Kamikaze Drone Slams Into Crowded Russian Black Sea Beach, Killing 3
by Tyler Durden, Monday, Aug 03, 2026 – https://www.zerohedge.com/military/kamikaze-drone-slams-crowded-russian-black-sea-beach-killing-3
The Russia-Ukraine war has dangerously spilled over into the Black Sea, with cargo ships, tankers, and oil and gas infrastructure being targeted by both sides. The sharp escalation in fighting across the region has also come at a cost to civilians.
Shocking video circulating on X Monday morning appears to show a Ukrainian suicide drone striking a crowded beach in the Russian Black Sea resort city of Gelendzhik.
Russian media outlet Interfax reports that three people were killed and more than a dozen injured “when a drone crashed in the village of Arkhipo-Osipovka near Gelendzhik.”
The outlet continued:
“A tragedy has occurred in Gelendzhik. Three people were killed in the village of Arkhipo-Osipovka due to falling UAV debris, according to preliminary information. (…) Another 13 people, including children, were injured. They are receiving necessary medical care,” Kondratyev wrote on his Max channel.
He noted that the attack targeted civilian infrastructure. Emergency and special services are working at the drone wreckage sites.
Audio from the footage appears to capture Russian air-defense forces firing on the incoming drone moments before it struck the crowded beach. It remains unclear whether civilians were deliberately targeted or whether the drone was damaged by automatic fire, causing it to deviate from its intended flight path.
Kremlin Still Key for US Atomic Power Despite Looming Import Ban
The vulnerability is growing more urgent as Washington promotes a nuclear
revival driven by power demand from data centers and electrification. The
US nuclear industry remains heavily dependent on Moscow for the enriched
uranium that fuels reactors generating about a fifth of the nation’s
electricity, highlighting the challenge of meeting a 2028 deadline to end
Russian purchases.
US reactor operators bought about 3.28 million
separative work units, or SWUs, of Russian enrichment services in 2025,
equal to almost 26% of their total purchases, according to data published
Wednesday in the Energy Information Administration’s latest uranium
marketing report. That compares with 17% a decade earlier.
Bloomberg 30th July 2026,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-30/kremlin-still-key-for-us-atomic-power-despite-looming-import-ban
Russia’s Starlink killers showcase new era of electronic battlefield warfare.
from
| Lisa Savage, 30 July 26 |
Russia has ramped-up EW use to detect and jam Elon Musk’s Starlink terminals and satellites, Ukrainian media reports.
Volna Kupol Garant
Russia’s latest electronic warfare system reportedly uses a directed high-frequency radio beam to disrupt Starlink operations. Rather than damaging satellites orbiting roughly 500 kilometers above Earth, the system blinds them – cutting their ability to connect with ground terminals while they remain under attack.
According to reports, Volna is a mobile system built around six trailers. Each carries a pair of steerable satellite dishes mounted on rotating platforms. A single battery is reportedly capable of denying Starlink coverage across an area of up to 20 sq km. Some analysts say the system was previously referenced under the designation Peresvet-M, although this has not been independently confirmed.
Ukrainian sources claim Volna was first deployed during Russia’s offensive in the Kharkov region in 2024. They also say its use has increased significantly in recent months.Tobol
The secretive Russian EW complex is reportedly used to disrupt signals from NATO-linked satellite networks, including GPS, Galileo, and Starlink. Reports claim that Tobol attacks satellite communications on both ends of the link – jamming downlinks from satellites to ground receivers and uplinks from Earth to orbit. Its power and range also allegedly allow it to create an electromagnetic “umbrella.”
Kalinka
The system is designed to hunt down satellite communications signals, including those transmitted by Starlink terminals at distances of up to 15 km. It can reportedly track and lock onto even Starshield – SpaceX’s hardened military variant of Starlink. Western media warns that while Tobol disrupts GPS signals on a broad scale, the Kalinka’s precision-targeting capabilities could pose a more direct threat to specific military operations.
Krasukha
The Krasukha-S4 is designed to neutralize reconnaissance satellites, ground-based radar installations, and airborne surveillance systems. It does so by emitting powerful electronic jamming signals that disrupt key radar bands and other radio-frequency emissions. A standard Krasukha-S4 battery consists of two vehicles and has an operational range exceeding 300 kilometers.
Borshchevik
The light mobile system is designed to detect and geolocate Starlink terminals within a 180-degree sector at ranges of up to 10 km, with a reported accuracy of five meters. Using direction-finding and biangulation algorithms, it can locate a target in less than three minutes at a single scanning position. The Borshchevik-2 airborne system hunts Starlink signals from the sky, with reported accuracy down to 0.4 m.
Russia’s Financial Crisis Casts a Shadow Over Central Asia’s Nuclear Future
By Eurasianet – Jul 20, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Russias-Financial-Crisis-Casts-a-Shadow-Over-Central-Asias-Nuclear-Future.html
- Rosatom is cutting its investment program by nearly 50% and reducing operating costs amid worsening economic conditions.
- The spending cuts raise concerns about delays to planned nuclear projects in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
- Both Central Asian countries are increasingly exploring alternative nuclear partners, including China and the United States.
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan may soon have to rethink their plans to develop nuclear energy. Rosatom, the Russian nuclear entity that has agreements to build nuclear plants in both Central Asian nations, is experiencing major financial difficulties.
Alexei Likhachev, Rosatom’s boss, has announced the entity is cutting its investment program by nearly 50 percent this year due to “poor economic conditions.” Likhachev also said Rosatom would strive to slash operating costs by 10 percent within the next 18 months.
“We immediately abandoned a number of projects or shifted the deadlines for their implementation to a later date, guided by several criteria, the main of which is efficiency in the horizon until 2030, that is, more profit and revenue per ruble of investment,” Likhachev was quoted as saying by the Reuters news agency.
The company’s troubles are widely linked to the Kremlin’s ongoing campaign in Ukraine, which has generally sapped Russia of its financial strength. International sanctions have also hampered Rosatom.
Likhachev did not specify which projects are being slashed or delayed. Kazakhstan awarded Rosatom a contract in 2025 to build the Central Asian state’s first nuclear power plant on the shores of Lake Balkhash. Since then, the project has been hit by delays and disputes, which many observers suspected were linked to Rosatom’s difficulties in obtaining financing. Likhachev’s announcement raises further doubts that the project can meet a tentative completion deadline in the mid-2030s.
Rosatom also has a preliminary agreement in place to build small-scale nuclear plants in Uzbekistan. Company officials in early 2026, seeking to dispel Uzbek worries about financing, offered to expand the deal to create a nuclear cluster. Likhachev’s announcement is likely to stoke further skepticism in Tashkent.
Both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have alternatives to Rosatom. Astana already has an agreement in place for a Chinese company to build two nuclear plants in the country. And both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have expressed interest in working with the United States to develop small modular nuclear plants.
Rosatom, historically a cash cow for the Russian government, is not the only major Russian entity experiencing financial woes. The stock price of the energy giant Gazprom has tanked over the past three months, and the company’s market capitalization now stands at a mere $25 billion.
World warned of ‘nuclear apocalypse’ after drone kills nuclear plant engineer in Ukraine
Russia has warned of ‘nuclear apocalypse’ after a drone strike allegedly carried out by Ukraine killed the chief engineer at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest nuclear facility
Daily Star, Will Stewart Russia Correspondent and Adam Cailler Senior reporter and MSN lead, 16 Jul 2026
Russia has warned of a “nuclear apocalypse” following an alleged Ukrainian assassination of a senior engineer at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Alexander Yakovlev, 46, was killed in a drone attack between the facility and the nearby town of Enerhodar.
He was travelling in a service vehicle and perished alongside his driver, according to Russian reports. Yakovlev served as the chief engineer at the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest. Ukraine’s Mirotvorets website had branded him a “traitor to the motherland” and an “accomplice to terrorists and Russian occupiers.”
Through his work for the Russians following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, he stood accused of “collaboration in the form of assisting the occupiers in committing acts of nuclear terrorism and blackmail”. Following the occupation of this section of Zaporizhzhia region, he obtained Russian citizenship.
Rafael Grossi, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, denounced the incident without explicitly naming Ukraine or Russia. The killing “represents an unacceptable attack on the plant and its management, seriously threatening nuclear safety.”
He demanded an “immediate end” to all strikes “on or near nuclear sites.” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova declared: “This is a crime of the Kyiv regime that Grossi must finally see – we demand a clear statement condemning this killing from the relevant international bodies, first and foremost the IAEA.”
Alexei Likhachev, the head of Rosatom, stated: “We expect the IAEA to respond promptly, concretely, and clearly to this tragedy.” Russian forces took control of the plant in southeastern Ukraine during the initial weeks of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine………
Russian authorities initiated a criminal investigation into the killings. Ukraine has yet to respond.https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/world-warned-nuclear-apocalypse-after-37438323
‘At risk of horrific contamination’: The Soviet nuclear submarine wreck that is a ‘ticking time bomb’
By Fiona Macdonald, 13 July 26, https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20260709-the-nuclear-submarine-wreck-that-is-a-time-bomb
In 1989, the Komsomolets sank off the Norwegian coast. Four years later, the BBC reported on plans to seal in its torpedoes’ toxic plutonium.
“Komsomolets is a time bomb ticking away at the bottom of the Norwegian Sea.
“And unless something is done about it, and done about it quickly, we’re all in danger.” This is how the risk posed by a sunken Soviet nuclear submarine was described by Russian Greenpeace activist Dimitri Litvinov in a 1993 BBC news report.
Resting one mile (1.6km) deep in the sea near the coast of Norway after a fire caused it to sink four years earlier, the Komsomolets had prompted international concern. Two nuclear-tipped torpedoes inside were corroding, risking the release of 9lb (4kg) of plutonium into the Norwegian Sea.
State-of-the-art Soviet technology went into the design of the Komsomolets, which was unique for the depths it could reach. It was expected by Nato to be the first in a class of large attack submarines, but no further vessels of its kind were built. According to a 1994 BBC Horizon documentary, “The Komsomolets was to be the Soviet Union’s secret invincible weapon, the only submarine in the world able to cruise and launch nuclear missiles from 1,000m [0.62 miles] deep, twice the depth at which Western submarines can operate. Today, the Komsomolets is a technical and scientific disaster.”
When the fire broke out on 7 April 1989, the crew managed to bring the submarine up to the surface – but it sank after five hours afloat, killing 42 of the 69 crew members. As it went down, an escape pod shot five trapped seamen to the surface, with just one man able to climb out before it filled with water.
As the Komsomolets hit the bottom, near the Norwegian coast, an explosion ripped open the submarine’s titanium pressure hull and brought seawater into contact with the nuclear torpedoes. A research mission by Russian oceanographers found that parts of the submarine’s hull had “burst and crumbled from the explosion, like glass”.
After the disaster, scientists were divided over what to do. Russian scientist Igor Spassky of the Rubin Institute, which designed the Komsomolets, told the BBC’s Ben Brown in 1993 that it was not a catastrophic situation – although he did want the submarine to be raised out of the sea. “Within a decade, the two nuclear warheads on the ship will be fully corroded by an electrochemical reaction involving salt water… and the highly toxic plutonium will escape from the damaged torpedoes and into the environment,” he told the US Naval Institute.
“According to environmentalists,” said Brown in his BBC report, “if that happens, the sailors who died here would not be the only victims of the Komsomolets. The lives of many more people, they say, would be at risk, because the rich fishing grounds here would then be subject to horrific contamination.” Yet a report released in 1993 by an international team of scientists concluded that the submarine was unlikely to contaminate fisheries.
Despite conflicting views on the dangers posed, efforts were made to mitigate potential contamination. Deep-sea engineering operations between 1995 and 1996 sealed hull fractures and torpedo tubes to contain radioactive material. The work finished 30 years ago, in July 1996. But investigations by the Norwegian government have since revealed that the submarine is still leaking – and the sealant was only expected to last 30 years.An indefinite potential hazard
A report published in March 2026 found that while the torpedoes remain sealed, the reactor is degrading, periodically releasing visible plumes of radioactive material into the sea. The team from the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (DSA) said that the leak is not constant but occurs in sporadic bursts from specific locations along the hull, with a “cloud” seeping out of a ventilation duct.
They don’t believe the current levels are harmful, however. “Radioactive releases from the reactor… have had little impact on the surrounding marine environment,” says Ingar Amundsen, acting director of the DSA’s Department for International Nuclear Safety and Security.
Yet that could change – with both the submarine’s nuclear reactor and nuclear-armed torpedoes posing threats, according to Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. Corrosion of the submarine over time could impact current radiation levels, he tells the BBC. “That depends on other factors such as the oxygen level of the seawater around and inside the submarine wreckage, and the condition of the sealant.”
He also points to changing currents as a factor influencing how quickly radioactive materials might be released from the wreckage and potentially enter the food chain via bottom feeders and fish. “The fact that the submarine has already been sealed once is an official acknowledgement of that risk,” Kristensen adds.
“Nuclear fuel is in direct contact with seawater and deteriorating,” says Amundsen. “Further work should be carried out to understand the mechanisms behind the releases, the corrosion processes taking place, and their implications for further releases.” But that isn’t going to happen any time soon. “The depth of the submarine, close to 1,700m, makes it difficult to implement any mitigation actions, and we are not aware of any such plans for the moment.”
Kristensen argues that more should be done. “At the minimum, a new expedition should be carried out to determine the current condition. With a half-life of 24,000 years, warhead plutonium will remain a potential hazard indefinitely by human standards.”
Russia Closes Border Crossings With Several NATO States After Finland Lifts Nuclear Ban
by Tyler Durden, Thursday, Jul 02, 2026, https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-closes-border-crossings-several-nato-states-after-finland-lifts-ban-nuclear
Finland’s parliament has finally followed through with a previously threatened move to reverse its decades-long ban on nuclear weapons. The June 17 vote to lift the ban in effect legally authorizes the Nordic country to receive, transport, and facilitate the movement of nuclear weapons on its territory as part of allied operations, with the representatives’ final tally at 125 to 61.
Finland officially became the 31st member of NATO in April 2023 – having abandoned its historic neutrality in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in what was among the fastest accession processes in the Western military alliance’s history. Now it is already willing to host allied nukes on its territory, making it a target of Russian retaliation.
Moscow has long warned against such an ultra-provocative move. The Kremlin said Monday that this requires a response – given also the fact that Russia and Finland share an over 800-mile long border, which is made up largely of Arctic frontier.
“The results of the vote represent both bright and unflattering victory of the blind Russophobia of the past few years over what we have always viewed as pragmatic sanity in Finland,” said Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.
“And let nobody doubt that [response] measures will be taken timely and effectively. In this light, the Finnish people need to think whether this decision made by their elites will actually enhance security in Finland itself,” she added.
As a start, Russia has moved to shutter more rail crossings to NATO states, including Finland – which is to further severely impact trade:
Russia has closed seven railway border checkpoints with Finland, Estonia and Latvia, according to a government decree published Tuesday.
The suspension, which takes effect July 1, halts the movement of individuals, vehicles and cargo through the designated rail crossings. Five of the shuttered checkpoints are located on the Finnish border, while Estonia and Latvia each have one crossing affected.
Officials have not disclosed the reasons for the closures or when the checkpoints might reopen.
In Estonia, the Ivangorod freight and passenger crossing will remain open, and in Latvia, the Sebezh crossing will also stay open. However, the closures leave Finland with no open railway crossings with Russia, which normally exports fertilizer to Finland by rail.
Finland shut its eastern vehicle and pedestrian border crossings with Russia indefinitely in December 2023 following an influx of asylum seekers.
Since the Ukraine war began, and in context of ratcheting tensions with NATO over its military support to Kiev, Moscow has steadily militarized its border with Finland.
The most significant source of NATO’s nuclear-sharing program is the United States. But lately France has expressed a desire to station some of its atomic arsenal in partner countries, and this could include in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and others.
Europe and Russia Edge Toward Direct War as Nuclear Fears Grow
Ray McGovern and Peter Kuznick examine Europe’s accelerating military buildup, Putin’s warning that Russia is prepared for war, and why they fear diplomacy is giving way to a dangerous escalation between nuclear powers.
Peter Kuznick’s sobering warning: “We’re planning for our own annihilation and extinction as a species.”
ScheerPost Staff, June 29, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/29/europe-and-russia-edge-toward-direct-war-as-nuclear-fears-grow/
As Europe dramatically expands military spending and NATO leaders openly prepare for what they describe as a possible future conflict with Russia, questions are growing over whether the world is drifting toward a direct confrontation between nuclear powers.
On this week’s edition of The World This Week, Consortium News Editor Joe Lauria is joined by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and historian Peter Kuznick to examine the increasingly dangerous escalation surrounding the war in Ukraine. The discussion explores Vladimir Putin’s warning that Russia is prepared for war, Europe’s accelerating militarization, the role of NATO-backed drone attacks deep inside Russian territory, and the growing risk that a single miscalculation could trigger a wider conflict.
While McGovern argues that Moscow continues to exercise restraint despite mounting provocations, Kuznick warns that political pressure, expanding military commitments, and increasingly confrontational rhetoric on all sides are creating conditions in which diplomacy is being replaced by dangerous brinkmanship. Together they examine whether Europe’s leaders are pursuing a coherent long-term strategy—or whether escalating military spending, shrinking diplomacy, and domestic political pressures are moving the world toward an outcome that no one can control.
The conversation also explores the fragile U.S.–Iran ceasefire, shifting global power dynamics, and whether recent political developments in New York signal broader changes inside the Democratic Party. Throughout the discussion, the panel returns to a central warning: in an era of nuclear weapons, great-power confrontation carries risks unlike any previous conflict, making diplomacy more urgent than ever.
Much of this discussion is vital and deserves to be widely shared, but perhaps its most important takeaway—and one that should remain our constant watchword—is Peter Kuznick’s sobering warning: “We’re planning for our own annihilation and extinction as a species.”
The greatest danger isn’t simply the war itself—it’s the gradual normalization of confrontation between nuclear powers.
McGovern argues that despite increasingly provocative developments, Putin has consistently sought to avoid a direct military clash with NATO. Drawing on decades of following Soviet and Russian leadership, he contends that Moscow understands that striking targets inside NATO countries could trigger an uncontrollable escalation with nuclear powers. Instead, he believes Russia is attempting to achieve its objectives inside Ukraine while avoiding actions that would give Western governments justification for expanding the conflict.
Kuznick agrees that Putin has generally exercised restraint but warns that restraint alone may not guarantee stability. He notes that Russian infrastructure continues to come under attack, political pressure inside Russia is growing, and influential voices within the country have begun calling for stronger retaliation against European facilities supporting Ukraine’s military operations. While he does not believe Russia seeks a wider war, he cautions that prolonged escalation increases the chances of miscalculation by all sides.
One of the central themes running throughout the discussion is the collapse of diplomacy. Both guests argue that negotiations have steadily been displaced by military planning, larger defense budgets and increasingly confrontational political rhetoric. Rather than emphasizing diplomatic solutions, many European leaders now frame the conflict as a long-term military struggle requiring sustained increases in defense spending.
The discussion also examines the broader political consequences of Europe’s military buildup. Kuznick argues that dramatically expanding military expenditures inevitably comes at the expense of domestic priorities, including housing, education, healthcare and other social programs. Echoing President Dwight Eisenhower’s famous warning about the military-industrial complex, he suggests that the diversion of public resources toward military production represents a significant political and economic transformation occurring across Europe.
Beyond Ukraine, the panel turns to the fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran. Although open hostilities have subsided, both McGovern and Kuznick describe the agreement as unstable, pointing to continued military exchanges and unresolved disputes that could quickly reignite a broader regional conflict. The discussion places these tensions within a larger international context in which several major geopolitical flashpoints—from Eastern Europe to the Middle East—remain active simultaneously.
Throughout the conversation, Kuznick and McGovern both invoke the lessons of the Cold War. McGovern references President John F. Kennedy’s warning “To force a choice on another nuclear power between humiliation and using nuclear weapons is a colossal failure of statesmanship.”
Kuznick likewise argues that many of today’s political leaders appear increasingly willing to normalize discussions of military confrontation between nuclear-armed states in ways that would have been considered reckless only a generation ago.
The panel also examines the political dynamics inside Europe itself. Rather than portraying European governments as unified, McGovern argues that many leaders pushing for expanded militarization face declining public support while confronting growing economic pressures at home. Kuznick similarly notes that opinion polls across several countries suggest many citizens remain skeptical of continued military escalation even as governments expand defense commitments.
Despite differences over Russia’s battlefield prospects and the likely trajectory of the war, both analysts ultimately agree on one fundamental point: diplomacy has become dangerously marginalized. They warn that history demonstrates how wars often expand not because governments deliberately seek global conflict, but because repeated cycles of retaliation, political pressure and strategic miscalculation gradually narrow the space for peaceful solutions.
The discussion concludes with a sobering assessment of the international moment. As Europe rearms, NATO prepares for additional military commitments, Russia continues its campaign in Ukraine and tensions remain high across the Middle East, McGovern and Kuznick argue that preventing direct confrontation between nuclear powers should remain the overriding priority. Whether today’s leaders are willing—or able—to reverse the current trajectory through diplomacy remains one of the defining questions of the international order.
The conversation offers a detailed examination of competing interpretations of the conflict, the strategic calculations shaping decisions in Moscow and Western capitals, and the broader implications of a world increasingly organized around military competition rather than negotiation. It is a reminder that while battlefield developments dominate headlines, the greatest danger may lie in the gradual normalization of permanent confrontation between nuclear-armed states.
Russia hearing the European clamour for war, announces it is ready
Alastair Crooke, Strategic Culture Foundation, Mon, 29 Jun 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/507152-Russia-hearing-the-European-clamour-for-war-announces-it-is-ready
The de-escalation framework that unfolded in the U.S.-Iran Lucerne talks largely stayed true to the original Iranian 10-point plan. Meanwhile, President Trump and Vice-President Vance deliberately muddy the waters, claiming that Iran has already agreed to IAEA inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities (a claim repeatedly denied by Iran): Vance announced that the IAEA could have begun inspections this week. No – – the ‘Framework’ only refers to the possible IAEA supervision of the dilution to the 60% enriched stockpile subject to a final agreement with the U.S. having been reached.
Trump, writing on social media, later falsely asserted: “Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future”. In fact, the IAEA are only inspecting the joint Iran-Russia power station in Bushier at Russia’s request, because Russia wants to ensure compliance on its involvement. In other words, it is a Russian request to satisfy its own IAEA compliance commitment.
Trump then warned Iran that he may have to “finish the job [militarily]” — (if he doesn’t get a very good deal) — which, he says, would take ” about a week”, and adds that Iran will be required to use any unfrozen Iranian funds to be held in ESCROW accounts (accounts controlled by the U.S.) to buy “corn and soybeans for their people, because right now their people are very hungry — and they’re buying exclusively from us”.
So, it’s pretty clear what’s ahead — Trump is reverting to his New York real-estate mode of negotiations. In the Art of the Deal, his 1987 book, ghost written by Tony Schwartz, the text advises the use of “extreme and unpredictable demands to create anxiety and force concessions from rivals”.
Thus, we are back to the General Kellogg playbook – – Kellogg advised Trump that the only thing that works with Putin or the Iranians is pressure — and then still more pressure.
Familiar Trumpian tactics. Show a little initial flexibility to tease out adversaries in order to pull them into negotiations; subsequent false claims of Iranian concessions and extreme demands are then used to increase pressure on Iran (whilst Trump appears tough to the angry neocon constituency and to his ‘base’ back home).
This style of pressure may work for New York real-estate deals, but will be ineffective with both Iran and Russia.
Such threats will be counterproductive with Iran, and place the U.S. on a collision course. “The Islamabad understanding was not the result of pressure and coercion, but rather the result of the resistance and authority of the Iranian nation”, Mr Qalibaf, the chief Iranian negotiator, retorted.
In practical terms, as Will Schryver, a shrewd observer of the U.S. military, notes, Iran has pressure points “more numerous and capable than the U.S. can bring to bear on the battlefield” —
“In my view, [Schryver says], a powerful U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf region has become utterly untenable. They’re just trying to save face now. I do not believe, [he concludes] the U.S. military can mount even a 72-hour high-intensity operation at this point in time”.
“But I think they’ll try. Probably just Trump bluff, but it would not surprise me if they try to play one last card to gain the upper hand”. (Maybe after the midterms, and with the U.S. having rebuilt somewhat its munitions shortfall).
To which Iran likely will respond by closing the Strait of Hormuz again, and attacking, pari passu, regional (Gulf) infrastructure. Trump will be gaming the economy who first plays ‘Chicken’. A further military venture likely will only further erode American military standing.
Quite possibly, however, Trump may be prepared to cut his losses in Iran — the war anyway is a liability to his Midterm electoral calculus — by circling back to Ukraine and Russia. The Kiev Independentreleased a report yesterday, quoting a “senior Ukrainian official saying that Trump had privately given Zelensky the greenlight to act “more boldly” against Russia”.
Here we go again, roundabout time — “Trump says he doesn’t really believe Putin will do anything without pressure”, the Ukrainian official added.
Simpliciusspeculates:
“Trump has clearly been frustrated by his inability to settle any of the conflicts he had promised easily. And recently, on the heels of the Iranian memorandum saga, he even admitted that he would now be “turning his attention” back to Ukraine.
“As such, it’s plausible that Trump would have given secret encouragement to the Europeans to ‘shape the battlefield’ in order to “soften” Russia up ahead of whatever next Trump might have planned”.
If this is true (and it probably is), the Europeans are playing with matches and risk lighting a conflagration.
The E3 leaders, Starmer, Merz and Macron, met on 7 June with Zelensky to promise both unwavering support and — in the context of pledging further pressure on Russia —
“underlining the urgent need to scale up the production of interceptors; deep strike capabilities and anti-ballistic missile co-development — and further to support the future sustainability of the Ukrainian Armed Forces”.
In short, the Europeans intend to ratchet up deep strikes into Moscow and St Petersburg, which will likely kill and unsettle their inhabitants.
The E3 carefully planned how to stage-manage the upcoming G7 summit, the EU summit, with Zelensky showcased at both events, promising to increase the pressure on “President Putin to agree to an immediate and complete ceasefire, taking the current contact line for its start-point”. European leaders also pledged to co-ordinate ahead of the NATO summit in Ankara (7-8 July) to achieve increased pledges of military support for Ukraine.
The E3 states are explicitly gearing up with new missiles to strike deeper, and more destructively, into Russia. The British government, for example, has announced that —
“the UK project to develop low-cost advanced long-range strike weapons for Ukraine has reached a significant milestone, with three British-designed systems successfully flight tested. The ground-launched strike weapons reportedly are capable of hitting targets more than 500km distant, at a speed of 600 km/h – whilst carrying a 225 kg warhead”.
According to the Financial Times, Trump was “hugely impressed and enthusiastic” with Ukraine’s recent campaign of long-range strikes on targets deep inside Russia at last week’s G7 summit. At the summit, Trump also agreed to increase sanctions on Russian energy.
It is clear that the E3 had been plotting a major psy-op to convince Trump that Ukraine was not on the back-foot against Russia (as Trump may have been briefed); but rather had regained the front foot, and that the U.S. should support the European agenda to force a Russian capitulation agenda (ceasefire, borders unchanged, reparations paid by Russia and war-crimes trials for Russian officials indicted with crimes, etc).
These developments have brought two major developments out of Russia:
Firstly, senior Kremlin aides, notably Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s spokesman, have been saying over the past three days the ‘spirit’ of the Anchorage summit, and its concomitant understandings, “have effectively collapsed” — “The U.S. abandoned them”. Moscow no longer expects those commitments to be honoured and is focused solely on securing its own “victory” through military means.
Foreign Minister Lavrov went further, describing the Alaska meeting as an American “ploy” designed to buy time for Ukraine to rebuild and rearm its military — essentially likening them to the Minsk Accords that similarly were mounted as a deceit.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said:
“We also see Washington’s line moving closer to the most rabid anti-Russian policies pursued by the U.S.’s closest European allies – namely, the UK and France”.
This represents a huge strategic shift. Russia no longer seeks a relationship with Washington, though contact with DC will continue.
The second development stems from President Putin’s address at the St George’s Hall to military cadets on 23 June. Putin, in summary, told the young officers that the West manufactures a Russia threat, then accuses Russia of creating that very threat. This, said Putin, is a historically repeated pattern going back to 1941.
Putin implied that a threshold had now been crossed: He stated that whilst, until recently, NATO countries had limited themselves to supporting the Kiev regime to wage war on Russia, the West today is openly talking about preparing for a war against Russia, and is building up their military offensive budgets. German Chancellor Mertz has been quite vocal in this regard, Putin said.
Russia’s response, he said, is focused on modernising its nuclear triad and its Army, and strengthening the combat capability of the Aerospace Forces and the Navy. The explicit mention of the nuclear triad in direct proximity to the discussion of Western preparation for war against Russia was certainly a pointed message to Trump and the Europeans.
Russia has heard the European clamour for war. It has now made the strategic decision in response to prepare for war in Europe.
Senior U.S. Diplomats, Journalists, Academics and Secretaries of Defense Say: the U.S. Provoked Russia in Ukraine
it should come as no surprise that our government is lying now about the war in Ukraine.
it should come as no surprise that our government is lying now about the war in Ukraine.
The Ukraine Papers, by Donald A. Smith, PhD, 27 June 26
It took some years for Americans to realize they’d been lied to about the war in Vietnam. Thanks to the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and thanks to the antiwar movement, Americans eventually learned about the injustices and failures of that war.
Likewise, it took several years after the starts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for Americans to realize they’d been lied to about those wars as well.
Americans are just now starting to realize that they’ve been lied to about the war in Ukraine. (The propaganda effort has been quite effective, with the New York Times, in particular, acting as a mouthpiece for the government’s position.) More and more mainstream publications are exposing the lies, and a majority of Americans now oppose further arming of Ukraine.
This essay is a summary of what the U.S. government has been hiding about the war in Ukraine, with links to sources for further information.
According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, U.S. military actions since 9/11 directly killed over 900,000 people, with an additional 3.5 million people dying from indirect effects. The wars cost Americans at least $8 trillion and displaced over 38 million people from their homes. The U.S. spends over a trillion dollars a year on its military, if you count all expenditures.
If we go back to the 1960s, the number killed by U.S. wars includes the several million killed in the Vietnam war, the approximately 1 million killed by U.S. support for Indonesian military’s attacks on left wing groups, and the hundreds of thousands, at least, killed in proxy wars and government overthrows in Latin America.
The wars, overthrows, and associated sanctions caused mass migrations worldwide — particularly in Europe and at the southern U.S. border — and destabilized politics. The Lancet medical journal reported that between 1971 and 2021, US and EU sanctions killed over half a million people annually. Yet almost nobody (except for whistleblowers) was held accountable for these disasters; indeed, many of the same people are in Congress or work for the government or the weapons industry.
Moreover, the U.S. government lied about almost all the wars — in particular, about the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but also about the war in Yugoslavia, as documented in Harper’s Magazine, here (Chapter 3), and here. In short, the Kosovo Liberation Army that the U.S. supported was, basically, a terrorist organization funded by the CIA, and U.S. propaganda greatly overstated the nobility of the U.S. intervention. Likewise, The U.S. backed ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia.
The United States withdrew from the following arms treaties: Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Strategic Arms Reduction (START II)Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran deal, Open Skies Treaty, and Conventional Armed Forces Treaty (Russia withdrew after alleged NATO non-compliance)
So, it should come as no surprise that our government is lying now about the war in Ukraine. Specifically, claims by President Biden and others that the Russian invasion was “unprovoked” are greatly exaggerated.
Read what these diplomats, secretaries of Defense, journalists, academics, politicians, and others have to say:
Here the author gives quotations from 30 highly regarded people – certainly not pro Russian propagandists ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ambassador Jack Matlock (referenced above) said in a 2024 interview: “Why don’t we understand that trying to remove Ukraine from Russian influence and put military bases there would be, in their case, absolutely unacceptable and worthy of defense?” Matlock said the U.S. backed the 2014 coup, and “Obviously, to any Russian leader, not just Vladimir Putin, that would have been an absolutely impossible, hostile act, which they had to react to. And in particular, they were not going to lose their naval base in Crimea.” Finally, Matlock said the Ukrainians are “dominated in their thinking by neo-Nazis — we tend to ignore that, or when Putin points it out, we say he’s lying. He’s not lying.” And Matlock wrote: “I have been appalled that a succession of American presidents and European leaders discarded the diplomacy that ended the Cold War, abandoned the agreements that curbed the nuclear arms race, and provoked a new cold war which has now become hot.”
See this for dozens of mainstream news articles about the presence Nazis in Ukraine and U.S. support for them.
Evidence of U.S. involvement in the coup is overwhelming. The Cato Institute (not a radical Marxist outfit!) wrote America’ Ukraine Hypocrisy which includes:
The extent of the Obama administration’ meddling in Ukraine’ politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a [U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria] Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post-Yanukovych government… Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed the Euromaidan Revolution as a spontaneous, popular uprising against a corrupt and brutal government… It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising.
The 2019 RAND Corporation study Overextending and Unbalancing Russia examines “cost-imposing options that the United States and its allies could pursue across economic, political, and military areas to stress — overextend and unbalance — Russia’s economy and armed forces and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad.” It includes the paragraph:
“Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in US military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.”
The highlighted words indicate that the authors were quite aware that US provocations would cause Russia to respond militarily.
The New Yorker’s Is the F.B.I. Truly Biased Against Trump? contains a telling paragraph on the U.S. government’s efforts to suppress information about exactly what happened in Ukraine:
According to [FBI agent] Buma’s statement, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, on February 24, 2022, he was told to terminate relations with one of his most valuable sources in that field, Dynamo. The order came from both his supervisors and the F.B.I.’s Foreign Influence Task Force, and, per Buma, superiors told him that the shutdown of Dynamo was based on “highly classified information from the National Security Agency” which he could not access. They also said that it was part of a broader effort, around the time of the invasion, to close off many “sources related to Russia/Ukraine matters.”
After the collapse of the USSR, Russia wanted desperately to be integrated into the West and, up to the end of 2021, pleaded with D.C. to come to an equitable peace in Ukraine, but the U.S. wanted to weaken Russia, and NATO needed an enemy to justify its existence. The expansion of NATO — which violated multiple verbal promises given to Soviet leaders — provoked the war that is now touted as showing the need for NATO.
According to the LA Times’s Russia feels threatened by NATO. There’s history behind that, “some of Russia’s security concerns are real. Offering to discuss them doesn’t qualify as appeasement; Thirty years ago, Russia had a buffer zone of satellite states to its west. Now it has only the unimpressive presence of Belarus.”
From 2018, in Medium’s American Lethal Weapons Could Already Be on the Ukrainian Front Line: “Two weeks ago, the Trump administration announced it will allow the sale of some lethal weapons to Ukraine, including the Javelin anti-tank missile….Butusov identified the [Nazi] Azov Battalion as a recipient of the PSRL-1 [grenade launcher] systems.”
Right before the Russian invasion, in January of 2022, Yahoo News reported: CIA-trained Ukrainian paramilitaries may take central role if Russia invades. After the invasion, in March of 2022, Yahoo News reported: Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion..
In November of 2023, the Washington Post exposed that “Since 2015, the CIA has spent tens of millions of dollars to transform Ukraine’s Soviet-formed services into potent allies against Moscow, officials said…. The extent of the CIA’s involvement with Ukraine’s security services has not previously been disclosed.” Foreign Policy’s essay of July 11, 2025 mentions the “CIA’s decade of covert support for Ukraine.” ABC News also has an article about CIA involevment in Ukraine since 2015.
Likewise, a New York Times article The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin, dated February 25, 2024, revealed that the CIA had been coordinating with Ukrainian intelligence since at least 2014 and that the Ukrainians had been launching assasinations and other kinetic actions in Crimea and Russia. As Mark Episkopos writes in Responsible Statecraft, CIA in Ukraine: Why is this not seen as provocation?: “An explosive new NYT report shows how Washington needlessly fed into Russia’s worst fears and precipitated the invasion, justified or not.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
These facts and opinions do not justify Russia’s brutal invasion, but they certainly give the lie to statements by President Biden and others that the invasion was “unprovoked.” Even the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014 was provoked: it occurred after, and partially in response to, the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Ukraine.
And the facts expose stunning hyprocrisy. The U.S. launched numerous unjustified wars, proxy wars, bombings and coups far from U.S. borders; surrounded Russia and China with pro-US allies and military bases (about 800 worldwide); exited multiple arms treaties; and increased military spending to about $1 trillion a year despite $34 trillion in debt and dire domestic needs. Yet we accuse Russia and China of being the aggressors.
Both sides can be at fault in a conflict. The U.S. too has blood on its hands.
Finally, the facts are strong reasons why the U.S. should not be arming Ukraine to the teeth, pushing it to fight to the last Ukrainian and risking a nuclear war. Instead, it should push for a negotiated end to the war. https://theukrainepapers.org/senior-US-diplomats-academics-journalists-and-secretaries-of-defense-say-the-US-provoked-Russia-in-Ukraine.html
Edge of Armageddon: why does one of the world’s top thinkers believe we’re nearing nuclear apocalypse?
Putin is so terrified of Ukraine becoming a member of Nato: that would enable the west to place nukes in the country
“With Nato weapons, Ukrainians bombed St Petersburg and they tried to bomb Moscow. So a country with nuclear weapons is being ‘bombed’ by the British. Not the British pushing the button, but the bombs come from Britain, as well as from Germany and France, with less from the US.”
In a chilling new book, theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli says we’re back on the brink – and this time, leaders chronically lack the nous of Kennedy and Khrushchev. So why is he against rearming?
Stuart Jeffries, Thu 25 Jun 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/jun/25/armageddon-physicist-carlo-rovelli-nuclear-apocalypse
Should European members of Nato be rearming in the face of the Russian threat? And if not, I ask Carlo Rovelli, why not? The Italian theoretical physicist seems a good person to answer these questions since his timely new book, 85 Seconds to Midnight, is subtitled A Physicist’s Argument against Rearmament.
Rovelli, 70, brown eyed, genial, with enviably luxuriant grey locks, removes his glasses before answering. “The idea of the Russian military being a threat to Europe is ridiculous. Russia can’t even get to Kyiv! A few years ago, Russia had 4% of the world’s military spending and Nato had 40%.”
At the same time, though, Russia has more than 4,000 nuclear warheads, making it the planet’s biggest stockpiler. “So we cannot take Russia down,” says Rovelli, “because it would react.” Of the three nuclear superpowers – Russia, US and China – only China has resolved not to be a first-use nuclear state. Russia, like the US, reserves the right to respond to conventional attacks with nuclear strikes.
The real problem, Rovelli suggests, is mutual fear. “We are trapped in a lack of reciprocal trust. We sleepwalk through these patterns of everybody becoming more armed, more aggressive.” He cites what happened a few weeks ago in St Petersburg. “With Nato weapons, Ukrainians bombed St Petersburg and they tried to bomb Moscow. So a country with nuclear weapons is being ‘bombed’ by the British. Not the British pushing the button, but the bombs come from Britain, as well as from Germany and France, with less from the US.”
Why was this so frightening for Rovelli? “It’s the first time a [superpower] with nuclear weapons has been actually bombed. There was a situation in which if you have nuclear weapons, you don’t get invaded. You don’t get bombed. No more.”
Rovelli invites me to consider what that bombing looks like from the Kremlin’s perspective. Moscow has long feared western aggression, he argues. A key moment came in 1962 when Americans placed nuclear missiles in Turkey. That, he argues, prompted then Soviet premier Khrushchev to put nuclear weapons in Cuba, the US’s back yard.
True, the Cuban missile crisis was de-escalated by Khrushchev and US president Kennedy, but Russian fear of western invasion persists. That’s why, Rovelli suggests, Putin is so terrified of Ukraine becoming a member of Nato: that would enable the west to place nukes in the country. Hence, Rovelli argues, Putin embarking on his full-blown invasion four years ago.
Rovelli believes this Russian aggression has caused a whirlwind of fears and clamours for rearmament in western Europe. “You have the French government saying French people should be ready again to sacrifice their children; the British government saying we should be ready for war because it might happen; the German government saying all this anti-war sentiment in schools is not good and we should change education, make war more acceptable. This is motivated by the idea that Russia is invading Europe. It’s nonsense.”
But isn’t it sometimes right to be fearful? Indeed, isn’t the lesson of the second world war that western European countries should have rearmed sooner to counter a demagogue bent on expansion? “I think everybody should read Mein Kampf,” he replies, referring to Adolf Hitler’s 1925 autobiography and manifesto. “Mein Kampf does not say, ‘We are German, we are the strongest, we are going to run the world, we are great, we are white, we are Aryans, whatever.’ It says, ‘We are weak. And the only way we have to survive is to become stronger and overcome the others.’ So what fuelled the violence of nazism was fear.”
Today’s Middle Eastern conflict has a similar basis, Rovelli contends. “What fuels the aggressiveness of Israel is fear. What fuels the aggressiveness of Hamas is fear. They are going to destroy us in Gaza unless we are aggressive. To answer fear with fear, to escalate, seems to me disgusting.”
But isn’t this naive? Putin isn’t just acting out of fear, surely, but is prompted by some warped sense of historical destiny to claim Ukraine. “That’s obviously nonsense. You create these narratives that fuel tribal ideology. And that’s exactly what we don’t want. I don’t think anybody has any natural historical right to anything.”
Why should we listen to what theoretical physicists have to say about rearmament? Yes, Rovelli is the go-to guy to explain loop gravity, the theoretical framework that merges quantum mechanics with Einstein’s general theory of relativity. He is also a great populariser of difficult ideas in such books as Seven Brief Lessons on Physics and The Order of Time. But when it comes to war and realpolitik, theoretical physicists have often proved themselves utter boobs.
“We physicists,” Rovelli concedes, “did create this thing [nuclear weapons]. It is our poisoned gift to humankind. But historically, the voices of scientists – raising awareness about the nuclear risk – have been effective.” It was thanks to the wisdom of scientists and other intellectuals, he argues, that Gorbachev and Reagan were convinced to sign the now defunct 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start).
Equally true, though, is that theoretical physicists have been disastrous for humanity. Rovelli cites his countryman Enrico Fermi who in 1934 found a way to shatter atomic nuclei – giving humanity a new source of energy. “But the gift is too great,” writes Rovelli. “A small bit of uranium can release energy to demolish cities, burn alive millions of human beings and destroy civilisation itself.”
Consider too what happened in Copenhagen in 1941 when two great theoretical physicists, the Dane Niels Bohr and the German Werner Heisenberg, met. Bohr, who soon after the meeting was spirited to the US, came away from the meeting convinced that Nazi Germany was making a nuclear bomb to win the war.
Rovelli takes up the story: “Once in the US, Bohr said, ‘Look, this is a sketch given to me by Heisenberg of an atomic bomb.’ And it was definitely not. It was a sketch of a peaceful nuclear reactor. One of the outcomes of that was that the Manhattan Project was motivated by a belief that Nazi Germany was close to having nuclear bombs, which was completely unfounded.”
The unintended consequence, as Rovelli puts it in his book, was “the burning alive of 200,000 men, women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Not, as some have argued, to end the war more quickly but as an immense demonstration of US power – or as he puts it: “The scream of the gorilla beating its chest and telling the forest that it is the strongest.”
Surely there were other and possibly better rationales to dropping nuclear weapons on Japan than that? I remind Rovelli of a conversation at Princeton he had with his friend and mentor, the late relativity theorist John Wheeler, who worked on the Manhattan Project. Wheeler believed bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified to spare the enormous number of American lives that would be lost in a mainland invasion.
“John was one of the people I admire most, and half of my thinking is based on what he did,” recalls Rovelli with a sad chuckle. “He was the one who first recognised my work.” But when Wheeler invited the young Rovelli to Princeton, the pair fell to talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “I found the argument he used – it’s OK to kill many hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to save the lives of a few American boys – disgusting. Not a few American boys in America living a life – but sent there to conquer an island which is not American. Japan had already lost the war.”
Rovelli’s early years help explain his revulsion for rearmament. He was jailed as a student for refusing the draft in Italy. “I’m Italian and we remember fascism grew with the idea that war is beautiful. War is what makes us great. War is fantastic.”
Let’s talk about Iran, I suggest. Isn’t it entitled to have nuclear weapons if Israel and the US do? “I don’t think we should think in terms of absolute right,” says Rovelli. “We have to live together, so we have to find compromises. If Iran did not feel under threat, it probably wouldn’t feel the need to go nuclear.”
The title of Rovelli’s book comes from the 2026 edition of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that set the Doomsday Clock at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest we’ve ever been to nuclear catastrophe. For Rovelli, the stupidity of our leaders has increased that risk. He thinks that everybody – from Trump, Putin and Netanyahu to the leaders of Nato and Iran – lacks the good sense shown by Khrushchev, Kennedy, Gorbachev and Reagan each of whom, he believes, helped pull humanity back from Armageddon.
As we finish, Rovelli asks me: “What politician has the courage to say, ‘Rather than making my own country stronger, I want to make humankind better’?’” Perhaps it’s not just my shortcomings but the nature of humanity’s plight in 2026 that no one comes to mind.
85 Seconds to Midnight by Carlo Rovelli is published by Penguin (£9.99). To order your copy, go to guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.
If Russia retaliated…
Third World War would be nuclear and the scale of destruction and killing could be orders of magnitude greater. This is the danger that today’s “loud little handful” could lead us toward, for their own narrow, selfish reasons. To date, we should be grateful that we’ve been spared these horrors thanks to President Putin’s restraint. Even though he’s been aware of Western involvement in attacks on Russia, he has steered clear from escalating to the point where the psychological phase transition in the West could take hold.
Before leaving 10 Downing Street, Sir Keir Starmer authorized another large-scale attack on Russia. If we’re not already in a nuclear war, we only have Vladimir Putin’s restraint to thank.
Alex Krainer, Jun 23, 2026, https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/if-russia-retaliated?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1063805&post_id=203233722&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer resigned yesterday. Before he departed 10 Downing Street the last time, he authorized another strike against Russia. Ukraine, UK’s “one hundred year” ally, conducted one of the largest attacks on Russian territory to date, using air-launched cruise missiles to hit military-related facilities in Voronezh city. The facilities in question produce components for Russian Kh-101 cruse missiles, Iskander-K missiles and Pantsir-S1 air defenses.
The Ukrainians allegedly used a version of UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles and/or AGM-188A, “Rusty Dagger” cruise missile, developed under the U.S. Air Force’s Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program to provide affordable, mass-produced long-range strike weapons for Ukraine.
Other missiles and drones were aimed at targets in the Moscow Oblast but apparently without any major damage reported. Today, President Putin gave a statement accusing the United States and Europe of directly enabling the strikes by providing satellite intelligence, targeting data, and navigation support for the long range attack and warning that such involvement signifies NATO’s direct entry into the war. Putin was telling the truth, as we know from a leaked 38-min. WebEx conversation of a group of German Generals.
Britain fully involved since (at least) 2024
Two of the four participants were top-level German military brass: commander of the German Air Force, Lieutenant General (Generalleutnant) Ingo Gerhartz; head of Air Force Operations and Training, Brigadier General (Brigadegeneral) Frank Gräfe (also spelled Graefe) — Head of Air Force Operations and Training. They discussed providing Ukraine with the German Taurus cruise missiles in order to provide a briefing on the initiative for German Defense Minister Boris, “Slava Ukraini” Pistorius.
The other two, lower-ranked participants were Oberstleutnant Florstedt and Oberstleutnant Fenske, both from German Air Operations Center. The call, which took place more than two years ago, on 19 February 2024, revealed that Great Britain was already directly involved in conducting strikes against Russia with military personnel who did the mission planning for the Storm Shadow missile strikes and helped loading Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles onto aircraft. And the British definitely want the world to know of their involvement. This article was published on Saturday, 20 June 2026:
Yesterday’s attacks were part of the same operation. Their significance, which is not lost on the Russian people, is that they were almost certainly a calculated provocation. They were conducted on the 85th anniversary of the launch of Operation Barbarossa when Nazi Germany assembled the largest ever invasion force. Defeating that force ultimately claimed the lives of 16 millions Russians.
All this is increasing the pressure on the President Putin to take the gloves off and strike at NATO targets. He has been careful not to escalate the war in this way. If such an escalation came to pass for whatever reason the world would find itself in a completely unpredictable and extremely dangerous new territory.
One of the most striking experiences in my life was the breakout of war in former Yugoslavia in 1991, and the reason was the almost instant change in collective psychology that took place as soon as the first artillery shells started landing in Croatia. Up until that moment, the vast majority of people – I’d venture to say, well north of 90% – believed that war was unthinkable; that it would never happen. Who could possibly want to fight a war? It seemed impossible; only a small handful of hotheads were advocating for war.
The stories circulating in Western media about the eruption of bottled-up centuries-old hatreds were utter nonsense. The peoples of former Yugoslavia were socially, economically and culturally deeply intertwined. In most cases we didn’t even know who, among our neighbors was a Serb, Croat or a Muslim and many families were mixed. However, once the war actually broke out, it took a life of its own wreaking death and destruction on large scale.
The collective psychology abruptly changed and a war psychology galvanized. It became fashionable to look at events in black and white and to wholly denounce the other side as enemies. Giving the enemy any benefit of the doubt and expressing empathy toward them suddenly became unpatriotic and suspicious.
The loud little handful
I still find it amazing that the war happened. It was clear that some people were pushing for it and that the media gave them disproportionate attention. Long ago, Mark Twain warned us about such people and about the way war psychology could creep into people’s hearts. His his words should haunt us today:
“The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for the war. The pulpit will–warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, ‘It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.’Then the handful will shout louder.
A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as earlier–but do not dare say so.
And now the whole nation–pulpit and all–will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”
If Russia retaliated, if it responded to British or US-orchestrated attacks and struck at a NATO target, we would see this process erupt on short order. The loud little handful in our midst will be shouting for war until they managed to generate the mass-formation psychosis that would make the war not only possible, but probably inevitable and Europe would fully share Ukraine’s tragic fate. Last two World Wars resulted in large-scale devastation and tens of millions of casualties. In today’s terminology, however, they were conventional wars.
Third World War would be nuclear and the scale of destruction and killing could be orders of magnitude greater. This is the danger that today’s “loud little handful” could lead us toward, for their own narrow, selfish reasons. To date, we should be grateful that we’ve been spared these horrors thanks to President Putin’s restraint. Even though he’s been aware of Western involvement in attacks on Russia, he has steered clear from escalating to the point where the psychological phase transition in the West could take hold.
Grand Deception
In 2017 I published my second book, titled Grand Deception. I felt compelled to write it because I realized that a very powerful network in Western financial centers were busy laying the groundwork for a future great war against Russia, and I felt that their agenda needed to be exposed to the public. Of course, they felt otherwise, so my book was banned after only five weeks. It was republished a few months later by Red Pill Press under a different title, but it only survived for six weeks.
Nevertheless, the cause of defending peace must never be neglected. Making sure that such a war never comes to pass should be the top priority for any thinking person. If we sleepwalk into the third great war on European continent, most of our endeavors in life, our dreams and hopes might not matter much. The way to resist the march to war is, first and foremost, to seek the truth and dare to speak it freely and courageously. We must reject the warmongers among our leaders and call them out on the lies they use to contrive consent for war. Wars are always started with lies.
Our opposition must not be shy or deferential: it must be bold, determined and relentless. We would also do well to turn toward our Russian fellow men and women and tell them loud and clear that we want peace, not war. The German people have done so even though their own leaders are among the most aggressive warmongers of all. On Saturday, 20 June 2026, hundreds of them gathered at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin to assert, “Russia is NOT our enemy,” and laid flowers at the Soviet war memorial. We need millions of people following suit.
We must start without delay to build the foundations for peace in our hearts and minds. There can be no justification for us to sleepwalk into another war. In addition to unprecedented scale of destruction and death, the economic, social and psychological damage from such a conflict would be such that it might take many generations to repair.
Censored Lavrov article Politico refused to publish (FULL TEXT)
This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences
The Russian foreign minister has shared his views on NATO expansion and EU militarization, including in the nuclear sphere, and the threat this poses to global security
18 Jun, 2026 , https://www.rt.com/russia/641806-lavrov-censored-politico-article/
The pro-establishment, Brussels-based publication Politico Europe, owned by Germany’s Axel Springer SE, has refused to publish an exclusive article written by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
Lavrov’s article was initially slated for publication in the Brussels-based Politico Europe, but due to a “last-minute decision by the outlet’s editorial team,” the publication was canceled, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.
In the article, Russia’s highly experienced top diplomat outlined Moscow’s view of the Ukrainian conflict, Europe’s role in escalating the crisis, and the broader implications for global security. Lavrov accused European leaders of using diplomacy as a cover for NATO and EU expansion, while arguing that the West has sought to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian foothold. He also warned that the EU’s growing militarization, including discussions about nuclear deterrence and “strategic autonomy,” could increase the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.
Below is the full text of Lavrov’s article, as published on the Russian Foreign Ministry website:
Some reflections on resolving the Ukrainian crisis, Europe and global security
At a meeting in London on June 7, 2026, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, as well as Vladimir Zelensky, laid out five preconditions for Russia to secure a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. United Europe now presents this list of demands as the basis for dialogue with Moscow.
Background
More than two decades of negotiations with Europe, as part of the collective West, lead to only one conclusion: engaging Russia in dialogue has served as a diplomatic smokescreen for the geopolitical expansion of Western institutions, above all NATO and the European Union, eastwards, right up to Russia’s borders.
Europe’s complicity in fueling the Ukrainian crisis is undeniable. Together with the United States, European countries orchestrated the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004. To create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine, they spent years buying off politicians and entire parties, rewriting history and educational curricula, cultivating and nurturing Ukrainian nationalism, and going to great lengths to pull Ukraine away from Russia.
In 2013, the European Union outright rejected our proposal for a compromise on the association agreement – a deal Brussels had long been pressing Viktor Yanukovich to sign. It is worth recalling that Ukraine was offered unilateral market opening without reciprocal commitments – terms that would have proved incompatible with Kiev’s continued membership in the CIS free-trade zone. When Viktor Yanukovich requested a deferral, the Europeans incited street riots that swiftly escalated into a coup d’état in Kiev in February 2014.
Germany, France, and Poland then proved themselves to be equally treacherous. Having guaranteed that the agreement reached between the opposition and Viktor Yanukovich would be honored, they washed their hands of it the moment that same opposition, their own handiwork, took power. “Democracy,” they shrugged, “takes unexpected turns.”
Europe thereafter lent its backing to the new authorities. In Odessa on May 2, 2014, the burning alive of dozens of innocent supporters of closer ties with Russia did not draw a single word of condemnation from European capitals.
As co-guarantors of the 2015 Minsk Agreements, France and Germany effectively encouraged the Ukrainian regime to sabotage its own commitments. As Angela Merkel and François Hollande later conceded – after the special military operation had already begun – Kiev’s implementation of the Minsk Agreements, unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, was never genuinely intended. The objective, they admitted, was merely to buy time: to shore up the Armed Forces of Ukraine and flood them with Western weaponry.
Russia, for its part, explored every diplomatic avenue to defuse Europe’s security crisis. However, in January 2022, the United States and NATO rejected Russia’s proposal for legally binding mutual security guarantees. European NATO members actively endorsed that rebuff.
Following the launch of the special military operation, United Europe threw its support behind the British prime minister’s efforts to sabotage the Istanbul negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Boris Johnson’s appeal to Kiev – “don’t sign anything, just fight” – slammed the door on genuine diplomacy for the foreseeable future.
Current situation
So what has prompted European leaders to suddenly shift their rhetoric and start talking about negotiations, and what are they aiming to achieve with these statements? For instance, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has stated that the purpose of any dialogue with Russia is to dictate Europe’s terms. These include paying “reparations” to Ukraine; withdrawing troops from Transnistria and the South Caucasus; abolishing the “foreign agents” law; and accepting strict limits on the size of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces. In her framing, “there can be no just and lasting peace without accountability for Russia.” During the UN Security Council session on May 19, 2026, an EU representative made the point unequivocally: “Supporting Ukraine militarily does not contradict the pursuit of peace, but rather serves as a fundamental prerequisite for any credible, good-faith negotiations.”
Europe’s plan is to talk with Russia while simultaneously pressing ahead with a campaign of legal warfare orchestrated through the Council of Europe. Within this once-respected organization, an entire infrastructure is being assembled for the express purpose of “holding Russia accountable”: a Register of Damage, a Claims Commission, and a Special Tribunal.
The European Union has also given the green light to detaining merchant vessels on the high seas. Several incidents have already taken place in the Baltic and the Atlantic. At the same time, the West studiously averts its gaze from the terrorist acts of sabotage perpetrated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.
The real objective of Europe’s leaders, then, is not to negotiate with Russia. It is to shore up the Zelensky regime and preserve it as a launchpad for continued confrontation against Russia. With this in mind, European leaders are scrambling to secure a ceasefire as quickly as possible and for one reason only: to prevent the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the battlefield. The plan is to “freeze” the conflict without addressing its root causes, and then rapidly deploy military contingents from the Anglo-French “coalition of the willing” onto Ukrainian soil.
It is widely known that European elites have invested their “political capital” in the confrontation with Russia, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into propping up the Kiev regime and ramping up the military budgets of EU member states and NATO. Europe now aims to achieve “defense readiness” against Russia by 2030. Until then, they mean to buy time by whatever means are available. In a strikingly candid remark this April, Belgium’s chief of staff put it bluntly: “We still have a few years. Thanks to the courage and blood of the Ukrainians, who are buying us that time.”
United Europe continues to dream of expansion. It intends to absorb Ukraine and Moldova while pulling Armenia into its sphere of influence. NATO has already expanded eastward, swallowing up Finland and Sweden. As for Ukraine, it is increasingly being eyed as the “striking fist” of a future European military force, independent of the United States and independent of NATO.
Risks to global security
This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences
Under the banner of “strategic autonomy,” Europe is witnessing a significant build-up of its military capabilities, including in the nuclear sphere. Paris’s intention to extend its “nuclear umbrella” to several EU and NATO member states is a source of deep concern. This will do nothing to strengthen the security of France itself or of the recipients of its so-called protection.
For all that, Europe’s political and military establishment continues to attribute aggressive plans to Russia – plans that, they claim, reach far beyond Ukraine. The Russian president has stated on numerous occasions that all of this is nonsense, provocation, and disinformation, aimed solely at extracting budget funds for the fight against Russia. That is scarcely the climate for substantive dialogue.
Russia’s position
As for negotiations, Vladimir Putin reiterated at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that Russia is not opposed to contacts with any party. We see Europe, however, as a party bent on Russia’s defeat – a stance the Europeans themselves openly avow. Dialogue with Europe, therefore, cannot be conducted as though it were an impartial third-party observer.
Russia would prefer to achieve the goals of the special military operation through diplomacy.
That requires reliably guaranteeing security along Russia’s western borders and ensuring respect and dignity for our citizens and compatriots, including the right to speak their native Russian language and practice the Orthodox Christian faith. Further military, political, and economic expansion by the West is unacceptable: it runs counter to the imperatives of a multipolar world.
European leaders should recognize that the model of regional security built in Europe over decades, ever since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, has been destroyed by their own hands. And it will never be restored. We must now move toward creating a continent-wide security architecture open to all Eurasian countries and reflective of today’s multipolar reality.
The principle of equal and indivisible security, trampled upon by the Euro-Atlanticists, can be embodied within a new Eurasian architecture. When the time is ripe, Europe too will be able to join this great effort.
The key point is that meaningful dialogue requires the restoration of trust, shattered by the anti-Russian actions of the West, and Europe as part of it, in the post-Cold War era. Trust can be recovered only through concrete steps that demonstrate a sincere commitment to moving away from using diplomacy as a cover for expansionist ambitions. Trust cannot be restored, nor can dialogue be resumed, through ultimatums such as the one issued to Russia in London on June 7, 2026.
P.S. It is noteworthy that the London ultimatum was unequivocally reaffirmed by the ambassadors of Britain, France, and Germany at the meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 11, 2026 – a meeting they had so insistently requested. That was the sole purpose of their visit to the ministry.
ROSATOM report
Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine has profoundly altered the
political and strategic environment in which the Russian state nuclear
corporation Rosatom operates. Not only has the war intensified scrutiny of
the corporation’s role in nuclear safety, energy security, and
international governance, but it has also highlighted the extent to which
Rosatom functions today at the intersection of technology, state policy,
and geopolitical influence.
In this report, we at Bellona continue to
analyze Rosatom during wartime. We argue that Rosatom can no longer be
understood solely through the traditional framework of a civilian nuclear
operator or global technology supplier. Rather, it has increasingly emerged
as a multifunctional state instrument—combining industrial, strategic,
and political roles both within Russia and internationally.
Several broader
conclusions emerge from the report: Rosatom’s wartime role has deepened
institutionally and politically, reinforcing its function not only as a
nuclear corporation, but as a strategic component of Russian state policy;
The occupation of the Zaporizhzhia NPP represents a challenge to
established assumptions in nuclear governance, exposing gaps in
international mechanisms designed to respond to conflict involving nuclear
infrastructure; Despite sanctions pressure and geopolitical disruption,
Rosatom has maintained significant external reach, particularly through
long-term projects in the Global South and through forms of nuclear
diplomacy that remain politically resilient.
Bellona 11th June 2026, https://network.bellona.org/content/uploads/sites/4/2026/06/ROSATOM_report_2026_ENG.pdf
Putin Powerfully Rebuffed The Hawks Who Want Him To Attack NATO
Andrew Korybko, Jun 10, 2026, https://korybko.substack.com/p/putin-powerfully-rebuffed-the-hawks
In his words, talk about Russia attacking NATO “is not simply nonsense; it is a provocation.”
Several top “Non-Russian Pro-Russians” (NRPR) influencers rang the alarm last month about Russia’s alleged plans to attack NATO, which were inspired by top hawk Sergey Karaganov and then Russian Ambassador to the OSCE Dmitry Polyanskiy ominously channeling his rhetoric. Readers can review examples of their warnings here, here, here, here, and here. Casual NRPRs therefore braced themselves for what would have in that scenario almost certainly been the start of World War III had it come to pass.
It obviously hasn’t and it likely won’t ever, however, judging by Putin’s response when he was recently asked about these alleged plans during a meeting with foreign journalists. In his words, “Why would Russia attack Europe or go to war with NATO? What would be the purpose? As I have said before, these claims are not merely nonsense. In my view, they are a deliberate provocation designed to create the impression of a threat that does not actually exist.”
Putin then elaborated that “The objective is to persuade their populations to increase defence spending and, as a first step, to pay for the regime that seized power in Kiev. That, I believe, is the real explanation. It is not simply nonsense; it is a provocation. What surprises me, however, is that some people in European countries appear to believe it. I find that astonishing. The whole notion is simply absurd. It would be amusing if it were not so sad.”
It’s not just “some people in European countries” who “appear to believe it”, but his own top hawk is championing this policy and it was recently amplified to the max by top NRPR influencers, many of whom can be described as “state-adjacent” due to being platformed by publicly financed media, attending government-organized conferences, and/or taking state-secured tours of Donbass. Casual NRPRs are therefore left to wonder whether Putin is telling the truth or is “psyching out the West”.
It’s always best to defer to what Putin himself says in such cases whenever confusion arises, which is due to top NRPR influencers practicing what’s been called “Potemkinism”, or the creation of “alternative realities” about Russian interests and policy for “strategic purposes” (whatever they might be). The most infamous example is that Putin is an anti-Zionist secretly allied with Iran against Israel despite him being a proud lifelong philo-Semite as proven by his many quotes to this end from the official Kremlin website.
Accordingly, while it would be inaccurate describe the fiercely loyal Karaganov as a “provocateur” in the spirit of how Putin condemned such folks who advocate for Russia to attack NATO, he nevertheless powerfully rebuffed hawks such as him as well as the top NRPR influencers who hyped up his rhetoric. That said, Russia’s foreign spy service did indeed warn last month that their country might carry out retaliatory strikes against Latvia if Ukraine launches drones from there, which should be taken seriously.
That’s altogether different than what Karaganov has been pushing for, namely a first strike against NATO that could easily spiral into World War III, and it’s important for casual NRPRs to understand this. As Putin himself phrased it, such talk “is not simply nonsense; it is a provocation.” When those on Russia’s side do it, no matter what their intentions might be, they inadvertently “persuade [Westerners] to increase defence spending and, as a first step, to pay for the regime that seized power in Kiev.”
1 This Month
of the week – Hiroshima Nagasaki Day Coalition – Working together for the abolition of n\nuclear weapons – https://www.hiroshimadaycoalition.ca/
No Nuclear in Cwm Llynfi! Stop the nuclear power station near Maesteg.
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- August 2026 (92)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
-
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 