Pushing Gazans Into Rafah And Then Attacking Rafah, Killing UNRWA Funding Without Evidence
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, FEB 10, 2024, Caitlin’s newsletter.
Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix
Israel is reportedly preparing to launch a ground assault on Rafah, the southernmost part of the Gaza Strip where Gazans have been pushed to flee to. Israel has instructed the 1.4 million refugees sheltering there to evacuate, along with the hundreds of thousands of people who were already living there before, but there doesn’t seem to be anywhere for them to go. This could wind up being the single deadliest phase of Israel’s onslaught to date.
So to summarize, the IDF has been packing the population of Gaza into the southernmost part of the enclave like toothpaste toward the end of a tube, and now they’re going to attack that southernmost part, but it’s totally not genocide and you’re an evil Nazi if you say it is.
This genocide is not a genocide. Ceci n’est pas une pipe.
Can we all just stop and marvel at how successful Israel and its allies have been at moving the conversation from “The ICJ ruled that Israel needs to immediately cease killing Palestinians” to “Is it right or wrong to starve two million people based on unevidenced claims?”
Australian foreign minister Penny Wong has acknowledged that Canberra joined the US, UK and other allies in cutting off UNRWA funding without having seen proof of Israel’s claims against the organization. Empire managers are now openly admitting they suspended aid to Gaza without having seen evidence of the claims that call was based on; they cut the aid because they were told to, then waited for narratives to be provided to them as to why this was a good and righteous decision.
If you’re going to say that a bad thing happened and we therefore need to cut off aid to the most aid-dependent population on earth, then you’d better at least be able to prove the bad thing actually happened. If evidence exists, then show it. If you insist on starving two million people, you can’t do it on vibes alone.
How is this not obvious to everyone? How was it not immediately obvious the instant it came up? Time and time again we are asked to consent to the empire doing the most heinous things to the most vulnerable populations on secret, invisible evidence. We are expected to trust their secret evidence without getting to look at it, even though they’ve been caught lying about things like this over and over and over again.
They think we’re idiots……………………………………………………………….. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/pushing-gazans-into-rafah-and-then?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=141542598&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email—
European Union now promoting the lie that nuclear power is “green”

Nuclear power officially labelled as ‘strategic’ for EU’s decarbonisation, By Paul Messad | EURACTIV.fr | translated by Anne-Sophie Gayet, 7 Feb 24
The Council of EU member states and the European Parliament agreed on Tuesday (6 February) to label nuclear power as a strategic technology for the EU’s decarbonisation, following months of intense negotiations in Brussels over the Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA).
…………….. The agreement encompasses tried and tested nuclear technologies as well as future third and fourth generation ones, i.e. small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced nuclear reactors (AMRs). Their fuel cycles are also included in the text.
“The message is clear: the EU recognises that we need nuclear power to achieve the objectives of the Green Deal,” the French MEP told Euractiv. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/nuclear-power-officially-labelled-as-strategic-for-eus-decarbonisation/
EDF’s nuclear struggles dampen EU nuclear prospects – the industry “on a slow descent to hell”.

MURIEL BOSELLI, Paris, France, 08 Feb 2024 19:48
(Montel) The latest setbacks at the UK’s new Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant have cast a shadow over Europe’s nuclear revival, experts told Montel, with one former EDF executive saying France’s nuclear industry was “on a slow descent to hell”.
A feud between Paris and London over who should fork out an extra EUR 6-8bn for Hinkley Point C’s (HPC) cost overruns was tarnishing the nuclear industry’s image as pro-nuclear nations try to promote atomic power in the battle against climate change, experts said.
HPC faces a new four-year delay and may not be commissioned until 2031, with completion costs now forecast at between GBP 31-34bn,… (Subscribers only)
Montel 8th Feb 2024
https://www.montelnews.com/news/1537139/edfs-nuclear-struggles-dampen-eu-nuclear-prospects
Tribes condemn start of uranium mining at Pinyon Plain Mine south of Grand Canyon

ADRIAN SKABELUND Sun Staff Reporter, Jan 13, 2024,
https://azdailysun.com/news/local/tribes-condemn-start-of-uranium-mining-at-pinyon-plain-mine-south-of-grand-canyon/article_13efb3b0-b16a-11ee-973a-c789810e105e.html
Two northern Arizona tribes this week condemned the start of operations at a uranium mine just south of the Grand Canyon.
The statements came after Denver-based company Energy Fuels Inc. announced last month that operations at its Pinyon Plain Mine had commenced.
“It is with heavy hearts that we must acknowledge that our greatest fear has come true,” a statement from the Havasupai Tribal Council read.
Meanwhile, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren said in a statement that mining remains opposed “by all neighboring tribes that have forever called Grand Canyon their home.”
The Havasupai Tribe, along with many conservation groups, have long worried that the mine could contaminate area groundwater.
The Pinyon Plain Mine, previously known as the Canyon Mine, sits above the Redwall-Muav aquifer, which acts as a source of water for countless seeps and springs throughout the Grand Canyon, and is the sole source of drinking water for the Havasupai.
The mine also sits near Red Butte, an area with deep cultural importance to the Havasupai.
Energy Fuels has insisted that mining poses no risk to groundwater in the area.
Energy Fuels Vice President of Marketing and Development Curtis Moore said last month that the concerns over contamination were unfounded and designed to scare the public and push an antinuclear political agenda.
But those statements provided little comfort to those opposed to the mine.
“As guardians of the Grand Canyon, we the Havsuw ‘Baaja, the Havasupai Tribe, have opposed uranium mining in and around our reservation and the Grand Canyon since time immemorial. We do this to protect our people, our land, our water, our past, our present and our future,” a statement from the Havasupai Council read. “And yet, despite the historic and current assistance and advocacy from numerous allies, and the countless letters, phone calls and personal pleas, our urgent requests to stop this life-threatening action have been disregarded.”
Nygren on Thursday called on the federal government to protect tribes from the impact of new mining.
“I join our neighboring tribes and the many non-Native organizations to implore the federal government to uphold its promise to protect us,” Nygren wrote. “We are very concerned about the impending transport of radioactive materials from the Pinyon Plain/Canyon uranium mine to White Mesa Mill in Utah.”
The statements came as activists say they have observed uranium ore being stockpiled at the mine site.
Moore previously told the Arizona Daily Sun they didn’t yet know when they would begin to haul ore from the mine to the Utah Mill for processing. He said it was likely to begin within the year, however.
In 2012, the Navajo Nation passed a law banning the transportation of uranium ore within Navajo lands. That law does not impact federal highways that cross tribal lands.
There are two potential routes trucks bringing uranium ore from the mine to the Utah mill could take. One would direct trucks through Flagstaff, while a second would utilize ranching roads to skirt north of the city. Still, both routes pass through the Navajo Nation on U.S. Route 89.
Nygren also said he was disappointed that he and other tribal officials only learned mining operations had commenced through media reports, as opposed to hearing the news from federal partners.
“Despite all of our objections through the years, we learn through the media, rather than from our federal trustee — the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior/Bureau of Land Management — as would correctly expect, that our land and water will again be threatened with contamination,” he said. “Our relatives, the Havasupai, Hualapai and other tribes along the Colorado River, are bracing themselves for renewed anxiety, worry and constant unease about the safety of their resources and homelands.”
There is a long and controversial history of uranium mining within northern Arizona.
Throughout the Cold War era, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted and often processed from Navajo Nation lands. Hundreds of those mines, often near Navajo communities, were then abandoned by the companies operating them.
More than 500 contaminated sites remain across the Navajo Nation.
Israel Does Not Speak for Jews Like Us
SCHEERPOST, byEDITOR,February 8, 2024
In the midst of the ongoing destruction of Gaza and the slaughter of Palestinians, the identity and authenticity of Jewish people calling into question the actions of Israel are being tarnished. A greater discussion of what it means to be Jewish, what it means to have a Jewish state and what Judaism has historically taught people is taking place among Jews around the world.
On this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast, Heyday Books publisher and former LA Times book editor Steve Wasserman and host Robert Scheer commit themselves to this conversation as Jews who have experienced these questions firsthand through their families in addition to having explored and reported on this topic throughout their careers.
Whether it was through Scheer’s reporting (with research by a youthful Wassernan) on the “Jews of L.A.” series for the Los Angeles Times and his reporting on the Six Day War in Israel and Gaza or Wasserman’s work with authors exploring Zionism and Israel, the pair have dealt in depth with the issue at hand.
Both stress the importance of Jewish culture in shaping their upbringing and viewing the world from a progressive, inclusive lens. Wasserman explains that for him Judaism encapsulates “The idea of being an honorable, ethical person, about making the world better, performing tikkun, helping to heal the world.”
As it pertains to his own familial history, Wasserman explains his mother’s brothers’ sacrifice: “They were premature anti-fascist. And they were eager to fight Hitler. And, they were killed within a week of each other… My mother has never gotten over their sacrifice. So, yes, we shed blood in the war against fascism.”
While delving into the idea of Israel, the two acknowledge the complexities of the history as it relates to the struggles of the diaspora and the Holocaust, but still, Wasserman acknowledges, “I’ve never thought that Israel or the State of Israel spoke for everyone. I’m a disciple of I.F. Stone, who said that all governments lie, including governments that you might be attached to for emotional and historical reasons.”
Transcript
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Scheer. I felt at home with the survival of a certain, international Jewish concern for the other, which, of course showed up in the American civil rights movement, with the important participation of American Jews.
Now, you look at Israel, and it’s a totally different picture, where the more fundamentalist religion is critical and indeed a formal part of the government, supported by very prominent right wing Jews like the late Sheldon Adelman and others in the United States, the leader of Israel and Netanyahu actually came to the United States when Obama was president and challenged his peace initiative with Iran in the US Congress, almost unheard of………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What counts is the emotional attachment that peoples on every side, each of whom are hostage to fanatics and fundamentalists and extremists, but who believe with all their might that they have a near God given right to this bit of desert, and they are going to squander their best, the flower of their youth and the murderous rage to claim a right to live there. So, now we have 25,000 and counting deaths, many of them women and children. A murderous, vengeance, criminally prosecuted by a power-mad guy called Netanyahu. Other extremists on the other side. And as the old slogan in the ‘60s had, war is bad for every living thing. And, I see, at the moment, a pretty, forlorn and, hopeless situation here because, what Israel has done in its acts of vengeance is simply created, they have sowed the seeds for the dragon teeth that will arise.
Every Palestinian will seek revenge down the centuries. And the place is cursed. Reason has taken flight. Sobriety is nowhere in the picture. And we have a fever dream of nationalist yearnings by two peoples who somehow cannot find a way to live together in peace and harmony and the squandering of their national treasure, as I say, the flower of their youth is a heartbreak for everyone. So the question of the endangerment of Jews everywhere. I’ve never thought that Israel or the State of Israel spoke for everyone. I’m a disciple of I.F. Stone, who said that all governments lie, including governments that you might be attached to for emotional and historical reasons.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………And it was also, as I say, a convenient copout for the rulers of England and the United States and the Soviet Union to embrace Zionism. Good, the Jews who are troublemakers, they’re progressive, they’re radical, they write too much, they think too much. There is a wonderful tradition which you summarized before. They’re a threat to our stability wherever they are. Let them have a state of their own. Okay. So there was a cynicism that underwrote this, that Zionism could play on. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
https://scheerpost.com/2024/02/08/israel-does-not-speak-for-jews-like-us/
Rolls-Royce snubbed for UK’s first private small nuclear reactor plant
Proactive, Philip Whiterow, 08 Feb 2024
Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (LSE:RR.)‘s mini-nuclear plans have seemingly suffered a setback with the UK’s first privately funded station to use reactors built by Westinghouse.
The US group said it signed an agreement with Community Nuclear Power to install four AP300 small modular reactors (SMRs) at the North Teesside project to generate up to 1.5 gigawatts of power or enough for up to two million homes.
Westinghouse added it hopes to have the first AP300 operating unit available in “the early 2030s”…………………………………..
Mini-reactors or SMRs were a key plank of former prime minister Boris Johnson’s plans to rejuvenate Britain’s nuclear industry and hit his green energy targets.
…………………………………….
Lord Houchen, the mayor of Tees Valley, said one of the major issues it faced was the lack of policy clarity in the UK over SMRs.
Although reportedly ahead of the competition, Rolls-Royce’s SMR is still said to be only mid-way through the UK approval process.
The new power station is being entirely privately funded and will be sited at Seal Sands, a former chemical works. https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1040531/rolls-royce-snubbed-for-uk-s-first-private-nuclear-plant-1040531.html
Gaza: Chris Hedges: Let Them Eat Dirt
The final stage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, an orchestrated mass starvation, has begun. The international community does not intend to stop it.
By Chris Hedges ScheerPost, 8 Feb 24, https://scheerpost.com/2024/02/08/chris-hedges-let-them-eat-dirt/—
There was never any possibility that the Israeli government would agree to a pause in the fighting proposed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, much less a ceasefire. Israel is on the verge of delivering the coup de grâce in its war on Palestinians in Gaza – mass starvation. When Israeli leaders use the term “absolute victory,” they mean total decimation, total elimination. The Nazis in 1942 systematically starved the 500,000 men, women and children in the Warsaw Ghetto. This is a number Israel intends to exceed.
Israel, and its chief patron the United States, by attempting to shut down the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which provides food and aid to Gaza, is not only committing a war crime, but is in flagrant defiance of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The court found the charges of genocide brought by South Africa, which included statements and facts gathered by UNWRA, plausible. It ordered Israel to abide by six provisional measures to prevent genocide and alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe. The fourth provisional measure calls on Israel to secure immediate and effective steps to provide humanitarian assistance and essential services in Gaza.
UNRWA’s reports on conditions in Gaza, which I covered as a reporter for seven years, and its documentation of indiscriminate Israeli attacks illustrate that, as UNRWA said, “unilaterally declared ‘safe zones’ are not safe at all. Nowhere in Gaza is safe.”
UNRWA’s role in documenting the genocide, as well as providing food and aid to the Palestinians, infuriates the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused UNRWA after the ruling of providing false information to the ICJ. Already an Israeli target for decades, Israel decided that UNRWA, which supports 5.9 million Palestinian refugees across the Middle East with clinics, schools and food, had to be eliminated. Israel’s destruction of UNRWA serves a political as well as material objective.
The evidence-free Israeli accusations against UNRWA that a dozen of the 13,000 employees had links to those who carried out the attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, which saw some 1,200 Israelis killed, did the trick. It led 16 major donors, including the United States, the U.K., Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Estonia and Japan, to suspend financial support for the relief agency on which nearly every Palestinian in Gaza depends for food. Israel has killed 152 UNRWA workers and damaged 147 UNRWA installations since Oct. 7. Israel has also bombed UNRWA relief trucks.
More than 27,708 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, some 67,000 have been wounded and at least 7,000 are missing, most likely dead and buried under the rubble.
More than half a million Palestinians – one in four – are starving in Gaza, according to the U.N. Starvation will soon be ubiquitous. Palestinians in Gaza, at least 1.9 million of whom have been internally displaced, lack not only sufficient food, but clean water, shelter and medicine. There are few fruits or vegetables. There is little flour to make bread. Pasta, along with meat, cheese and eggs, have disappeared. Black market prices for dry goods such as lentils and beans have increased 25 times from pre-war prices. A bag of flour on the black market has risen from $8.00 to $200 dollars. The healthcare system in Gaza, with only three of Gaza’s 36 hospitals left partially functioning, has largely collapsed. Some 1.3 million displaced Palestinians live on the streets of the southern city of Rafah, which Israel designated a “safe zone,” but has begun to bomb. Families shiver in the winter rains under flimsy tarps amid pools of raw sewage. An estimated 90 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million people have been driven from their homes.
“There is no instance since the Second World War in which an entire population has been reduced to extreme hunger and destitution with such speed,” writes Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University and the author of “Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine,” in the Guardian. “And there’s no case in which the international obligation to stop it has been so clear.”
The United States, formerly UNRWA’s largest contributor, provided $422 million to the agency in 2023. The severance of funds ensures that UNRWA food deliveries, already in very short supply because of blockages by Israel, will largely come to a halt by the end of February or the beginning of March.
Israel has given the Palestinians in Gaza two choices. Leave or die.
I covered the famine in Sudan in 1988 that took 250,000 lives. There are streaks in my lungs, scars from standing amid hundreds of Sudanese who were dying of tuberculosis. I was strong and healthy and fought off the contagion. They were weak and emaciated and did not. The international community, as in Gaza, did little to intervene.
The precursor to starvation – undernourishment – already affects most Palestinians in Gaza. Those who starve lack enough calories to sustain themselves. In desperation people begin to eat animal fodder, grass, leaves, insects, rodents, even dirt. They suffer from diarrhea and respiratory infections. They rip up tiny bits of food, often spoiled, and ration it.
Soon, lacking enough iron to produce hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen from the lungs to the body, and myoglobin, a protein that provides oxygen to muscles, coupled with a lack of vitamin B1, they become anemic. The body feeds on itself. Tissue and muscle waste away. It is impossible to regulate body temperature. Kidneys shut down. Immune systems crash. Vital organs – brain, heart, lungs, ovaries and testes — atrophy. Blood circulation slows. The volume of blood decreases. Infectious diseases such as typhoid, tuberculosis and cholera become an epidemic, killing people by the thousands.
It is impossible to concentrate. Emaciated victims succumb to mental and emotional withdrawal and apathy. They do not want to be touched or moved. The heart muscle is weakened. Victims, even at rest, are in a state of virtual heart failure. Wounds do not heal. Vision is impaired with cataracts, even among the young. Finally, wracked by convulsions and hallucinations, the heart stops. This process can last up to 40 days for an adult. Children, the elderly and the sick expire at faster rates.
I saw hundreds of skeletal figures, specters of human beings, moving forlornly at a glacial pace across the barren Sudanese landscape. Hyenas, accustomed to eating human flesh, routinely picked off small children. I stood over clusters of bleached human bones on the outskirts of villages where dozens of people, too weak to walk, had laid down in a group and never gotten up. Many were the remains of entire families.
In the abandoned town of Mayen Abun bats dangled from the rafters of the gutted Italian mission church. The streets were overgrown with tussocks of grass. The dirt airstrip was flanked by hundreds of human bones, skulls and the remnants of iron bracelets, colored beads, baskets and tattered strips of clothing. The palm trees had been cut in half. People had eaten the leaves and the pulp inside. There had been a rumor that food would be delivered by plane. People had walked for days to the airstrip. They waited and waited and waited. No plane arrived. No one buried the dead.
Now, from a distance, I watch this happen in another land in another time. I know the indifference that doomed the Sudanese, mostly Dinkas, and today dooms the Palestinians. The poor, especially when they are of color, do not count. They can be killed like flies. The starvation in Gaza is not a natural disaster. It is Israel’s masterplan.
There will be scholars and historians who will write of this genocide, falsely believing that we can learn from the past, that we are different, that history can prevent us from being, once again, barbarians. They will hold academic conferences. They will say “Never again!” They will praise themselves for being more humane and civilized. But when it comes time to speak out with each new genocide, fearful of losing their status or academic positions, they will scurry like rats into their holes. Human history is one long atrocity for the world’s poor and vulnerable. Gaza is another chapter.
Another $61 billion to kill more Ukrainians in an unnecessary and losing war

The $61 billion will make no difference on the battlefield except to prolong the war, the tens of thousands of deaths, and the physical destruction of Ukraine.
The Biden-Schumer Plan to Kill More Ukrainians JEFFREY D. SACHS, Feb 08, 2024, Common Dreams, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-biden-schumer-plan-to-kill-more-ukrainians
President Joe Biden is refusing to fold a losing hand as he bets with Ukrainian lives and U.S. taxpayer money. Biden and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer propose to squander the lives of tens of thousands more Ukrainians and $61 billions of federal funds to keep Biden’s disastrous foreign policy failure hidden from view until after the November election.
The $61 billion will make no difference on the battlefield except to prolong the war, the tens of thousands of deaths, and the physical destruction of Ukraine. It will not “save” Ukraine. Ukraine’s security can only be achieved at the negotiating table, not by some fantasized military triumph over Russia.
$61 billion is not nothing. This worse-than-useless outlay would exceed the combined budgets of the U.S. Department of Labor, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, and the Women, Infant, and Children nutrition program.
Almost exactly 10 years ago this month, Biden did much to put Ukraine on the path to disaster. This is well known to those who have looked carefully at the facts but is kept hidden from view by the White House, the Senate Democrats, and the mainstream media that back Biden. I have previously provided a detailed chronology, with hyperlinks, here.
Ukraine’s security can only be achieved at the negotiating table, not by some fantasized military triumph over Russia.
In 1990, President George H. W. Bush, Sr. and his German counterpart Chancellor Helmut Kohl promised Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward if the Soviet Union accepted German reunification. When the Soviet Union disbanded in December 1991, with Russia as the successor state, American leaders decided to renege.
President Bill Clinton began NATO expansion over the vociferous opposition of top diplomats like George Kennan and the opposition of his own Secretary of Defense, William Perry. In 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski upped the ante, with a plan for NATO to expand all the way to Ukraine. He famously wrote that without Ukraine, Russia would cease to be a great power.
Russian leaders have repeatedly made clear that NATO expansion to Ukraine is understandably the reddest of Russian redlines.
In 2007, President Vladmir Putin stated that NATO enlargement to that date was a cheat on the 1990 promise, and that it must go no further. Despite these clear warnings, including by his own diplomats, George W. Bush Jr. committed in 2008 to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia in order to surround Russia in the Black Sea.
William Burns, now CIA director, and then the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, wrote a famous memo entitled “Nyet means Nyet,” explaining that Russia’s opposition to NATO enlargement was across Russia’s political spectrum. Most Ukrainians themselves were also firmly against the plan, favoring neutrality over NATO membership. The Ukrainian Rada declared Ukraine’s state sovereignty in 1990 on the basis of becoming “a permanently neutral state.” In 2009, the people of Ukraine elected Viktor Yanukovych, who ran on a platform of neutrality.
In early 2014, the U.S. decided to help bring down Yanukovych in a coup. This was standard U.S. deep-state operating procedure, one used on dozens of occasions around the world. he CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and NGOs like the Open Society Foundation went to work in Ukraine. The point person was Victoria Nuland, who was first Richard Cheney’s principal deputy foreign policy advisor, then George Bush Jr.’s ambassador to NATO, then Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson, and by 2014 Assistant Secretary of State.
This time, the Russians caught the conspiracy on tape, in an intercepted call between Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt (now Assistant Secretary of State). Nuland explains to Pyatt that Vice President Joe Biden will help choose and cement the post-coup government. The 2014 Ukraine team, including Biden, Nuland, Jake Sullivan (then and now Biden’s national security advisor), Geoffrey Pyatt, and Antony Blinken (then the deputy national security advisor), remains the Ukraine team today.
It is a team of bunglers. They thought that Yanukovych’s overthrow would quickly usher in NATO expansion. Instead, ethnic Russians in Ukraine virulently rejected the Russophobic post-coup government that was installed by Nuland, and called for autonomy of the ethnically Russian regions. In a referendum, Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia.
Obama, Biden, and their team armed the post-coup government to attack the ethnically Russian regions, thinking this would be the end of it. Yet the regions resisted. Ukraine and the breakaway regions signed the Minsk Agreements to bring an end to the fighting and give constitutional autonomy to the ethnically Russian Donbas. The Minsk II agreement was backed by the UN Security Council, but the U.S. privately agreed with the Ukrainian government that it was okay to ignore it.
In 2021, after 7 years of fighting and more than 14,000 deaths in the Donbas, Putin called on newly elected President Biden to stop NATO enlargement and engage in negotiations with Russia over mutual security arrangements. Biden rejected Putin’s call to end the gambit of NATO enlargement to Ukraine.
In February 2022, Putin launched the Special Military Operation (SMO) invasion to push Ukraine to the negotiating table. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky immediately called for negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality. Within a month, a framework agreement to end the fighting was reached between Ukraine and Russia, based on Ukraine’s neutrality and an end to NATO’s enlargement to Ukraine. Biden stepped in to stop the deal, with the U.S. informing Zelensky that the U.S. would not support neutrality.
Biden and team had still more failed tricks up their sleeve. They firmly believed that U.S. financial sanctions—freezing Russia’s assets and cutting it out of the SWIFT banking system—would cripple the Russian economy and cause Putin to relent. In fact, they expected that the ensuing economic crisis would topple him. Of course, nothing of the sort happened.
Then they expected that NATO weaponry would trounce Russia on the battlefield. That too did not happen. Then they expected that Ukraine’s “counter-offensive” in the summer of 2023, backed by Pentagon and CIA planners, would defeat Russia. Instead, Ukraine lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers dead and wounded—its military hardware destroyed.
The entire war, including the loss of Ukrainian territory, the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian casualties, and the utter waste of more than $100 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to date, could easily have been avoided.
Now, Biden and Schumer want to throw more Ukrainian lives and more tens of billions of dollars at this glaring failure. They want to do this in a rushed vote, without any Congressional let alone public oversight, without hearings, and without any strategy. The fact is they want to save Biden from the embarrassment of a decade of puerile and failed plotting, at least until the November election.
There remains one answer for Ukraine’s security: diplomacy and neutrality. That solution doesn’t cost lives or money. It was Ukraine’s choice before the 2014 coup and again in 2022 until stopped by Biden. It is the path that Biden and the Senate Democrats still refuse to take.
Canada citizens challenge environmental safety of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission waste facility near Ottawa River

Pitasanna Shanmugathas | Vermont Law & Graduate School, US, FEBRUARY 9, 2024 https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/02/canada-citizens-challenge-environmental-safety-of-canadian-nuclear-safety-commission-waste-facility-near-ottawa-river/
A group of Canadian citizens launched a legal challenge against the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) on Thursday over the commission’s recent approval of the construction of a Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) near the Ottawa River. Led by the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, and the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, the challenge encompasses a broad array of environmental and public health concerns surrounding the NSDF’s potential impacts.
At the core of this legal action is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Courts Act. The challenge targets the CNSC’s decision, dated January 8, approving Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ (CNL) application to amend the Nuclear Research and Test Establishment Operating License for the Chalk River Laboratories sites. This amendment would authorize the construction of the NSDF, classified as a Class IB Nuclear Facility—a project not previously sanctioned under the existing license.
Represented by Nicholas Pope, the applicants seek an order to quash the decision to amend the license for NSDF construction.
The NSDF is envisaged as a nuclear waste disposal facility designed to contain up to one million cubic meters of radioactive waste. Its anticipated lifespan comprises several phrases, including a construction phase, operation phase, closure phase, institutional control period, and post-institutional control period. Of potential concern to the applicants is the potential for rainwater infiltration during the operation phase, which could lead to the leaching of radioactive materials into the environment. Moreover, plans to mitigate this risk by discharging treated wastewater into Perch Lake, a tributary of the Ottawa River, have raised further alarm.
To secure the license amendment, CNL underwent a rigorous approval process, which required an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, compliance with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA), and consultation with Indigenous communities. However, the applicants raised concerns about the CNL’s fulfillment of these requirements.
Of particular contention is the inclusion of an override section within the Waste Acceptance Criteria documented submitted by CNL. This provision, if implemented, would ostensibly permit the disposal of waste that does not meet the established acceptance criteria, thereby eroding any assurances of stringent waste management standards and rendering the safety case effectively null and void. Moreover, concerns persist regarding the efficacy of waste verification processes to ensure compliance with the acceptance criteria.
Assertions have been made that the CNL failed to adequately consider the environmental impacts of alternative wastewater discharge methods, including the proposed pipeline to Perch Lake.
In a comment to JURIST, Pope asserted:
According to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, the proponents of the project, even if all goes according to plan and there are no disruptive events, the public will still be subjected to radiation doses that are one and a half times the regulated standard for radioactive material that have been released from regulatory controls. And, if a disruptive event does occur, the public could receive up to fourteen times the legal limit of a radiation dose. So this surface level facility has been designed to only last for 550 years before it erodes and only be under institutional control for 300 years yet the materials they are planning on placing in this mound have half-lives of thousands of years and will remain radioactive for thousands of years—well beyond when it is no longer under governmental control and when the cover has eroded away so the materials will be free to be released into the environment.
The applicants also raised concerns about CNL’s compliance with consultation requirements with Indigenous nations, particularly Kebaowek First Nation, whose traditional territory encompasses the proposed NSDF site.
EU Policy. Commission invites industry to join support platform for mini nuclear

euronews, By Robert Hodgson, 09/02/2024
The European Commission has invited interested companies to help “to facilitate and speed up the development, demonstration, and deployment” of small modular nuclear reactors, a fledgling technology it hopes will help the EU achieve its goal of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………… The inclusion of nuclear power in Europe’s climate mitigation policy has been divisive, with France leading a group of EU members in favour promoting it as a low-carbon solution and Germany against …………………..
Internal market commissioner Thierry Breton said SMRs would play a “central role” in Europe’s climate action. “In a context of increasing business competition on SMRs at global level, Europe is promptly responding, capitalising on its strong nuclear competence, innovation, and manufacturing capability,” he said in a statement.
……………………………….. Environmental groups have criticised the Commission’s reliance on technologies, including SMRs and carbon capture and storage, that have yet to be proved at scale for meeting EU climate targets, rather than focusing resources on promoting existing solutions such as solar and wind power…………. https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/02/09/commission-invites-industry-to-join-support-platform-for-mini-nuclear
The pragmatist’s guide to nuclear disarmament

Feb. 9, 2024, Steve Olson, The Seattle Times, https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/the-pragmatists-guide-to-nuclear-disarmament/
The United States has not seen a widespread nuclear disarmament movement since the early 1980s. A new one is desperately needed — but with a twist.
The 1980s movement was based on fear. In 1982, a million people, alarmed by President Ronald Reagan’s nuclear buildup, gathered in New York City’s Central Park to oppose the nuclear arms race — still the largest one-day protest in U.S. history. The next year, 100 million people — almost half the population of the United States — watched the television movie “The Day After,” which horrifically depicted the nuclear destruction of Kansas City.
Fear can generate a fight-or-flight reaction, but it’s ultimately counterproductive. People become so scared that they think nothing can be done and give up. Or they ignore the issue entirely, at least on a conscious level.
There are still plenty of things to fear. Nuclear treaties are lapsing. National leaders have threatened to use nuclear weapons against their enemies. New research, now being reviewed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, has strengthened the case that even a limited nuclear war could shut down agriculture for years and doom billions to starvation. A large-scale nuclear war could smother agriculture for more than a decade and end civilization.
But fear isn’t necessary to spur action. There are two very practical reasons to abolish nuclear weapons.
The first is their outrageous cost. The U.S. government is on track to spend at least $1.5 trillion over the next 30 years modernizing its nuclear weapons. That’s as much as the federal government currently spends on the National Institutes of Health. Or, to put it another way, four years of that spending, evenly divided among the 50 states, would buy us an entirely new ferry fleet.
Key parts of the modernization effort, like the new Sentinel ballistic missile program, are already massively over budget. Taking apart nuclear weapons systems would cost a small fraction of the money now slated to build new ones.
The second reason for getting rid of nuclear weapons is that they are far more dangerous than they are useful. Nuclear bombs are too large and destructive to deploy effectively in warfare. They would kill soldiers and noncombatants on both sides of a conflict. Nuclear fallout would drift far from a battlefield. Weapons have been getting smaller and smarter, not bigger and dumber.
Nuclear weapons also don’t make sense politically. If a nuclear weapon were detonated in a war — assuming that a general nuclear war did not follow — the responsible nation would face devastating conventional attacks and be ostracized internationally. No country has been willing to face those consequences, at least not since the very different circumstances that prevailed at the end of World War II.
The existence of nuclear weapons supposedly deters their use. No one has been able to figure out what that nonsensical statement means. Making a threat implies being willing to carry it out. The idea that deterrence has worked ignores the history of crises, miscalculations, and accidents that almost triggered nuclear war. Deterrence works until it doesn’t.
Nuclear weapons are a federal responsibility. For us as Washingtonians, that means working through our 10 U.S. representatives and two U.S. senators to change nuclear policy. Except for U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the members of our congressional delegation have been, at best, guarded in their statements about nuclear weapons. Washington receives about $20 billion a year in defense spending. Reducing that flow of funds would seem to be a recipe for electoral disaster.
But couldn’t at least part of our defense funding be spent in more socially productive ways? After all, flying a nuclear bomb-carrying F-35A jet for two hours costs as much as a nurse makes in a year. Keeping more than 55,000 mostly young men and women here in Washington well-trained and outfitted for future conflicts may help us feel more secure. But it doesn’t build infrastructure, spark innovation, or improve the health and well-being of the population at large.
Here, the Washington Against Nuclear Weapons coalition, led by the Washington chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, has been exerting pressure on our representatives and senators to take a stand against nuclear weapons. The Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action — on a 4-acre plot adjacent to the Kitsap submarine base outside Bremerton — works for disarmament right next to the largest stockpile of deployed nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. At the national level, the Ploughshares Fund, the Federation of American Scientists, the Arms Control Association and many other organizations are working to reduce and then eliminate the existential threat these weapons pose.
In 2021, the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which prohibits the development, production, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons, entered into force after being ratified by 50 countries. The nine countries that have nuclear weapons have so far opposed the treaty, but they are nevertheless bound by the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to negotiate an agreement “on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” That they have not yet done so is both a bitter disappointment and a betrayal of their stated intentions.
Nuclear disarmament will not be unilateral or immediate. Nations will need to negotiate stepped reductions and means of verifying progress. An especially urgent task is to eliminate the ground-based missiles now clustered in underground silos in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming, as well as in Russia and China. These weapons are inherently destabilizing and dangerous. They have to be launched within minutes if a president thinks a nuclear attack is underway. A mistake, miscalculation, or moment of madness could spell the end of the world.
Unlike efforts to slow climate change, which will require widespread changes in how we live, the threat of nuclear annihilation could be eliminated if nine men agreed to destroy about 12,500 pieces of elaborately machined metal. Reagan and then-president of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev almost agreed to junk their nuclear weapons in 1986. The only stumbling block was Reagan’s commitment to a nuclear weapons defense program that was canceled a few years later.
Small Modular Reactors do not solve the many problems of nuclear, NGOs say

As the European Commission prepares to launch its industry alliance for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) on 6 February, civil society organisations stress the high costs and slow progress, making this technology a risky distraction for the climate.
The European Union (EU) should concentrate its efforts on climate solutions that are already working to reduce emissions quickly, rather than costly experiments.
Davide Sabbadin, Deputy Manager for Climate and Energy at the EEB, said:
In its desperate fight for survival, the European nuclear industry is pleading for public support for SMRs, but smaller-scale nuclear won’t change the poor economics of investments in atomic energy. We don’t even know how long it would take to build SMRs, as all previous attempts have been scrapped. Why should the EU invest in costly alternatives over existing climate solutions? Every euro wasted on nuclear projects could help replace fossil fuels faster and cheaper if invested in renewables, grids, and energy storage instead.”
Like other industry alliances fostered by the Commission, the purpose of the new SMR alliance is to bring together governments, industry players, and stakeholders who seek to accelerate the development of the SMR industry. However, the launch of this alliance signals a dangerous shift of direction for the EU institutions prompted by the nuclear industry’s increasing calls for public funding and administrative support.
Despite the hype, SMRs do not currently answer any of the industry’s fundamental problems:
- Too expensive: In relative terms, the construction costs for SMRs are higher than for large nuclear power plants due to their low electricity output.
- Unproven technology: Even the simplest designs used today in submarines will not be available at scale until late next decade, if at all. Taking into account the learning curve of the nuclear industry, an average of 3,000 SMRs would have to be constructed in order to be financially viable.
- Ineffective climate solution: According to the latest IPCC report published in March 2023, nuclear power is one of the two least effective mitigation options (alongside Carbon Capture and Storage).
- Waste problem: Current SMR designs would create 2-30 times more radioactive waste in need of management and disposal than
- conventional nuclear plants.
- Geostrategic interests: Several EU countries rely on technology and nuclear fuel supplied by Russia’s state-owned Rosatom. Switching from importing Russian fossil fuels to Russian nuclear energy tech does not serve the EU’s energy security interests in the slightest.
New nuclear ventures take time and resources that we simply don’t have to tackle the climate crisis. Diverting attention from energy efficiency and faster-to-deploy renewables to costly and experimental technologies risks pushing Europe further away from meeting its climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.
The science is clear and must guide EU climate policy. In the 20 pages of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change’s report dedicated to the various “levers” the EU can use to curb carbon emissions in the energy sector, there is not a single reference to nuclear or SMRs.
The folly of Ontario’s nuclear power play
MARK WINFIELD, THE GLOBE AND MAIL, 5 Feb 24
Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental and urban change at York University and co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. He is also co-editor of Sustainable Energy Transitions in Canada (UBC Press, 2023).
The Ontario government’s announcement last week of its intention to pursue the refurbishment of the Pickering B nuclear power plant on the shore of Lake Ontario between Toronto and Pickering represents a strategic triumph for the provincially owned Ontario Power Generation utility. The project would significantly reinforce the utility’s already dominant position in the province’s electricity system.
How well the decision serves the interests of Ontario residents, taxpayers and electricity ratepayers, and advances the sustainable decarbonization of the province’s electricity system, is another question altogether.
A Pickering B refurbishmenthad been assessed as uneconomic in 2010 and the plant scheduled to close in 2018. The facility is located in what is now a densely populated urban area where approval of a new plant would be unlikely.
New plans for that refurbishment are part of larger nuclear expansion strategy being pursued by OPG and the province. The plans include the refurbishment of six reactors at the Bruce Nuclear facility (also owned by OPG) and four reactors at the OPG Darlington facility. There are also proposals for four large new reactors totalling 4,800 MW in capacity at Bruce and four new 300 MW reactors at Darlington.
The total costs of these plans are unknown at this point, but an overall estimate in excess of $100-billion ($13-billion Darlington refurbishment; $25-billion Bruce refurbishment; $15-billion Pickering B refurbishment; $50-billion for Bruce new build; Darlington new build $10-billion or more) would not be unrealistic. Even that figure would assume that things go according to plan, which they rarely do with nuclear construction and refurbishment projects. This could constitute the largest nuclear construction program in the Americas or Europe.
Under the current legislative and policy regime for electricity in Ontario, none of these plans are subject to any external review or regulatory oversight in terms of costs, economic and environmental rationality, or availability of lower-cost and lower-risk pathways for meeting the province’s electricity needs and decarbonizing its electricity system. Rather, the system now runs entirely on the basis of ministerial directives that agencies in the sector – including the putative regulator, the Ontario Energy Board – are mandated to implement.
The government has justified its plans on the expectation of dramatic growth in electricity demand over the next few decades. This would be the result of population and economic growth, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, the electrification of space heating – principally via heat pumps – and expectations of industrial development in areas like the hydrogen economy
There are serious grounds on which to question these projections. Growth in electricity demand in the province has been virtually flat these past two decades despite sustained population and economic growth. The province has no plans of its own for the electrification of transportation or space heating. In fact, it is currently proposing legislation to facilitate the expansion of natural gas service to new housing developments. Many of the anticipated industrial developments, particularly around things like hydrogen, are speculative at best……………………………………..
While nuclear energy may offer a low-carbon energy source, it fails in virtually every other dimension of sustainability: costs; the production of high-volume, toxic and radioactive waste streams that require management on timescales of hundreds, if not thousands, of millennia; and security, catastrophic accident and weapons proliferation risks that simply do not exist in relation to other energy technologies.
These considerations mean that nuclear projects need to be options of last resort in efforts to decarbonize energy systems. This is precisely the opposite of the approach now being taken by Ontario. These are choices that Ontarians and Canadians may come to regret for decades, if not centuries, if they are not subject to some form of serious external review before it is too late to reconsider https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-ontario-pickering-nuclear-power-plant-refurbishment/
5.5 tons of radioactive water leaked from Fukushima nuclear plant: media
China Daily, Xinhua 2024-02-07
TOKYO — Approximately 5.5 tons of water containing radioactive materials have leaked from an equipment at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, local media reported Wednesday.
At about 8:53 am local time on Wednesday, workers discovered water leaking from the outlet of a device used to purify nuclear-contaminated water during the inspection of the equipment, Fukushima Central Television reported, citing the plant’s operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).
TEPCO estimates that the amount of water that leaked was approximately 5.5 tons, which may contain 22 billion becquerels of radioactive materials such as cesium and strontium, the report said.
Most of the leaked water appeared to have seeped into the soil, but monitoring of a nearby drainage channel did not show any significant radiation level changes, it added.
TEPCO has made the area where the water was leaked a no-go area……………………………. more https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202402/07/WS65c35af9a3104efcbdaea423.html
Over $1 Billion in Weapons Missing In Ukraine
Real Clear Wire, By Adam Andrzejewski, February 07, 2024
Topline: The Department of Defense has failed to properly track $1 billion worth of weapons provided to Ukraine, according to an internal audit released on Jan. 10 by the DOD Inspector General.
Key facts: The DOD is supposed to use special “enhanced end-use monitoring” techniques” to “safeguard” key weapons such as smaller, high-tech weaponry provided to Ukraine, which are likely targets for theft.
The audit says these monitoring procedures are not properly being followed in Ukraine, due to staffing shortages, poor internal logistics and more.
The audit found that $1 billion of the $1.7 billion — or 59% — in enhanced end-use monitoring designated weapons provided to Ukraine as of June 2023 are “delinquent,” meaning they can’t be accounted for in inventory reports.
Maybe the weapons are being used properly; maybe they have been stolen by Russian forces. No one can be completely sure…………………………….
The report also found that inventory databases were not regularly updated and that the Ukrainian Armed Forces failed to properly report missing weapons……………….
Background: The Biden administration has sent over $75 billion to Ukraine since February 2022, including $44 billion in military aid.
Some Republican leaders are already trying to block Biden’s request for additional funds for Ukraine. The missing weapons could strengthen their arguments.
This is not the first time weapons have gone missing during Biden’s administration……………………………………………………
Summary: While there is no direct evidence that weapons in Ukraine have actually been misused, the $1 billion inventory error calls into question the White House’s constant assurances that any aid would be carefully tracked.
-
Archives
- June 2026 (251)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
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





