Vladimir Putin vows to strengthen Russia’s nuclear forces to guarantee its sovereignty
Thu 23 Feb 2023 ABC News
Russian President Vladimir Putin says Moscow will boost its nuclear forces by deploying a much-delayed new intercontinental ballistic missile, rolling out hypersonic missiles and adding new nuclear submarines.
Key points:
- During a speech to mark a Soviet victory public holiday, Mr Putin said Russia needed modernised armed forces to guarantee its sovereignty
- Mr Putin says the Sarmat silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles will be deployed this year
- He says Russia will also continue mass production of air-based hypersonic Kinzhal systems and start mass supplies of sea-based Zircon hypersonic missiles
A year since ordering the invasion of Ukraine, Mr Putin has signalled he is ready to rip up the architecture of nuclear arms control — including the big powers’ moratorium on nuclear testing — unless the West backs off in Ukraine.
Mr Putin on Tuesday sought to underscore Russian resolve in Ukraine by suspending a landmark nuclear arms control treaty, announcing new strategic systems had been put on combat duty and warning Moscow could resume nuclear tests.
In an address to mark the Defender of the Fatherland public holiday, known in Soviet times as Red Army Day, Mr Putin invoked the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany to argue that Russia needed modernised armed forces to guarantee its sovereignty………………………………. more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-23/vladimir-putin-says-russia-to-deploy-sarmat-nuclear-missiles/102016510
Boris Johnson demands that UK government declares nuclear to be “a green energy” source, and boosts the industry .
Boris Johnson has increased pressure on Rishi Sunak to boost nuclear
capacity with funding for two more large-scale projects before the next
election.
In a new intervention since leaving No 10, Johnson, accompanied
by Priti Patel, the former home secretary, warned that the country had a
“damaging gap in our nuclear capabilities and a weakness in our energy
supply”.
In a letter seen by The Times signed by 57 Tory MPs, Sunak was
urged to fund the development of two more projects before the end of this
parliament. the 57 Tories — including Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Foreign
Office minister, and Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee —
said that more had to be done.
In the letter, organised by Virginia
Crosbie, the MP for Ynys Môn, they said the government needed “at all
costs” to avoid errors they say that Labour made in not recognising the
“good value” of nuclear power.
They demanded that the government
declare nuclear “unambiguously” to be a green energy source, set out
binding nuclear targets for 2035 and 2050 and order officials to start
talks with Rolls-Royce to fund small modular reactors. The letter said:
“We are the only major nuclear nation in the world without a sovereign
reactor design to deploy or export. It is time we changed that.”
Times 23rd Feb 2023
Nuclear power – carbon intensive and environmentally damaging -NOT GREEN – Nuclear Free Local Authorities
NFLAs call on Chancellor not to class nuclear as ‘green’
– 23 Feb 23,
Fearing the UK Government may – for once – follow an unwanted lead set in Europe, the Chair of UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities network has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting that he refrain for reclassifying nuclear as a ‘green investment’ under revised taxonomy rules.
There has been much speculation in the corridors of power, in the press and amongst the anti-nuclear community that Jeremy Hunt may soon choose to reclassify ‘nuclear’ as a green investment to unlock more private investment in the government’s planned future civil nuclear programme.
A reclassification in the revised taxonomy rules would make such investment more ‘attractive’ and ‘acceptable’ to certain large pension funds and investment companies.
The European Commission has previously adopted an identical strategy, but it was one which met with significant political and societal opposition and led to legal challenges from member states.
In his letter, Councillor Lawrence O’Neill outlines how nuclear power is both carbon-intensive and environmentally damaging. Commenting he said:
“It would be a complete misnomer to describe nuclear as ‘green’. From mining the uranium ore through to dealing with the legacy of radioactive waste, civil nuclear power leaves a massive carbon footprint and contaminates all it touches. The NFLAs hope that the Chancellor will see the logic of leaving things as they are and accede to our request, but if not we shall be ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with all those opposed to this change. Nuclear is not ‘green’ and never will be.”
The letter sent to the Chancellor reads::…………………………….. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nflas-call-on-chancellor-not-to-class-nuclear-as-green/—
Cost of EDF’s new UK nuclear project rises to $40 billion (msn.com).
By America Hernandez, 21 Feb 23 PARIS (Reuters) – EDF’s new nuclear plant in southwest England is likely to cost about 2% more than its last budget estimate as inflation propels the price tag to almost 33 billion pounds ($40 billion), EDF documents show.
Britain plans to build new nuclear plants to boost its energy security and help meet a target for net zero emissions by 2050.
EDF warned in a results presentation on Friday the cost of the Hinkley Point C project, Britain’s first new nuclear plant in more than two decades, “could reach 32.7 billion pounds” based on inflation indexes as of June 30, 2022.
Its previously published cost estimate in May 2022 was 31-32 billion euros when adjusted for inflation.
PARIS (Reuters) – EDF’s new nuclear plant in southwest England is likely to cost about 2% more than its last budget estimate as inflation propels the price tag to almost 33 billion pounds ($40 billion), EDF documents show.
Britain plans to build new nuclear plants to boost its energy security and help meet a target for net zero emissions by 2050.
EDF warned in a results presentation on Friday the cost of the Hinkley Point C project, Britain’s first new nuclear plant in more than two decades, “could reach 32.7 billion pounds” based on inflation indexes as of June 30, 2022.
Its previously published cost estimate in May 2022 was 31-32 billion euros when adjusted for inflation. https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/other/cost-of-edf-s-new-uk-nuclear-project-rises-to-40-billion/ar-AA17IxdK?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a11054ac2c0c487f9a20627240342227
France mounts ‘aggressive’ nuclear push with eye on EU industrial plan
“They’re trying to get nuclear everywhere where it doesn’t fit … to have policy lock-in,” said one EU diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity, adding: “Everybody is a little annoyed at the French — it’s very aggressive.”
Paris looks out for its atomic industry as the sector faces a crossroads.
BY VICTOR JACK, 17 Feb 23, https://www.politico.eu/article/france-aggressive-nuclear-energy-push-eu-industrial-plan-renewables/
With its atomic industry at a crossroads, France is mounting a lobbying blitz to put nuclear energy on par with renewables in EU climate legislation — and unlock benefits from the bloc’s upcoming plans to boost green industries.
Paris argues that if the ultimate goal of the EU’s climate targets is to decarbonize the bloc, that should mean nuclear plants, with their negligible CO2 emissions, have a key role to play alongside renewables.
But that push — and attempt to reposition nuclear as a green technology — is also a strategy to strengthen Paris’ hand down the line in accessing cash from the bloc’s upcoming mammoth industrial strategy, six diplomats told POLITICO.
“They’re trying to get nuclear everywhere where it doesn’t fit … to have policy lock-in,” said one EU diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity, adding: “Everybody is a little annoyed at the French — it’s very aggressive.”
The move is designed to “build leverage for other arguments” down the line, a second EU diplomat said.
Asked whether France expects nuclear to be counted as a “clean technology” in the upcoming industrial plan and therefore benefit from it, a senior French energy ministry official told POLITICO that “the [EU sustainable investment rules] recognize the fact that nuclear … is a technology that contributes to the transition.”
“So in absolute terms, it seems to us that this question already has an answer.”
Small victory, bigger problem
Paris notched a first victory last week on the EU’s long-awaited rules governing what counts as “renewable hydrogen.”
Unlike most other countries, hydrogen producers in France will be able to count the electricity taken from the grid as renewable as long as they also sign a long-term power contract with an existing renewables provider. The exception was made because 70 percent of France’s electricity comes from low-emissions nuclear.
But this promotion of nuclear-powered hydrogen — also known as “pink” or “low-carbon” hydrogen — is only one part of France’s broader push to inject atomic energy into EU green policy files, in which it has so far been less successful.
In late January, Paris attempted to insert low-carbon hydrogen into a renewables cooperation partnership with Ukraine, but was ultimately overruled.
It also led a push alongside eight other EU countries this month for pink hydrogen to be included in the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive, arguing that it should contribute toward 2030 targets for greening transport and industry.
When it didn’t get its way, France accused Spain and Germany of reneging on promises to recognize the role of low-carbon hydrogen.
“It would not be understandable for Spain and Germany to take different positions in Brussels and not keep their commitments,” French Energy Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher told reporters last week.
Atomic needs
The push comes as experts predict France’s electricity demand will rise sharply as the country electrifies to meet its climate goals, and its ageing nuclear fleet declines.
Historically an exporter of electricity to its EU neighbors, France last year was forced to import power to meet its consumption needs as half its nuclear fleet was forced into maintenance due to corrosion and other technical problems.
And with the country’s largest utility EDF announcing a nine-month halt to another nuclear reactor earlier this month, that leaves two-fifths of its reactors still out of action.
“A lot of these nuclear reactors are ageing,” said Carlos Torres Diaz, senior vice president and head of power at Rystad Energy, a consultancy, who predicts some will be decommissioned already “in the next decade.”
Add to that French electricity demand is set to rise from 417 to 715 terawatt-hours by 2030, Torres Diaz said, meaning “there will need to be some investments.”
Paris is clearly aware of the challenge. In a sharp U-turn from his previous policy, President Emmanuel Macron announced plans to build six new reactors last February, with an eye on building eight more.
But that won’t come cheap, with new nuclear plants typically costing “billions,” Torres Diaz said. “If they need to renew all this ageing capacity then they will need to get the funding … If it’s not a green source of energy they will struggle to get some financing.”
That’s where the EU’s Green Industrial Plan comes in.
Announced last month, the upcoming plan is Brussels’ attempt to help the bloc go toe-to-toe with the United States’ $369 billion Inflation Reduction Act with a range of tax relaxations and new industrial benchmarks for 2030.
From the proposed European Sovereignty Fund, to more state aid allowances and potentially a competitive auction for a 10-year fixed-rate renewable hydrogen contract, there’s ample opportunity for France to cash in.
With the discussion still in its early days and specific language on policy not yet nailed down, that gives France an opening to stake out its position.
In the planned Net-Zero Industrial Act, for example, which aims to slash red tape on “net-zero” technologies, the “precise product scope [of the technologies] remains to be defined,” according to the European Commission.
Marion Labatut, EDF’s deputy director of EU affairs, agreed “it would be good” if nuclear were included in the upcoming strategy. She added that the utility would be interested in accessing the Commission’s hydrogen auction, for example.
And while France is likely to face resistance from nuclear-skeptic countries including Germany and Luxembourg, recent diplomatic efforts indicate Paris is not likely to give up easily.
In fact, pink hydrogen was on the agenda during the first official meeting between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne on Thursday.
Overall, this push “is very unsurprising,” a third EU diplomat said. “The French are very skilled at using crises to push their own strategic policies ahead.”
Alexandre Léchenet and Giorgio Leali contributed reporting.
Yet another £6 billion cost hike for UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear project
Hinkley C’s £6bn cost hike tests UK’s nuclear resolve. A further £6 billion
cost increase at Hinkley Point C will test the government’s commitment to
funding future large-scale nuclear projects, according to energy industry
experts.
The figure was revealed alongside EDF’s accounts last week, with
construction of the 3.2GW power plant now estimated to cost as much as
£32.7 billion. That is a £6 billion increase on the revised construction
price set last year and is almost double the £18 billion figure set in 2016
when EDF first started work on the project.
The latest cost hike has been
attributed to rising inflation, however engineering problems and complex
ground conditions have previously pushed the cost up, as well as a £500
million cost increase due to Covid-19 and pandemic-related working
restrictions.
Utility Week 21st Feb 2023
https://utilityweek.co.uk/hinkley-cs-6bn-cost-hike-tests-uks-nuclear-resolve/
Do not bring nuclear energy plants to Scotland, SNP tells new UK energy minister
The SNP has warned new energy minister Andrew Bowie to keep new nuclear power out of Scotland.
Energy policy has long been one of the most contentious issues between the UK and Scottish governments, with disagreements around the future of oil and gas and potential new nuclear stations raging in recent years.
Now, the SNP has urged the UK Government to focus on renewables as opposed to the creation of new nuclear power, which they say would not immediately solve the country’s current energy security issues.
According to a report from Politico, Mr Bowie is set to become the UK’s first ever nuclear energy minister, putting the West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine MP at odds with the Government in Edinburgh.
The SNP’s Westminster energy spokesman Alan Brown said: “Andrew Bowie must be taking up one of the most pointless ministerial positions in the UK government.
“If the Tories think they will bring down energy bills by building nuclear power stations that won’t be ready for years to come then they are more delusional than we thought.
“Scotland is awash with renewable energy potential and Andrew Bowie should be focusing his efforts there, as it will create jobs for his constituents for decades to come and will ensure we are using Scotland’s energy potential to the fullest.”
He added: “Households across Scotland are desperate for solutions to sky-high energy bills now and nuclear power will not provide that answer – indeed, the Government has confirmed it will increase our energy bills.
“Scotland is rich with renewable energy potential and we cannot have our resources squandered once again by successive Westminster governments, that is why the only way we can harness the potential of Scotland’s energy is by becoming an independent country.”
The SNP’s energy spokesman added that nuclear projects were “one of the most expensive forms of energy”, with costs for building Hinkley Point C in Somerset rising to £33 billion according to reports this week, and the cost for the Sizewell C site potentially rising above £30 billion……………… https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/decom/484720/uk-trade-boss-touts-massive-potential-for-decom-export-growth-following-release-of-blueprintuk-trade-boss-touts-massive-potential-for-decom-export-growth
Explainer: The New START nuclear treaty, and why Vladimir Putin is walking away from it
ABC News, 22 Feb 23, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s announcement on Tuesday (local time) that Moscow is suspending its participation in the last remaining US-Russia arms control treaty will have an immediate impact on America’s ability to monitor Russian nuclear activities.
Key points:
- Vladimir Putin says Russia will suspend its participation in the New START nuclear arms treaty
- The treaty required both the US and Russia to communicate about their nuclear arsenals, allow on-site inspections and adhere to limits on nuclear warheads
- The US had previously signalled it would withdraw from the treaty under the Trump administration, but signed an extension in 2021
However, the pact was already on life support.
Mr Putin’s decision to suspend Russian cooperation with the treaty’s nuclear warhead and missile inspections follows Moscow’s cancellation late last year of talks that had been intended to salvage an agreement that both sides have accused the other of violating.
In his state of the nation address to the Russian people, Mr Putin said Russia was suspending its participation in the treaty because of US support for Ukraine, and accused the US and its NATO allies of openly working for Russia’s destruction.
The US had previously walked away from the treaty. During the Trump administration, the US declined to engage in negotiations to extend it, accusing Moscow of flagrant violations.
But when President Joe Biden took office in 2021, his administration signed a five-year extension.
Here’s a look at New START, and what Russia’s announcement means for keeping US and Russian nuclear weapons in check………………………………………………………………… more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-22/new-start-us-russia-arms-control-treaty-explainers/102008364
The Horrifying Endgame in Ukraine
This entire scenario is a long slow march toward nuclear war or the complete disintegration of Ukraine.
The U.S. won’t end the weapons deliveries because Joe Biden is afraid of losing face and his closest advisors such as Victoria Nuland have an irrational hatred for Russia and are total warmongers.
BY JAMES RICKARDS, 14 Feb 23, https://dailyreckoning.com/the-horrifying-endgame-in-ukraine/—
In yesterday’s issue, I addressed the biggest and most complex topic on the geopolitical landscape today — China.
But today I’m discussing what is by far the most alarming topic on the geopolitical landscape today. That’s the war in Ukraine and the dangers of escalation.
I’ve written extensively about two facets of the war in Ukraine that you don’t hear from legacy media in the United States or U.K. The first is that Russia is actually winning the war.
U.S. outlets such as The New York Times (a channel for the State Department) and The Washington Post (a channel for the CIA) report endlessly about how Russian plans have failed, about how incompetent they are about how the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) have pushed back Russians in the Donbass, and how NATO weapons such as U.S. Abrams tanks, U.K. Challenger tanks and German Leopard tanks will turn the tide against Russia soon.
This is all nonsense. None of it is true.
Reality Check
First off, the Ukrainian advances that took place in late summer were against lightly defended positions that the Russians quickly conceded to conserve forces. The Russians were willing to give up the land so that they wouldn’t lose valuable men and materiel.
The Russians withdrew to more defensible positions and have been badly mauling Ukrainian attacking forces ever since. Ukraine has wasted incredibly large amounts of men and equipment in these futile and ill-advised attacks.
In all, credible reports indicate that AFU casualties are nearing 500,000 and are increasing at an unsustainable rate. On the other hand, reports of 100,000 Russian dead are almost certainly wild exaggerations put out by Ukraine. The BBC attempted to verify these numbers and could only find about 20,000 confirmed Russian dead based on extensive searches on funeral notices, public records, etc.
Send in the Tanks — Eventually!
What about the tanks NATO is supposedly sending? Well, the tanks have not been delivered yet and most won’t be for months or longer. Our own M1 Abrams tanks might not even arrive for a year or more.
We actually have to custom build these tanks so that they don’t have the special armor and other advanced systems that our own M1s have. The Pentagon doesn’t want them falling into Russian hands if they’re destroyed or captured. Besides, we’re only sending 31 tanks anyway.
When the NATO tanks do arrive, they’ll likely quickly be destroyed by Russian artillery, anti-tank weapons and precision missiles. They’re good tanks, but far from invincible. For decades, the Russians have been developing powerful weapons specifically designed to destroy these NATO tank models. The Russians aren’t particularly worried about them.
Aside from that, tanks rely on effective air cover for protection, which Ukraine lacks. They’ll be sitting ducks on the battlefield. It doesn’t really make sense to send tanks to Ukraine unless you send combat aircraft to give them cover (more on that below).
Russia’s Winning on the Battlefield
Meanwhile, Russian forces have nearly encircled the city of Bakhmut, which is a major transportation and logistics hub, with several key roads and rail lines passing through it. It’ll probably fall to the Russians within weeks.
Losing Bakhmut will be a major blow to Ukraine, despite claims in the western media that it really isn’t very important. Ukraine’s entire 800-mile defensive line would probably begin to crumble, and they don’t have heavily fortified positions to fall back on. Ukrainian troops, while brave and competent soldiers, are exhausted and running out of supplies as it is.
On top of that, it appears likely that Russia is preparing a devastating offensive with massive amounts of men, tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, helicopters, drones and fixed-wing aircraft.
This Russian army is not the same army that invaded Ukraine a year ago. It’s much better trained, led and equipped. It’s learned from the mistakes it made during its initial invasion last February. Ukraine shouldn’t expect them to repeat those mistakes.
Does all this mean I’m cheering on a Russian victory in Ukraine? No, I’m just observing the facts on the ground and consolidating them to perform an objective analysis.
That analysis leads me to believe that Russia will win the war militarily. Western military assistance may prolong the fighting but won’t affect the ultimate outcome. It’ll just delay the inevitable and get a lot more people needlessly killed.
The Much Greater Risk
The second facet of this war not reported in the media, or at least downplayed, is the growing risk of nuclear war.
This risk increases with every escalatory step by both sides. The U.S. is the leader in reckless escalation by supplying long-range artillery, Patriot anti-missile batteries, intelligence, surveillance, and now the tanks. Russia responds at each step.
There’s a number of steps before the two sides arrive at the nuclear level, but neither shows a willingness to step back.
By the way, Russia has every legal right to attack those NATO countries supplying arms to Ukraine. By supplying arms to a party to the conflict, they’ve given up their neutrality and have become, in effect, combatants. Russia hasn’t done this because it doesn’t want to bring NATO directly into the fight. But legally, it can.
Gimme, Gimme, Gimme
Ukraine’s demands on the U.S., UK and the rest of NATO for advanced weapons to fight Russians know no limits. The West began by supplying Ukraine with cash, intelligence and anti-tank weapons such as the Javelin missile. Soon we were supplying long-range artillery, drones, and more cash.
As Russian advances continued, Zelensky demanded and got Patriot anti-missile batteries that can destroy incoming Russian missiles. The U.S. artillery was aimed at Russian Crimea. Several drones struck inside Russia at sensitive air bases with nuclear weapons nearby.
Gimme, Gimme, Gimme
Ukraine’s demands on the U.S., UK and the rest of NATO for advanced weapons to fight Russians know no limits. The West began by supplying Ukraine with cash, intelligence and anti-tank weapons such as the Javelin missile. Soon we were supplying long-range artillery, drones, and more cash.
As Russian advances continued, Zelensky demanded and got Patriot anti-missile batteries that can destroy incoming Russian missiles. The U.S. artillery was aimed at Russian Crimea. Several drones struck inside Russia at sensitive air bases with nuclear weapons nearby.
Once these advanced systems show they can’t help, what’s the Ukrainian’s next demand? Russia can escalate just as quickly and lethally as the U.S.
This entire scenario is a long slow march toward nuclear war or the complete disintegration of Ukraine.
Is Anyone Really Prepared for This?
The U.S. won’t end the weapons deliveries because Joe Biden is afraid of losing face and his closest advisors such as Victoria Nuland have an irrational hatred for Russia and are total warmongers.
Now, we can add a new danger, resulting from desperation. This is the fact that the U.S. itself may be the biggest loser in the war.
As Ukraine disappears under a massive Russian onslaught, the U.S. will grow increasingly desperate. Its credibility is on the line after committing so much money, materiel and moral weight to Ukraine’s defense.
The Biden administration has essentially turned the war in Ukraine into an existential crisis for the U.S. and NATO, when it never should have been. Ukraine has never been a vital U.S. interest. But the war is existential for Russia, and Russia won’t give up.
Is the U.S. just going to throw up its hands and concede Russian victory? NATO may actually disintegrate in the face of such spectacular failure. So, we’ll probably double down.
Maybe a desperate Biden orders troops into western Ukraine as a buffer against a complete Russian takeover of the country. You can imagine what could go wrong. That situation may quickly devolve into a direct war between the U.S. and Russia rather than the proxy war that it is now.
The American people and investors in particular are not prepared for any of this. They should be. It’s becoming increasingly likely.
France’s government may switch funds from social housing to the cause of propping up the nuclear industry.
Will we be forced to choose between heating and housing one day? This
question may appear absurd at an individual level but much less so at the
level of the French state which constantly has to make trade-offs on
subjects as uncomfortable as this one.
According to French business daily
Les Echos, the government is contemplating the possibility of setting aside
a portion of the Livret A [savings account proposed by French banks] –
whose €375 billion is mainly devoted to social housing funding – and
investing a portion of the money in nuclear power.
Le Monde 12th Feb 2023
Financial disaster looms for France’s nuclear corporation EDF
EDF reported one of the biggest losses in French corporate history on
Friday, February 17, as fallout from the Ukraine war and idling nuclear
reactors spelled financial disaster for the state-controlled utility.
EDF struggled with a drop in electricity output last year as it had to close
several of France’s 56 nuclear reactors to fix corrosion problems while a
heatwave led to a diminution of hydro-power production.
While 2022 revenue rose 70% to €143.5 billion, EDF reported a record loss of €17.9 billion
which compared with a net profit of €5.1 billion in 2021. After Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine sent energy prices skyrocketing, the government
required EDF to sell energy under cost to consumers to help them afford
their bills.
Le Monde 17th Feb 2023
Pentagon-Funded Plymouth University Cancels Anti-War Academic: the militarization of higher education.
Pentagon-Funded Plymouth University Cancels Anti-War Academic: Reflections on How the US Empire Conquered Higher Education, CouterPunch BY T.J. COLES 17 Feb 23,
The US Empire is in the final and most dangerous stages of its quest for what the Pentagon calls “full spectrum dominance.” Having invaded and fought proxy wars in the oil-rich Middle East, it is now trying to break nuclear-armed Russia in another proxy war before attempting “regime change” in nuclear-armed China. We need not tarry on the potential consequences. Professor Noam Chomsky called it 20 years ago: this is hegemony or survival. Which one do you choose?
As the Empire races towards its biggest bet, using humanity and all other species on the planet as gambling chips, anti-war comment is tolerated less and less. For those who want to know what happened to me, see the Annex of this article for the leaked emails and background. Meanwhile, consider what is taking shape.
DELETING THE ENEMY
Critics of Western imperialism are silenced by the Empire’s witting and unwitting minions in increasingly knee-jerk ways. Google, which was developed with CIA money, has de-ranked anti-war websites, driving traffic to state-corporate outlets that promote imperialism. After buying YouTube, it then went on a de-platforming spree, banning and de-monetizing “conspiracy theorists,” left and right, who dare deviate from the increasingly narrow orthodoxy of acceptable thought.
Under the new McCarthyism of RussiaGate, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation has used the pretext of countering foreign disinformation to suspend and terminate political accounts. In 2020, following an evidence-free CNN report alleging that it was a front for the sanctioned nation of Iran, the FBI and Department of Justice seized the US domain for the website of the American Herald Tribune, founded by Dr. Anthony James Hall, who retired from his Canadian university, Lethbridge, following pressure from the Zionist Lobby and from individuals who accused him of being a “conspiracy theorist”—a cheap smear tactic employed against me by a cabal of staff at Plymouth University.
Meanwhile, the Twitter Files have exploded the myth that “social media” are independent corporate actors. Likewise, journalist Dr. Alan Macleod has documented the dozens of former spies now employed to police content at Facebook.
SHAME IS THE GAME
The opinions of self-described fact-checkers—like the Poynter Institute—are amplified by state-corporate media which engage in public humiliation rituals in the hope that retailers will pull magazines, academic institutions will fire staff, digital providers will demonetize accounts, and web hosts will drop entire sites and/or content……….
As governments contract out censorship to “fact-checkers,” critics of Empire are demonetized. Consortium News and Mint Press have seen their PayPal accounts frozen. PayPal’s pro-Trump co-founder, Peter Thiel, has made many millions of dollars from Pentagon contracts. Between 2007 and ’19, US taxpayers gave his Palantir Technologies $1.5 billion via the Department of Defense, particularly to spy on Afghans and Iraqis.
ACADEMIC OBLIVION
The above examples show how the US military and intelligence continue to influence the infrastructure through which much of today’s information travels. Another target is academia. But how serious is the problem?……………………………………………………..
THE MILITARIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Universities serve a variety of purposes, one of which is the development of new weapons for the US military. In the past, white voices critical of Empire would be tolerated as long as their non-university work did not grind the gears of Empire. That’s how Professor Chomsky, for instance, was able to get arrested protesting mass murder in Vietnam while receiving Pentagon money to undertake his linguistics research.
The technological origins of “full spectrum dominance” can perhaps be traced back to the outgoing Reagan and incoming George H.W. Bush administrations, under whom the Pentagon founded the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative to further integrate with education and develop tools for things like the so-called Star Wars program (Strategic Defense Initiative). One consequence is that higher education became significantly influenced—maybe not full-spectrum dominated—by the eternal war machine.
By 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD), which in more honest times was called the Department of War, was investing $250 million of taxpayer money in universities. In that year, the DoD decided to look for international partners, of which the Britain was a natural first-choice. The Pentagon’s Basic Research Office Director, Robin Staffin, said: “we decided it was time to formalize cooperation between the U.S. and the U.K.”
DARPA is the Pentagon’s taxpayer-funded innovation arm. It used to stand for the Advanced Projects Research Agency, but PR experts realized that they’d better prefix it with the word “Defense.” In 2016, venture capitalist-turned-DARPA Director, Arati Prabhakar, said: “DARPA is reliant on research universities as one part of this huge ecosystem … [We] draw from the deep foundational research, almost always at places like great universities.”
For instance, the DoD recently said that the universities of Alabama-Huntsville, Florida International, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station, and others, have received funding to develop solutions for—are you ready?—“monitoring the health and status of hypersonic aeroshells” (heat shields for space systems, which are core elements of “full spectrum dominance.” The “health and status” of ordinary Americans, who still don’t have free coverage, is less important). Other projects include thermodynamic ducts for hypersonic vehicles sponsored by the usual suspects, like Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
FUNDING PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY: DARPA’S DRIVE…………………………………………………
CONCLUSION
As universities continue designing weapons of mass murder, thought criminals in Western countries continue to face deplatforming and public shaming. Are their personal fates as severe as those of dissident academics in US-UK-supported regimes, like Saudi Arabia? Of course not. But that is not the point. An obvious chilling effect is created in which scholars striving for social justice and indeed the survival of the planet are silenced. The witting an unwitting minions of Empire are too obtuse to realize that by issuing penalties for expressing opinions, those penalties may one day be imposed upon them.
ANNEX (HISTORY, EMAIL EVIDENCE, REBUTTAL):
MY STORY……………………………………………………………………………….as I have lost my University position as a result of my political views, it is worth considering exactly what I write for Nexus (article by article) and that my articles give a left-wing voice to the so-called conspiracy research community, which is often dominated by right-wingers and apolitical people.
As one can see below, the bulk of my work for Nexus consists of critiques and exposés of US military and intelligence agencies. …………………………………………………………
T. J. Coles is director of the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research and the author of several books, including Voices for Peace (with Noam Chomsky and others) and Fire and Fury: How the US Isolates North Korea, Encircles China and Risks Nuclear War in Asia (both Clairview Books). https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/02/17/pentagon-funded-plymouth-university-cancels-anti-war-academic-reflections-on-how-the-us-empire-conquered-higher-education/
Betting on Ukraine victory was ‘suicidal’ – Seymour Hersh
https://www.rt.com/russia/571690-hersh-ukraine-nato-corruption/ 18 Feb 23
The West didn’t even want Kiev in NATO because of corruption concerns, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist says.
The US and its allies should have attempted to reach an agreement with Moscow as their belief that Ukraine can win a conflict against Russia is “suicidal,” iconic American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has argued.
Speaking in a YouTube interview with the Consortium News outlet on Friday, Hersh accused the Biden administration of making “so many bad mistakes,” adding that “it’s impossible to believe just how dumb this leadership was.”
“It was suicidal to think you can win that war, that Ukraine can win the war [against Russia]. There’s just too much corruption. That was a very, very bad decision. We should have been pushing for peace, we should have made an agreement,” the former Pulitzer Prize winner insisted.
US President Joe Biden basically “blew off NATO in Europe” by telling allies that he is backing Ukraine with its “totally corrupt government,” Hersh added. The journalist also pointed out how Kiev glorifies Stepan Bandera, “the great pro-Nazi who killed Jews like crazy during World War II.”
It’s just silly not to right away assure the Russian government that we weren’t interested in making Ukraine a member of NATO,” Hersh stated, referring to long-standing concerns in Moscow. “NATO didn’t want Ukraine anyway because of the corruption.”
Hersh recently published a bombshell report which accused the US of sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines last year. He cited an informed source as explaining that explosives were planted on the bottom of the Baltic Sea by US Navy divers under the guise of a NATO exercise back in June 2022. They were detonated in late September, rendering the pipelines, which were built to deliver Russian gas to Europe through Germany, inoperable.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, as well as Under Secretary for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, are all “very hawkish,” according to the journalist. The trio “pushed Biden very hard” to go ahead with the sabotage because “they have long-standing incredible hatred for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. It’s almost personal, I would guess,” Hersh claimed.
READ MORE: More Nord Stream ‘bombshells’ to come – Seymour Hersh
US National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson branded Hersh’s bombshell report “utterly false and complete fiction.” The journalist has promised even more revelations on how the pipelines were blown up.
NATO to participate in Ukraine war “for as long as it takes”
‘NATO is determined to make sure that Ukraine wins this war’ NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana told DW that the alliance is determined to continue supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. DW:..Will the alliance support Ukraine as long as Russian troops are controlling parts of the country, including […]
Author: Rick Rozoff1 Comment, Deutsche Welle, February 18, 2023
‘NATO is determined to make sure that Ukraine wins this war’
NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana told DW that the alliance is determined to continue supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes.
DW:..Will the alliance support Ukraine as long as Russian troops are controlling parts of the country, including Crimea?
Mircea Geoana: We are determined to continue supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes and also make sure that Ukraine wins this war….
[W]we are helping Ukraine, and by helping Ukraine we help ourselves. And we are here to stay for the long run with the Ukrainians.
DW: NATO has significantly boosted its presence on its eastern flank. What will the alliance do to protect the Black Sea region (including your home country, Romania) and why is this region so important in the context of Russia’s war in Ukraine?
[In] the strategic concept of NATO that our leaders approved in Madrid, we consider and we recognize the Black Sea as a strategic region, of strategic relevance to us. Not the only one: the Baltic Sea is important, the Adriatic Sea is important, the North Sea is important, the North Atlantic is important. But the Black Sea has a specificity with so much Russian presence, with so much pressure that they’re putting on Ukraine. And also we have Ukraine and Georgia and the Republic of Moldova, who are partners of NATO’s.
***
So the Black Sea is very important. And we take specific steps. In my home country, Romania, France is leading the battle group. In the neighboring country, Bulgaria, Italy is leading the battle group….
[W]e see an intensification of the partnership between the Republic of Moldova and NATO….
***
NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana, a former head of the Social Democratic Party in Romania, has served as Romanian minister of foreign affairs (2000–2004) and president of the Romanian Senate (2008–2011).
Spiralling cost of Hinkley Point C nuclear station
Cost of Hinkley Point nuclear plant backed by France, China spirals to
US$38.5 billion. EDF and its partner in the project, China General Nuclear
Power, will be asked to provide additional funding, but it’s unlikely the
Chinese will agree.
EDF saidElectricite de France said the cost of building
its flagship Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in the UK is set to
spiral further to £32 billion (US$38.5 billion). Higher levels of
inflation have pushed up the estimated spend on the plant, the French
energy giant said in a presentation published alongside its annual results.
The revised estimate is the latest indication of surging costs after the
start of plant was delayed last year. In May, EDF raised the price tag to
build the two reactors at Hinkley to £25 billion (US$30 billion) and £26
billion (US$31 billion).
South China Morning Post 18th Feb 2023
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
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 (82)
- 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 