It’s Time to Admit the Truth About the War in Ukraine—and Course Correct
If it wasn’t clear to Washington before the offensive started that the fundamentals of combat operations and principles of war indicated Ukraine would likely fail, it should now be crystal clear.
DANIEL L. DAVIS , SENIOR FELLOW, DEFENSE PRIORITIES ON 9/18/23 https://www.newsweek.com/we-can-no-longer-hide-truth-about-russia-ukraine-war-opinion-1826532?amp=1
As leading American politicians, generals, and pundits continue advocating for open-ended support to Kyiv in their war against Russia, a sober, accurate analysis of Ukraine’s nearly completed summer offensive reveals that the heroic sacrifice Ukraine continues to make is producing little to no meaningful progress toward the objective of evicting Russia from Ukraine’s territory.
Washington should instead employ a necessary course correction and form a new policy, based on the harsh, ground-truth combat realities in Ukraine. Revising the objectives would give Washington and Kyiv a chance to preserve Ukrainian lives and American interests.
Washington’s current policies do neither.
Despite great hopes for a rapid success, Ukraine’s months-in-the-making offensive has sputtered from the outset. That shouldn’t have surprised anyone in the White House. On April 5, two months before the start of the offensive, I wrote that “Zelensky’s troops—with little to no air power and a dearth in artillery ammunition—could suffer egregious casualties while gaining little.”
Five days later, The Washington Post revealed the contents of a leaked Top Secret U.S. intelligence assessment which likewise predicted the Ukrainian offensive would probably fall “well short” of expectations, and that “enduring Ukrainian deficiencies in training and munitions supplies probably will strain progress and exacerbate casualties during the offensive.” Total Ukrainian deaths in the war at that point were estimated to be as low as 17,500.
About a month before the start of the offensive, I again warned that the odds were stacked heavily against Kyiv. To succeed, I explained, Ukraine would “have to conduct the most difficult task in modern land warfare: a combined arms operation into the teeth of a dug-in enemy force that is prepared for an attack,” complicated by the shortage of artillery ammunition along with “limited airpower and minimal air defense.” Nevertheless, on the eve of battle, some Western analysts remained optimistic.
Once the offensive began on June 5, however, that optimism quickly evaporated. In the first two weeks of the fighting, Ukraine’s spearhead brigades suffered massive losses in armor and personnel while capturing virtually no territory. By the end of the third week, they had lost an estimated fifth of their strike force, requiring Ukraine to dramatically change tactics. Instead of leading with tanks and other armored vehicles (which were predictably getting chewed up in minefields and by Russian anti-tank missiles and artillery shells), Ukraine moved to an infantry-centric attack system.
While this change did result in producing incremental gains, the cost was exorbitant. On Aug. 29, the BBC reported that new leaked reports suggested Ukrainian battle deaths exploded since the offensive started. Whereas Ukraine was reported to have lost 17,500 troops in the first year of the war, it is presently assessed to have lost a breathtakingly high 50,000 additional deaths, for a total of 70,000 dead and 120,000 wounded.
If it wasn’t clear to Washington before the offensive started that the fundamentals of combat operations and principles of war indicated Ukraine would likely fail, it should now be crystal clear. Although Ukraine appears to have finally penetrated the first line of Russia’s main defense, the most difficult part of Russia’s defensive system has yet to be overcome: the hundreds of kilometers of dragon’s teeth, tank ditches, and yet more vast minefields.
It is unclear at this point whether Ukraine has enough striking power remaining in its offensive forces to reach, much less penetrate, Russia’s second main line—beyond which is a third main line followed by a fortress-defense at Tokmak, which is still 75 road kilometers from the Azov coast. Given these realities, the best Ukraine can likely do for the rest of the year is to hold what they have and prevent the possibility of losing more territory to a potential Russian counteroffensive this fall.
The United States, however, would be wise to adjust its policies to reflect the reality of Ukraine’s slim chances against Russia’s fortified lines. Washington has spent nearly $113 billion over the course of this war, provided Ukraine with an astounding volume of modern arms and ammunition, and delivered an impressive array of training and intelligence support. After almost a year of preparation, it hardly dented the Russian lines.
There is no realistic basis, therefore, to believe that Ukraine has the capacity to attain its stated strategic objective to reclaim all its territory, including Crimea. What is realistic is to continue providing Kyiv with the military wherewithal to defend itself from further Russian incursions. This goal should be combined with shifting an increasing percentage of the burden for additional arms and ammunition to our rich European friends. The U.S. should continue to ensure the war does not expand beyond the borders of Ukraine, and increase diplomatic efforts with all relevant parties to end the war on the best terms possible for Kyiv—all of which are beneficial to American interests.
Rather than repeating over the next year and a half what has already not worked—potentially costing Ukraine yet additional hundreds of thousands of losses—it’s time to try something that has a chance to succeed. In other words, it’s time to acknowledge objective reality and employ policies that can work.
Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America. Follow him @DanielLDavis1
France’s nuclear power sector is not delivering
Euractiv, By Philippe Girard, Sep 26, 2023
The dominant player in France’s energy sector, Electricité de France (EDF), must leave room for smaller energy providers who offer an innovative alternative to the national nuclear energy champion model, writes Philippe Girard.
Philippe Girard is CEO of E-Pango and an expert in energy and electricity markets.
As the International Energy Agency has recently warned, Europe could face a very difficult winter this year despite coping impressively with the challenges of sky-high natural gas prices that followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Surprisingly, France needs to prepare to face another energy crisis this winter.
France’s nuclear energy sector has been hailed as the best in Europe, if not the world, for decades. France’s once robust nuclear sector, responsible for 70% of its energy production, should have positioned the country as a dominant force in Europe’s energy landscape.
However, in 2022, France was forced to import electricity from Germany, Spain and the UK when a significant proportion of France’s nuclear reactors had to close for unscheduled maintenance. How did this happen?
Many analysts attribute France’s current energy crisis to a combination of external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, inconsistent government policies and plain bad luck. Yet, pinning this crisis on these factors alone would be a mistake.
The story behind France’s energy sector turmoil is intimately linked to the machine behind it all, Electricité de France (EDF), the state-controlled energy company. Years of poor decision-making and mismanagement have eroded the country’s nuclear advantage, resulting in France importing energy rather than exporting it……………………………………………………………………….
In a landscape dominated by EDF, its responsibility must be questioned. By the end of 2022, EDF’s debts had reached a staggering €64.5 billion, making it one of the most heavily indebted companies globally. The full acquisition of EDF by the French State in 2023 was crucial for the company’s survival. Presently, the French government needs to boost EDF’s revenues without imposing higher electricity expenses on consumers. At the same time, it must navigate the delicate path of avoiding prosecution by the European Commission for potential infringements related to illegal state aid and distortion of competition.
The importance of preventing one dominant player from having a quasi-monopoly on non-intermittent capacity cannot be understated. In the case of EDF, it has negatively impacted the European and UK electricity markets.
Considering the turmoil caused by EDF and its place within the French energy ecosystem, ending EDF’s monopoly on the energy sector by diversifying energy providers and embracing innovation should be the way forward. Smaller energy providers offer an innovative alternative to the national champion model.
Consumers will have much to gain from introducing competition in France’s electricity market. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/frances-nuclear-power-sector-is-not-delivering/
Kiev’s counteroffensive unlikely to achieve its goals – US officials to New York Times
Ukrainian forces will need to pause in a few weeks to restock and recover after summer fighting, the paper reports, citing sources
Officials in Washington have suggested that Ukraine’s military forces won’t be able to cut Russia’s land bridge to Crimea as part of their counteroffensive or achieve other key goals, the New York Times has reported.
“Some American officials have said that the Ukrainian counteroffensive appears likely to fall short of its strategic goals,” the paper reported in an article on Friday.
Kiev’s forces are struggling to achieve the aim of reaching the Sea of Azov in Russia’s Zaporozhye Region, because the minefields set up by Moscow’s forces, they say, have proven to be “a potent defense,” the Times added.
According to US officials, conducting offensive operations would also soon become even more difficult for Ukraine “as the ground becomes soft and muddy” in the region.
The NYT also said that some in Washington have warned that “within a few weeks, the Ukrainian army will need time to rebuild their stockpile of equipment and to rest forces exhausted by the summer fighting.”………………………………more https://www.rt.com/news/583443-ukraine-counteroffensive-us-zelensky/—
What will happen to 140-tonne stockpile of combustible sodium at Dounreay?
Dounreay’s operators have still to decide what to do with the remaining 140
tonne stockpile of sodium on site. Plans are afoot to build a new plant to
neutralise what is one of the most hazardous legacies from its days as the
UK’s testbed for fast reactors.
But Magnox Ltd has not ruled out hauling
the material to a disposal plant, if it can find one able and willing to do
the job. An update was given at Wednesday evening’s meeting of Dounreay
Stakeholder Group (DSG) when the site management came under fire for not
dealing with the issue years ago.
John O’Groat Journal 25th Sept 2023
A mature design or junk? EDF plan for Sizewell C continues to rely on controversial EPR reactor
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities were incredulous to hear the recent claim by Sizewell C’s Joint Managing Director that EDF’s project plan was based on ‘a mature reactor design’.
Julie Pyke’s bold assertion was included in the media statement issued last week by government ministers announcing they were seeking private sector investment in the controversial project.
EDF Energy, the wholly-French-stated-owned operator of Britain’s nuclear reactor fleet, intends to deploy its European Pressurised Reactor (or EPR) at Sizewell C, should the project ever become operational.
Cynics have assigned the EPR a less complimentary sobriquet, ‘European Problem Reactor’, for this is the same reactor design that was involved in an accident at the Taishan-1 plant in China. Here radioactive gas leaked, seemingly because of corrosion and faulty parts. It is also same reactor which, at Olkiluoto-3 in Finland, took over a year to bring online, after being delivered fourteen years late, following the discovery of repeated faults.
In response to last week’s official investment launch for Sizewell C, Andy Mayer, the Chief Executive of the Institute of Economic Affairs, was quick to rubbish its prospects saying that:
“The underlying EPR tech is junk, resulting in projects that run over-time/budget [and] when built are riddled with corrosion…investors would be mad to back Sizewell. If built, it will be late & obsolete”.
And in December of last year, the former Chief Executive of EDF (surely a man who should know), Henri Proglio, told a hearing of the French National Assembly in exasperation that:
“The EPR is too complicated, almost unbuildable. We see the result today.”
The Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee, Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, said in response to Ms Pyke’s claim:
“Whether you believe the EPR is turnkey or turkey, we suspect that this is a classic case of someone in authority adopting an attitude of hope over expectation as the history of EPRs has so far been the stuff of nightmares rather than something to write home about.
“Hinkley Point C will be delivered around a decade late at a cost of at least £33 billion, nearly double the original budget. The development at Sizewell C with its extra geographical complexities, will we suspect take even longer and cost so much more – and that is assuming that the whole project is not kiboshed by the serious legal challenge being pursued by our friends in Together Against Sizewell C and their allies”.
The timing of the government’s announcement is itself suspect as Barclays have previously been appointed by government to solicit investors and there have been many pronouncements, usually negative, by the leaders of major financial institutions on their prospects of investing in Sizewell C.
Being of similar mind to Mr Mayer, the NFLAs have been active in backing our friends in the campaign group, Stop Sizewell C, in writing to prospective investors to point out the pitfalls that might befall backing the White Elephant.
Gratifyingly, so far, the market has proven lukewarm in embracing new nuclear, with a typically prescient comment made by a spokesperson for Legal & General Capital to The Telegraph:
“Our stance hasn’t changed: we are focused on investing in and supporting other innovative, viable, and cost-effective clean energy solutions that are already delivering results.”
The NFLAs hope that this will be the uniform response of the market and that this unwanted and unneeded nuclear waste of public money will soon be abandoned.
Solar and wind farms can easily power the UK by 2050, scientists say
A team at the University of Oxford claims that the two technologies could provide ten times our present need
Adam Vaughan, Environment Editor, Tuesday September 26 2023, The Times
Wind and solar power could comfortably supply all the UK’s energy needs by the middle of the century, according to a University of Oxford team.
The researchers calculated that the two renewable technologies could power the nation even after making a conservative estimate that accounted for the amount of land and sea available, energy storage needs, economics and a high future demand for energy.
The analysis found that the UK has enough wind and solar resources to generate 2,896 terawatt hours a year by 2050, or almost ten times today’s electricity needs.
Shotwick Solar Farm in Deeside covers 220 acres and is the biggest in Britain. Similar farms could provide almost of a fifth of our energy
The vast majority, 73 per cent, would come from offshore wind farms, followed by utility-scale solar in fields at 19 per cent. The Solar Energy Industries Association defines a solar project as utility-scale
if it generates greater than 1 megawatt of
solar energy.
Onshore wind farms, which the government this month promised
to unblock in England by changing planning barriers, would supply about 7
per cent. Solar on rooftops would provide less than 1 per cent, because it
was assumed the technology would be largely confined to the south of
Britain and only for south-facing rooftops.
The paper by the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment said wind and solar had been underestimated in Great Britain, and “predominant narratives that
renewables are too expensive or impractical are wildly out of date”.
Professor Cameron Hepburn, director of the Smith School, said a renewable
powered Britain was now possible because of falling costs of wind and solar
power. He said a recent Royal Society report on energy storage showed the
intermittent nature of renewables could be cost-effectively tackled by
using hydrogen stored in the country’s network of salt caverns. “I
think the public would be stunned that we could power not just the entire
electricity system but the whole energy system of this country with wind
and solar,” Hepburn said.
The country was assumed to need 1,500 terawatts
of energy by 2050, far higher than most other estimates, to ensure the
analysis was conservative. The report assumed 2 per cent of land was given
over to utility-scale solar, 5 per cent of land to onshore wind farms and
10 per cent of the UK’s exclusive economic zone to offshore wind
turbines. Hepburn said wind turbines on land would coexist with farms.
Times 26th Sept 2023
New York Times Says ‘Evidence Suggests’ Ukrainian Missile Misfire To Blame For Market Tragedy
Radio Free Europe, 19 Sept 23
The New York Times has published a report suggesting a deadly bombing at an outdoor market in eastern Ukraine earlier this month was likely caused by an errant missile fired by Ukraine’s armed forces.
Kyiv rejected the September 19 report by the U.S. daily, again stating that the September 6 blast in Kostyantynivka that killed at least 15 people and injured 30 more was caused by a Russian missile.
The report cites “evidence collected and analyzed by The New York Times, including missile fragments, satellite imagery, witness accounts and social media posts, strongly suggests the catastrophic strike was the result of an errant Ukrainian air defense missile fired by a Buk launch system.”
It shares security footage appearing to show a missile flying at the market “from the direction of Ukrainian-held territory, not from behind Russian lines,” and images of scarring on the ground near the impact……………………….. https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-nyt-missile-kostyantynivka-market/32599514.html—
European Commission is ‘willing to consider’ subsidies for nuclear technology, says von der Leyen.
euro news, By Jorge Liboreiro, 26/09/2023 –
Ursula von der Leyen has welcomed the idea of industrial subsidies in the field of nuclear energy, a highly divisive topic in the European Union.
Speaking in the Czech Republic, a country that receives more than a third of its electricity from its nuclear power plants, the president of the European Commission said each member state was free to pave its own path towards climate neutrality.
“And this is why we’re always willing to consider state aid, of course, provided the conditions are right. But this is important.”
As the chief enforcer of competition rules, the European Commission has the power to approve and reject the public money that governments inject into their national industries, which can take the form of grants, discounted prices and lower taxation, among others…………………………….
Notably, the Act’s original draft excludes nuclear technology from its list of “strategic projects” and features only passing mentions of “advanced technologies (that) produce energy from nuclear processes with minimal waste” and “small modular reactors,” which are still under development.
“We support cutting-edge nuclear technology under our Net-Zero Industry Act to boost innovation and cross-border cooperation,” von der Leyen said in Prague.
The act is undergoing negotiations between member states and the European Parliament, where there is a push for nuclear to be listed as a “strategic project.”
But getting there won’t be easy: nuclear is an extremely divisive, even emotional topic across the EU, with most countries bitterly split into pro- and anti-nuclear factions.
The pro-nuclear group is passionately led by France, a country that obtains about 70% of its electricity from its vast network of reactors and is supported by the likes of the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. They argue nuclear is a low-carbon technology that can run 24 hours a day and decrease external dependencies.
By contrast, Germany, the bloc’s industrial powerhouse, has adopted an uncompromising anti-nuclear stance, with the backing of Spain, Portugal, Austria, Denmark and Luxembourg. They believe promoting nuclear energy amounts to green-washing due to the carbon footprint of uranium extraction and the long-lasting radioactive waste.
Both sides have formed alliances and are trying to bring in additional countries to solidify the qualified majority that is required to approve energy and climate legislation……………………….
Over the past decade, the Commission has green-lighted state aid related to nuclear power plants in Hungary, Belgium and the United Kingdom, when the country was still a member. The UK case was contested by Austria before the European Court of Justice, which eventually ruled that subsidies for nuclear energy were compatible with EU law. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/09/26/european-commission-is-willing-to-consider-subsidies-for-nuclear-technology-says-von-der-l
Bring radiation regulations up to international standards, say Nuclear Free Local Authorities
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/bring-radiation-regulations-up-to-international-standards-say-nflas/ Ian Grant 26 Sept 23
Inadequate emergency planning zones, inconsistent iodine distribution, and a lack of public engagement and accountability are some of the criticisms the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities levelled in response to a consultation being conducted by the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero about the regulations governing emergency planning for nuclear accidents.
The Department has just conducted a periodic review of the 2019 REPPIR – Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations – in conjunction with its partners in the Ministry of Defence and Health and Safety Executive.
The NFLAs have found that the regulations governing emergency preparedness are ‘wholly inadequate and fail completely to take account of the total area which would be likely contaminated by radiation in the event of a nuclear accident’.
The NFLAs have called on the government to amend the regulations so they meet the standards set out in guidance issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency to countries with nuclear power plants. This would mean that Detailed Emergency Planning Zones would be set at a radius of at least five KMs from the plant, an Outline Planning Zone set at least thirty KMs, and iodine tablets proactively issued as a precautionary measure to all residents in these zones.
The current regulations require a Detailed Emergency Planning Zone to be set, but these are currently below 5 KMs in radius, the setting of an Outline Planning Zone is not even mandatory, and the pre-distribution of iodine tablets for residents to self-administer in the event of an accident can be inconsistent, and not proactive.
The NFLAs are also critical that emergency planning is underfunded, inadequate, inconsistent, and often opaque; with a general failure to engage members of the public and wider stakeholders in its development.
Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee, said: “The Windscale Fire and Chernobyl both showed that vast areas can be contaminated by a radioactive plume. Should an accident occur, any resultant radiation will not halt at the modest line recommended for emergency planning purposes to the local authority by the nuclear operator.
“We want to see larger DEPZs and Outline Planning Zones to reflect the true reality, including a recognition that accidents can contaminate large areas and large cities rendering them uninhabitable; the extensive pre-distribution of iodine tablets as a sensible precautionary measure; and an emergency planning regime that is better resourced rather than being a Cinderella service, that is accountable not opaque, and that embraces input from a wider range of stakeholders, including the public.
“To the NFLAs, the current regime appears to be collective hubris on the part of government ministers and industry insiders, each hoping that an accident will not happen and that if it does the worst can easily be contained within a 3 km DEPZ”.
UK’s nuclear lobby to take over education site?
South Gloucestershire and Stroud College (SGS) has made a move to put
Berkeley Green, its flagship Gloucestershire Science & Technology Park
(GSTP), up for sale. The news of the sale announced today comes in the wake
of a visit to the site by the government’s Great British Nuclear (GBN)
organisation, which is believed to be now likely to earmark Berkeley as a
centre for science and research in the next chapter for the UK’s nuclear
power investment.
GBN has been tasked with finalising six sites in the UK
for the new generation of small-medium nuclear reactors (SMRs). As well as
visiting Berkeley, it has also assessed South Gloucestershire’s nearby
decommissioned nuclear site at Oldbury as a possible location for the
reactors. Sources suggest the most likely scenario is for SMR installation
at Oldbury, with Berkeley’s site, in recognition of the academic investment
there since 2016, becoming a supportive centre for science, research and
training.
Punchline Gloucester 27th Sept 2023
https://www.punchline-gloucester.com/articles/aanews/sgs-berkeley-green-goes-up-for-sale
UK risks power supply crunch in January as nuclear plants halt.
Rachel Morison and Elena Mazneva, Bloomberg News, 27 Sept 23
(Bloomberg) — The UK’s National Grid Plc is preparing for a possible power crunch in January as several planned nuclear outages coincide with peak winter demand.
Electricity consumption is projected to climb to a high during the first two weeks of January, just as nuclear availability is forecast to drop, according to National Grid’s winter outlook report published Thursday. Blackouts are a less likely than last winter but can’t be ruled out, the grid’s Electricity Supply Operator said. ………..
Units at Electricite de France SA’s Hartlepool and Torness nuclear stations are scheduled to be offline for work in January, company data show.
National Grid expects it will need to use “operational tools” like market warnings to help balance supply and demand this winter. The network operator has been stress-testing tens of thousands of weather scenarios this winter to ensure it can manage margins, Dyke said. …….. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/uk-risks-power-supply-crunch-in-january-as-nuclear-plants-halt-1.1977313
NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine
The continuing U.S. obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. And now Ukrainians are paying a terrible price.
JEFFREY D. SACHS, Sep 20, 2023, Common Dreams
“…………………………….. According to the U.S. government and the ever-obsequious New York Times, the Ukraine war was “unprovoked,” the Times’ favorite adjective to describe the war. Putin, allegedly mistaking himself for Peter the Great, invaded Ukraine to recreate the Russian Empire. Yet last week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg committed a Washington gaffe, meaning that he accidently blurted out the truth.
In testimony to the European Union Parliament, Stoltenberg made clear that it was America’s relentless push to enlarge NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues today. Here are Stoltenberg’s revealing words:
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
To repeat, he [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
When Prof. John Mearsheimer, I, and others have said the same, we’ve been attacked as Putin apologists. The same critics also choose to hide or flatly ignore the dire warnings against NATO enlargement to Ukraine long articulated by many of America’s leading diplomats, including the great scholar-statesman George Kennan, and the former US Ambassadors to Russia Jack Matlock and William Burns.
Burns, now CIA Director, was US Ambassador to Russia in 2008, and author of a memo entitled “Nyet means Nyet.” In that memo, Burns explained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the entire Russian political class, not just Putin, was dead-set against NATO enlargement. We know about the memo only because it was leaked. Otherwise, we’d be in the dark about it.
Why does Russia oppose NATO enlargement? For the simple reason that Russia does not accept the U.S. military on its 2,300 km border with Ukraine in the Black Sea region. Russia does not appreciate the U.S. placement of Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania after the U.S. unilaterally abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty………………………………….
Even Zelensky’s team knew that the quest for NATO enlargement meant imminent war with Russia. Oleksiy Arestovych, former Advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine under Zelensky, declared that “with a 99.9% probability, our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.”……………………………………………
Putin made one last attempt at diplomacy at the end of 2021, tabling a draft U.S.-NATO Security Agreement to forestall war. The core of the draft agreement was an end of NATO enlargement and removal of U.S. missiles near Russia. Russia’s security concerns were valid and the basis for negotiations. Yet Biden flatly rejected negotiations out of a combination of arrogance, hawkishness, and profound miscalculation. NATO maintained its position that NATO would not negotiate with Russia regarding NATO enlargement, that in effect, NATO enlargement was none of Russia’s business.
The continuing U.S. obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. The U.S. would object—by means of war, if needed—to being encircled by Russian or Chinese military bases in the Western Hemisphere, a point the U.S. has made since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Yet the U.S. is blind and deaf to the legitimate security concerns of other countries.
So, yes, Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to Russia’s border. Ukraine is being destroyed by U.S. arrogance, proving again Henry Kissinger’s adage that to be America’s enemy is dangerous, while to be its friend is fatal. The Ukraine War will end when the U.S. acknowledges a simple truth: NATO enlargement to Ukraine means perpetual war and Ukraine’s destruction. Ukraine’s neutrality could have avoided the war, and remains the key to peace. The deeper truth is that European security depends on collective security as called for by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), not one-sided NATO demands. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasionb
Building Irish nuclear energy plants ‘does not make economic sense’, Eamon Ryan,Green Party leader
Irish Examiner, 24 Sept 23
Green Party leader says the construction of nuclear plants would be too expensive for a country the size of Ireland
Building nuclear energy plants in Ireland does not make economic sense and would result in people paying even higher electricity bills, Eamon Ryan has said.
The Green Party leader said constructing nuclear plants here to bolster wind and solar energy production would be too expensive for a country the size of Ireland.
It comes after Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher called on politicians and the public to take their “emotions” out of the nuclear energy debate and seriously consider building power plants here……………………….
He said there has been “an explosion” in the rollout of solar panels across the country, with 10% of energy coming from solar on some sunny days in July this year.
“Also, battery technology is improving, and long-term storage is improving. So that gives you balancing capability and also interconnection…………………………………….
Interconnector with Spain
The environment minister added that he is looking at the viability of an interconnector with Spain “so if it’s calm and not sunny in Ireland, solar from the south can be pulled up and that’s much cheaper”.
He stressed the potential Ireland has to become a world leader in sustainable energy.
“I think our issue will be probably by 2030 we’ll have a surplus of wind, about 30 terawatt hours, and how we use that surplus and store it to give us the balancing capability is going to be one of the big developments in the next 10 years,” he said……………………… https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-41233219.htm
This War Wasn’t Just Provoked — It Was Provoked Deliberately
Caitlin’s Newsletter, CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, SEP 24, 2023
In an interesting speech about the way US imperial aggression provokes violence around the world, antiwar commentator Scott Horton made reference to an April 2022 article from Yahoo News that had previously escaped my attention.
The article is titled “In closer ties to Ukraine, U.S. officials long saw promise and peril,” and it features named and unnamed veterans of the US intelligence cartel saying that long before the February 2022 invasion they were fully aware that the US had “provoked” Russia in Ukraine and created a powderkeg situation that would likely lead to war.
“By last summer [meaning the summer of 2021], the baseline view of most U.S. intelligence community analysts was that Russia felt sufficiently provoked over Ukraine that some unknown trigger could set off an attack by Moscow,” a former CIA official told Yahoo News’ Zach Dorfman, who adds, “(The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.)”
Dorfman writes that initial support provided to Ukraine during the Obama administration had been “calibrated to avoid aggravating Moscow,” but that “partially spurred by Congress, as well as the Trump administration, which was more willing to be aggressive on weapon transfers to Kyiv, overt U.S. military support for Ukraine grew over time — and with it the risk of a deadly Russian response, some CIA officials believed at the time.”……………………
“I understand the moral argument,” says former CIA official Jeffrey Edmonds regarding the weapons transfers into Ukraine, “but I also understand the argument that, well, why would you want to give these things if it’s just going to increase the chances that Russia does something?”
So while we members of the public were blindly speculating about whether or not Russia would attack Ukraine, the US intelligence cartel was fully aware that the US was taking actions ensuring that that would happen. That’s the environment the US security state knew it was operating under when it continued to taunt the idea of adding Ukraine and Georgia to NATO right up until the final moments before the invasion.
It’s been funny to watch the response of empire apologists to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s surprising refutation of a year and a half of empire propaganda by openly admitting that NATO expansion provoked the invasion of Ukraine and acknowledging that NATO powers rejected Moscow’s proposed compromises which could have averted the war. Basically the only argument they now have after this admission is to say that Russia should not have viewed NATO expansion as an existential threat.
Their only remaining trick is to argue with reality; to basically say that yes it’s reality that NATO expansion provoked this war because Moscow saw it as a threat, but reality shouldn’t have been what reality was. They argue that Russia should have felt completely different feelings about a military threat on its border than nations like the United States would feel, since as we’ve discussed previously the last time there was a credible military threat near the US border the US responded so aggressively that the world almost ended.
That’s really all they’ve got: “Yes it’s true that all the people who’ve died and lost their homes in this war did so because we were amassing a hostile military alliance near Russia’s border, but in our defense the Russians should’ve thought different thoughts in their heads than the ones that we ourselves would think about a hostile military threat on our border.”
If all westerners deeply understood all the suffering and danger that has been unleashed upon our world by this war, and deeply understood the fact that their own governments played a role in starting it, the political status quo of the western world would be impossible to maintain. Which is why such unprecedented levels of propaganda and internet censorship have gone into preventing westerners from coming to such an understanding. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/this-war-wasnt-just-provoked-it-was?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=137340680&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email
1 This Month
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (49)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 