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
Tory MP inexplicably asks for nuclear powered frigates
By George Allison, September 24, 2023 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/tory-mp-inexplicably-asks-for-nuclear-powered-frigates/
In a recent parliamentary query, Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell raised eyebrows with a question about converting Royal Navy warships from diesel power… to nuclear power.
For smaller surface vessels like frigates, the benefits of nuclear power do not outweigh the significant costs and potential environmental concerns. Furthermore, integrating such systems into existing fleet designs would pose significant engineering and logistical challenges.
Rosindell asked the Secretary of State for Defence, “what his Department’s projected spending on nuclear powered surface vessels for the Royal Navy is in the (a) 2023-24, (b) 2024-25 and (c) 2025-26 financial year; and if he will make a statement.”
Not stopping there, he further inquired about the Defence Department’s plans, asking “what his Department’s timeline is for converting the remaining diesel-powered Royal Navy surface fleet to nuclear power.”
In a straightforward response, James Cartlidge, the Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, clarified, “The Royal Navy has never had any surface vessels that are nuclear powered and there is no programme or intention to convert the current fleet to be nuclear powered in future.”
Thus, the notion of the Royal Navy converting its frigates into nuclear-powered surface vessels remains firmly off the table for the foreseeable future, there are no plans to add warp cores or hyperdrive engines either..
Cannon Fodder: Number of Ukrainian Amputee Soldiers Going Through the Roof
Ekaterina Blinova, 21 Sept 23
Tens of thousands of Ukrainians have become amputees, while many more sustained other injuries or died on the battlefield. The scale of amputations in Ukraine has reached that of the First World War, according to Western media.
Between 20,000 and 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers have lost one or more limbs since the beginning of the conflict, Western press has reported.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense recently announced that 40% of wounded Ukrainian soldiers have serious limb injuries that appear to be incurable.
However, it is difficult to know for sure how many Ukrainian soldiers have disabilities, because this information is top secret, according to a Norwegian media outlet.
A commonly cited ratio for dead and injured in wars is 2-4 people wounded for each person killed. Sometimes, the number of those wounded may be 13 times as high depending on what weapons systems are used on the battlefield. One could easily calculate what price Ukrainians paid for the counteroffensive encouraged and sponsored by the West.
As per the Russian Defense Ministry, over 71,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed during the three months of the Kiev regime’s counteroffensive.
Given that Ukraine and Russia have been involved in high-scale counter-battery duels since the outset of the conflict, most of the wounds at the front have been caused by shrapnel and artillery fire, military personnel and war correspondents have said. Meanwhile, Ukrainians also sustained heavy losses while trying to storm Russia’s sophisticated defense lines and minefields, which have been largely blamed by the Western press for the failure of the Kiev regime’s offensive operations.
Ukrainian Amputees Evoke Scale of WWI
Western journalists assume that during 18 months of the special military operation in Ukraine, there have been at least 10 times the number of Ukrainian amputees than Americans with the same sort of injuries over 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
For their part, US medical experts say that injuries of this magnitude had not been seen by Western military surgeons since World War II. The First World War saw at least 67,000 Germans and 41,000 British amputees, according to some estimates.
Several clinics in Ukraine cite 20,000 amputee cases, but the actual figure may be higher as it takes time to register patients after undergoing the amputation procedure, per the media. Some patients have to wait for weeks or even months for the surgery as the Ukrainian healthcare system is overwhelmed.
During the unfolding conflict, the Ukrainian Armed Forces suffered a scale of losses for which the army’s medical service was unprepared, Tetiana Ostashchenko, commander of the Medical Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, told a Ukrainian broadcaster on August 26.
“Neither the legislative framework nor the system itself was designed for such volumes of medical care,” Ostashchenko stressed.
She said that new problems emerge every day and despite the nation’s healthcare system trying to solve them, it is not working as quickly as required.
To complicate matters further, the battlefield first aid straps used by Ukrainian during combat to stem bleeding, are often fitted too high to the injured limb and left on for too long. As a result, the cells in the limb die and a whole arm or leg will need to be removed instead of just part of it. What’s worse, sometimes these surgeries are done in horrific conditions, according to the British press.
Prosthetics is yet another problem faced by Ukrainian military amputees. One arm could cost $100,000 while a hook in place of a hand is an additional $8,000. A number of Western charities help some Ukrainian soldiers to get new artificial limbs but there are too many amputees returning from the battlefield.
Kiev Throws Ukrainians Into ‘Meat Grinder’
Previously, former Prime Minister of Ukraine Nikolai Azarov stated that Kiev is deliberately hiding the figures of real losses in order to avoid payments to the families of fallen soldiers, attributing them to the number of missing people instead.
There have also been cases when wounded Ukrainian soldiers were left to die by their fellows on the battlefield. On September 12, captured Ukrainian serviceman Yevgeny Zinovik told Sputnik that he had been abandoned by the Ukrainian military and laid on the ground suffering from wounds for four days, until Russian reconnaissance officers found him. Zinovik confessed that he was glad to be captured after all this suffering. He said that he had undergone treatment in a Donetsk hospital.
………………………………………………………………………….. Ukrainians Hide Abroad or Surrender
A glaring indicator of Kiev running out of military personnel is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky‘s order to conduct a full review of all mobilization exemptions granted by Military Medical Commissions (MMCs) starting from February 24, 2022.
In addition to bringing young and elderly to the front, the Kiev regime has requested European states extradite Ukrainian draft-age adults. However, EU states are resisting those requests, citing European laws that prevent them from deporting refugees or altogether refusing to send Ukrainians back home. One should bear in mind that Ukrainians are a source of cheap labor in Europe…………………..
https://sputnikglobe.com/20230921/cannon-fodder-number-of-ukrainian-amputee-soldiers-going-through-the-roof-1113563445.html
1 This Month
of the week – THE ONENESS of HUMANITY
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (251)
- May 2026 (306)
- 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)
-
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 