nuclear-news

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

U.S. Tech Park in Israel May Have a Nuclear Power Plant

While President Trump has busted through a lot of international norms, and removed the U.S. from multilateral agreements like climate change, busting the bounds of the Nonproliferation Treaty would set a dangerous precedent that could be followed by similar actions by Russia and China

The fact that Israel has signed an MOU with the U.S. that could potentially involve it  acquiring U.S. manufactured SMRs is a signal that if India can do it, so can Israel. Saudi Arabia will not be far behind in asking for the same deal should the Israeli industrial park agreement move forward beyond the MOU stage.

 February 7, 2026 by djysrv, https://neutronbytes.com/2026/02/07/u-s-tech-park-in-israel-may-have-a-nuclear-power-plant/

Israel signed an agreement with the U.S. on 01/16/26  to build an industrial park to produce advanced computer chips at a location in the Negev desert that would use a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) to power the factory and nearby data centers also planned for this location.

Where things stand now, according to Israel news media, Israel and the US have inked an agreement to jointly build and operate a large technological park in Israel. The deal is part of a strategic cooperation agreement on AI signed in Jerusalem last month. (Israel government statement)

One of the surprising details to emerge from the discussions on the agreement relates to the energy infrastructure. The huge power demands of data centers and AI computer systems require a large, reliable 7/24/365 energy solution. As a result, the possibility appears to be kicking around of constructing one or more nuclear power plants, most likely SMRs, at the site.

The MOU, signed by the head of the National AI Directorate, Brig. Gen. (Res.) Erez Eskel, and the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg, reveals an ambitious plan to allocate 4,000 acres to the U.S. The park, which will be constructed in the Negev Desert or less likely in the Gaza Strip border area, and which will be called “Fort Foundry One”

Helberg travelled to Israel after signing similar agreements in Doha and Abu Dhabi. He said that Israel was an “anchor partner” in the effort, thanks to its technological ecosystem and its ability to produce “asymmetric results” in relation to its geographical size.

US Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Jacob Helberg said, “With the launch of Pax Silica, the United States and Israel are uniting our innovation ecosystems to ensure the future is shaped by strong and sovereign allies leading in critical technologies like AI and robotics.”  

Helberg comes to his role as a former lobbyist for Silicon Valley information technology firms and as a former executive for Google. One of his key interest areas has been addressing the national security risks posed to the U.S. by China. He wrote a book on the subject, The Wires of War: Technology and the Global Struggle for Power, (2021) calling for a stronger U.S. strategy against China’s technological ambition. According to the publisher’s book jacket, Helberg led Google’s global internal product policy efforts to combat disinformation and foreign interference in U.S. domestic affairs.

U.S. Thinks a Contractual Fig Leaf Can Cover the Absence off a 123 Agreement

Israel to date has no experience with civilian nuclear power plants used for electricity generation. The country has reportedly produced an unspecified number of nuclear weapons used as a deterrence factor when dealing with hostile neighbors like Iran. Also, Israel has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty due to policy of strategic ambiguity and its obvious reluctance to reveal the extent of its nuclear arsenal.

The official MOU for the Negev AI data center remains somewhat vague referring to a “high-intensity energy infrastructure” but it clearly is pointing to small modular reactors (50-300 MW). Due to the location in the extremely dry Negev desert, an advanced design, such as an HTGR, which does not require cooling water to operate, is likely to be chosen should the project reach a stage where a reactor design would be selected for this site.

The joint initiative is part of a broad international framework launched by the Trump administration called “Pax Silica“, a coalition of about twelve countries in technology, the aim of which is to secure supply chains of semiconductors and AI. Taiwan did not sign the agreement.

Israel joined the initiative in December 2025, and was the first country to sign a bilateral agreement with the U.S. in this framework. Among the other countries in the coalition are Qatar, the UAE, Australia, Greece, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and United Kingdom.

The Heavy Lift Associated with Civilian Nuclear Power in Israel

Israel has abundant natural gas supplies to support private wire gas power generation for data centers. It doesn’t need small modular reactors to power them.

The geopolitical heavy lift that would be required for a civilian nuclear power plant in Israel would probably set off a similar request from Saudi Arabia for the same kind of deal.

The Saudi government has been stalled for years in its quest for US nuclear reactors due to its insistence on the right to uranium enrichment as part of a 123 Agreement with the U.S. The Saudi government sees enrichment as a deterrence signal to Iran over its nuclear program. If the U.S. gives a green light to Israel, through some kind of three bank policy pool shot, to build U.S. supplied civlian SMRs, without a 123 Agreement,  the Saudis would likely ask for a similar deal.

While President Trump has busted through a lot of international norms, and removed the U.S. from multilateral agreements like climate change, busting the bounds of the Nonproliferation Treaty would set a dangerous precedent that could be followed by similar actions by Russia and China.

This would move the planet into dangerous territory. For this reason, consideration of a U.S. managed nuclear power plant in Israel may be too hot a potato for even Trump to toss over the transom. Bipartisan opposition in the Senate would be almost certain for a civilian nuclear reactor deal with Israel without a 123 agreement.

Israel does not have an agreement with the U.S. under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy act as such a move would require it to declare its nuclear infrastructure. The Israeli government has relied on strategic ambiguity about how many nuclear devices it has as a deterrence measure. The Israeli government is not going to give that up military advantage away to get small modular reactors to power data centers in a white collar industrial park.

Finally, the news release by the Israeli Prime Minister’s office about the U.S. deal may be one of a series of trial balloons the Israeli government has floated over the years about civilian nuclear power so it should be viewed with some skepticism for that point alone.

The U.S. plan apparently is to cover these issues with a contractual fig leaf that depends on a unique model in which the reactor operates under U.S. safety regulation and supervision, despite being located on Israeli territory. It’s a pretty thin leaf.

Watch What We Do Not What We Say

It is not lost on the Saudi and Israel governments that India enjoys a special relationship regarding recent developments that open the door to India for acquisition of civilian U.S. nuclear reactor technologies, without having a 123 Agreement, while these two nations are locked out these opportunities.

Where things get complicated is that the Saudi government has undoubtedly been watching how U.S. nuclear reactor firms are faring with India for some time. Recently, India opened the door to U.S. nuclear reactors by terminating its supplier liability law that acted very effectively as a trade barrier for U.S. firms.

Almost at the same time, the U.S. Department of Energy granted Holtec permission to export its 300 MW SMR to India.  The authorization names three Indian companies – Larsen & Tubro (Mumbai), Tata Consulting Engineers (Mumbai) and the Company’s own subsidiary, Holtec Asia (Pune) – as eligible entities with whom Holtec can share necessary technical information to execute its SMR-300 program. Holtec also plans to build a factory in India to manufacture the small reactors. Westinghouse is expected to seek to enter the Indian nuclear market.

What the Saudi government sees is that U.S. policy towards India shows a remarkably different approach to a country which has declared it has a nuclear arsenal, has tested its nuclear weapons, and is not a party to the Nonproliferation Treaty. Further, India does not have a 123 agreement with the U.S. and has no immediate plans to seek one. Israel has likely come to the same point of view.

The fact that Israel has signed an MOU with the U.S. that could potentially involve it  acquiring U.S. manufactured SMRs is a signal that if India can do it, so can Israel. Saudi Arabia will not be far behind in asking for the same deal should the Israeli industrial park agreement move forward beyond the MOU stage.

Saudi Plans for AI Data Centers Points to Nuclear Reactor to Power Them

The Saudi government’s ambitious plans and programs to transform the oil rich company into a regional powerhouse for artificial intelligence will require significant investments in electricity generation to power the AI data centers needed to carry out this effort.

According to a report in the New York Times, Saudi Arabia is investing $40 billion to become a dominant player for the use of AI in the Middle East. Data centers to support this program will require enormous amounts of electrical power to support the advanced semiconductors that process AI software, to power the data centers themselves, and to keep them cool in one of the hottest regions on the planet.

It follows that the Saudi government will coordinate its plans for a  nuclear new build with its massive investments in AI. It is likely that sooner or later Saudi Arabia’s need to break ground on the first two reactors in anticipation of the need for power for its AI program and related data centers.

It may decide that building commercial nuclear power plants to power its AI program is more important than the geopolitical consideration of having access to nuclear technologies with or without a U.S. 123 Agreement. Given the U.S. course of actions with India, Saudi Arabia may ask for the same kind of deal thus bypassing the entire enrichment policy issue it has with the U.S.

The Saud government has a tender outstanding, which has been on hold for some time, to build two 1,400 MW PWR type reactors. It has also explored options for SMRs for data centers and to power desalination plants to provide potable water for general and industrial uses. A award for the two reactors could be the first order of business the Saudi government will seek to pursue in asking for the same deal the U.S. gave India.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Israel, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Russia says will act responsibly despite New START nuclear treaty expiry

Both Beijing and Moscow expressed their regret at the lapse of the last Russia-US nuclear arms control treaty.

By News Agencies 5 Feb 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/5/russia-says-will-act-responsibly-despite-new-start-nuclear-treaty-expiry

The Kremlin says Russia will continue to be a responsible nuclear power, despite the expiry of the last nuclear arms control treaty between Moscow and Washington, which experts say risks ushering in a new global arms race.

The New START treaty expires on Thursday, marking the end of more than half a century of limits on the United States and Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons.

“Today the day will end, and it [the treaty] will cease to have any effect,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Thursday. Arms control experts had previously said their assumption was that it expired at the end of Wednesday.

Russia had suggested both sides voluntarily extend the terms of the agreement for one year to provide time to discuss a successor treaty, a proposal which it said US President Donald Trump had never formally answered.

“The agreement is coming to an end. We view this negatively and express our regret,” said Peskov, who said the matter had come up in a call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping a day earlier.

“What happens next depends on how events unfold. In any case, the Russian Federation will maintain its responsible and attentive approach to the issue of strategic stability in the field of nuclear weapons and, of course, as always, will be guided first and foremost by its national interests.”

New START, first signed in Prague in 2010 by then presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, limited each side’s nuclear arsenal to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads – a reduction of nearly 30 percent from the previous limit set in 2002.

Deployed weapons or warheads are those in active service and available for rapid use as opposed to those in storage or awaiting dismantlement.

It also allowed each side to conduct on-site inspections of the other’s nuclear arsenal, although these were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic and have not resumed since.

‘China will not participate in disarmament negotiations’

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs joined a growing international chorus expressing regret over the treaty’s expiry.

“China regrets the expiration of the New START treaty, as the treaty is of great significance to maintaining global strategic stability,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said on Thursday.

“The international community is generally concerned that the expiration of the treaty will have a negative impact on the international nuclear arms control system and the global nuclear order.”

Trump has said he wants a better deal that will also bring in China. But Beijing refuses to negotiate with the other two countries because it has only a fraction of their warhead numbers – an estimated 600, compared with about 4,000 each for Russia and the US.

Lin reiterated this point, adding that China would not be joining the bilateral arms‑reduction talks.

“China’s nuclear forces are not on the same level as those of the United States and Russia, and China will not participate in disarmament negotiations at this stage,” Lin said.

Russia and the US together control more than 80 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads.

China’s nuclear arsenal, however, is growing faster than any country’s, by about 100 new warheads a year since 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

China is estimated to have at least 600 nuclear warheads, SIPRI says – well below the 800 each at which Russia and the US were capped under New START.

The White House said this week that Trump would decide the way forward on nuclear arms control, which he would “clarify on his own timeline”.

A NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called on the US and Russia to act with “responsibility and restraint” to maintain “global security”.

The official added that Russia and China were both ramping up their nuclear capabilities and that NATO “will continue to take steps necessary” to ensure its own defences.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran’s mysterious Pickaxe Mountain a ‘candidate’ for new nuclear activities

By Annika Burgess, ABC, 7 Feb 26

Hidden among the mountains in central Iran, work has been continuing on a mysterious underground facility believed to be buried beyond the range of US “bunker buster” bombs.

The site, known as Pickaxe Mountain, or Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, has never been accessed by international nuclear inspectors, and its exact purpose remains unclear.

Analysts monitoring its development via satellite imagery have witnessed security walls growing, spoil piles expanding and tunnel entrances being reinforced as engineers dig deeper into the mountain.

“We don’t have internal schematics to really judge what the inside will look like,” says Spencer Faragasso, a senior research fellow at the US Institute for Science and International Security.

“But given the size of the spoil piles, the amount of construction they’re doing, it wouldn’t be incomprehensible to see them establish an enrichment facility inside it.”

Located near the peak of the Zagros Mountains, the site is just 1.6 kilometres south of Natanz, which was Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility.

But Pickaxe Mountain was not affected when Natanz and two other key Iranian nuclear facilities — Fordow and Isfahan — were targeted in US strikes that aimed to disrupt Tehran from potentially developing nuclear bombs.

US President Donald Trump said the three sites were “obliterated” in the June 2025 attacks, but has renewed demands for Iran to make a deal over its nuclear program or face fresh strikes that would be “far worse”.

Negotiators from both countries held indirect talks in Oman on Friday, with Iran’s top diplomat striking a cautiously optimistic note after their conclusion.

However, the US delegation, led by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Mr Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, did not offer any immediate comment.

Recent assessments show Tehran’s nuclear program was severely damaged by the US during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, but it could be built up again.

And satellite imagery revealed Pickaxe Mountain could be a “potential candidate” for new uranium enrichment activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Where are the uranium stockpiles?

Iran’s stockpiles of 60 per cent enriched uranium remain missing.

Trucks observed outside Fordow and Isfahan before and after the US strikes suggested Iran may have moved the material.

But the IAEA director said there was a “general understanding” the enriched uranium was likely still buried under the damaged facilities.

“We need to go back there and to confirm that the material is there and it’s not being diverted to any other use,” Mr Grossi said in October…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-07/iran-nuclear-sites-program-us-strikes-pickaxe-mountain-uranium/106288446

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Iran, technology | Leave a comment

US congressional report explores option of not delivering any Aukus nuclear submarines to Australia.

COMMENT – What a typical USA plan?

They reneg on delivering the “goods” sold, but keep the $368 billion!

the Congressional Research report describes an alternative “military division of labour”, under which the US would not sell any Virginia-class submarines to Australia.

Report offers alternative of the US navy retaining boats and operating them out of Australian bases

Ben Doherty, Guardian, 6 Feb 26

A new United States congressional report openly contemplates not selling any nuclear submarines to Australia – as promised under the Aukus agreement – because America wants to retain control of the submarines for a potential conflict with China over Taiwan.

The report by the US Congressional Research Service, Congress’s policy research arm, posits an alternative “military division of labour” under which the submarines earmarked for sale to Australia are instead retained under US command to be sailed out of Australian bases.

One of the arguments made against the US selling submarines to Australia is that Australia has refused to commit to supporting America in a conflict with China over Taiwan. Boats under US command could be deployed into that conflict.

The report, released on 26 January, cites statements from the Australian defence minister, Richard Marles, and the chief of navy that Australia would make “no promises … that Australia would support the United States” in the event of war with China over Taiwan.

“Selling three to five Virginia-class SSNs [nuclear-powered general-purpose attack submarines] to Australia would thus convert those SSNs from boats that would be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict into boats that might not be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict,” the report argues.

“This could weaken rather than strengthen deterrence and warfighting capability in connection with a US-China crisis or conflict.”

Under the existing Aukus “optimal pathway’, Australia will first buy between three and five Virginia-class nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines, the first in 2032.

Following that, the first of eight Australian-built Aukus submarines, based on a UK design, is slated to be in the water “in the early 2040s”.

But the Congressional Research report describes an alternative “military division of labour”, under which the US would not sell any Virginia-class submarines to Australia.

The boats not sold to Australia “would instead be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia” alongside US and UK attack submarines already planned to rotate through Australian bases.

The report speculated Australia could use the money saved to invest on other defence capabilities, even using those capabilities as a subordinate force in support of US missions.

“Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities – such as … long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers … or systems for defending Australia against attack … so as to create an Australian capacity for performing other missions, including non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States.”

The report also raises cybersecurity concerns, noting that “hackers linked to China” are “highly active” in attempting to penetrate Australian government and contractors’ computers.

It argues that sharing nuclear submarine technology with another country “would increase the attack surface, meaning the number of potential digital and physical entry points that China, Russia, or some other country could attempt to penetrate to gain access to that technology”.

The debate over whether the US should sell boats to Australia is also grounded in ongoing concern over low rates of shipbuilding in the US: the country’s shipyards are failing to build enough submarines to supply America’s own navy, let alone build boats for Australia.

For the past 15 years, the US Navy has ordered boats at a rate of two a year, but its shipyards have never met that build rate “and since 2022 has been limited to about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year, resulting in a growing backlog of boats procured but not yet built”.

The US fleet currently has only three-quarters of the submarines it needs (49 boats of a force-level goal of 66). Shipyards need to build Virginia-class submarines at a rate of two a year to meet America’s own needs, and to lift that to 2.33 boats a year in order to be able to supply submarines to Australia.

Legislation passed by the US Congress prohibits the sale of any submarine to Australia if the US needs it for its own fleet. The US commander-in-chief – the president of the day – must certify that America relinquishing a submarine “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities”.

The report argues that Australia’s strict nuclear non-proliferation laws could also weaken US submarine force projection under the current Aukus plan.

Australian officials have consistently told US counterparts that, in adherence to Australia’s commitments as a non-nuclear weapon state under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Australia’s attack submarines can only ever be armed with conventional weapons.

“Selling three to five Virginia-class SSNs to Australia would thus convert those SSNs from boats that could in the future be armed with the US nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile with an aim of enhancing deterrence,” the report states……………………………………………………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/not-delivering-any-aukus-nuclear-submarines-to-australia-explored-as-option-in-us-congressional-report

February 13, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

No evidence to support US claim China conducted nuclear blast test: Monitor

Robert Floyd, executive secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, said in a statement on Friday that the body’s monitoring system “did not detect any event consistent with the characteristics of a nuclear weapon test explosion” at the time of the alleged Chinese test, adding that that assessment remains unchanged after further detailed analyses.

Washington wants Beijing to join a new nuclear weapons treaty after expiration of the New START accord between the US and Russia.

By Al Jazeera and News Agencies, 6 Feb 26, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/7/no-evidence-to-support-us-claim-china-conducted-nuclear-blast-test-monitor

An international monitor said it has seen no evidence to support the claim by a senior United States official who accused China of carrying out a series of clandestine nuclear tests in 2020 and concealing activities that violated nuclear test ban treaties.

US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno made the assertions about China at a United Nations disarmament conference in Geneva, Switzerland, on Friday, just days after a nuclear treaty with Russia expired.

“I can reveal that the US government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tonnes,” DiNanno said at the conference.

China’s military “sought to conceal testing by obfuscating the nuclear explosions because it recognised these tests violate test ban commitments,” he said.

“China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22 of 2020,” he said.

DiNanno also made his allegations on social media in a series of posts, making the case for “new architecture” in nuclear weapons control agreements following the expiration of the New START treaty with Russia this week.

“New START was signed in 2010 and its limits on warheads and launchers are no longer relevant in 2026 when one nuclear power is expanding its arsenal at a scale and pace not seen in over half a century and another continues to maintain and develop a vast range of nuclear systems unconstrained by New START’s terms,” he said.

Robert Floyd, executive secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, said in a statement on Friday that the body’s monitoring system “did not detect any event consistent with the characteristics of a nuclear weapon test explosion” at the time of the alleged Chinese test, adding that that assessment remains unchanged after further detailed analyses.

China’s ambassador on nuclear disarmament, Shen Jian, did not directly address DiNanno’s charge at the conference but said Beijing had always acted prudently and responsibly on nuclear issues while the US had “continued to distort and smear China’s national defence capabilities in its statements”.

We firmly oppose this false narrative and reject the US’s unfounded accusations,” Shen said.

“In fact, the US’s series of negative actions in the field of nuclear arms control are the biggest source of risk to international security,” he said.

Later on social media, Shen said, “China has always honored its commitment to the moratorium on nuclear testing”.

Diplomats at the conference said the US allegations were new and concerning.

China, like the US, has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which bans explosive nuclear tests. Russia signed and ratified it, but withdrew its ratification in ⁠2023.

US President Donald Trump has previously instructed the US military to prepare for the resumption of nuclear tests, stating that other countries are conducting them without offering details.

The US president said on October 31 that Washington would start testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with Moscow and Beijing, but without elaborating or explaining what kind of nuclear testing he wanted to resume.

He has also said that he would like China to be involved in any future nuclear treaty, but authorities in Beijing have shown little interest in his proposal.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | China, spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

In nuclear race with Russia, Trump goes back to a Cold War future

After letting New START expire, Trump threatens to replace the era of arms control with a new arms race against Russia and China.

Aaron Maté, Feb 07, 2026

As if the lingering prospect of a new attack on Iran is not dangerous enough, the Trump administration is toying with a greater threat to global security.

With Thursday’s expiration of the New START treaty, the US and Russia no longer have any legal constraints on their arsenals of nuclear weapons. President Trump let the treaty collapse rather than accept a Kremlin offer to extend for one year, the maximum possible. This removes the last formal constraint on a renewed arms race between two states that already can destroy the world many times over.

There are unconfirmed reports that the two sides have reached an informal understanding to observe the treaty’s terms for at least six months. And, in a rare sign of progress, Moscow and Washington have announced a resumption of high-level military-to-military dialogue. The Biden administration suspended those contacts in late 2021 as Russia built up its forces on Ukraine’s borders.

Yet the news is far from reassuring…………………………………….(Subscribers only) https://www.aaronmate.net/p/in-nuclear-race-with-russia-trump?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=187111056&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

February 13, 2026 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Northwatch Comments on the NWMO’s Initial Project Description of a Proposed Deep Geological Repository for High-Level Nuclear Waste

7 Feb 26, https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/88774/contributions/id/64898

The following points summarize Northwatch’s comments on the NWMO’s Initial Project Description of a Proposed Deep Geological Repository for High-Level Nuclear Waste to be located at the Revell site in Treaty 3 territory in northwestern Ontario:

  • NWMO’s Deep Geological Repository Project should be designated for a full impact assessment and public hearing
  • The long-distance transportation of nuclear fuel waste from the reactor stations to the proposed repository site must be included in the impact assessment
  • NWMO’s Initial Project Description is inadequate and does not provide the information required, including and particularly it does not sufficiently describe or otherwise demonstrate that it has adequately examined alternatives to the project or alternative means of carrying out the project, and the IPD largely goes off course in its description of the need and purpose of the project.
  • As directed by the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act the need or purpose of the project is to effectively isolate the nuclear fuel wastes from people and the environment.
  • The NWMO has not provided a clear statement of the need and purpose for the project, and when it discussed the need and purpose of the project in its IPD it muddied the waters by including unsupported promotional statements and out-of-scope policy statements about the future role of nuclear power.
  • Instead of setting out careful consideration of alternative means of meeting the project need (to safely contain and isolate the nuclear fuel waste from people and the environment) the NWMO simply summarized some aspects of their 2003 studies. The IPD should include a contemporary assessment of alternative means of meeting the project need.
  • The NWMO’s consideration of alternative means of carrying out the project is too limited; the alternative means examination should also include alternative sites, alternatives in repository access (ramp vs shaft), transportation in used fuel containers instead of in transportation packages, the alternative means of in-water transfer of used fuel at repository site (vs “in air” ie. in hot cells), alternative mining methods, alternatives in waste emplacement (in-room vs in-floor) and alternatives in used fuel container design
  • The NWMO’s description of the project and project activities is too limited, and at times is promotional rather than factual in its approach.
  • The NWMO has misrepresented the fuel waste inventory, upon which repository size, years of operation, and resulting degrees of risk and contamination all hinge.
  • The NWMO excluded the first step in their project, which is the transfer of the used fuel waste from dry storage containers into transportation containers at the reactor site; this is consistent with past practice.
  • Without foundation the NWMO is attempting to exclude long-distance transportation from the Impact Assessment process; this is inconsistent with the impact assessment law in Canada and with the manner in which the NWMO has been describing their project over the last twenty years.
  • The Initial Project Description inadequately describes major project components and activities, including the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, waste placement and repository design and construction and closure, decommissioning and monitoring.
  • The description of the Project Site, Location and Study Area(s) is flawed and in some respects inaccurate.
  • The potential effects of the project are poorly described and in some instances the NWMO text is promotional rather than factual.
  • The description of the site selection process is very selective in the information it presents and creates a false impression of community experience through the siting process in the 22 communities that the NWMO investigated.
  • There are significant gaps and deficiencies in the Initial project description; several subject areas fundamental to the assessment of the deep geological repository are extremely limited or fully absent including the subjects of long-term safety, emergency response and evacuation plans, accidents and malevolent acts and security.
  • The Initial Project Description was poorly organized and was not copy edited; it lacked an index and there was no glossary included.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

“Journalism Deserves Better”: Ex-Washington Post Staffers Slam Billionaire Bezos for Gutting Paper

Democracy Now, February 06, 2026

The Washington Post has laid off more than 300 journalists, dismantling its sports, local news and international coverage. “Everybody is grieving, and it’s a loss for our readers,” says Nilo Tabrizy, one of the paper’s recently laid-off staff, who describes a “robotic” meeting announcing the cuts. “They didn’t have the dignity to look us in the eye.” The shocking staff culling has been widely attributed to the paper’s leadership under Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who bought the nearly 150-year-old institution in 2013. Karen Attiah, the former global opinion editor at the Post, was hired soon after Bezos’s arrival. She recounts how the arrival of a billionaire backer initially revitalized the paper with resources and creative freedom, before souring over the next decade.

“We thought [he] shared the same values that we had,” says Attiah, who was fired from the Post last fall over comments she made about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. “Journalism deserves better than a billionaire owner who decides that partying in Europe is more important than people’s lives.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………https://www.democracynow.org/2026/2/6/karen_altiah_washington_post_layoffs_journalists

February 13, 2026 Posted by | media, USA | Leave a comment

UK ignores corruption scandals when awarding major military contracts.

Freedom of Information requests reveal Britain’s trade department collected “no information” about fines issued to UK military suppliers for corruption.

JOHN McEVOY, 4 February 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-ignores-corruption-scandals-when-awarding-major-military-contracts/

The Ministry of Defence is reportedly set to award a £2 billion contract to a consortium led by Raytheon UK despite major corruption and fraud violations recently levelled against its American parent company RTX. 

The contract, which aims to modernise the army’s training infrastructure using “advanced simulation”, will be awarded through a competitive process in which Raytheon UK seeks to displace a rival bid led by Israel’s Elbit Systems UK.

RTX is already a major supplier to the UK Ministry of Defence, having completed integration trials for the Paveway precision-guided missile on the Typhoon aircraft in 2025. 

The company says it has a “decades-long partnership with the British army”, and holds licences to export F-35 fighter jet components which are used by Israel.

Yet in 2024, RTX faced significant legal sanctions in the US relating to alleged bribery of foreign officials, defective pricing, and export control violations. 

The company settled several federal investigations with overall penalties exceeding $950 million.

Crucially, Freedom of Information requests suggest that UK export-licensing authorities have taken no action in response to these developments.

The Department for Business and Trade and the Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) said in October 2025 they hold no internal correspondence, briefs, or risk assessments relating to the RTX enforcement actions. 

This is despite the UK’s own guidelines for military export licences explicitly requiring ongoing assessment of risk of diversion, misuse, and breach of international humanitarian law.

The guidelines also direct authorities to consider exporter conduct and compliance history.

In response to further FOI requests, the Ministry of Defence also refused to clarify whether RTX’s enforcement actions abroad were internally discussed when deliberating the award of major contracts to the company.

This apparent inaction raises fundamental questions about whether systemic reassessment of exporter behaviour takes place when serious misconduct comes to light.

It also comes as the UK’s National Audit Office has found in a new report released last week that the defence ministry could “make significant savings” if it better managed losses from economic crimes, including procurement fraud.

The business and trade department and defence ministry did not respond to requests for comment about whether they consider foreign corruption scandals when awarding export licences or training contracts to firms.

Raytheon has been the subject of past enforcement controversies in Britain, with the company refusing to explain its activities to the government’s committees on arms export control in 2019 while arming Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen.

Its competitor for the army training contract, Elbit Systems, is also facing accusations of breaching business appointment rules while continuing to hold export licences granted by the ECJU.

Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) spokesperson Emily Apple told Declassified: “Time and again successive governments have lied, repeatedly telling us the UK has one of the most robust arms export control systems in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth”.

The business and trade department said: “The UK operates one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world.

“All export licensing decisions are made in line with our Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, and our assessments take all information relevant to the risk of diversion or misuse into account”.

Moog

The issue is not unique to RTX. 

Another defence contractor, Moog Inc., resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) administrative order in October 2024 involving bribery by its Indian subsidiary.

The FCPA is a US federal law which makes it illegal for US persons or companies to bribe foreign government officials to gain a business advantage.

However, the ECJU also holds “no information” about any discussions relating to that FCPA order, according to the FOI documents seen by Declassified.

Together, the RTX and Moog cases represent the only publicly reported defence industry FCPA-related enforcement actions in 2024. 

Moog currently holds UK licenses to export components for trainer aircraft used by the Israeli air force, and contributes to the global F-35 programme.

Public information raises further questions about how Moog’s compliance oversight function was structured during the period in which these violations allegedly occurred. 

According to a LinkedIn profile, Moog’s compliance manager has had oversight of both Moog UK and Moog India since before 2020 — the period during which the company’s Indian subsidiary was later found by US authorities to have engaged in bribery of state officials. 

“While the existence of a group-level compliance function does not itself imply wrongdoing, it underscores that Moog’s UK operations were not operating in isolation from wider corporate compliance arrangements at the time, and raises legitimate questions about how compliance risks were identified, escalated, and addressed across the group”, said Emily Apple from CAAT.

Despite these questions, Moog Wolverhampton has not been subject to an ECJU compliance visit since 2022, according to further FOI requests issued in November.

This is notable given that the site was inspected twice within a two-month period that year, a pattern potentially associated with follow-up or remedial reviews.

Yet the company’s sites in Britain have apparently not been revisited in the three years since, including after Moog’s US parent company agreed a major FCPA settlement in 2024.

Emily Apple added: “Whether it’s ignoring corruption scandals, or trampling over international law, it appears there are no limits to the steps the government is prepared to take to prioritise arms dealers’ profits. This is a system beyond reform. It is out of control, devoid of ethics and operating beyond the law”.

Moog and RTX did not respond to requests for comment.

February 12, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

The 24-site US military network in Britain worth £11 billion

America’s War Department owns more military and intelligence sites in Britain than the government has told parliament

MARK CURTIS, DECLASSIFIED UK, 3 February 2026

The US military owns 22 sites in Britain whose “replacement value” is $15.6bn (£11.4bn), according to a US War Department document found by Declassified UK.

This number of sites is larger than previously believed and more than UK governments have told parliament.

A US document published online identifies 16 of the US military’s locations in the UK and notes six “other sites” which are not specified. The document, published last year, outlines the US military’s “property portfolio” around the world as of September 2024. 

Declassified has identified other locations in Britain that are likely to be hosting US military or intelligence personnel, bringing the total to at least 24.

This doesn’t cover the full scale of the US military presence in the UK, since it is believed that US military personnel are frequently, if not permanently, stationed at still more sites, such as the key Royal Navy bases at Coulport, Devonport and Faslane. 

The 16 locations in Britain specified by the US War Department include the major US air bases at Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Croughton and Fairford but also lesser-known sites.

The smaller locations include a 35-acre US Air Force (USAF) site at RAF Bicester in Oxfordshire and a location said to comprise 35,397 square feet of buildings at RAF Oakhanger in Hampshire.

The document also notes US ownership of facilities at the top secret Fylingdales spy station in Yorkshire, where it possesses 5,860 square feet of building space. 

Fylingdales is a joint enterprise between the US and UK and “provides a 24/7 missile warning and space surveillance capability for the UK and its allies”. 

While most of the locations are operated by the USAF, the single site where the US Navy is said to be active is Lossiemouth near Inverness, the only location mentioned in Scotland. 

A recent investigation by The Ferret found the US established a base there in May 2024, with the US navy helping to fund the construction of facilities for its Poseidon P8 anti-submarine spy and warplanes at the site. 

The investigation also found the Scottish government was not consulted about stationing US aircraft at Lossiemouth.

Other US sites mentioned in the War Department document include a 736-acre ammunition storage location at RAF Welford in Berkshire and a “transmitter annex site” at RAF Barford St John in Oxfordshire. 

These US sites stretch over 20 square miles, which is equivalent to around 11,500 football pitches, or an area larger than the city of Oxford.

Successive UK governments have failed to mention in parliament some of these 16 sites as being US military operating locations, such as RAF Oakhanger and RAF Bicester. The last time Oakhanger was mentioned in parliament was in November 1996.

More recently, in answer to a parliamentary question in February 2022, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) mentioned only eight sites from where US personnel were operating, along with “undisclosed locations”.

Two years earlier, in June 2020, a minister listed 11 bases which were “designated for use by the United States Visiting Forces” in the UK. This form of words appears to keep open the possibility that US personnel are also based elsewhere.

Where are the six other sites?

The US document specifies sites in Britain that are larger than ten acres or have a replacement value of over $10m (£7.3m)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-24-site-us-military-network-in-britain-worth-11-billion/

February 12, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran’s Comprehensive Peace Proposal to the United States

The Middle East stands at a crossroads between endless war and comprehensive peace. A framework for peace does exist. Will the US finally seize it?

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Sybil Fares, Common Dreams, Feb 09, 2026

History occasionally presents moments when the truth about a conflict is stated plainly enough that it becomes impossible to ignore. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s February 7 address in Doha, Qatar (transcript here) should prove to be such a moment. His important and constructive remarks responded to the US call for comprehensive negotiations, and he laid out a sound proposal for peace across the Middle East.

Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for comprehensive negotiations: “If the Iranians want to meet, we’re ready.” He proposed for talks to include the nuclear issue, Iran’s military capabilities, and its support for proxy groups around the region. On its surface, this sounds like a serious and constructive proposal. The Middle East’s security crises are interconnected, and diplomacy that isolates nuclear issues from broader regional dynamics is unlikely to endure.

On February 7, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi’s responded to the United States’ proposal for a comprehensive peace. In his speech at the Al Jazeera Forum, the foreign minister addressed the root cause of regional instability – “Palestine… is the defining question of justice in West Asia and beyond” and he proposed a path forward.

The Foreign Minister’s statement is correct. The failure to resolve the issue of Palestinian statehood has indeed fueled every major regional conflict since 1948. The Arab-Israeli wars, the rise of anti-Israel militancy, the regional polarization, and the repeated cycles of violence, all derive from the failure to create a State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel. Gaza represents the most devastating chapter in this conflict, where Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine was followed by Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then by Israel’s genocide against the people of Gaza.

In his speech, Araghchi condemned Israel’s expansionist project “pursued under the banner of security.” He warned of the annexation of the West Bank, which Israeli government officials, as National Security Minister Ben Gvir, continually call for, and for which the Knesset has already passed a motion.

Araghchi also highlighted another fundamental dimension of Israeli strategy which is the pursuit of permanent military supremacy across the region. He said that Israel’s expansionist project requires that “neighboring countries be weakened—militarily, technologically, economically, and socially—so that the Israeli regime permanently enjoys the upper hand.” This is indeed the Clean Break doctrine of Prime Minister Netanyahu, dating back 30 years. It has been avidly supported by the US through 100 billion dollars in military assistance to Israel since 2000, diplomatic cover at the UN via repeated vetoes, and the consistent US rejection of accountability measures for Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law.

Israel’s impunity has destabilized the region, fueling arms races, proxy wars, and cycles of revenge. It has also corroded what remains of the international legal order. The abuse of international law by the US and Israel with much of Europe remaining silent, has gravely weakened the UN Charter, leaving the UN close to collapse.

In the concluding remarks of his speech, he offered the US a political solution and path forward. “The path to stability is clear: justice for Palestine, accountability for crimes, an end to occupation and apartheid, and a regional order built on sovereignty, equality, and cooperation. If the world wants peace, it must stop rewarding aggression. If the world wants stability, it must stop enabling expansionism.”

This is a valid and constructive response to Rubio’s call for comprehensive diplomacy…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/comprehensive-peace-plan-middle-east

February 12, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

We’re being turned into an energy colony’: Argentina’s nuclear plan faces backlash over US interests

Gioia Claro and Denali DeGraf in Cerro Cóndor, Guardian, Argentina, 10 Feb 26

Push to restart uranium mining in Patagonia has sparked fears about the environmental impact and loss of sovereignty over key resources

On an outcrop above the Chubut River, one of the few to cut across the arid Patagonian steppe of southern Argentina, Sergio Pichiñán points across a wide swath of scrubland to colourful rock formations on a distant hillside.

“That’s where they dug for uranium before, and when the miners left, they left the mountain destroyed, the houses abandoned, and nobody ever studied the water,” he says, citing suspicions arising from cases of cancer and skin diseases in his community. “If they want to open this back up, we’re all pretty worried around here.”

Pichiñán lives in Cerro Cóndor, a hamlet with a sparse Indigenous Mapuche population due to the area’s harsh summers, cold winters and little rain. The National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) mined uranium here in the 1970s and it is now in focus as President Javier Milei aims to shift Argentina’s nuclear strategy.

The remote region sees few visitors, but in November, a delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency visited as part of an Integrated Uranium Production Cycle Review. Cerro Solo, adjacent to the shuttered mines, is one of CNEA’s largest proven uranium deposits, and restarting mining of the ore is the first step in Milei’s new nuclear plan.

The others are to develop small modular reactors, use them to power AI datacentres, export reactors and uranium, and partially privatise Nucleoeléctrica, the state-owned nuclear energy utility.

Yet the plan is facing fierce criticism from both pro- and anti-nuclear voices. Argentina’s non-military nuclear programme is 75 years old. It exports research reactors that produce isotopes for medical radiology and science, and its three nuclear plants – Atucha I and II and Embalse – provide about 5% of the country’s electricity.

Uranium production in Chubut declined in the 1980s, and the mines were closed in the 1990s; since another closed in Mendoza in 1997, Argentina has imported uranium, so many see restarting uranium extraction as a strategic move.

Adriana Serquis, a nuclear physicist, is not so sure. She was president of CNEA until 2024 and was recently elected to congress. She says: “The plan doesn’t seem oriented toward supplying our own plants, but rather exporting uranium directly to the US. It would appear the objective is to satisfy others’ needs while destroying our own capabilities.”

Dioxitek, a state-run subsidiary of CNEA, processes imported uranium into uranium dioxide for use in Argentina’s power stations, but signed a commitment in August last year with the US-based Nano Nuclear Energy to supply it with uranium hexafluoride. As Argentina’s reactors run on natural or low-enriched uranium oxide rather than uranium hexafluoride, it is likely that any uranium extracted in Argentina would be exported to the US rather than be used for local energy production.

In parallel, Nano Nuclear Energy signed a memorandum of understanding with the British-Argentinian company UrAmerica, which has large holdings in Chubut and plans to mine uranium. One of the stated goals of the agreement is “strengthening US energy security by sourcing materials for nuclear fuel from a reliable partner”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

All this comes in the context of Milei’s chainsaw-style dismemberment of public research and environmental protection agencies. “Milei took office with a potent discourse of stigmatising science and technology, and rapidly defamed them across the board, from CNEA to the National Water Institute to the National Weather Service to public universities,” Hurtado says. “It’s catastrophic.”

Trade unions claim that between 80% and 90% of CNEA workers receive salaries below the poverty line – increasing emigration and brain drain. In 2024, the country’s secretariat for innovation, science and technology only spent 7% of its allocated budget. Public universities have seen budgets slashed.

Partially privatising the public nuclear utility, Nucleoeléctrica, sets off other alarm bells. The plan, formally launched by the economy ministry in November, aims to sell 44% of the state company to a private investor. Although not holding an absolute majority, the buyer would have the largest stake, giving them decision-making control.

Demian Reidel, Milei’s lead on nuclear matters, was the chair of the council of presidential advisers until being appointed as head of Nucleoeléctrica, where he is now facing a scandal about the company’s procurement and alleged overpricing of service and software contracts……………………………………………………………………………………

Chubut has a broad-based and deeply entrenched grassroots anti-mining movement. A 2003 referendum on open-pit gold-mining received an 81% “no” vote, leading to a law prohibiting the practice throughout the province. In 2021, lawmakers tried to open the central steppe to mining but withdrew after protesters blocked highways, swarmed the capital and set fire to government buildings.

The anti-nuclear movement goes back to the 1980s, when a radioactive waste dump was proposed near Gastre, a remote village in central Chubut. After years of popular opposition scuttled the project, cities and towns across Patagonia passed anti-nuclear ordinances banning the presence or transit of nuclear materials.

Now, near the old mine sites in central Chubut, tens of thousands of tonnes of old uranium tailings sit behind only a chain-link fence and a sign that says “Restricted Area”.

Orlando Carriqueo, spokesperson for the Mapuche-Tehuelche parliament of Río Negro, an Indigenous organisation in another Patagonian province, says public opinion in the region is concerned about the consequences of uranium mining for fuel production and about waste management. “We’re being turned into an energy colony,” he says.

Reports by CNEA over the past three administrations show no radiation monitoring at the site. Less than a kilometre away, the Río Chubut flows past on its way to supply drinking water to the towns of Trelew, Gaiman and Rawson on the Atlantic coast.

Pichiñán, riding his horse past the abandoned mines, says he fears that future generations could be deluded by the same broken promises of the past. “What happened back then, when they told us we were going to be rich? Where’s all that wealth? Where are the people who were going to have work and money?” he asks.

“I don’t want my child to be 30, 40 years old one day and have to show them this kind of abandonment,” he says. “Whatever happens, we can’t let them do this.”

The CNEA declined to comment. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/feb/09/energy-colony-argentina-patagonia-uranium-nuclear-plan-backlash-over-us-interests

February 12, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, SOUTH AMERICA | Leave a comment

Collapsing Empire: US Bows To African Revolutionaries

 Kit Klarenberg, Global Delinquents, Feb 09, 2026

On February 2nd, the BBC published an extraordinary report on how the Trump administration “has declared a stark policy shift” towards Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, the governments of which have sought to eradicate all ties to Western imperial powers, and forged the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). The independent bloc is a revolutionary enterprise, with the prospect further countries will follow its members’ lead. Washington is under no illusions about the new geopolitical realities unfolding in Africa.

The British state broadcaster records how Nick Checker, State Department African Affairs chief, is due to visit Mali to convey US “respect” for the country’s “sovereignty”, and chart a “new course” in relations, moving “past policy missteps.” Checker will also express optimism about future collaboration with AES, “on shared security and economic interests.” This is an absolutely unprecedented development. After military coups deposed the elected presidents of all three countries 2020 – 2023, the trio became Western pariahs.

France and the US initially aimed to isolate and undermine the military governments, halting “cooperation” projects in numerous fields. Meanwhile, the Economic Community of West African States, a neocolonial union of which all three were members, first imposed severe sanctions on Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, before its combined armed forces prepared to outright invade the latter in summer 2023. The three countries didn’t budge, and in fact welcomed Western isolation, forging new international partnerships and strengthening their ties. ECOWAS military action never came to pass.

In January 2025, the trio seceded from the union and created AES. Western-funded, London-based Amani Africa branded the move “the most significant crisis in West Africa’s regional integration since the founding of ECOWAS in 1975,” claiming it dealt “a significant blow to African…cooperation architecture.” Meanwhile, Burkina Faso’s leader Capt Ibrahim Traoré has become a media hate figure. A disparaging May 2025 Financial Times profile slammed him as a cynical opportunist leading a “Russia-backed junta”, and his supporters a “cult”.

As the BBC unwittingly explains, such antipathy towards Traoré stems from establishing himself “as a standard-bearer in resisting ‘imperialism’ and ‘neocolonialism’.” Via “vigorous social media promotion, he has gained huge support for this stance and personal popularity among young people across the continent and beyond,” ever since seizing office in September 2022. Far from just talk, Traoré and his fellow AES “junta” leaders have systematically neutralised malign Western influence locally, while pursuing left-wing economic policies for the good of their populations.

France and the US have proven markedly powerless to hamper, let alone reverse, this seismic progress…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/collapsing-empire-us-bows-to-african

February 12, 2026 Posted by | AFRICA, France, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

If You Think Our Rulers Do Bad Things In Secret, Wait Til You See What They Do Out In The Open.

Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 09, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/if-you-think-our-rulers-do-bad-things?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=187345674&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

They launched a live-streamed genocide in full view of the entire world.

They’re openly targeting civilian populations with siege warfare in Iran and Cuba in full view of the entire world.

They openly kidnapped the president of a sovereign nation in full view of the entire world.

They deliberately provoked a horrific and dangerous proxy war in Ukraine in full view of the entire world.

They spent years actively backing Saudi Arabia’s monstrous genocidal atrocities in Yemen in full view of the entire world.

They’re plundering and exploiting the resources and labor of the global south in full view of the entire world.

They’re killing the biosphere we all depend on for their own enrichment in full view of the entire world.

They’re circling the globe with hundreds of military bases to secure planetary domination in full view of the entire world.

They engage in nuclear brinkmanship and wave around armageddon weapons like pistols in full view of the entire world.

People go homeless and die of exposure while billionaires buy private islands and choose the next president in full view of the entire world.

Weapons manufacturers lobby for wars and then profit from the death and destruction they cause in full view of the entire world.

The president of the United States has repeatedly admitted to being bought and owned by the world’s richest Israeli in full view of the entire world.

The US Treasury Secretary has been repeatedly admitting that the US deliberately sparked the violence and unrest in Iran by methodically immiserating the population via economic warfare, in full view of the entire world.

I keep seeing people freaking out and asking how it’s possible that the individuals in the Epstein files haven’t been arrested for their secret nefarious behavior. And I always want to ask them, mate, have you seen the nefarious behavior they’re engaging in right out in the open?

Pay attention to the Epstein files. Pay attention to what little we can learn about how these freaks conduct themselves behind closed doors. By all means, pay close attention to these things.

But don’t forget to also pay attention to the far greater evils they are inflicting in full view of the entire world.

February 11, 2026 Posted by | Atrocities, Israel, USA | Leave a comment

Without an economic reset with Russia, a peace deal for Ukraine may render Britain and Europe weakened relics of a unipolar past.

the peace deal available to Ukraine and also to its European sponsors, will never be as good as the one available today.

It won’t be as good as the deal that was available to Ukraine in April 2022 in Istanbul.

Fighting on for another year will simply stack the advantages more in favour of Russia such that any final settlement just gets progressively worse.

Ian Proud, Feb 09, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/without-an-economic-reset-with-russia?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=187362231&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

In recent days, I have seen more mainstream media commentators claiming that a peace deal can’t be agreed without Ukraine. But that is a statement of the blindingly obvious.

Of course, Ukraine must agree to the terms of any agreement.

But Russia must also agree to the terms of any agreement, and it has been the exclusion of Russia from any direct dialogue on ending the war which has led to the war dragging on for almost four years.

It seems an obvious thing to say, although not obviously clear to mainstream pundits, but a peace deal has to be agreed by both Russia and Ukraine.

This is a war that will not end with a decisive military victory by either side, with either Ukraine or Russia capitulating, even if Russia emerges in a stronger position, which appears likely.

Ultimately, the contours of any peace deal will represent that which both sides can live with, in terms of how they present peace to their publics.

But its detailed terms will reflect the relative weight of both sides in the final negotiation.

The one certainty in any peace deal is that Ukraine will become militarily unaligned, with NATO membership taken permanently off the table, in return for which it receives security guarantees that both it, and Russia, can accept.

There is simply no scenario I can see in which Ukraine continues on its path to NATO membership.

Deadlock on this issue, which Russia will not back down from, will lead to the continuation of the war, with Russia in a progressively stronger position militarily and better able to navigate the economic impacts than Ukraine, which is already bankrupt.

Britain and European will increasingly struggle to give Ukraine the resources that it needs, not just to fight, but also to avoid a shocking economic meltdown.

Everything else is in the peace plan will be down to fine points of detail and white noise.

But, of course, the terms of the peace deal will reflect the relative weight of both sides in the negotiations.

And let’s be clear that Russia continues to hold the stronger hand of cards in negotiations.

Russia will end the war with the strategic advantage on the battlefield, their army the most battle hardened and well equipped that it has been since the end of World War II.

Their core aim, to prevent NATO expansion in Ukraine will decisively have been achieved.

Russia will have managed the economic consequences of war better than Ukraine and its western sponsors, in particular Europe.

Ukraine will end the war, wanting to maintain an army of 800,000 but without the money to do so without British and Europeans donations of aid that will become harder to secure as peace sets it.

It will have failed to land NATO membership and the prospects for joining the EU might not be as bright as the Ukrainian population would expect.

It will be functionally bankrupt and will need quickly to reintroduce itself to a healthy relationship with western financial markets, in order to stay afloat.

However, the peace deal available to Ukraine and also to its European sponsors, will never be as good as the one available today.

It won’t be as good as the deal that was available to Ukraine in April 2022 in Istanbul. Fighting on for another year will simply stack the advantages more in favour of Russia such that any final settlement just gets progressively worse.

So, what is at stake?

Both sides will sign an agreement when they are satisfied that it meets their respective needs.

For Ukraine, that means a guarantee of not being attacked in the future, possibly accelerated membership of the EU, and provisions to help invest in post-war reconstruction. These represent basic requirements for its stability as a state, though not a strategic victory.

For Russia, by far the biggest requirement is that Ukraine is never able to join NATO in the future, which on its own will represent a huge strategic victory over the west.

These are central issues.

However, for Russia and also for Europe and Ukraine, an end to war may not deliver a genuinely normalised and enduring peace unless there is a normalisation of economic relationships, including but not limited to the lifting of economic sanctions.

A continued state of economic warfare would simply risk pressing the pause button on military warfare, at a time of European rearmament.

There would be little to motivate Russia to stop fighting in the first place, or to reduce its military readiness significantly following any armistice, if it believed that its economy would continue to be squeezed by the west, even though it has successfully navigated the economic shock of war better than Europe in particular.

On economics in particular, Russia will be concerned about Ukraine within Europe pushing for a maintenance of economic warfare against Russia, as it has since 2014, and as the Poles and Baltic States, not the mention the Brits, have done for many years.

Russia will also undoubtedly want issues such as the widespread cancellation of Russia from the international arena reversed, borders reopened, and readmittance to international sporting and cultural events.

So, even though the USA is in pole position in bringing both sides together in the negotiation process, it will be decisions in Europe that dictate whether any peace sticks.

And that raises questions about the role that the EU plays in the negotiation process.

Read more: Without an economic reset with Russia, a peace deal for Ukraine may render Britain and Europe weakened relics of a unipolar past.

Until now, the European Union and Britain have proved themselves singularly unwilling to enter into direct dialogue with Russia to end the war, adding to the sense that they are invested in its continuance.

Efforts in Europe to agree a lead negotiator with Russia have so far come to nothing.

It is therefore right that the US has mediated the talks between Russia and Ukraine, and for this President Trump must take the credit, as without initiative it would not have happened.

However, that poses risks, that the US will not be able to leverage EU policy towards Russia and include in any peace deal clauses that depend on European agreement.

And US leverage over Europe may have been weakened by its posture towards the future status of Greenland.

It does therefore make sense rationally for the Europeans to be introduced into the peace process at some stage.

Even if not in the main bilateral part of the talks between Russia and Ukraine, there may need to be a process in which the USA, perhaps directly with Europe, negotiates the contours of a unified economic off-ramp from a war that Ukraine and Russia have agreed bilaterally to bring to a halt.

Hitherto, the Europeans have been unable to coordinate on who this should be involved in negotiations, and the Russians clearly don’t want it to be Kaja Kallas, who has shown herself set against any peace deal to end the war, setting unrealistic conditions that she is not in a position to enforce on Russia.

Based on the evidence so far, the Europeans will need for the first time to reimagine their role as an external party to the conflict, having to date, positioned themselves directly as a party to the conflict, through military, political and financial support to Ukraine, and a stated strategy to defeat Russia.

That means both a commitment to integrate and support Ukraine into the Union and to normalise relations with Russia, both of which are more complex tasks that sending money to Ukraine to keep fighting.

This may prove almost as difficult a task as obtaining bilateral agreement between the combatants themselves to end the fighting, given the lack of clear and decisive leadership within Europe itself. It is hard to see Ursula von der Leyen playing the peace maker role. Will it be the leader or a group of leaders from Member States? And would it, in fact, make sense to include a small group of leaders, including from Central European States like Hungary, who have long opposed unconditional support for Ukraine and for the war? What role would Britain play, sitting outside of the EU, and having been one of the biggest advocates for the continuation of the war?

These are hugely complicated, and I am not confident that a decisive position will be reached soon, not least given the months it has taken already to discuss the basics of who might engage in direct dialogue with President Putin.

At the same time, the Europeans risk being even further sidelined in the process if they refuse to engage, which may force them to commit to a meaningful role in peace talks which they have hitherto ruled themselves out of.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the peace process is how it will finally be agreed and signed.

Zelensky has appeared for many months determined to sign off an any agreement through a direct meeting with President Putin.

It is entirely normal for Heads of State to meet to sign off landmark treaties and peace deals. After World War II, the surrender of both Germany and Japan was signed off by more junior figureheads, but Ukraine will not be surrendering.

It might not seem immediately obvious why Zelensky should want to meet Putin, having spent the whole war encouraging Russia’s isolation on the world stage.

Yet here the optics appear more about Zelensky’s desire to legitimise his role as President, in circumstances where he hasn’t faced an election since 2019.

Knowing that an end to the war will usher in Presidential elections in Ukraine, signing a peace deal may epitomise his desire to present himself to Ukrainian citizens as a peace maker, with one eye on boosting his popularity before elections.

I personally think that even if he meets Putin, Zelensky is probably still doomed to lose a future Presidential poll, because any deal he signs will be worse than the deal that was available to him in April 2022 in Istanbul.

Putin will also not want to give Zelensky a gift of free publicity and in any case will be concerned that Zelensky will simply try to pull a publicity stunt if he meets Putin. In any case, I don’t see such a hypothetical meeting taking place without Trump who wants to position himself as the ultimate peacemaker. And Putin will want to keep President Trump on side with one eye on a much bigger and more valuable to Russia reset in economic relations with America.

So, I don’t think Putin would see it in his interests to make not meeting Zelensky a red line issue, so long as Trump committed to making sure the choreography of the event was proper.

He will in any case know that he has a stronger claim to victory coming out of the war than Zelensky.

He will be seen by Russian people as the President who stared down NATO and prevented its expansion, weakening the perception of western hegemony among countries in the developing world, and sowing serious division within the European Union.

Zelensky, in the cold light of day, will be seen as the President who settled for a worse deal than that which was available to him in April 2022. And even if the prospect of EU membership is accelerated, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be allowed to join as an equal member and will have bankrupted and depopulated itself for the right to second class citizenship.

Both countries will have lost very large numbers of troops to death or injury. Russia will reach back into history to justify this on the basis of fending off an existential threat to its nation in the guise, not of Ukraine itself, but of the NATO military alliance.

Ukrainian leaders will have to explain why so many men and women died or were injured to bring about a less favourable peace to that which was available in Istanbul four years earlier, and that will be a harder case to make

But when it comes down to it, no one really wins in a war, and primarily ordinary working people suffer.

Which again serves as a reminder that wars are often judged in hindsight on their political aftermath.

The Second World War decisively signalled the end of the British Empire leaving only two in its place, the United States and the Soviet Union.

Ukraine will emerge from this war significantly weakened against a Russia that has renewed standing in the developing world. There is a significant chance that the Euro-integration project will have reached its high-water mark and, like the British Empire, will also go into decline.

The end of the war in Ukraine will decisively usher in a more multi-polar world, in which Europe and Britain are seen as weakened relics of a unipolar past.

February 11, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »