The brave journalists of the old-fashioned media
21 January 2026, Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/the-brave-journalists-of-the-old-fashioned-media/
It’s not easy being a journalist in a paid job in corporate print, TV or radio media. You have to toe the corporate line. It’s best to be writing on a specialised topic where you’re likely to not offend the powerful. Cooking, gardening, sport -are good, though even in them, hazardous aspects can arise – like race, religion, gender, sexuality.
But when it comes to environment, current affairs, politics, business – the prudent journalist needs to tread warily, lest he/she loses the job.
This is an awful pity. Although writers have always had to be careful about offending business owners and governments, It hasn’t always been as dangerous as it is now. And for us, the “consumers of media”, the advantages of “mainstream” media are great. There is funding to enable strong investigative journalism. There is fact-checking, meaning that the readers/viewers, listeners, can have confidence in the facts of the story. Heck! the editors even check grammar and spelling (well, mostly). And these are the reasons why I still like “mainstream” media.
And so, as I’m pondering on journalists and their contributions to society, I am very aware of those journalists who, still hanging on to their corporate-controlled jobs, manage to sneak in, or even state boldly, some unwelcome realities.
Nowhere is the media’s craven subservience to the powerful more obvious than in journalism’s coverage of the nuclear industry. Any day at all, if you bother to search “nuclear” on Google News, there will be a stream of articles describing the nuclear industry in positive terms, even with breathless enthusiasm.
I think that the nuclear lobby has done a fine job in teaching the world that no-one but nuclear industry experts can possibly understand nuclear issues – so journalists find it easiest and prudent to just regurgitate nuclear industry handouts. (Heaven forfend that we should fall for the message of a Dr Helen Caldicott – explaining that nuclear power is just an expensive way to boil water. Albert Einstein thought the same thing).
It’s not a Russia-China versus the West thing, as ALL these powerful governments are enthusiasts for nuclear power. So the critics of nuclear power are not “Left” or “Right”: they are simply critics of nuclear power.
So, in this climate of journalists playing safe, and not upsetting government or industry, I have to admire those who stay on in their media jobs, try not to offend, but communicate the facts, and manage to include some negative aspects of nuclear power.
Here’s one example, although he did not last long in his job in Russia. Vladimir Slivyak, a patriotic Russian, taught at the Moscow School of Economics. And that was alright for a while. But the coal and nuclear industries are highly treasured in Russia, and Slivyak wrote powerful articles, criticising them. You can’t get away with attacking Russian government policies for long, and the government eventually classified him as a foreign agent, and he had to emigrate to Germany. Silvyak is an unfailing critic of bad environmental policies of whatever government, so, now in the West, he continues to expose bad nuclear policies of the European countries, particularly France, and their continued dependence on Russian uranium.
It should be easier for writers in the West, with our famed “freedom of speech, freedom of the press”, but it’s not, really. Fearful not only of the disapproval of authorities, but also of showing their ignorance of matters nuclear, journalists find the publicity handouts and worthy utterances of nuclear experts to be the safest bet for informing the public. Hence, even if they do have their doubts, the vast majority of journalists practise self-censorship on those doubts.
Once a writer has become known as an opponent of the nuclear industry, he or she becomes not only unemployable in the mainstream media, but is widely disparaged as an eccentric, a ratbag, a communist tool, or like Dr Helen Caldicott: “hysterical” “crazy”. It doesn’t matter if, like Arnie Gunderson, they’re a nuclear engineer – they’re still a crank and not to be trusted.
So, the admirable skill, is to be able to write authoritatively on nuclear matters, and still sneak in those damning questions, those subtle criticisms. Physicist Dr Edwin Lyman managed this for a long time, actually advising the nuclear industry and USA Government on safety matters. But in more recent years, he’s gone a bit too definite in his views on nuclear unsafety:
“Be wary of new ‘smaller’ kinds of nuclear power plants“, with the result that nuclear expert Dr Al Scott and others have judged Lyman to be extreme in his views.
My favourite journalist within this narrow category of “staying inside media respectabilia” is a Canadian data journalist. I hesitate to name him – I’d hate to cast a gloom on his career. He writes for the Globe and Mail, and his articles are not anti-nuclear. They’re factual, but he’s inclined to point out things like:
“In a January report, the International Energy Agency said costs must come down; Small Modular Reactors need to reach US$4.5-million per megawatt by 2040 to enjoy rapid uptake, far less than Ontario Power Generation (OPG)’s estimated costs.”
“… the commissioners heard concerns from intervenors that GE-Hitachi hadn’t yet finished designing the reactor, raising questions about how its safety could be analyzed properly.”
His series on Canada’ s nuclear developments are detailed, and certainly not opposing the industry. It’s just that his facts on the need for taxpayer support, on fuel supply problems and costs, on the comparative economics of renewable energy – these facts are not encouraging for nuclear power.
I ponder that these kinds of critics, just gnawing away at the edges of the nuclear industry’s gospel, might be more effective opponents of that industry than the many articulate and impressive anti-nuclear activists. A subtle “Trojan horse” style of journalism?
Raw, Rude, and Angry – in the new world of journalism
13 January 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/raw-rude-and-angry-in-the-new-world-of-journalism/
Amongst the many types of new independent journalism, my favourite is Raw, Rude and Angry, a type that would never have got into conventional “mainstream” media, which keeps up the facade of respectability (even while often condoning immoral lies and pretensions). Now there are lots and lots of raw, rude, and angry articles, and “social media” messages. I certainly don’t like them all, even when I sometimes empathise with the feelings expressed.
Where I do like raw, rude and angry, is where I can see that there is a genuine, valid, feeling of outrage, and especially where there are facts discussed, and information and sources given, too. Where it is clear that the writer has done their homework. Now these types of articles are few and far between, but their authors become popular, as their message resonates with readers, who are fed up with mainstream media’s often bland and uncaring coverage of the atrocities going on in the world. And because they are an accurate commentary on what is happening.
Enter Caitlin Johnstone, who is the absolute star of this genre, if it is now a genre. Caitlin is an Australian, who describes herself as a “bogan socialist.” I won’t go here into just what “bogan” means – it is a sort of derogatory term, implying unsophistication – and yet – there’s a hint of natural wisdom, unspoilt by the mask of etiquette. In Caitlin’s work, where profanities pop up, there’s an uncanny atmosphere of a background of thorough research having been done, by a highly educated person.
I think that is why Caitlin has become a controversial figure, much criticised, and seen as very “left-wing.” I don’t know about you, but to me, the accusation of “left-wing” has very little meaning nowadays – and seems to be applied to anyone who has a compassionate, humanitarian outlook.
So, Caitlin Johnstone’s work is having an impact, one way or the other. Her up-to-date commentary on international politics, Gaza, Venezuela, Zionism, Iran – includes information on international law, history, and current events, and is sprinkled with her powerful and compassionate opinions. Her January 12th article, The Imperial Crosshairs Move To Cuba, outlines Trump’s policies for Latin America, and Other Notes:
“Now he’s advancing every CIA/neocon agenda known to man in the middle east and Latin America with the goal of global domination as life in the US gets worse and worse.”
Other Notes discuss Palestine, Iran, and our right to dissent:
“Fuck Israel, free Palestine. Say it loud and say it often, because you won’t have the right to say it much longer.”
Of course, people are offended at her language. But I suspect that they are more offended by the difficult truths that she is explaining in a complicated subject like the protest movement in Iran.
Caitlin Johnstone doesn’t pull any punches. For example, she makes the clearest and most trenchant criticism of Zionism – Israel And Its Supporters Deliberately Foment Hate And Division In Our Society:
“Yelling “Muslims bad!” does not magically erase Israel’s abuses or address the grievances of its critics”
I haven’t found many journalists who can manage this conjuring trick of being across current affairs while writing in an incisive, outrageous, style. Rare in alternative media, they’re of course rare in mainstream media. Meghan Mangrum of the Chattanooga Times Free Press showed the emotional views about the killing of George Flloyd – “Mistreated. Unappreciated. Hated. Scared.” I can’t, at present, find any writer who compares with Caitlin Johnstone.
It has usually been a general principle that journalists, especially reporters, should aim for just reporting facts, and avoid giving their opinions. In reality, that’s never been easy – the mere inclusion or exclusion of certain facts, or statements, can imply opinion. And there has been scholarly discussion on the merits or otherwise of emotion, in journalism, and even a case for how anger can help you produce better journalism.
Well, that was then, and this is now. I think that we have entered a new era of international politics with changes happening at disturbing speed. People are confused about what is going on and what to think about it, what judgment to make. The current upheaval in Iran is the most obvious example at the moment.
Writers like Caitlin Johnstone, whether one agrees with them or not, do clarify a point of view, and one that is different from the conformity imposed by the corporate media. They hold power to account in a way that is easier to understand, compared with the scholarly approach of some longform critics of Western governments. So, I think that raw, rude, angry writings have a valuable role in today’s journalism.
The new world of journalism
My first effort. This is my first foray into the new jungle. I have been examining different types of journalism, and noting which sorts get an interested response. I plan to evaluate the different types – for their interest and effectiveness.
12 January 2026 Noel Wauchope https://theaimn.net/the-new-world-of-journalism/
Journalism is in a mess, and it is changing so fast. Meanwhile the world is changing even faster, and we need good journalism more than ever.
The old world of journalism is dead. Long live the new!
I liked the old world of journalism. And it still exists – a bit. In that old world, facts were valued, rather than opinions. Of course opinions were still there, not always apparent, and sometimes more effective in selective reporting of the facts, with some facts carefully omitted. Still, the facts were meant to be paramount. I loved an ancient TV series, Dragnet, in which Sergeant Joe Friday expressed it perfectly “Just wanna get the facts, ma’am – just the facts.”
Still, the old journalism did undergo editorial scrutiny, do fact-checking, and even had grammar and spelling checked. And it does still exist today, when the Internet has nearly killed print journalism, and its funding from advertisers.
But – it’s limited. The new digital media has overwhelmed it. You get not just young teenagers gossiping, but also heads of state announcing things, via TikTok or Twitter, X or Facebook, Instagram, and many other platforms. And the message is above all – new, fast, short and visually arresting. No, I haven’t done the research, nor produced a PhD paper about this, but my observation is that longform journalism is read by the much older generations.
Still, forms other than text are doing well, and information and opinion are broadcast by podcast and YouTube journalists, so providing perhaps a more accessible form of longer journalism, though the fact-checking may be dodgy.
So, in place of the staid, somewhat reliable old journalism, what do we have? We still have the struggling print, radio and TV “mainstream media”, where journalists “mind their p’s and q’s”, because they don’t have the job security that used to be taken for granted. Of course, there are “safe” specialities like sport, cooking and gardening, but current affairs, politics, environment, climate and much else – these are dangerous territories for the mainstream journalist.
Self-censorship is rife.
Then there’s “alternative media” where brave souls have branched out with new journals, funding this work sometimes by community organisations, libraries, universities, or just by themselves, and trying to get funding from readers. I really don’t know how successful they are, financially. But for some writers, myself included, these new journals provide the opportunity for self-expression. For the public, they do provide a much-needed broader range of subject and opinion, than is available in the rather constipated traditional mainstream media.
So – where to – for the good journalism? And what is the good journalism? Well, back to good old Sergeant Joe Friday. For a start, we need to know that the writer’s facts are correct. Then there are those seemingly vague things, like authenticity and integrity. It’s a tortuous path to try and work this out. In Australia, the teaching of English does include awareness of logic, and of conflict of interest. These are aspects pretty much impossible to ascertain in the prevailing snappy digital media, but can be gauged in longer journalism.
Over many years, I’ve been studying articles from many sources – to find out what is effective, what is genuinely interesting and believable. I think that it’s time that those of us who appreciate integrity in writing should shout about it.
Just for a first shout – I’ll pick out a couple of shouts already made. Here I find examples of journalists who courageously identify mainstream media’s biased journalism. In FAIR (FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING) an experienced journalist, Ari Paul, takes on the enthusiastic coverage by The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Times, The Chicago Tribune of “Trump’s Doctrine in Venezuela.” Paul concludes:
“By kidnapping a foreign head of state, the Trump administration is saying that international law doesn’t apply to the United States. That’s a sentiment most American editorialists are all too ready to applaud – despite the danger it poses for Americans, and for the world.”
Elizabeth Smith, writing for the NTI – The Nuclear Threat Initiative – asks:
“What does it take to reveal truth in the face of censorship?”
She applies that principle in the media coverage of the 1945 atomic bombing, described in a new PBS documentary, “Bombshell.” She concludes:
”Bombshell lays bare the power of narratives – and counter narratives. It shows, with infuriating and heartbreaking precision, how misinformation about the bombings influenced public opinion.”
There are a lot of independent writers out there – some, like Ari Paul and Elizabeth Smith are highly qualified and experienced journalists, who go into their subject in some depth, and are not scared to rock the prevailing boat of safe complacency that increasingly pervades the self-censoring mainstream media. Others are less masterful in their use of language, and less qualified, but still get their message across in a compelling way.
Looking to 2026 in nuclear news
28 Dec 25 https://theaimn.net/looking-to-2026-in-nuclear-related-news/
There are really a lot of good things happening, involving a huge number of good people. My favourite is that very persistent, won’t-be-beat boat – the Golden Rule, with its crew and supporters – Veterans for Peace. They sail the world, but especially from port to port in the USA, with their message of hope.
Dozens of groups sailed with the crew—including Code Pink, the NorCal TPS Coalition, the People’s Arms Embargo, the Comfort Women’s Justice Coalition, the Task Force on the Americas, and the Cal Sailing Club.
But of course there are thousands of other groups working for compassion and good will, in every country, of whatever political style. There are millions of people aware of, and prepared to be active in getting action on global heating.
I think that there’s a revival beginning in the media, with the growth of so many truly independent and alternative journalism sites. Some get funding from their readers, some soldier on providing free news and information.
Even the corporate media, and some USA Republicans are appalled at the antics of the deranged American “President for Peace” – leading to the thought that he might not last that much longer as “leader of the free world”.
Still – a reality check – if Donald Trump does cease to be USA President – there could be worse to come, with another choice from his pack of greedy sycophants.
So – a reality check is needed. It’s not going to be a happy new year as things are going at present
– “If we make no effort to change direction, we will end up where we are heading.”
Giving up is not an option. A world run by emotionally-unintelligent squillionaire technocrats is not going to be sustainably viable. Addiction to super-profits and power, and absurd ideas of exceptionalism and superior race -these are not the characteristics of good leadership. Jesus said that ‘the meek shall inherit the earth“. But I’m rather hoping that some of the meek get into charge before then, before the current power-brokers wreck the place.
Meanwhile, we continue to try to shed light on the absurdities of our current ‘civilised’ culture. And there are many hazards to expose and to combat – the horror of Zionism (which is NOT the Jewish religion), booming militarism, climate denial, racism, injustice, suppression of civil rights, AI gone wild- to name only a few. Lots of work to do.
The past week has been a busy one in non-corporate nuclear and nuclear-related news. The detailed list is at https://antinuclear.net/2025/12/28/the-non-corporate-nuclear-news-week-to-27-december/
2025 in nuclear-related news
To be honest, the really big news for the planet, is the super-fast melting ice in the Arctic and Antarctica, but politicians and media don’t seem interested.
On the nuclear-related news, it’s not all gloomy. The heroism of Ahmed al Ahmed was widely recognised. There are tens of millions of people, especially in the USA, who are getting together to oppose nuclear weapons and nuclear war.
So much news is nuclear-related. The year began and ended with Israeli anger. Here in Australia, in December, that was justified, with the horror of the Bondi massacre of Jewish people celebrating Hanukkah. But it’s gone beyond anger, and has become uncannily like the 2023 referendum on the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament – with relentless, illogical, coverage on the theme of blaming Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.(The 2023 referendum was won by the negative, by blanketing the airwaves with one illogical cry “If you don’t know, vote No”.)
15 murders – a terrible thing, – also terrible -over 70,000 killed in Gaza
And why is it nuclear-related? Because Israel’s ruthless Zionist government has nuclear weapons, and Netanyahu would be prepared to use them, (if he can’t get America to do it for him).
Also nuclear-related, the endless dilemma of Ukraine, the pretense that Ukraine is winning, the carnage mounting, as Ursula von der Leyen and co. flail around, trying to get all of Western Europe to come up with billions of Euros to buy American weaponry for Ukraine (- Raytheon etc laughing all the way to the bank). War-mongering Europeans seem prepared to send drone/missile attacks deep inside Russia, despite the very real risk of nuclear retaliation from Russia.
Then there’s the chance of the “President of Peace” starting a war with Venezuela, or Iran, or Greenland, or anywhere else where he could commandeer oil, or other resources. Things could so easily go nuclear.
The arms race continues apace, even on the moon.
The propaganda for nuclear power roars on in the media, though just about everybody knows that it’s unaffordable, and small nuclear reactors exist pretty much only as optimistic designs. It’s tacitly recognised that the only genuine purpose for new nuclear power is to sustain the nuclear weapons industry. Renewable energy is known to be the cheapest energy form.
And of course – looming over it all, has been the promise and the threat of AI.
Those were the general themes for 2025. For the details on the past week – go to https://nuclear-news.net/2025/12/23/the-past-week-in-nuclear-related-news/
May you have happy holidays!
Ethics matter more than ever – even in Israel
19 December 25, https://theaimn.net/ethics-matter-more-than-ever-even-in-israel/
Who’d have thought, in this time of crisis, lies and propaganda, that it might be the Jerusalem Post that showed us an ethical direction?
And, on another matter of ethics – the Jerusalem Post, again.
I’m pretty used to the pro-Zionist propaganda that spills out from the Israeli media, the American media, and the Australian media.
I don’t know if it’s Hannukah, Christmas, or what, but in the usual cacophony of news and opinion, – that normally unfashionable subject of ethics is now standing out.
The Jerusalem Post spelt out its horror at the new, and murderous symbolism, of the lapel image now worn by ultranationalist Israeli politicians. Closely resembling the previous symbol, which called for the return of the Israeli hostages, their new symbol calls for continued killing of Palestinians, as the lapel image morphs from a ribbon into a noose.
A golden noose around Israel’s soul – says the paper – “The golden noose goes far beyond poor taste. It represents a theology of death, a reverence for vengeance that distorts the face of Judaism and deals a severe blow to Israeli society.”
“Jews around the world would be hard-pressed to defend and embrace the Jewish state.“
And indeed, this noose-wearing thing might backfire – as Jews in Israel and beyond reflect on the ethics of the Netanyahu government’s war on Palestinians.
Almost simultaneously, came the news of the massacre of Jews at Bondi Beach. The mainstream corporate news outlets have, predictably, latched on to this, to engender more vengefulness and hatred, and to blame Australia’s Prime Minister for his support of Palestinian state rights.
There is much coverage and genuine concern for the victims of this cruel outrage and their families. In amongst this, some sentimental coverage of the brave man who tackled an armed killer. As the ABC pointed out, media coverage treated this man as an oddity – as being a Muslim, one would not expect such decency. – a media attitude that is subtly Islamophobic.
” Ahmed al-Ahmed a 43-year-old Sydney fruit shop owner and father of two, moved toward the attacker, wrapped him from behind, wrestled away the long gun, and forced the shooter to retreat. He was shot and hospitalized, but his split-second decision is widely credited with preventing even greater carnage.”
And commented – “There is something profoundly Hanukkah about that moment.”
The Post goes on to reflect on those non-Jews of history, who risked everything to save Jews, – Raoul Wallenberg. Oskar Schindler. Chiune Sugihara and more
“These stories are not only about the Holocaust, but they are also about moral clarity under pressure, the choice to see a fellow human being and refuse to look away.”
This man’s courage and generosity of spirit has impressed people world-wide, and his actions have been praised in the media, cutting through the general tone of anger and hatred
The author, ZVIKA KLEIN, reminds that Hannukah means “a demand that human beings choose decency over cruelty“
Which is pretty much what Christmas is supposed to mean, too.
While the merchants of hate, revenge, and political opportunism hold sway in the corporate media, voices for compassion and decency are being heard too. These are hopes to cling to for the coming year, and bring some positive meaning to Hannukah and Christmas,
How long will the American Moronocracy last in the New Year?
Noel Wauchope, 15 Dec 25, https://theaimn.net/how-long-will-the-american-moronocracy-last-in-the-new-year/It’s hard to grab hold of the idea – of which of the morons in the USA administration will crack first?
I think that it has to be Pete Hegseth, the Minister for War. Perhaps “crack” is not the appropriate word. “Be thrown under the bus” might be more accurate.
The immediate problem is the rather gripping thought – of the vision of injured fishermen hanging desperately onto the debris, the wreckage, of their bombed boat. And then getting bombed again, and killled. Now, apparently, there exists a video of this wretched event.
CBS reported on December 4th, that U.S. lawmakers met behind closed doors, and viewed a video of a second strike on the boat. Well we, the public, are not allowed to see this video. Democrat Rep. Jim Himes said:
“what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.“
“You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States.”
Even without seeing the video, our imaginations are struck with the horror of this event. And if it was not so terrible, why the need to cover it up?
And it’s not just that picture which is covered up. There’s also the trail of denials, blames, contradictory statements about that attack, – an incident that clearly breached international law, in the Geneva Conventions , The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and also the Defense Department’s Law of War Manual .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np1dG7qjzZM
The Washington Post reported that Pete Hegseth had given the order to “kill everybody,” but this was later denied by Admiral Bradley, who was in charge of the operation, and also by Hegseth and the White house.
The family of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza Medina, believed killed by the US military in a boat bombing in the Caribbean Sea on Sept. 15, has filed a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights accusing US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth of murder over the unlawful attack. The complaint also notes that President Donald Trump the commander in chief of the US military, “ratified the conduct of Secretary Hegseth described herein”.
That legal initiative mightn’t get anywhere, but the entire chain of command could be held liable for killing the survivors of the boat strike. The United States clearly imposes a duty to refuse unlawful orders.
That thought must be striking a bit of terror in the minds of the military officers involved, – and indeed in any U.S. military officer who might one day be given a similar order.
Anyway, wriggle around as he might, Pete Hegseth is at the top of decision-making on the whole illegal bombing of civilian boats in international orders. Unless you count Donald Trump as the top decision-maker. Trump would like this issue to just fade away. But if it doesn’t – well, then, perhaps a head should roll.
In his first presidency, Trump made a record number of his associates’ heads roll. But here’s the difference – some of them were quite skilful, and capable.
Not these days. Some examples :
Notably RFK Jr, is totally unsuited for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tulsi Gabbard , with no strong background in Intelligence, is Director of National Intelligence, Attorney General, Pam Bondi has a background in criminal law, but is most notable for unflinching dedication to Donald Trump, no matter what. Director of DOGE, Elon Musk – well, he had to go in the inevitable clash between two grandiose egos. Steve Witkoff’s background as real estate developer, gave him no expertise to qualify him as Special Envoy to the Middle East. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State does have experience in politics, but is notable for having a fanatical war-hawk’s hatred of Cuba and China,
What all Trump appointees do have in common is unswerving devotion to Donald Trump. And that’s not going to be enough to sort out the Trump administration’s messes, with more surely to come.
But now, to come back to Pete Hegseth. Yes, he does have university degrees in politics. But even with university degrees you can still behave moronically. And Pete Hegseth sure does. He has a history of alcoholism, and an accusation against him of sexual assault. Even his mother accused him of being an abuser of women (though she later retracted this).
Hegseth was forced out of two veterans groups, due to his alcoholism, and accusations of financial mismanagement. Colleagues at his former employment at Fox News reported his drinking problem there.
Apparently Hegseth promised to stop drinking if confirmed in the job as Defense Secretary. There are rumours that he hasn’t stopped. But anyway that’s not his only problem. There was his careless use of commercial messaging app Signal to talk about an impending operation in Yemen.
All this has got Republican law-makers worried. And the mid-term elections will be coming up. Trump might just have to start the head-rolling, if this boat-bombing issue doesn’t go away.
And Pete Hegseth is the obvious first candidate.
By the way, the Internet is awash with stuff about Trump being not only a deranged narcissistic megalomaniac (which we all knew anyway), but on top of that, claims that dementia is setting in on him. (How long will the moron-in-chief last, anyway)
Why my work is clearly biased
Today, I found myself posting on my website – an article which is vehemently anti -Western, and possibly just an angry version of pro Russian propaganda. I dithered about this. Is my pro-Russian slant just too much – a bridge too far?
After all, there is so much to deplore about Russia – the secret, brutal and murderous regime of Vladimir Putin, and the genocidal history of Stalin’s actions in Ukraine. And there’s plenty more to deplore, including more recent atrocities done to Ukrainians in the course of the current war.
So – why on earth should I, or anyone, stick up for Russia, which is anyway, the invader in this conflict?
I come back to just one answer. It is that rather vague concept of culture. It is that someone must address that “Western culture” in which we are immersed and perhaps drowning.
Western culture, supposedly based on “Christian values” – like equality, compassion, peace-making, is nevertheless now manifesting as fear and hatred of Russia and China.
The media laps this up, because really, diplomacy, compromise, quiet discussion between world leaders, is boring stuff, and anger, shock and conflict – that’s entertaining.
In the coverage of the war in Ukraine, so many important aspects are ignored. We don’t hear about , for example, the effect of Zelensky banning the Russian language in public life, when for so many Ukrainians Russian is their first language. We don’t hear about atrocities done by Ukrainian troops.
We don’t hear any details about negotiations in which the war could end, with concessions made by both sides. Consideration is never given to how NATO membership for Ukraine might affect Russia. I mean, how would Americans feel, if a hostile Canada could allow Russian military bases set up on the border of USA?
Instead, there is this narrative about Russia’s intention to attack European states, and then take over the world, crushing democracy. But where’s the evidence for this? And at the same time, we’re being assured that Russia is economically and militarily weakened, so of course, Ukraine can beat them
And, talking of economics – well – “follow the money” has always been a very important aspect in world affairs. I think that we could all agree that from the point of view of Trump’s USA – the simple goal is to enrich American businesses. So, for the USA now, the main thing is to sell weapons to Europe.
For Europe, this is expensive. It’s not as if all the member States are wealthy and united in their resolve to buy the weapons and make Ukraine win. They need the money. The plan suggests raising a total of nearly €300 billion.
One way is to expropriate frozen Russian sovereign assets. Sovereign assets have immunity from seizure under international law and bilateral treaties – the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004) This method could have legal repercussions, and destabilise confidence in economic systems and investment, with political ill-effects for Europe.
Another way is to raise a Eurobond. This is problematic because the EU would be acting as if it were a sovereign state rather than an administrative body of a treaty-based union. Some States might object, and as Ukraine is not a member of the EU – that fact strengthens their objection. The Eurobond would result, for member States, in higher taxes, constrained public services, and renewed austerity.
The EU’s options for paying for continuing Ukraine’s fight are highly problematic. They are based on the belief that after Ukraine’s victory, European nations will get back the money from Russian reparations, and from returns from reconstruction of Russian-liberated territories. A dubious outcome.
These financial considerations might possibly bring the Western media, politicians, and public to take a more pragmatic view of the war in Ukraine, and calm down from the hysteria about Russia destroying democracy. (Indeed, to digress for a moment – the USA is now giving a good example of democracy destroying itself)
The culture is so imbued with those emotions of fear and hatred, and historic hostilities, that I doubt that we will come down to earth and look at the Ukraine situation more realistically. And our leaders seem obsessed with showing how tough they are, rather than how wise.
Democracy ‘s all about individual liberties, freedom, -we are told. But there are also other considerations – the need for food, water and shelter. A more collective view of society includes those considerations. In some ways, Russia and China are doing a better job in this.
So, after this long meandering, I conclude that I am OK with continuing with my biased stance. Yes, some of the stuff I put up IS Russian propaganda. I try to be sure that the facts are correct, even if the interpretation is biased. We are so constantly tsunamied with anti-Russia, anti-China stuff, it is necessary to try to bring in some balance.
Right wing- Left wing – on the nuclear issue it doesn’t matter.
30 October 2025 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/right-wing-left-wing-on-the-nuclear-issue-it-doesnt-matter/
The promotion of nuclear power is a right-wing thing- isn’t it?
Over the years, I’ve been following the propaganda of the climate-change denialists, among other liars and frauds. I found that the Koch bothers in America were the source of much successful barrage against the truth on our heating climate.
Alongside the fight for a sustainable, liveable planet, there’s the fight for freedom against the nuclear peril. I’ve concentrated on the latter, but find that the two are strangely embroiled.
How do you know whom to believe? Well, as with the issue of cigarettes causing cancer – I’ve always found that the genuine scientific organisations to be credible, as against the propaganda from tobacco corporations, coal, oil gas, nuclear an uranium companies -and their political lackies.
So – the promotion of nuclear power is a right-wing thing- isn’t it?
So, in my efforts for a nuclear-free world, I’ve assumed that the pro-nuclear push is a right-wing thing, like climate denial. All self-respecting activists will know of the notorious climate-denialist campaigns of the Koch Charles and David Koch from 1980 onwards.
In 1974, the Charles Koch Foundation was set up, and later its name was changed to the CATO Institute.
The CATO Institute is largely funded by the Koch Family, (Koch Industries family foundation ) and also numerous right-wing organisations and corporations. It is a gloriously right-wing organisation, and I suppose I should hate it.
So, it comes as a shock to me today, to find the most plausible, credible case against the nuclear industry – coming not from my beloved anti-nuclear movement , but in a very long article from the CATO Institute.
Author Steve Thomas does not denounce the nuclear industry. He just opens up the question – does it have any real hope of surviving, let alone thriving?
Thomas points out, in the later part of the article, that even for China and Russia, the countries now supposedly leading in nuclear development, the home demand is falling, and their hope is more to export nuclear technology. Meanwhile for the Western world, despite the brouhaha from policy-makers and the media , about new nuclear development, it’s just not really happening. Well, it is, a bit, but with the absolute imperative of tax-payer funding.
Thomas discusses all the publicity this century, about new nuclear reactors: the actual results have been dismal. In the USA there have been the abandoned V.C Summer project, and the A.W. Vogtle project, completed six or seven years behind schedule and at more than double the forecasted cost. There are now no proposals for additional large reactor projects in the United States.
In the UK, after years of “no government subsidy” for new nuclear, they still can’t get enough investors, even with government subsidy, and all sorts of perks about insulating insulate the reactors from competitive wholesale electricity markets. Hinkley Point C project is estimated now at £35 billion and rising. For the Sizewell project, France’s EDF has pulled out on financial grounds, and completion is not expected before 2040.
Thomas goes on to demolish the spin about Small Nuclear Reactors -showing that some are not even small, and all are not cheap, not so safe, not waste-free, and not happening, anyway, despite the hype.
He looks at the costs and feasibility of re-opening old closed reactors, and of life-extension of old ones still functioning:
“Life-extending a reactor by 20–40 years effectively means giving a whole new operating life to an old design that would not be considered if it were offered for a new reactor. In other words, life-extended nuclear power plants would not come close to meeting the standards required for new reactors. This raises several important safety questions“
The author concludes that the nuclear industry is just not going to revive.
And shock- horror !- this right-wing publication concludes that other power options are needed to face “serious risks from climate change”.
In other CATO publications, they have pushed for reducing America’s nuclear arsenal, and even for the USA to deal with the Ukraine crisis by diplomacy, not weaponry.
Yeah, I know CATO’s awful on health education etc – but it’s refreshing to find a right-wing institution explaining the nuclear industry so clearly. Do we have to do this right-wing left-wing fight all the time?
Vladimir Putin and a world without Russia
7 Oct Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/vladimir-putin-and-a-world-without-russia/
He’s supposed to have said it as a joke.
In a 2018 comment, Mr Putin talked about destroying the world in a nuclear holocaust because “what is a world without Russia good for?”
OK. perhaps it was a joke. But –many a true word is spoken in jest.
And here is where I run into trouble, because I am known to have a very sympathetic attitude towards Russia.
I think that Volodymyr Zelensky should have kept to the pledge on which he was elected as Ukrainian President in April 2019. Zelensky promised to honour the Minsk agreements of 2014-15 – to accept the Donbass having a limited autonomy within Ukraine, and to end the years of war between the Ukrainian government and the Donbass. But In an interview with the German daily Der Spiegel, published on February 9, 2023, Zelensky made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk.
Even in subsequent negotiations with Russia, in April 2022, Zelensky’s government came close to a peace agreement with Russia, acknowledging the Donbass autonomy, and rejecting Ukraine membership of NATO. Zelensky quickly scuttled that deal.
That is the background to Putin’s decision to start a Special Military Operation in support of the Donbass – ending the 8 years of civil war in Ukraine, but starting what soon became a full scale war against Ukraine. Some commentators see this as Putin having been provoked into war by the Russia-hating West. Others say that it is Putin’s first step to invading Europe.
Anyway, the Western politics and media have indeed swallowed wholesale the story that Putin wants to take over Europe into a grand Russian empire.
I don’t think that the facts on Russia’s economic and military power actually stack up on that interpretation. And I don’t think that Putin is stupid enough to bring the whole might of the USA and Europe down on Russia. It is more reasonable to consider that many NATO states are uncomfortably close to Russia, – indeed on Russia’s border. Ukraine is the largest European state on that border, and for Ukraine to join NATO would mean that Russia would be almost surrounded by hostile states. If the USA had Canada as a hostile state, that would make USA politicians anxious. So Putin’s resistance to Ukraine being a NATO state is understandable. It comes from fear, rather than part of a grand desire to take over Europe.
In a brief, but telling article, Walt Zlotow has argued that now, 80 years after Russia was our major ally, defeating Nazism in 1945, it is time to stop hating Russia. Zlotow also pointed out that “Russia had neither the desire nor the capability to attack America without suffering its utter destruction from an overwhelming American nuclear capability”.
That last point is an important one. Individual persons matter. Why we haven’t had nuclear war for all these decades, is partly because we haven’t had leaders who were willing to press the button for humanity’s annihilation. Not even the bravado of Kim Yong Un, the pomposity of a Macron, the dogged war-making of successive American presidents – has led to that fatal decision.
Vladimir Putin is intelligent, and he has, in my opinion anyway, some reason and logic in his initial attack on Ukraine, and in his conditions for peace, especially regarding NATO membership for Ukraine. Putin has consistently spoken clearly and reasonably about the possible terms for a peace settlement. Meanwhile Zelensky and the West seem implacably bound to the position of demanding unconditional surrender by Russia as their term for a peace agreement.
So the West is all go for “Whatever It Takes”. The problem that I see, is that despite Putin’s quite admirable diplomatic restraint, and clear argument, he is still the one leader who actually is prepared to launch Armageddon – “what is a world without Russia good for?”
I do put up pro-Russian arguments, mainly because somebody has to counter the prevailing Russiaphobia which swamps us all the time in the media. That does not mean that I think that Putin is a nice guy. I think he’s a ruthless tyrant. But he should be taken seriously, and treated reasonably- not just seen as an excuse to continue this mindless hatred of Russia. Putin is an exceptionally dangerous leader, and we may all pay the ultimate price for our stupidity.
Conveniently forgotten and ignored – the 8 years war in Ukraine up to 2022.
https://theaimn.net/conveniently-forgotten-and-ignored-the-8-years-war-in-ukraine-up-to-2022/ 22 Feb 25
There’s uproar in the Western media, about Donald Trump wanting to negotiate with Putin, a peace deal in Ukraine. And Trump called Ukraine’s President Zelensky a dictator and blamed him for starting the present war Ukraine.war. And he said that that Zelensky’s approval rating has fallen to 4%. General agreement that Donald Trump was “rewriting history”.
Well, Trump is well known for lying, and it’s just so easy to scrutinise those statements and smugly assert that they are incorrect, and obviously Donald Trump has no idea of what he’s talking about.
And yet, and yet…. all those statements deserve further scrutiny. Because underneath their careless inaccuracy lies the real history of the Ukraine mess.
Historically, Ukraine as a sovereign State goes back only until 1991. In its previous history, it was dominated by a motley succession of European powers, but in the 19th and 20th.Century, by Russia. Cruel exploitation by Stalin’s rule in the 1930’s, was followed in 1941 by a brutal Nazi regime, and after 1944 back under oppressive Soviet control.
It is no surprise that there are long-standing resentments among both Ukrainian dwellers and in the diaspora. There is also a variety of ethnic backgrounds, and a clear difference between the ‘West-leaning” culture of Western Ukraine, and the more pro-Russian culture to the East.
At the end of World War 2, the Allies had the opportunity to include Russia in some co-operative Council of the powers, as was done by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, after the Napoleonic Wars. Instead, the USA, Britain and France chose to set up a co-operative group, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), that excluded Russia. American triumphalism gradually encouraged this into a defensive group against Russia, and encouraged former Soviet States to be part of America’s “sphere of influence” and to join NATO.
As Ukraine is the largest Western State on Russia’s border, it is obvious that Russia would not want it to be NATO state, potentially with U.S military bases aimed at Russia
Now, to go to the forgotten 8 years Ukrainian war.
In 2014, an American-sponsored coup overthrew the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych. He was subsequently followed by oligarch Petro Poroshenko, who removed Russian as an official language, – causing opposition in the Eastern provinces. The result was fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk). The rebels of Donetsk and Lugansk held referendums, seeking not to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language .
2014-15 Minsk Agreements. Leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine gathered in Minsk, and supported the agreements between Russia, Ukraine, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the leaders of separatist-held regions Donetsk and Luhansk. This formally gave Donetsk an Luhansk autonomous status within Ukraine.
2015 – 2022 . The agreements were never implemented. The Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive “anti-terrorist operation” against the Donbass, and the fighting continued. This war was not popular, reservists failed to tun up. “. In October/November 2017, 70% of conscripts did not show up for the “Fall 2017” recall campaign. This is not counting suicides and desertions (often over to the autonomists), which reached up to 30 percent of the workforce in the ATO area”. Young Ukrainians refused to go and fight in the Donbass and preferred emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the demographic deficit of the country.”
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)OHCHR estimates the total number of war-related casualties in Ukraine from 14 April 2014 to 31 December 2021 to be 51,000–54,000
This entire 8 years of war is rarely mentioned by the Western media. There’s no recognition of the impact of imposing the Ukrainian language on Russian-speakers. No consideration of some loyalties to Russia and her role in WW2. No consideration of the influence of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators, and the role of the minority neo-Nazis. There was one exceptional coverage by The Guardian in 2014 – It’s not Russia that’s pushed Ukraine to the brink of war.
2019. Volodymr Zelensky was elected with a huge majority, on his pledge to uphold the Minsk agreements, and bring peace to Ukraine. But soon after coming to power, Zelensky reneged on that pledge. He later made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk, give his country more time to prepare for war. A large-scale militarisation of Ukraine began. The build-up of the Ukrainian army was accompanied by the development of militias, notoriously the Azov brigade, with links to the Nazi past and the philosophy of past far-right leader Stepan Bandera.
2022. February 24. Russia launched its Special Military Operation into Ukraine, claiming that it was a limited operation, not a war. Russia argued that this was lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter, that it may use force against Ukraine in order to defend the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Peoples Republics. Anyway it soon turned into a full-scale war against Ukraine, which certainly was not legal, and Ukraine got the enthusiastic backing of the USA and NATO, though no foreign troops.
The Political situation in Ukraine. The Zelensky regime has banned opposition parties, cracked down on the use of the Russian language, restricted media and freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, violating international law. Zelensky signed a law that threatens to effectively shut down the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) – the largest faith-based organization in the country. He signed a law that restricted import of books from Russia.
So – to go back to Donald Trump’s inaccurate claims and “rewriting history”. How far off the mark was Trump? In fact, Zelensky was elected democratically, but has now turned Ukraine into a dictatorship. Zelensky did not start the war, but he provoked it, by overturning his election policy to implement the Minsk agreements. Zelensky’s approval rating is still above 50%, but has slipped over the past year.
It is Western dogma that you can’t approve of anything that Donald Trump does. So for anyone to even mention the 8 years’ war in Ukraine is to invite being branded as an idiotic puppet of Russian propaganda and disinformation.
The “progressive” West notices with disapproval, that Donald Trump’s aim is to get American business’s control of Ukraine’s mineral resources, in exchange for Russia getting territorial concessions. Well, what else would you expect from Trump – whose whole aim is to get American (and his) control of business, preferably everywhere? It still might be a better deal for Ukrainians than obliteration. Way back, the West, and Zelensky could have honoured the Minsk agreement, and given the Donbass provinces self-government within the state of Ukraine.
Priming us up for war – “it’s not so bad, after all” – Britain’s Labour government leads the way
The Unseen March video from 9 years ago – but now it’s getting worse. https://theaimn.net/priming-us-up-for-war-its-not-so-bad-after-all-britains-labour-government-leads-the-way/
On the outskirts of Berlin, you can visit what’s left of Sachsenhausen , one of the first Nazi concentration camps, set up in 1936, as a model for the more than 44,000 such camps they ran between 1933 and 1945.
I was impressed by the efficiency shown by the way that the Nazis carried out mass murder in this camp – which became a model for how to run this operation as quickly and with as little fuss as possible.
In the early days of the camp, the inmates were used as forced labour. Systematic extermination was carried out. Many thousands died by hunger, disease, overwork, medical experiments and mistreatment. But by 1941, tens of thousands of Jews and Soviet prisoners were being directly murdered.
I saw where this happened. Originally, the prisoners were forced down a brick path, and shot. You can still see stains on this path. But here’s the interesting bit. It turned out that the German soldiers who did the shooting became badly affected by it. Sometimes they would miss, or have to make several shots to actually kill a man. It made the soldiers unwell, having to rather messily murder their victims – it’s not like being in combat, not at all fair. It was making those soldiers mentally ill.
Here’s where the practical genius of the Nazis came in. They devised a special unit, (which was still there, when I visited a few years ago). In this unit, the shooter could be sure of doing one direct lethal hit, but the victim was placed in such a way that the shooter was unable to see him. This system solved the psychological problem of upsetting the man doing the shooting. No more mental illness, and the mass killing could proceed in an orderly way.
In a sort of sequel to this discovery, the Americans in recent years developed the efficiency of drones. targeting and killing suspected terrorists and militants in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan. Once again, – such a beneficial effect on the operator’s mental health. From thousands of miles away – press a button, no sight of any mess. and a beneficial effect on the the public too – all this killing being done so neatly, and so far away – so much better than an old-fashioned war battle.
So it is that the thought of war becomes much less unpleasant. With drones, and missiles, it has become a sort of distant, sort of “clean”, precision operation.
This new palatability of war comes to add to the already existing beneficial aspects of war. Getting ready for war shows that our great leaders are strong and decisive. It’s patriotic. It defends our democratic values. There are those other – nebulous, but still real, concepts of courage, heroism, and past glorious victories. The new “war-readiness” shows that we are aware, and awake-up to the threats of other countries, who undoubtedly want to attack us. And on top of all that – getting ready for war provides jobs jobs jobs!
Now Sir Keir Starmer’s UK Labour government is not so sure that the British public is convinced of all this. So they’re accentuating the already existing British trend to promote militarism. The Daily Mail announces the new education programme:
Children taught value of the military
Defence chiefs will work with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools, by means of a two-year series of public outreach events across the UK, explaining current threats and future trends.
Schools and community-based cadet forces will also be expanded, with an ambition of a 30 per cent rise by 2030 with a view to the UK having 250,000 cadets, many of whom will then go on to join the armed forces.
Those radical terrorists, The Quakers, have provided an alternative view – The military in education & youth activities. But I’m not sure that their view is widely known.
It looks as if mass education on the necessity of war is now well underway. The general public in the West is being brainwashed with the doctrine that authoritarian Russia and China are about to invade our peace-loving democracies. Sir Keir Starmer takes the initiative, showing how Labour there is in concert with the Tories. We must be ready to fight back, or perhaps better, to pre-empt such attacks. No doubt the Russian and Chinese populations are being taught a similar message, the other way around.
What now makes it easier is that we can buy ever more of those glorious distance methods, so much neater than sending our boys out for messy personal danger. The efficient Nazis got the ball rolling on this. In education Sir Keir Starmer now takes the initiative. Labour in the UK is enthusiastically backing their own and and the USA’s arms manufacturers. Weapons-making is the big thing in business now – in Europe too, and of course in the USA.
War School – The Battle for Britain’s Children – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl5Zc71KV_g
Jubilation at Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb – but is this joy justified?
A web, or a trail to Armageddon?
Noel Wauchope, 3 June 25, https://theaimn.net/jubilation-at-ukraines-operation-spiderweb-but-is-this-joy-justified/#google_vignette
The news media is agog with the glorious success of drones sent deep inside Russia to damage 41 planes. Ukraine claims that these were A-50 surveillance planes, the supersonic Tu-160 and Tu-22 bombers, and the massive Tu-95s, which were developed to carry nuclear bombs and now launch cruise missiles.
The damage is estimated to be $7billion. The targets reached inside Russia included Belaya airbase over 4,000km) from Ukraine, and three other distant airbases. the complex operation was planned in secret, over 18 months.
It was such a clever operation, involving smuggling of drones into Russia and placing them inside containers, which were later loaded on to trucks. Remotely activated mechanisms opened the containers allowing the drones to fly out and make their distant attack.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy praised the “absolutely brilliant” Ukrainian drone attack’ – “produced by Ukraine independently”.
Wow! We’re all delighted, aren’t we, at this surprise, this ingenuity, done all alone by Ukraine – such a demonstration of how the clever Ukrainians will beat the stupid boorish Russians?
There are just a few questions that I would like to see posed, in the corporate media.
I hardly know where to start. Can we believe that:
- This was done over 18 months completely without the knowledge of Ukraine’s European partners, in particular Great Britain, France and Germany, who were all consulting with Ukraine over that period, and especially in the last few weeks?
- Without the knowledge of the USA, while Senators Lyndsay Graham and Richard Blumenthal, in Ukraine in the past week where they coordinated intensely with the Ukrainian government?
- Why was this attack timed exactly at the time of the Istanbul peace talks between Ukraine and Russia?
- Did Zelensky not understand that this would at least cast a damper on those talks, upsetting Russia – a bit like the effect on USA if someone attacked US Air Force B-52H bombers and B-2 bombers ?
- Well, if Zelensky did understand that, was his intention to sabotage the talks, and provoke Russia into a retaliation, which might bring Europeand even the USA into the war?
The jubilation of the media seems to completely ignore Russia’s stated policy on its use of nuclear weapons, updated in 2024 – nuclear weapons would be authorised for use in response to “attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions”.
We don’t know how Russia will respond to this remarkable and unprecedented attack.
We don’t know how President Trump will respond.
What is clear is that the Istanbul peace talks have been wrecked, and a whole new phase now opens in the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It started out with the intention of a limited attack – the Russians still call it a Special Military Operation. Now Putin has no other option than to declare it a full scale war.
Time to give up the pretense about Ukraine winning the war.
31 May 25, https://theaimn.net/time-to-give-up-the-pretense-about-ukraine-winning-the-war/
The war in Ukraine has reached a new, and very dangerous phase. Not that it wasn’t dangerous before. But the toll of militarism was being paid by the deaths and the sufferings only of soldiers and their communities of Ukraine and Russia.
That’s OK by the shareholders in U.S. and other weapons companies, and by warhawks and the virtuous Russian-haters of Western culture. But it’s another thing when the deaths and sufferings might now extend to European people, to the British – and heck, – to World War 3 and all of us.
The change is that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pledged on 28th May to help Ukraine develop its own long-range missile systems that would be free of any Western-imposed limitations on their use and targets. So Ukraine could hit Moscow. Now Merz did back off in this, a bit, but later suggested that Taurus missiles might be delivered to UKraine. Germany would put up the money.
This would be a revolutionary change in the Western policy on the war in Ukraine.War-monger though he was, President Joe Biden saw the danger in escalating the war in this way, and for over 2 years refused Ukraine’s demand for long-range missiles. He changed his mind on this only at the last minute in December 2024. Then Trump, on taking office, paused weapons shipments to Ukraine. Now, characteristically, Trump has a confusing attitude on this – probably means “It’s OK as long as Ukraine pays up for them“.
Now, there are lots of impediments to Ukraine actually getting long-range missiles that could strike deep inside Russia. One big impediment is that the USA would have to be involved in missiles from Germany being used – this would necessitate U.S. software and technical support.
Lavrov on Germany’s Taurus Missiles: Approval for Ukraine’s Long-Range Strikes? | Times Now World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L8ARMiQmdE
So, should we really worry about this bold initiative by the German Chancellor?
I think, yes. It’s a wake-up call. If we all think that it’s now OK for long-range missiles to hit deep inside Russia, well, I guess we don’t mind if Russia sends the same into Ukraine and beyond ?
Is anyone in the West paying attention to the facts on the actual progress of this war? Global Conflict Tracker now says:
“Russia still occupies roughly 20 percent of the country after gaining over four thousand square kilometers of territory in 2024. Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian cities…. Since January 2022, Ukraine has received about $407 billion in aid, including over $118 billion from the United States. Fighting and air strikes have inflicted over 40,000 civilian casualties, while 3.7 million people are internally displaced, and 6.9 million have fled Ukraine. 12.7 million people need humanitarian assistance.“
But never mind. The corporate media is still telling us that Ukraine can, and must, beat Russia. And they’re also telling us that Russia doesn’t want a negotiated settlement.
And why is it that Russia does not seem to want a negotiated settlement?
Well, that’s because the new “Coalition of the Willing”, led by Britain and France, supports Volodymyr Zelensky’s underlying demands for ending the war:
Zelensky’s underlying demands:
- Ukraine membership of NATO
- return of all Russian-occupied territories, including the Donbass and Crimea
- Western troops in Ukraine for security
- payment of reparations, war crimes trials for the Russian leadership
All of these are unacceptable to Russia – especially NATO membership – a definite “Red Line”
There have been previous negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. In the Istanbul talks of March-April 2022, the two parties were on the verge of an agreement, in which Russia made concessions, and Zelensky did not insist on NATO membership. The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul talks by refusing to provide Ukraine with security guarantees and encouraging Zelensky to keep fighting instead.
Now Russia is in a militarily winning position, and has no inclination to submit to those underlying demands, nor to agree to a temporary ceasefire which would allow Ukraine to develop weaponry and troops.
But there is no suggestion from our bold, confident, Western leaders – Sir Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, that it might be best to pay more attention to the actual military situation, and less to the theatrical posturing of Volodymyr Zelensky. An unlikely source of common sense is America’s President Donald Trump – who actually does want peace, with his focus on making himself and his cronies richer, rather than on fighting Russia.
And the general public? Weary of it all, stunned into a sort of mental paralysis as we observe the barbarities going on in Gaza, the West en masse seems to be just sleep-walking into the military and economic disaster of a continuing war in Ukraine.
As with all wars, the media plays a huge role – glorifying that consummate media performer Zelensky, and regaling us with the civilian horrors suffered by Ukrainian civilians. (And they ARE really suffering). Of course, not a word about suffering Russians. Russian atrocities are publicised – both real ones, and fabricated. But if you see any news item about atrocities done by Ukrainians – you assume automatically that it must be a lie.
In fact, I’ve noticed that there is a powerful argument for the untruth of anything that shows any positive activity by Russians. If you mention it to any Westerner, it will be refuted because “After all, this news is just Russian propaganda“. You see, it doesn’t matter if the news is factual – it must be false, coming from Russia. In reality, of course the Russians are using factual news as propaganda. As well, they do have a sophisticated programme of misinformation as well. And so do we in the West, in all likelihood, when we consider America’s Central Intelligence Agency and its long history of disinformation.
So, it is a media mess. It’s tragic that Zelensky, elected on a pledge to honour agreements ensuring the autonomy of the largely Russian-speaking Donbass provinces, quickly went along with Europe and USA’s historic fear and hatred of Russia.
Never mind that Russia was on “our side” in the last big war, and largely won that war in Europe, at the price of some 27 million Russian lives. The Soviet Union did defeat the Nazis in Ukraine. But all that is forgotten, as Western leaders look solemn and statesman-like, pronouncing on coalition-of-the -willing plans for a big war in the air, with ever more powerful missiles, ending of course, in a glorious victory over Russia (and sorta bad luck that Ukraine is completely demolished along the way).
I don’t know what it might take for the public to wake up to the suicidal path on which these macho “statesmen” are leading the West, and “helping” Ukraine. A previous Coalition of the Willing” “helped Iraq”, and that hasn’t turned out so well.
It would be a good start if some in the corporate media could get away with telling the facts on the dismal situation of Ukraine in this war. Expanding the war sounds so noble and easy to decide on. Much more difficult would be a measured progress in negotiation, recognising the legitimate needs of each side.
A tale of two dodgy domes.
24 May 25 https://theaimn.net/a-tale-of-two-dodgy-domes/
Reuters on May 21st 2025 outlined Donald Trump’s plan for a Golen Dome missile defense shield:
The aim is for Golden Dome to leverage a network of hundreds of satellites circling the globe with sophisticated sensors and interceptors to knock out incoming enemy missiles after they lift off from countries like China, Iran, North Korea or Russia.
A network to knock out intercontinental ballistic missiles during the “boost phase” just after lift-off – Once the missile has been detected, Golden Dome will either shoot it down before it enters space with an interceptor or a laser, or further along its path of travel in space with an existing missile defense system that uses land-based interceptors stationed in California and Alaska.
Beneath the space intercept layer, the system will have another defensive layer based in or around the U.S.
Reuters names several companies that will build this system, with Elon Musk’s Space X as a frontrunner, but does not give details on the costs – estimates go from $175 billion upwards.
There is much scepticism about this plan.
I particularly enjoyed Rex Huppke ‘s sarcastic offering “I wrote a speech for Trump’s Golden Dome defense. Get ready to feel something”.
Huppke ‘s speech extols Trump’s popularity, and his promise that the system will be up an running in less than 4 years.
Huppke then studies “Golden” and “Dome’. He advises as much gold as possible to be used in the new structures, in keeping with Trump’s previous buildings. But suggests that the dome should be an unusually shaped dome – a flat-rectangular -shaped dome to fit in with the shape of America.
It’s all easy to fund, by simply cutting services to ungrateful Americans – “large is good, we love large” — cuts to Medicaid and Medicare while also adding trillions to the debt – “they’ll know their hunger is worth it for our protection.” As everyone knows, everything I’ve ever built is perfect and infallible.
Huppke does sum it up beautifully. Other commentators have questioned the extreme cost, the impracticality, the weapons proliferation risks of the Golden Dome project. Based on Israel’s “Iron Dome” this project has to cover an area 490 times the size of Israel.
So – it’s a dodgy dome that is attracting a lot of questions and criticism.
Now for that other dodgy dome that has attracted even more questions, and over many years. Yes, it’s Donald Trump’s own ever-evolving personal dome at the top of his head.
The hair has always been important to Trump. Like the spray-on tan, it goes to portray his image young, virile, strong, can conquer anything. Seth Rogan reported recently, comparing Donald Trump to Samson:
“He felt as though his power rested in his hair” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs0MAkJY-Q
Trump’s hair has been a source of wonder for many years. He’s been reported as having taken hair regrowth drug Propecia (finasteride) and had flap procedures. In flap procedures small areas of bald scalp are removed and patches of hair-covered skin are used to replace the bald areas, requiring careful combing over of bald patches. Trump’s scalp reductions were even mentioned by Ivana Trump in their 1990 divorce. A scalp reduction involves removing areas of bald patches and stretching hair-covered skin over them.
Dr. Gary Linkov, a plastic surgeon and hair loss expert, told the Daily Mail in August that he guesses Trump has had five hair transplants thus far in his lifetime.
I think, in its latest iteration, Trump’s hair is a metaphor for his dome idea, and whatever else is going on in his head. Past versions have appeared with his hair thick, combed in various ways, dyed in various shades of brown and gold. Now it’s described as ghostly white, a fluffy white cloud – with a lot of scalp peeking out.
The hair is looking thin, wispy, without real substance. It’s doubtful if he can keep up that strong confident appearance, as the head of the world that he’s supposed to be.
This White Dome sits atop the strange brain that has just conjured up the Golden Dome – neither of them are really to be trusted.
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 