WSJ’s Chief Foreign Correspondent Declares It’s Over For Ukraine In Kursk
by Tyler Durden, Thursday, Mar 13, 2025, https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-losing-its-trump-card-key-kursk-town-liberated-russian-troops
It’s a major turning point in the conflict when the Chief Foreign-Affairs Correspondent for The Wall Street Journal declares that Ukrainian forces are now in a full-on withdrawal from Russia’s Kursk amid rapid Russian gains…
Reuters too is reporting that Ukrainian forces are losing in Kursk:
Ukrainian troops appeared on the point of losing their hard-won foothold inside Russia’s Kursk region on Wednesday as Moscow claimed further advances there and military bloggers on both sides said Kyiv’s forces were withdrawing.
Ukraine sprang one of the biggest shocks of the war on August 6 last year by storming across the border and grabbing a chunk of land inside Russia, boosting citizens’ morale and gaining a potential bargaining chip.
There are no more cards to play, as Trump put it last month while hosting Zelensky at the White House, and now this assessment proves truer than ever.
Ukraine is losing the little bit of leverage it might have had left amid discussions toward preparing negotiations with Moscow. Russia’s Kursk is now fast being retaken, and Ukrainian forces are folding, as on Wednesday Russian troops raised their flags over the key town of Sudzha .
The central square of the town in the southwestern Kursk region was scene of where Russia’s Airborne Troops published a short aerial video showing soldiers unfurling a Russian flag as well as military unit banners. Other state media outlets subsequently featured the footage. Newsweek has underscored that Ukraine is fast “losing its trump card.”
Moscow has been focusing its forces on to regaining control around Sudzha in recent days, having retaken 12 settlements in the border region earlier this week.
Fighting is said to still be ongoing, but Moscow forces have asserted control over the center. Ukrainian media also acknowledges the following:
Russian troops have launched an offensive on the Ukrainian-controlled town of Sudzha in Russia’s Kursk Oblast, entering the settlement, the DeepState monitoring group, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), and the Russian state news agency TASS claimed on March 12. Fighting in the town is reportedly ongoing.
…According to DeepState, Russian forces have entered the eastern part of Sudzha and are entrenching their positions. TASS published purported drone footage claiming that Russian troops had entered the town center and raised a Russian flag.
War bloggers have been closely monitoring the fight for control of Sudzha, with Ruslan Leviev of the war monitor Conflict Intelligence Team describing that Ukrainian troops have been in steady retreat from the entire region.
“We’ve seen that all the areas coming under Russian control have been taken with little to no resistance. The same goes for Sudzha,” Leviev said. “Today, we’re seeing them on the opposite side [of the town]. And again, there are no images of any fighting.”
“At this point, it’s fair to say that the entire city of Sudzha is now under Russian control,” he described of the ground situation.
While months ago Ukrainian forces occupied several hundred square kilometers of Russian territory in Kursk region, as of Wednesday that control has shrunk to less than 200 square kilometers (77 square miles), according to the Ukraine-military linked DeepState war tracker.
Video said to be from on the ground in Russia’s Sudzha, including interviews with elderly Russians that stayed the whole time:
Recall that in the late last month famous Oval Office blow-up involving Trump, Zelensky, and J.D. Vance – Trump told the Ukrainian leader: “You don’t have the cards right now.”
That now appears truer than ever, at a moment the Russians are studying the new US-Ukraine proposal for a 30-day truce in order to jump-start direct negotiations to end the war.
Russia agrees to help US in negotiations with Iran over nuclear program, Bloomberg reports
by Kateryna Hodunova andThe Kyiv Independent news desk, March 4, 2025
Moscow has pledged to help Washington in dealing with Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program and its support for regional anti-American proxies, Bloomberg reported on March 4, citing its undisclosed sources.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has been trying to restore relations with Russia, which were severed under the previous administration when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.
Trump voiced his interest in negotiations with Iran to Putin during a phone call in February. A few days later, the U.S. and Russian delegations discussed this issue during talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Bloomberg reported……………………………… https://kyivindependent.com/russia-agrees-to-help-us-in-negotiations-with-iran-over-nuclear-program-bloomberg-reports/
US correct to vote against UN resolution solely condemning Russia for Ukraine war
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 26 Feb 25
Less than half of the UN’s 193 member states voted for the Ukrainian resolution in the General Assembly solely condemning Russia for invading Ukraine on the third anniversary of the war.
The vote on the non-binding resolution was 93 to 18 with 65 members abstaining.
In an astonishing reversal of previous US policy at the UN on Ukraine, the US joined Russia and 16 other states in opposing the resolution.
Why?
US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea argued that the Ukrainian resolution ignored that the war actually started 11 years earlier with the Russian Ukraine war that ignited after the 2014 coup that toppled democratically elected Ukraine president Victor Yanukovych.
Shea didn’t mention that the US was heavily involved in supporting the coup in order to prevent Ukraine from partnering economically with Russia. Nor did she mention that after the coup the US heavily armed Ukraine to complete the destruction of the Ukrainian separatist movement seeking freedom from Kyiv’s policy of destroying Ukrainian Russian culture in the Donbas. Shea also omitted that 14 years of US efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO crossed a red line for Russia that would inevitably provoke a Russian invasion.
But all of these critical omissions were implicit in the Trump administration’s refusal to continue the Biden administration’s fantasy that President Putin woke up one day in February, 2022 and decided to attack Ukraine unproved.
This was a welcome dose of reality sorely missing from the Biden administration for all two years, eleven months of their proxy war to weaken Russia using Ukrainian proxies to do all the dying.
President Trump is telling the world that this war must end with a settlement based on reality. Ukraine will not join NATO. Ukraine will not get back the oblasts containing Russian cultured Ukrainians seeking relief from endless destruction by their own government. Ukraine will refrain from being a US/NATO Trojan Horse to keep Russia out of the Western Europe political economy. Most importantly, the US and Russia can normalize diplomatic relations and end three years of risking nuclear annihilation from America’s zero sum game approach to the war.
Based on the vote of Ukraine’s one sided resolution putting all the blame on Russia, a majority of UN members agree with the Trump path to peace.
Russia claims nuclear plant targeted during massive Ukrainian drone attack
Russia and Ukraine continue to swap daily barrages, with the prospects of ceasefire talks appearing slim.
Aljazeera, 29 Jan 2025
A nuclear power plant was among targets during a massive Ukrainian drone attack, Russian officials have said.
Moscow said on Wednesday that the country’s energy infrastructure had come under attack by at least 100 drones overnight. Ukraine also reported strikes. The continuing barrages were accompanied by barbs from the two countries’ presidents, suggesting little prospect of peace talks.
The Russian Ministry of Defence said on Telegram that 104 drones were involved in raids across western Russia, many targeting power and oil facilities.
Local officials claimed that air defence systems had destroyed one drone that had attempted to strike the nuclear power plant in the western region of Smolensk.
“According to preliminary information, one of the drones was shot down during an attempt to attack a nuclear power facility,” Governor Vasily Anokhin said on the Telegram messaging app. “There were no casualties or damage.”
The Smolensk Nuclear Power Plant, the largest power generating plant in Russia’s northwest, was working normally on Wednesday morning, RIA state news agency reported, citing the plant’s press service.
Russia’s air defences reportedly destroyed drones over nine regions, including 11 over Smolensk, which sits on the border with Belarus. Nearly half were hit over Kursk, where Ukrainian troops have occupied several villages for months following an incursion.
Ukraine and Russia have been swapping drone and missile strikes on an almost daily basis, with energy infrastructure a particular target amid winter.
Warnings that the fighting could spark a nuclear disaster have been sounded since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of its neighbour in February 2022. However, most of the concern has focused on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia plant, which sits on the frontlines in the east of the country…………………………………………………………………….https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/29/russia-claims-nuclear-plant-targeted-during-massive-ukrainian-drone-attack
Nuclear icebreaker sustained hull damage after collision in the Kara Sea
A video published by the pro-Kremlin Telegram channel Mash shows how the 50 Let Pobedy sails straight into the cargo vessel Yamal Krechet.
Thomas Nilsen, 28 January 2025 , https://www.thebarentsobserver.com/news/nuclear-icebreaker-sustained-hull-damage-after-collision-in-the-kara-seanbsp/423819
The dramatic collision happened at 03.51 am on the night to January 26 but did not become known to the public before the press service of Rosatomflot confirmed the facts to several Russian media in the evening of January 28.
Murmansk-based Arctic Observer said in its Telegram channel that the collision happened as the powerful icebreaker was assisting a cargo ship sailing through the ice-covered waters.
According to Rosatomflot, the nuclear powered icebreaker continues to operate in normal mode along the Northern Sea Route, despite the damage to the hull.
Rosatomflot says in the press statement that “seaworthiness has not been lost” and “there were no casualties.”
The state owned operator of Russia’s icebreaker fleet underlines that the two onboard reactors were not harmed in the collision. The information has not been confirmed by independent sources.
Rosatomflot does not provide any information about what caused the navigation mistake leading to the huge icebreaker smashing into the smaller cargo ship.
The 50 Let Pobedy is the newest of the older Arktika-class nuclear-powered icebreakers. Construction of the vessel started in the late Soviet era (1989), but she was not commissioned before 2007.
The icebreaker has Murmansk as homeport, but can operate independently for months at a time during the icy navigation season along the Northern Sea Route.
The cargo vessel Yamal Krechet was according to MarineTraffic.com on her way from Arkhangelsk towards Sabetta, the port where Novatek’s Yamal LNG production facilitates are located.
There are no public reports about the possible damages to the cargo vessel. Several tens of containers can be seen on deck of the Yamal Krechet at the time of the collision, but it is not known immediately known what content the cargo includes.
Here comes Yakutia, Russia’s newest nuclear icebreaker
Rosatomflot now has eight nuclear-powered icebreakers in operation, the highest number since Soviet times.
Thomas Nilsen, Barents Observer 30 December 2024
The flag-raising ceremony happened at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg on December 28. It took four and a half years to build the Yakutia and the icebreaker is the first made with mostly Russian-made components.
Testing took place in the Gulf of Finland earlier in December and the powerful vessel is now delivered to Rosatomflot, the state-owned company in charge of sailings and infrastructure along the Northern Sea Route.
The three previous icebreakers of the same class had both Western and Ukrainian made parts. With sanctions implemented and the engine factory in Ukraine bombed, the shipyard had to look for import substitutes domestically.
“The sanctions restrictions that we faced did not prevent us from ensuring high-quality and timely construction of the order,” said Deputy General Director Andrei Buzinov with the Baltic Shipyard at the ceremony.
The Yakutia is powered by two RITM-200 reactors and will join the fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers sailing out of Rosatomflot’s base in Murmansk.
The three sister vessels of the same class, the Arktika, Sibir and Ural are already crushing the ice along the Northern Sea Route, mainly for Russia’s LNG export to reach the markets.
The fleet also includes four older nuclear-powered icebreakers, the Yamal and 50 Let Poedy, and the two Finnish built Taymyr and Vaygash. They have all got their service life prolonged.
Not since the late 1980s have more nuclear-powered icebreakers been in operation. Out at sea, the winter season 2024/2025 will be a record as several of the icebreakers in the late Soviet times stayed at port in Murmansk although they officially were on active duty. ……………..
The flag raising ceremony took place 65 years after the Soviet Union’s first nuclear-powered icebreaker, the Lenin, was launched from the yard in Severodvinsk. Lenin became the world’s first civilian nuclear-powered vessel and is today moored in Murmansk as a museum open to the public.
The two last icebreakers of the new class will also be named after past dictators. The Leningrad and Stalingrad are expected to be put in service in 2028 and 2030. Before that, the Chukotka will come in 2026.
If no unforeseen delays happen.
Last week, the Defense Ministry’s cargo ship Ursa Major sank in the Mediterranean with two 45-tons hatches to cover the reactors on the Rossiya icebreaker currently under construction at the yard in Bolshoi Kamen near Vladivostok.
The giant icebreaker is already many years behind schedule and is unlikely to be start sailing the Northern Sea Route’s East Arctic waters in 2027 as stipulated. https://www.thebarentsobserver.com/news/here-comes-yakutia-russias-newest-nuclear-icebreaker/422559
Putin’s huge, rusting nuclear battlecruisers symbolise Russian naval decline.
In losing nearly as much tonnage as it built in 2023, the Russian navy joins an exclusive and embarrassing club of stagnating navies that, startlingly, also includes the 886,000-ton – and shrinking – Royal Navy. In recent years, the British fleet has been decommissioning more and bigger vessels than it builds.
Apart from its submarines, the Kremlin will soon have only a coastal navy
David Axe, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/02/putin-naval-decline-kirov-class-nuclear-battlecruisers/
The hulking Kirov-class nuclear powered battlecruisers were symbols of Moscow’s naval strength during the later Soviet era. A generation later, they’re symbols of Moscow’s slow naval collapse.
The Soviets built four of the 28,000-ton, missile-armed vessels to lead far-ranging battle groups meant to confront Nato warships on the high seas. Three were commissioned in time to see service with the Soviet navy before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991; the final vessel joined the Russian fleet in 1998 following years of construction delays.
That youngest Kirov, the Northern Fleet’s Pyotr Velikiy, is the only battlecruiser still in active service. She’s one of a dwindling number of big Soviet-vintage warships – including the rusty Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s sole aircraft carrier – that sustain Russia’s fading capacity for projecting maritime power across oceans.
A second old battlecruiser, Admiral Nakhimov, has been pierside at Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, in northern Russia, since 1999. The farcical story of her planned return to service is indicative of Russia’s wider naval decline.
The Kremlin decided to return Admiral Nakhimov to service way back in 2008. Refurbishment got underway in 2013. Planned upgrades include the fitting of Kalibr and Oniks cruise missiles plus new sensors and communications. As recently as this fall, photos circulated online showing modest but visible progress with the installations.
But the work has been missing deadlines – for years. In 2014, the plan was for Admiral Nakhimov to return to service in 2020. She didn’t. As of 2018, the battlecruiser was supposed to recommission in 2021. A year later, the recommissioning slipped to 2022. That deadline came and went, as did the next deadline for a 2024 return to service. Now the plan is for Admiral Nakhimov to rejoin the fleet in 2026.
Don’t hold your breath. The costs of Russia’s 33-month wider war on Ukraine have driven up inflation and driven down investment in Russia. The economy is teetering. The costly effort to squeeze a few more years of front-line use from a 38-year-old warship may soon seem like an extravagance.
If and when the effort to reactivate Admiral Nakhimov finally fails, it could signal a new – and humbler – era for the Russian fleet.
In 2023, the Russian navy added just 6,300 tons to its total tonnage, ending the year with warships totalling 2,152,000 tons. The Russians would have added 17,700 tons last year through the new construction of a new frigate, corvettes, a minesweeper and a few submarines, but Ukrainian missiles and drones destroyed vessels together weighing 11,400 tons.
In losing nearly as much tonnage as it built in 2023, the Russian navy joins an exclusive and embarrassing club of stagnating navies that, startlingly, also includes the 886,000-ton – and shrinking – Royal Navy. In recent years, the British fleet has been decommissioning more and bigger vessels than it builds.
For the Russians, it mostly comes down to strategy, money … and engines. Big ships are expensive – and unnecessary for a country whose main strategic ambitions lie along its land border. The Russians still build plenty of modern nuclear-powered submarines and can deploy them to deter direct conflict with a major foe. Given that safeguard, a globally-deploying surface fleet is a luxury.
Which is fortunate for Russia’s leaders, as it’s not clear Russian industry could build big new warships even if it had the money to do so and a clear reason to try. Prior to 2014, Russian shipbuilders imported most of their large maritime engines from Ukraine. It should go without saying they no longer do so.
Lacking a source of new engines, it’s much easier for Russia to restore an old battlecruiser than to build a new one from scratch. It actually helps that Admiral Nakhimov has a nuclear powerplant, as Russian industry still manages to build and maintain those on its own.
When the last big Soviet ships finally sail for the last time, the Russian navy will become a mostly coastal navy – albeit one with a powerful undersea deterrent. Even if Admiral Nakhimov does rejoin the fleet and deploys a few more times, she’ll only delay that inevitability.
Ironic Dependency: Russian Uranium and the US Energy Market
November 27, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/ironic-dependency-russian-uranium-and-the-us-energy-market/
Be careful who you condemn and ostracise. They just might be supplying you with a special need. While the United States security establishment deems Russia the devil incarnate helped along by aspiring, mischief–making China, that devil continues supplying the US energy market with enriched uranium.
This dependency has irked the self-sufficiency patriots in Washington, especially those keen to break Russia’s firm hold in this field. That, more than any bleeding-heart sentimentality for Ukrainian suffering at the hands of the Russian Army, has taken precedence. For that reason, US lawmakers sought a ban on Russian uranium that would come into effect by January 1, 2028, by which time domestic uranium enrichment and conversion is meant to have reached sustainable levels.
The May 2024 Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, signed by President Joe Biden as law H.R.1042, specifically bans unirradiated low-enriched uranium produced in Russia or by any Russian entity from being imported into the US. It also bars the importation of unirradiated low-enriched uranium that has been swapped for the banned uranium or otherwise obtained in circumstances designed to bypass the restrictions.
At the time, Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm struck a note of hollering triumphalism. “Our nation’s clean energy future will not rely on Russian imports,” she declared. “We are making investments to build out a secure nuclear fuel supply chain here in the United States. That means American jobs supporting the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to a clean, safe, and secure energy economy.”
This does not get away from current circumstances, which see Russia’s provision of some 27% of enrichment service purchases for US utilities. The Russian state-owned company Rosatom is alone responsible for arranging imports of low-enriched uranium into the US market at some 3 million SWU (Separative Work Units) annually. Alexander Uranov, who heads the Russian analytical service Atominfo Center, puts this figure into perspective: that amount would be the equivalent of the annual uranium consumption rate of 20 large reactors.
Given this reliance, some legroom has been given to those in the industry by means of import waivers. H.R.1042 grants the Department of Energy the power to waive the ban in cases where there is no alternative viable source of low-enriched uranium available to enable the continued operation of a nuclear reactor or US nuclear energy company and in cases where importing the uranium would be in the national interest.
The utility Constellation, which is the largest operator of US nuclear reactors, along with the US enrichment trader, Centrus, have received waivers. The latter also has on its book of supply, the Russian state-owned company Tenex, its largest provider of low-enriched uranium as part of a 2011 contract.
No doubt knowing such a state of play, Moscow announced this month that it would temporarily ban the export of low-enriched uranium to the US as an amendment to Government Decree No 313 (March 9, 2022). The decree covers imports “to the United States or under foreign trade contracts concluded with persons registered in the jurisdiction of the United States.”
According to the Russian government, such a decision was made “on the instructions of the President in response to the restriction imposed by the United States for 2024-2027, and from 2028 – a ban on the import of Russian uranium products.” Vladimir Putin had accordingly given instructions in September “to analyse the possibility of restricting supplies to foreign markets of strategic raw materials.” The Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom confirmed that the ban was a “tit-for-tat response to actions of the US authorities” and would not affect the delivery of Russian uranium to other countries.
In a Russian government post on Telegram, the ban is qualified. To make matters less severe, there will be, for instance, one-time licenses issued by the Russian Federal Service for Technical and Export Control. This is of cold comfort to the likes of Centrus, given that most of its revenue is derived from importing the enriched uranium before then reselling it. On being notified by Tenex that its general license to export the uranium to the US had been rescinded, the scramble was on to seek a specific export license for remaining shipments in 2024 and those scheduled to take place in 2025.
In a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Centrus warned that any failure by Tenex “to secure export licences for our pending or future orders […] would affect our ability to meet our delivery obligations to our customers and would have a material adverse effect on our business, results in operations, and competitive position.” While Tenex had contacted Centrus of its plans to secure the required export licenses in a timely manner, a sense of pessimism was hard to dispel as “there is no certainty whether such licenses will be issued by the Russian authorities and if issued, whether they will be issued in a timely manner.” The sheer, sweet irony of it all.
Russia Prepares to Respond to the Armageddon Wanted by the Biden Administration
by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network | Paris (France) | 26 November 2024
Russia has deployed thousands of North Korean soldiers to defend its Kursk region, attacked in August by Ukrainian integral nationalists.
Washington considers this fact as a development of the war it has been waging since 1950, despite a ceasefire, against the Korean and Chinese communists, even more than as a development of the one it has been waging through Ukrainian proxy against Russia since 2022. It therefore responded on November 19 by guiding six ATACMS (Army TACtical Missile System) missiles that it had given to kyiv against Russia [1]. They were directed not only against the Kursk Oblast, but also against the Bryansk Oblast, where they failed to hit an ammunition depot. London, for its part, decided on November 21 to guide the Storm Shadow missiles it gave to kyiv in the same way. All of the allied missiles were destroyed in flight by Russian anti-aircraft defense.
On the contrary, Moscow considers the Kursk attack as a continuation of the CIA’s secret war in Ukraine and as the one organized in the 1950s against the USSR, both with the support of Stepan Bandera’s Ukrainian integral nationalists.
The West does not understand these events because it has forgotten Beijing’s support for Pyongyang, wrongly thinks that Kursk and Bryansk are in Ukraine and ignores the secret war during which the Anglo-Saxons allied themselves with the last Nazis (which means that it also did not understand the objective of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine).
ATACMS missiles can be fired from HIMARS mobile launchers. The latest models have a range of 300 kilometers and fly at an altitude of 50,000 meters. The latest versions of the Storm Shadow missiles, on the other hand, have a range of about 400 kilometers. None can therefore reach deep into Russia.
Russia has a wide range of responses to allied attacks……………………………… On November 19, it modified its nuclear doctrine, leaving open the option of a nuclear response. Finally, it can make use of its military dominance. Ukraine announced that, on November 20, Moscow had fired a long-range ballistic missile (i.e. capable of reaching the United States from Russia), RS-26 Rubezh. We now know that it was something else.
Unbeknownst to us, the battlefields of Ukraine and the Middle East have already come together, as the US neoconservatives (the Straussians), the Israeli “revisionist Zionists” [3]; and the Ukrainian “integral nationalists” [4] have allied themselves once again, as in the Second World War. These three groups, historically linked to the Tripatite Axis, are in favor of a final confrontation. The only ones missing are the Japanese militarists of the new Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba.
Immediately after the launch of the US ATACMS missiles and even before that of the British Storm Shadows, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree promulgating his country’s new nuclear doctrine that he had announced on September 24 [5]. It authorizes the use of nuclear weapons in five new cases:
1) if reliable information is received about the launch of ballistic missiles targeting the territory of Russia or its allies.
2) if nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction strike the territory of Russia or its allies, or are used to strike Russian military units or installations abroad.
3) if the impact of an enemy on the Russian government or military installations is of critical importance that could undermine the capability of a retaliatory nuclear strike.
4) if aggression against Russia or Belarus with conventional weapons poses a serious threat to their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
5) if reliable information is received about the takeoff or launch of strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic vehicles or other flying vehicles and their crossing of the Russian border……………………………………………………………………………………..more https://www.voltairenet.org/article221540.html
White House finally confirms greenlight for deep Russia strikes
https://www.rt.com/news/608194-us-admits-russia-strikes/ 25 Nov 24
Ukraine can use ATACMS to strike in the vicinity of Kursk Region, John Kirby has said
Washington on Monday officially confirmed a well-flagged policy change allowing Ukraine to strike inside Russia using US-supplied ATACMS missiles.
Numerous international officials have spoken about the change in stance over the past week. While US President Joe Biden and his administration remained silent, Kiev fired a volley of ATACMS projectiles at Russia’s Bryansk Region last Monday.
“They are able to use ATACMS to defend themselves in an immediate-need basis,” National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters at a White House briefing on Monday.
“We did change the guidance and gave them guidance that they can use them to strike these particular types of targets,” Kirby said, referring to the Ukrainian attacks “in and around Kursk.”
The US and its allies have provided increasingly powerful weapons systems to Kiev since 2022, while maintaining that it does not make them a party to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons would change the character of the hostilities and make NATO a direct participant. He explained that weapons such as the ATACMS or the UK-supplied Storm Shadow cannot be deployed by Kiev’s forces without the participation of NATO military personnel.
Moscow’s response came last Thursday, when a brand-new hypersonic ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, was used against the Yuzhmash military-industrial complex in Dnepropetrovsk. Putin called it a “combat test” of the new weapon and said such tests would continue depending on circumstances.
Russia’s Revised Nuclear Doctrine and the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War
RUSSIAN and EURASIAN POLITICS, by Gordonhahn, November 21, 2024
In response to the escalating NATO-Ukrainian threat to Russia’s national security, embodied most recently and intensively by the U.S., British, and French use of their own missiles on pre-2022 Russian territory (outside Crimea, annexed in 2014), Moscow adopted and activated into law a revised Nuclear Doctrine (ND) on November 19th.
The original decision to revise Russia’s ND and, indeed, lower the threshold for use came in September when NATO countries first began discussing the use of ATACMs, Storm Shadows, Scalp, etc., which can only be fired with the participation of U.S., British, and/or French officers, making them and their countries direct combatants in a war against Russia, as Russian President Vladimir Putin stated at the time and quite logically so.
This and the timing in which the September discussion was revived in November at the same time completion of the ND revisions was expected gives evidence to the fact that this Western course and escalations in the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War is the driver of the ND revisions.
Similarly, NATO-Ukraine’s use on November 18-19 of ATACMs and Storm Shadows by NATO against targets on Russian territory proper (Bryansk and Kursk) internationally recognized demonstrate how several stipulations in the new doctrine are intended by the Kremlin to address the escalation by NATO to direct involvement by its officers’ control over the launch and attack process of such missiles. Moreover, there are indications that conditions are now such that, according to the new doctrine, Russia’s use of nuclear weapons against Ukrainian, American, British, and French targets is justifiable and thus, regretfully, feasible.
Much of the discussion around the ND revisions centers around Articles 9-12. They address the security problem posed to Russia by the NATO-Ukraine alliance and the war it sparked with Russia. Articles 9-10 note: “9. Nuclear deterrence is also carried out against States that provide their controlled territory, air and/or sea space and resources for the preparation and implementation of aggression against the Russian Federation. 10. Aggression of any state from the military coalition (bloc, union) against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies is considered as aggression of this coalition (bloc, union) as a whole” (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75598, pp. 2-3).
These new articles are a result of, and a response to NATO countries various forms of support for Ukraine, particularly its invasion into Kursk as well as drome and missile attacks on numerous Russian regions, aside from Crimea and the four Ukrainian regions annexed by Russia.
Several subsequent Articles in Russia’s revised ND reduce the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and demonstrate just how close we are approaching said threshold, as far as the Kremlin is concerned. In many ways, these specific Articles constitute the core of the warning that Putin’s decision to revise the ND is; the revision of the ND is an exercise of nuclear deterrence in and of itself.
Much attention has been focused on Article 11 and properly so. It stipulates: “Aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies by any non-nuclear State with the participation or support of a nuclear State is considered as their joint attack” (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75598, p. 3). This is indeed crucial because it attributes joint responsibility to NATO’s non-nuclear states and Ukraine along with NATO’s nuclear powers – the U.S., UK, and France.
Thus, Ukraine is tied to the potential nuclear threat to Russia or Belarus posed by the three leading NATO states. Kiev is placed on the nuclear escalatory ladder and targeted for nuclear deterrence, given the implied nuclear threat it poses by putting Russia into conflict and ever greater conflict with NATO and its nuclear powers.
The November 21st Russian attack on Dnipro, Kiev using a new intermediate range ballistic conventional not nuclear missile among others, was an exercise in deterrence if implied, if you will. This attack was in accordance with Article 11’s attribution of joint responsibility for Ukraine and NATO and its nuclear powers. Article 12 states: “Nuclear deterrence is aimed at ensuring that a potential adversary understands the inevitability of retaliation in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies” (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75598, p. 3). The invocation of inevitable retaliation is particularly chilling in light of the Russian ND’s Article 11 and the November 21st Russian attack on Dnipro—already a nuclear deterrence attack sans the nuclear warhead.
In response to the use of six ATACMs, the Russians deployed a new hypersonic, intermediate-range missile with a conventional but still unclear explosive charge, as noted above. In seeming proportion to the six ATACMs, the new Russian missile attacked in 6 waves each with 6 missiles, suggesting a multiple conventional warhead. There is speculation that there was no explosive, the attack having been a test, or detonation occurred deep underground (www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVrLEcxI7Wc&t=933s, at the 1:30 mark). Putin addressed the nation and the world after the Dnipro attack to explain Russia’s deterrence goal while again offering negotiations to end the war. He noted: ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
The upshot of all this, again, is that we are moving closer to scenarios in which Putin or a less cautious successor might choose to use a tactical nuclear weapon in order to end such threats as enumerated above or deter their further posing.
I do not think that Putin, who is an extremely rational and cautious actor, will opt to use even a single tactical nuclear weapon, unless a situation, say, like the one in Kursk should drastically deteriorate from the Russian point of view: for example, if by some miracle Ukraine’s forces in Kursk were somehow to regroup and be approaching the Kursk nuclear power plant and/or nuclear weapons storage facility.
But the actual situation on the ground is quite the reverse. Ukrainian forces are being or have been surrounded, depending on which one is talking about, and are likely to be fully destroyed or mostly destroyed during a hasty retreat. Thus, the ATACMs may be a way to ensure an open extraction corridor, and little more when it comes to Kursk.
But the attack on Bryansk suggests a more expansive NATO-Ukraine agenda for the missiles. Since NATO has consistently escalated its involvement in terms of weapons deployments to Kiev, we can expect a similar escalation regarding the use of the ATACMs and other missiles. Putin will match them every step up the way. He may be forced to rise up the escalatory ladder more rapidly, given mounting public and elite pressure to get tough and fight a war instead of his ‘special military operation.’ https://gordonhahn.com/2024/11/21/russias-revised-nuclear-doctrine-and-the-nato-russia-ukrainian-war/
The enriched uranium market is all at sea, with USA the largest importer of Russian material
Five days after Russia imposed tit-for-tat restrictions on exports of
enriched uranium to the US, a 14-year old vessel remains anchored outside
the port of Saint Petersburg, its crew presumably unsure whether the
radioactive cargo they were due to collect for a US-based client can still
be shipped.
Moscow’s new measures, announced on Friday, come with
caveats. Just as US import restrictions introduced in May still allow
companies to seek waivers allowing uranium shipments when they can’t
obtain supplies elsewhere, so the Russians “didn’t say they’re
outright ending all deliveries to the US,” says Jonathan Hinze, president
of UxC, a consultancy specialising in the nuclear industry.
Russia’s cash requirements and control of almost half of global enrichment capacity,
coupled with the energy needs of the world’s biggest economy, mean “the
US stands out conspicuously as the largest importer of Russian material,
both prior to Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and since,” writes Darya
Dolzikova, a research fellow at Royal United Services Institute.
FT 20th Nov 2024,
https://www.ft.com/content/ec09bcff-3771-4679-b0d0-4ec7062b7072
Biden Authorizes Ukrainian Long-Range Strikes Into Russia Using ATACMS Missiles – Reports
Ilya Tsukanov, 17 Nov 24, https://sputnikglobe.com/20241117/biden-authorizes-ukrainian-long-range-strikes-into-russia-using-atacms-missiles—reports-1120914282.html
The US and its allies spent months debating whether or not to give Ukraine the go-ahead to use its NATO-provided long-range strike systems to target Russia. In September, President Putin warned that allowing Kiev to use its Western long-range missiles on Russia would mean NATO’s direct participation in a war against the Russian Federation.
President Biden has signed off on the Ukrainian military’s use of US-made ATACMS missiles to try to help defend its faltering positions in Ukrainian-occupied areas of Russia’s Kursk region, the New York Times reported on Sunday, citing US officials apprized of the situation.
The US and its allies spent months debating whether or not to give Ukraine the go-ahead to use its NATO-provided long-range strike systems to target Russia. In September, President Putin warned that allowing Kiev to use its Western long-range missiles on Russia would mean NATO’s direct participation in a war against the Russian Federation.
President Biden has signed off on the Ukrainian military’s use of US-made ATACMS missiles to try to help defend its faltering positions in Ukrainian-occupied areas of Russia’s Kursk region, the New York Times reported on Sunday, citing US officials apprized of the situation.
Officials told the newspaper that they “do not expect the shift” in policy “to fundamentally alter the course of the war” (NYT’s phrasing), and indicated that Biden could further authorize Kiev to use the weapons in directions besides Kursk in the future.
Washington reportedly expects the ATACMS to be used to strike troop concentrations, military equipment, logistics, ammunition depots and supply lines, all with the goal of “blunt[ing] the effectiveness” of the ongoing Russian military operation to clear Kursk of Ukrainian forces.
According to NYT’s information, some Pentagon officials opposed delivering the missile systems to Ukraine in the first place due to the US Army’s limited supply. Others reportedly expressed fears that their delivery and use could escalate the conflict and even prompt direct Russian retaliation against US and NATO forces – something President Putin has explicitly warned about.
The ATACMS go-ahead also appears to be connected to to the increasingly dire situation for Ukrainian forces across the front, with US officials said to have become “increasingly concerned” about the Ukrainian army being “stretched thin by simultaneous Russian assaults in the east, Kharkov and now Kursk.”
President-elect Trump’s statements about seeking to quickly end the conflict have also reportedly weighed in the outgoing administration’s decision, NYT said.
Putin Tells German Leader That Ukraine Peace Deal Possible
Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for the first time in two years on Friday
by Kyle Anzalone November 15, 2024 https://news.antiwar.com/2024/11/15/putin-tells-german-leader-that-ukraine-peace-deal-possible/
Russian President Vladimir Putin held a phone call with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and offered to end the war in Ukraine. The Russian leader offered a deal similar to one proposed by Moscow in June.
On Friday, Scholz spoke with Putin for the first time in nearly two years. According to the Kremlin, “The Russian president noted that the Russian side has never refused and remains open to the resumption of the negotiations that were interrupted by the Kiev regime.” Adding, “Russia’s proposals are well known and outlined, in particular, in a June speech at the Russian Foreign Ministry.”
In that speech, Putin said that if Ukrainian forces withdrew from all Russian annexed territory, adopted a position of neutrality between NATO and Russia, agreed to denazification and demilitarization of the country, and the lifting of all Western sanctions on Moscow, then Russia would bring the war to an end.
Scholz’s spokesman said that the German and Russian leaders agreed to remain in contact. The official added that Scholz “condemned the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and called on President Putin to end it and withdraw his troops.” He also told Putin, Berlin maintains “steadfast determination” to support Ukraine for “as long as is necessary.”
Throughout the Joe Biden administration, the West has refused to talk with Moscow about core national security issues. The refusal to negotiate throughout 2021, led Putin to invade Ukraine in the beginning of 2022. After the initial Russian invasion of Ukraine, a deal was nearly reached, but Kiev has been pushed away from negotiations by its Western backers.
After over two and a half years of war, Kiev is struggling to find the manpower to continue the fight while losing territory to the Russian military. Though NATO countries pledged to give Ukraine everything it needed to win the war, Washington has refused to provide Ukraine with advanced weapons and long-range missiles Kiev says it needs to achieve a victory.
1 This Month
1 June Webinar – The High Cost of Nuclear Power – Register
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (262)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 