Sizewell C has quietly submitted its construction Emergency Plan to Suffolk County Council (you need to accept the disclaimer statement to see the application). This Plan lays out adaptations to the existing Emergency Plan, to cope with a situation where there are thousands of construction workers in the vicinity of Sizewell B.
Given that the Plan’s primary purpose is to keep the public safe and therefore affects everyone in the local area, we (Stop Sizewell C) are astonished that Suffolk County Council is consulting very few individuals and organisations over a short time period.
Extending operations of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant through 2045 could cost California ratepayers as much as $45 billion, a new report has found.
The state’s biggest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), is currently in the process of seeking a license renewal that could enable the aging facility to run for another 20 years — with the widespread support of state legislators, but in opposition to environmental activists.
If the plant ends up staying online for two more decades, total costs to run the site could range from more than $20 billion to nearly $45 billion from 2023 through 2045, according to a new analysis from the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
“Keeping Diablo Canyon open past its closure date is a terrible idea for many reasons, including the staggering price tag that unwitting ratepayers will face for keeping the dilapidated and dangerous nuclear plant operating,” EWG President Ken Cook, who is also a Bay Area resident, said in a statement.
While PG&E in 2016 had announced plans to retire the site and decommission its two reactors when their licenses expire — in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively — California enacted legislation last fall seeking to extend operations until 2030.
About six months later, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted PG&E an exemption that enabled the plant to stay open under its current licenses while the agency considers renewal application — whose terms would apply for 20 years……………………………………
The EWG analysis — based in part on testimony filed by the Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group — estimated that keeping the plant open would likely require hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
Because that cost would need to be passed on to the consumer, households could then expect an increase of between $55–124 per year on typical utility bills, according to the analysis.
“It’s clearly a high-cost, no-reward and puzzling scenario for California, given its decades-long leadership on the environment,” a statement from EWG said……………………………………..
The estimated $20 billion–$45 billion cost to ratepayers could be even higher, the EWG analysts argued, stressing that these projections don’t account for expenditures associated with disasters, such as radiation leaks or earthquake damage.
Grant Smith, EWG energy advisor and co-author of the report, argued that the 6-8 percent of California’s electricity that is provided by Diablo Canyon could easily come from cleaner and safer sources.
“California added enough renewables in the past year to match the power output of Diablo Canyon,” Smith said.
if Japan fought alongside the US in a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan, the Japanese civilians and economy would suffer greatly. What’s more, in a conflict between two nuclear powers, China and the US, Japan may itself become a nuclear target,
Despite Japan bolstering its military capabilities under the nation’s new Defense Buildup Program, it appears to have zero appetite to engage in direct confrontation with China over Taiwan, Western media and think tanks say.
US military facilities in Okinawa, Japan, might play a central role in any Taiwan crisis, according to the Western press. Moreover, American military analysts have almost unanimously agreed that Japan is “the most likely US ally to contribute troops” in a potential US conflict with China over the island.
Back in October 2021, War on the Rocks, a US online media outlet, quoted a Japanese poll which appeared to indicate that 74% of respondents would support their government’s military engagement in the Taiwan Strait against China. The report further speculated about the possibilities of circumventing the country’s Constitution, which limits Japan’s ability to participate in conflicts.
Bold statements made by some Japanese officials also seemed to confirm Tokyo’s resolve. One of them, former Minister of Defense Yasuhide Nakayama, insisted in June 2021 that Taiwan is a “red line” and that “we have to protect Taiwan as a democratic country.” Japan and Taiwan are geographically close and any possible military actions over the island could potentially affect Japan’s Okinawa prefecture, Nakayama argued at the time.
Is China Going to Take Taiwan by Force?
The People’s Republic of China, which considers Taiwan its inalienable part, has repeatedly stated that it is going to reunite with the island peacefully, referring to years of fruitful collaboration with the former Taiwanese government formed by members of Kuomintang Party.
The Kuomintang can make a spectacular comeback during the Taiwanese general elections, scheduled for January 2024. The party’s victory could nip the fuss around Taiwan’s secessionism and potential conflict in the bud. Even US lawmakers admit it, considering the Kuomintang’s win a potential “threat” to Washington’s plans in the Asia-Pacific.
Biden Fast-Tracks Arming of Taiwan
For their part, the Biden administration and American legislators have repeatedly issued provocative statements with regard to the island, with the US president claiming time and time again that Washington is ready to “protect” Taiwan “militarily.” The US has also bolstered arms sales to the island.
In late June, Biden approved two potential arms sales totaling $440 million to Taiwan, including ammo and other military equipment. Earlier, in March, the US State Department approved a $619 million sale of hundreds of missiles to Taiwan to arm its new US-made F-16 jet fighters. Moreover, the Biden administration has started to use fast-track authority for accelerating the pace of the arming of Taiwan. The same mechanism has been used by Biden to speed-up Ukraine’s militarization.
Japanese Leadership Seems Unhappy With US Bellicosity
The unfolding situation has apparently given shivers to the Japanese leadership. The Wall Street Journal broke on Monday that the Japanese government is ready to give permission to the US to use bases in Japan in the case of conflict over Taiwan, but Tokyo’s own participation is unlikely.
Per the report, Washington invited Tokyo to consider using its Self-Defense Forces, especially the Maritime Self-Defense Force for hunting for Chinese submarines around the island of Taiwan and for other military missions.
Presently, Japan is home to about 54,000 US troops, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. It also hosts the headquarters of the US Navy’s 7th Fleet and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit.
Tokyo’s concerns have certain grounds. In May, Japanese scholar Kiyoshi Sugawa wrote for Responsible Statecraft, the online magazine of the Quincy Institute (a DC-based think tank), that if Japan fought alongside the US in a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan, the Japanese civilians and economy would suffer greatly. What’s more, in a conflict between two nuclear powers, China and the US, Japan may itself become a nuclear target, Sugawa warned.
The DC-based think also refers to the recent Japanese polls which indicate that just 11% of Japanese respondents consider it possible to fight alongside the US against China, while 27% said that their forces should not cooperate with the US military at all. The majority (56%) said that providing logistical support to the US would be more than enough in the event of the conflict.
Nobody Wants to Die for Uncle Sam
What’s more, Japan is not the only US ally unwilling to fight with China over Taiwan. The Australian government has recently signaled that it gave no promises to Washington about military participation in a potential conflict. The Philippines does not want to get dragged into the conflict, either.
When it comes to South Korea, it also lacks any enthusiasm of joining the US in a combat operation in the Taiwan Strait. Western observers draw attention to the fact that South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol avoided meeting with then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Seoul after her controversial tour to Taiwan. The Diplomat suggested that Seoul has at least three reasons to avoid a possible war over the island. First, the China market accounts for 30% of South Korea’s total trade; second, Seoul fears that a Taiwan conflict would increase “the North Korean threat”; third, for Seoul friendly relations with Beijing is a guarantee against a conflict with Pyongyang.
Still, there is yet another US regional treaty ally, Thailand. However, according to the DC-based think tank, it’s completely impossible to force Bangkok to fight against China for the sake of Taiwan.
While muddying the waters of the Taiwan Strait, the US risks staying face-to-face with China which would mean a defeat in a possible military standoff, judging from the US’ earlier war game simulations.
“Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology — and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy,” admitted French President Emmanuel Macron in 2019. No surprise then, that France is investing billions in SMR technology.
If you didn’t know better, you’d think Lloyd Marbet was a dairy farmer or maybe a retired shop teacher. His beard is thick, soft, and gray, his hair pulled back in a small ponytail. In his mid-seventies, he still towers over nearly everyone. His handshake is firm, but there’s nothing menacing about him. He lumbers around like a wise, old hobbling tortoise.
We’re standing in the deco lobby of the historic Kiggins Theater in downtown Vancouver, Washington, about to view a screening of Atomic Bamboozle, a remarkable new documentary by filmmaker Jan Haaken that examines the latest push for atomic power and a nuclear “renaissance” in the Pacific Northwest. Lloyd, a Vietnam veteran, is something of an environmental folk hero in these parts, having led the early 1990s effort to shut down Oregon’s infamous Trojan Nuclear Plant. He’s also one of the unassuming stars of a film that highlights his critical role in that successful Trojan takedown and his continued opposition to nuclear technology.
I’ve always considered Lloyd an optimist, but this evening I sense a bit of trepidation.
“It concerns me greatly that this fight isn’t over yet,” he tells me in his deep baritone. He’s been at this for years and now helps direct the Oregon Conservancy Foundation, which promotes renewable energy, even as he continues to oppose nuclear power. “We learned a lot from Trojan, but that was a long time ago and this is a new era, and many people aren’t aware of the history of nuclear power and the anti-nuclear movement.”
The new push for atomic energy in the Pacific Northwest isn’t just coming from the well-funded nuclear industry, their boosters at the Department of Energy, or billionaires like Bill Gates. It’s also echoing in the mainstream environmental movement among those who increasingly view the technology as a potential climate savior.
In a recent interview with ABC News, Bill Gates couldn’t have been more candid about why he’s embraced the technology of so-called small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs. “Nuclear energy, if we do it right, will help us solve our climate goals,” he claimed. As it happens, he’s also invested heavily in an “advanced” nuclear power start-up company, TerraPower, based up in Bellevue, Washington, which is hoping to build a small 345-megawatt atomic power reactor in rural Kemmerer, Wyoming.
The nuclear industry is banking on a revival and placing its bets on SMRs like those proposed by the Portland, Oregon-based NuScale Power Corporation, whose novel 60-megawatt SMR design was approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2022. While the underlying physics is the same as all nuclear power plants, SMRs are easier to build and safer to run than the previous generation of nuclear facilities — or so go the claims of those looking to profit from them.
NuScale’s design acceptance was a first in this country where 21 SMRs are now in the development stage. Such facilities are being billed as innovative alternatives to the hulking commercial reactors that average one gigawatt of power output per year and take decades and billions of dollarsto construct. If SMRs can be brought online quickly, their sponsors claim, they will help mitigate carbon emissions because nuclear power is a zero-emissions energy source.
Never mind that it’s not, since nuclear power plants produce significant greenhouse gas emissions from uranium mining to plant construction to waste disposal. Life cycle analyses of carbon emissions from different energy sources find that, when every stage is taken into account, nuclear energy actually has a carbon footprint similar to, if not larger than, natural gas plants, almost double that of wind energy, and significantly more than solar power.
“SMRs are no longer an abstract concept,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Kathryn Huff, a leading nuclear advocate who has the ear of the Biden administration, insisted. “They are real and they are ready for deployment thanks to the hard work of NuScale, the university community, our national labs, industry partners, and the NRC. This is innovation at its finest and we are just getting started here in the U.S.!”
A Risky (and Expensive) Business
Even though Huff claims that SMRs are “ready for deployment,” that’s hardly the case. NuScale’s initial SMR design, under development in Idaho, won’t actually be operable until at least 2029 after clearing more NRC regulatory hurdles. The scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are already calling for fossil-fuel use to be cut by two-thirds over the next 10 years to transition away from carbon-intensive energy, a schedule that, if kept, such small reactors won’t be able to speed up.
And keep in mind that the seemingly prohibitive costs of the SMRs are a distinct problem. NuScale’s original estimate of $55-$58 per megawatt-hour for a proposed project in Utah — already higher than wind and solar which come in at around $50 per megawatt-hour — has recently skyrocketed to $89 per megawatt-hour. And that’s after a $4 billion investment in such energy by U.S. taxpayers, which will cover 43% of the cost of the construction of such plants. This is based on strikingly rosy, if not unrealistic, projections. After all, nuclear power in the U.S. currently averages around $373 per megawatt-hour.
And as the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis put it:
“[N]o one should fool themselves into believing this will be the last cost increase for the NuScale/UAMPS SMR. The project still needs to go through additional design, licensing by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, construction, and pre-operational testing. The experience of other reactors has repeatedly shown that further significant cost increases and substantial schedule delays should be anticipated at any stages of project development.”
Here in the Pacific Northwest, NuScale faces an additional obstacle that couldn’t be more important: What will it do with all the noxious waste such SMRs are certain to produce? In 1980, Oregon voters overwhelmingly passed Measure 7, a landmark ballot initiative that halted the construction of new nuclear power plants until the federal government established a permanent site to store spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste. Also included in Measure 7 was a provision that made all new Oregon nuclear plants subject to voter approval. Forty-three years later, no such repository for nuclear waste exists anywhere in the United States, which has prompted corporate lobbyists for the nuclear industry to push several bills that would essentially repeal that Oregon law.
NuScale, no fan of Measure 7, has decided to circumvent it by building its SMRs across the Columbia River in Washington, a state with fewer restrictions. There, Clark County is, in its own fashion, beckoning the industry by putting $200,000 into a feasibility study to see if SMRs could “benefit the region.” There’s another reason NuScale is eyeing the Columbia River corridor: its plants will need water. Like all commercial nuclear facilities, SMRs must be kept cool so they don’t overheat and melt down, creating little Chernobyls. In fact, being “light-water” reactors, the company’s SMRs will require a continuous water supply to operate correctly.
Like other nuclear reactors, SMRs will utilize fission to make heat, which in turn will be used to generate electricity. In the process, they will also produce a striking amount of waste, which may be even more challenging to deal with than the waste from traditional reactors. At the moment, NuScale hopes to store the nasty stuff alongside the gunk that the Trojan Nuclear Plant produces in big dry casks by the Columbia River in Oregon, near the Pacific Ocean.
As with all the waste housed at various nuclear sites nationwide, Trojan’s casks are anything but a permanent solution to the problem of such waste. After all, plutonium garbage will be radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Typically enough, even though it’s no longer operating, Trojan still remains a significant risk as it sits near the Cascadia Subduction Zone, where a “megathrust” earthquake is expected someday to violently shake the region and drown it in a gigantic flood of seawater. If that were to happen, much of Oregon’s coastline would be devastated, including the casks holding Trojan’s deadly rubbish. The last big quake of this sort hit the area more than 300 years ago, but it’s just a matter of time before another Big One strikes — undoubtedly, while the radioactive waste in those dry casks is still life-threatening.
Nuclear expert M. V. Ramana, a soft-spoken but authoritative voice in Jan Haaken’s Atomic Bamboozle documentary, put it this way to me:
“The industry’s plans for SMR waste are no different from their plans for radioactive waste from older reactors, which is to say that they want to find some suitable location and a community that is willing to accept the risk of future contamination and bury the waste underground.
“But there is a catch [with SMR’s waste]. Some of these proposed SMR designs use fuel with materials that are chemically difficult to deal with. The sodium-cooled reactor design proposed by Bill Gates would have to figure out how to manage the sodium. Because sodium does not behave well in the presence of water and all repositories face the possibility of water seeping into them, the radioactive waste generated by such designs would have to be processed to remove the sodium. This is unlike the fleet of reactors [currently in operation].”
Other troubles exist, too, explains Ramana. One, in particular, is deeply concerning: the waste from SMRs, like the waste produced in all nuclear plants, could lead to the proliferation of yet more atomic weaponry.
Nuclear Hot Links
As the pro-military Atlantic Council explained in a 2019 report on the deep ties between nuclear power and nuclear weapons in this country:
“The civilian nuclear power sector plays a crucial role in supporting U.S. national security goals. The connectivity of the civilian and military nuclear value chain — including shared equipment, services, and human capital — has created a mutually reinforcing feedback loop, wherein a robust civilian nuclear industry supports the nuclear elements of the national security establishment.”
In fact, governments globally, from France to Pakistan, the United States to China, have a strategic incentive to keep tabs on their nuclear energy sectors, not just for potential accidents but because nuclear waste can be utilized in making nuclear weapons.
Spent fuel, or the waste that’s left over from the fission process, comes out scalding hot and highly radioactive. It must be quickly cooled in pools of water to avoid the possibility of a radioactive meltdown. Since the U.S. has no repository for spent fuel, all this waste has to stay put — first in pools for at least a year or more and then in dry casks where air must be constantly circulated to keep the spent fuel from causing mayhem.
The United States already has a troubling and complicated nuclear-waste problem, which worsens by the day. Annually, the U.S. produces 88,000 metric tons of spent fuel from its commercial nuclear reactors. With the present push to build more plants, including SMRs, spent fuel will only be on the rise. Worse yet, as Ramana points out, SMRs are going to produce more of this incendiary waste per unit of electricity because they will prove less efficient than larger reactors. And therein lies the problem, not just because the amount of radioactive waste the country doesn’t truly know how to deal with will increase, but because more waste means more fuel for nukes.
As Ramana explains:
“When uranium fuel is irradiated in a reactor, the uranium-238 isotope absorbs neutrons and [transmutes] into plutonium-239. This plutonium is in the spent fuel that is discharged by the reactor but can be separated from the rest of the uranium and other chemicals in the irradiated fuel through a chemical process called reprocessing. Once it is separated, plutonium can be used in nuclear weapons. Even though there are technical differences between different kinds of nuclear reactors, all reactors, including SMRs, can be used to make nuclear weapons materials… Any country that acquires a nuclear reactor automatically enhances its ability to make nuclear weapons. Whether it does so or not is a matter of choice.”
Ramana is concerned for good reason. France, as he points out, has Europe’s largest arsenal of nuclear warheads, and its atomic weapons industry is deeply tied to its “peaceful” nuclear energy production. “Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology — and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy,” admitted French President Emmanuel Macron in 2019. No surprise then, that France is investing billions in SMR technology. After all, many SMR designs require enriched uranium and plutonium to operate, and the facilities that produce materials for SMRs can also be reconfigured to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. Put another way, the more countries that possess this technology, the more that will have the ability to manufacture atomic bombs.
As the credits rolled on Atomic Bamboozle, I glanced around the packed theater. I instantly sensed the shock felt by movie-goers who had no idea nuclear power was priming for a comeback in the Northwest. Lloyd Marbet, arms crossed, was seated at the back of the theater, looking calmer than most. Still, I knew he was eager to lead the fight to stop SMRs from reaching the shores of the nearby Columbia River and would infuse a younger generation with a passion to resist the nuclear-industrial complex he’s been challenging for decades.
“Can you believe we’re fighting this shit all over again?” he asked me later with his usual sense of urgency and outrage. “We’ve beat them before and you can damn well bet we’ll do it again.”
Rather than increasing energy efficiency and productivity and reducing the need for new energy resources, the province has chosen nuclear expansion.
The Star, By Mark Winfield , Friday, July 21, 2023
The consequences of these decisions for Ontario electricity ratepayers and taxpayers are likely to stretch far into the future. No cost estimates are available for the proposed nuclear projects. The bids submitted as part of the province’s last attempt at a new-build nuclear project would optimistically suggest costs in the range of $50 billion for the Bruce project alone. The costs of the four smaller reactors proposed for Darlington remain unknown, given that none of the proposed type of reactor have ever been built or operated before anywhere in the world.
………………………………………. private capital has been hesitant to engage with nuclear projects, and progress on a much-touted nuclear “renaissance” in Europe and North America has been slow. This has been despite aggressive efforts by governments to guarantee returns on investment and assume ultimate liability for waste management, decommissioning costs and accidents. It is no surprise that the only significant investor in the first of the proposed new “small” reactors at Darlington was the federal government’s own Infrastructure Bank.
A rational planning process around electricity and decarbonization would have prioritized the options with the lowest economic, environmental, technological and safety risks first. Higher risk options, like new nuclear, should only be considered where it can be demonstrated that the lower-risk options have been fully optimized and developed in the planning process.
…………………………….. The good news is that the province’s announcements remain at a preliminary stage — key technical approvals for new build reactor projects will still be needed and their economics remain very open questions. There may still be time for Ontario to move toward a more rational, open, and evidence-based approach to energy planning and decarbonization. But nuclear proponents will be doing everything they can to lock in the government’s choices as quickly as possible. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/ontario-opts-for-high-risk-nuclear-over-low-risk-energy-sources/article_49afb2a3-7cca-5dee-bc2b-5d57eef76a75.html
France and Germany lead the camps in disagreeing on the future of nuclear in Europe. Camille Lafrance and Benjamin Wehrmann at CLEW take a deep dive into the reasons why, quoting experts and politicians. Germany’s vision of a fully renewables-based EU is at odds with France’s unwavering support for low-carbon nuclear energy. European-wide agreement on targets matter because they drive future investment in the targeted technologies and the design of Europe’s grid, markets, policies, budgets and all the rest. A nuclear-light renewables-heavy Europe will look very different from one where nuclear baseload sits robustly within the cross-border market. And a major concern is that more nuclear means less renewables, at a time when wind and solar need all the scale they can get. Yet nuclear is fossil-free too, and France has the lowest emissions per head of any rich country. If agreement cannot be met, can Europe meet its decarbonisation goals? Time is running out.
The role of nuclear power in Europe’s transition away from fossil fuels has been a point of contention between French and German governments for a long time. In the year 2000, Germany decided to phase out nuclear energy and, despite temporarily backtracking on its decision before the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, ultimately completed its nuclear exit in April 2023.
France, on the other hand, has the highest share of nuclear in the energy mix of any country in the world and, despite temporarily considering to radically cut its reliance on nuclear power after Fukushima, has committed to building many new reactors as part of its bid to meet European climate targets and net-zero emissions by 2050.
…………………. disputes about nuclear energy between France and Germany come with major implications for the strategic positioning on energy and climate policy of the whole EU.
…………………………………… …Nuclear safety
And also nuclear safety concerns continue to occupy experts in France as much as anywhere. In mid-2023, 800 French scientists warned against the risks of the country’s new nuclear programme, pointing to unresolved questions of radioactive waste management, which remain largely unresolved in most of the EU, including in France. The scientists also warned against risks of accidental contamination or meltdown.
…Prices, costs
Securing funding from Brussels for the major buildout is regarded as a substantial challenge to France’s plans.
In France, investments in renewable energy have been on the rise since 2016, as costs have gone down. According to data by U.S. investment bank Lazar, prices per megawatt hour (MWh) produced with renewables have dropped dramatically between 2009 and 2019 alone, while that of nuclear power went up. Solar power generation costs dropped nearly 90 percent to 40 dollars per MWh and onshore wind 70 percent to 41 dollars per MWh. Nuclear power costs per unit in the same decade increased 26 percent to 155 dollars per MWh. Meanwhile, nuclear power construction costs have risen, while future EPR costs are still uncertain. The sharp rise in interest rates has made building new nuclear plants even more expensive, compounded by reactor construction delays. Nuclear plant operator Electricite de France estimated the cost to be at least 51 billion euros. A convincing policy framework allowing Paris to classify the nuclear bill as an investment in the EU Green Deal could thus send and important signal to potential nuclear power investors.
France also pushed to include nuclear energy in the EU’sRenewable Energy Directive (RED), a target it achieved after protracted negotiations that saw the country form a ‘nuclear alliance’ with sympathetic governments and in opposition to Germany’s insistence on limiting funding to renewable power installations. The French energy minister, Agnes Pannier-Runacher, in mid-2023 said it was “regrettable that Germany is applying the brake” on reforms that enhance nuclear power’s role, arguing this would fail to take the position of a majority of EU countries into account.
Germany’s priorities largely in line with international trends
But the lack of a shared vision extends beyond the bilateral relationship of France and Germany. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared in spring 2023 that nuclear power was not a ‘strategic’ technology in reaching the EU’s climate goals. Nevertheless, the technology remains at the heart of many debates at the European level. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://energypost.eu/does-nuclear-slow-down-the-scale-up-of-wind-and-solar-france-and-germany-cant-agree/
ABP News Bureau, 2023-07-23 North Indian states are reeling under severe monsoon mayhem as roads are flooded, rivers are flowing over the danger mark, and waterlogging is hindering all kinds of commute leaving residents helpless. After wreaking havoc in the hill states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, heavy showers in Maharashtra, and Gujarat have created a flood-like situation in the two states. Meanwhile, a cloudburst in Ladakh and a fresh spell of rain in Uttarakhand have raised the threat of a rise in the water level again in Delhi which has witnessed the worst flooding since 1978. Here are the latest updates on monsoon fury from across the country:
Governor Sergey Aksyonov has ordered a mass evacuation from the danger zone
A Ukrainian drone strike has resulted in an explosion at an ammunition depot in the central part of the Crimean peninsula, local Governor Sergey Aksyonov said on Saturday. According to preliminary information, the incident has not resulted in any casualties, he added.
Writing on Telegram, Aksyonov said the detonation had taken place in the Krasnogvardeysky district. “A decision has been made to evacuate the population within a 5km radius from the site of the emergency and place them in temporary accommodation facilities,” he added.
The governor stated that the authorities had also suspended rail traffic in the area in order to “minimize risks,” while expressing hope that the emergency would be dealt with quickly.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces have confirmed the strikes, claiming that they “had destroyed an oil depot and Russian military warehouses” in the area.
Crimea has repeatedly been targeted by Ukrainian drone and missile attacks since Moscow launched its military operation against Kiev over a year ago. On Thursday, Aksyonov said a Ukrainian UAV raid on the peninsula had killed a teenage girl and damaged several administrative buildings.
Earlier this week, a sea drone strike on the Crimean Bridge – which Russia called a Ukrainian terrorist attack – damaged one section of the roadway and claimed the lives of a married couple from Belgorod Region, as well as injuring their 14-year-old daughter.
Kiev stopped short of claiming responsibility, but celebrated the incident, while Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky later called the bridge a legitimate military target.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has condemned the raid as a “terrorist attack” that was pointless from a military standpoint, adding that the bridge has not been used for transporting military materials for a long time. In the aftermath of the incident, Moscow launched several “retaliatory strikes” on targets in Ukrainian port cities.
EDF will need to invest around 25 billion euros ($28 billion) each year to keep its nuclear fleet and network in shape and build new reactors required for France’s energy transition, the company’s CEO said on Wednesday.
Grilled by lawmakers during a hearing before the French National Assembly’s economic affairs committee, EDF’s Luc Remont said France also needed to rethink parts of the company’s business model and its electricity tariff policy to allow the utility to boost investments.
Hong Kong has started strengthening radiation inspections of seafood imports from Japan, sources said Saturday, amid concerns in China over a plan to discharge treated radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean. The tighter inspections started in mid-June and customs clearance of Japanese seafood was delayed by about three hours compared with earlier clearance times.
Hong Kong on Friday reiterated its concerns over the water plan. The Japanese government has confirmed that some shipments of Japanese seafood have been held up at China’s customs. Hong Kong is Japan’s second-largest market for agricultural and fisheries exports, while mainland China is its biggest.
Warsaw is looking to take control over western parts of Ukraine, the Russian president claims
Polish leaders are planning to form a NATO-backed coalition to intervene in the Ukraine conflict and take over parts of western Ukraine as well as, possibly, Belarus, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on Friday.
Speaking at a meeting with permanent members of Russia’s Security Council, Putin said the government in Kiev is willing to go to any lengths to stay in power, including selling out its own people and handing over Ukrainian territories to “foreign owners.”
The first in line, according to the Russian president, are the Poles, who he claimed “probably expect to form some kind of coalition under the ‘NATO umbrella’ and directly intervene in the conflict in Ukraine, in order to then ‘tear off’ a bigger piece for themselves, to regain, as they believe, their historical territories – today’s western Ukraine.”……………………………………………….. more https://www.rt.com/russia/580080-poland-western-ukraine-putin/
While noting the opposition of SNP committee members to Trident, the report said MPs recogised the “serious implications for the UK and Nato should the nuclear fleet ever be removed from Faslane”.
The report, which focused on the strategic importance of Scotland’s geography in light of perceived threats from China and Russia, also made the case for “devolved diplomacy from Edinburgh”.
Lynn Jamieson, chair of the Scottish CND, told the Morning Star: “It focuses on capacity for war fighting backed by nuclear threat, not collaboration to build peace, to strengthen international law and to mitigate climate change.
“Scotland is a ‘physical asset’ with military hardware and space for more and bigger bases.
“The nuclear weapons Scottish people did not vote to host are taken for granted.
“Their existential threat to the world and their everyday risks and harms in Scotland are ignored.
Former chair of UK CND and Alba Party member Marjorie Thompson said: “This report is the complete opposite of what the Scottish independence movement should be advocating, never mind actively promoting on behalf of the UK Parliament and Government.
“The national movement of Scotland has a proud anti-war tradition and has been at the forefront of the disarmament movement.
“All pro-independence parties should distance themselves from this report and ensure that the independence movement stays on the side of peace and disarmament – not the side of the military complex of failed Westminster foreign policy.”
Speaking when the report was published last week, Wishart said: “Because of its geography Scotland is home to a number of the UK’s strategic military assets and in our report we call on the UK Government to look at how the defence presence in Scotland could be scaled up if required to meet future threats. We are also calling for a review of the UK’s cold weather capabilities.”
In a new article titled “Ukraine’s Lack of Weaponry and Training Risks Stalemate in Fight With Russia,” The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Michaels reports that western officials knew Ukrainian forces didn’t have the weapons and training necessary to succeed in their highly touted counteroffensive which was launched last month.
Michaels writes:…………………………………………………
The claim that western officials had sincerely believed Ukrainian forces might be able to overcome their glaring deficits through sheer pluck and ticker is undermined later in the same article by a war pundit who says the US would never attempt such a counteroffensive without first controlling the skies, which Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to do:
“America would never attempt to defeat a prepared defense without air superiority, but they [Ukrainians] don’t have air superiority,” the U.S. Army War College’s John Nagl told WSJ. “It’s impossible to overstate how important air superiority is for fighting a ground fight at a reasonable cost in casualties.”
“Leading up to the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was launched in June, the Discord leaks and media reports revealed that the US did not believe Ukraine could regain much territory from Russia. But the Biden administration pushed for the assault anyway, as it rejected the idea of a pause in fighting.”
So the empire is still knowingly throwing Ukrainian lives into the meat grinder of an unwinnable proxy war, even as western officials tell the public that this war is about saving Ukrainian lives and handing Putin a crushing defeat whenever they’re on camera.
This attitude from the empire is not a new development. Last October The Washington Post reported that “Privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table.”
Now why might that be? Why would the western empire be so comfortable encouraging Ukrainians to keep fighting when it knows they can’t win?
We find our answer in another Washington Post article titled “The West feels gloomy about Ukraine. Here’s why it shouldn’t.”, authored last week by virulent empire propagandist David Ignatius. In his eagerness to frame the floundering counteroffensive in a positive light for his American audience, Ignatius let slip an inconvenient truth:
“Meanwhile, for the United States and its NATO allies, these 18 months of war have been a strategic windfall, at relatively low cost (other than for the Ukrainians). The West’s most reckless antagonist has been rocked. NATO has grown much stronger with the additions of Sweden and Finland. Germany has weaned itself from dependence on Russian energy and, in many ways, rediscovered its sense of values. NATO squabbles make headlines, but overall, this has been a triumphal summer for the alliance.”
Anyone who believes this proxy war is about helping Ukrainians should be made to read that paragraph over and over again until it sinks in. The admission that the US-centralized power structure benefits immensely from this proxy conflict is revealing enough, but that parenthetical “other than for the Ukrainians” aside really drives it home. It reads as though it was added as an afterthought, like “Oh yeah it’s actually kind of rough on the Ukrainians though — if you consider them to be people.”
The claim that this war is about helping Ukrainians has been further undermined by another new Washington Post report that Ukraine is now more riddled with land mines than any other nation on earth, and that US-supplied cluster munitions are only making the land more deadly.
That’s right kids! We’re turning Ukraine into an uninhabitable wasteland of death and dismemberment to save the Ukrainians.
We should probably talk more about the fact that the US empire is loudly promoting the goal of achieving peace in Ukraine by defeating Russia while quietly acknowledging that this goal is impossible. This is like accelerating toward a brick wall and pretending it’s an open road.
The narrative that Russia can be beaten by ramping up proxy warfare against it makes sense if you believe Russia can be militarily defeated in Ukraine, but the US empire does not believe that Russia can be militarily defeated in Ukraine. It knows that continuing this war is only going to perpetuate the death and devastation.
“Beat Putin’s ass and make him withdraw” sounds cool and is egoically gratifying, and it’s become the mainstream answer to the problem of the war in Ukraine, but nobody promoting that answer can address the fact that the ones driving this proxy war believe it’s impossible. In fact, all evidence we’re seeing suggests that the US is not trying to deliver Putin a crushing defeat in Ukraine and force him to withdraw, but is rather trying to create another long and costly military quagmire for Moscow, as western cold warriors have done repeatedly in instances like Afghanistan and Syria.
Wanting to weaken Russia and wanting to save lives and establish peace in Ukraine are two completely different goals, so different that in practice they wind up being largely contradictory. Drawing Moscow into a bloody quagmire means many more people dying in a war that drags on for years, with all the immense human suffering that that entails.
The US does not want peace in Ukraine, it wants to overextend Russia, shore up military and energy dominance over Europe, expand its war machine and enrich the military-industrial complex. That’s why it knowingly provoked this war. It’s posing as Ukraine’s savior while being clearly invested in Ukraine’s destruction.
Slowly, NATO is positioning itself as a substitute for the UN, suggesting that it – and not the actual international community – is the arbiter and guardian of the world’s ‘interests, security, and values’.
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. by VJ Prashad, 20 July 23
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) held its annual summit on 11–12 July in Vilnius, Lithuania. The communiqué released after the first day’s proceedings claimed that ‘NATO is a defensive alliance’, a statement that encapsulates why many struggle to grasp its true essence. A look at the latest military spending figures shows, to the contrary, that NATO countries, and countries closely allied to NATO, account for nearly three-quarters of the total annual global expenditure on weapons.
untries closely allied to NATO, account for nearly three-quarters of the total annual global expenditure on weapons. Many of these countries possess state-of-the-art weapons systems, which are qualitatively more destructive than those held by the militaries of most non-NATO countries. Over the past quarter century, NATO has used its military might to destroy several states, such as Afghanistan (2001) and Libya (2011), shattering societies with the raw muscle of its aggressive alliance, and end the status of Yugoslavia (1999) as a unified state. It is difficult, given this record, to sustain the view that NATO is a ‘defensive alliance’.
………………………………………………. NATO’s increasing membership has doubled down on its ambition to use its military power, through Article 5, to subdue anyone who challenges the ‘Atlantic Alliance’.
The ‘Atlantic Alliance’, a phrase that is part of NATO’s name, was part of a wider network of military treaties secured by the US against the USSR and, after October 1949, against the People’s Republic of China.
This network included the Manila Pact of September 1954, which created the Southeast Asian Treaty Organisation (SEATO), and the Baghdad Pact of February 1955, which created the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO). Turkey and Pakistan signed a military agreement in April 1954 which brought them together in an alliance against the USSR and anchored this network through NATO’s southernmost member (Turkey) and SEATO’s westernmost member (Pakistan). The US signed a military deal with each of the members of CENTO and SEATO and ensured that it had a seat at the table in these structures.
At the Asian-African Conference held in Bandung, Indonesia in April 1955, India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru reacted strongly to the creation of these military alliances, which exported tensions between the US and the USSR across Asia. The concept of NATO, he said, ‘has extended itself in two ways’: first, NATO ‘has gone far away from the Atlantic and has reached other oceans and seas’ and second, ‘NATO today is one of the most powerful protectors of colonialism’.
As an example, Nehru pointed to Goa, which was still held by fascist Portugal and whose grip had been validated by NATO members – an act, Nehru said, of ‘gross impertinence’. This characterisation of NATO as a global belligerent and defender of colonialism remains intact, with some modifications.
SEATO was disbanded in 1977, partly due to the defeat of the US in Vietnam, and CENTO was shuttered in 1979, precisely due to the Iranian Revolution that year. US military strategy shifted its focus from wielding these kinds of pacts to establishing a direct military presence with the founding of US Central Command in 1983 and the revitalisation of the US Pacific Command that same year.
The US expanded the power of its own global military footprint, including its ability to strike anywhere on the planet due to its structure of military bases and armed flotillas (which were no longer restricted once the 1930 Second London Naval Treaty expired in 1939). Although NATO has always had global ambitions, the alliance was given material reality through the US military’s force projection and its creation of new structures that further tied allied states into its orbit (with programmes such as ‘Partnership for Peace’, set up in 1994, and concepts such as ‘global NATO partner’ and ‘non-NATO ally’, as exemplified by Japan and South Korea). In its 1991 Strategic Concept, NATO wrote that it would ‘contribute to global stability and peace by providing forces for United Nations missions’, which was realised with deadly force in Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2003), and Libya (2011)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The war in Ukraine provided new life to the Atlantic Alliance, driving several hesitant European countries – such as Sweden – into its ranks. Yet, even amongst people living within NATO countries there are groups who are sceptical of the alliance’s aims, with the Vilnius summit marked by anti-NATO protests. The Vilnius Summit Communiqué underlined Ukraine’s path into NATO and sharpened NATO’s self-defined universalism. The communiqué declares, for instance, that China challenges ‘our interests, security, and values’, with the word ‘our’ claiming to represent not only NATO countries but the entire international order.
Slowly, NATO is positioning itself as a substitute for the UN, suggesting that it – and not the actual international community – is the arbiter and guardian of the world’s ‘interests, security, and values’. This view is contested by the vast majority of the world’s peoples, seven billion of whom do not even reside in NATO’s member countries (whose total population is less than one billion). Those billions wonder why it is that NATO wants to supplant the United Nations. https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/nato-united-nations/
BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
They haven’t. Deep and deadly minefields, extensive fortifications and Russian air power have combined to largely block significant advances by Ukrainian troops. Instead, the campaign risks descending into a stalemate with the potential to burn through lives and equipment without a major shift in momentum.
As the likelihood of any large-scale breakthrough by the Ukrainians this year dims, it raises the unsettling prospect for Washington and its allies of a longer war—one that would require a huge new infusion of sophisticated armaments and more training to give Kyiv a chance at victory.
The political calculus for the Biden administration is complicated. President Biden is up for re-election in the fall of 2024 and many in Washington believe concerns in the White House about the war’s impact on the campaign are prompting growing caution on the amount of support to offer Kyiv.
The American hesitation contrasts with shifting views in Europe, where more leaders over recent months have come to believe that Ukraine must prevail in the conflict—and Russia must lose—to ensure the continent’s security.
But European militaries lack sufficient resources to supply Ukraine with all it needs to eject Moscow’s armies from the roughly 20% of the country that they control. European leaders are also unlikely to significantly increase support to Kyiv if they sense U.S. reluctance, Western diplomats say.
The shift in trans-Atlantic political winds, evident in tensions between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. officials at the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Lithuania, has come as Ukraine’s long-expected offensive appears stalled. Kyiv’s inability to make headway against Russian defenses has persuaded many Western military observers that Ukrainian forces need more training in complex military maneuvers, more-potent air defenses and much more armor.
Moscow’s military, meanwhile, is grappling with low morale because of exhaustion, poor supplies and infighting among Russian leaders, Ukrainian and Western intelligence indicates. Russia appears unable to seize the initiative and attack Ukrainian positions, but its forces remain robust enough to man hundreds of miles of fortifications and large numbers of aircraft, which are keeping Kyiv’s troops at bay……………………………………………………………………………… more https://archive.is/D6CQZ#selection-625.0-634.1
