nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Biden knew Ukraine would lose proxy war with Russia….provoked it anyway

Yet..and yet, President Zelensky is refusing to accept the reality of Ukraine’s defeat, even demanding return of territory lost forever. NATO countries led by delusional leaders Starmer in UK, Merz in Germany and Macron in France, claiming they’re Russia’s next target, are still pledging war resources they don’t have and never will

Walt Zlotow, Jan 17, 2026, Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL

The US proxy war against Russia destroying Ukraine has largely disappeared from mainstream news. US warfare with Venezuela, possible renewed war with Iran, seizing Greenland from Denmark have put a virtual blackout on Ukraine war reporting.

But a bigger reason is the war is lost with no chance of reversing the destruction of Ukraine short of nuclear war with Russia. If that happens we’re all destroyed.

So Trump, his advisors, the national security state (A.K.A. war party) and the aforementioned mainstream news have moved on. They realize the war has become a spectacular defeat for America’s goal of bringing Ukraine into NATO to further weaken Russia and isolate it from the European political economy. Publically admitting defeat and failure is something none of them will dare not speak its name.

Trump, to his credit, is trying to get both Ukraine and NATO to give up and settle on Russia’ sensible terms: no NATO for Ukraine, Ukraine to be forever neutral between Europe and Russia, no return of land containing mainly Russian leaning Ukrainians brutalized by Kyiv for 8 years before Russia intervened.

How badly has Ukraine lost? Over a million and a half dead, wounded or MIA, a quarter million soldiers deserted and over 9 million fled to safer climes. The economy down by a third surviving on European life support. Reconstruction costs once war ends at a half trillion dollars and rising.

Russia meanwhile is thriving, economy up by pivoting away from trade with Europe to the Global South and others only too happy to degrade both US and European hegemony. Result is a tripling of NATO energy costs, collapse of leaders support with nationalist, antiwar opposition poised to take over next election.

Could it get any worse for Ukraine and NATO?

Yet..and yet, President Zelensky is refusing to accept the reality of Ukraine’s defeat, even demanding return of territory lost forever. NATO countries led by delusional leaders Starmer in UK, Merz in Germany and Macron in France, claiming they’re Russia’s next target, are still pledging war resources they don’t have and never will

The only logical explanation is that they know the inevitable defeat facing Ukraine and NATO but are terrified to admit it and do the right thing. Trump, while sensibly pushing Ukraine and NATO, refuses to pull all US support for the lost war. He’s cynically telling NATO to keep the weapons flowing…just as long as they buy them from America. For Trump, lost war can still be a profitable business deal. He’s also refuses to pull the plug on massive weapons Biden foolishly authorized in his last days knowing Trump had no stomach to continue the war.

Speaking of Biden, he knew Ukraine could not prevail when he provoked the Russian Special Military Operation in February, 2022. But he viewed Ukraine’s destruction as collateral damage to so degrading Russia in the process that they would be forever weakened and out of the European political economy. Biden likely viewed US/NATO Ukraine support as a repeat of US meddling that defeated Russia in Afghanistan in 1989. Big mistake as history didn’t repeat.

Biden’s Mother of all Sanctions and $150 billion in weapons backfired spectacularly. So not only did Biden destroy Ukraine by provoking war, he’s likely destroyed America’s dominance leading NATO in Europe. In fact he may have put NATO on the path to history with their impending defeat flailing away at a lost cause.

However it ends, Joe Biden’s legacy will be making the greatest foreign policy mistake so far in America’s 250 years.

Say it wasn’t so, Joe.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Fears over plan for ‘biggest data centre cluster on earth’ in Scotland

RESIDENTS in East Ayrshire are growing extremely concerned about whether they will be consulted on a hyperscale data centre that is set to become part of “the biggest cluster in the world”.

 Local concerns come after
it was revealed to residents that the developer of the site, the ILI group,
had never booked any venue for public consultations. Further, both East
Ayrshire Council and the developers set out dates for residents to attend
public consultations that were later cancelled with short notice. Local mum
Lisa Beacham said: “Councillors had been actively telling residents to
make themselves available for these public consultations, but I’ve
received confirmation that there were never any venue bookings made by the
developer.”

 The National 15th Jan 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25766423.east-ayrshire-residents-speak-hyperscale-data-centre/

January 19, 2026 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

Russia says it awaits US response on ‘important’ issue of expiring nuclear treaty

By Dmitry Antonov, January 15, 2026, Reporting by Dmitry Antonov Writing by Mark Trevelyan and Andrew Osborn Editing by Andrew Osborn, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-awaits-us-response-important-issue-expiring-nuclear-treaty-2026-01-15/

MOSCOW, Jan 15 (Reuters) – Russia is still waiting for the United States to respond to President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to informally extend for a year the provisions of the last remaining nuclear arms pact between the two countries, the Kremlin said on Thursday.

The New START treaty is due to expire in three weeks, and President Donald Trump has not formally responded to the offer that Putin made last September.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

“No, we have not received a response. We are certainly awaiting a response to Putin’s initiative; we consider this a very important topic,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

New START, which was signed by presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev in 2010, sets limits on the strategic weapons that each side would use to target the other’s critical political and military centres in the event of a nuclear war. It caps the number of deployed strategic warheads at 1,550 on each side, with no more than 700 deployed ground- or submarine-launched missiles and bomber planes to deliver them.

It is the last in a series of treaties dating back to the early 1970s that have enabled Moscow and Washington to maintain a stable nuclear balance even at times of acute international tension.

Trump told the New York Times this month that “if it expires, it expires”, and that he wanted to replace it with a more ambitious treaty including China.

China, whose arsenal is growing fast but remains a fraction of the size of Moscow’s or Washington’s, says it is unreasonable and unrealistic to ask it to join three-way disarmament talks.

Asked about Trump’s comments on a successor treaty, Peskov said this would be good for everyone but would involve a “very complex and drawn-out process”.

“As for our Chinese friends, their position is well known, and we respect it.”

Peskov reasserted Russia’s position that any discussion of strategic stability and security must take into account the nuclear arsenals of Britain and France.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

Spectral Threats: China, Russia and Trump’s Greenland Rationale

Were Russia or China to attempt an occupation of Greenland through military means, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty would come into play, obliging NATO member states, including the United States, to collectively repel the effort.

“There are no Russian and Chinese ships all over the place around Greenland,” 

“Russia and/or China has no capacity to occupy Greenland or to take control over Greenland.”

14 January 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/spectral-threats-china-russia-and-trumps-greenland-rationale/

The Trump administration’s mania about Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, is something to behold. Its untutored thuggery, its brash assertiveness, and the increasingly strident threats to either use force, bully Denmark into a sale of the island, or simply annex the territory, have officials and commentators scrambling for theories and precedents. The Europeans are terrified that the NATO alliance is under threat from another NATO member. The Greenlanders are anxious and confused. But the ground for further action by Washington is being readied by finding threats barely real and hardly plausible.

The concerns about China and Russia seizing Greenland retells the same nonsense President Donald Trump promoted in kidnapping the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Looking past the spurious narcoterrorism claims against the former leader, it fell to the issue of who would control the natural resources of the country. If we don’t get Venezuelan oil now and secure it for American companies, the Chinese or the Russians will. he gangster’s rationale is crudely reductionist, seeing all in a similar veinThe obsession with Beijing and Moscow runs like a forced thread through a dotty, insular rationale that repels evidence and cavorts with myth: “We need that [territory],” reasons the President, “because if you take a look outside Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We are not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t.” On Denmark’s military capabilities in holding the island against any potential aggressor, Trump could only snort with macho dismissiveness. “You know what their defence is? Two dog sleds.”

This scratchy logic is unsustainable for one obvious point. Were Russia or China to attempt an occupation of Greenland through military means, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty would come into play, obliging NATO member states, including the United States, to collectively repel the effort. With delicious perversity, any US effort to forcibly acquire the territory through use of force would be an attack on its own security, given its obligations under the Treaty. In such cases, it becomes sound to assume, as the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen does, that the alliance would cease to exist.

Such matters are utterly missed by the rabidly hawkish Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who declared that, “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” It was up to the US “to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests” in incorporating Greenland. To take territory from a NATO ally was essentially doing it good.

Given that the United States already has a military presence on the island at the Pituffik Space Base, and rights under the 1951 agreement that would permit an increase in the number of bases should circumstances require it, along with the Defence Cooperation Agreement finalised with Copenhagen in June 2025, much of Miller’s airings are not merely farcical but redundant. Yet, Trump has made it clear that signatures and understandings reflected in documents are no substitute for physically taking something, the thrill of possession that, by its act, deprives someone else of it. “I think ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty,” he told the New York Times. “Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

What, then, of these phantom forces from Moscow and Beijing, supposedly lying in wait to seize the frozen prize? “There are no Russian and Chinese ships all over the place around Greenland,” states the very convinced research director of the Oslo-based Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Andreas Østhagen. “Russia and/or China has no capacity to occupy Greenland or to take control over Greenland.”

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen is similarly inclined. “The image that’s being painted of Russian and Chinese ships right inside the Nuuk fjord and massive Chinese investments being made is not correct.” Senior “Nordic diplomats” quoted in the Financial Times add to that version, even if the paper is not decent enough to mention which Nordic country they come from. “It is simply not true that the Chinese and Russians are there,” said one. “I have seen the intelligence. There are no ships, no submarines.” Vessel tracking data from Marine Traffic and LSEG have so far failed to disclose the presence of Chinese and Russian ships near the island.

Heating engineer Lars Vintner, based in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, wondered where these swarming, spectral Chinese were based. “The only Chinese I see,” he told Associated Press,“ is when I go to the fast food market.” This sparse presence extends to the broader security footprint of China in the Arctic, which remains modest despite a growing collaboration with Russia since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. These have included Arctic and coast guard operations, while the Chinese military uses satellites and icebreakers equipped with deep-sea mini submarines, potentially for mapping the seabed.  

However negligible and piffling the imaginary threat, analysts, ever ready with a larding quote or a research brief, are always on hand to show concern with such projects as Beijing’s Polar Silk Road, announced in 2018, which is intended as the Arctic extension of its transnational Belt and Road initiative. The subtext: Trump should not seize Greenland, but he might have a point. “China has clear ambitions to expand its footprint and influence in the region, which it considers… an emerging arena for geopolitical competition.” Or so says Helena Legarda of the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin.

The ludicrous nature of Trump’s claims and acquisitive urges supply fertile material for sarcasm. A prominent political figure from one of the alleged conquerors-to-be made an effort almost verging on satire. “Trump needs to hurry up,” mocked the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council and former President Dmitry Medvedev. “According to unverified information, within a few days, there could be a sudden referendum where all 55,000 residents of Greenland might vote to join Russia. And that’s it!” With Trump, “that’s it” never quite covers it.

January 17, 2026 Posted by | ARCTIC, China, politics international, Russia, USA | Leave a comment

Challenge to Latest Sellafield Discharges to the Rivers Calder, Ehen and the Irish Sea

  By mariannewildart, on behalf of Lakes Against Nuclear Dump, https://lakesagainstnucleardump.com/2026/01/16/still-waiting-for-judge-to-make-decision-on-our-challenge-to-latest-sellafield-discharges/

The hearing on whether our Judicial Review into the challenge of Sellafield’s latest discharges to the rivers Calder and Ehen took place at the end of November.  Incredibly we are still waiting for the decision on whether our Judicial Review can go forward.  In the meantime here is a lovely photo [on original] of Rowbank Farm.

 This is just one of the many farms and grand houses in the once fertile plain between the Lake District mountains and the Irish Sea to be obliterated by Sellafield’s nuclear waste sprawl along the once meandering and braided river Calder.  This photo [on original] along with many more can be found on the Calderbridge and Ponsonby Parish Council website (no endorsement of our challenge by the Parish Council is implied – the photos are in the public domain)

Onwards and Upwards

January 17, 2026 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

‘Wall of money’ to invest in Scottish nuclear power if Labour win election

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the SNP were saying Scotland was ‘shut for business’.

Danyel VanReenen, Politics Reporter, Jan 15th, 2026

The Prime Minister said the UK Labour Government is ready and willing to invest in nuclear power in Scotland if Anas Sarwar wins the Holyrood election in May.

The current SNP Government has consistently been against the creation of new nuclear power stations north of the border, with control of planning laws giving ministers an effective veto.

Keir Starmer said there is a “wall of money” Labour wants to invest in Scottish nuclear power, but he said the SNP are saying no “for ideological reasons”.

“If there’s a Labour Government in Scotland, we’ll be back the day after the election to make sure that money is translated into good, well-paying jobs in renewables and nuclear,” Starmer said.

“That can’t happen at the moment because the SNP is basically saying ‘we’re shut for business’.”…………………………………………………………………………………………. https://news.stv.tv/politics/wall-of-money-to-invest-in-scottish-nuclear-power-if-labour-win-election

January 17, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Flamanville nuclear plant to remain offline to 1 Feb following storm

(Montel) Units 1 (1.3 GW) and 3 (1.6 GW) of French utility EDF’s Flamanville nuclear plant will remain offline until 1 February due to the damage caused by storm Goretti last week.

by: Elise Wu12 Jan 2026, https://montelnews.com/news/2d1b9548-51d9-41fa-932f-6d42f4c4d017/flamanville-nuclear-plant-to-remain-offline-to-1-feb-following-storm

January 17, 2026 Posted by | climate change, France | Leave a comment

Zelensky makes another move to avoid election.

12 Jan 26, https://www.rt.com/russia/630856-zelensky-election-martial-law/

The Ukrainian leader has submitted a bill to extend martial law, which would allow him to remain in power.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has submitted two draft bills to the parliament to extend martial law and general mobilization for another 90 days, effectively postponing elections once again. The move comes despite pressure from US President Donald Trump and the Ukrainian leader earlier saying he was open to holding an election.

One of the draft laws submitted to the Verhovna Rada on Monday would extend martial law from February 3 to early May, which would effectively bar national elections for this period. Martial law has been renewed repeatedly in three-month increments since 2022. The other bill would prolong the controversial forced mobilization campaign on the same timetable.

Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024. The Ukrainian leader refused to hold a new election, citing the conflict with Russia. Moscow subsequently declared him “illegitimate,” arguing that authority now rests with the Ukrainian parliament. Russian officials also noted that Zelensky’s dubious status is a major legal obstacle to signing a peace agreement.

This comes despite pressure from Trump – who labeled Zelensky “a dictator without elections” last year – to hold an election. In December, Zelensky said he was ready to hold an election within months if the West could provide Kiev with robust security guarantees.

A poll in January by Ipsos suggested that former Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny – widely viewed as Zelensky’s main rival – is leading potential presidential candidates with around 23% support, while Zelensky trailed at 20%.

If the second bill passes, Ukraine will prolong its mobilization campaign, which has been marred by numerous violent incidents between draft officers and reluctant recruits. Officials in Kiev have acknowledged a decline in enthusiasm to serve, but insisted that drastic measures are required to replenish growing battlefield losses.

January 16, 2026 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Wind is certainly not the only renewable power source in Scotland

 The National 12th Jan 2026, Alexander Potts

I WOULD like to reply to Lyndsey Ward (Letters, Jan 6) to say that it isn’t the SNP that look silly for not wanting nuclear power plants in Scotland, but those who advocate that we build them.

Statistics published last month showed that Scotland produced 115% of electricity by renewables for the previous year (2024/2025). In other words, we produced 15% more than we needed by renewables alone. And yes, we do use other sources to produce electricity when needed. As we export 40% of electricity to England from the above 115% figure, we are certainly way above what our/Scotland’s demands are, so do we actually need more generating capacity?

I of course acknowledge that at times the wind turbines are switched off, but as I have stated, we do have other means to produce electricity. However, I do have to ask Lyndsey why she didn’t mention that we also generate renewable electricity by hydro power, and have been since the 1950s, as well as solar and tidal power? In that respect, Lyndsey has fallen into the same old trap as others in that she assumes we only generate renewables by the one source and that we don’t have back-up facilities.

Lyndsey also forgets to mention one very important fact in Scotland’s renewable project, in that we pump the water back up to the reservoirs at off-peak periods, so the one thing that we aren’t going to run short of is hydro power. In a similar fashion, people assume that solar panels only work in bright light. However, they work when there is a light source available and are producing power from early morning to evening more or less all the time, even in overcast conditions.

Although tidal power is still at the early stages of development, its only drawback is that its doesn’t produce power at slack water periods, which is about two hours per day (two one-hour periods per day). The interesting thing about that, though, is that slack water time is different all around the coast, so the more that potentially come online, the more that minor problem is overcome. As tidal energy production is submerged, then there won’t be visual evidence as with wind turbines………………………………………………………………………. https://www.thenational.scot/business/25756714.wind-certainly-not-renewable-power-source-scotland/

January 16, 2026 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

British Ministry of Defense developing ballistic missile for Ukraine to make “deep strikes into Russia”

 Steven Starr , 13 Jan 26

The missile is only in the developmental stage. The delusional British imagine that Russia will not strike Britain if they pursue this folly.

The UK has formally launched Project Nightfall, a competition to develop a new ground-launched tactical ballistic missile intended primarily for use by Ukrainian forces, while also shaping future British long-range strike programmes.

The government has moved ahead with Project Nightfall, a competitive effort to rapidly develop a ground-launched ballistic missile designed to give Ukraine a long-range strike capability against Russian forces. The programme builds directly on work first disclosed by the UK Defence Journal in December, when the Ministry of Defence published an initial contract notice outlining the requirement.

While the project is being run by the UK, ministers have been clear that the missile is not intended as a near-term addition to Britain’s own arsenal. Instead, Nightfall is designed around Ukrainian operational use, with British industry acting as the developer and manufacturer and the UK Armed Forces positioned as a future beneficiary of lessons learned rather than the immediate end user.

The December notice, published on 9 December 2025, confirmed that the MOD was seeking industry partners to “procure a future tactical ballistic missile through a short-term development programme”. That followed parliamentary confirmation in November that officials were assessing industry feedback ahead of launching a formal competition.

According to the published requirement, Nightfall is one of the most ambitious missile programmes pursued by the UK in decades. The MOD specified a cost-effective, ground-launched ballistic missile with a range greater than 500 kilometres, capable of operating in high-threat and heavily contested environments, including under intense electronic warfare and degraded or denied satellite navigation.

Mobility and survivability are central to the concept. The system is required to support salvo firing from a single launcher, with multiple missiles launched in quick succession before the crew withdraws rapidly. The MOD specified that launch units must be able to leave the firing area “within 15 minutes of launching all effectors”, with each missile reaching its target within approximately 10 minutes of launch.

Scalability is another key requirement. Subject to future contracts, production must be capable of delivering at least 10 missiles per month, with scope to increase output. Designs are also expected to allow future upgrades to range, accuracy and manoeuvrability, while minimising reliance on foreign export controls.

This week’s announcement adds political weight and funding detail rather than altering the core technical requirement. Under the current plan, the government intends to award up to three competing development contracts, each worth £9 million. Each team would be expected to design, develop and deliver three missiles within 12 months for test firings. Proposals are due by 9 February, with development contracts targeted for award in March.

Defence Secretary John Healey framed the programme as a response to continued Russian attacks, saying the UK was determined to place advanced weapons “into the hands of Ukrainians as they fight back.” In ful, he said:

The missile must be “capable of being safely ground launched from a mobile platform in a high threat tactical environment, navigating to and accurately striking a user-programmed fixed target co-ordinate.” Each effector is expected to carry a conventional high-explosive payload of around 200 kilograms and follow a supersonic ballistic trajectory, with a stated accuracy requirement of striking within 10 metres of a target coordinate for 50 per cent of launches.

Mobility and survivability are central to the concept. The system is required to support salvo firing from a single launcher, with multiple missiles launched in quick succession before the crew withdraws rapidly. The MOD specified that launch units must be able to leave the firing area “within 15 minutes of launching all effectors”, with each missile reaching its target within approximately 10 minutes of launch.

Scalability is another key requirement. Subject to future contracts, production must be capable of delivering at least 10 missiles per month, with scope to increase output. Designs are also expected to allow future upgrades to range, accuracy and manoeuvrability, while minimising reliance on foreign export controls.

This week’s announcement adds political weight and funding detail rather than altering the core technical requirement. Under the current plan, the government intends to award up to three competing development contracts, each worth £9 million. Each team would be expected to design, develop and deliver three missiles within 12 months for test firings. Proposals are due by 9 February, with development contracts targeted for award in March

Defence Secretary John Healey framed the programme as a response to continued Russian attacks, saying the UK was determined to place advanced weapons “into the hands of Ukrainians as they fight back.” In ful, he said:

“The attacks overnight on Thursday just go to show how Putin thinks he can act with impunity, targeting civilian areas with advanced weaponry. Instead of seriously negotiating a peace, he’s seriously escalating his illegal war. We were close enough to hear the air raid sirens around Lviv on our journey to Kyiv, it was a serious moment and a stark reminder of the barrage of drones and missiles hitting Ukrainians in sub-zero conditions. We won’t stand for this, which is why we are determined to put leading edge weapons into the hands of Ukrainians as they fight back.”

Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the missiles would “keep Ukraine in the fight” while also strengthening longer-term European security.

“A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine. These new long-range British missiles will keep Ukraine in the fight and give Putin another thing to worry about. In 2026, we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. Providing equipment to keep them in the fight today, whilst working to secure the peace tomorrow.”

While the formal launch underscores the government’s intent, the substance of Project Nightfall remains closely aligned with the requirement outlined in December. As that original notice made clear, the MOD still reserves the right to amend or cancel the programme at any stage, stating that “the Authority reserves the right not to award any Contract to any supplier at any stage during the procurement.”

For now, Nightfall represents a rare case of the UK pursuing a ground-launched ballistic missile explicitly for a partner nation’s use, while using the programme to accelerate domestic expertise in deep-strike systems that Britain itself currently lacks.

January 16, 2026 Posted by | UK, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Faslane nuclear base tugboats may be built in China


 UK Defence Journal By George Allison, January 12, 2026

New tugboats intended to support operations at HM Naval Base Clyde, the UK’s nuclear submarine hub at Faslane, may be constructed in China under a major fleet replacement programme, depending on how the contractor applies its global production model.

The vessels form part of the Defence Maritime Services Next Generation programme, under which Serco is replacing a wide range of Royal Navy harbour and support craft. The programme covers tugs, pilot boats and barges used at naval bases across the UK, including Faslane, which hosts the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.

Under the current arrangements, the Ministry of Defence pays Serco to provide support services at the Royal Navy’s principal bases, and allows Serco, as the prime contractor, to determine its own supply chain for vessel replacement.

Build locations and Damen’s production model

Damen operates a distributed shipbuilding model, with construction spread across a network of yards in Europe and Asia depending on vessel type and production capacity. The company has historically built a range of smaller commercial and support vessels at yards in China and Vietnam, including certain classes of tugboats, while other workboat types are constructed at European facilities in countries such as Poland and Romania. Final outfitting, integration and delivery preparation are often carried out in the Netherlands or at European partner yards, depending on the contract.

Neither Serco nor Damen has publicly confirmed the specific build locations for individual vessels within the programme. However, Damen’s established production model suggests that some tugboats could be built outside Europe, including at shipyards in China that form part of Damen’s wider manufacturing network……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Not the first time

A similar issue emerged in Australia in 2025, when the national broadcaster ABC reported that a new fleet of tugboats ordered for the Royal Australian Navy had been built in China under a contract awarded to Dutch shipbuilder Damen. The report said certification documents showed the vessels were constructed at Damen’s Changde shipyard in China, before being delivered to Australia under a civilian-operated support arrangement.

In response to the reporting, Australia’s Department of Defence confirmed that the tugboats had been built in China, while stating that they were not commissioned naval vessels and would be operated by a civilian contractor. Defence officials emphasised that sustainment activity would take place domestically and that the vessels were intended for harbour support roles rather than frontline operations…………………….

Wider security context

In a separate but related context, the Ministry of Defence has in recent months issued internal guidance concerning the use of vehicles containing Chinese-manufactured components, amid broader concerns about information security and connected systems. Media reporting has said warning notices were placed in some MoD-leased vehicles advising personnel not to discuss sensitive matters inside them or connect official devices, and that certain vehicles were restricted from accessing sensitive military sites. The measures were described as precautionary, with no publicly confirmed security breach.

Parliamentary questions have also raised wider issues about reliance on overseas-manufactured systems within defence and government operations. Ministers have acknowledged the need to assess potential vulnerabilities linked to global supply chains, while maintaining that decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis and that there has been no evidence of compromise.

Competing views on cost, transparency and social value

Those defending the programme argue that the arrangements reflect commercial shipbuilding norms rather than a deliberate policy decision. They note that hull construction in Asia can reduce costs and production timelines, with final outfitting, systems integration and acceptance carried out later in Europe under established regulatory oversight. Critics argue that the lack of transparency over build locations risks undermining confidence, especially where vessels operate at nuclear sites. They contend that clearer public disclosure is needed on where vessels are constructed and what safeguards apply during the build process.

Louise Gilmour, secretary of GMB Scotland, said the decision to source the workboats overseas represented a missed opportunity to support domestic shipbuilding capacity, particularly at Ferguson Marine, where the union represents the largest section of the workforce. She said the vessels were well suited to the type of work the yard had carried out for generations and argued that contracts of this scale could play a role in sustaining skills and employment in Scotland.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/faslane-nuclear-base-tugboats-may-be-built-in-china/

January 15, 2026 Posted by | China, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Non-Peaceful Atom

Vladimir Slivyak, January 7, 2026, https://www.posle.media/article/the-non-peaceful-atom

In what ways does Russia use nuclear energy as a strategic tool? Why have sanctions failed to end Europe’s dependence on the Russian nuclear industry? How is Rosatom involved in the war? Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair of the Eco-Defense group, answers these questions

As a strategic instrument of the Kremlin, Rosatom helps to create and entrench geopolitical dependencies. This dependence rests on the promotion of nuclear energy but has ramifications that extend far beyond the energy sector. Rosatom is both directly and indirectly involved in Russia’s war against Ukraine. In particular, Rosatom played a key role in Russia’s seizure of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and has offered to procure materials and components for Russian arms manufacturers under sanctions.

Nevertheless, the European nuclear industry continues to collaborate with Rosatom. For instance, Rosatom supplies uranium to Framatome’s ANF nuclear fuel plant in Lingen, Germany. Rosatom is also involved in expanding this facility, even though the German authorities have not yet approved such cooperation. If the Framatome-Rosatom project, which has been in development for over three years, goes ahead, the Russian regime will further strengthen its political influence in Western Europe despite the war in Ukraine.

Rosatom as a Civil-Military State Corporation

Rosatom is a state-owned corporation that operates in both the civilian and military spheres of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. As the successor to Russia’s Ministry of Atomic Energy, Rosatom brings together over 350 companies engaged in nuclear activities. The corporation was created by a decree by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2007.

Rosatom is directly owned by the Russian state. It is one of seven Russian “state corporations,” grouped together with RostecRoscosmos, and others. In 2012, former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev described Rosatom as a “corporation of a special kind” that not only seeks to expand its activities but also carries out “certain ministerial tasks.”

The corporation’s Supervisory Board is its main decision-making body. This board includes Sergey Kirienko, the deputy head of the Russian presidential administration, who is currently under sanctions from the EU, the UK, and the US, as well as Sergei Korolev, the first deputy director of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (the main successor to the Soviet KGB). In relation to the war in Ukraine, Korolev has also been sanctioned by the EU, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, the UK, and Ukraine. The Supervisory Board also includes two Russian deputy prime ministers and two aides to President Vladimir Putin. 

The European Parliament has repeatedly called for sanctions on Rosatom and for an end to all nuclear cooperation with Russia, including uranium imports and investments in critical infrastructure. 

Participation in the War

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, Rosatom has been directly and indirectly involved in the war. According to a letter obtained by Ukrainian intelligence and published in the American press, Rosatom offered assistance to the Russian arms industry in securing goods needed for the production of weapons, tanks, and aircraft after that sector had been hit by international sanctions.

In his December 2022 address to Rosatom on the occasion of its 15th anniversary, President Vladimir Putin praised the corporation for its “enormous contribution to the development and deployment of advanced weapons systems and military equipment.”


In the early days of the invasion, Rosatom employees assisted Russian troops who occupied the Chernobyl exclusion zone in Ukraine. The Russian state corporation also facilitated the illegal seizure of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Rosatom employees have taken over key management positions at the facility. Following a decree by the Russian president, Rosatom created a new subsidiary specifically tasked with taking control of the plant.

In October 2023, Ukrainian nuclear operator Energoatom reported that the safety culture at the plant was deteriorating under Rosatom’s control. This deterioration included poorly performed work, insufficient staffing, and inadequate inspections. The company stated that these problems had led to significant damage to critical components of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), including leaks in the radioactive primary coolant circuit. There is also credible evidence that Rosatom employees assisted the Russian military in selecting targets at the Zaporizhzhya NPP; they reportedly “helped direct Russian artillery fire at the plant.” 

Rosatom as a Geopolitical Tool 

Rosatom is a central player in the Russian regime’s “geopolitics.” The company’s goal is to make as many countries as possible dependent on Russian nuclear technology, services, and fuel. Rosatom purchases essential equipment for nuclear reactors under construction from European companies and supplies the EU with unenriched and enriched uranium, fuel, and other nuclear services. This cooperation helps fund the continuation of the war in Ukraine. It also locks Europe into dependence on Russian nuclear fuel and services, which ultimately translates into political influence. 

Hungary is perhaps the clearest example. It is almost entirely dependent on Russia for nuclear energy services and has repeatedly blocked any attempt by the EU to impose sanctions on Rosatom. Russia controls the supply of nuclear fuel and the maintenance of existing Hungarian reactors and has provided a €10 billion loan for the construction of Paks-2 nuclear power plant. In addition, Siemens Energy and Framatome are providing key equipment and control systems for new Russian-made reactors in Hungary.

Rosatom states that it is currently building more than 30 new reactors in about a dozen countries. Last year, its subsidiaries exported approximately $2.2 billion worth of nuclear energy-related goods and materials. The Russian state budget covers more than 90% of the cost of Rosatom’s construction of new nuclear power plants around the world.

Rosatom has signed agreements with nearly 20 African countries to build nuclear power plants and research reactors. So far, however, only one plant is actually under construction: the Al Dabaa plant in Egypt. Rosatom has also purchased a uranium mine in Tanzania. A previous attempt to build a nuclear power plant in South Africa collapsed due to resistance from environmental activists. In South America, Rosatom is involved in smaller but still significant projects, such as a research reactor and lithium mining in Bolivia.

Despite Russia’s war in Ukraine, the French nuclear company Framatome continues to purchase uranium from Rosatom. Between 2022 to 2023, at least ten shipments of uranium went from Russia to the ANF nuclear fuel plant in Lingen, a Framatome subsidiary. According to the German government, these deliveries took place under two federal government licenses issued in September, November, and December 2022, as well as in April and May 2023. In August 2023, German authorities granted a new license authorizing up to 40 more shipments. Deliveries are still ongoing. 

Prospects

In the four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion began, the EU has adopted nearly twenty packages of sanctions against the Russian economy and industry. Other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan, have also imposed sanctions. However, Russia has faced virtually no pressure in the field of nuclear energy, one of its key sectors with both civilian and military significance. On the contrary, Rosatom has expanded its operations and almost tripled its profits from trade with Western countries. 

Europe’s dependence on Russia in the nuclear sphere is roughly comparable to its reliance on pipeline gas supplies before the war. First, Putin used gas deliveries as leverage over Europe, and then the Russian pipeline was destroyed in an act of sabotage. Without these developments, we would now likely be talking about the EU’s crippling dependence on Russia for both uranium and pipeline gas. In such a situation, it is reasonable to assume that Ukraine would not have been able to rely on the level of support it currently enjoys in Europe. 

This dependence on Russian supplies did not arise by a happy accident for Moscow but from strategic steps the Russian regime has taken over the past 10–15 years. It is not known for certain whether Putin had been planning a full-scale war throughout this entire period. However, it is clear that making Europe’s economy as dependent as possible on Russian energy supplies was one of Moscow’s strategic priorities. Under this strategy, many European countries were meant to end up in the position Hungary finds itself in today.

As a result of the war in Ukraine, Europe’s dependence on Russian supplies has fallen sharply, though it has not disappeared. For instance, Germany, the EU’s largest economy, no longer relies on Russian pipeline gas. The fight against the “shadow fleet” transporting Putin’s oil to fund the war is under way, albeit with mixed results. Furthermore, Russian coal has been completely banned from Europe. Russia’s coal industry, one of the most profitable, is currently in a deep crisis — direct evidence that Russia has been unable to offset the consequences of Europe’s refusal to buy Russian coal. Even in the nuclear energy sector, the least affected by sanctions, there have been notable shifts. For instance, Finland has abandoned plans to build a major nuclear power plant with Russian involvement. In several cases, European companies have been unable to supply Rosatom with equipment for its projects in other countries.

Unfortunately, efforts to reduce dependence on Russian uranium are progressing extremely slowly, and there is still no clear timeline for this process. A full break with Russian uranium in the foreseeable future seems unlikely, especially if Hungary goes ahead with a new nuclear power plant project involving Rosatom. Russia is also trying to increase its liquefied natural gas exports to Europe. However, it now seems unlikely that European authorities will once again allow a situation in which Vladimir Putin can make their economies dependent on Russia.

Rosatom is arguably the biggest Russian thorn in Europe’s flesh today, and half-measures won’t remove it. A “surgical extraction”  would cause severe and painful shocks to the economies — and, in turn, the politics — of several EU member states. The problem is not that the threat is underestimated; Europe understands it perfectly well. The issue is that freeing itself from this nuclear dependence would require enormous time and effort. The question is: will there be enough of either? 

January 14, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

Here’s who really weaponizes children in the Russia-Ukraine conflict

As accusations of abductions resurface, it’s clear the West doesn’t care about facts on the ground if they contradict the narrative.

By Eva Bartlett, a Canadian independent journalist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).  9 Jan, 2026 https://www.rt.com/news/630762-russia-ukraine-abducted-children/

For the last three years, Ukraine and concerted legacy media campaigns have been screaming that Russia has abducted, or forcibly displaced, thousands of Ukrainian children – even up to 1.5 million!

The accusations resurged in December, with a UN General Assembly vote on a draft resolution on the return of Ukrainian children.

During the meeting, Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa once again pushed claims that “at least 20,000 Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia,” in spite of the fact that months prior, during the June Istanbul talks, the Ukrainian side finally provided a list of the children it accuses Russia of abducting: 339 children, surprisingly far fewer than the number alleged for years.

The absence of over 19,500 on the list indeed leads to many questions, mainly: is Ukraine lying again? Recall that in 2022, the accusations by the (now former) Ukrainian ombudswoman, Lyudmila Denisova, about “sexual atrocities” allegedly committed by Russian soldiers, were revealed to be lies and propaganda. So much so that Denisova was sacked. But before her dismissal, legacy media and the UN all backed the lies.

Some recent accusations are that children were being sent to labor camps in Russia – “165 re-education camps where Ukrainian children are militarized and Russified” – or even of being sent to North Korea, as Katerina Rashevskaya of the Ukrainian Regional Center for Human Rights told the US Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs on December 3.

The footnotes of the claims made by Rashevskaya, instead of a source for the information, say “The Regional Human Rights Center can provide information upon request.” In other words, her sources are “trust me, bro.”

Regarding the North Korean camp in question, if two Russian teens were sent there, they’d potentially be made to enjoy water slides, basketball and volleyball courts, an arcade room, a rock climbing wall, art and performance halls, an archery range, a private beach, and hikes in the mountains.

Regarding the list of 339 children Ukraine says were abducted by Russia, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova remarked“30 percent of the names on the list could not be verified, as most of those children were never in Russia, are now adults, or have already returned to their families. As for the Ukrainian children who are actually in our country, they are under state care in appropriate institutions. They are safe now; in many cases, their evacuation from combat zones saved their lives. Local children’s rights commissioners are now working to reunite them with their relatives.”

Just as legacy media has whitewashed the eight years of Ukraine’s war against Donbass civilians prior to Russia commencing its military operation in 2022, including the Ukrainian shelling which killed 250 children starting in 2014, media likewise ignore the children Russia says are missing.

During the talks in Istanbul, Zakharova noted, “the Russian side presented Ukraine with a list of 20 Russian children who are either currently in Ukraine or relocated from Ukraine to Western Europe, including to countries that endorsed this very statement. Now, the burden falls on these states to provide Russia with a substantive response regarding our ‘list of 20.’”

Over 500 Ukrainian orphans abused in Türkiye

Recently, Donbass-based journalist Christelle Néant wrote about a report published on a pro-Ukrainian website which broke the story of 510 Ukrainian children who had been evacuated by a Ukrainian oligarch in 2022 from Dnepropetrovsk to Türkiye, where the benevolent foundation which brought them there allegedly allowed its staff to beat the children, sexually assault them, and deny them food if they refused to perform on camera to raise funds for their lodging. These are just some of the reported violations of the orphans’ rights.

The details of the report show that the children suffered physically and psychologically. Additionally, two underage teens were impregnated by staff at the hotel they stayed in, with educators allegedly aware of the interactions.

According to Néant, the orphanage director’s response to the fact of one of the teens in her care becoming pregnant was to blame the girl: “This young girl comes from an asocial family. Well, this way of life is already inscribed in every cell, in the blood of these children.”


“In almost 10 years of work in Donbass,”
 Néant wrote, “I have conducted or filmed many humanitarian missions to orphanages in the region. And never ever have I heard a director make such vile remarks about one of the children in her care. Even the most difficult and recalcitrant were cared for with pedagogy, love, and patience.”

Ukraine hunting down children

In April 2023, Christelle Néant and I interviewed Artyomovsk civilians who had recently been rescued by Russian soldiers. In addition to being deliberately shelled by Ukrainian forces who knew they were sheltering in the basement of a residential building, the civilians we spoke to told us about Ukrainian military police hunting for children.
The evacuees told us some of these police went by the name ‘White Angels’, and were taking childrenaway without their consent or that of their parents.

Around that time, more reports came out about these abductions or attempted abductions, including an 11-year-old girl who spoke of how White Angels, who introduced themselves as military police, came to the basement she was sheltering in with a photo of her, looking for her, and saying they needed to take her away, because “Russia killed her mother.” According to the girl, her mother was alive and with her.

Reports of these abductions also emerged in AvdeyevkaKupyansk, Slavyansk, Chasov Yar and Konstantinovka, as well as in Ukrainsk and Zhelannoye.

Néant wrote of a July 2023 conference on Ukraine’s crimes against the Donbass children, in which Liliya and her daughter Kira from Schastye, in the Lugansk People’s Republic, spoke. 

They gave evidence of how, “at the start of the special military operation (when Ukraine controlled Schastye), around ten children were taken from a school in Schastye to western Ukraine by the headmistress of the school, on orders from Kiev, without informing their parents.”

The children were even forbidden to call their parents, Néant wrote, “But Kira knew her mother’s telephone number by heart and managed to call her to let her know that they were in Lviv and then Khoust. Thanks to Liliya’s determination to find her daughter, we discovered how Kiev ‘exports’ the children it abducts.” Ukraine had forged a new “original” birth certificate for Kira. The girl said she and the other children were to be sent to Poland.

Former SBU officer Vasily Prozorov spoke at the same conference, where he explained, according to Néant, “that one of his investigations had revealed that some of the children abducted by Ukraine are sent to pedophile networks in Great Britain, via a whole network of Ukrainian and British officials or former officials who work together. On the British side, members of MI6 and the Foreign Office are involved.”

Prozorov, she wrote, spoke of “another of his investigations on organizations registered in EU countries involved in ‘exporting’ children from Ukraine under the pretext of providing them with shelter. These organizations take unaccompanied Ukrainian children out of Ukraine. What happens to them afterwards is unknown.”

Evacuees from Kherson reject ‘abduction’ claims

In November 2022, in the southern Russian seaside city Anapa, I met numerous people displaced from Kherson who were being lodged in hotels and apartments in the city.

The first site I visited was a few minutes by taxi outside of the city, one of many hotels along the coast. The hotel director showing me around said they don’t call them refugees, “we call them guests of the building,” and spoke affectionately of them, how grateful they were to be there, far from any shelling. Just under 500 refugees had been living there since October, she told me.

No guards monitored the entrance/exit; the refugees walked around tidy grounds. But in any case, I asked about their freedom of movement, or lack thereof.

“They move freely, of course. We don’t prohibit them from going out. Many aren’t here now because they’re in town, looking for jobs, getting documents. Children are at school.”

With my hired translator, I spoke with two Kherson women, a young mother and her own mother, to hear their stories.

“We were living with explosions at night, it was very scary, not only for myself, but for my children and for my grandchildren,” the older woman said. “When you go to bed, you don’t know if you will get out of bed in the morning. We were forced to leave.”

I asked who was shelling them. “Word of mouth transmits very clearly, and people around us spoke about it. We were bombed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Russian soldiers protected us.”

The younger woman said she used to speak with the Russian soldiers there. “They are friendly. We wanted to hug them, because we felt protected. They helped us, gave us humanitarian aid, brought it to the house.”

Some minutes’ taxi ride away, I visited an apartment complex that could have served tourists in summer.  There, fifty buildings housed around 1,500 refugees who had also arrived in October, mostly from Kherson Region.

My translator and I walked around, passing playgrounds, a pharmacy, a library, a swimming pool, a gym, a small petting zoo with peacocks, and a kindergarten. Near a playground, I spoke with a mother sitting on a bench with two of her four children.

“In the early days, there was bombing. We spent two and a half weeks in the basement. It was unbearable, the children were very afraid.” One of her daughters became ill. “She had acute inflammation of the lower jaw, we think due to hypothermia. We took her to Simferopol and she had surgery.” 

In Anapa, she said, her children had full medical examinations. “We were helped by the mayor of the city of Anapa. We are grateful for everything.”

I mentioned that according to Western media, she and her family were kidnapped by Russia. She replied that her husband’s parents had demanded to see the children, having been told that children were being separated from their parents in Russia.

“His mother called three days in a row, saying, ‘Where are the children?’ We answered, ‘They went to the cinema. They’re playing, etc.’ She said, ‘Show me the children, they say that they took your children from you.’”

Details matter

Whereas legacy media continue to push the “Evil Russia child kidnapper” narrative, there is ample evidence that Ukraine is guilty of doing precisely what it accuses Russia of. The is also a significant absence of evidence regarding the ‘20,000 kidnapped children’ claims still being pushed.

Will media investigate the reports of abuse of Ukrainian children in Türkiye? Surely not. It wouldn’t suit their scripted anti-Russia bias.

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Atrocities, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The Coalition of the Willing has achieved nothing

‘we agreed to finalise binding commitments setting out our approach to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. These may include, military capabilities, intelligence and so on.’

In diplomatic parlance, agreeing to finalise commitments that may include basically means that nothing has been agreed.

What the declaration does achieve is to commit European nations to paying Ukraine to maintain an army of 800,000 personnel after the war ends which, by the way, is significantly higher than the total number of armed forces personnel of Germany, France and Britain combined.

Time to be more direct in telling Zelensky what he should do

Ian Proud, Jan 13, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/the-coalition-of-the-willing-has?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=184

The war in Ukraine happened because western nations insisted that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO but were never willing to fight to guarantee that right.

That reality has never changed. Last week’s latest Summit of the Coalition of the Willing confirmed that it will not change any time soon.

The only countries that appear remotely willing to deploy troops to Ukraine in a vague and most certainly limited way are the British and French.

Both would need parliamentary approval which can’t be guaranteed. Reform Leader Nigel Farage has already come out to say that he wouldn’t back a vote to deploy British troops to Ukraine because we simply don’t have enough men or equipment, a point recently reinforced by General (ret’d) Sir richard Shirreff.

Even though Keir Starmer has the parliamentary numbers to pass any future vote on deploying British troops, it would almost certainly damage his already catastrophic polling numbers.

Macron is clinging on to his political life and would probably face a tougher tussle to get his parliament to approve the French sending their troops to Ukraine, potentially leaving the UK on its own.

In any case, it is completely obvious that Russia won’t agree to any deployment in Ukraine by NATO troops. This shows once again that western leaders have learned absolutely nothing over the past decade. It will never be possible to insist that Russia sues for peace under terms which is has long made clear are unacceptable at a time when it was winning on the battlefield, and European nations refuse to fight with their own troops.

Hawkish British journalist Edward Lucas, with whom I disagree on most things, summed it up well in an opinion in the Times Newspaper when he said

We are promising forces we do not have, to enforce a ceasefire that does not exist, under a plan that has yet to be drawn up, endorsed by a superpower (read the US) that is no longer our ally, to deter an adversary that has far greater willpower than we do.’

President Putin has shown an absolute determination not to back down until his core aims, namely to prevent NATO expansion, are achieved. And as I have said many times, the west can’t win a war by committee.

All of these pointless Coalition of the Willing meetings happen in circumstances where Europe refuses to talk to Russia upon whom an end to the war depends. Peace will only break out after Ukraine and Russia sign a deal, and the west appears deliberately to be doing everything possible to ensure that Russia never signs.

Instead, we entertain Zelensky with hugs and handshakes, reassuring him that we will do anything he wants for as long as he needs, only to offer insufficient help all of the time.

And, as Zelensky is in any case unelected, not likely to win elections in Ukraine as and when they happen, overseeing a corrupt regime that is adopting increasingly repressive tactics to keep a losing war going, it is not in his interest to see the war anyway.

His calculus continues to be that, if he clings on for long enough, the west will finally be dragged into a direct war with Russia. So, he’s happy to drag out an endless cycle of death by committee in which European leaders never agree to give him exactly what he wants and he uses that as a pretext not to settle.

Zelensky went on from Paris to Cyprus where, among other things, he has been pushing for more sanctions against Russia. At no point since 2014 have sanctions looked remotely likely to work against Russia, for reasons I have outlined many times.

The European Commission is now planning its twentieth round of sanctions to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the war on 24 February 2026. So with peace talks ongoing, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas as always are doing their bit to ensure that nothing gets agreed.

None of this brings the war any closer to an end nor does it provide any security guarantees to Ukraine. As always, the biggest security guarantee should be the offer by European allies to intervene militarily in Ukraine should Russia decide to reinvade after any future peace deal.

But that was not agreed in Paris. Instead, the Paris Declaration said, ‘we agreed to finalise binding commitments setting out our approach to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. These may include, military capabilities, intelligence and so on.’

In diplomatic parlance, agreeing to finalise commitments that may include basically means that nothing has been agreed.

The declaration also said:

We stand ready to commit to a system of politically and legally binding guarantees. However, the final communique gave individual countries opt outs from those guarantees by saying that any guarantees would be, ‘in accordance with our respective legal and constitutional arrangements’.

So, again, in diplomatic parlance, what this means is that some coalition members may be able to opt out of the security guarantees if they decide that their domestic framework does not allow for such an arrangement, thinking here in particular of Hungary, Italy and Spain, for example.

What the declaration does achieve is to commit European nations to paying Ukraine to maintain an army of 800,000 personnel after the war ends which, by the way, is significantly higher than the total number of armed forces personnel of Germany, France and Britain combined.

Even though these are Ukrainian troops, not European, Russia will undoubtedly see EU funding of a large Ukrainian army on its border as a form of NATO lite. Which, of course, Zelensky would welcome.’

So the process of holding near weekly Coalition of the Willing summits is entirely pointless, though perhaps that is the point. Since 2022, western leaders have been completely unable to say no to Zelensky, either through guilt or stupidity, or both.

Yet at some point, if only for their own political survival, Starmer and others will have to politely decline to offer more support and make it clear to Zelensky that he has no choice but to sue for peace. To me, at least, the European offer to Zelensky follows these lines:

Ukraine cannot join NATO (sorry we lied to you about that) but you can join the European Union and we will help you make the reforms you need to do so.

You will get significant investment when the war ends that boosts your economy. As your people return home, we believe Ukraine has potential to grow quickly and reconstruct.

However, it may still be many years before you receive EU subsidies on the level of other European Members, and you possibly may not receive them at all.

And you will have to become financially sustainable, including meeting the EU’s fiscal deficit like other EU member states.

I’m afraid that means that you won’t be able to maintain an army of 800,000 people at Europe’s expense (sorry we reassured you that you could).

But, as a European Union member you would have a security guarantee by virtue of your membership of this community, even though only Macron’s France has said it would send you troops (je m’excuse).

You should also be aware that Europe sees benefit in a normalised economic relationship with Russia, that includes purchasing cheap Russian energy. We can’t go on buying massively expensive US LNG just to avoid hurting your feelings.

Sanctions may have been a policy or war, but they won’t be a policy of peace, and you will need to accept that we will drop them too.

We have now reached the limit of the financial support that we can provide to you so we have reached the point of now or never in your signing a peace deal.

That requires you to make hard choices about de facto recognition of land on the lines of the peace deal that the US is trying right now to finalise with Russia.

Without that, he will simply continue this charade of endless pointless Summits and the war will drag Europe even further into the mire.

That’s a lot to take in and we’ve already apologised enough as it is. Look, we lied to you okay, but everyone makes mistakes.

Somehow, though, I predict the Europeans will continue to drift in circles. I wonder where the next Coalition of the Willing Summit will be? I hope it’s soon, as Zelensky might actually have to spend some time inside of Ukraine if there’s a delay. And he likes it in Europe as it’s the only place where everyone seems to love him.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Who is to blame for blocking a new ‘golden era’ for nuclear power?

It is not the regulators or we so-called ‘blockers’ who are the main impediment to nuclear. It is the systemic failure of the nuclear industry to produce viable projects such as the much-hyped but non-existent Small Nuclear Reactors; its predictable inability to prevent cost overruns or to meet deadlines; let alone its lack of credible ideas to deal adequately with risk, safety and the management of its dangerous and interminable wastes. Nuclear is an industry that is bound to fail

7 January 2026, https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/who-is-to-blame-for-blocking-nuclear-power/

Andrew Blowers tackles this question in the January edition of Regional Life magazine

The mantra that nuclear technology ‘is essential for achieving national security, energy security and Net Zero targets’ proclaimed by the Government’s Nuclear Regulatory Task Force has become the unequivocal, if deeply flawed, basis for government policy. The Government has pledged to ‘turbo-charge the build-out of new nuclear power stations and enter a ‘golden era’ of nuclear power.

Standing in its way are ‘gold-plated’ regulations and community groups like BANNG committed to protecting local environments, ecology and human health. The Task Force Review report just published (December) asserts, entirely without supporting evidence, that ‘The primary barrier’ to revitalising nuclear’s role is ‘systemic failure within the regulatory framework’.

So, here we have a familiar confrontation between energy and economic growth on the one side and environmental protection on the other. We have been here before. Every decade or so a new nuclear revival is promised but, after much huffing and puffing very little materialises. At the beginning of the century Tony Blair declared new nuclear was back ‘with a vengeance. In 2011 eight sites, including Bradwell, were declared ‘potentially suitable’ for new nuclear power plants.

In the event, only one, Hinkley Point, materialised and has become notorious for being too late, promised for 2017 but unlikely to power up until the next decade. Its cost overruns have become legendary. According to the Government, the culprits are environmental regulations and campaign groups who insist that previously agreed audio fish deterrents (AFDs) must be installed to help save millions of fish from becoming entrained and entrapped in the colossal intake and outflow pipes going into the Severn estuary. The developer has prevaricated, proposing cheaper but environmentally destructive methods of abatement. Politicians, including Sir Keir Starmer, have mindlessly mocked the ADF as a ‘fish disco’. It makes one wonder how they might deride oysters from the Blackwater if they stood in the way of nuclear power at Bradwell.

It is not the regulators or we so-called ‘blockers’ who are the main impediment to nuclear. It is the systemic failure of the nuclear industry to produce viable projects such as the much-hyped but non-existent Small Nuclear Reactors; its predictable inability to prevent cost overruns or to meet deadlines; let alone its lack of credible ideas to deal adequately with risk, safety and the management of its dangerous and interminable wastes. Nuclear is an industry that is bound to fail.

Meanwhile the importance of regulations imposed by independent regulators designed to protect people and the environment cannot be overstressed. And the essential role of community groups and councils in seeking to ensure the environmental protection and health and wellbeing of the places they represent is something to be cherished, not denigrated. It is a pity the Government does not see it that way.

7 January 2026

Andrew Blowers tackles this question in the January edition of Regional Life magazine

The mantra that nuclear technology ‘is essential for achieving national security, energy security and Net Zero targets’ proclaimed by the Government’s Nuclear Regulatory Task Force has become the unequivocal, if deeply flawed, basis for government policy. The Government has pledged to ‘turbo-charge the build-out of new nuclear power stations and enter a ‘golden era’ of nuclear power.

Standing in its way are ‘gold-plated’ regulations and community groups like BANNG committed to protecting local environments, ecology and human health. The Task Force Review report just published (December) asserts, entirely without supporting evidence, that ‘The primary barrier’ to revitalising nuclear’s role is ‘systemic failure within the regulatory framework’.

So, here we have a familiar confrontation between energy and economic growth on the one side and environmental protection on the other. We have been here before. Every decade or so a new nuclear revival is promised but, after much huffing and puffing very little materialises. At the beginning of the century Tony Blair declared new nuclear was back ‘with a vengeance. In 2011 eight sites, including Bradwell, were declared ‘potentially suitable’ for new nuclear power plants.

In the event, only one, Hinkley Point, materialised and has become notorious for being too late, promised for 2017 but unlikely to power up until the next decade. Its cost overruns have become legendary. According to the Government, the culprits are environmental regulations and campaign groups who insist that previously agreed audio fish deterrents (AFDs) must be installed to help save millions of fish from becoming entrained and entrapped in the colossal intake and outflow pipes going into the Severn estuary. The developer has prevaricated, proposing cheaper but environmentally destructive methods of abatement. Politicians, including Sir Keir Starmer, have mindlessly mocked the ADF as a ‘fish disco’. It makes one wonder how they might deride oysters from the Blackwater if they stood in the way of nuclear power at Bradwell.

It is not the regulators or we so-called ‘blockers’ who are the main impediment to nuclear. It is the systemic failure of the nuclear industry to produce viable projects such as the much-hyped but non-existent Small Nuclear Reactors; its predictable inability to prevent cost overruns or to meet deadlines; let alone its lack of credible ideas to deal adequately with risk, safety and the management of its dangerous and interminable wastes. Nuclear is an industry that is bound to fail.

Meanwhile the importance of regulations imposed by independent regulators designed to protect people and the environment cannot be overstressed. And the essential role of community groups and councils in seeking to ensure the environmental protection and health and wellbeing of the places they represent is something to be cherished, not denigrated. It is a pity the Government does not see it that way.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment