions, allowing people to go to public heating centres set up by the authorities, Shmyhal said.
However, last month, Russia was thrown into complete darkness due to a power outage after Ukraine launched a series of drone strikes on Moscow.
Footage emerged from the Russian capital, showing entire tower blocks without light and dead street lamps due to the widespread blackout.
According to the Russian power company PAO Rosseti, over 100,000 residents of Ramensky, Zhukovsky, and Lytkarino were left without electricity in the dead of winter.
Russia claimed the power outage occurred due to an automatic shutdown at a high-voltage electricity substation, though it was unclear whether this was the cause or if it resulted from a Ukrainian drone strike.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s former press secretary, Iuliia Mendel, said at the time: ‘Total blackout hits Moscow region is reported on social media.
‘Over 600,000 people plunged into darkness for more than four hours — no electricity, no mobile signal, total isolation. Drone threat declared across the oblast right now.’
The strike came in the dead of winter, with images revealing a thick layer of snow covering the frigid Moscow streets.
This ambitious project aims to supply energy for its lunar space programme and a joint research station with China, as global powers intensify their efforts in lunar exploration.
Historically, Russia has held a prominent position in space, notably with Yuri Gagarin’s pioneering journey in 1961.
However, its dominance has waned in recent decades, with the nation now trailing behind the United States and, increasingly, China.
The country’s lunar aspirations faced a significant setback in August 2023 when its uncrewed Luna-25 mission crashed during a landing attempt.
Furthermore, the landscape of space launches, once a Russian speciality, has been revolutionised by figures such as Elon Musk, adding to the competitive pressure.
Russia’s state space corporation, Roscosmos, said in a statement that it planned to build a lunar power plant by 2036 and signed a contract with the Lavochkin Association aerospace company to do it.
Roscosmos said the purpose of the plant was to power Russia’s lunar programme, including rovers, an observatory and the infrastructure of the joint Russian-Chinese International Lunar Research Station.
“The project is an important step towards the creation of a permanently functioning scientific lunar station and the transition from one-time missions to a long-term lunar exploration program,” Roscosmos said.
Roscosmos did not say explicitly that the plant would be nuclear but it said the participants included Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom and the Kurchatov Institute, Russia’s leading nuclear research institute.
The head of Roscosmos, Dmitry Bakanov, said in June that one of the corporation’s aims was to put a nuclear power plant on the moon and to explore Venus, known as Earth’s “sister” planet.
The moon, which is 384,400 km (238,855 miles) from our planet, moderates Earth’s wobble on its axis, which ensures a more stable climate. It also causes tides in the world’s oceans.
Europeans are tired. They want peace, stability, and the quiet dignity of prosperity.
When a prime minister advises his staff to rest because the coming year will be much more difficult, it is neither black humor nor fatigue. It is a moment of sincerity, the kind that only emerges when internal projections no longer support the public narrative.
Giorgia Meloni was not addressing the electorate. She was addressing the machinery of the state itself, the administrative core charged with implementing decisions whose effects can no longer be hidden. Her observation was not about a normal increase in workload. She was talking about constraints, about limits being reached, about a Europe that has moved from crisis response to a phase of controlled contraction, fully aware that 2026 is the year when deferred costs will eventually converge.
What has leaked out is what European ruling circles have already understood: the Western strategy in Ukraine has run up against material limits. Not with Russian messages, not with disinformation, not with populist dissent, but with steel, ammunition, energy, manpower, and time. Once these realities assert themselves, political legitimacy begins to erode.
The EU cannot sustain this war economically. Europe can strike poses of readiness. It cannot manufacture war.
After years of high-intensity conflict, both the US and Europe are rediscovering a long-forgotten truth: wars of this nature cannot be sustained with speeches, sanctions, or the abandonment of diplomacy. They require bullets, missiles, trained personnel, maintenance cycles, and industrial production that consistently exceeds battlefield losses. None of this exists, not in sufficient quantities, and it is not feasible in the timeframe preached in Brussels.
Russia is producing artillery ammunition in quantities that Western officials now openly admit exceed NATO’s total production. Its industrial base has shifted to near-continuous wartime production, with centralized procurement, streamlined logistics, and state-led manufacturing, without even total mobilization. Estimates place Russian production at several million artillery shells per year, already delivered, not just projected.
Europe, meanwhile, spent 2025 congratulating itself on targets it is structurally incapable of achieving. The EU’s stated commitment of two million shells per year depends on facilities, contracts, and labor that will not be available by the decisive period of the war, if ever. Even if achieved, the figure would still be less than Russian production. The US, despite emergency expansion, expects about one million shells per year once full ramp-up is complete, and only if that happens. Even on paper, combined Western production struggles to match what Russia is already producing in practice. The imbalance is clear.
This is not just a deficit, but a misalignment of timing. Russia is producing now. Europe is planning for the future. And time is the only factor immune to sanctions.
Washington, in fact, cannot indefinitely compensate for Europe’s eroded capacity because it faces its own industrial difficulties. Patriot interceptor production remains in the order of a few hundred per year, while demand simultaneously concerns Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the replenishment of US stocks: an imbalance that, as Pentagon officials admit, cannot be resolved quickly. Shipbuilding tells a similar story: submarines and surface ships are years behind schedule due to labor shortages, aging infrastructure, and skyrocketing costs, pushing significant expansion toward 2030. The assumption that America can indefinitely support Europe is no longer in line with reality. This is a systemic Western problem.
Unfounded war rhetoric
European leaders talk about a “state of war” as if it were a rhetorical position, but in reality, it is an industrial condition that Europe does not meet.
New artillery lines take years to reach stable production. Air defense interceptors are produced in long, batch-based cycles, not in sudden spikes. Even basic components such as explosives remain a critical issue, with plants that closed decades ago only now reopening and some not expected to reach full capacity until the late 2020s. This timeline is in itself an admission.
Europe’s weakness is not intellectual, but institutional: huge sums have been authorized, but procurement inertia, fragmented contracts, and a depleted supplier base have meant that deliveries are years behind schedule. France, often described as Europe’s most capable arms manufacturer, is capable of building advanced systems, but only in limited quantities, counted in dozens, while a war of attrition requires thousands. EU ammunition initiatives have expanded capacity on paper, while the front has exhausted ammunition in a matter of weeks.
These are not ideological shortcomings, but administrative and industrial failures, which are exacerbated in stressful situations. It is yet another example of the failure of European Community policy, so much so that the structural contrast is stark. Western industry has been optimized for shareholder returns and peacetime efficiency, while Russian industry has been reoriented to withstand pressure. NATO announces aid packages. Russia counts deliveries. You can already guess what the outcome of this situation will be, right?
This industrial reality explains why the debate on asset freezing was so important and why it failed. Europe did not pursue the seizure of Russian sovereign assets out of legal ingenuity or moral determination, but because it needed time: time to avoid admitting that the war was unsustainable in Western industrial terms, time to replace production with financial maneuvers.
When the effort to confiscate some €210 billion in Russian assets failed on December 20, blocked by legal risks, market repercussions, and opposition led by Belgium, with Italy, Malta, Slovakia, and Hungary opposing total confiscation, the Brussels technocracy settled for a reduced alternative: a €90 billion loan to Ukraine for 2026-27, with interest payments of around €3 billion per year. This further mortgages Europe’s future. This is not a strategy, but emergency triage. A collapsing political hospital. Pure panic.
Narrative, crisis, disaster
The deeper reality is that Ukraine is no longer primarily a military dilemma, it is a question of solvency. Washington recognizes this, because it cannot absorb the reputational discomfort, but they cannot take on unlimited responsibility forever. A way out is being explored, discreetly, inconsistently, and shrouded in rhetorical cover.
Europe cannot admit the same necessity, because it has ultimately adopted ‘Putin’s version’, i.e. it has framed the war as existential, civilising, moral – but do you remember when European politicians enjoyed calling Putin crazy for talking about a clash of civilisations?
Compromise has become appeasement, negotiation surrender. In doing so, Europe has eliminated its own escape routes. Well done, ladies and gentlemen!
On the narrative front, greetings to all. The aggressive enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services Act has less to do with security than with containment: building an information perimeter around a consensus that cannot survive open scrutiny. Translated: censorship as a solution. The truth of the matter must not be made known, and those who try to do so must be suppressed in an exemplary manner. This also explains why regulatory pressure now extends beyond European borders, generating transatlantic friction over freedom of expression and jurisdiction. Confident systems welcome debate. Fragile ones suppress it. In this case, censorship is not ideology, but a form of insurance.
The information crisis, rest assured, will very soon become… a social crisis ready to detonate into domestic conflict.
And the crisis is also one of resources and energy. We are witnessing the securitization of decline, whereby obligations are postponed while the productive base needed to sustain them continues to shrink. It’s a cat chasing its tail. Here too, you know how it will end, don’t you?
Europe has not only sanctioned Russia. It has sanctioned itself. European industry will continue to pay energy prices well above those of its competitors in the United States or Russia throughout 2026. Take a trip around Europe, read the headlines in local newspapers, look at people’s faces: the fabric of small and medium-sized enterprises, the true beating heart of entire EU countries, is quietly disappearing. And this is logically reflected in large companies too. This is why Europe cannot increase its production of ammunition and why rearmament remains an aspiration rather than a concrete operation.
Energy, we said. Low-cost energy was not a convenience, it was essential. If it is eliminated through self-inflicted damage, the entire structure is emptied. Even the most ambitious plans preached for years, such as the IMEC corridor, are still a mirage. There is a stampede towards Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to try to scrape together a few kilowatts. A ridiculous attempt to save what is now tragically unsalvageable.
China, observing all this, represents the other half of Europe’s strategic nightmare. It controls the world’s deepest manufacturing base without having entered into a position of war. Russia does not need China’s full capacity, only its strategic depth in reserve. Europe has neither.
A frightening 2026
2026 therefore looks set to be a terrible year, I’m sorry to say. The European elites find themselves losing control on three fronts at once. On finance, because the budget will be bitter and the money for the insane support to Kiev will no longer be the same. On narrative, because the question citizens will ask themselves will be ‘what was the point of all this?’. On the cohesion of the Alliance, both NATO and the EU, because Washington’s disengagement will force a review of the balance of power on the European continent to the point of no return and, perhaps, a break between the two sides divided by the ocean.
Panic, again. Not a sudden defeat, but the slow erosion of legitimacy as reality creeps in through gas that costs as much as gold, closed plants, empty stockpiles, obsolete rifles, and a future that is turning away.
This is not just a difficult situation for Europe, but a matter of civilization. A system incapable of producing, supplying, speaking honestly, or retreating without collapsing in credibility has reached its limit. When leaders begin to prepare their institutions for worse years, they are not anticipating inconveniences, but recognizing structural failure.
Empires proclaim victory loudly. Declining systems quietly lower expectations or, in this case, momentarily say the quiet part out loud. But the truth is that nothing is the same as before, and it is obvious.
For most Europeans, the reckoning will not come as an abstract debate about strategy or supply chains, but as a simple realization: this was never a war they consented to. It did not defend their homes, their prosperity, or their future. And so, again, how do you think it will end?
An ideological war has been fought in the name of imperial ambition and financed through declining living standards, industrial decline, and the prospects of their children. In the name of big pro-European capital, of the privileged few with robes, stars, and crowns.
For months, even years, it was said that “there was no alternative” and that this was the only course of action. And now?
Europeans are tired. They want peace, stability, and the quiet dignity of prosperity: affordable energy, a functioning industry, and a future unencumbered by conflicts they NEVER chose and, above all, they do not want the decline of millennia-old civilizations.
And when this awareness has taken hold, when the fear has faded and the spell has been broken, the question Europeans will ask themselves will not be technical or ideological. It will be existential. And all existential questions lead to radical choices, even terrible ones.
May this dramatic fear keep the mad leaders of this Europe awake at night.
nuclear-news 