France officially enters Nuclear Arms Race
4 March 2026
In what can only be called a worst case scenario, the burgeoning nuclear arms race has officially broken its bounds and will now include the world’s fourth largest nuclear superpower, France. (Counting only nuclear weapons actively deployed, France ranks third, behind the US and Russia, as less than 5% of China’s nuclear stockpile is actually deployed.)
Without offering precise numbers, French President Emmanuel Macron announced on Monday that France would increase its nuclear stockpile, currently estimated to include 290 nuclear warheads.
Macron also announced plans to build a second nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that would, like the currently deployed Charles de Gaulle, be capable of launching nuclear armed Rafale fighter jets.
In addition, Macron announced that some nuclear-capable Rafale jets might be temporarily deployed to allied European countries, naming Britain, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, and Denmark. This move expands France’s “nuclear umbrella” and places intermediate range missiles closer to Russia; it also positions France to replace US nuclear-armed aircraft currently deployed in three of those countries (Germany, Belgium, and The Netherlands) in the case of US withdrawal from NATO.
France, like the US, Russia, China, and Great Britain, is a signatory to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That Treaty requires nuclear-armed states to pursue “in good faith” a cessation of the arms race and complete nuclear disarmament “at an early date.” Since the signing of that Treaty more than fifty years ago, the US and Russia have intermittently engaged in negotiations leading to reductions in stockpile size, but both have also maintained nuclear arsenals with more than 3,500 warheads and show no signs of attempting a full disarmament campaign.
That reality, along with the consistent refusal of the nuclear powers to provide required reports to the United Nations about efforts to comply with NPT obligations, led non-nuclear nations to adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2017. The TPNW entered into force in January 2021 and now has the support of a majority of global states.
The United States government has been dismissive of the TPNW, denouncing it when it was being negotiated in 2017 and ignoring it since then. The government’s attempt to pretend the Treaty does not exist has been abetted by US mainstream media that resolutely refuses to mention the TPNW even in articles exploring the current status of the nuclear threat that include hand-wringing about the failure of arms control efforts.
That same mainstream media has, in recent months, begun to speak of the new global nuclear arms race—something OREPA has been warning about for more than a decade. Fifteen years ago, we pointed out that US investment in “modernization” of its nuclear capabilities, including building new bomb plants like the Uranium Processing Factility in Oak Ridge, was pushing the world toward a new nuclear arms race.
Unfortunately, our prescience has since been validated. Today, as mainstream media used words like “verge” and “brink” to talk about the nuclear arms race, some media with deeper knowledge describe the situation more accurately. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, for instance, has stated that we are in a full-blown global nuclear arms race.
Until Macron’s announcement, that global nuclear arms race was considered to be between the US, Russia, and China. But as the illusion of the old “rules-based” world order collapses, nuclear weapons are once again being deployed as viable threats and, potentially, the beginning of the end for planet Earth.
Macron’s Monday speech did follow one long-standing rule of the nuclear establishment—never mention the human cost of nuclear weapons. Any conversation that includes the damage done to human beings, men, women, children, families, by nuclear weapons production, testing, use, and threat of use; or that mentions the trillions of dollars being spend on these weapons of mass destruction while hundreds of millions of people go hungry and lack health care and shelter; or that accounts for massive environmental damage at mines, processing, production, and testing sites around the world; or that warns of the effects of nuclear winter in the event of a nuclear exchange—would undermine if not erase arguments that nuclear weapons have a role in providing security in any rational, human sense.
As victims of nuclear weapons, the hibakusha, survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, winners of the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize, courageously share their witness, telling the story of the worst day of their lives, the unimaginable horror of the devastation, death, and destruction wrought by bombs that, by today’s standards, are tiny. Their conclusion is the only one that makes sense—nuclear weapons must never be used again, and the only way to guarantee that is to abolish them altogether.
There exists today a path to nuclear disarmament, and it is not the path laid out by Emmanual Macron. It is the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the only hope we have of avoiding a nuclear holocaust. As then-director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Beatrice Fihn, said in accepting the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize: “There are only two possible outcomes to the story of nuclear weapons. Either we do away with them, or they will do away with us.”
Sellafield recruitment opens for Authorised Firearms Officers
The CNC has opened AFO recruitment at Sellafield as part of a rolling programme to sustain armed protection at one of the UK’s most sensitive nuclear sites.
The Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) has opened recruitment for Authorised Firearms Officers (AFO) at Sellafield as part of a rolling national programme to sustain continuous armed protection at one of the UK’s most sensitive nuclear sites.
The CNC provides 24/7 armed policing to protect civil nuclear sites, materials and facilities across England and Scotland. Maintaining that capability requires ongoing recruitment and training to ensure operational resilience and a deterrent to those who would threaten critical national infrastructure………
Civil Nuclear Constabulary 3rd March 2026,
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sellafield-recruitment-opens-for-authorised-firearms-officers
Macron plans to deploy nuclear weapons to Britain
French president announces dramatic increase in arsenal and says allies could host its aircraft.
Henry Samuel in Paris. James Crisp, 02 March 2026
French nuclear-armed jets could be stationed in Britain and other allied European countries after Emmanuel Macron unveiled a dramatic expansion of France’s deterrence doctrine…
The French president also used the symbolic
setting of Île Longue, the country’s Atlantic nuclear fortress in
Brittany, to announce the first increase in its nuclear warhead stockpile
since the 1990s.
Telegraph 2nd March 2026,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/02/macron-plan-nuclear-weapons-britain/
France to increase its number of nuclear warheads, Macron says – as it happened
French president says deterrent needs to be ‘strengthened’ in recognition of new challenges
Jakub Krupa, 3 Mar 26,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/mar/02/eu-response-middle-east-conflict-evacuate-citizens-europe-live-latest-news
- French president Emmanuel Macron has said France would increase the number of nuclear warheads and allow for temporary deployment of its nuclear-armed aircraft to allied countries for exercises as part of its new nuclear strategy seeking to “Europeanise” its deterrence programme (15:29, 15:50).
- In a major speech at the nuclear submarines Navy base of Île Longue, Macron said Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Sweden, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom are expected to be involved in the programme, with London and Berlin playing particularly important roles (15:47, 16:00).
- Several EU leaders confirmed their plans to engage with France on the details of the programme (16:44, 16:51, 17:04).
- The president repeated his warnings that Europe needed to urgently step up its defence posture to respond to new, emerging threats and disintegration of rules on the use of nuclear weapons
Could a huge data centre revitalise Ayrshire – or ruin it?
Jonathan Geddes,BBC Glasgow and West reporter, 1 Mar 26
It is currently a large, unassuming patch of farmland in East Ayrshire – but within years it could be one of the largest artificial intelligence data centres on Earth.
About 100 hectares (250 acres) of land near HMP Kilmarnock has been earmarked for a technology hub by energy firm ILI Group.
ILI says the development would be similar in size to the prison, while the “vast majority” of the land would be set aside for “biodiversity and landscaping”.
Supporters talk of it revitalising the region, bringing new jobs and investment that would be ploughed back into the community. But the plans have met strong opposition from locals concerned about the impact on the wider area.
Some of those opposed have contacted BBC Your Voice, and say the firm has not provided concrete details about a building that would dominate Hurlford for decades to come.
In recent years, a string of applications for data centres have been made across Scotland. The group Action to Protect Rural Scotland estimate 17 are at various stages of the planning process.
It comes during a worldwide rush to develop data centres. Estimates in 2025 suggested about $3tn (£2.2tn) will be spent on data centres that support AI between now and 2029.
That surge has been accompanied by growing concern about the knock-on effects of the facilities, especially the large amounts of energy and water they consume……………….
For some Hurlford residents though, the announcement of the facility – called Rufus – prompted questions, and a lot of them.
Lisa Beacham became aware of the proposal – which ILI stress is still at a very early stage – shortly after the initial announcement.
A student from Hurlford, she then went down a rabbit hole looking at the amount of water that would be needed for coolant, the process which stops the computer chips there from overheating.
“The site proposal is that it would be powered at 540MW, which would require millions of litres of water a day,” she said.
“Water is a global commodity and we are currently facing global water bankruptcy, according to the UN. Yet we’ll have a site that is using up a huge amount, and due to residue [from the centre] the water used there cannot easily be recirculated.”
Last year the BBC told of people who lived near a data centre in Georgia in the USA who were struggling with an excessive build-up of sediment in water supplies………………………….
Alex De Vries, who runs the Digiconomist blog and website, said he estimated a 540MW facility “could result in almost 6bn litres of annual fresh water consumption” to generate the power needed.
He told BBC Scotland News: “The relatively cooler climate in Scotland isn’t going to do much to mitigate this.”…………………………………..
Cheryl Rowland, an admin assistant at a construction company, who lives in Hurlford, is sceptical.
Speaking at the consultation event, she said: “They are talking about something that will be here for 40 or 50 years.
“Would they arrange education upskilling, to bring local people through and help them grow into jobs here, or will the jobs all be people coming into the area?”……………………
Rowland says it is a worry such a large site will be built by a company who will not be there long term.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2d1ny161yyo
Year 4: The Timeline That Tells the Tale
Without historical context, which is buried by corporate media, it’s impossible to understand the war in Ukraine. Historians will tell the story, but journalists are cut short for trying to tell it now.
By Joe Lauria, Consortium News, February 24, 2026
The way to prevent the Ukraine war from being understood is to suppress its history.
A cartoon version has the conflict beginning on Feb. 24, 2022 when Vladimir Putin woke up that morning and decided to invade Ukraine.
There was no other cause, according to this version, other than unprovoked, Russian aggression against an innocent country.
Please use this short, historical guide to share with people who still flip through the funny pages trying to figure out what’s going on in Ukraine.
The mainstream account is like opening a novel in the middle of the book to read a random chapter as though it’s the beginning of the story.
Thirty years from now historians will write about the context of the Ukraine war: the coup, the attack on Donbass, NATO expansion, and the rejection of the Minsk Accords and Russian treaty proposals without being called Putin puppets.
It will be the same way historians today write of the Versailles Treaty as a cause of Nazism and WWII, without being called Nazi-sympathizers.
Providing context is taboo while the war continues in Ukraine, as it would have been during WWII. Context is paramount in journalism.
But journalists have to get with the program of war propaganda while a war goes on. Journalists are clearly not afforded the same liberties as historians. Long after the war, historians are free to sift through the facts.
THE UKRAINE TIMELINE
World War II— Ukrainian national fascists, led by Stepan Bandera, at first allied with the German Nazis, massacre more than a hundred thousands Jews and Poles.
1950s to 1990 – C.I.A. brought Ukrainian fascists to the U.S. and worked with them to undermine the Soviet Union in Ukraine, running sabotage and propaganda operations. Ukrainian fascist leader Mykola Lebed was taken to New York where he worked with the C.I.A. through at least the 1960s and was still useful to the C.I.A. until 1991, the year of Ukraine’s independence. The evidence is in a U.S. government report starting from page 82. Ukraine has thus been a staging ground for the U.S. to weaken and threaten Moscow for nearly 80 years.
November 1990: A year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe (also known as the Paris Charter) is adopted by the U.S., Europe and the Soviet Union. The charter is based on the Helsinki Accords and is updated in the 1999 Charter for European Security. These documents are the foundation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The OSCE charter says no country or bloc can preserve its own security at another country’s expense.
Dec. 25, 1991: Soviet Union collapses. Wall Street and Washington carpetbaggers move in during ensuing decade to asset-strip the country of formerly state-owned properties, enrich themselves, help give rise to oligarchs, and impoverish the Russian, Ukrainian and other former Soviet peoples.
1990s: U.S. reneges on promise to last Soviet leader Gorbachev not to expand NATO to Eastern Europe in exchange for a unified Germany. George Kennan, the leading U.S. government expert on the U.S.S.R., opposes expansion. Sen. Joe Biden, who supports NATO enlargement, predicts Russia will react hostilely to it.
1997 :: The only thing that could provoke a “vigorous and hostile” Russian response would be needless NATO Expansion Far East right till the border of Russia – Sen. Joe Biden pic.twitter.com/hRW47hLL5y
— Rishi Bagree (@rishibagree) June 17, 2022
1997: Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. national security adviser, in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, writes:
“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.”
New Year’s Eve 1999: After eight years of U.S. and Wall Street dominance, Vladimir Putin becomes president of Russia. Bill Clinton rebuffs him in 2000 when he asks to join NATO.
Putin begins closing the door on Western interlopers, restoring Russian sovereignty, ultimately angering Washington and Wall Street. This process does not occur in Ukraine, which remains subject to Western exploitation and impoverishment of Ukrainian people.
Feb. 10, 2007: Putin gives his Munich Security Conference speech in which he condemns U.S. aggressive unilateralism, including its illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq and its NATO expansion eastward.
He said: “We have the right to ask: against whom is this [NATO] expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.”
Putin speaks three years after the Baltic States, former Soviet republics bordering on Russia, joined the Western Alliance. The West humiliates Putin and Russia by ignoring its legitimate concerns. A year after his speech, NATO says Ukraine and Georgia will become members. Four other former Warsaw Pact states join in 2009.
2004-5: Orange Revolution. Election results are overturned giving the presidency in a run-off to U.S.-aligned Viktor Yuschenko over Viktor Yanukovich. Yuschenko makes fascist leader Bandera a “hero of Ukraine.”
April 3, 2008: At a NATO conference in Bucharest, a summit declaration “welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO”. Russia harshly objects. William Burns, then U.S. ambassador to Russia, and presently C.I.A. director, warns in a cable to Washington, revealed by WikiLeaks, that,
“Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains ‘an emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. … Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat.”
A crisis in Georgia erupts four months later leading to a brief war with Russia, which the European Union blames on provocation from Georgia.
November 2009: Russia seeks new security arrangement in Europe. Moscow releases a draft of a proposal for a new European security architecture that the Kremlin says should replace outdated institutions such as NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The text, posted on the Kremlin’s website on Nov. 29, comes more than a year after President Dmitry Medvedev first formally raised the issue. Speaking in Berlin in June 2008, Medvedev said the new pact was necessary to finally update Cold War-era arrangements.
“I’m convinced that Europe’s problems won’t be solved until its unity is established, an organic wholeness of all its integral parts, including Russia,” Medvedev said.
2010: Viktor Yanukovich is elected president of Ukraine in a free and fair election, according to the OSCE.
2013: Yanukovich chooses an economic package from Russia rather than an association agreement with the EU. This threatens Western exploiters in Ukraine and Ukrainian comprador political leaders and oligarchs.
February 2014: Yanukovich is overthrown in a violent, U.S.-backed coup (presaged by the Nuland-Pyatt intercept), with Ukrainian fascist groups, like Right Sector, playing a lead role. Ukrainian fascists parade through cities in torch-lit parades with portraits of Bandera.
March 16, 2014: In a rejection of the coup and the unconstitutional installation of an anti-Russian government in Kiev, Crimeans vote by 97 percent to join Russia in a referendum with 89 percent turn out. The Wagner private military organization is created to support Crimea. Virtually no shots are fired and no one was killed in what Western media wrongly portrays as a “Russian invasion of Crimea.”
April 12, 2014: Coup government in Kiev launches war against anti-coup, pro-democracy separatists in Donbass. Openly neo-Nazi Azov Battalion plays a key role in the fighting for Kiev. Wagner forces arrive to support Donbass militias. U.S. again exaggerates this as a Russian “invasion” of Ukraine. “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,” says U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who voted as a senator in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 on a completely trumped up pre-text.
May 2, 2014: Dozens of ethnic Russian protestors are burnt alive in a building in Odessa by neo-Nazi thugs. Eight days later, Luhansk and Donetsk declare independence and vote to leave Ukraine.
Sept. 5, 2014: First Minsk agreement is signed in Minsk, Belarus by Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, and the leaders of the breakaway Donbass republics, with mediation by Germany and France in a Normandy Format. It fails to resolve the conflict.
Feb. 12, 2015: Minsk II is signed in Belarus, which would end the fighting and grant the republics autonomy while they remain part of Ukraine. The accord was unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 15. In December 2022 former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admits West never had intention of pushing for Minsk implementation and essentially used it as a ruse to give time for NATO to arm and train the Ukraine armed forces.
2016: The hoax known as Russiagate grips the Democratic Party and its allied media in the United States, in which it is falsely alleged that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to get Donald Trump elected. The phony scandal serves to further demonize Russia in the U.S. and raise tensions between the nuclear-armed powers, conditioning the public for war against Russia.
May 12, 2016: U.S. activates missile system in Romania, angering Russia. U.S. claims it is purely defensive, but Moscow says the system could also be used offensively and would cut the time to deliver a strike on the Russian capital to within 10 to 12 minutes.
June 6, 2016: Symbolically on the anniversary of the Normandy invasion, NATO launches aggressive exercises against Russia. It begins war games with 31,000 troops near Russia’s borders, the largest exercise in Eastern Europe since the Cold War ended. For the first time in 75 years, German troops retrace the steps of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union across Poland.
German Foreign Minister Frank Walter-Steinmeier objects. “What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering,” Steinmeier stunningly tells Bild am Sontag newspaper. “Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken.”
Instead Steinmeier calls for dialogue with Moscow. “We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation,” he warns, adding it would be “fatal to search only for military solutions and a policy of deterrence.”
December 2021: Russia offers draft treaty proposals to the United States and NATO proposing a new security architecture in Europe, reviving the failed Russian attempt to do so in 2009. The treaties propose the removal of the Romanian missile system and the withdrawal of NATO troop deployments from Eastern Europe. Russia says there will be a “technical-military” response if there are not serious negotiations on the treaties. The U.S. and NATO reject them essentially out of hand.
February 2022: Russia begins its military intervention into Donbass in the still ongoing Ukrainian civil war after first recognizing the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk.
Before the intervention, OSCE maps show a significant uptick of shelling from Ukraine into the separatist republics, where more than 10,000 people have been killed since 2014.
March-April 2022: Russia and Ukraine agree on a framework agreement that would end the war, including Ukraine pledging not to join NATO. The U.S. and U.K. object. Prime Minister Boris Johnson flies to Kiev to tell Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to stop negotiating with Russia. The war continues with Russia seizing much of the Donbass.
March 26, 2022: Biden admits in a speech in Warsaw that the U.S. is seeking through its proxy war against Russia to overthrow the Putin government. Earlier in March he overruled his secretary of state on establishing a no-fly zone against Russian aircraft in Ukraine. Biden opposed the no-fly zone, he said at the time, because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”
September 2022: Donbass republics vote to join Russian Federation, as well as two other regions: Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
May 2023: Ukraine begins counter-offensive to try to take back territory controlled by Russia. As seen in leaked documents earlier in the year, U.S. intelligence concludes the offensive will fail before it begins.
June 2023: A 36-hour rebellion by the Wagner group fails, when its leader Yevegny Prigoshzin takes a deal to go into exile in Belarus. The Wagner private army, which was funded and armed by the Russian Ministry of Defense, is absorbed into the Russian army. The Ukrainian offensive ends in failure at the end of November.
September 2024: Biden deferred to the realists in the Pentagon to oppose long-range British Storm Shadow missiles from being fired by Ukraine deep into Russia out of fear it would also lead to a direct NATO-Russia military confrontation with all that that entails.
Putin warned at the time that because British soldiers on the ground in Ukraine would actually launch the British missiles into Russia with U.S. geostrategic support, it “will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”
November 2024: After he was driven from the race and his party lost the White House, a lame duck Biden suddenly switched gears, allowing not only British, but also U.S. long-range ATACMS missiles to be fired into Russia. It’s not clear that the White House ever informed the Pentagon in advance in a move that risked the very World War III that Biden had previously sought to avoid.
February 2025: The first direct contact between senior leadership of the United States and Russia in more than three years takes place, with a phone call between the countries’ presidents, and a meeting of foreign ministers in Saudi Arabia. They agree to begin negotiations to end the war.
August 15, 2025: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet in Anchorage, Alaska for the first face-to-face meeting between U.S. and Russian leaders in more than four years. The Russians left believing Trump had thoroughly understood their position against a ceasefire and instead their desire to reach a comprehensive solution to the war that addressed the “root causes” and Russian security concerns, which have been outlined in this timeline. A series of follow-up diplomatic meetings have failed to advance that goal and the conflict continues to be decided on the battlefield with Russian gains as well as an increase in missiles being fired into each nations territory.
This timeline clearly shows an aggressive Western intent towards Russia, and how the tragedy could have been avoided if NATO would not allow Ukraine to join; if the Minsk accords had been implemented; and if the U.S. and NATO negotiated a new security arrangement in Europe, taking Russian security concerns into account.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe
Golden pipedreams – UK Advanced Nuclear plan
Not everyone is convinced that these new SMR/AMR/MMR projects will be viable technologically or economically,
To progress all this, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero says it is setting up a ‘UK Advanced Nuclear Pipeline’, a new government managed process through which private sector projects submit detailed plans across 5 core areas: technology & supply chain; developer capability; finance/funding/investment; siting; and operator/end user arrangements. DESNZ and GBE N will conduct eligibility checks /Project Readiness Assessment, with successful projects then being invited to join the Pipeline, subject to ministerial approval.
February 28, 2026, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2026/02/golden-dreams-uk-advanced-nuclear-plan.html
The UK government is looking to ‘a new golden age of nuclear’, committing £17 billion to ‘the most ambitious programme of new plants for a generation’. As its new Advanced Nuclear Frameworks plan says, in the 2025 Spending Review, it committed £14.2 billion to Sizewell C and over £2.5 billion to the Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE N) Small Modular Reactor (SMR) project at Wylfa. And it says ‘together with Hinkley Point C, these projects will add almost 8 GW of capacity in the 2030s’.
However, it also wants to do more, with plans for advanced nuclear, some based on US Advanced Modular Reactor (AMR) developments. As it notes, some major commercial deals have been concluded between UK and US companies, including ‘plans for X-Energy and Centrica to build 12 advanced modular reactors in Hartlepool, supporting 2,500 jobs, as well as plans for Holtec, EDF, and Tritax to build small modular reactors at the former coal-fired power station Cottam in Nottinghamshire, providing clean, secure power to data centres on the site’.
Meanwhile it says ‘TerraPower is working with engineering firm KBR to explore the potential deployment of its Natrium advanced reactor technology in the UK & beyond’. It also noted that ‘Last Energy & DP World intend to create one of the world’s first micro modular nuclear plants at London Gateway, backed by £80m in private money’. These MMRs are meant to be under 20MW.
Not everyone is convinced that these new SMR/AMR/MMR projects will be viable technologically or economically, but DESNZ is optimistic: ‘Britain could see some of the world’s first advanced nuclear power stations powering factories and AI data centres, as part of the government’s “golden age” of nuclear to support jobs, drive growth & protect billpayers with homegrown clean energy’.
To help with that, it is investing in ‘fuel cycle capabilities such as High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU)’ which some of the new plants will need- if they go forward. HALEU is enriched to below 20%, compared to under 5% for the uranium used in most conventional plants and DESNZ says that it ‘is essential for fuelling AMRs’. But the UK doesn’t have a plant for making it. £300m has been allocated for one, with the aim being to establish a UK domestic HALEU capability that ‘reduces global reliance on Russian supply chains, which currently dominate the global market, and mitigates strategic vulnerabilities for the UK and its allies. By investing early, the UK is ready to be a trusted supplier of HALEU to international partners’ this also ensuring ‘uninterrupted fuel supply for domestic AMR deployment’.
To progress all this, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero says it is setting up a ‘UK Advanced Nuclear Pipeline’, a new government managed process through which private sector projects submit detailed plans across 5 core areas: technology & supply chain; developer capability; finance/funding/investment; siting; and operator/end user arrangements. DESNZ and GBE N will conduct eligibility checks /Project Readiness Assessment, with successful projects then being invited to join the Pipeline, subject to ministerial approval.
DESNZ says ‘Pipeline projects may engage with DESNZ on potential revenue support, e.g., a Contracts for Difference (CfD) style mechanism that stabilises future revenues, and High Impact, Low Probability (HILP) risk protections where private markets cannot efficiently bear residual risks.’ It adds ‘In parallel, all companies can approach the National Wealth Fund (NWF), who bring £27.8 billion of capital, a dedicated nuclear team, and a full suite of debt, equity and hybrid instruments, to explore investment opportunities aligned with strategic priorities’. DESNZ also look at the ‘wider enablers that the government is putting in place to support nuclear deployment, reforming the planning system, grid connection process, and regulatory process, to ease and accelerate deployment of new plants’.
DESNZ says that while ‘the Framework aims to support private projects that use advanced nuclear technologies for civil energy purposes,’ with the focus on electricity, it also includes ‘projects that supply energy as heat and/or electricity & where the energy is supplied to the National Grid and/or to private energy users.’ But it adds, given possibly unique regulatory, legal, safety, and/or strategic challenges, the new framework ‘specifically excludes offshore or floating nuclear platforms, civil nuclear propulsion, space based reactors and transportable nuclear solutions.’
Even so, it still feels quite breath-takingly pro-nuclear, a very big shift from earlier Labour and indeed Tory views on nuclear as economically unattractive. And the government seems keen to go even further, with revamps to basic regulatory approaches to nuclear safety – to speed thing up and, presumably, try to improve its economics. The new approach could have significant undesirable impacts and has not gone unopposed. But the nuclear lobby is clearly keen to press ahead, with a new perspective on risks being pushed: ‘Routine reactor emissions, both activated material (made radioactive by neutron bombardment) and fission by-products, pose no meaningful health risk.
Even if some vanishingly small effect existed, it would be statistically indistinguishable from the background cancer rate and would be lost in the noise of lifestyle, environmental, and biological risk factors.’ So said two pro-nuclear Breakthrough campaign members in a recent edition of the usually very critical Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. No risk? Really? There is no shortage of contrary evidence on human health impacts, both occupational and residential, including a recent US national study, although there are still debates on their overall significance and implications.
However, while debates like that, and also on waste costs, continue, DESNZ seems keen to press ahead with nuclear expansion. And they are pretty ‘gung ho’ about that, backing a ‘Destination Nuclear’ staff recruitment campaign, part of their Nuclear Skills plan, which aims to support both civil and defence related nuclear jobs. DESNZ says that nearly 3,500 early careers starters entered the sector in 24/25, with ‘73 new nuclear fission PhDs added in academic years 24/25 and 25/26’.
Is all this wise? Can we really have a golden nuclear future? Well, the latest update from the World Nuclear Industry Status team says that, in Jan 2026 ‘404 nuclear power reactors were operating in the world – 5 units less than one year earlier – maintaining however a stable combined operating capacity. Construction of new nuclear plants was underway in 11countries, five fewer host nations than just two years earlier’. It noted that 2025 saw the lowest number of new start-ups since 2017, while 7 plants totalling 2.8 GW were closed – 3 each in Belgium & Russia, and 1 in Taiwan, completing its nuclear phaseout. So it doesn’t sound too sure about overall nuclear growth- indeed some portray nuclear as fizzling out .
That may be overstating the case, depending on location, but the renewables by contrast are really booming globally – led by China. Indeed Stanford University’s Prof Mark Jacobson says China could reach 100% renewable energy (nearly all power, heat & transport) by 2050. While, he notes that sadly, at the current rate of progress, the USA would only reach that point roughly 100 years later. China may still end having a little fossil and nuclear by 2050/60, but mostly, DNV suggests, it will be green energy. Is the USA’s big fossil and nuclear emphasis really the way to go for anyone? The UK is doing well on replacing fossil with low cost renewables, but, after having its financial fingers burnt by EDF’s high cost EPRs, it still seems strangely locked into uncertain and likely to be high cost new nuclear, increasingly from the USA.…
France arrests activists blocking ship over alleged Russia uranium links
Police arrested four Greenpeace activists on Monday for blocking a cargo ship in France that they alleged was transporting uranium from Russia for the country’s nuclear power plants.
By:RFI, 02/03/2026 ,
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-arrests-activists-blocking-ship-over-alleged-russia-uranium-links-ukraine-war
Around 20 protestors carrying signs reading “Stop toxic contracts” and “Solidarity with Ukrainians”, blockaded the Mikhail Dudin at the northern port of Dunkirk early on Monday morning, to prevent it from unloading its cargo, a journalist from French news agency AFP observed.
French authorities then arrested four individuals, Dunkirk police told AFP, adding that the blockade was lifted around 9am local time.
Greenpeace has repeatedly accused France of maintaining ties with Russia’s state-owned energy company, Rosatom, despite President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.
Activists, some on kayaks, had impeded the ship while a large banner stretched across the lock read, “Uranium: EDF loves Putin” – a jab at the French state-owned energy giant.
In 2018, France’s EDF signed a 600-million-euro deal with a Rosatom subsidiary, Tenex, for reprocessed uranium from French nuclear power plants to be sent to Russia to be converted and then re-enriched before being reused in power production.
Rosatom has the only facility in the world – in Seversk in Siberia – capable of carrying out key parts of the conversion of reprocessed uranium to enriched reprocessed uranium.
“This trade, which indirectly fuels Putin’s war, must stop,” said Pauline Boyer, an energy campaigner for Greenpeace France on Monday.
The environment group alleges it has “on numerous occasions” observed the Mikhail Dudin unloading Russian natural and enriched uranium in France.
An AFP analysis of Global Fishing Watch tracking data shows the Mikhail Dudin has made more than 20 round trips between Dunkirk and the Russian ports of Vistino, Ust-Luga and Saint Petersburg since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February, 2022.
The Baltiyskiy-202 – another vessel that Greenpeace alleges has transported uranium between France and Russia – has completed more than 15 round trips during the same period.
Both sail under the Panamanian flag and are owned by companies registered in Hong Kong, according to the International Maritime Organisation’s register.
EDF did not immediately respond to AFP’s request for comment.
In 2022, France ordered EDF to halt its uranium trade with Rosatom when Greenpeace first revealed the contracts in the wake of Russia’s invasion.
But in March 2024, Jean-Michel Quilichini, head of the nuclear fuel division at EDF, said the company planned to continue to “honour” its 2018 contract.
France in March 2024 said it was “seriously” looking at the possibility of building its own conversion facility to produce enriched reprocessed uranium.
AFP analysis of French customs data shows that in 2025, France imported at least 112 tonnes of enriched uranium and its compounds from Russia, accounting for a quarter of total purchases by volume – a level stable compared to 2024.
These imports however fell significantly between 2022 and 2024.
Nuclear flashpoints to fallout
Devonport doesn’t just work on operational nuclear submarines, it is also a ‘graveyard’ for retired ones. Twelve out of the 16 decommissioned submarines at Devonport are still carrying their fuel – effectively a stockpile of nuclear waste.
New Internationalist 1st Jan 2026
Could the threat of nuclear war be closer than ever? Amy Hall explores how we got here and the pathways out of the crisis.
If you want to get a nuclear-powered submarine refitted, repaired or refuelled in Britain, there is only one place to go – Devonport dockyard in Plymouth, the biggest naval base in Western Europe.
Running across more than six kilometres of waterfront, the dockyard has been part of the landscape for generations. It dominates the western edge of the South West England city, encased by high fenced walls, security cameras and warning signs about police dogs and potential arrest for ‘unauthorized activity’.
The main refit and maintenance area is owned and operated by British defence company Babcock International, which in 2024 made $1,273 million in revenue from nuclear weapons work. In 2025, it celebrated a 51 per cent surge in profit.
But Plymouth itself has not seen the same boost. ‘Most of the money generated goes out of the city,’ says local campaigner Tony Staunton, who is also the vice chair of the Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Authorities say that Devonport generates around 10 per cent of Plymouth’s income, but neighbourhoods next to the dockyard remain among the poorest five per cent in the country.
Devonport doesn’t just work on operational nuclear submarines, it is also a ‘graveyard’ for retired ones. Twelve out of the 16 decommissioned submarines at Devonport are still carrying their fuel – effectively a stockpile of nuclear waste.
Over the last 30 years, at least 10 serious radioactive leaks have been documented at Devonport, and chemicals like plutonium, americium and tritium have been found on the Plymouth coastline, including at a wildlife reserve close to the dockyard. Staunton says he has met former dockworkers with cancer who are convinced that their illnesses date back to the time they worked at Devonport, but a ‘culture of secrecy’ about any negative impact of the docks pervades over this military city.
Local authorities have taken steps to prepare for a serious radiation leak at the dockyard, which is within a residential area. An investigation by Declassified UK found that in 2018 the Ministry of Defence distributed 60,900 iodine tablets to schools, emergency services and healthcare settings in local areas.
Nuclear-powered submarines are not only able to carry warheads; they are an essential part of the nuclear warfare infrastructure. And, as the British government jumps with both feet into the nuclear arms race, Devonport is key. The facility is set to receive £4.4 billion (just over $5 billion) in government investment over the next 10 years.
In 2024 the UK spent a larger percentage of its military budget (13 per cent) on nuclear weapons than any other country. The 2025 Strategic Defence Review described them as ‘the bedrock of the UK’s defence and the cornerstone of its commitment to NATO and global security’.
The race is on
As the world becomes more insecure, nuclear-armed states are reaffirming commitments to the most destructive weapons humans have developed. During the first six months of 2025, five nuclear-armed countries were engaged in military hostilities or outright war. And, after decades of decline, the trend of more retired nuclear warheads being dismantled than new ones being deployed looks set to be reversed.
Nearly all of the nine nuclear-armed states (US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea) have been busy modernizing and growing their arsenal. Over the past five years global spending on nuclear weapons increased by just over 32 per cent, with the US and UK’s spending rising by 45 and 43 per cent respectively between 2019 and 2023. One year of global nuclear weapons spending could feed 45 million people in danger of famine for 13 years…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are considered ‘low-yield’ by modern standards. International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) estimates that casualties from a major nuclear war between the US and Russia would reach hundreds of millions. The use of less than one per cent of the world’s nuclear arsenal could disrupt the climate and threaten two billion people with starvation.
Escalations in global conflict continue despite the existence of nuclear weapons. ‘This concept of nuclear deterrence is really a faith belief system – that having nuclear weapons is necessary to make sure they’re not used,’ says Alicia Sanders-Zakre, policy and research coordinator at ICAN. ‘As long as this theory continues to hold value within the political establishment of nuclear armed states, it’s not possible to get rid of nuclear weapons.’……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Today, as the British government itself admits, ‘the future of strategic arms control … does not look promising’. But civil society has got behind the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which makes acquiring, proliferating, deploying, testing, transferring, using and threatening to use nukes illegal.
‘TPNW is really significant,’ explains Sanders-Zakre. A nuclear-armed state joining it must agree to a time-bound programme for eliminating its arsenal https://newint.org/arms/2026/nuclear-flashpoints-fallout
Labour panned as nuclear project ‘to cost more than Scotland’s block grant’
THE SNP have hit out at the projected costs for the Labour Government’s
flagship nuclear project. It comes after EDF pushed back the start-up of
the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant again, pushing up the final bill.
The French state energy company said the plant was now expected to cost £35bn
in 2015 prices — or almost £49bn at today’s prices. The project was
costed in 2016 at £18bn at the then-current prices. The SNP have now hit
out at Labour and the party’s push for more nuclear, highlighting that
the Scottish Government’s block grant from Westminster was £47.6 billion
in 2025/2026 – less than the new projected cost.
The SNP have opposed the
creation of new nuclear plants and are able to use planning policy to block
developments, despite energy policy being largely reserved to Westminster.
The Scottish Government instead wishes to focus on renewable developments,
with Scotland’s last nuclear plant, Torness, set to be decommissioned in
2030.
The National 2nd March 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25900166.labour-nuclear-project-to-cost-scotlands-block-grant/
Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance relaunched amid concerns over new projects planned for Wales
02 Mar 2026, https://nation.cymru/news/welsh-anti-nuclear-alliance-relaunched-amid-concerns-over-new-projects-planned-for-wales/
A coalition of peace, environmental and social justice organisations has relaunched the Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance (WANA), calling for what it describes as energy sovereignty and a democratic, community-led debate on the future of Welsh energy.
The relaunch took place on March 1, with WANA bringing together groups including CADNO (Cymdeithas Niwclear Oesel), CND Cymru, the Low-Level Radiation Campaign, the Low-Level Radiation and Health Conference, No Nuclear Llynfi, PAWB (People Against Wylfa-B), Stop Hinkley and Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities.
First established in 1980 by a broad coalition that included former MP Paul Flynn, CND Cymru, the Central Wales Energy Group, farmers and environmentalists, WANA served as a vehicle for anti-nuclear campaigning for decades. Its work was later dispersed among individual organisations during a period of relative calm. With nuclear energy and defence projects once again high on the political agenda, campaigners say the time is right to revive the alliance.
ADVERT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
WANA says it will focus on promoting what it calls “true renewable” energy generation while highlighting concerns around nuclear power and its links to military infrastructure.
A number of nuclear-related projects are currently proposed or under development in Wales. In November, the UK Government announced that Wylfa had been selected as a pilot site for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs). Texas-based firm Last Energy has also set out plans for SMRs at the former Llynfi Power Station site between Maesteg and Bridgend. Other projects linked to the AUKUS alliance, including radar capability and submarine development, are expected to involve sites in Pembrokeshire and Cardiff. Nuclear development has also been suggested at locations including Aberthaw and Trawsfynydd.
WANA argues that decisions around these projects have often proceeded without sufficient input from Welsh communities. It says Wales has a long history of industrial exploitation, citing the decline of coal mining and heavy industry and more recent job losses in Port Talbot as examples of communities left behind after economic extracti
The alliance has published a manifesto calling for a “nuclear power and weapons free, sustainably powered, and peaceful Wales”. It raises concerns about public spending, the cost-of-living crisis, the climate emergency and what it describes as a lack of energy sovereignty. It also calls for greater debate around the links between civil and military nuclear programmes and for the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales.
A WANA spokesperson said the alliance aims to bring campaigners together to challenge what it sees as the risks and costs of nuclear development.
“The cost of nuclear is too high, the build-times too long, and the waste question remains unanswered,” they said. “Wales must engage in a debate about our energy future, including community control and benefits.”
Conservationists challenge effectiveness of £700 million fish safety system.
“EDF’s claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Its approach falls short of what is needed to protect the Severn’s unique biodiversity and risks irreversible harm to the estuary’s fish populations.”
Anthony Hawkswell March 1, 2026, https://angling-international.com/2026/03/01/conservationists-challenge-effectiveness-of-700-million-fish-safety-system/
The developer of the UK’s largest nuclear power station – close to one of the country’s most popular sea fishing venues – has claimed that it will have more fish protection than any other structure of its kind in the world.
EDF Energy, which is building the £46 billion Hinckley Point C power station on the River Severn Estuary in the Southwest of England, is spending £700m to install three fish protection systems, including a ‘fish disco’, a British developed innovation that is said to deter marine life from the reactor.
It says that a pioneering British-developed Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) system has been successfully installed at Hinkley Point C, marking a major breakthrough in aquatic safety and environmental stewardship.
However, leading conservationists and politicians say that the company is downplaying the environmental risks to the River Severn Estuary. EDF’s claim that the AFD system is both effective and proportionate in cost is fiercely disputed by environmental groups and a coalition of over 60 MPs.
EDF Energy claims that Hinkley Point C leads the globe with three advanced fish protection measures: the AFD, plus state-of-the-art intake heads and a comprehensive fish recovery and return system. Combined, these initiatives represent a £700 million investment in marine conservation and set a new benchmark for the sector.
The ADF, developed by Fishtek Marine, employs ultrasound technology to guide fish away from danger zones near water intakes. Recent sea trials, led by Swansea University, have demonstrated the system’s high effectiveness in reducing fish mortality rates. Dr Emily Carter, Senior Researcher at Swansea University, commented, “Our results show a significant reduction in fish approaching intake areas, confirming the technology’s value for large-scale applications.”
EDF says these findings suggest that further compensation measures, such as additional artificial saltmarsh habitats, may not be necessary. “Local communities stand to benefit from the enhanced marine environment, with reduced disruption to fish stocks supporting both commercial and recreational fisheries,” said EDF.
Regulatory approval for the system was secured following a thorough application process with the Marine Management Organisation………………………………………………..
However, in a strongly worded open letter delivered to government regulators, England’s foremost nature organisations and dozens of Members of Parliament challenged EDF’s portrayal of the AFD’s efficiency and expense. The signatories argue that EDF’s own data misrepresents the true scale of fish losses likely to occur without full-scale deterrent measures, and they point to independent evidence suggesting the company has underestimated both the ecological and economic case for robust fish protection
Matt Browne, of The Wildlife Trusts, said: “EDF’s claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Its approach falls short of what is needed to protect the Severn’s unique biodiversity and risks irreversible harm to the estuary’s fish populations.”
Browne highlighted that the Wildlife Trust’s recent analysis found the proposed deterrent would leave millions of fish vulnerable each year, including species vital to both commercial and recreational fishing.
A recent publication by the Wildlife Trusts exposes significant shortcomings in the Nuclear Regulatory Review process, revealing that key assumptions about fish behaviour and the resilience of the population were misrepresented or omitted. The report details how EDF’s own studies failed to account for cumulative impacts on migratory species and ignored alternative, more effective mitigation options. These findings have intensified calls for a comprehensive reassessment of the project’s licensing condition.
Natural England, the government’s statutory adviser on the natural environment, has reiterated the Severn Estuary’s status as a legally protected site under international and domestic law. The agency emphasises the estuary’s crucial role as a nursery for diverse fish species and migratory birds, warning that any failure to implement proven fish deterrent technology risks breaching conservation obligations and undermining decades of habitat restoration.
As the debate intensifies, the angling community, conservationists and policymakers are united in demanding greater transparency and government accountability. There are mounting calls for an independent review of EDF’s environmental claims and the immediate adoption of best-available fish protection technology.
“The future health of the Severn Estuary, and the integrity of the UK’s environmental standards, now hangs in the balance,” said Natural England.
Zelenskyy says he’d accept nuclear weapons from UK, France ‘with pleasure’
TRT World, 28 Feb 26
Ukraine’s president said no such proposals had been made, but added he would consider the offer, after Moscow accused UK and France of seeking to equip Kiev with a nuclear bomb.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that he has not been offered nuclear weapons by the UK or France, but stressed that he would accept such an offer “with pleasure.”
“With pleasure, but I didn’t have propositions. But with pleasure,” Zelenskyy said in an interview with Sky News, an excerpt of which was shared by Ukrainian media outlets, including the RBC-Ukraine news agency, when asked about Russian claims that Ukraine is “trying to get a nuclear weapon via Britain and France.”
“No, it’s not happening,” Zelenskyy went on to say on Friday, commenting on if such a thing would take place.
Earlier this week, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service accused the UK and France of actively working to provide Kiev with a nuclear bomb.
It claimed that Britain and France believe that, by possessing nuclear weapons, Ukraine would be able to secure more favourable terms for ending the war, which entered its fifth year on Tuesday……………………….https://www.trtworld.com/article/50ba4f9b6505
No to uranium mining in Greenland
February 27, 2026, by IPPNW – International Physicians fot the Prevention of Nuclear War
[Ed. note: Niels Henrik Hooge works with NOAH, the Danish branch of Friends of the Earth. He is also closely associated with Greenland’s No to Uranium Association (URANI? NAAMIK) in Nuuk. Patrick Schukalla, IPPNW Germany’s policy advisor on energy and climate, spoke with Hooge in February about the role of Greenland’s uranium resources and other subsurface wealth, and the potential threats to the territory during this period of geopolitical tension.]
PS: Although Greenland is currently on everyone’s mind, little is being learned about the island itself, its people or the Arctic ecology. Instead, the focus is on the geopolitical desires of others, both imagined and real. You have been working against large-scale mining in Greenland for a long time and have achieved significant political successes in this area. Could you tell us about that?
.NHH:………………………………………………………………….. . Denmark, which for centuries was in full control of Greenland, has made no attempts to integrate Inuit culture into the rest of Kingdom. Another striking fact is that private ownership of land does not exist and land cannot be bought or sold. You can own buildings, but not the ground. The paradox here is that you now have some of the biggest and greediest industrialists in the world trying to control property that so far has been collectively owned. This is really a clash of opposite cultures.
PS: The last time we spoke was in 2021, ahead of the COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow. We discussed uranium mining and the false claims made by the industry and some governments under the slogan ‘Nuclear for Climate’. IPPNW is PS: committed to a world without nuclear threats. This includes calling for an end to uranium mining. What role does uranium play in Greenland and in your campaigns today?
NHH: Since 2021, when the Inuit Ataqigiit party came into power, there has been a ban on uranium mining. Inuit Ataqatigiit is mainly an ecological party and I guess to some extent you could compare it to the German Greens, because it is also a mainstream party. Until 2013, the ban had existed for a quarter of a century, but it was lifted on the request of the Australian mining company, Energy Transition Minerals (ETM, formerly known as Greenland Minerals Ltd., GML), which threatened to abandon the big Kvanefjeld uranium and rare earths mining project, if ETM could not exploit the uranium deposit.
Under GML’s ownership, the controversial project has been at the forefront of the public eye for more than a decade, and the mining project and uranium mining in general have been a major factor in the formation of at least five government coalitions since 2013. When the uranium ban was lifted, Greenlandic and Danish NGOs, including NOAH, started to cooperate to have it reinstated. Particularly, I want to emphasize our collaboration with URANI? NAAMIK, Greenland’s anti-uranium network, which played a crucial role in mobilising the public against uranium mining. Although this type of mining now is banned, the anti-uranium campaign cannot stop completely. Mining companies are lobbying the Trump administration and its associates in the private sector to intervene and changes in Greenland’s political community could fundamentally affect the status of uranium mining.
…………………………………………………………………………………….. PS: If European governments are now trying to satisfy the US without Greenland being annexed, are you worried that regulations will be weakened and the protection of the Arctic environment will be compromised?
NHH: Yes, unfortunately this is a real risk and it could start a race to the bottom. On one hand, EU’s Arctic Environment and Sustainability Strategy implies that oil, coal and gas should no longer be extracted in Arctic areas. On the other hand, EU has adopted a policy under the European Critical Raw Materials Act of fast-tracking mining projects even if they do not have support from the local population and show signs of flawed permitting or inadequate environmental impact assessments………………………………………..
PS: What are your next steps, and what would you like your friends and partners in other European countries and beyond to do?
NHH: Currently, URANI? NAAMIK and NOAH are campaigning to have mining companies which have played a role in getting the Trump administration to try to annex Greenland screened and if necessary, banned for security reasons. Furthermore, there is now a majority in the Greenlandic population to rejoin the EU as a member state, and obviously it would make sense, if EU institutions and the European NGO community started to prepare for this eventuality. In NOAH’s opinion, it would imply a conception of a European Arctic policy that includes an offer to support the Greenlandic government in protecting and preserving Greenland’s natural resources.
This could become a lighthouse project for Greenland, the Danish Kingdom and the EU, putting environmental protection on the global agenda. If mineral extraction is completely or partially abolished, the Greenlanders should of course be compensated financially. The European Parliament has supported the idea of an Arctic nature protection area in the past, using the Antarctic Treaty as a model. The idea is backed by 141 environmental organizations, including some of the largest in Europe and the world. https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2026/02/27/no-to-uranium-mining-in-greenland/
A victory for Independent Journalism -Declassified wins battle over access to Parliament
Officials initially blocked us from holding a press pass, citing the ‘particular standpoint’ of our Gaza investigations
Martin Williams, 24 February 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/declassified-wins-battle-over-access-to-parliament/
Declassified has won a seven-month battle to report from Parliament, after officials were accused of a “partisan attempt to suppress investigative journalism”.
Westminster authorities initially rejected our application for a press pass in June, claiming there wasn’t enough space.
But we obtained internal emails showing that the officials considering our application had cited the “particular standpoint” of our coverage.
They flagged an article about pro-Israel bias in Westminster and even claimed that Declassified’s focus on foreign affairs does not count as “politics”.
The revelation sparked widespread criticism and around 5,800 Declassified readers signed an open letter calling on Parliament to review its decision.
The letter was also signed by more than 100 politicians, journalists and campaigners including the MPs Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Clive Lewis and Liz Saville-Roberts.
Other signatories included journalists Peter Oborne, Ash Sarkar and Owen Jones; comedians Nish Kumar, Josie Long, Fern Brady; as well as the heads of Reporters Without Borders, The Committee to Protect Journalists and The Centre For Investigative Journalism.
In Westminster, 27 MPs from across the political spectrum also signed an Early Day Motion urging authorities to reverse the decision.
Now, more than seven months after our original application, officials have u-turned and granted Declassified access to Parliament.
Changes
Media passes are already held by almost 500 journalists from other news outlets, providing vital access to the corridors of power in Westminster. But the vast majority are from mainstream or right-wing media organisations.
In fact, the system is specifically designed to make access difficult for small, independent newsrooms. Guidelines say that passes will “not normally” be given to freelance journalists, trade press or independent production companies, while other applicants must have a “substantial” audience and be regulated by Ofcom, IPSO or Impress.
However, in response to Declassified’s campaign, authorities have reformed the way journalists apply for media passes. This includes clarifying the criteria, introducing an appeals process, and changing the rules on resubmitting an application.
The initial decision to block Declassified was made by the Sergeant At Arms, but this responsibility has now been given to other officials – although Parliament insists this change was not connected to our campaign.
Officials eventually invited Declassified to submit a fresh application after we submitted a lengthy official complaint in October.
And now, Parliament has finally issued us with a media pass, marking a remarkable victory for press freedom.
It comes after Declassified reporters were also blocked from entering the Labour Party conference and a major London arms fair last year.
Declassified’s co-director Laura Pidcock said: “What should have been a straightforward process to access parliament for journalistic purposes, became an issue of press freedom and fair process. We are pleased the application has now been approved and procedural changes made.
“I have no doubt that the overwhelming support of the public helped us achieve this – huge thanks to everyone who signed the open letter.”
She added: “There is a creeping trend to restrict civil liberties in the UK, and press freedom is crucial. It was therefore important we pushed back on the Parliamentary authorities’ decision and, with your help, won!”
-
Archives
- May 2026 (72)
- 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 