Nuclear Propulsion in Shipping: Challenges Ahead

June 30, 2026, https://www.seanews.com.tr/article/nuclear-ships-seen-as-pipe-dream-mqzpc3uq
Nuclear propulsion for commercial shipping faces significant hurdles, including regulatory issues and a lack of viable business cases, says Lloyd’s List.
Nuclear propulsion for commercial shipping remains far from reality, with no viable business case and unresolved regulatory, insurance, and political hurdles, reports London’s Lloyd’s List.
Advocates such as British start-up Core Power argue that small modular reactors are the only alternative to fossil fuels. However, experts say the technology is decades away from being viable. Norwegian and UK academics note that no Gen-IV designs have been commercially deployed, and fuel supply chains for HALEU remain limited to Russia.
The industry has yet to settle on a reactor design, leaving unanswered questions regarding refueling, waste disposal, and costs. Professor Steve Thomas of the University of Greenwich warned that it will be the late 2030s before any experience with SMRs is available worldwide.
Even if modular shipyard production could reduce costs, governments would have to fund the first reactors and assume liability. Shipowners would face high capital expenditure and decommissioning costs, while charterers would benefit from lower fuel bills.
Political and regulatory barriers compound the challenge. Nuclear ships would be restricted to flags of nuclear-equipped states, limiting trade routes. The IMO and IAEA have yet to clarify oversight, and there is no international convention on liability for nuclear shipping.
Analysts say the real customers for SMRs are more likely to be warships and submarines, where governments absorb costs. For commercial shipping, nuclear remains an unproven technology promoted more for its political cachet than its economic feasibility.
MSP says ‘no’ to nuclear power plant as UK Government eyes Fife

4th July, By Hannah Emma Shedden, https://www.thenational.scot/news/26253439.msp-says-no-nuclear-power-plant-uk-government-eyes-fife/
FIFE has been revealed as a potential site for a nuclear power plant in a new UK Government report – but a local MSP says it “wouldn’t go down well” with communities.
The document, titled ‘Potential future nuclear power plant siting in Scotland ‘, published on Tuesday, June 30, was penned by both the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Great British Energy – Nuclear.
Ordered by Ed Miliband, the document’s scope was to offer “technical advice” on potential future sites.
In a section called “Land Areas of Interest”, Fife was identified as one of the areas across eastern Scotland which could be eyed up for new development by the UK Government.
The report read: “The northern shore of the Firth of Forth benefits from a strong industrial heritage, existing brownfield land, good transport connections and historic use of river water for power station cooling.
“The presence of previous energy generation sites and proximity to major industrial hubs supports technical suitability.”
SNP MSP for Cowdenbeath, David Barratt said: “The document implies quite heavily, I would say, about nuclear power at Longannet. It’s talking about a site on the north side of the Forth, in close proximity to areas of flood risk and oil and gas.
“The SNP’s position aligns, from my perspective, closely with what communities think. I don’t think if you went to any community and asked them whether they like a nuclear power station next door, I struggle to imagine any in Fife, or along the Forth shore, would say yes please.
“I don’t think that would go down well at all with communities (near Longannet) who have put up with enough environmental consequences of that site. Scotland is blessed with an abundance of renewable sources, and we don’t require nuclear.”
The new report picks out six areas in total that the government sees as ripe for the development of nuclear sites.
Torness Nuclear Power Plant in East Lothian, which is scheduled to end operations in 2030, Dounreay Nuclear site in Caithness, and Hunterston Nuclear Power Plant and the surrounding coast in North Ayrshire.
Both Dounreay and Hunterston are currently being decommissioned.
As well as the Forth, it selected two other larger areas, such as the south bank of the Forth in Stirling and the Aberdeenshire and Angus coast.
Overall, it came to the conclusion that “Scotland has land areas with high potential for new nuclear development”.
But the Scottish Government have pushed back, claiming that the report was put together “secretly” and that the push for nuclear energy “ignored the hard economic and environmental facts”.
They went on to cite financial inefficiency, longitude of developments, and a “deadly legacy of radioactive waste”.
On next steps, the document added: “Should the policy position of the Scottish Government change, specific local considerations and uncertainties notwithstanding, several significant land areas appear to offer suitable terrain, ready access to a source of cooling water, transport access by road, rail and sea as well as access to a skilled workforce, indicating a new nuclear power plant could be hosted.”
But the Scottish Government said: “Scotland does not need dangerous, extortionate nuclear white elephants built in our communities against our will. The Scottish Parliament has already passed an SNP motion demanding that power over our energy resources be fully devolved to Holyrood.”
More U.S. Troops Are Refusing to Fight—and Reviving a Tradition of Patriotic Dissent
SCHEERPOST, July 4, 2026, Joshua Scheer
As Americans mark the Fourth of July with official celebrations of military power and national triumph, another vision of patriotism is emerging from those who have worn the uniform themselves. In this interview, Army veteran and Center on Conscience & War Executive Director Mike Prysner discusses the growing number of active-duty troops seeking conscientious objector status, the moral questions confronting service members, and why veterans and military families are organizing a “Freedom Over Fascism” march in Philadelphia. At a moment when dissent within the ranks is reaching levels not seen since the post-9/11 era, Prysner argues that some of the strongest opposition to endless war is now coming from those asked to fight it.
As we reflect on the words of Ron Kovic this Fourth of July, it is worth remembering that his courage did not end when he returned home from Vietnam. Kovic inspired generations of veterans to speak out, challenge militarism, and redefine patriotism as a commitment to peace, justice, and democracy.
As America Celebrates 250 Years, More U.S. Troops Are Refusing to Fight
Over the years, ScheerPost has highlighted the voices of veterans who have challenged the assumptions of endless war and reminded us that service to one’s country does not end with military duty. Among the most important of those voices is U.S. Army veteran Mike Prysner, whose work carries forward a long tradition of principled dissent.
In this timely conversation with BreakThrough News, Prysner discusses the growing number of active-duty service members seeking conscientious objector status, the profound moral questions confronting today’s military, and why more U.S. troops are refusing to fight than at any point since the years following September 11. At a moment when official America 250 celebrations emphasize military spectacle and displays of national power, Prysner offers a powerful counternarrative—one rooted in conscience, accountability, and the belief that patriotism demands more than unquestioning obedience.
As Ron Kovic has reminded us throughout his life, the deepest form of patriotism is not blind loyalty to government but the courage to follow one’s conscience, even when doing so comes at great personal cost. Mike Prysner’s work is a powerful reminder that Kovic’s legacy lives on in a new generation of veterans and active-duty service members determined to place humanity before war and conscience before conformity.
Every Fourth of July, Americans are encouraged to celebrate freedom with fireworks, military flyovers, patriotic speeches, and declarations of national greatness. This year’s Independence Day carries even greater symbolism as the nation marks the 250th anniversary of its founding. Yet beneath the official celebrations, another story is unfolding—one that receives far less attention but may ultimately say more about the state of American democracy than any parade ever could.
Across the United States, an increasing number of active-duty service members are refusing to participate in war.
That growing resistance was the focus of a recent conversation with Mike Prysner, a U.S. Army veteran and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War. Speaking with BreakThrough News ahead of a July Fourth mobilization in Philadelphia, Prysner described what he says is an unprecedented surge in military personnel seeking conscientious objector status following the Trump administration’s expanding military operations abroad.
The trend represents something larger than individual acts of dissent. It reflects a growing moral crisis within the armed forces themselves.
That growing resistance was the focus of a recent conversation with Mike Prysner, a U.S. Army veteran and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War. Speaking with BreakThrough News ahead of a July Fourth mobilization in Philadelphia, Prysner described what he says is an unprecedented surge in military personnel seeking conscientious objector status following the Trump administration’s expanding military operations abroad.
The trend represents something larger than individual acts of dissent. It reflects a growing moral crisis within the armed forces themselves.
That growing resistance was the focus of a recent conversation with Mike Prysner, a U.S. Army veteran and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War. Speaking with BreakThrough News ahead of a July Fourth mobilization in Philadelphia, Prysner described what he says is an unprecedented surge in military personnel seeking conscientious objector status following the Trump administration’s expanding military operations abroad.
The trend represents something larger than individual acts of dissent. It reflects a growing moral crisis within the armed forces themselves.
Resistance From Inside the Military
Public opposition to war is nothing new. From Vietnam to Iraq, Americans have repeatedly questioned military interventions that stretched on for years with enormous human costs.
What is different today, according to Prysner, is where some of that opposition is emerging.
Rather than coming solely from veterans after they return home, increasing numbers of active-duty personnel are questioning their missions while still in uniform. Some are filing for conscientious objector status before completing their service. Others are reaching out for legal assistance after witnessing events they say fundamentally changed their understanding of what they were being asked to do.
Prysner says his organization experienced its largest increase in conscientious objector cases since the attacks of September 11, with the surge accelerating after the recent war with Iran. For many service members, individual incidents became moral breaking points that transformed private doubts into action.
Those stories challenge a common assumption that military personnel universally support the policies they are ordered to carry out.
Instead, they suggest that many wrestle deeply with questions of ethics, legality, and personal responsibility.
Patriotism Beyond Obedience
The timing of this movement is particularly striking.
While official America 250 events emphasize military strength, national pride, and displays of power, veterans and military families are organizing an alternative gathering in Philadelphia—the birthplace of the United States—to argue that patriotism should not be measured by unquestioning obedience to government policy.
Their message is not that America should abandon its ideals, but that it should strive to fulfill them.
Participants are calling for an end to endless wars, greater investment in communities at home, protection of civil liberties, and opposition to the growing militarization of domestic politics. Veterans, active-duty personnel, military families, and peace organizations will march together under the belief that defending democracy sometimes means challenging those who claim to speak in its name.
It is a reminder that throughout American history, some of the country’s strongest critics have also been among its most devoted citizens.
A Long Tradition of Military Dissent……………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………….https://scheerpost.com/2026/07/04/more-u-s-troops-are-refusing-to-fight-and-reviving-a-tradition-of-patriotic-dissent/
Canadian nuclear site question would become ‘how’ not ‘whether’ under new law
Officials have previously said the project to bury nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario is not a “done deal,” but that would change if it becomes a nationally-significant project.
Matt Prokopchuk, July 2, 2026, https://www.nwonewswatch.com/local-news/nuclear-site-question-could-become-how-not-whether-under-new-law-12501083
REVELL LAKE — If a proposed underground facility to store nuclear waste is made a project of national interest, it’s virtually guaranteed to get federal approval.
The Major Projects Office will decide whether it gets listed under the Building Canada Act as project of national interest, with that decision scheduled for the fall.
Should that happen, “the focus of the federal review would shift from ‘whether’ the project should proceed to ‘how’ it should proceed,” Privy Council Office spokesperson Pierre-Alain Bujold said in an email.
TThat would be a significant change from what the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, who has been leading the integrated study of the deep geological repository, told residents at public meetings about the proposed Revell Lake-area site to store high-level spent fuel from Canada’s nuclear power plants.
“It’s not a done deal that the project will happen,” an IAAC official said at an April 22 meeting in Melgund, an unorganized community about 12 kilometres away from the proposed site, citing the years-long ongoing impact assessment that is scheduled to end around 2030 with a final report and decision by appropriate senior ministers.
The repository’s proponent is the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, or NWMO, a government-mandated not-for-profit funded by the nuclear industry and tasked with the long-term management of Canada’s nuclear waste.
That distinction between “whether” a project gets greenlit versus “how” is important, said Brennain Lloyd, a project coordinator with environmental group Northwatch and a volunteer with We the Nuclear Free North.
“Meaning that it is absolutely a done deal, which really, really, really strongly demonstrates that they don’t understand that the NWMO project is still a concept,” she said. “It’s in the development stage, it’s full of uncertainty.”
The Impact Assessment Agency declined to comment, directing questions to the Major Projects Office.
Bujold said, if the project gets listed, it means all its federal approvals required under a slate of acts of parliament and federal regulations would be “granted through a consolidated federal process.” That review concludes with a “conditions document” which “is the legal equivalent of all required permits, decisions or authorizations under the applicable federal statutes,” Bujold added.
“Once a project is listed, no other Governor in Council decisions are needed,” he said, adding that the federal sign-off is still subject to “applicable” Indigenous treaty-based processes and consultations.
This allows for greater coordination, reduced delays and more certainty for proponents and investors, while protecting the environment and respecting Indigenous rights.”
If the deep geological repository gets deemed a nationally-significant project, the ongoing impact assessment process would continue, Bujold said, where it would “inform” that final conditions document.
“The proponent would be required to comply with those conditions as the project proceeds through construction and operation.”
Lloyd and other anti-nuclear advocates have pointed to the hundreds of public comments already submitted during the current impact assessment’s consultation phases, with many expressing concern or outright opposition citing long-term safety and the issue of site-to-site transportation, among other things.
Transportation along highways and rail was not included in the NWMO’s initial project description, with the Impact Assessment Agency saying it was a “common concern” raised by many.
A summary of draft guidelines posted by the assessment agency earlier in 2026 calls on the NWMO to provide more information on that front, including that its work “must assess potential adverse effects of project-related transportation on the applicable valued components within an area surrounding the project site, along with the intersections along Highway 17 that will be required for site access.”
The Building Canada Act is not about bypassing approvals,” Bujold said.
He said the necessary licences the waste repository would require from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission are still separate; those don’t start getting issued until after Ottawa’s approval.
If federal approval becomes a sure thing, Lloyd said she’s concerned the Nuclear Safety Commission’s work would amount to “simply tinkering with the deal.”
Changes to radiation protection in the USA -could have been worse but are still bad.

Tony Webb 2 July 26
The US NRC has now released its proposed revisions to radiation protection standards
mandated by President Trump’s 2025 Directive (EO14300). It could have been worse. The
proposals do not completely abandon the established principle that there is no safe level of
exposure in favour of the contested view that low level exposures are ‘beneficial’. They do
not propose raising the existing permissible limits on exposure for workers and the public.
They do however abandon other important principles such as that all exposures should be
kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and give the nuclear industry flexible options
for a whole range of ‘operating procedures’ that can be used to control and limit exposures
– all overtly designed to ease the regulatory burden on the industry.
While repeatedly claiming that existing standards are already “conservative” these US
regulations already permit higher exposures than recommended internationally. The US 5
Rem (50 mSv ) occupational exposure limit is 2.5 times greater than the internationally
recommended limit used in most countries. Far from placing the proposals in the context of
the scientific evidence the proposals refer only to the outdated and flawed Life-span studies
of the Japanese bomb survivors who received high doses over short time periods rather
than studies of populations receiving low doses over longer time periods. In the whole 180-
page document outlining the proposed new regs I could not find a single mention of the
INWORKS studies of European and US nuclear plant workers that show the current
international standards underestimate the current internationally accepted level of
radiation-induced cancer risks used to set occupational exposure limits.
There is also no
mention of the increased risks for cardio-vascular diseases and dementia faced by such
workers and no mention of the studies of populations living close to nuclear plants that
show higher cancer rates – increasing the closer people live to these facilities. Buried in the
detail where devils usually hide there are also proposals that would weaken the so called
‘planned special exposures’ limits – the carve out that is used in the USA and elsewhere to
permit hiring of casual workers as ‘radiation sponges’ for the radiation-dirty jobs in annual
shutdown maintenance and clean-up operations for nuclear power plants. A closer reading
will probably reveal a more concerns but overall, the NRC proposals represent a significant
weakening of US standards that need to be opposed both within the USA and globally lest
they lead to weakening of standards or operating procedures for protection in other
countries. Other countries have reason to worry that joint operations with the USA (like the
Australian AUKUS nuclear submarine deal) and shared technologies that use these weaker
NRC standards as the basis for their design will be used as a backdoor for relaxation of
protection standards worldwide. US groups and others interested have 45 days to register
objections with the NRC to this latest Trump Dictated obscenity. Comments must be
submitted electronically using https://www.regulations.gov
On the positive side the legitimate concerns raised by these US proposals provide unions,
public health and environment groups in all countries with a ‘calling card’ to raise the demand with our national protection agencies for improved regulations for occupational
and public exposures in line with the available scientific evidence that shows current
standards need to be significantly tightened.
We condemn the attempted offshore rocket launch by the military, Hanwha, and the Jeju Provincial Government!
Gangjeong Villagers’ Association Against the Naval Base, Gangjeong Daily Resistance Action, Gangjeong Friends, People Making Jeju a Demilitarized Peace Island, People Opposing Space Militarization and Rocket Launches, Justice Party Jeju Provincial Chapter, Jeju Green Party, Islands’ Solidarity for a Sea of Peace, HotPinkDolphins
On June 30, the military and Hanwha attempted to conduct the fourth test of a solid-propellant space launch vehicle off the coast of Seogwipo, Jeju, but were ultimately forced to cancel it [mainly due to technical reasons]. This occurred less than a month after the explosion at Hanwha Aerospace in Daejeon.
An investigation into the cause of the explosion at Hanwha Aerospace in Daejeon has revealed some facts. Hanwha has consistently ignored workers’ requests to improve their working conditions. Furthermore, Building 56—the explosives cleaning facility where the tragedy occurred—was an unlicensed structure.
At Hanwha Aerospace’s Daejeon plant, at least 13 workers lost their lives in explosions in 2018, 2019, and 2026. The company even went so far as to cover up the 2016 accident. At a time when all efforts should be focused on a thorough investigation of the facts and holding those responsible to account, we are outraged that Hanwha has gone ahead with a sea-based launch off the coast of Jeju.
Hanwha’s anti-human rights and anti-life practices, which disregard workers’ human rights and lives, are clearly evident in the Jeju offshore launch as well. In Gangjeong and Daepo Villages—where the sea launch took place—most residents, with the exception of fishing cooperatives that had to suspend operations, did not receive proper advance notice. The residents were not even aware that the object floating in the sea was a launch pad. In the case of Daepo Village, residents were preparing to operate their yachts and boats even on the very day of the launch. The villagers’ right to know about their own living environment and their right to safety were completely disregarded. The Jeju Provincial Government also bears significant responsibility for aiding and abetting the Jeju offshore launch by collaborating with the military and Hanwha.
For this fourth launch of the military’s solid-propellant space launch vehicle, Hanwha Aerospace is providing the launch vehicle, Hanwha Systems is providing the reconnaissance satellite, and Hanwha Ocean is providing the launch pad platform. In other words, this launch—which brings together all three of Hanwha’s major subsidiaries—is entirely for military purposes. On the one hand, this experiment marks the full-scale beginning of efforts to upgrade the military’s satellite network, a long-standing ambition; on the other hand, it serves to conceal even more lethal missile launch tests. Furthermore, the development of solid propellants—which caused the explosion at Hanwha Aerospace in Daejeon—could lead to the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This means that Hanwha will continue to generate profits in collaboration with military capabilities, leveraging the military infrastructure provided by the Jeju Naval Base.
On May 6, three major Hanwha subsidiaries met with former Pacific Command Commander Harry Harris and others to emphasize that the ROK-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Hanwha’s defense industry. However, the Jeju Space Center, which Hanwha constructed last December in the Jeju mid-mountain Groundwater Special Management Zone, is depleting and polluting the drinking and agricultural water that is the lifeblood of Jeju residents. The planned solid- and liquid-fuel engine test facilities on the site cannot rule out the possibility of explosions similar to those in Daejeon. The adjacent river in the Absolute Conservation Area will no longer serve as a lifeline for the island’s residents. The numerous debris and chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid, generated during sea-based launches will affect areas hundreds of kilometers away from the launch site, causing suffering and even death to many non-human beings, including endangered marine species. If sea-based launches continue in this manner, the sea—which sustains the people of Jeju and countless marine beings—will soon become a sea of death. The Jeju Provincial Government deserves to be condemned for turning a blind eye to the violation and exploitation of the groundwater and the sea—which are vital to the lives of Jeju residents—for the sake of the military interest and weapons manufacturers’ profits.
On June 29, civic groups in Daejeon and Jeju who had gathered 306 signatures from individuals and organizations nationwide delivered them respectively to Daejeon Mayor-elect Heo Tae-jeong, and Jeju Governor-elect Wi Seong-gon, urging the central and local governments to conduct a comprehensive review of the space and defense industries that threaten life and peace. Governor-elect Wi Seong-gon, who has pledged to carry on the legacy of Governor Oh Young-hoon’s administration and make the space industry a core industry for Jeju, must heed the anger and warnings of citizens, including the people of Jeju. Stop the offshore launch in Jeju. We condemn the plan for an offshore launch in Jeju. Halt the space industry, which is turning our shared living environment into ruins.
We want life and peace, not warships and rockets! We are absolutely opposed to sea-based rocket launches!
We are absolutely opposed to sea-based rocket launches which threaten the survival of Jeju’s marine life!
Stop the Hawon Techno Campus project, which is polluting Jeju’s groundwater and soil and threatening the survival of the local community!
Stop the Hawon Techno Campus Project, which is procedurally unjust and will further militarize Jeju!
A boon for the military, but poison for the people—Stop the space industry cluster!
For more photos, see. https://cafe.daum.net/space4peaceK/bs4u/44
If this is Climate Change, then bring it on!’ (NOT!)

Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) 15 June 2026, https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/climate-change-bring-it-on-not/
Professor Andrew Blowers, Chair of BANNG considers this statement in the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) for Energy and Environment June 2026 Column for Regional Life
The long spell of hot weather we endured/enjoyed (?) towards the end of May may well have been a turning point in our attitude towards Climate Change.
There are still those who deny or refuse to accept the glaring truth that heatwaves and persistently dry weather during summer and intense rainfall and flooding, but rarely frost and snowfall during winter, is becoming the new normal.
For them ‘Bring it on!’ is the response to Climate Change and warmer weather.
But for others the recent heatwave confirmed the growing anxiety that Climate Change is real, happening now, long-lasting and perilous. And it is caused by human misuse, overuse and abuse of the resources of our living space.
The basic facts are well known and now widely accepted. Global warming has already reached an average of 1.4°C above preindustrial levels close to what is regarded as the limit deemed by climate scientists necessary to avoid catastrophic impacts. If present trends continue we are on course for 2.0°C by mid-century and 3.0°C – and possibly even 4.0°C – by the end of the century, at which point, in the words of the UK’s Climate Change Committee, the UK’s climate will be ‘unrecognisable, with potentially catastrophic impacts’.
So, what are we doing by way of mitigation to keep the warming within tolerable limits. Not enough, it seems. All but fools, knaves and naysayers realise global warming is real, pressing and urgent. But, they remain powerful enough to undermine efforts to achieve net zero carbon by 2050.
The transition to electrification of the whole economy is slow and uneven. It requires decarbonisation and long-term commitment. In the current political climate calls to ‘drill, baby, drill’ try to drown out the commitment to sustainable development and net zero.
If the effort to maintain a safe level of global warming is failing we have little choice but to adapt to its consequences as best we can. For the UK this means focusing on three areas.
Cooling our homes and workplaces. Heatwaves with temperatures reaching 40°C would make 92% of homes overheat, threatening health and wellbeing.
Flooding. It is estimated that 1 in 4 properties in England will be at risk of flooding from rivers, sea and surface water by mid-century.
Water management. It will be vital to conserve water to ensure adequate supplies and avoid drought and wildfires.
Land management. We must halt the predicted drop by 2050 of our high quality farmland to 10% from the present 40% and ensure that 30% of land is protected for nature.
Yet, we remain blissfully unprepared in terms of insulating our homes, building flood defences, constructing reservoirs and managing our land. It is estimated that investing in adaptation at the rate of £11Bn each year will generate returns in the tens of billions.
If this is the price to avoid the worst impacts of Climate Change, then……. ‘Bring it on!’.
This EU state’s anti-Russian crusade has become a strategic dead end
Poland wanted to use Ukraine against Russia, now Kiev is using Poland
2 Jul, 2026 20:09By Timofey Bordachev, Program Director of the Valdai Club, https://www.rt.com/russia/642505-eu-states-anti-russian-crusade/
The situation in which Poland now finds itself is a good example of how even a relatively successful country can drive itself into a foreign policy impasse through the narrowness of its own thinking.
Poland is not, by modern standards, an inept state and its economy is growing, its institutions function and it occupies an important place in European affairs. Yet its foreign policy has been reduced to a single organizing principle: opposition to Russia. Warsaw has designated Moscow as its ideal adversary and has subordinated almost every other aspect of its external activity to the goal of harming Russia by any means available.
This applies first and foremost to Poland’s relationship with the Kiev regime. It would be naïve to believe that Polish politicians have ever held many illusions about the nature of the authorities in Ukraine and nor have they traditionally had warm feelings towards their Ukrainian neighbors. On the contrary, the Polish elite’s attitude to Ukraine has long been shaped by contempt and historical suspicion and this view has been formed over centuries and, it must be admitted, has not emerged without reason.
Nevertheless, in recent years Warsaw has made itself Kiev’s most energetic advocate in Europe as it’s supplied Ukraine with vast quantities of weapons and has turned its own territory into the main logistical hub for Western military aid. At the same time, the Polish authorities have done everything possible to destroy channels of dialogue with Moscow and Minsk, casting Poland as Russia’s most irreconcilable opponent, even by the standards of the wider West.Among all the countries that matter in European politics, Poland chose the most radical course during the current military and political crisis. The logic was simple, if Ukraine could be used against Russia, then Ukraine had to be supported, whatever the cost.
The problem is that Warsaw convinced itself of something that was never realistic in that it imagined that Ukraine could serve as a powerful Polish instrument for containing Russia while remaining manageable and responsive to Polish requests. Some in Poland also appear to have believed that Kiev was fighting for a European choice and that its desire to join NATO and the European Union would make it more accommodating.
Both assumptions were wrong and the Ukrainian authorities have behaved towards their Polish patrons in exactly the way one should have expected. They have taken what was offered, demanded more, and then publicly insulted and humiliated those who helped them. The recent exchange of awards and diplomatic gestures is only the most visible symptom of a deeper problem after Poland imagined a relationship that couldn’t exist and then built a strategy around this chimera.
As a result, Polish foreign policy now looks absurd as Warsaw has invested enormous political and emotional capital in Ukraine, only to find that Kiev feels no need to show gratitude. Worse still for Poland, there is no obvious way out because a serious confrontation with Kiev would undermine the whole anti-Russian structure of Polish policy, while continuing as before means accepting repeated humiliation.
This is not an accident and it flows from the central fixation of Polish foreign policy, Russia as the sole true object of Warsaw’s interest in the world.
That fixation has deep historical roots as for Poland, Russia isn’t merely a neighboring power, but a source of complexes and envy on a scale rarely found in modern European politics. Russia deprived Poland of any chance of becoming the leader of the Slavic world and later, the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union shaped the conditions under which modern Polish political culture developed. The struggle against Russian domination became one of the defining themes of Polish public life.
In effect, opposition to Russia helped create modern Polish identity, but it left the political elite with little ability to look at the world through any other prism. The result is the mindset of a sizeable European nation whose foreign policy imagination has room for almost nothing except the struggle against its great eastern neighbor.
The career of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the American political thinker of Polish origin, embodied this drama. He wrote a series of striking works on international relations, but almost everything in them was subordinated to the Russian question, which meant his intellectual universe was large in appearance, but in practice revolved around one object.
After the end of the Cold War, Poland’s entry into the Western world only reinforced this pattern. Warsaw could no longer openly pursue its traditional suspicions of Germany because NATO and the European Union confined those instincts within institutional limits. It’s true that Poland’s current rearmament program has a potential anti-German dimension, but it also reflects a desire to become Washington’s most important continental ally as Britain and France weaken. However, in the medium term, Poland’s hands are tied in the West by American interests in preserving NATO and the EU.
That leaves Russia and here the Polish elite feels entirely at home as, for two centuries, it has trained itself to think of little else. Now, however, reality is intruding because Kiev is behaving as Kiev was always likely to behave, taking Polish support for granted, glorifying figures whom many Poles regard as war criminals, and treating Warsaw not as a patron but as a useful subordinate.
Still, the current crisis is unlikely to produce a military clash between Poland and Ukraine, or even a genuine political break. Nor will it lead to a significant reduction in Polish support for Kiev and we can already see the dispute being presented as an internal Polish quarrel, a by-product of rivalry within Warsaw’s ruling elite. In this version, the problem isn’t Kiev’s conduct but Poland’s own domestic politics and this is convenient.
It allows Polish politicians to avoid confronting the failure of their strategy. After a few rounds of public argument, they will probably try to push the matter aside and return to business as usual. To do otherwise would mean admitting that Poland has no coherent foreign policy beyond its hostility to Russia.
Kiev understands this perfectly and it has no reason to make concessions because Poland has backed itself into a corner. Warsaw cannot withdraw support from Ukraine without damaging the central myth of its own policy and therefore Kiev can continue to insult and ignore Polish sensitivities, confident that the aid will keep coming.
This is the deeper humiliation as Poland, unable to formulate a foreign policy that is not anti-Russian, inevitably becomes an instrument of other people’s interests. For many years these were primarily American and British interests, but now Poland also finds itself serving the interests of the Kiev regime, a government entirely dependent on outside support but still capable of dictating the emotional terms of its relationship with Warsaw.
All this is especially strange because Poland has no urgent need to behave this way given it’s one of the few major European countries whose economy is still growing at a steady pace, roughly 3.3 to 3.6 percent a year. A more self-confident country might have used this position to consolidate, enrich itself and avoid unnecessary geopolitical adventures.
But Poland can’t do that. A relatively large country must have a foreign policy and since Warsaw has no foreign policy idea except opposition to Russia, it will continue to move in circles.
That’s the trap Poland has built for itself. It imagined that Ukraine could be used as a weapon against Russia, but instead, it’s discovered that those who define themselves only by hostility to Moscow are easily used by others.
This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.
Empire Managers Invent Fake Threats So We Won’t Fight The Real Monsters
Caitlin Johnstone, Jul 04, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/empire-managers-invent-fake-threats?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=205002670&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Western politics is mostly just empire managers making up fake problems to fight so they don’t have to address the real problems.
Can’t stop waging wars or the western empire will collapse. So they make up fake threats from dictators and tyrants and take action to stop them.
Can’t stop inflating the military budget and circling the planet with more and more war machinery or the military-industrial complex will stop reaping profits. So they tell you to be afraid of Muslims and “terrorists” and Russia and China and take action to protect you from them.
Can’t stop polluting the world and destroying the biosphere or capitalism will perish. So they split us into two mainstream warring factions arguing about culture war wedge issues and promise to protect each faction from the other side.
Can’t stop supporting Israeli atrocities or they’ll hamstring their hegemonic agendas in west Asia and make an enemy of the Zionists. So they create a boogie man of “antisemitism” and set up envoys, inquiries and task forces dedicated to stopping it.
Can’t get money out of politics and stop wealthy oligarchs from using their riches to manipulate western politics to their advantage, because the oligarchs run the empire. So they fearmonger about “communism” on the right and tell the centrists that the leftists are costing them elections.
Can’t stop ramping up authoritarianism and eroding the civil liberties of the citizenry or else they won’t be able to suppress future revolutions. So they cite unpopular people and groups as reasons why the authoritarianism is necessary to protect the public while constructing a giant cage of surveillance and control around everyone.
Can’t stop coercively extracting resources and labor from the global south because that’s the whole reason the empire was set up in the first place. So they tell everyone the immigrants are the source of all their problems and make western politics revolve around immigration policy.
The empire managers make up fake problems to solve because the empire is the source of all the real problems
They make up fake monsters to protect us from because they themselves are the real monsters.
They make up imaginary ghouls and goblins lurking around every corner because they don’t want us looking up and seeing the real bastards who are poisoning our world.
US moves to eliminate longtime radiation safety principle for nuclear power

“the change could ultimately make it so that currently low doses of radiation that workers and the public are exposed to “could increase really all the way up to regulatory limits without any sanction from the NRC.”
by Rachel Frazin – 07/02/26, https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5951671-nuclear-power-radiation-exposure-nrc/
The federal government is proposing to overhaul radiation safety regulations for nuclear power, including by eliminating a long-term principle for nuclear safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) this week proposed to get rid of the requirement for nuclear plants to ensure that radiation exposure is “as low as is reasonably achievable.”
Proponents of the change say just using radiation dose limits is less subjective than going by the “as low as is reasonably achievable” principle — and that it led to overly conservative protections that stifled the nuclear industry.
Supporters of the current language, however, say that having the “as low as reasonably achievable” principle, also known as ALARA, in place ensures that nuclear plants take all measures possible to reduce exposure for workers and the general public.
NRC Chair Ho Nieh said in a statement that the agency is “raising the standard for regulatory clarity, not lowering the standard for safety.”
“Our radiation dose limits remain unchanged — what we’re eliminating is unnecessary ambiguity,” he said.
But critics say that eliminating ALARA means getting rid of a key incentive for energy companies to keep radiation levels as low as possible — and could mean more cancer cases.
“Facility owners felt like … ALARA was forcing them to go well below the allowable radiation limits and spend a lot of money to do that,” said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Lyman warned that the change could ultimately make it so that currently low doses of radiation that workers and the public are exposed to “could increase really all the way up to regulatory limits without any sanction from the NRC.”
He said this could include by having employees work longer shifts and therefore getting more radiation exposure.
Overall, he said, “this is opening the door for sloppier practices” and “worse management.”
In addition to axing ALARA, the NRC is proposing other changes, including loosening emissions limits for radioactive material.
It said that under one of the rules it is proposing to change, current regulations would allow for an estimated four excess cases of fatal cancer for every 10,000 people exposed to the maximum allowable radiation for 70 years. It said that the change it is making would allow this number to go up to nine cases for every 10,000 people.
It also proposed increasing how much radiation caregivers for people who receive radiation treatment can be exposed to.
The agency said that all of the changes it is proposing would save the industry about $9.53 million per year.
The moves come as the Trump administration has been pushing for the U.S. to build more nuclear power. Last year, an executive order from President Trump set the goal of quadrupling the nation’s nuclear power capacity by 2050.
It also directed the NRC to reconsider its use of ALARA and to speed up approvals for nuclear reactor licenses.
While the NRC is technically an independent agency, it is made up of three Republicans and two Democrats.
Last year, the White House fired a Democrat from the commission, which at the time, had a 3-2 Democratic majority. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled the White House can conduct such firings.
GBE-N ‘doesn’t hold’ breakdown of proposed £20bn budget for SMR contract

30 Jun, 2026 By Tom Pashby,
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/gbe-n-doesnt-hold-breakdown-of-proposed-20bn-budget-for-smr-contract-30-06-2026/
Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has said it “doesn’t hold” a breakdown of the £20bn it initially forecast that it may need to cover the cost of the Small Modular Reactor Technology Partner (TP) Contract.
The TP Contract was initially designed to include up to four awards, split into two stages.
“The forecast Stage 2 price of the TP Contract is approximately £8,168,000,000”, the award notice said.
It added: “This forecast price is indicative only as the pricing mechanism for Stage 2 remains subject to negotiation during Stage 1.”
This forecast price puts the total TP Contract value at £8.527bn.
The 8 May award notice also said: “The estimated total value within the tender notice for the two-stage TP Contract was £20,000,000,000 excluding VAT.
“This value was indicative only and based upon GBE-N’s initial understanding of the potential costs of developing a first-of-a-kind technology.
“This estimated total value was based on the fact that in the tender notice GBE-N reserved the right to make up to four awards, although GBE-N also reserved the right to award three, two or only one contract(s).
“GBE-N has ultimately decided to award only one TP Contract and the contract award notice value reflects this.”
The notice did not say what the estimated budget was for each of those up to four awards. If they had been of equal value, the awards would have been for £5bn for the two stages, meaning that they had underestimated total costs according to their current calculations by £3.5bn.
NCE requested a breakdown of the £20bn initial estimated figure for the up to four TP Contract awards, via the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.
In response, GBE-N said: “Following reasonable and proportionate searches of our records, we confirm that Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) does not hold the information you have requested.”
NCE is challenging this response via an internal review on the basis that there is a reasonable expectation that GBE-N would hold more detailed information about the £20bn initial estimated budget.
GBE-N declined to comment when approached about the FOI response.
Lithuania to lift ban on nukes, president says
The country’s constitution bans nuclear weapons and foreign military bases, but its parliamentary leaders have agreed that this provision is now “outdated.”
July 2, 2026 , By Jonas Loesel, https://www.politico.eu/article/lithuanias-leaders-want-lift-ban-nukes-president-says/
Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said Thursday that there was “practically unanimous” support among party leaders for ending the country’s ban on nuclear weapons.
“Opinions were practically unanimous. Almost all parliamentary faction leaders expressed the view that Article 137 has become obsolete and should not merely be amended but removed,” Nausėda told reporters, referring to the section of Lithuania’s constitution that bans nuclear weapons and foreign military bases.
Speaking after meeting with parliamentary faction leaders, Nausėda indicated that the legislature would soon look to amend the legislation. Vilnius, a staunch ally of Ukraine, has previously indicated interest in hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as it looks for deterrents against neighboring Russia.
Lithuania joined NATO in 2004, and Nausėda said the country’s parliamentary leaders did not want to be in a “gray zone” within the military alliance as one of the only countries that continues to ban nuclear weapons. Finland repealed a similar ban last June.
“Today, 35 years later, the situation is different. As NATO members, we have the right, the duty, and the desire to be full and equal members of NATO. The primary means of deterrence is nuclear deterrence,” said Juozas Olekas, the speaker of Lithuania’s parliament.
The Financial Times previously reported that the U.S. had discussed deploying nuclear warheads to countries on NATO’s eastern flank. U.S. nuclear weapons are currently stored on military bases in the U.K., Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Pacific nuclear survivors urge Australia to sign and ratify UN treaty banning nuclear weapons ahead of key conference
Australia is the only state party to a nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty in any region of the world that has claimed to be protected by the nuclear weapons of another state.
Andrew Mathieson, July 3, 2026, https://nit.com.au/03-07-2026/25161/pacific-nuclear-survivors-urges-australia-to-sign-and-ratify-the-un-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-ahead-of-key-party-conference
A delegation of Pacific nuclear survivors joined Indigenous advocates in Canberra on Wednesday to call on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to sign and ratify an international disarmament agreement which aims to comprehensively ban and eliminate nuclear weapons in the region.
Members of the Parliamentary Friends of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons invited members of the Pacific civil society to Australia’s Federal parliament to lay bare the human and environmental toll of tests over several decades.
The Australian parliamentary friends forms a bipartisan, cross-party forum, which currently is comprised of 47 of the 226 MPs across both houses and from all sides of politics, who meet and interact with nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation proponents to discuss treaty matters and their ongoing issues.
They were also reportedly joined this week by Anangu-Yankunytjatjara woman and second-generation nuclear test survivor, Karina Lester, who recently spoke with National Indigenous Times about the impact on her family of the 1953 British nuclear tests at Emu Field in remote South Australia.
She urged mobs that were “tested on, mined on, threatened with nuclear waste dumps or feared the impacts on their people, country and culture” to find their voice and speak up at the public inquiry that had commenced last month in Melbourne.
Australia has not yet signed or ratified the treaty which the United Nations first established as a resolution in 2017.
The invitation to multiple Pacific islander representatives coincided with two significant anniversaries falling on the first two days of the month: the 80th year of the first US test detonation on Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands followed by the 60th year of the first French test detonation at Mururoa Atoll, Mā’ohi Nui in colonial French Polynesia.
‘Powerful nations can have consequences that last for generations’
Pacific civil society members lined up to plea to Australian MPs from the Labor Party, the Liberal-National coalition, the Greens and Independents.
“The experiences of the Marshall Islands and other Pacific communities remind us the decisions made by powerful nations can have consequences that last for generations,” the spokesperson for a concerned Marshall Islands Student Association, Samuel Barton, told the gathering.
“We ask the world to remember our history, stand with survivors, pursue nuclear disarmament, and place human dignity, justice, and peace at the centre of global decision-making.”
The UN general assembly first decided nine years ago to convene a conference to negotiate a legally-binding instrument to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.
The Australian government announced in 2023 that it was “considering the treaty systematically and methodically, as part of (Australia’s) ambitious agenda to advance nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament”.
According to the Labor government’s national defence strategy published two years ago, “Australia’s best protection against the increasing risk of nuclear escalation is (the) US extended nuclear deterrence and the pursuit of new avenues of arms control”.
But this implicit endorsement of nuclear weapons is incompatible with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the government has also admitted.
‘Australia must match its history with urgent new action’
Australia is the only state party to a nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty in any region of the world that has claimed to be protected by the nuclear weapons of another state.
Reverend James Bhagwan, General Secretary of the Pacific Conference of Churches, said that in a region of increasingly militarisation that signing the treaty “would be a clear commitment to a nuclear-free free Pacific and a genuine ocean of peace”.
Merewalesi Tuilau, speaking on behalf of the Fiji Veterans and Families Association, added the Pacific “demands and deserves complete freedom from nuclear weapons and their threat – not simply management, but total elimination.
“Australia has shown it can lead,” Mr Tuilau said, “Australia must match its history with urgent new action”.
‘We want nuclear weapons testing to be relegated to history’
The anniversaries of the dual detonations in the Pacific were acknowledged after Labor member for Macquarie Susan Templeton put forward a motion to push the government to signing the treaty ahead of its ALP national conference later this month.
“With the legacy of nuclear testing still felt deeply in Australia, our region, right across the world, we want nuclear weapons testing to be relegated to history,” she said.
“I will continue to advocate for the importance of sustained international commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, including the Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and also the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”
The Canberra event was a part of a wider lobby and advocacy tour that also took in Sydney and Melbourne, sharing heartfelt testimony from Indigenous communities affected by nuclear testing and calling for a Pacific region that is “decolonised, demilitarised, de-nuclearised and decarbonised”.
Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons call on “victim assistance, environmental remediation, and international cooperation and assistance” to address ongoing and unresolved humanitarian, human rights, and environmental impacts from nuclear weapons.
CNBC Helps SpaceX Pull Off Trillion-Dollar Pump-and-Dump

SpaceX’s public offering has all of the hallmarks of a pump-and-dump scheme, using a “staggered lock-up” schedule that allows insiders to sell off shares much earlier than most other publicly traded firms—enabling them to cash out while the stock is still grossly overvalued. This gambit is also called a “bagholder” scheme, as retail investors are left holding a rapidly depreciating asset.
Wilson Korik, FAIR, July 3, 2026
Elon Musk became—at least temporarily—the world’s first trillionaire on June 12 after his space, telecommunications and AI company SpaceX had the largest initial public offering in history. Initially priced at $135 per share for a valuation around $1.77 trillion, shares opened at $150 and peaked on June 16 at $225.64 (a valuation of nearly $3 trillion). The price spiked after Musk announced, before markets reopened on June 15, that he believes “SpaceX might be able to reach approximately $1T revenue in 2030” (CNBC, 6/15/26).
Since its June 16 peak, however, SpaceX’s share price has fallen, steadily declining until June 22 and settling around $160 since. Markets closed on Thursday, July 2, with a share price of $162.00.
SpaceX’s big slump coincided with a mass tech sell-off last week, prompted by mounting concerns that tech firms cannot generate the returns necessary to pay off the colossal debts financing massive AI infrastructure buildouts, especially as companies are beginning to rein in their spending on AI (404 Media, 6/24/26; TechCrunch, 6/24/26).
That was likely a surprise to viewers of CNBC, whose full-day IPO coverage pumped the stock by inviting sources with vested interests to celebrate Musk’s cult of personality and obfuscate the magical thinking behind the company’s projections.
All in on business-facing Grok
According to its own S-1 filing with the SEC, SpaceX anticipates that its greatest earnings potential does not come from the rocket business for which it is famous, but from selling AI to other businesses. The breathless CNBC discussions entirely omitted the dubious origins of SpaceX’s gargantuan estimate of its maximum potential revenue—a key investor metric known as total addressable market (TAM).
In its S-1 prospectus, SpaceX claims a TAM of $28.5 trillion, larger than the entire GDP of China.
The document separates this figure into SpaceX’s three sectors: space, connectivity and AI. Although the filing argues that space “represents the largest economic frontier in human history,” space makes up just $370 billion, or 1.3%, of SpaceX’s supposed TAM. Meanwhile, AI makes up $26.5 trillion, or 93%, the vast majority of which is for “enterprise applications.”
Enterprise AI is a broad category of business-oriented applications for firms looking to simplify and accelerate workflows, like converting text files into presentation formats, writing and debugging string code, and automating some sales, marketing, HR and IT functions. The most popular AI assistant by far is OpenAI’s ChatGPT, followed by Google’s Google Gemini and Anthropic’s Claude (TechCrunch, 6/16/26).
A closer reading of SpaceX’s S-1 filing reveals that its $22.7 trillion estimate for enterprise AI applications does not actually represent the TAM of the company’s enterprise AI, but is instead an estimate of the size of the entire digital economy—posing a hypothetical wherein xAI’s Grok Business and Grok Enterprise monopolize all digital commerce. It’s worth noting that xAI currently has extremely limited enterprise AI market share, with a March Enterprise Technology Research survey finding that just 7% of respondents use Grok (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/26).
Note also that subscriptions to xAI‘s consumer AI, SuperGrok, on X (labeled “consumer subscriptions” in the chart) alone make up $760 billion, or 2.7% of SpaceX’s TAM. That’s calculated
based on the global population of individuals aged 10 and over in 2025 … multiplied by the weighted average monthly subscription revenue of $12, resulting in an annualized market opportunity of approximately $760 billion.
So if every person on the planet over the age of 9 sends SpaceX $12 every month to use Grok, the X chatbot that spent four days last year calling itself MechaHitler and promoting the Great Replacement Theory, SpaceX will take in $760 billion per year. Sounds like a business plan!
SpaceX’s public offering has all of the hallmarks of a pump-and-dump scheme, using a “staggered lock-up” schedule that allows insiders to sell off shares much earlier than most other publicly traded firms—enabling them to cash out while the stock is still grossly overvalued. This gambit is also called a “bagholder” scheme, as retail investors are left holding a rapidly depreciating asset.
While most IPOs prevent insiders from selling shares for the first 180 days of public trading, SpaceX uses an expedited schedule that allows most insiders to sell much sooner—selling off overvalued shares to retail customers.
While this pump-and-dump began with retail consumers who bought shares on the first day of public trading, these massive wealth transfers are being thrust upon working people whether they like them or not, as Musk successfully negotiated new rules that fast-track SpaceX’s inclusion in major index funds, including the Russell 1000 and NASDAQ funds—transferring rapidly devaluing stock from SpaceX insiders to working people’s retirement accounts.
But none of this was explored on CNBC the day of the SpaceX IPO launch. FAIR could find not a single guest or anchor that mentioned that “Elon Musk’s rocket company” valued the potential for SuperGrok X subscriptions at more than twice the total projected TAM for the space industry, nor that SpaceX’s TAM is based on a scenario in which business-facing Grok controls all e-commerce—and certainly not that the IPO would essentially serve as a massive wealth transfer from retail investors to SpaceX insiders.
‘You should have bought as much as you could’
Instead, in the hours leading up to SpaceX’s first trade, CNBC viewers were primed by Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernen (6/12/26) lamenting that orders were being snatched up by large institutional investors, and hoping that trades would begin at under $300 per share. He assured viewers that, although he’s nervous, “whenever we’ve worried about any of these great tech companies…wherever it was on opening day, you should have bought them as much as you could.”
The rest of the influential three-hour morning program was as much of a commercial for SpaceX as this opening scene. Squawk Box‘s guests included SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell (interviewed by Morning Call host Morgan Brennan), Elon Musk biographer Walter Isaacson, long-time Musk investor David George, head of financial technology research at Citizens Bank Devin Ryan, and venture capitalist and investor Ben Narasin.
All but one of these guests have vested interests or are members of Musk’s inner circle, and used their airtime to generate excitement around the stock by focusing on Musk as a visionary key man. Kernen, co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin and guest host Melissa Lee offered no pushback………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
‘A number so large it destroys your credibility’
This isn’t to say that CNBC’s coverage of SpaceX’s IPO was completely without critical perspectives: Squawk on the Street’s David Faber (6/12/26) spent much of his onscreen time grilling insider guests on whether they’ll sell early, and pushing back on vague, aspirational framing around the AI and space industries.
Faber repeatedly reminded his audience that the S-1 prospectus specifically sees most of SpaceX’s potential in enterprise AI. He skeptically took the projected $22.7 trillion TAM for enterprise AI as given, but pointed out that “it’s not clear” how SpaceX’s Grok could compete with other enterprise AI products:
It’s interesting, as much as we talk about SpaceX, as much as we hear Musk talking about space and then Starlink, the real opportunity in terms of addressing this enormous number is actually still the same opportunity that’s being sought after by Anthropic, and OpenAI, and Alphabet and others.
Squawk on the Street also featured the most critical guest by far, NYU business school professor Aswath Damodaran, who came closest to questioning the origin of the TAM of any host or guest on any of the programs:
When I read [the S-1], I thought Grok had written the prospectus, because we know AI is subject to hallucinations…. I don’t know if it’s a banker who wrote it, I would be embarrassed to even put that number out. I mean, it’s a big market. Why do you need to make up a number, a number so large it destroys your credibility?
But even in scrutinizing SpaceX’s prospects, or the true size of the enterprise AI market, Squawk on the Street’s criticism missed the bigger picture: SpaceX’s record-setting IPO is a pump-and-dump, and retail investments provide the exit liquidity for insiders looking to get out of a failing AI company.
Every day, dozens of guests representing various companies advertise their stock on CNBC for retail consumers, who trust the judgment of their favorite program hosts to give completely uncontentious interviews, essentially constituting a series of infomercials, rather than actual financial journalism. FAIR (3/18/09, 2/3/20) has criticized CNBC on this basis for decades.
So when CNBC invites SpaceX insiders with vested interests to pump the valuation of their stock on the air shortly before dumping it on retail consumers, it seems obvious why even the most critical host cannot alert his viewers to what is really going on: because CNBC’s reporting exists to boost stock, rather than protect consumers. https://fair.org/home/cnbc-helps-spacex-pull-off-trillion-dollar-pump-and-dump/
UN Peacebuilding Week: Military Expenditure Soars as Funding for Civilian Protection and Prevention Collapses

By Oritro Karim, UNITED NATIONS, Jul 1 2026 (IPS) –
From June 22 to 26, the United Nations (UN) commemorated its first annual Peacebuilding Week, marking the 20th anniversary of the UN Peacebuilding Commission’s inaugural session. Featuring discussions among world leaders, policymakers, civil society, and advocates, the event explored how collaboration among governments, international organizations, and the private sector can enhance the visibility and effectiveness of peacebuilding efforts worldwide.
The goals of the Peacebuilding Week are particularly critical today, as increasing geopolitical tensions fracture international cooperation and severe financing shortfalls deplete resources, hindering relief efforts for civilians trapped in conflict. Despite a historic surge in active armed conflicts worldwide recorded over the past two years, peacebuilding and relief funding suffered a severe 40 percent decline between 2024 and 2025, leaving millions of people around the globe in a state of extreme insecurity.
“Peace does not occur automatically. It is built through persistent diplomacy, collective action and political will,” said Annalena Baerbock, President of the UN General Assembly. “Wars that never happen because of peacebuilding, conflict-prevention or sustainable-development efforts rarely make headlines. Yet, like everything else, peacebuilding is only possible when properly resourced.”
On June 26, the Peacebuilding Impact Hub—part of the Peacebuilding and Peace Support Office (PBPSO) within the UN Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations (DPPA-DPO)—launched its inaugural Peacebuilding Overview, titled Investing in Peace When the World Pays for War. This report analyzes data gathered from governments, civil society, scholars, and UN field operations across numerous, diverse contexts.
By addressing the root causes of conflict and encouraging the implementation of digital technologies—alongside active participation from youth and the private sector—the report aims to forge new paths for peacebuilding that are resilient, inclusive, and globally supported. Aiming to identify structural gaps in data sharing that prevent vital information from being shared internationally and from being fully utilized by policymakers and the public, the report was launched alongside a side event titled Building Peace in a Changing World.
At the event, Paul Fargues, one of the report’s authors and a Political Affairs Officer for the UN Department for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), told reporters that the world is currently at a “crossroads, where conflict is on the rise, good governance is declining, and civic space is shrinking.” He noted that this is compounded by severe budget cuts and disproportionate investment in military expenditure rather than civilian protection and prevention efforts, making humanitarian relief operations increasingly difficult.
According to the report, over the last two decades, the world has invested only one dollar in peacebuilding efforts for every 100 dollars spent on military expenditure. Fargues added that the world’s most vulnerable populations are projected to suffer the most, particularly in dire contexts where aid constitutes more than 60 percent of all external funding and acts as a vital lifeline. Additionally, the DDPA found that roughly two-thirds of the countries whose economies are most dependent on UN aid are also the ones most adversely affected by the funding cuts.
Fargues argued that some of the central obstacles in advancing peacebuilding efforts today are the persistent structural gaps in the dissemination of evidence and data, which is critically underdeveloped when compared to the development and humanitarian sectors.
“Peacebuilding has no underlying framework to create shared data practices, to generate insights at the global level to enhance evidence-based decision-making, or simply to communicate its value to broader non-technical audiences,” Fargues said. “Peacebuilders and those who support them must do a better job at measuring, proving, and communicating this. Given the incredibly challenging contexts, producing more robust data and evidence of impact is a bare minimum.
Katherina Ahrendts, the Director-General for Global Order, United Nations and Humanitarian Assistance of the Federal Foreign Office of Germany, stated that although the case for investing in protection and prevention efforts is clear, political and financial contributions lag significantly behind. According to figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for every dollar invested in preventive macroeconomic policies, up to 103 dollars could be generated in returns. DPPA also estimated that with adequate investment in prevention and protection measures, humanitarian needs could be reduced by approximately USD 3.6 billion annually……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.ipsnews.net/2026/07/un-peacebuilding-week-military-expenditure-soars-as-funding-for-civilian-protection-and-prevention-collapses/?utm_source=email_marketing&utm_admin=146128&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Military_Expenditure_Soars_as_Funding_for_Civilian_Protection_and_Prevention_Collapses_US_Slams_Isra
-
Archives
- July 2026 (276)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS



