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.

August 13, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

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

June 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

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.

June 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, Ukraine | Leave a comment

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.

May 31, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

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.

May 24, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Let’s give Trump credit where credit is due

18 May 25 https://theaimn.net/president-trump-on-ukraine-in-pursuit-of-peace-or-glory/

Yes, he’s a narcissist, yes he’s racist, misogynist, crooked in business, and with no regard for civil institutions and laws. AND he’s just been sucking up to the nastiest most murderous Arabian Gulf regime, in order to make $billions for American business interests, including, notably his own.

BUT even Trump can do some good things. And in the case of the Ukraine war, this is apparent.

In early 2022, Ukraine’s President Zelensky was on the brink of signing a peace agreement with Russia. There’d be no loss of Ukraine territory, and no Ukraine NATO membership. Key Western leaders opposed this negotiation. On April 9, 2022, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrived unannounced in Kiev and told the Ukrainian president that the West was not ready to end the war. Then in April, in Kiev, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the U.S. wants to use the opportunity to permanently weaken Russia militarily and economically. He went on , at a meeting of Western leaders in Germany, to declare a Ukrainian victory over Russia as a strategic goal for Europe and the USA.

Zelensky promptly switched policy, and this turned into his peripatetic jaunts to the USA and Europe, to drum up weaponry for this determination to defeat Russia. In this, he had the mindless, and never flinching, support from Joe Biden, and NATO. All of which was most acceptable to America’s warhawks, and manna from Heaven to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and General Dynamics.

The West then launched a propaganda campaign about Ukrainian forces defeating Russian forces. English language media continued to show only the Ukrainian perspective. Media scholars have studies this, but I can be sure just from my own experience of the Australian media.

I’ve noticed not only a constant theme that Ukraine can militarily defeat Russia, but that Ukraine IS winning the war. This has been accompanied by copious emotional stories about the Ukrainian civilian victims of Russia’s war. Terrible atrocities done by the Russians. And some atrocity reports are faked. In reality, atrocities have been committed also by Ukrainians, but these are rarely reported on.

With that unflinching support from the West, Russia’s steady progress in the war has been disregarded and downplayed. Now Russia now has the military upper hand on the battlefield and that seems unlikely to change.

From 2022 until 2025, Biden and NATO would not countenance any serious suggestion of a negotiated end, such was their hatred of Russia. Near the end of his office, President Biden signed off on a huge number of weapons to Ukraine.

Donald Trump promised to end the war. In March this year, he stopped all military aid to Ukraine, including weapons already in transit. He’s against NATO membership for Ukraine – as just “not practical”, and does not expect that Ukraine will get back all of its land.

Ukraine has extended martial law until 6 August following Zelensky’s request This will prevent elections from being held before then, and enable Zelensky to stay in power. However, Zelensky could use fraudulent voter lists as a means of gaining re-election.

Critics , (including myself) have stressed Trump’s aim to make money for American companies out of a peace agreement. Well, so what? American weapons companies have been making $billions out of the war.

The thing is, despite all Trump’s negative aspects, he really does not like war. And with the Trump presidency, there is at last the opportunity to end this pointless slaughter, and avoid a wider war – something that was not possible under a Democrat administration.

As to Trump “not liking war” – that is another story to be explored. He likes to bully people with the threat of war. And that may turn out to be a dangerous way to go.

Zelensky’s plan for peace involves Ukraine getting back all the Russian-occupied land, including Crimea, (formally part of Russia since 2014) , and Ukraine headed to become a NATO member.

Europe, and all Westerners who buy into the Joe Biden view of Ukraine seem now still holding onto the idea of a military victory by Ukraine, over Russia. Zelensky’s unrealistic plan for a ceasefire can be disregarded. At least Trump offers a realistic way towards peace. And for that, he deserves acknowledgment.

May 17, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The pro-nuclear drive and Zionism are inter-twined.

https://theaimn.net/the-pro-nuclear-drive-and-zionism-are-inter-twined/ 10 May 25

For many years, I’ve been running websites devoted to the nuclear-free movement. People have asked me why, over the past two years, I’ve been including news about Israel and Gaza.

What on earth do Israel and Gaza have to do with the pro-nuclear cause?

Well, unfortunately, quite a lot.

Here’s a report from 2015 –

“While everyone believes that the Israelis possess a sizable nuclear arsenal, no one really knows how big that arsenal is. In 2008, President Jimmy Carter estimated that Israel probably had a minimum of 150 weapons in stock ready to use if the most dire circumstances warrant. Six years later, the former President revised that estimate and put the figure in the 300 range, which—based on Carter’s calculations—would mean that Israel doubled its arsenal from the 2008-2014 time-period. “

Of course the Israeli government “does not confirm or deny” that they’ve got nuclear weapons, and the cowardly governments that support Israel similarly do not officially confirm it. And of course Israel has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), or participated in any kind of weapons control negotiations.

In Sep 22, 2023 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Iran at the United Nations of a “nuclear threat” in what his office quickly walked back as a slip of the tongue. In July 2024 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged in a scathing speech to Congress on Wednesday to achieve “total victory” against Hamas.

The Zionist philosophy means that the Jews are God’s chosen people. And the Islamics certainly are not. The attitude of Israel towards the Palestinians is that they are not the same kind of human being as the Jews are. Indeed, it’s OK to starve Gazan children to death – after all, they are some kind of untermenchen.

Well, the genocide of Gazans is being achieved without any need for nuclear weapons. But what about the other Islamics? There’s Yemen, and there’s Iran. Netanyahu believes that Iran poses an existential threat to the Zionist state, and could make a nuclear weapon in a short period of time, making Israel and even the US unable to defeat or contain it.

To what lengths might Netanyahu go, to prevent that? Bomb Iran’s nuclear sites?

And would Donald Trump, an enthusiastic fan of Israel, support that option.

Here’s Trump, seven months ago, urging Israel to make such a strike,

While I’ve been thinking about this for some time, I was prompted to write about it now, after reading an article by Lucy Hamilton in Australian Independent Media, about the close involvement of Australian pro-nuclear front groups with the Zionist movement.

It’s not only Israel that we must worry about, in Australia, and presumably world-wide. If we aim to be nuclear-free, we are up against a lobby determined to have nuclear-weapons superiority, and the Zionist movement is right up there in that determination.

May 10, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

Who defeated the Nazis in World War 2 ? Thank God for Hollywood!

On the 8th May 1945, Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Allies. On the 9th May 2025, Russia is holding a grand commemoration – a “Victory Day” for the 80th anniversary of this event.

How dare they? I know, from my extensive cinema history, that the Americans won World War 2.

Many exciting and entertaining movies have been made, over the decades, glorifying the courage and success of the good soldiers on the good side – several allied nations, notably the British. But my favourites were always from Hollywood. There were so many, and of course, I haven’t seen them all.

From early on, there were movies like The Story of G.I. Joe, Dive Bomber, So Proudly We Hail! and Sahara . And During World War II, Disney made films for every branch of the United States Armed Forces and government.

Hollywood downplayed the efforts and contributions of the other Allies . But some films grudgingly acknowledged the United Kingdom, who kept the hopeless fight alive until the USA joined in and saved the day. Non-European Allies are mostly never even mentioned, especially China, with its pivotal role in the war against Japan. The Soviet-German war on the Eastern Front if mentioned at all, is sometimes portrayed as a sideshow .

Some movies based on real events, such as the film U571 are about real persons who were not American, depicted them as Americans. U571 (2000) is about American submariners. ‘Red Tails’ (2012)is a great exaggeration about American airmen. In some movies, we learn that WWII only began only on December 7, 1941, when the United States entered the war. Some movies are such fun, even if fictional, for example the Americans killing Hitler in Inglourious Basterds.

Many movies are about the overall war effort , but focus on America’s involvement. Some of these films include Saving Private Ryan (1998) Flags of Our Fathers (2006): Band of Brothers (2001). Films on the D Day landings give the impression that the American landing on Omaha Beach was the decisive turning point that led to Allied victory in Europe.

Now, I know that I’m pretty right, in claiming that the Americans won World war 2. In our democratic culture we accept the opinions of the many. The more common view is now that the Americans were the primary reason for the Nazi defeat, with 40-52% in America and Europe saying so. (But Britons think it was the UK).

In 1945, 57% of French citizens believed Moscow “contributed most to the defeat of Germany in 1945” – just 20% named the US, and 12% Britain. By 2015, less than a quarter of respondents recognised the Soviet role, with 54% believing the US to be Nazism’s ultimate vanquisher. Today only 17-28% of Europeans and Americans suggest that the USSR did the bulk of the work in bringing down Hitler.

If you go to Encyclopedia Britannica, or Wikipedia, or many history sites, you are told some extraordinary facts and figures about the role of the Soviet Union in World War 2, and they attribute the defeat of Nazi Germany as being mainly achieved by the Russians, with substantial input from Britain and the USA.

For example – “The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome in the European theatre of operations in World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for the defeat of Nazi Germany The decisive battles were Stalingrad, Kursk, and the Battle of Berlin.”

You find this sort of information – ” The Soviet Union lost at least 26 million in World War II, Considerably more than any other country. Russian casualties were 60 times the number of American casualties…. .. More Russian died at Stalingrad than Americans and Britons died in the whole war.”

D Day 6 June 1944, was a big day in bringing the war towards the end. Approximately 156,000 Allied troops landed in Normandy, France, of which nearly half were from the USA. Additionally, smaller contingents of troops from other allied countries were also involved. So at least the various historical records agree that the USA was strongly involved in the eventual victory, even though they joined in the war effort only in December 1941.

But now, it’s time to correct the records on who defeated the Nazis. Britain and Europe are doing their best, holding VE Day celebrations, in which Russia is excluded. And now, Donald Trump has issued a proclamation designating Thursday as a day for the United States to celebrate its victory in World War II -” we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II”

President Donald Trump is busily correcting historical records, taking over the National Archives, or as he puts it RESTORING TRUTH AND SANITY TO AMERICAN HISTORY

So, between the entertainment culture, the political views of the Western Powers, and finally, no less a history expert than Donald Trump himself, we can hope that all that nonsense about Russia winning WW2 can be put to bed.

May 8, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, media | Leave a comment

A resounding win for the world’s nuclear-free clean energy movement

https://theaimn.net/a-resounding-win-for-the-worlds-nuclear-free-clean-energy-movement/ 5 May 25

In early analyses of the historic Labor election victory, commentators have tut-tutted over the Liberal Coalition’s policies that didn’t impress voters – like reduced tax on petrol, like poor housing plans, and certain Trump-like aspects. These were the things, and the “cost-of living” issues that brought down the vote for the Coalition. And a number of interviews with voters did show that these issues were important.

BUT, in the media build-up to the election, those issues were hammered, and it seemed to me, that Peter Dutton’s party was happy with that, and especially, to stay OFF the topic of nuclear power.

But nuclear power was the core policy in the Opposition’s campaign. Its quiet partner policy was the drastic slowing down of solar power, and renewable energy in general. Along with this went a downgrading of climate change – Dutton coming close to climate-change denial – “I’m not a scientist” was his answer to questions about the impacts of global heating. The inevitable delay in nuclear power becoming operational would be a gift for the fossil fuel industries,

And it was a pretty amazing policy- to bring in nuclear power across a very special country! Australia is the only country in the world that is a nation-continent, a great island -continent with one federal government, and one predominant language. There is no doubt that, had the Coalition won this election, it would have been a grand coup for the global nuclear lobby.

The Labor government is also beholden to the nuclear lobby. Anthony Albanese, as Opposition leader in 2021, agreed to the then Liberal government’s AUKUS nuclear submarine deal. In 2024, his Labor government cemented its agreement by signing an updated version of the AUKUS Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement (ENNPIA).

So no wonder that both of Australia’s major parties are playing down the significance of the nuclear issue, now that across the nation, voters have rejected nuclear power. And the obedient mainstream media is playing it down, too.

Australia’s unique advantage is that it is the only nuclear-power -free nation-continent , and is also a world leader in renewable energy.

Even in 2023, 33% of Australian households had rooftop solar panels. generating their own electricity. Australia is a world leader in rooftop solar adoption, with solar panels installed on more homes per capita than any other country. This trend continues to increase, with Australians making huge savings on energy costs.

To be fair to the Albanese Labor government, it has done well on promoting renewable energy. It has not done so well on climate change action – The Australian government is continuing its long-standing support for fossil fuels both at home and abroad.

Despite its two major political parties being wedded to the fossil fuel industries, and both of them sycophantic to American militarism and the nuclear lobby, Australia really does have the opportunity to lead the world in the direction of clean safe nuclear-free energy.

The AUKUS agreement, the nuclear submarine deal , is looking a bit wobbly at this moment -with the Trumpian uncertainty clouding Australia’s relationship with the USA.

All in all, it is a positive outlook for Australia, and its leading role in clean energy. But don’t expect the corporate media, or the timid ABC, to genuinely emphasise the importance of this election victory over the nuclear lobby.

May 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, Christina's notes, politics | Leave a comment

The Australian Labor Party is No Friend of the Nuclear-Free Cause.

https://theaimn.net/the-australian-labor-party-is-no-friend-of-the-nuclear-free-cause/ 26 Apr 25

I’m thinking that the nuclear lobby loves the ALP even more than it loves the Liberal Coalition opposition party.

Advance Australia, and the U.S-controlled Atlas Network are powerful and well-funded groups dedicated to molding public opinion on behalf of wealthy right-wing groups. They did a fine job in 2023 of destroying Australian support for the 2023 Australian referendum on the indigenous Voice to Parliament.

I was expecting them to pretty much run riot in support of the Liberal Coalition’s plan for a nuclear Australia. That does not seem to have happened. Why not?

Advance “kicked off with outright lies“, but has been rather quiet lately. And the Atlas Network is nowhere in sight, although its modus operandi is secretive anyway, spreading simplistic memes.

My conclusion is that Peter Dutton’s Liberal Coalition campaign is so inept, so incompetent, that it has turned out to be counter-productive to the party’s cause. There’s just so much evidence of this ineptitude – particularly when it comes to the estimated costs of setting up seven nuclear power plants around Australia. The latest of many examinations of these costs is – “Coalition’s nuclear gambit will cost Australia trillions – and permanently gut its industry.” Half-baked plans to keep old coal-power plants running for many years until nuclear is “ready”, no mention of plans for waste disposal, – the tax-payer to cop the whole cost. Even a suave sales magician like Ted O’Brien has not been able to con the Australian public. The party’s incompetence is on show in other ways, too, unconnected to the nuclear issue.

But what of Labor? They have been remarkably quiet on the nuclear issue – focussing on their own rather ha[f-baked plans for housing. It’s all cost-of-living issues – and I don’t deny that this is important. But nuclear rarely gets a mention – except when Labor finds it useful to mention the costs.

It doesn’t look as if Peter Dutton’s Liberal Coalition has a hope in hell of getting a majority win for its nuclear platform.

But does the nuclear lobby really care? I’m afraid not. You see, the Labor Party, supposedly opposed to the nuclear industry, has a long tradition of caving in on nuclear issues. From 1982 – a weak, supposed “no new uranium mines” policy became a “three mines uranium policy” 1984 then a pathetic “no new mines policy” in the 1990s. Backing for South Australia’s uranium mines further weakened Labor anti-nuclear policy.

Over decades, Labor luminary Gareth Evans has been acclaimed for his supposed stance against nuclear weapons. But he’s done a disservice to the nuclear-free movement, in his long-standing position in favour of “the contribution that can be made by nuclear energy capable of providing huge amounts of energy, and just as clean as renewables in its climate impact”. Evans has always been close to the International Atomic Energy Agency, in his complacency that nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear weapons!

Labor has always been officially opposed to nuclear power, but at the Federal level, and some State levels, there have always been significant Ministers like Bob Hawke, and Martin Ferguson, who pushed for the nuclear industry. To his credit, Anthony Albanese for a long time held out against the nuclear industry. Even up until 2024, he was still trying .

But the crunch had already come – Albanese on Thursday, 16th September 2021 – “We accept that this technology [nuclear-powered submarines ] is now the best option for Australia’s capability.”

Why did Albanese agree to this deal, arranged between the Morrison Liberal government, and the USA and UK? Apparently, he did so, after just a two-hour briefing, with no documents provided, on the previous day. Labor Caucus was presented with it as a fait accompli. No vote was taken.

I can only conclude that Albanese’s decision was based on that time-honored fear of Labor looking “weak on security”.

In one fell swoop, Labor’s anti-nuclear policy was wrecked. The nuclear submarines will mean nuclear reactors on Australia’s coast. The will mean nuclear waste disposal in Australia, including foreign nuclear waste from the second-hand submarines. They will surely eventually mean nuclear weapons, as who can really tell if a nuclear-powered submarines has or has not got nuclear weapons? (The Chinese will be very wary about them.)

Since 2021, Australia’s nuclear submarine arrangement has been largely in the hands of Defence Minister Richard Marles, who worked with that dodgy company PWC to set it up, and who is a committed supporter of Australia’s solidarity with the USA.

March 2023 – Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unveiled the path to acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.

“In 2024, Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, made undisclosed “political commitments” with its AUKUS partners in an agreement for the transfer of naval nuclear technology to Australia, sparking concerns about the potential for high-level radioactive waste to be stored in the country. “

The global nuclear lobby works across national boundaries to promote its industry. It does well with Russia – as government clamp-down on dissent makes it easier to expand the industry in all its forms, and to market nuclear power to Asian ana African countries.

The nuclear industry is well aware of the problems in maintaining the belief that nuclear is clean, cheap, and climate friendly. But above all, it’s the nuclear-waste problem that its most expensive and difficult obstacle. Here’s where Australia has always looked appealing. All this nonsense about getting small nuclear reactors is just a distraction . The industry knows that small nuclear reactors are fraught with difficulties – too expensive, requiring too much security, public opposition at the local level, still needing too much water……… But to keep the global industry going, a nuclear-waste-welcoming country would be such a boost.

Well, it is early days, even for the prospect of those AUKUS nuclear submarines ever actually arriving. But in the meantime – the whole AUKUS thing has quietly introduced the Australian public to the idea that nuclear submarines are OK, and so are their wastes, and so are USA nuclear weapons based in Australia.

So, really, the Australian Labor Party has done a much better job of promoting the nuclear industry, than the fumbling Liberal Coalition could.

We are fortunate inn Australia to have proportional representation in our election. If you care about keeping Australia nuclear-free, you don’t have to vote for either of the big parties.

April 26, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, Christina's notes, politics | Leave a comment

Be wary of Google Search, especially on nuclear matters.

24 Apr 25 https://theaimn.net/be-wary-of-google-search-especially-on-nuclear-matters/

I’ve been meaning for a long time, to write about Google’s very pro-nuclear stance.

Then today, I found something that was both amusing and a wake-up call.

I have, for the past 16 years, run an anti-nuclear website – nuclear-news.net. Today, I typed into Google Search:

“who owns nuclear-news.net?”

And here is Google’s answer:

The online news service at nuclear-news.net, also known as World Nuclear News (WNN), is supported by the World Nuclear Association. WNN is based within the Association’s London Secretariat. The Association is an international industry organization with a global mandate to communicate about nuclear energy.

Well fancy that! I had no idea that WNN promoted the nuclear-free cause. Well of course, it doesn’t. Interestingly one does not “own” a website name, -one licenses it from a domain names company. Even if you make up the name yourself, as I did. And I still have the license. So – poo to the WNN.

And to Google. What a sad decline in morality! They started out with that noble motto: “Don’t Be Evil”

Back in 2008, if you typed “nuclear news” into Google Search – my website would come up at or very near the top. Google’s system then prioritised its list according to two considerations:

That the website title accurately indicated its content.
The number of viewings the website receives.

That system’s gone long ago, and Google has at least had the grace to abandon its former motto. Its now motto is “Do the right thing”.

Now isn’t that an interesting motto? Sounds similar to “Don’t Be Evil” – and yet, and yet ……. it’s not really the same. You see “the right thing” depends on who decides between right and wrong.

For a start, in today’s zeitgeist – the culture of economic growth – the right thing is what makes the most money. Therefore, Google correctly prioritises the websites that pay Google the most in sponsorship.

But that priority leads on to other considerations. For a company like Google, well, it’s essential to keep the most powerful economic interests onside. So, the weapons companies, Western militarism, the nuclear industry, and the other polluting industries get priority. And the Gazans and other impoverished communities don’t matter much.

Anyway, as I don’t pay Google any sponsorship money, my website comes up at something like page 154 on Google search , when looking for “nuclear news”.

I’m not writing this to get you to go to my website. And quite a healthy number of viewers do go there each day.

The thing is – be aware of Google’s priorities. They are not interested in the facts. We all knows that economic progress is more important than the truth, don’t we?

And at the same time, you might fairly accuse me of hypocrisy. I use Google Search all the time. It is tremendously useful . One just needs to be aware of the sources of information, and of Google keeping its nose clean by not too much offending the powerful and wealthy.

April 24, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, media | Leave a comment

Is Elon Musk a halfwit ?

April 19, 2025, https://theaimn.net/is-elon-musk-a-halfwit/

A silly insult! I hear your cry. Yes, as the Oxford Dictionary defines a “halfwit” as a”foolish or stupid person” And I do agree, it is stupid to call Elon Musk “stupid”.

But that’s not what I mean. I guess that I have invented a new interpretation of “halfwit”.

According to my view , one can be brilliantly clever with one kind of thinking, yet lacking in understanding of other important ways of thinking, as though half of one’s brain is sort of not functioning. I was prompted to ponder on this by Gautam Mukunda‘s article in The Business Standard – “Musk and the dangerous myth of “omnigenius“. Mukanda deplores “the Halo Effect” – a cognitive bias in which we revere someone for remarkable success in just one area, and assume that they will be equally great in other areas.

Mukunda gave a chilling example. “Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE )fired hundreds of employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency responsible for the production and security of nuclear weapons and management of nuclear waste sites” (These cuts were soon reversed under the advice of Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball).

Mukunda is exploring the attitude of people in general, towards valuing a high achiever So he’s not actually discussing Musk himself and Musk’s way of thinking.

But it looks as if Elon Musk had no insight into the potential negative consequences of the firing of nuclear safety staff.

This touches on Musk’s apparent lack of interest in some areas of life – employment relationships, social studies – the non-technical areas. We all know that Elon Musk is a genius in science and technology. He’s got all that impressive knowledge. And let’s not forget – his early, and no doubt continuing motivation – to save and benefit humanity. Hence his desire, and technical know-how – aimed at creating a safer home for humanity -on another planet.

And what about Musk’s undoubted knowledge of science? Does it include those “soft” sciences – biology, ecology, cytology, genetics, psychology, neuroscience….

Neuroscience comes up with some clues to human ways of thinking. For one example, the development of the frontal lobe of the brain comes at different ages between males and females. Complex research has also shown for example, the role of testosterone in embryonic development in both sexes. It may account for males having, on the whole, better abilities in spatial understanding, and for female thinking on the whole encompassing more regions of the brain at the one time. Now this is a terrible digression from the immediate topic, but just my attempt to indicate that individual brain function differs between people.

Getting back to Elon Musk, it is just my guess that he, for one reason or another, is really good at STEM thinking (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths). And unfortunately, even within that STEM, those so-called “soft” sciences don’t seem to count. It would seem that Musk is uninterested both in those other sciences, and of humanities studies.

So – that’s what I’m calling being “half-witted” – terrific at the concrete technical stuff, but sadly lacking in that other half – those other, less well-defined , areas of thinking

So I think that Gautam Mukunda is onto something, when he warns us “why do we listen to these people? And why should they get positions of power in areas where they have little knowledge or experience?”

April 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Donald Trump flounders about on the Ukraine situation

17 Apr 25 https://theaimn.net/donald-trump-flounders-about-on-the-ukraine-situation/

Trump’s previous presidency resulted in huge job losses, a massive increase in the national debt, and global uncertainty about economics. Still, the stock market went up, and the very wealthy got wealthier. His purpose then was perhaps to enrich himself and his rich mates. Apart from that, it all looked like incompetence. If the job of President is to preserve the security and well-being of the nation, his administration was floundering about.

So – no real surprise that this is now happening again.

And what better example of the flounder is there than Trump’s dithering about over the Ukraine war?

As far as the Ukraine war goes, Trump’s big advantage over his predecessor Joe Biden, is that he is willing to negotiate at all. But Donald Trump’s concept of “negotiation”really needs to be examined. He is inordinately and mistakenly proud of his “art of the deal”. But when we observe his actual behaviour, it’s more like a form of childish bullying, than any real method of negotiation.

Major tenets of negotiation, as explained by Herb Chen, to achieve a win-win situation, are to prepare well with information on the situation, seek out and understand the other side’s needs, respect the other side and establish trust.

To start with. Donald Trump aims to win, i.e to defeat the other side. Is Donald Trump even capable of going for a win-win situation? He is quoted as saying “My whole life is about winning” – though I could not find the source. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YPg9sBtuMJw

So already it appears that Trump’s goal in negotiating is to get what he wants, in a bulldozing manner. And what he wants now is for USA business interests to win in Ukraine, rather than an acceptable peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

As to “preparing well with information on the situation”, Trump seems to have understood some of the critical facts – for example, that Putin will not tolerate Ukraine becoming a member of NATO, that Zelensky depends on USA military backing. But the more complex picture concerning the national borders, and the industries in the region seems to be beyond him. And this starts to matter when questions arise about the ownership of rare earths resources. This is a complicated story, but industry experts and economists warn that for the USA to gain control of Ukraine’s mineral resources is not likely to be a success, either commercially or geopolitically.

But Trump’s focus in the negotiations is on American business taking over Ukraine’s minerals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya9WKaveRXU

The “deal” that Trump is pursuing also involves that very thorny question – which nation will own and control the Zaporizhzhia nuclear station. I have previously written about this. But suffice to say that the ownership of this particular NPP is a very fraught matter. All three nations, Ukraine, Russia, and USA, seem to want to take on this huge responsibility – massive out-of-action nuclear reactors, all very dangerous and lacking a dependable supply of cooling water.

So, squabbles over industrial resources, and nuclear facilities would be predictable to anyone who bothered to prepare for negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine.

Seeking out and understanding the other side’s needs? Has Donald Trump any concept of this? He might appreciate strongman Putin’s need to look tough and insistent on tough conditions – but Trump does not take account of Russia’s need for to have sanctions on it ended, nor to have Ukrainian troops gone from Russia’s Kursk region, nor to prrevent a pause that enables Ukraine to build up weapons. Trump doesn’t take any interest in the complex needs of the Ukrainian side either, – with many in the Donbass area especially desperate for the war to end.

Respecting the other side and establishing trust? Trump’s manner shows that he doesn’t even respect his own side – as evidenced by his recent rudeness to Ukraine’s President Zelensky. About the other side – he’s said that he’s “pissed off” with Putin, and has threatened to impose secondary tariffs on countries that buy from Russia. He has broadcast his anger with Putin, – but added that “the anger dissipates quickly … if [Putin] does the right thing”.

So much for Trump’s promise about quickly ending the carnage in Ukraine. Almost three months after he took office, Trump has achieved nothing. Thousands of soldiers and civilians continue to be injured or die each month.

Without going into the nightmare of the Trump tariffs situation, the economic effect of the current Trump administration is starting to look very like the economic effect of his previous one. Unless the purpose of it is solely the enrichment of Trump and billionaires, the whole operation looks like being massively incompetent. And, sadly, the Ukrainian people are prime victims of this incompetence.

April 17, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, politics international | Leave a comment

The irrational optimism of the nuclear power lobby.

12 Apr 25, https://theaimn.net/the-irrational-optimism-of-the-nuclear-power-lobby/

Australia’s Opposition Party is the prime example of this unfounded optimism. Liberal Coalition leader Peter Dutton is full of enthusiasm in his nuclear plan :

Our plan will deliver a net-zero electricity grid by 2050 and a strong and resilient economy. It will set our country up for decades to come. At the front of this next wave of growth will be those communities which host zero-emissions nuclear plants. Not only will local communities benefit from high paying, multi-generational jobs but communities will be empowered to maximise the benefits from hosting an asset of national importance .……….

A Federal Coalition Government will initially develop two establishment projects using either small modular reactors or modern larger plants such as the AP1000 or APR1400. They will start producing electricity by 2035 (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option).

Dutton and his chief nuclear spruiker, Ted O’Brien, gloss easily over concerns about costs, safety, water shortage, environmental effects, timing, and of comparisons with wind and solar power.

Ted O’Brien is indeed a master at this stuff. He looks just the right guy to be a reassuring expert to farmers, and rural communities. His background in marketing shows, with his perfect marketing style. Pleasant, affable, -even warm, calm and confident, O’Brien doesn’t need the detailed facts to interfere with his comfortable assertions about Australia’s wonderful nuclear energy future.

“because hand on heart that’s in our national interest It is the right thing to do I It is why othercountries all around the world are now introducing nuclear energy It’s in Australia’s interest …….We’ll always have to focus on what is right for Australia.

Australia is already behind the eight ball when it comes to zero-emission nuclear energy. The sooner we get going the betterIt has proven around the world to be the fastest way to decarbonise electricity grids.”

Australia, geographically remote from the countries that do have nuclear power, is vulnerable to this kind of “style over substance” persuasion.

If we look at the substance of what is going on in those countries, we find a very mixed bag indeed. The national governments of France, USA, UK, Canada, Japan, Russia, are all for new nuclear power – encouraging and subsidising big and (so far non-existent) small nuclear reactors. Not so much China, which is going allout for renewable energy.

The politicians might be backing nuclear power – but the economic realities tell a different story:

BRITAIN: Let’s start with the COSTS – Hinkley Point C nuclear will cost at least £75 billion – highly unlikely that Sizewell C will be any cheaper. Then there’s the WASTES problem – Nuclear bosses quizzed by MPs over Sellafield’s £130 billion century-long clean up. And there’s the OPPOSITION to the industry and to its wastes – Resistance to nuke dump grows in South Copeland.

FRANCE. is in all sorts of trouble with its nuclear programme – France delays EPR2 reactors to 2038. The Flamanville EPR nuclear reactor will not be able to deliver its full power without major works. Squabble with Britain over who pays for France’s nuclear projects in the UK. And there’s The poisonous problem of France’s nuclear waste

USA – COSTS – USA nuclear power companies feeling the financial pain- future very dubious. Failure of small nuclear reactor project. Attempts to restart old reactors – Groups Demand DOE Environmental Impact Statement Before Agency Bails Out Palisades Zombie Reactor Restart.

JAPAN. has a huge nuclear WASTE problem. And it’s not just the Fukushima continuing waste disaster. There is little enthusiasm in government or community for reviving the nuclear industry – TEPCO’s rehabilitation plan delays expose limits to nuke power reliance.

CANADA. The government is gung-ho for nuclear power, but here is strong and well-informed opposition to it. And those pesky indigenous opponents are having legal wins on waste plans, – the wastes problem does put a damper on new nuclear.

These are all nations that are stuck with existing nuclear reactors, many of them aging, and stuck with the very significant waste problem – which, by the way, doesn’t get a mention from the comforting Mr Ted O’Brien.

Australia’s Liberal-National Coalition has as its main policy, the setting up of a tax-payer funded nuclear industry. This is a breathtakingly bold step for a Liberal party, traditionally the champion of private enterprise, and sworn enemy of socialism.

The Coalition doesn’t seem to have much else in the way of policies. Their leader, Peter Dutton. is currently inclined to shut up a bit about nuclear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12RE1WGl-VQ

It’s up to Ted O’Brien to work his marketing magic. He will probably be helped with his “style above substance” message, by well-funded groups like Advance and The Atlas Network.

Well, it worked in America. Voters, tired of all the bad stuff, turned away from facts and policy details, and voted for an entertaining charlatan. It could work in Australia, and would certainly be a triumph for the nice Mr O’Brien.

April 12, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | 4 Comments

Nuclear power is such a mess – Zaporizhzhia plant as the shining example

https://theaimn.net/nuclear-power-is-such-a-mess-zaporizhzhia-plant-as-the-shining-example/ 23 Mar 25

You do wonder how the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) can tell us with a straight face, that nuclear power is safe !

Nobody talks about Chernobyl any more (melted down 1986), Fukushima (melted down 2011). They’re ancient history. No, not really. The cleanup in each case is really only just beginning.

The Chernobyl ‘sarcophagus’ – still contains the molten core of the reactor and an estimated 200 tonnes of highly radioactive material. The stability of the structure has developed into one of the major risk factors at the site. Fukushima – Experts say the hard work and huge challenges of decommissioning the plant are just beginning. There are estimations that the work could take more than a century.

But – let’s look at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine. With 6 reactors (all shut down) it’s the largest nuclear power station in Europe. It’s a messy nuclear plant, in that it was originally set up to use Russian nuclear technology and fuel, enriched uranium (U-235). Then later the Ukrainians gradually changed the fuel type to American Westinghouse. By 2024, this fuel type at Zaporizhzhia was expiring. Now under the Russians’ control, they could not now access this fuel, if Russia did seek to restart the reactors.

Suddenly, the status and future of the Zaporizhzhia plant has become a very timely question. With the ceasefire negotiations going on, have President Trump and President Putin been discussing this? Nobody is letting on. The White House and the US State Department are keeping mum. Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky are reported to have discussed “American ownership” of the Zaporizhzhia plant, with Zelensky insisting that it could function only under Ukrainian ownership. Russia has been reported as planning to make those reactors functional again.

That critical question comes to mind – What’s In It For Whom?

Is it the glory? The pride of ownership? A wonderful economic opportunity? That last one is dubious. Ownership in wartime is fraught with danger. The IAEA repeatedly warns of the danger of a military strike on the plant, including on its hazardous spent fuel pools. With cessation of fighting, it’s still dangerous. To reactivate it would take years. It’s not just the confusion of using American or Russian fuel, (both in supplies now out of date.)

What about the water? Even now, as the reactors are in cold shutdown, they still need continuous supplies of water to reduce the residual heat from the shutdown reactors, to cool the spent fuel, and to cool the emergency diesel generators if the plant loses off-site power.

But if the Zaporizhzhia nuclear station were to be brought back into operation, it would require massive amounts of water. The destruction of the Kakhovka dam in 2023 has left Zaporizhzhia without that essential supply. It’s estimated that to restore the plant the plant to function would take several years. Shut for three years, and constantly in military danger, the plant had safety problems, including fires, even before the war began.

These questions of fuel and water are the obvious practical ones. But dig deeper into this Zaporizhzhia nuclear station problem and we find almost insuperable problems of logistics, legal and regulatory requirements, costs, and the conflicting ambitions and abilities and hostilities of the men in leadership in Ukraine, Russia, and USA. And for now, the plant is on the front line, in territory controlled by Russia.

Voldymyr Zelensky – always the shining hero, knows the right solution. The nuclear station can belong only to Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umwwpybIW3k

The Zelensky simple solution assumes that in a ceasefire, or negotiated end to the war, the plant, along with all the now Russian- occupied territories, will be returned to Ukraine ownership, (and that the USA will pay up for the plant’s necessary repairs and modernisation). And Ukraine will prosper, selling the electricity to Europe. These are big assumptions, considering that Russia now controls 20% of Ukrainian territory and now has the advantage in the war.

For Russia, that Zelensky scenario has zero appeal, and you wonder why anyone would expect Russia to simply capitulate to Zelensky’s wishes. For Russia, at present, keeping the nuclear station in their own hands is the safest option, defending it against Ukrainian attacks. But, even if the Zaporizhzhia plant becomes permanently owned by Russia, there are still risks of Ukrainian sabotage, and there will be the costly and difficult process of trying to restart the reactors, and what to do with the hazardous old nuclear fuel.

For the USA, ownership of the plant would have its attractions: it would benefit Westinghouse, expanding its market for nuclear technology. But all of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants are owned by Energoatom, and Ukrainian law prohibits their privatization. There would certainly be resistance in Ukraine to this American takeover. Complicated legal and financial gymnastics would go on. Perhaps Trump would see the American ownership as part of the war debt that he intends to get from Ukraine; he estimates that debt as over $300billion, although others differ about that amount. Whatever the involvement of the USA in the future management of these nuclear reactors, the USA will face the same daunting problems in trying to operate them. Nobody seems to know what is the extent of repairs needed. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear station continues to be in a state of peril, as Raphael Grossi of the IAEA constantly reminds us, (in between his promotion of new nuclear power)

This huge nuclear station is indeed a test case for the whole industry. While the much-hyped small nuclear reactors are turning out to be unaffordable and impractical mythical beasts, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and others are going all-out for new big nuclear reactors. But this Ukraine situation demonstrates the dangers of big nuclear reactors.. Not only do they have the well-known hazards of accident risk, health and environmental hazards, toxic wastes problem, but also those complicated problems of military attack, international political relations, and that always supreme consideration – who will pay?

March 23, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, Ukraine | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »