nuclear-news

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

Russia strengthens security at Kursk nuclear power plant amid Ukraine’s assault in region

Russian Guard Corps says additional forces deployed in vicinity of plant to protect it from Ukraine’s attack

Elena Teslova  |07.08.202, MOSCOW , https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/russia-strengthens-security-at-kursk-nuclear-power-plant-amid-ukraines-assault-in-region/3298072

Russia said Wednesday that it strengthened security at the Kursk nuclear power plant amid Ukraine’s assault in the region. 

The Russian Guard Corps said it took additional measures to ensure the safety of the plant, including the deployment of additional units in the area.

“As part of ensuring the safety of a particularly important facility, the Russian Guard Corps units took additional measures to protect the Kursk nuclear power plant,” it said.

It added that the security services increased their forces to combat the Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups in the Kursk and Belgorod regions.

The office of Kursk’s Acting Gov. Alexey Smirnov announced that emergency situation forces were introduced in the region because of ongoing combat operations and the situation on the border “remains tense.”

Additional forces have also been allocated to the operational headquarters under the leadership of the governor of the Kursk region to handle the incursion, it said.

The Russian chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, said Wednesday that up to 1,000 Ukrainian troops attacked Russia’s military positions near two border settlements adjacent to Ukraine’s Sumy region on Tuesday.

At least five civilians were killed and 24 injured in the attack, including six children, according to statements from regional authorities.

Ukraine has not yet commented on the claims and independent verification is difficult because of the war.​​​​​​​

August 8, 2024 Posted by | Russia, safety | Leave a comment

Putin often cites Russia’s ‘nuclear doctrine’ governing the use of atomic weapons. But what is it?

9 News, By Associated Press, 1 August 24

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, President Vladimir Putin and other Kremlin voices have frequently threatened the West with its nuclear arsenal.

On Day 1 of the war, Putin said “whoever tries to impede us, let alone create threats for our country and its people, must know that the Russian response will be immediate and lead to consequences you have never seen in history”.

Over nearly two and a half years of fighting, the West has given Ukraine billions of dollars of advanced weapons, some of which have struck Russian soil.

And while there have been more Kremlin threats – and even the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons in Belarus, just over the border from Ukraine – so far it has remained only a blunt message.

What could finally trigger a nuclear response?

Asked that in June by international news agencies, Putin pointed to Russia’s so-called nuclear doctrine.

“Look what is written there,” he said at the St Petersburg session.

“If somebody’s actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it possible to use all means at our disposal.”

Now Russian hawks are urging him to change the doctrine to lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and Putin says the document could be modified to take into account the evolving global situation.

What is Russia’s nuclear doctrine?

Formally known as the “Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence”, it was signed by Putin in 2020 and outlines when Russia could dip into its atomic arsenal, the world’s largest.

It describes nuclear weapons as “a means of deterrence”, noting that their use is an “extreme and compelled measure”.

It declares that Russia “takes all necessary efforts to reduce the nuclear threat and prevent aggravation of interstate relations that could trigger military conflicts, including nuclear ones”.

The document states that “nuclear deterrence is aimed to provide comprehension by a potential adversary of the inevitability of retaliation in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”

What does it say will trigger using nuclear weapons?

Russia could use them, the doctrine says, “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy”.

It says nuclear weapons could be used under the following specific situations:

  • If reliable information is received about the launch of ballistic missiles targeting the territory of Russia or its allies.
  • If nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction are used against Russia or its allies.
  • If an enemy attack with conventional weapons threatens Russia’s existence.
  • If there are attacks on critically important Russian government or military facilities that could undermine the country’s retaliatory nuclear strike capability.

Has any attack so far come close to crossing this threshold?

As Russia attacked parts of northeastern Ukraine near the city of Kharkiv, Washington has allowed Kyiv to use longer-range US-supplied weapons for strikes in Russian territory in the border region.

But these attacks have been limited in scope and would not seem to pose an existential threat that would fall under the nuclear doctrine.

However, the hawks in Moscow have pointed to a series of Ukrainian attacks on Russian air bases that host long-range nuclear capable bombers earlier in the conflict, as well as recent raids on early warning radars.

They say these circumstances would seem to warrant the use of nuclear weapons as laid out in the doctrine…………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.9news.com.au/world/russia-nuclear-weapons-vladimir-putin/c2c4b211-658d-4b11-b6bc-656b56c5bd39

August 2, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Tit for tat? Putin warns Russia may resume production of intermediate-range nuclear weapons

Edited By: Vikrant Singh Jul 28, 2024 https://www.wionews.com/world/tit-for-tat-putin-declares-russia-to-resume-production-of-intermediate-range-nuclear-weapons-744964

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday (Jul 28) declared his nation won’t shy away from resuming production of intermediate-range nuclear weapons if the US goes ahead with plans of deploying such missiles to Germany or elsewhere in Europe. These missiles can travel between 500 and 5,500 kilometres.

“If the United States carries out such plans, we will consider ourselves liberated from the unilateral moratorium previously adopted on the deployment of medium- and short-range strike capabilities,” Putin threatened during a naval parade in Saint Petersburg.

Notably, intermediate-range nuclear weapons were subject to an arms control treaty that the US and Soviet Union signed in 1987. However, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty collapsed in 2019 after both sides accused each other of violations.

Following the withdrawal from the treaty, Russia announced it wouldn’t start production of the weapons until the US started deploying these missiles abroad.

Earlier this month, the US announced it will start “episodic deployments” of long-range US missiles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, in Germany beginning 2026.

Now, Russia sees it as a direct threat to its national security. After the deployment by the US, Putin said that “important Russian administrative and military sites” would fall within the range of such missiles that “could in the future be equipped with nuclear warheads, such that our territories would be within around 10 minutes” of a strike being launched.

“This situation reminds us of the events of the Cold War linked to the deployment of American Pershing medium-range missiles in Europe,” the Russian leader added.

Earlier in March, Putin had said Russia was “technically ready” for a nuclear war if the US sent troops to Ukraine.

“From a military-technical point of view, we are, of course, ready,” Putin had said.

“I don’t think that here everything is rushing to it (nuclear confrontation), but we are ready for this,” the Russian leader further said.

July 30, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Putin warns the US of Cold War-style missile crisis

Reuters By Guy Faulconbridge and Dmitry Antonov, July 28, 2024

  • Summary
  • Russia warns United States over missiles in Germany
  • Putin says Russia will deploy if plans are implemented
  • Putin: United States risks Cold War-style crisis
  • U.S. plans to deploy longer range missiles in Germany

MOSCOW, July 28 (Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday warned the United States that if Washington deployed long-range missiles in Germany then Russia would station similar missiles in striking distance of the West.

The United States said on July 10 that it would start deploying long-range missiles, opens new tab in Germany from 2026 in preparation for a longer-term deployment that will include SM-6, Tomahawk cruise missiles and developmental hypersonic weapons.

n a speech to sailors from Russia, China, Algeria and India to mark Russian navy day in the former imperial capital of St Petersburg, Putin warned the United States that it risked triggering a Cold War-style missile crisis with the move.

“The flight time to targets on our territory of such missiles, which in the future may be equipped with nuclear warheads, will be about 10 minutes,” Putin said.

“We will take mirror measures to deploy, taking into account the actions of the United States, its satellites in Europe and in other regions of the world.”……………………………………….  Https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-warns-united-states-cold-war-style-missile-crisis-2024-07-28/

July 30, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Russia, USA | Leave a comment

Russia Says It May Deploy Nuclear Missiles in Response to New US Missile Deployment to Germany

 by Dave DeCamp July 18, 2024,  https://news.antiwar.com/2024/07/18/russia-says-it-may-deploy-nuclear-missiles-in-response-to-new-us-missile-deployment-to-germany/

The US is deploying missiles previously banned by the INF, a treaty between the US and Russia the Trump administration left in 2019

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Thursday that Moscow won’t rule out deploying nuclear missiles in response to the US planning to deploy missile systems to Germany in 2026 that were previously banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

“I don’t rule anything out,” Ryabkov said when asked about the possibility of a nuclear deployment.

Ryabkov went on to reference Kaliningrad, the Russian Oblast on the Baltic Sea that’s wedged between Lithuania and Poland and separated from the rest of Russia. He said the territory “has long attracted the unhealthy attention of our opponents.”

Hinting Russia could respond to the US deployment by sending weapons to Kaliningrad, Ryabkov said, “Kaliningrad is no exception in terms of our 100 percent determination to do everything necessary to push back those who may harbor aggressive plans and who try to provoke us to take certain steps that are undesirable for anyone and are fraught with further complications.”

The INF, which the US withdrew from in 2019, prohibited land-based missile systems with a range between 310 and 3,400 miles. The planned US deployment to Germany includes a land-based version of nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 miles and are primarily used by US Navy ships and submarines.

The US announced the deployment during last week’s NATO summit in Washington and said it would also include SM-6 missiles and “developmental hypersonic weapons.” Based on the statement, the US likely plans to deploy a Typhon launcher, a covert system concealed in a 40-foot shipping container that can fire Tomahawks and SM-6 missiles. The SM-6 can hit targets up to 290 miles away, below the levels previously banned by the INF.

When the US withdrew from the INF treaty, it claimed Russia was violating the agreement by developing the ground-launched 9M729 cruise missile. Russian officials denied the missile was a violation, saying it had a maximum range of 298 miles.

Russia also said the US was violating the INF by establishing Aegis Ashore missile defense systems in Romania and Poland. The systems use Mk-41 vertical launchers, which can fit Tomahawk missiles. During the NATO summit, the US also announced that its Aegis system in Poland is now operational.

The US refused to negotiate with Russia on the INF issues, and the Trump administration tore up the treaty in August 2019 and began testing previously banned missile systems almost immediately after. It was clear the US exited the treaty so it could deploy intermediate-range missiles near China, leading Russia to propose a moratorium on the deployment of INF missiles in Europe. But the US never accepted the offer.

July 23, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russian Officials Vow Response to US Missile Deployment to Germany

There’s no indication yet that the missiles will be armed with nuclear weapons, but the statement leaves open the possibility. The US already has nuclear bombs stationed in Germany as part of NATO’s nuclear sharing, but they are B61 gravity bombs that need to be dropped from aircraft.

Officials across the government reacted strongly to the news that the US is deploying previously banned missiles that could hit Russian territory

by Dave DeCamp July 11, 2024 , https://news.antiwar.com/2024/07/11/russian-officials-vow-response-to-us-missile-deployment-to-germany/

On Thursday, Russian officials reacted strongly and vowed to respond to the US announcing that it will deploy missile systems to Germany starting in 2026 that were previously banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

“Without nerves, without emotions, we will develop a military response, first of all, to this new game,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov. He called the US decision “destructive to regional safety and strategic stability.”

Anatoly Antonov, Russia’s ambassador in Washington, said the deployment could lead to confrontation. “The Americans are increasing the risk of a missile arms race. Here, they forget that going the way of confrontation may set off an uncontrollable escalation amid the dangerous aggravation of tensions along the Russia-NATO track,” he said.

Valentina Matviyenko, speaker of the Federation Council, Russia’s upper house of parliament, warned of a strong response if the US goes through with the deployment. “I hope that it will not happen, because Russia’s response will be harsh and adequate. This is simply unacceptable,” she said.

The INF prohibited land-based missile systems with a range between 310 and 3,400 miles. The US and Germany said in a joint statement that the planned deployment includes a land-based version of nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 miles and are primarily used by US Navy ships and submarines.

The US and Germany also said that the deployment will include SM-6 missiles, which have a range of about 290 miles, and “developmental hypersonic weapons.” The statement said the missiles have “significantly longer range than current land-based fires in Europe.”

There’s no indication yet that the missiles will be armed with nuclear weapons, but the statement leaves open the possibility. The US already has nuclear bombs stationed in Germany as part of NATO’s nuclear sharing, but they are B61 gravity bombs that need to be dropped from aircraft.

Before the INF was signed in 1987, the Soviet Union had land-based nuclear-armed missiles deployed in its western territory that could hit western Europe, and the US had similar systems deployed that could hit Soviet territory.

When the US withdrew from the INF treaty, it claimed Russia was violating the agreement by developing the ground-launched 9M729 cruise missile. Russian officials denied the missile was a violation, saying it had a maximum range of 298 miles.

Russia also said the US was violating the INF by establishing Aegis Ashore missile defense systems in Romania and Poland. The systems use Mk-41 vertical launchers, which can fit Tomahawk missiles. During the NATO summit, the US also announced that its Aegis system in Poland is now operational.

The US refused to negotiate with Russia on the INF issues, and the Trump administration tore up the treaty in August 2019 and began testing previously banned missile systems almost immediately after. It was clear the US exited the treaty so it could deploy intermediate-range missiles near China, leading Russia to propose a moratorium on the deployment of INF missiles in Europe. But the US never accepted the offer.

July 14, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia might restart the Zaporizhzhia Ukrainian nuclear plant it seized, our new report shows

 Charles Digges, Bellona, 2 July 24

“……………………………………………….. Russia has taken over the plant with its own technicians while coercing the Ukrainian workers who remain to sign contracts with Rosenergoatom, the branch of Rosatom, responsible for day-to-day operations at the 11 nuclear plants within Russia. The Kremlin has also spun off another commercial tendril from Rosatom to oversee the management of the captive plant.  

But should a potential restart continue to unfold, the principal nuclear threat of Putin’s war on Ukraine could soon be an atomic energy station operating on the front lines of a protracted war.

Since early in the invasion, all of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant’s reactors have been placed in various states of shutdown. This was a critical safety measure, urged by the IAEA and agreed to by both Moscow and Kyiv, which would dampen the impact of a radiological disaster should any of the reactors suffer a catastrophic strike.  

In this setting, the content of short-lived and highly dangerous radionuclides like iodine-131 in uranium fuel is much lower than if the plant was active because they have partially, or even completely decayed since September 2022. But once the reactors are restarted, these radionuclides will once again begin to form — making their spread into the environment a possibility should reactor containments be ruptured. 

Despite the obvious risks, recent statements from Russian officials and, more concretely, the activities of Russia’s technical oversight agency within Ukraine, indicate that the plant’s Russian occupiers could move to restart at least one of the reactor units sometime this year — thus removing this important assurance against disaster.  

To restart a reactor, Russian technicians would first have to guarantee an ample and stable supply of cooling water. This task was made more difficult by the destruction of the nearby Khakovka Dam in June 2023, which compromised several reservoirs used for precisely that purpose.   

But over the past year, the Russian side has announced plans to replenish the plant’s damaged cooling ponds, which would then be capable of supplying up to three reactors. 

Further, Russian technicians have begun to rewire the power grid to divert the electricity produced by the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant toward Russia and the occupied territories of Ukraine. Satellite images of the Rosatom-controlled Zaporizhzhia Terminal Power Plant, which connects the nuclear plant to the Ukrainian grid, show evidence of efforts to shift powerlines away from Ukraine and into the occupied regions. 

The plant has also recently played host to high-profile guests from Moscow. In April, Alexander Trembitsky, the head of Russia’s Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision, Rostekhnadzor) visited the plant to review personnel certifications and work toward extending the lifespan of the reactors. Rostekhnadzor officials have also been codifying licensing requirements for the plant to operate under Russian purview and reviewing various plant systems since the start of the year.  

That same month Sergei Kiriyenko, a former CEO of Rosatom and one of Putin’s first deputies, visited Enerhodar, where many plant workers live.  

This flurry of activity followed a March meeting in Sochi between Putin, current Rosatom CEO Alexei Likhachev, and IAEA director general Rafael Grossi, during which, according to media reports, Putin stated his intentions to restart Zaporizhzhia’s reactors. This remains diplomatically unconfirmed by other sources, but recent events seem to bear those intentions out.  

Kyiv vociferously protested Russia’s efforts to disconnect a nuclear plant that once supplied 5700 megawatts, or about 10%, of Ukraine’s entire electricity needs. There is little doubt that the military could fight back against any efforts to redirect this energy.

Still, efforts to relaunch the reactors may prove to be more effort than they are worth.  

Fresh nuclear fuel and spare parts would have to be transported across war zones. The pump station enhancing cooling water supplies is being constructed under conditions of military conflict. Powerlines will have to be rerouted under fire. All of this will cost billions of rubles, which, in our analysis, will hardly be recouped by tariffs on the power one or two Zaporizhzhia reactors would produce.  ………. https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2024-07-russia-might-restart-the-ukrainian-nuclear-plant-it-seized

July 4, 2024 Posted by | Russia, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

G7 Leaders Agree To Provide Ukraine With $50 Billion Using Frozen Russian Assets

The step will mark a significant escalation in the economic war against Russia

by Dave DeCamp June 13, 2024

Group of Seven leaders agreed at a summit in Italy on Thursday to give Ukraine $50 billion using frozen Russian Central Bank assets, a step that marks a significant escalation in the economic war against Russia.

The plan is to provide the $50 billion to Ukraine by the end of the year in the form of a loan, which will be paid back using profits from the approximately $280 billion in frozen Russian assets held by the US and its allies.

The idea is seen as a compromise between the US and Europe, as President Biden wanted to steal all of the frozen Russian funds to give to Ukraine. But the vast majority of the money is held in Europe, and EU leaders were hesitant to do that.

Instead, the EU devised a separate plan to provide Ukraine with about $3 billion per year using the interest made by the Russian assets. Ukraine said that amount wasn’t enough, and the US proposed the $50 billion loan.

“This has been something that the United States has put a lot of energy and effort into,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters. “We see proceeds from these assets as a valuable source of resources for Ukraine at a moment when Russia continues to brutalize the country, not just through military action on the front but through the attempted destruction of its energy grid and its economic vitality.”

Russia has made clear it would view either plan as the theft of its sovereign funds and is preparing to retaliate. Stealing the money makes reconciliation between Russia and the West even less likely since lifting sanctions would mean having to give assets back to Moscow that have already been spent. The move will also reduce faith in the Western banking system and speed up global de-dollarization.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Putin details Ukraine peace proposal


Theo Burman, Newsweek, Fri, 14 Jun 2024 https://www.sott.net/article/492265-Putin-details-Ukraine-peace-proposal

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday promised a ceasefire in Ukraine, provided that several conditions are met by Kyiv.

During a wide-ranging speech to foreign ministry officials, Putin stated that Russia would be ready to enter talks as soon as “tomorrow” to negotiate an end to conflict in Ukraine, provided that Ukrainian troops are withdrawn from several key regions. He also demanded that Ukraine give up all plans to join NATO, saying that the “moral responsibility for the continuation of bloodshed” would be on the West if the proposal was rejected.

Putin said: “I want to emphasize, it must be from the entire territory of these regions within their administrative borders as they existed at the time of their incorporation into Ukraine.

“As soon as Kyiv says they’re ready for such a decision and start the real withdrawal of forces from these regions and officially declare rejection of plans to join NATO, from our side, immediately, literally the same minute, will come an order to stop the fire and start negotiations.

“We will do it immediately. Obviously, we will guarantee the uninterrupted and safe withdrawal of Ukrainian forces.”

In order for the ceasefire to go through, Kyiv would need to withdraw troops from the Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Luhansk regions, effectively giving Moscow control.

Comment: Footage of the announcement: The essence of our proposal is not some kind of temporary truce or stop of fire, as the West wants, in order to restore losses, rearm the Kiev regime, and prepare it for a new offensive.

I repeat: we are not talking about freezing the conflict, but about its final but about its final completion. And I will say again: as soon as #Kiev agrees to a similar course of events proposed today, agrees to the complete withdrawal of its troops from the DPR and LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions and really begins this process, we are ready to to begin negotiations w/out delaying them.

I repeat, our principled position is the following: the neutral, non-aligned, non-nuclear status of #Ukraine, its demilitarization and denazification. Moreover, everyone generally agreed with these parameters during the Istanbul negotiations.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly said that he will continue to fight until all disputed regions of Ukraine have been liberated.

Ukraine has repeatedly lobbied to join NATO since before the escalation of the conflict. Putin has consistently branded the expansion of NATO, which admitted Finland into the organization in 2023, as a threat to Russian security and an escalation of tensions in the region.

Newsweek contacted Zelensky’s office for comment via email.

Putin also claimed that there was never an intention of Russian forces attacking Kiev directly, and that the original motive for the advance in 2022 was to force Ukraine to agree to a peace deal.

Russian media outlet Meduza reported that Putin was seeking a ceasefire beyond a “temporary truce”, and that peace negotiations would also require the lifting of Western sanctions on Russia, which have continued to damage the economy since the conflict began.

Putin said: “We would like such decisions — regarding the withdrawal of troops, non-aligned status, and starting a dialogue with Russia, on which the future existence of Ukraine depends — to be made independently in Kyiv, guided by the genuine national interests of the Ukrainian people. Not at the behest of the West. Although there are significant doubts about this.

“If Kyiv and Western capitals reject it, that is their choice, their political and moral responsibility for the continuation of bloodshed.”

Notably this occurs just a day or so after NATO announced its ‘readiness’ of 300,000 troops and their potential takeover of Europe, as well as Zelensky’s widely ridiculed ‘peace’ summit.

It also occurs amidst an unscheduled, ‘secret’ meeting of Prince William with MI6, the UK’s intelligence service for foreign operations; allegedly the last time he met with them was just prior to Russia’s SMO in Ukraine.

Rather than this being some kind of appeasement from Russia to NATO, one might suppose Putin is making one last ditch attempt to propose a resolution with the agreement-incapable West, before it is, yet again, forced to take extraordinary measures:

June 16, 2024 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why the West should take Russia’s nuclear threats more seriously.

Russian nuclear threats have returned to the forefront of the war in Ukraine, but
this time with a new feature: exercises involving tactical nuclear weapons.
These exercises come in response to Western powers signaling broader
support for Ukraine.

On April 29, for instance, French President Emmanuel
Macron reaffirmed his position that France remains open to sending ground
troops to Ukraine to bolster European security against Russian aggression.
Shortly after, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, David Cameron,
announced that the UK government would support Ukraine using UK-supplied
weapons against Russian territory.

In response, Russia characterized these
statements as a “completely new round of escalation of tension” and
announced on May 6 that it would conduct drills simulating the use of
tactical nuclear weapons, or—as Russia describes
them—“non-strategic” nuclear weapons. Although these drills
constitute a new kind of nuclear threat, they have been dismissed as not
credible by a growing number of European countries. But the fine line
between skepticism and complacency could pose significant risks for crisis
stability in Europe.

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 12th June 2024

https://thebulletin.org/2024/06/why-the-west-should-take-russias-nuclear-threats-more-seriously/

June 16, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia was ready to withdraw from southern Ukraine – Putin

 https://www.rt.com/russia/599297-putin-russia-kherson-zaporozhye-ukraine/ 13 June 24

Kiev could have retained sovereignty over two of its former regions if it had agreed to guarantee Moscow free land access to Crimea, the president has revealed

Russia was open to withdrawing its troops from Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions early in the Ukraine conflict on the condition that Kiev agreed to an uninterrupted land connection between Crimea and the mainland, President Vladimir Putin stated on Friday.

Speaking at a meeting with the country’s senior diplomats, Putin revealed that in early March 2022, as Russian troops were advancing into southern Ukraine, a senior foreign politician representing the West proposed mediating the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. While Putin did not name the leader, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev identified him as then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.

According to the Russian president, Bennett asked officials in Moscow at the time why Russian troops were operating in Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions, given that their stated goal was to help Donbass.

Bennett was told the decision to send Russian troops to those regions was made based on the plans drawn by the General Staff, which sought to bypass heavily fortified Ukrainian positions in Donbass, Putin explained. According to the Russian leader, when Bennett asked whether Russian troops would remain in Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions after the end of the conflict, Putin said he was open to the idea of pulling them back to their bases.

“I replied that, in general, I do not rule out that Ukraine will retain its sovereignty over these territories, provided that Russia will have a solid land connection to Crimea.”

Putin noted that to secure the guarantee, Moscow and Kiev would have to sign a legally binding “servitude” agreement, a property law that ties rights and obligations to the ownership or possession of land.

The deal would then have to be finalized with the involvement of the UN Security Council, as well as local citizens and the Russian public.

However, when Bennett traveled to Kiev to present Moscow’s proposal to the Ukrainian government, it was rejected, and the Israeli leader was branded a Russian sympathizer, Putin noted.

Now, this proposal is off the table, given that Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions, along with the two Donbass republics, voted to join Russia in public referendums in the fall of 2022, Putin stated. “There can be no talk of violating our national unity… This question is closed forever and beyond any debate.”

At the same time, Putin signaled that Moscow was ready for talks with Ukraine on the condition that Kiev fully withdraws its troops from Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions and abandons plans to join NATO. But the proposal has been rejected by Kiev, which insists upon returning the country to its 1991 borders.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Putin Offers Reasonable Peace Terms to Ukraine; Zelenskiy Instantly Rejects Them; West Prepares for War.

OLIVER BOYD-BARRETT, JUN 14, 2024, https://oliverboydbarrett.substack.com/p/putin-offers-reasonable-peace-terms?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=305689&post_id=145649348&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=cqey&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Putin’s Conditions for Peace

At a meeting yesterday, June 13th, with the board of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Putin has laid out Russia’s condition for peace in the Ukraine conflict. Although Ukraine’s foreign minister has already rejected these conditions as “absurd,” they are clearly very significant. Ukraine’s rejection comes from the representative of a government whose legislative record includes a prohibition of any kind of negotiation with the current Russian government and whose only recently stated terms of settlement are a complete Russian withdrawal from all the territories that Russia has occupied, payment of reparations and punishment for alleged war crimes.

Putin’s terms, on the other hand, build on the Istanbul peace agreement of March 2022, drafts of which were endorsed by both Russian and Ukrainian signatories, but which were then undermined by Washington through the agency of former British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson who told Ukraine that NATO could not support the terms of the agreement, that Ukraine should fight on, and that NATO would supply all the weapons that Ukraine would need to win the war.

Well, here we are, over two years later. Ukraine has clearly not won the war. NATO weapons have not been sufficient for it to win the war. The Ukrainian army is showing some indications of collapse, as is the nation of Ukraine itself, still under the charge of a President whose legitimate (and, indeed, constitutionally permitted) term of office has now expired and who has refused to call elections that would almost certainly have replaced him.

Why? Because Ukraine has become a mere vassal to Washington, with very little agency over how to fight the war and no agency whatsover in how to fund it; it has lost well over half a million men, dead and wounded, on the battlefields; millions have fled; Ukraine’s recent mobilization is highly unpopular; the country is subject, on a very regular basis, to missile and drone attacks across the entire territory of Ukraine that are highly damaging in their consequences for what remains of Ukrainian industry and commerce; the country has lost 20% of its territory and a good deal more of its wealth; the regime has suppressed political parties it does not like, and any free speech it does not like, even worship it does not like.

If that was not enough let us not forget that Zelinskiy, considered by Scott Ritter to be an agent of Western intelligence, came to power on the back of financial support from a Ukrainian oligarch, promising a peaceful settlement of the conflict with Russia.

Putin is saying to Ukraine that it could achieve an immediate ceasefire if it withdraws all its troops from the four former oblasts of Ukraine that Russia currently occupies and which Russia has integrated into the Russian Federation, and publicly abandons its quest to join NATO. It is clear that Russia would expect to retain Crimea, whose governing body in 2014 sought integration into the Russian Federation for protection from a virulently anti-Russian coup regime in Kiev. All these territories are either predominantly Russian-speaking or have substantial populations of Russian-speakers and whose cultures (including, formerly, Russian language mass media) are significantly associated with that of Russia. There is very little evidence of resistance from the populations of these territories to Russian control and numerous surveys have confirmed that the people of Crimea are content with their 2014 choice.

Long ago, Ukraine rejected the possibility of a far more peaceful outcome to the conflict which had started out, primarily, as a conflict between two antagonistic peoples who had been cobbled together first, by the Soviet Union and then, by Kiev. That peaceful outcome would have been a de-concentration of central power in Kiev – a form of federalization if you will – that would have allowed what were then the People’s Republics of Luhansk and Dontetsk (formed in the immediate aftermath of the illegal, US-supported, US-funded, violent and anti-democratic coup d’etat of 2014) greater autonomy within the umbrella of Ukraine.

An arrangement along these lines was agreed by Ukraine, Russia and, through OSCE (The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), the European powers (notably Germany) in the so-called Minsk accords of 2014 and 2015, following defeat of Kiev by militia of the People’s Republics. These were never implemented. Both Ukrainian and European leaders are on record as saying that they never intended that Minsk should be implemented; that the intention of Kiev and Europe was to sign the Minsk accords simply to buy more time for Ukraine, with Western assistance, to rebuild its armed forces and to retake the People’s Republics. Indeed, the threat of imminent attack by Ukraine on the People’s Republics was one factor that compelled Putin to launch the Special Military Operation in February, 2022. Other factors included the rejection by the US to honor a commitment given Putin by Biden that the US would not establish nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and to enter into dialog about other such threats to Russian national security interests in Poland and Romania.

If Ukraine today withdraws from what it regards as Russian occupied territories and promises to forego efforts for membership of NATO, then an immediate ceasefire will come into effect. This would not be a “frozen conflict,” Putin has explained. It would be the start of a period of negotiations and in these negotiations Russia would still advance its other demands namely demilitarization of Ukraine, and its de-nazification, all this within a broader compass that would involve not just European but also other nations in discussions about the construction of, and guarantees for, a new European security architecture. On considering the outcome of the GT meeting (see below), I wonder whether Russian interests might actually be better served in the context of a complete victory, given that this would obviate, in the “dictation of terms” all questions of reparations and war crimes, and include the unfreezing and return of Russian assets in Europe and the US.

G7 Meeting

There have been at least two important outcomes of the G7 meeting that occurred in Apulia, Southern Italy, still in progress, from June 13 to June 15th. Significantly, Putin delivered his address (see above) to the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 13th. The meeting comes shortly before the so-called Swiss Peace Conference in Bürgenstock on June 15th and 16th, and ahead of the NATO Summit in Washington from July 9th to July 11th. It is relevant to note that the next meeting of the BRICS will be in October, in Kazan at which the agenda will include considerations of the admission of BRICS of over 30 countries that are interested in joining (which include Turkey, which would have to give up its membership of NATO were it to join), and the construction of an international financial order in which countries could trade freely outside the petrodollar zone (which BRICS member Saudi Arabia has just abandoned).

$50 Billion Loan for Ukraine

The New York Times report of July 14 specifies that the United States, the EU and other G7 countries plan to give Ukraine a $50 billion loan to help it buy weapons and begin to rebuild damaged infrastructure. The money will be repaid over time with the profits earned from Russian assets, some $300 billion, about two-thirds of which are in Europe. Interest on matured bonds is already creating a return of return, depending on the interest rate, of $3 billion to $4 billion a year. Rather than just providing Ukraine that relatively small yearly sum, the G7 countries have adopted the concept of loan. This could be provided to Ukraine by the end of this year. Ukraine’s current financial and military needs are estimated at about $100 billion a year.

The G7 countries have agreed to put up the money for the loan. At the moment, it seems that the European Union is prepared to put up half, about $25 billion to $30 billion, with the Americans and others putting up the rest. Since most of the assets are in Europe, the Europeans want to ensure that, as the proceeds are spent, European companies get a fair share, especially European arms manufacturers. Ukraine therefore will be the beneficiary of the profits from the Russian assets, but will not be responsible for repaying the loan.

Liability is expected to be shared among the countries that issue it. In effect, therefore, the collective West will use interest on Russian assets for the purposes of fighting and weaponizing the war, to pay off the country’s budgetary deficit (which might include, therefore, payments due on aid that Ukraine has so far received in the form of other loans from Western countries) and to pay for post-war reconstruction. This money would be lent to Ukraine but Ukraine would not be expected to pay it back because those countries through whom the loan is distributed will also guarantee it – in other words, would take responsibility of paying off the loan. My guess is that the ultimate intent is to pay it back, once again, by drawing on interest or on the frozen assets themselves.

The loan will go to Ukraine by the end of the year and will be used to support Ukraine militarily, including helping it establish arms factories on its territory; cover the country’s budgetary deficit; and in reconstruction of infrastructure. Disbursement is supposed to depend in part on Ukraine’s ability to use the money to good effect. We don’t yet know through which agencies the money will be disbursed and whether Ukraine would decide for itself how to use the money (surely not). Whether the legality of this procedure can be supported in countries whose financial industries are not held captive by Western politicians is questionable, as well as the willingness of third-party nations to park any assets of any kind in the countries or the financial institutions of the collective West.

Bilateral Security Agreement between US and Ukraine

US President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement on 13 June aimed at strengthening Kyiv’s defence capabilities. The United States is the 16th country with which Ukraine has signed a bilateral security agreement. The agreement has been promoted as a step towards “Ukraine’s eventual membership in the NATO alliance” (something which some representatives of NATO members have said would take up to thirty years) and as reaffirmation of US support for Kyiv. More specifically the agreement is intended to sustain significant military force and capabilities. It also states that the:

United States intends to provide long-term materiel, training, and advisory, technical, intelligence, security, defence-industrial, institutional, and other assistance to “develop Ukrainian security and defence forces that are capable of defending a sovereign, independent, democratic Ukraine and deterring future aggression.”

… in the event of an armed attack on Ukraine or the threat of such an attack, American and Ukrainian authorities will meet within 24 hours to consult and determine what extra defence necessities Ukraine has.

This latter is somewhat loose and probably meaningless language. The agreement falls well short of membership of NATO. It is time-limited and, even so, recognises that a future US president can withdraw from a security agreement with Ukraine since it does not provide for ratification by Congress.

Question about NATO membership

From before and during this conflict, the US and NATO, at least from 2008, have encouraged Ukraine to think that it can become a member of Ukraine or even be considered eligible for entry into a membership action plan (until recently a required step prior to membership). Yet this has been consistently refused. Membership of NATO was heavily promoted by Zelenskiy even though until 2014 majority opinion in Ukraine was firmly against this. Not only was the measure unpopular then and for many is still, but conditions of membership precluded Ukraine from joining, given that it is a country that is currently in a conflict. Many NATO members, wiser than the US, Germany, France and the UK, are reluctant to anger Russia over something – i.e. violation of Ukraine’s neutrality – that Russia has consistently argued is a Red Line for Russia.

But all NATO decisions are consensual. At NATO’s Bucharest summit later in 2008, member countries did not reach a consensus on Ukraine’s request.

In July 2023 NATO agreed to a new multi-year assistance programme to “facilitate the transition of the Ukrainian armed forces from Soviet-era to NATO standards and help rebuild Ukraine’s security and defence sector, covering critical needs like fuel, demining equipment, and medical supplies…and agreed to establish the new NATO-Ukraine Council. Allies also reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, and agreed to remove the requirement for a Membership Action Plan. This process in the past has effectively opened the door to membership. Yet membership has to be something on which all existing members must agree.

For a few years starting in 2010, Ukraine adopted a non-aligned status that was codified into law with Yanukovych as president, meaning it could not join military alliances. After the 2014 coup that ousted Yanukovych Ukraine scrapped the non-aligned status. Ukraine has since amended its constitution to explicitly spell out its desire to join NATO, and joining NATO remains the official policy of Ukraine.

Swiss Peace Conference: What is Victory

Ukraine

For Zelenskiy – and this is the position he has taken in advance of the Swiss co-called Peace Conference – the only acceptable peace terms are a complete Russian withdrawl to 1991 borders, payment of reparations, and punishment for what he says are Russian war crimes. We should note in passing that it seems that Zelenskiy’s own office has been at least as influential in determining the framework of this meeting as has the Swiss government, and that its most important objective has probably to do with providing a stage for the collective West and other world leaders’ endorsement of Zelenskiy as a legitimate leader of Ukraine.

160 countries were invited, 90 will attend. Those that will not attend include the US President (who is sending Vice President Kamala Harris and national security adviser Jake Sullivan), Russia (which was not invited; although there was talk of presenting Russia with the conclusions of the conference), China, Brazil nor I believe, India’s Prime Minister Modi. Of the 10 points in the Ukrainian government’s peace plan only three will be formally discussed: nuclear safety, food security (i.e. Ukraine’s ability to export its food by sea) and the return of Ukrainian children transferred to Russia. Zelenskiy’s other demands for complete Russian military withdrawal, war crimes trials, reparations for war damages, and security guarantees have all been omitted from the agenda.

In an article today in Responsible Statecraft, Anatol Lieven (Lieven) notes that a previous Western attempt to rally support in the Global South for Ukraine’s “peace plan” at a confidential meeting in Riyadh in December 2023 was snubbed by most invitees.

Lieven argues that “for Ukraine to recover any significant portion of the land it has lost to Russia now looks highly unlikely given the balance of military and economic strength between the two sides, and the complete failure of last year’s Ukrainian offensive”.

Ukraine’s demand for war crime trials (not to be discussed at the Swiss conference) now has to be set against the contributions of the US and EU to Israeli crimes in Gaza, including genocide, charges of which have now been endorsed, or on the path towards being endorsed, by (1) a United National investigative committee headed by the UN head of human rights (see article today by Andre Damon (Damon) – UN commission finds Israel guilty of “extermination,” “crimes against humanity,” killing Palestinians and Israeli hostages, (2) the International Criminal Court, and (3) the International Court of Justice. U.S. rejection of the right of the International Criminal Court to investigate and judge these crimes, and U.S. previous rejection of the jurisdiction of the ICC over American citizens has long subverted Washington’s moral authority or credibility in this area.

Russia

Putin has just told us what Russian strategy is. Ukraine can settle now by conceding what was always the obvious solution – the integration of the four oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zapporizhzhia and Kherson into the Russian Federation, and acceptance of Crimea (whose people specifically asked to be integrated into the Federation) as Russian. Long ago, Ukraine missed its chance, under Poroshenko and the threats to Poroshenko from Ukrainian Nazi militia such as Azov, simply to allow Luhansk and Donetsk greater autonomy within Ukraine. Ukraine has always been at least two nations – one looking towards the West, the other looking eastwards – governed by an over-centralized State.

Ukraine is nowhere near accepting Russian conditions. Zelenskiy has even legislated against the possibility that there could ever be negotiations with the current Putin-led Russian government. Putin has also indicated that Zelenskiy is an unacceptable interlocuter for Russia as he is illegitimate. Meantime, even as there are indications that the collective West is getting tired of Zelenskiy, of his erratic behavior and his ever strident demands, Zelenskiy is ever more dependent on the collective West for his own domestic security and perceived legitimacy. He is, in fact, an illegimate and unelected President, whose regime suppresses political parties, free speech and religious affiliation.

Assuming that neither that Zelenskiy nor the West show serious interest in Putin’s most recent statement of peace conditions, then I propose we should take Putin at his word, namely, that Russia will continue to fight and to move westwards until Ukraine is defeated and forced to accept terms. At this point it is not even certain that there would still be a Ukraine.

June 15, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Russia ready to strike NATO airfields hosting Ukrainian jets – MP

13 June 24

The head of Kiev’s air force, Sergey Golubtsov, previously stated that some F-16s donated to his country will be based abroad

Any airfields hosting Ukraine’s F-16 fighter jets, whether they are in or outside the country, will be legitimate targets for the Russian military if they participate in combat missions against Moscow’s forces, the chairman of the Russian State Duma Defense Committee, Andrey Kartapolov, has warned. 

The comments come as Kiev prepares to receive the first delivery of US-made fighter jets from its Western backers, after Ukrainian pilots were trained to fly them.   

In a statement to RIA Novosti published on Monday, Kartapolov clarified that if the F-16s “are not used for their intended purpose” or are simply held in storage at foreign airbases with the intent to transfer them to Ukraine, where they will be equipped, maintained, and flown from Ukrainian airfields, then Russia would have no claims against its “former partners” and would not target them.  

However, if the jets take off from foreign bases and carry out sorties and strikes against Russian forces, both the fighter planes and the airfields they are stationed at will be “legitimate targets,” according to Kartapolov. 

“As for [our ability] to shoot [them] down, we can shoot down anyone, anywhere,” the MP insisted. 

Kartapolov’s statement comes after the chief of aviation of Ukraine’s Air Force Command, Sergey Golubtsov, stated in an interview with Radio Liberty on Sunday that some of the F-16 fighter jets donated to Kiev by the West would be stationed at foreign airbases. 

He explained that only a portion of the jets would be stationed directly on Ukrainian territory, corresponding to the number of pilots trained to operate the aircraft. The other jets would be kept in reserve at “safe airbases” abroad so that they are not targeted by the Russian military. 

Golubtsov stated that so far four countries have agreed to transfer F-16s to Ukraine, namely Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands. While he did not specify exactly how many aircraft would be donated, he claimed it was between 30 and 40 planes, with potentially more to come in the future. 

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also warned that Moscow would perceive the deliveries of F-16 fighters to Ukraine as a nuclear threat, given that the jets have long been used as part of the US-led bloc’s joint nuclear missions. 

At the same time, the minister stressed that the US-designed jets would not change the situation on the battlefield, and would be shot down and destroyed like any other foreign weapons supplied to Ukraine.

June 15, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia broadens tactical nuclear weapons drills

Reuters, By Guy Faulconbridge and Lidia Kelly, June 12, 20247

MOSCOW, June 12 (Reuters) – Russia said on Wednesday that soldiers and sailors from its northern Leningrad military district bordering NATO members Norway, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania took part in drills to deploy tactical nuclear weapons.

The move appears to broaden the disclosed geography of the nuclear drills to include soldiers from military districts which cover almost all of Russia’s European border, which stretches from the Arctic Ocean down to the Black Sea.

President Vladimir Putin ordered the drills, which were announced last month to take place in the Southern Military district bordering Ukraine, after what Russia said were signals from Western officials that they would allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russia with Western weapons.

“The personnel of the Leningrad Military District missile unit are practicing combat training tasks,” Russia’s defence ministry said in a statement about the drills…………………………………….. more https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-non-strategic-nuclear-drills-involve-iskander-missiles-2024-06-12/—

June 14, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia nuclear-powered submarine to visit Cuba amid rising tensions with US

Guardian, 7 June 24

Russian sub – joined by three other naval vessels – will not be carrying nuclear weapons, authorities in Havana said as they announced the visit

A Russian nuclear-powered submarine – which will not be carrying nuclear weapons – will visit Havana next week, Cuba’s communist authorities have announced, amid rising tensions with the US over the war in Ukraine.

The nuclear submarine Kazan and three other Russian naval vessels, including the missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov, an oil tanker and a salvage tug, will dock in the Cuban capital from 12-17 June, Cuba’s ministry of the revolutionary armed forces said in a statement.

“None of the vessels is carrying nuclear weapons, so their stopover in our country does not represent a threat to the region,” the ministry said.

The announcement came a day after US officials said that Washington had been tracking Russian warships and aircraft that were expected to arrive in the Caribbean for a military exercise. They said the exercise would be part of a broader Russian response to US support for Ukraine.

The US officials said that the Russian military presence was notable but not concerning. However, it comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested that Moscow could take “asymmetrical steps” elsewhere in the world in response to President Joe Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use US-provided weapons to strike inside Russia to protect Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city………………………………… more https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/07/russia-nuclear-powered-submarine-kazan-to-visit-cuba

June 11, 2024 Posted by | Russia, water | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »