Trump Declares Fentanyl a Weapon of Mass Destruction as His ‘Lawless Killing Spree’ Escalates
One expert said the Trump White House is “replaying the Bush administration’s greatest hits as farce.”
Jake Johnson, Dec 16, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-weapon-of-mass-destruction
US President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order designating fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction,” a move that came hours before his administration carried out another flurry of deadly strikes on vessels in the eastern Pacific accused—without evidence—of drug trafficking.
Trump’s order instructs the Pentagon and other US agencies to “take appropriate action” to “eliminate the threat of illicit fentanyl and its core precursor chemicals to the United States.” The order also warns of “the potential for fentanyl to be weaponized for concentrated, large-scale terror attacks by organized adversaries.”
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, said in response to the executive action that Trump is “replaying the Bush administration’s greatest hits as farce,” referencing the lead-up to the Iraq War. Trump has repeatedly threatened military attacks on Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico, citing fentanyl trafficking as the pretext.
Ahead of the official signing of the fentanyl order, an anonymous State Department official suggested to the independent outlet The Handbasket that the directive’s “purpose is a combination of designating fentanyl cartels as terrorist organizations and creating justification for conducting military operations in Mexico and Canada.”
The official also suspected “that it will be used domestically as justification for rounding up homeless encampments and deporting drug users who are not citizens,” reported The Handbasket’s Marisa Kabas.
Hours after Trump formally announced the order, the US Southern Command said it carried out strikes on three boats in the eastern Pacific, killing at least eight people.
“The lawless killing spree continues,” Finucane wrote late Monday. “The administration justifies this slaughter by claiming there’s an armed conflict. But it won’t even tell the US public who the supposed enemies are. Of course, there’s no armed conflict. And outside armed conflict, we call premeditated killing murder.”
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argued that “Trump’s classification of fentanyl as a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ will do nothing to salvage the blatant illegality of his summary executions off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia because fentanyl largely enters the United States from Mexico.”
US President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order designating fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction,” a move that came hours before his administration carried out another flurry of deadly strikes on vessels in the eastern Pacific accused—without evidence—of drug trafficking.
Trump’s order instructs the Pentagon and other US agencies to “take appropriate action” to “eliminate the threat of illicit fentanyl and its core precursor chemicals to the United States.” The order also warns of “the potential for fentanyl to be weaponized for concentrated, large-scale terror attacks by organized adversaries.”
RECOMMENDED…
Dem Senator Raises Alarm About Trump Bringing ‘Illegal and Dangerous Misuse of Lethal Force’ to Domestic Foes
Princeton Experts Speak Out Against Trump Boat Strikes as ‘Illegal’ and Destabilizing ‘Murders’
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, said in response to the executive action that Trump is “replaying the Bush administration’s greatest hits as farce,” referencing the lead-up to the Iraq War. Trump has repeatedly threatened military attacks on Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico, citing fentanyl trafficking as the pretext.
Ahead of the official signing of the fentanyl order, an anonymous State Department official suggested to the independent outlet The Handbasket that the directive’s “purpose is a combination of designating fentanyl cartels as terrorist organizations and creating justification for conducting military operations in Mexico and Canada.”
The official also suspected “that it will be used domestically as justification for rounding up homeless encampments and deporting drug users who are not citizens,” reported The Handbasket’s Marisa Kabas.
Hours after Trump formally announced the order, the US Southern Command said it carried out strikes on three boats in the eastern Pacific, killing at least eight people.
“The lawless killing spree continues,” Finucane wrote late Monday. “The administration justifies this slaughter by claiming there’s an armed conflict. But it won’t even tell the US public who the supposed enemies are. Of course, there’s no armed conflict. And outside armed conflict, we call premeditated killing murder.”
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argued that “Trump’s classification of fentanyl as a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ will do nothing to salvage the blatant illegality of his summary executions off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia because fentanyl largely enters the United States from Mexico.”
Monday’s boat bombings brought the death toll from the Trump administration’s illegal strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, which began in early September, to at least 95.
Writing for Salon last week, Drug Policy Alliance executive director Kassandra Frederique and former counternarcotics official James Saenz observed that “the US is bombing boats that have nothing to do with fentanyl or the overdose crisis devastating American communities.”
“These recent military actions have negligible impact on the transshipment of illicit drugs and absolutely no impact on the production or movement of synthetic opioids. And fentanyl, the synthetic opioid responsible for most US overdoses, is not produced in Venezuela,” they wrote. “These developments raise serious questions about the direction of US drug policy. We must ask ourselves: If these extrajudicial strikes are not stopping fentanyl, then what are the motives?”
“History should be a warning to us. In the Philippines under Rodrigo Duterte, the drug war became a tool of fear,” Frederique and Saenz added. “Thousands were killed without trial, democratic institutions were hollowed out, and civil liberties stripped away—all while drugs continued to flow into the country.”
The Lobby Is Milking the Bondi Beach Attack To Silence Critics of Israel’s Genocide
Jonathon Cook. December 16, 2025
It is years of dedicated work by the Israel lobby that has ensured the mass murder of Palestinians is viewed by governments, the media and parts of the Jewish community as entirely legitimate
I, for one, am struggling to stomach the spew of hypocrisy from pro-Israel groups like the Community Security Trust and its policy director, Dave Rich, in the wake of Sunday’s Bondi Beach attack.
Establishment media, on the other hand, appear to have a bottomless appetite for efforts by Israel apologists to exploit the genuine fear and grief of the Jewish community to advance a political agenda – one designed to silence criticism of Israel over its two-year slaughter and maiming of Palestinian children in Gaza.
Predictably, the supposedly liberal Guardian once again gave Rich a prominent slot in its comment pages, this time to spin the attack in Sydney into a demand for silencing opposition to Israel’s genocide.
Here are extracts from Rich’s piece in italics, followed by my observations. His all-too-obvious double standards and his glaring misdirection ploys should have disqualified this piece from publication. But the British media simply can’t get enough of this kind of bilge.
Rich: “The mobile phone footage of two gunmen calmly taking aim at families enjoying a Hanukah party is utterly chilling. It takes a special kind of dehumanisation, an ideology of pure hatred and self-righteous conviction, to do that.”
If Rich is so troubled by issues of dehumanisation, why has he remained so steadfastly mute about the long and utterly chilling dehumanisation of Palestinians by Israel and by its lobby groups, including his own organisation? Remember, Israeli leaders called the Palestinians “human animals”. It is decades of that kind of dehumanisation that laid the ground for Israel’s genocide. It is precisely because of such dehumanisation that the live-streamed horrors of the past two years made barely any impact on the Israeli public or on opinion among Israel’s supporters.
The truth is it is Rich and his fellow pro-Israel lobbyists who are the ones in the grip of an “ideology of pure hatred” – one that chooses to excuse the mass murder of children when they are Palestinian, blown to pieces and starved for months on end by the very state he identifies with.
Rich: “The whole basis of western liberal democracy, the belief in shared values within a diverse society, is endangered by these attacks.”
No, it’s not the Bondi Beach attack that has endangered “western liberal democracy”. That was irreversibly hollowed out when western leaders chose to actively collude in Israel’s genocide and defy the rulings of the world’s most respected legal institutions, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Western liberal democracy was hollowed out when these leaders chose to side with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and prioritise his exterminationist agenda over the rule of law………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The real emergency is a rampant anti-Palestinian racism that has utterly normalised genocide and been given institutional support across the West. It is anti-Palestinian racism, not “antisemitism”, that is the consequence of “two years of turning a blind eye, taking the easy path and ignoring the warnings”. Make no mistake: alongside the grief and the defiance, people with a conscience are angry at the two-year genocide endorsed by our governments. And they have every right to be. https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2025-12-16/bondi-beach-silence-critics-israel-genocide/
The Israeli army is creating a ‘new security reality’ in the northern West Bank to advance colonization
In recent weeks, the Israeli army has launched a renewed military campaign in the northern West Bank. Palestinians say these operations aim to establish a new “security reality” to facilitate the rebuilding of Israeli settlements dismantled in 2005.
Mondoweiss, By Shatha Hanaysha December 16, 2025
On December 3, Israeli forces raided a home in the town of Qabatiya, south of Jenin, tearing down a map of Palestine hanging on the wall and confiscating another. The homeowners, a woman and her 11-year-old daughter, were detained for several hours and subjected to on-site field interrogations as Israeli troops vandalised the rest of the house before eventually withdrawing.
Noura Muhammad, the homeowner, told Mondoweiss that Israeli soldiers broke down the front door when they arrived, immediately asking her whether there was any “gold or money” in the house.
She added that after detaining her and her daughter alongside their neighbors, the soldiers interrogated the child, asking, “What do you want to be when you grow up?”
“They were attempting to get inside my daughter’s head to understand the future,” Noura told Mondoweiss, explaining that this is a common question that Israeli soldiers ask children to see whether they answer that they want to become resistance fighters. “They’re asking because they’re afraid of that future,” she explains.
In another home, a Palestinian youth with EU citizenship who spoke to Mondoweiss on the condition of anonymity said that Israeli soldiers had detained and interrogated him for hours, while telling him, “Why are you here? Leave the land of Israel.”
These are not isolated incidents. Over the past several weeks, the Israeli army has launched a renewed military campaign in the northern West Bank, first in Tubas and its neighboring villages and then extending to areas such as Jenin, where Israeli soldiers executed two young men in late November. Since then, Israeli forces have repeatedly conducted raids into cities and towns, imposed curfews, invaded homes before converting them into military outposts, forcibly displaced residents, and detained, interrogated, and arrested hundreds of young men.
But what is behind this renewed military campaign, and why is it unfolding only now? While the official Israeli narrative claims that it is “combating terrorism,” locals in Jenin and other parts of the north say it is really about establishing a new reality on the ground of total Israeli dominance. The objective: to create the necessary “security conditions” to allow the unhindered resettlement of areas of Jenin that Israel had evacuated in 2005.
Military escalation as land confiscation
Israel is attempting to create a new status quo in the West Bank as part of its objective of altering the north’s geography. It is doing so by seizing and repurposing Palestinian land to serve colonization and settler infrastructure, and the ongoing military activities in these areas are a part of that effort, locals say…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Israel moves to reinstate evacuated settlements
The colonization of these lands occurs through both military and semi-legal means, according to Amir Daoud, Director of Publishing and Documentation at the Colonization & Wall Resistance Commission. The first stage of the colonization process starts with the seizure of land following the issuing of a military order related to road construction, Daoud says. He explains that such orders aim to establish an Israeli military foothold over the land before eventually handing it over to settler groups, complete with a permanent infrastructure that the army would have built for ostensibly military purposes. In the second stage of this process, Daoud continues, settlement activity gradually yet systematically returns to the area under the army’s control following the passing of amendments to Israeli laws
regulating settlement construction. In the case of the Jenin area, this was achieved through the amendment (and eventual repeal) of the Disengagement Law of 2005, which led in that year to the unilateral Israeli withdrawal of all settlements from Gaza and four settlements from the northern West Bank……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
‘Functional coordination’ between settlers and the army
Daoud explains that the pattern has become clear: settlers build a road illegally, after which the army intervenes by issuing a military order that declares it a closed military zone, thereby granting the road “legal cover.” Later, it becomes a civilian settlement or is used to expand settlement infrastructure…………………..
For this strategy to be effective, there must be a degree of coordination between settlers and the military. Daoud describes this as “functional coordination,” and the way it works is that settlers first impose their presence on the ground by constructing supposedly “unauthorized” outposts, and then the army converts it into a fixed reality by converting it into a closed military zone, only to later be opened up for civilian use.
Daoud also stresses that the ongoing military operations in the north can only be understood as part of the effort to create a “new security reality” that is more conducive to settlement expansion……….
The resulting picture is one in which military and settler activities are proceeding in an integrated manner, Daoud stresses; it is all part of a single project aimed at “reshaping the geography and demography” of the northern West Bank………………………………………………….. https://mondoweiss.net/2025/12/the-israeli-army-is-creating-a-new-security-reality-in-the-northern-west-bank-to-advance-colonization/
US Relied on Illegal Sanctions to Seize Venezuelan Oil Tanker
December 15, 2025 By Marjorie Cohn, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/15/us-relied-on-illegal-sanctions-to-seize-venezuelan-oil-tanker/
This article was originally published by Truthout
US armed forces’ seizure of the oil tanker constituted an unlawful use of force in violation of the UN Charter.
“We have just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela — a large tanker, very large, the largest one ever seized actually,” Donald Trump told reporters on December 10, describing the escalation of his apparently impending illegal war and regime change in Venezuela. Attorney General Pam Bondi ceremoniously released a video clip of the U.S. Marines and National Guard rappelling down from two helicopters onto the tanker.
In seizing the “Skipper,” the Trump administration relied on sanctions the U.S. had imposed on the Venezuelan oil tanker. Bondi said a seizure warrant was executed by the U.S. Coast Guard, FBI, Pentagon, and Homeland Security Investigations. “For multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations,” she stated.
But those sanctions are illegal and cannot provide a lawful basis for the U.S. to seize this vessel.
Only the Security Council Is Authorized to Impose Sanctions
Although claims in the corporate media that Venezuelan oil is subject to “international sanctions” are ubiquitous, nothing could be further from the truth.
When a country takes it upon itself to impose sanctions without Security Council approval, they are called unilateral coercive measures, which violate the UN Charter.
The U.S. government imposed unilateral coercive measures on the oil tanker in 2022 for its alleged ties to Iran. But the UN Charter empowers only the Security Council to impose and enforce sanctions. Article 41 specifies:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
“Under international law, we cannot lawfully enforce U.S. domestic law in a foreign state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles) or contiguous zone (next 12 miles out, to total 24) without the coastal state’s consent,” Jordan Paust, professor emeritus at University of Houston Law Center and former captain in the U.S. Army JAG Corps, told Truthout.
Francisco Rodriguez, senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, concurs. “The US has no jurisdiction to enforce unilateral sanctions on non-US persons outside its territory,” he posted on X. “The seizure of ships in international waters to extraterritorially enforce US sanctions is a dangerous precedent and a violation of international law.”
“Nor can we lawfully do so on a foreign flag vessel there or on the high seas without the flag state’s consent — all absent any international legal justification under the law of war during an actual ‘armed conflict’ or under Article 51 of the UN Charter in case of an actual ‘armed attack,’” Paust added.
Although there are allegations that the Skipper was operating under a false flag, Trump made clear in his December 10 statement that it was in Venezuela’s territorial sea or contiguous zone, not on “the high seas.” Moreover, a senior military official told CBS News that the tanker had just left a port in Venezuela when it was seized.
The Seizure Was an Illegal Act of Aggression
At first blush, it appears that the U.S. military committed piracy when it seized the Skipper. But piracy is defined by Article 101 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as acts committed for private purposes by a private aircraft or ship. State-sponsored or military actions can constitute acts of war or violations of sovereignty, but not piracy.
The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force except in self-defense after an armed attack under Article 51 or when approved by the Security Council, neither of which was present before the seizure of the Skipper. Nor was the U.S. engaged in armed conflict with Venezuela.
General Assembly Resolution 3314 sets forth the definition of “aggression,” which has been adopted by the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court: “Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”
The seizure of the oil tanker by the U.S. armed forces constituted an unlawful use of force in violation of the UN Charter. It was therefore an act of aggression.
This aggression comes on the heels of the Trump administration’s extrajudicial executions (murders) of some 87 alleged drug traffickers on more than 20 small boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. In all likelihood, the administration doesn’t even know the identity of the victims, nor has it provided any evidence that they were trafficking in narcotics. Even if it had, due process requires arrest, not murder.
The U.S. has seized “sanctioned” oil in the past, during the first Trump administration and the Biden administration as well. But, according to The New York Times, it is not a common practice and “rarely becomes a public spectacle.”
Meanwhile, the administration is engaging in the largest military buildup of U.S. firepower in the Caribbean in decades, including the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford, the biggest aircraft carrier in the world. Trump declared a no-fly-zone over Venezuela. And the administration recently added significant combat equipment to that already present in the region.
On December 11, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed additional sanctions on the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, targeting his relatives and six shipping companies operating in Venezuela’s oil sector.
If U.S. Regime Change Succeeds in Venezuela, Cuba May Be Next
Trump has clearly stated his intention to attack Venezuela, and his administration has signaled that it aims to change Venezuela’s regime, with opposition leader María Corina Machado waiting in the wings. Hours after it seized the Skipper, the U.S. helped Machado leave Venezuela and travel to Norway to receive the Nobel “Peace” Prize.
Maduro called the seizure of the tanker what it really is: “It has always been about our natural resources, our oil, our energy, the resources that belong exclusively to the Venezuelan people.” Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world.
This seizure could be the first act in the U.S. imposition of an oil blockade on Venezuela. Such a blockade “would shut down the entire economy,” former Biden administration Latin America adviser Juan González told the Guardian.
“Because Venezuela is so dependent on oil, they could not resist that very long,” retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel and senior adviser at think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies Mark Cancian, told the BBC. It would be “an act of war.”
The oil tanker had offloaded a small amount of its oil to a smaller ship headed for Cuba and then proceeded east toward Asia before the tanker was seized by the U.S. That seizure “is part of the US escalation aimed at hampering Venezuela’s legitimate right to freely use and trade its natural resources with other nations, including the supplies of hydrocarbons to Cuba,” the Cuban Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, architect of Trump’s Venezuela regime change strategy, has long had the Cuban government in his sights. “Their theory of change involves cutting off all support to Cuba,” González told The New York Times. “Under this approach, once Venezuela goes, Cuba will follow.”
For decades, Cuba has suffered under unilateral coercive measures in the form of an economic blockade, which was also imposed by the U.S. in violation of the UN Charter.
Forcible regime change is illegal. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Likewise, the Charter of the Organization of American States forbids any state from intervening in the internal or external affairs of another state. And the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to self-determination.
Trump’s new National Security Strategy contains the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, signaling a return to U.S. military interventions in Latin America. The strategy states:
We want to ensure that the Western Hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well-governed enough to prevent and discourage mass migration to the United States; we want a Hemisphere whose governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations; we want a Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations.Washington’s brutal anti-immigrant policies and false accusations that Venezuela is sending drugs to harm the U.S. are consistent with this strategy. And implicit in the strategy is the key goal of U.S. access to Venezuela’s rich oil deposits.
Let the investor beware: why buying UK government Green Savings Bonds now means backing nuclear.
15th December 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/let-the-investor-beware-why-buying-government-green-savings-
In commercial transactions, prospective purchasers are often urged to exercise caution before signing on the dotted line with a Latin phrase, ‘caveat emptor’ or ‘let the buyer beware’. The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities would like to warn future purchasers of government savings products to be wary that they might be investing in nuclear projects.
The UK’s Green Financing Programme raises financing from investors through the issuance of green gilts via the Debt Management Office and the sale of retail Green Savings Bonds to the public via National Savings and Investments. This money has been invested in projects which help the government move toward their ambition to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Many savers desiring to help tackle climate change will have invested their hard-earned money into the three-year, interest-bearing bonds which were first launched in October 2021.
To date, the Green Financing Programme has raised over £51 billion.
The Green Financing Framework issued in 2021 included guidelines on the projects that could be backed; these fell into six categories: clean transportation, renewable energy, energy efficiency, pollution prevention and control, living and natural resources, and climate change adaptation.
Every year the government publishes a report identifying which projects have been backed into the last twelve months and their impact on climate emissions[i]. Typically this has including building offshore wind farms, investing in electric buses, offering discounts on electric vehicles, installing electric vehicle charging points, planting masses of trees, and insulating homes.
Now in a retrograde step, the government, obsessed with funnelling as much public money as possible into nuclear power, has issued a revised Green Financing Framework, with future investment in nuclear energy projects now included in the list of Eligible Green Expenditures.[ii]
The Framework makes clear that ‘the proceeds from sales of green gilts or Green Savings Bonds issued prior to 27 November 2025 will not be allocated to nuclear energy related expenditures’, but there will be no restriction on such investment after this date.
In the new supposedly ‘Green’ Category: Nuclear Energy, investment can be made in: ‘Electricity and/or heat (including cogeneration); support for the design, development, construction, commissioning, safe operation, lifetime extension, or supporting infrastructure of new or existing nuclear power generation assets (including enabling fuelcycle activities; radioactive waste and spent fuel storage, management and final disposal), and research and development for future fission and fusion energy technologies
Nuclear is NOT a green energy technology, but permitting the use of money raised from green investors in the management and disposal of high-level radioactive waste, which poisons people and our planet for millenia, must surely be the ultimate travesty. Our advice: avoid.
EU member says it won’t finance Ukraine.
13 Dec, 2025 https://www.rt.com/news/629416-czech-pm-ukraine-aid/
The European Commission must find other ways to continue aiding the Kiev regime, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis has said.
The Czech Republic will not take part in any financial support of Ukraine, Prime Minister Andrej Babis has said, adding that the bloc must find other ways to continue funding Kiev.
The right-wing Euroskeptic politician, who was appointed prime minister earlier this week, campaigned on prioritizing domestic issues. He has long criticized the extensive aid to Kiev under his predecessor Petr Fiala, whose cabinet launched a major international munitions procurement scheme for Ukraine.
In a video posted to his official Facebook page on Saturday, Babis said he had spoken with Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, a vocal opponent of the European Commission’s plan to fund Kiev through a so-called “reparations loan” tied to about $200 billion in Russian assets frozen in the bloc.
The Commission aims to reach a deal on the scheme next week, but De Wever – whose country hosts the financial clearinghouse Euroclear, where the bulk of the assets are held – has called it tantamount to “stealing” Russian money.
“I agree with him. The European Commission must find other ways to finance Ukraine,” Babis said.
Belgium, fearing legal retaliation from Russia, has demanded guarantees from other EU members to share the burden if the funds must eventually be returned. According to Czech media, this could cost Prague about $4.3 billion. Babis said the country simply cannot afford it.
“We, as the Czech Republic, need money for Czech citizens, and we don’t have money for other countries… we’re not going to guarantee anything for [the Commission], and we’re not going to give money either, because the coffers are simply empty,” he stated.
In what is seen as the first step toward advancing the “reparations loan” scheme, the bloc on Friday approved controversial legislation replacing the six-month consensus renewal of the Russian assets freeze with a longer-term arrangement that could shield it from vetoes by opposing states. The move has raised concerns about undermining the EU’s core principle that major foreign policy and financial decisions require unanimous consent, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban condemning it as “unlawful.”
Multiple EU states have raised concerns over the loan scheme, citing legal and financial risks. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico on Friday warned that further funding for Kiev would only prolong the conflict.
Moscow has condemned the “reparations loan” plan as illegal, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov calling it “a grand scam.”
US sets out condition for Ukraine security guarantees – Axios
13 Dec 25 https://www.rt.com/news/629413-us-condition-ukraine-security-guarantees/
Kiev could receive assurances as part of a peace deal if it agrees to territorial concessions, the report says
The administration of US President Donald Trump is willing to offer Kiev NATO-style and Congress-approved security guarantees if it agrees on territorial concessions to Russia, Axios reported on Saturday, citing sources. Ukraine has rejected any concessions and has called instead for a ceasefire – a proposal Moscow has dismissed as a ploy to win time and prolong the conflict.
The outlet cited unnamed US officials as saying that negotiations on security guarantees from the US and EU nations to Ukraine had made “significant progress.” An Axios source claimed that Washington wanted a guarantee “that will not be a blank check … but will be strong enough,” adding: “We are willing to send it to Congress to vote on it.”
The package proposal, the official continued, would entail territorial concessions, with Ukraine “retaining sovereignty over about 80% of its territory” and receiving “the biggest and strongest security guarantee it has ever got,” alongside a “very significant prosperity package.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that Moscow is open to discussing a security guarantees framework on condition that it will not be aimed at Russia. He added that Moscow believes Washington to be “genuinely interested in a fair settlement that… safeguards the legitimate interests of all parties.”
The Axios report also said the US viewed as “progress” recent remarks by Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky suggesting Ukraine could hold a referendum on territorial concessions, particularly those concerning Donbass.
Moscow, however, has stressed that Donbass – which overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in 2022 – is sovereign Russian territory, and Ukrainian troops will be pushed out of the region one way or the other. It also suggested that Zelensky’s referendum play was a ploy to prolong the conflict and gain time for patching up the Ukrainian army.
Moscow insists that a sustainable peace could only be reached if Ukraine commits to staying out of NATO, demilitarization and denazification, limits the size of its army, and recognizes the new territorial reality on the ground.
Torness Nuclear Power Station welcomes East Lothian schoolchildren.
East Lothian Courier, By Cameron Ritchie, 15th December
MORE than 100 pupils from three primary schools have swapped the classroom for touring Scotland’s nuclear power station.
Torness Power Station, near Dunbar, welcomed youngsters from Haddington’s Letham Mains Primary School, as well as Coldstream Primary School and Berwick Middle School, as part of its annual ‘Christmas Cracker’ event.
The scheme offers a unique insight into life at the station and the wide variety of roles that keep it running.
Faith Scott, visitor centre co-ordinator at the power station, said: “The Christmas Cracker event is one of the highlights of our calendar.
“It is a fantastic opportunity for pupils to see how the station operates and discover the range of careers available on site.”
While nearly all primary pupils study science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects, only a small fraction continue into STEM careers.
Events like the ‘Christmas Cracker’ are designed to encourage pupils to continue studying STEM subjects.
Reeves’s planning overhaul stalls as UK’s senior adviser leaves after four months.
Catherine Howard’s exit comes amid disagreements at top of government about how far to push deregulation agenda
Helena Horton and Kiran Stacey, Guardian, 14 Dec, 25
Rachel Reeves’s attempts to overhaul Britain’s planning laws have been dealt a blow after a senior lawyer whom she appointed as an adviser decided to leave the government after just four months.
Catherine Howard will leave the Treasury when her contract ends on 1 January, despite having been asked informally to stay on indefinitely.
Howard is understood to have warned the government against pushing ahead immediately with some of its more radical proposals to sweep aside planning regulations in an effort to encourage more infrastructure projects.
Her decision to leave the post comes amid disagreements at the top of government about how far to push its deregulation agenda, with some senior officials warning that Keir Starmer’s latest attempt to kickstart major building schemes could damage EU relations.
Disquiet is also growing among some Labour MPs, with 30 writing to the prime minister this week urging not to push ahead with some of his more radical planning reforms.
Howard said in a statement: “Over the past four months I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as the chancellor’s infrastructure and planning adviser, and in my time have had the ability to advise HM Treasury and help steer the important steps the government is taking to improve the planning system to support economic growth.
“I look forward to continuing my engagement with HM Treasury and government as I return to the private sector.”
Starmer and Reeves have put planning at the heart of their push for economic growth, which has so far struggled to gain traction, with figures released on Friday showing the economy shrank 0.1% in the three months to October……………………………………….
While in government she is understood to have disagreed with Starmer’s decision to announce he would fully adopt the recommendations of a review into building nuclear power stations more quickly, written by the economist John Fingleton.
Starmer said in a post-budget speech last week: “In addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I am asking the business secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy.”
Fingleton made a number of suggestions, including changing rules around protected species and increasing radiation limits for those living near or working in a nuclear power plant.
He suggested that infrastructure projects should pay a large, pre-agreed, upfront sum to government quango Natural England in lieu of protecting or replacing habitats lost to development.
His review also recommended making it more costly for individuals and charities to take judicial reviews against infrastructure projects……..
Howard believed Starmer should not have accepted his recommendations to rip up EU derived habitats laws before taking legal advice on whether they complied with legally binding nature targets and trading arrangements with the EU.
She was bringing forward concerns shared with government departments including the Cabinet Office and the environment department, which said the review could jeopardise trade with the EU and lead to widespread habitat destruction.
Those concerns are also shared by some Labour backbenchers.
Chris Hinchliff, Labour MP for North East Hertfordshire, has been leading a campaign against the review.
He said: “It’s time our Labour government stopped pitching nature as the enemy of a better life for ordinary people in this country and realised that, for the vast majority, it is a measure of it.”…………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/14/reevess-planning-overhaul-stalls-as-senior-adviser-quits-after-four-months
Wildlife groups hit back at nuclear review claims over Hinkley Point C
By Burnham-On-Sea.com, December 14, 2025, https://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/wildlife-groups-hit-back-at-nuclear-review-claims-over-hinkley-point-c/
Environmental organisations have criticised the government’s Nuclear Review, known as the Fingleton Report, for suggesting that environmental protections are blocking development at Hinkley Point C.
The Severn Estuary Interests Group, a collaboration of organisations working to protect the estuary, says EDF’s reported £700m spend on fish protection measures is not due to regulations but to poor planning and design decisions. The group points out that the government chose to build the power station on one of the UK’s most protected ecological sites.
The Severn Estuary is both a Special Area of Conservation and a Special Protection Area, supporting migratory fish, internationally important bird species and diverse invertebrate communities.
Campaigners say the impact of the plant will be immense, with cooling systems drawing in the equivalent of an Olympic-sized swimming pool every 12 seconds and discharging heated water back into the estuary. They argue that data used in the Fingleton Report is inaccurate, relying on figures from the now-decommissioned Hinkley Point B rather than the new design.
EDF’s costs have already risen from £18bn in 2017 to a projected £46bn, with completion now expected in 2031. The company has blamed inflation, Brexit, Covid and engineering challenges for the delays.
Simon Hunter, CEO of Bristol Avon Rivers Trust, said: “When developers fail to consult meaningfully, ignore local expertise, and attempt to sidestep environmental safeguards, costs rise and nature pays the price. Many countries would never have permitted a development of this scale in such a sensitive location in the first place.”
“The situation at HPC is not an indictment of environmental protection, but of poor planning, weak accountability, and a persistent willingness to blame nature for the consequences of human decisions.”
Georgia Dent, CEO of Somerset Wildlife Trust, said: “The government seems to have adopted a simple, reductive narrative that nature regulations are blocking development, and this is simply wrong. To reduce destruction of protected and vulnerable marine habitat to the concept of a ‘fish disco’ is deliberately misleading and part of a propaganda drive from government.”
“Nature in the UK is currently in steep decline and the government has legally binding targets for nature’s recovery, and is failing massively in this at the moment. To reduce the hard-won protections that are allowing small, vulnerable populations of species to cling on for dear life is absolutely the wrong direction to take.”
“A failing natural world is a problem not just for environmental organisations but for our health, our wellbeing, our food, our businesses and our economy. There is no choice to be made; in order for us to have developments and economic growth we must protect and restore our natural world.”
“As we have said all along in relation to HPC, how developers interpret and deliver these environmental regulations is something that can improve, especially if they have genuine, meaningful and – most importantly – early collaboration with local experts.”
Ukraine wants West to pay for election.
Rt.com, 12 Dec, 2025
Kiev is ready to call a vote once its demands are met, Vladimir Zelensky’s top adviser has said.
Kiev is ready to hold an election, but only if a series of conditions are met, including Western funding of the vote, Mikhail Podoliak, a senior adviser to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, has said.
Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024, but he has refused to organize elections, citing martial law. Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump said Kiev should no longer use the ongoing conflict as an excuse for the delay.
Moscow has maintained that Zelensky has “lost his legitimate status,” which would undermine the legality of any peace deal signed with him.
Zelensky has claimed he was not trying to “cling to power,” declaring this week readiness for the elections, but insisting that Kiev needs help from the US and European countries “to ensure security” during a vote.
Podoliak expanded on the position on Friday, writing on X that Zelensky had called on parliament to prepare changes to the constitution and laws. Podoliak, however, added that three conditions must be met for a vote to go ahead……………………………………………….. https://www.rt.com/russia/629383-ukraine-elections-western-funding/
Does Britain really need nuclear power?
Well, the answer was supplied in 2023 by the Rishi Sunak administration which admitted that the main reason for its continued eye-watering financial support for civil reactors was that they provided needed technical support and expertise for the government’s nuclear weapons programme.
Well, the answer was supplied in 2023 by the Rishi Sunak administration which admitted that the main reason for its continued eye-watering financial support for civil reactors was that they provided needed technical support and expertise for the government’s nuclear weapons programme.
It doesn’t, but the link to nuclear weapons is the key driver, writes Ian Fairlie
In recent months, the government has continued to promote nuclear reactors. For example, the Energy Secretary is now asking GB Energy to assess sites to be used to host new nuclear reactors. And the Prime Minister continues to push for so-called Small Modular Reactors and has backed the US President’s wishful thinking of ‘a golden age of nuclear’.
But these announcements and proposals are mostly pie-in-the-sky statements and should be treated with a pinch (or more) of salt, as the reality is otherwise.
Let’s look at what is happening in the rest of the world. Last year, a record 582 GW of renewable energy generation capacity was added to the world’s supplies: almost no new nuclear was added.
Indeed, each year, new renewables add about 200 times more global electricity than new nuclear does.
Of course, there are powerful economic arguments for this. The main one is that the marginal (i.e. fuel) costs of renewable energy are close to zero, whereas nuclear fuel is extremely expensive. Nuclear costs – for both construction and generation – are very high and rising, and long delays are the norm. For example, the proposed Sizewell C nuclear station is now predicted to cost £47 billion, with the government and independent experts acknowledging even this estimate may rise significantly. The upshot is that new nuclear power means massive costs, a poisoned legacy to future generations, and whopping radioactive pollution.
Given these manifest disadvantages, independent commentators have questioned the government’s seeming obsession with nuclear power. It is not that nuclear provides a good solution to global warming: it doesn’t. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that renewables are now 10 times more efficient than new nuclear at CO2 mitigation.
It’s not that AI centres will need nuclear: the International Energy Agency expects data centres will cause a mere 10% of global electricity demand growth to 2030. And it forecasts that the renewables will supply 10 to 20 times the electricity required for data-centre growth, with Bloomberg NEF predicting a 100-fold renewables expansion.
As for so-called Small Modular Reactors, the inconvenient truth is that these designs are all just paper designs and are a long way off. They would also be more expensive to run than large reactors per kWh – the key parameter. And as the former Chair of the US government’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) says, SMRs will produce more chemical and radioactive waste per KW produced than large reactors.
Given a UK Treasury strapped for cash, the unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste, the spectre of nuclear proliferation, and it’s being a target in future wars, many wonder why the government is so fixated with nuclear power.
Well, the answer was supplied in 2023 by the Rishi Sunak administration which admitted that the main reason for its continued eye-watering financial support for civil reactors was that they provided needed technical support and expertise for the government’s nuclear weapons programme.
Here is CND’s look at those links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons:
Nuclear weapons and nuclear power share several common features and there is a danger that having more nuclear power stations in the world could mean more nuclear weapons.
The long list of links includes their histories, similar technologies, skills, health and safety aspects, regulatory issues and radiological research and development. For example, the process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations is also used to make nuclear weapons. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons.
The long list of links includes their histories, similar technologies, skills, health and safety aspects, regulatory issues and radiological research and development. For example, the process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations is also used to make nuclear weapons. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons.
There is a danger that more nuclear power stations in the world could mean more nuclear weapons. Because countries like the UK are promoting the expansion of nuclear power, other countries are beginning to plan for their own nuclear power programmes too. But there is always the danger that countries acquiring nuclear power technology may subvert its use to develop a nuclear weapons programme. After all, the UK’s first nuclear power stations were built primarily to provide fissile material for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Nuclear materials may also get into the wrong hands and be used to make a crude nuclear device or a so-called ‘dirty bomb’.
The facts
Some radioactive materials (such as plutonium-239 and uranium-235) spontaneously fission in the right configuration. That is, their nuclei split apart giving off very large amounts of energy. Inside a warhead, trillions of such fissions occur inside a small space within a fraction of a second, resulting in a massive explosion. Inside a nuclear reactor, the fissions are slower and more spread out, and the resulting heat is used to boil water, to make steam, to turn turbines which generate electricity.
However, the prime use of plutonium-239 and uranium-235, and the reason they were produced in the first place, is to make nuclear weapons.
Nuclear reactors are initially fuelled by uranium (usually in the form of metal-clad rods). Uranium is a naturally-occurring element like silver or iron and is mined from the earth. Plutonium is an artificial element created by the process of neutron activation in a reactor.
Nuclear secrecy
The connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons have always been very close and are largely kept secret. Most governments take great pains to keep their connections well hidden.
The civil nuclear power industry grew out of the atomic bomb programme in the 1940s and the 1950s. In Britain, the civil nuclear power programme was deliberately used as a cover for military activities.
Military nuclear activities have always been kept secret, so the nuclear power industry’s habit of hiding things from the public was established right at its beginning, due to its close connections with military weapons. For example, the atomic weapons facilities at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire, where British nuclear weapons are built and serviced, are still deleted from Ordnance Survey maps, leaving blank spaces.
It was under the misleading slogan of ‘Atoms for Peace’, that the Queen ceremonially opened what was officially described as Britain’s first nuclear power station, at Calder Hall in Cumbria, in 1956. The newsreel commentary described how it would produce cheap and clean nuclear energy for everyone.
This was untrue. Calder Hall was not a civil power station. It was built primarily to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. The electricity it produced was a by-product to power the rest of the site.
Fire at Windscale piles………………………………………………………………..
Subsidising the arms industry
The development of both the nuclear weapons and nuclear power industries is mutually beneficial. Scientists from Sussex University confirmed this once again in 2017, stating that the government is using the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to subsidise Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system.
As part of a Parliamentary investigation into the Hinkley project, it emerged that without the billions of pounds ear-marked for building this new power station in Somerset, Trident would be ‘unsupportable’. Professor Andy Stirling and Dr Phil Johnstone argued that the nuclear power station will ‘maintain a large-scale national base of nuclear-specific skills’ essential for maintaining Britain’s military nuclear capability.
This could explain why Prime Minister Theresa May continues to support subsidising a project which looks set to cost the taxpayer billions. Subsidies which go to an industry which still can’t support itself sixty years after it was first launched.
What to do with the radioactive waste?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….The safe, long-term storage of nuclear waste is a problem that is reaching crisis point for both the civil nuclear industry and for the military.
During the Cold War years of the 1950s and 1960s, the development of the British atomic bomb was seen as a matter of urgency. Dealing with the mess caused by the production, operating and even testing of nuclear weapons was something to be worried about later, if at all.
For example, the Ministry of Defence does not really have a proper solution for dealing with the highly radioactive hulls of decommissioned nuclear submarines, apart from storing them for many decades. As a result, 19 nuclear-powered retired submarines are still waiting to be dismantled, with more expected each year. Yet Britain goes on building these submarines………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Reprocessing…………………………………………………………………………
Terrorism
A major objection to reprocessing is that the plutonium produced has to be carefully guarded in case it is stolen. Four kilos is enough to make a nuclear bomb. Perhaps even more worrying, it does not have to undergo fission to cause havoc: a conventional explosion of a small amount would also cause chaos. A speck of plutonium breathed into the lungs can cause cancer. If plutonium dust were scattered by dynamite, for example, thousands of people could be affected and huge areas might have to be evacuated for decades.
Conclusion
The many connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons are clear. Nuclear power has obvious dangers and its production must be stopped. We need a safe, genuinely sustainable, global and green solution to our energy needs, not a dangerous diversion like nuclear power. CND will continue to campaign to stop new nuclear power stations from being built, as well as for an end to nuclear weapons.
Ian Fairlie is an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/12/14/does-britain-really-need-nuclear-power/
Drones targeting European and UK nuclear weapons infrastructure
Online Analysis , Dr Daniel Salisbury, 12th December 2025
Amid concerns of Russian hybrid activity across Europe, reports of a series of mysterious drone flights over NATO’s nuclear bases are raising questions about espionage, potential sabotage operations and the vulnerability of strategic infrastructure.
In early December 2025, French officials reported the detection of several drones over the Île Longue nuclear-submarine base in Brittany, western France. The base hosts France’s nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine (SSBN) fleet, which carries the bulk of the country’s nuclear warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The drones were allegedly intercepted using a jamming system. French sources have been cautious in assigning culpability. Commander Guillaume Le Rasle, spokesperson for the maritime prefecture, also claimed that ‘sensitive infrastructure was not threatened’ by the suspicious flights.
High value nuclear targets
The submarine base at Île Longue is heavily protected because it handles nuclear warheads, missiles, and submarine nuclear-reactor fuel. France’s SSBN fleet carries around 240 of the country’s estimated 290 nuclear warheads, constituting most of its strategic deterrent. Recently, French forces have been at the centre of a debate over European nuclear deterrence amid concerns over Russian aggression and a withdrawal of support from the United States.
Events at Île Longue are the latest in a series of similarly mysterious flights over NATO nuclear bases as well as a range of other military and civilian targets.
Drones were observed over Kleine-Brogel Air Base in Belgium on three consecutive nights in early November 2025, prompting a helicopter deployment in response. Guards shot at ten suspicious drones seen over Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands in late November, although no wreckage was recovered. In December, two Dutch F-35s from Volkel scrambled to intercept an unidentified aircraft, reportedly a drone. Kleine-Brogel and Volkel are two of six bases located in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkiye) that together host 100 US non-strategic nuclear B61-12 gravity bombs.
In the United Kingdom, there were reports of similar drone flights around RAF Lakenheath in November 2024. The base has not hosted US nuclear weapons since their quiet withdrawal from the country in 2008. However, mounting open-source evidence since 2022 suggests US nuclear weapons will return to Lakenheath. In the summer of 2025, the British government announced it would base 12 nuclear-capable F-35As (procured by Whitehall for NATO’s dual-capable nuclear mission) at nearby RAF Marham.
12th December 2025
Drones targeting European nuclear weapons infrastructure
Amid concerns of Russian hybrid activity across Europe, reports of a series of mysterious drone flights over NATO’s nuclear bases are raising questions about espionage, potential sabotage operations and the vulnerability of strategic infrastructure.
In early December 2025, French officials reported the detection of several drones over the Île Longue nuclear-submarine base in Brittany, western France. The base hosts France’s nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine (SSBN) fleet, which carries the bulk of the country’s nuclear warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The drones were allegedly intercepted using a jamming system. French sources have been cautious in assigning culpability. Commander Guillaume Le Rasle, spokesperson for the maritime prefecture, also claimed that ‘sensitive infrastructure was not threatened’ by the suspicious flights.
High value nuclear targets
The submarine base at Île Longue is heavily protected because it handles nuclear warheads, missiles, and submarine nuclear-reactor fuel. France’s SSBN fleet carries around 240 of the country’s estimated 290 nuclear warheads, constituting most of its strategic deterrent. Recently, French forces have been at the centre of a debate over European nuclear deterrence amid concerns over Russian aggression and a withdrawal of support from the United States.
Events at Île Longue are the latest in a series of similarly mysterious flights over NATO nuclear bases as well as a range of other military and civilian targets.
Drones were observed over Kleine-Brogel Air Base in Belgium on three consecutive nights in early November 2025, prompting a helicopter deployment in response. Guards shot at ten suspicious drones seen over Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands in late November, although no wreckage was recovered. In December, two Dutch F-35s from Volkel scrambled to intercept an unidentified aircraft, reportedly a drone. Kleine-Brogel and Volkel are two of six bases located in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkiye) that together host 100 US non-strategic nuclear B61-12 gravity bombs.
In the United Kingdom, there were reports of similar drone flights around RAF Lakenheath in November 2024. The base has not hosted US nuclear weapons since their quiet withdrawal from the country in 2008. However, mounting open-source evidence since 2022 suggests US nuclear weapons will return to Lakenheath. In the summer of 2025, the British government announced it would base 12 nuclear-capable F-35As (procured by Whitehall for NATO’s dual-capable nuclear mission) at nearby RAF Marham.
Likely culprits?
The characteristics of the drones and their flight patterns provide clues about their origins. At Kleine-Brogel, the flights unfolded in specific phases: the first, according to Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken, used ‘small drones to test the radio frequencies’. Later phases allegedly involved drones ‘of a larger type and flying at higher altitude’, and deploying a jammer to counter them was unsuccessful. Francken suggested the activity was espionage, but stopped short of speculating who was responsible. He claimed that the drones had ‘come to spy, to see where the F-16s are, where the ammunition are, and other highly strategic information’.
The flights at Île Longue, Kleine-Brogel and Volkel all started at around 6–7pm and continued late into the night.
Flights around RAF Lakenheath also involved systems described as ‘large “non-hobby”’ sized drones.
There are possible explanations for these incidents that are less concerning. Hobbyist and drone photography activity has increased due to the widespread availability of drones. Environmental pressure groups have also used drones to target nuclear facilities, and have trespassed on nuclear bases in the past.
In 2024, a drone panic around New Jersey saw 5,000 tip-offs reported to the FBI, who attributed them to a ‘combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones’.
However, the patterns of the drone incursions around nuclear bases – the use of more capable non-hobby drones, the similarities between incidents, and the spate of them in quick succession at a time of high tension in Europe – suggest a hostile state actor is behind them.
In recent months, Russia has undertaken a campaign of probing NATO airspace, flying drones and aircraft in Estonian, Polish and Romanian airspace, testing Alliance resolve, and leading Poland and Estonia to invoke Article 4 of the Washington Treaty that requests NATO consultations. These activities form part of Moscow’s broader effort to intimidate NATO allies, highlight vulnerability, and sow fear and unease amongst populations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
A spider’s web of escalation?
The drone flights raise concerns about the vulnerability of NATO’s European nuclear assets. During the war in Ukraine, Kyiv has used drones to target Russian nuclear-capable assets. Earlier this year, Operation Spiderweb saw over 100 short-range, explosive-laden uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) (launched remotely from the back of a cargo truck parked fewer than ten kilometres from Russian air bases) wreak havoc on the Russian Aerospace Forces – including its nuclear-capable aircraft.
The operation destroyed seven of Russia’s 58 Tu-95MS/MS mod Bear bombers and four of the country’s 54 Tu-22M3 Backfire C bombers, as well as damaging at least another two Backfire aircraft. Although it was a costly lesson, it likely opened Moscow’s eyes to the opportunities afforded by these capabilities.
The asymmetric nature of the operation highlights how states with even minimal capability can use emerging technologies to hold nuclear assets at risk. In a conflict scenario, this could create escalation risks – particularly in Europe, where nuclear capabilities are smaller and often co-located with conventional military assets. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2025/12/drones-targeting-european-nuclear-weapons-infrastructure/
Europe Continues To Interfere In Ukraine’s Last Chance For Peace
by Tyler Durden, Dec 13, 2025 – https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/europe-continues-interfere-ukraines-last-chance-peace
For those who understand the basics of attrition warfare, the outcome of the fight in Ukraine was obvious a long time ago. Russia’s superior logistical position along with its grinding offensive tactics have worn down Ukraine’s defenses and left the country with a desperate manpower shortage. The recent capture of the vital hub of Pokrovsk has now opened the door to an accelerating Russian advance.
The Russian offensive is gaining significant ground from Pokrovsk to the north, all the way to Kupiansk. The strategic city of Siversk is now largely under control of Russia according to geo-location mapping. Myrnohrad, also near Pokrovsk, has been flattened by artillery and FABs.
Ukraine’s ability to stall Russian forces is faltering, allowing the Kremlin to move troops in a swift manner closer to maneuver warfare instead of the slow and methodical process of attrition. Ukraine continues to deny they are in trouble, but the writing is on the wall.
This helps to explain Europe’s sudden interest in “peace negotiation”, but not for the purposes of establishing actual peace. First and foremost, we know Europe is not interested in peace because they largely refuse to engage directly with Putin and Russia in negotiations.
Instead, European leaders continue to pretend as if they can establish a peace deal unilaterally without involving the Kremlin. They have also consistently tried to sabotage Donald Trump’s efforts for a quick resolution by deluding Zelensky with promises of access to Russian assets.
The Europeans have in fact announced their plan to confiscate Russian assets that have been frozen since the beginning of the war, using them to help fund Ukraine’s military and infrastructure. Trump had initially intended to use those assets as a bargaining chip to convince the Russians to support his peace plan.
Zelensky and European officials have spoken often about sustaining the war for at least another two years, which is foolish given the current state of Ukraine’s front lines. Russia does not need to conquer vast swaths of territory to win, all Russia needs to do is kill Ukrainian troops until there aren’t enough left to maintain a proper defensive line. After that, Zelensky will lose the whole country, not just the eastern third.
Europe also continues to push for troop deployments, using NATO as a “peacekeeping force” as part of the negotiations. Putin has repeatedly stated that this would lead to wider war. After all, it was the encroachment of NATO into Ukraine over a decade ago that ultimately triggered the current war.
In a recent admission, Trump asserted that there will be no more handouts from the US to Ukraine, ending speculation on whether or not the hundreds of billions of dollars in US aid would continue under his administration. The statement comes just after Trump’s revelation that Zelensky “had not even read the US peace proposal” despite other Ukrainian officials supporting the plan.
NATO and EU leaders claim that Russia is in financial peril due to sanctions and other measures, but there isn’t enough evidence to support this theory. Russia has seen a slowdown in GDP and PMI, but so has 70% of all other national economies in the face of a global decline in economic activity.
Ukraine drone strikes on Russian infrastructure have been increasingly ineffective. Their most recent attack involved nearly 300 drones with minimal success. Ukraine called for a truce on attacks on energy infrastructure, indicating that their strikes are not doing as much damage as they would like. The Kremlin rejected the offer.
🚨🇬🇧 “The Defence Minister said – the UK is rapidly developing plans to prepare the whole country for war”
“The sense that war isn’t that far away from us – what does that do to people here?”
EU & UK Politicians along with NATO have seriously been ramping up the wartime… pic.twitter.com/N4DUWlptbS— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) December 13, 2025
It would appear that the Europeans are trying to use peace negotiations as a way to stop Russia’s advance, arguing that there can be no peace until Russia agrees to a ceasefire. As any tactician knows, ceasefires are often nothing more than a way to stall an offensive in order to gain an advantage over an enemy who thinks you are sincere.
Europe’s behavior indicates they have no intention of ending the war. Instead, they seem hellbent on expanding the conflict and turning it into a world war.
Fire at Windscale piles
Does Britain Really Ned Nuclear Power? by Ian Fairlea, beyondnuclearinternational
“…………………………………………………………….In 1957, a major fire occurred at Windscale nuclear site (what is now known as Sellafield). The effects of the Windscale fire were hushed up at the time but it is now recognised as one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents. An official statement in 1957 said: ‘There was not a large amount of radiation released. The amount was not hazardous and in fact it was carried out to sea by the wind.’ The truth, kept hidden for over thirty years, was that a large quantity of hazardous radioactivity was blown east and south east, across most of England.
After years of accidents and leaks, several of them serious, and regular cover-up attempts by both the management and government, it was decided to change the plant’s name in 1981 to Sellafield, presumably in the hope that the public would forget about Windscale and the accident.
When, in 1983, Greenpeace divers discovered highly radioactive waste being discharged into the sea through a pipeline at Sellafield and tried to block it, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), who then operated the site, repeatedly took Greenpeace to the High Court to try to stop them and to sequestrate its assets. The first generation of British Magnox nuclear power stations were all secretly designed with the dual purpose of plutonium and electricity production in mind.
Some people think that because plutonium is no longer needed by the UK to make weapons as it already has huge stocks of weapons grade plutonium, there no longer is any connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. This is incorrect: they remain inextricably linked. For example:
- All the processes at the front of the nuclear fuel cycle, i.e. uranium ore mining, uranium ore milling, uranium ore refining, and U-235 enrichment are still used for both power and military purposes.
- The UK factory at Capenhurst that makes nuclear fuel for reactors also makes nuclear fuel for nuclear (Trident and hunter-killer) submarines.
- Nuclear reactors are used to create tritium (the radioactive isotope of hydrogen) necessary for nuclear weapons.
………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/12/14/does-britain-really-need-nuclear-power/
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
12 February – Webinar The Big Push: New Nuclear Projects in Canada
Thursday, February 12, 7 pm Eastern | 2nd of 4 sessions in the 2026 Nuclear Waste Online webinar series
Join a webinar on the push for new nuclear generation in Canada. Go to Northwatch.org to register or use the registration link https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ZfWOf1GITqSRIZX8CB-A9w
-
Archives
- February 2026 (105)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
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 