nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

As the UK looks to invest in nuclear, here’s what it could mean for Britain’s environment

In this week’s newsletter:​ The government’s bid to speed up nuclear construction could usher in sweeping deregulation, with experts warning of profound consequences for nature.

Helena Horton, Guardian, 12 Dec 25

When UK prime minister Keir Starmer announced last week that he was “implementing the Fingleton review”, you can forgive the pulse of most Britons for failing to quicken.

But behind the uninspiring statement lies potentially the biggest deregulation for decades, posing peril for endangered species, if wildlife experts are to be believed, and a likely huge row with the EU.

Earlier this year, John Fingleton, a lively, intelligent Irish economist, was commissioned by the government to lead a “taskforce” with a mission to come up with a way to build nuclear power faster and cheaper. It’s accepted by experts that we need more nuclear if we are to meet net zero, and that Britain is the most expensive place in the world to build it. In the end, Fingleton turned in a review with 47 recommendations aimed at speeding up the process. So far, so snoozeworthy.

However, his recommendations, if adopted, could well lead to the biggest divergence from retained EU habitat and environment law since Brexit. Changes could be made to the habitats directive, which Britain helped write when we were in the EU, and which protect rare species and the places they live. The government could also make it more costly for individuals and charities to take judicial reviews against infrastructure projects……………

Legal advice is that removing these rules for nuclear power will inevitably lead for other infrastructure projects to be subject to the same, weaker regulatory system. Expert planning lawyer Alexa Culver said: “It’s a clever move to sneak broadbrush environmental deregulation, as the government can point to ‘net zero’ as being the ultimate driver. In reality, though, if you don’t protect ecosystems while reducing emissions, you’ve lost the battle. We’re gone anyway.”

It’s not surprising Starmer is clinging to anything which might increase economic growth……..  OBR has predicted an anticipated average GDP growth of 1.5% over the next five years. This is despite the controversial Planning and Infrastructure Bill which Starmer introduced in order to “get Britain building” and experts say it will weaken environmental protections.

Nature also continues to decline. The recently released biodiversity indicators show species numbers continue to decrease in the UK, which is extremely concerning when you consider just how much wildlife has dropped off since the 1970s. Some species, including one-fifth of mammals, are facing extinction, and recent figures show wild bird numbers are in freefall.

Of the review, Georgia Dent, CEO of Somerset Wildlife Trust said: “The government seems to have adopted a simple, reductive narrative that nature regulations are blocking development, and this is simply wrong. Nature in the UK is now in steep decline and the government has legally binding targets for nature’s recovery, and is failing massively in this at the moment. To reduce the hard-won protections that are allowing small, vulnerable populations of species to cling on for dear life is absolutely the wrong direction to take.”

…………………………. the UK is negotiating an energy deal with the EU. There are competition and non-regression clauses in the newest free trade agreement, which prevent either side from weakening environmental law. Government sources tell me their legal advice has been that implementing the Fingleton review could put the free trade agreement at risk……………

………..When MPs, environmental experts and the EU look past the boring title and read the detail, Starmer may have a fight on his hands. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/down-to-earth

December 13, 2025 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Delays in constructing Hinkley C nuclear power station highlighted by protestors

 ANTI-nuclear campaigners have staged an annual Christmas
protest outside the Hinkley Point C (HPC) construction site to highlightthe years-long delay in completing it. Members of the campaign group Stop Hinkley took a giant stuffed turkey and set up a traditional Christmas dinner complete with sprouts on a table outside the site. They unveiled a banner reading ‘It is now 2025, where is the lecce for the HPC Turkey’,
‘lecce’ being local slang for electricity.

The stunt, which started eight years ago, was prompted by a claim made in 2007 by then-EDF Energy plc chief executive Vincent de Rivas that by 2017 people would be eating their turkeys cooked with electricity provided by Hinkley C.

West Somerset Free Press 11th Dec 2025, https://www.wsfp.co.uk/news/delays-in-constructing-hinkley-c-nuclear-power-station-highlighted-by-protestors-860631

December 13, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Trump gives Zelensky ‘days’ to respond to peace plan – Financial Times

The US president reportedly hopes for a deal by Christmas.

10 Dec, 2025, https://www.rt.com/news/629243-trump-sets-zelensky-deadline/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

US negotiators have given Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky days to respond to a peace proposal requiring Kiev to accept territorial losses to Russia in exchange for unspecified security guarantees, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing officials familiar with the matter.

One person told the FT that US President Donald Trump was hoping to reach a deal by Christmas. Zelensky reportedly told US envoys that he needed time to consult with Kiev’s European backers.

Although Trump had said last month that he would like to see an agreement by Thanksgiving, he later told journalists that he did not have a specific timeline.

he US president submitted a peace plan in November that reportedly called for Ukraine to withdraw troops from part of Russia’s Donbass they currently control, one of Moscow’s key conditions for a broad ceasefire.

Zelensky acknowledged during his trip to London on Monday that the US was pushing him towards “a compromise,” but added that no agreement on territory had been reached. He reiterated that Ukraine was not willing to give up any land without a fight.

Russian troops have been making steady gains on different sections of the front line, while Ukrainian commanders say they are outgunned and struggling to replenish battlefield losses with new conscripts.

In early December, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the liberation of Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk), a Donbass city President Vladimir Putin has described as an important “bridgehead” for further offensives.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

US House passes $800mn aid package for Ukraine

New military assistance has been signed off on a month after Kiev was shaken by a major corruption scandal.

The US House of Representatives has passed a defense spending bill that would provide $800 million in military aid to Ukraine through 2027.

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was approved 312-122 on Wednesday and will now advance to the Senate, where it is expected to receive bipartisan support, according to The Hill.

Some legislators objected to directing more taxpayers’ money to help Ukraine fight Russia. “I thought we were getting out of Ukraine. I don’t know why we still need to spend money there,” Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, said.

On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump slammed what he described as a “massive corruption situation” in Kiev, referring to the recently uncovered $100 million kickback scheme in the country’s energy sector, which heavily relies on Western aid.

Prosecutors named Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s longtime associate and former business partner Timur Mindich as the ringleader. Mindich fled the country to evade arrest after apparently being tipped off.

The scandal led to the resignation of two government ministers, and further anti-corruption raids prompted Zelensky to fire chief of staff Andrey Yermak last month.

Ukraine’s military procurement system has also been shaken by several graft and embezzlement scandals, one of which led to the resignation of Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov in 2023.

The bill was approved as Trump has been pressuring Ukraine to sign a peace deal with Russia, with some reports suggesting that he hopes to reach an agreement by Christmas.

Russia considers Western military cooperation with Ukraine one of the root causes of the conflict and has listed ending foreign weapons deliveries as a condition for a ceasefire. President Vladimir Putin has argued that otherwise, Ukraine would use the pause in the fighting to rearm and regroup, as he says happened when Ukraine refused to implement the 2014-2015 Minsk

December 13, 2025 Posted by | politics, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Zelensky resists ceding Donbas, after abandoning it years ago

Zelensky objects to ceding the Donbas region under Trump’s peace plan. But when offered the chance to keep the region under a compromise with Russia, he adamantly refused.

Aaron Maté, Dec 13, 2025

Since the Trump administration began pressuring him to reach a peace deal with Russia last month, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has refused to cede any territory to Moscow. On Thursday, after a new round of salvos from President Trump, Zelensky appeared to leave some wiggle room. “The Russians want the whole of Donbas — we don’t accept that,” Zelensky told reporters. However, for the first time, he floated the idea of putting the issue to a national vote: “I believe that the Ukrainian people will answer this question. Whether in the form of elections or a referendum, the Ukrainian people must have a say.”

Any Ukrainian-administered referendum on the fate of the Donbas would exclude most of its population, who now live under Russian rule. While Zelensky insists that he will not reward what he sees as an illegal Russian land grab, the Ukrainian leader has squandered several opportunities to keep his borders intact. The February 2015 Minsk accords would have left the Donbas within Ukraine by granting it limited autonomy and abandoning Kyiv’s chances of joining NATO. Under the threat of ultra-nationalist violence, successive Ukrainian governments instead opted to retake Donbas by force and demonize the ethnic Russians who live there……………………………………………………………(Subscribers only) https://www.aaronmate.net/p/zelensky-resists-ceding-donbas-after?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=181439166&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

December 13, 2025 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The Moral Urgency of Compromise in Ukraine.

George Beebe, December 05, 2025

At the heart of the public debate over the latest twists and turns in the Trump administration’s ongoing discussions with Russian and Ukrainian negotiators is a fundamental moral question on which there is no consensus: Is it wrong to seek a compromise to end the war in Ukraine? To judge from the anguished reactions to the leak of the White House’s “28-point plan”—which was not really a plan so much as a rough snapshot in time of what US negotiators thought might bridge the gaps between Ukrainian and Russian demands—much of the Western commentariat believes the answer is yes.   

In fact, the foreign policy establishments in Europe and Washington—which until recent years had presided over the West’s post-Cold War foreign policies—appear to view compromise itself as anathema. They insist that Russia should not gain in any way from its invasion of Ukraine, arguing that any other outcome would reward aggression, which would not only tempt Russia to resume its military conquests at some future date, but also invite similar aggression by China and others. 

As a result, they argue, Ukraine should not withdraw from territory in Donetsk it now holds, even if that is reciprocated by Russian withdrawals outside the Donbass region, as Moscow has offered. 

Nor should Russian-occupied territory be recognized as Russian in any way. Moscow should have no say in how Ukraine treats its linguistic and religious minorities or over whether Ukraine joins NATO, hosts Western combat forces, or has caps on its military holdings. All of these, it is argued,  should be sovereign Ukrainian decisions, regardless of whether Russia drops its objections to Ukraine joining the European Union, as President Vladimir Putin has pledged. Moreover, Russia must pay war reparations, and its leaders must face trial for war crimes.  

……………………………….. There are three big problems with this uncompromising stance. First, there is a yawning gap between what the opponents of a compromise insist must happen in Ukraine and their willingness to undertake the risks and sacrifices necessary to make it so.  Neither the United States nor Europe has been willing to go to war with Russia to force its unconditional surrender, understanding that this would very likely end in nuclear conflict………………………..

Second, having ruled out both direct military intervention and compromise, Ukraine’s rejectionist benefactors assume that they can sustain a prolonged battlefield stalemate that will ultimately exhaust Russia’s resources or its patience. That assumption is wishful thinking at best. Ukraine’s military efforts suffer from two increasingly problematic shortages: manpower and air defenses. The West cannot remedy Ukraine’s recruitment and desertion problems without sending hundreds of thousands of its own forces to fight. 

It cannot plug Ukraine’s growing air defense gap because Russia is building attack missiles, drones, and glide bombs faster than Western factories can manufacture air defense systems. This is not a formula for a prolonged stalemate; it is a recipe for Ukraine’s collapse, probably within months rather than years. 

Third and most important: The principle that lies at the root of the Ukraine conflict, which the opponents of compromise claim to defend—the principle that every nation has a sovereign right to choose its military allies—was never intended to be absolute, and the United States historically has not treated it as sacrosanct.

……………………………………………… That [the Cuban missile]crisis was resolved through a compromise in which the Soviets agreed to remove their missiles from Cuba in return for America’s pledge to remove its own missiles from Turkey and to refrain from efforts to overthrow the Castro regime.

……………………………….A truly principled approach to ending the war in Ukraine cannot be uncompromising.  It has to find a reasonable balance between principles that are by their very nature in tension with one another, such as Ukraine’s freedom to choose its allies and Moscow’s insistence that this freedom be limited by Russia’s security concerns………………………………………….. https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-moral-urgency-of-compromise-in-ukraine/

December 12, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Nuclear Kills Kids

most significant of all there is now solid evidence of increased rates of leukaemia in children living close to nuclear power plants.

 Tony Webb | April 28, 2025, https://www.fabians.org.au/nuclear_kills_kids

One moment from my work in the USA in the early 1980s stands out in my memory.  I’d driven from Chicago to Cleveland at the invitation of the Health and Safety Officer of the US Boilermakers Union. The purpose was to speak to the members meeting held on the night ahead of the recruitment of members for work on the annual ‘clean-up’ of the local Nuclear Power plant.  The hired workers would be ‘radiation sponges’ – short-term casuals recruited for the ‘dirty jobs’ that would result in significant radiation exposures sometimes up to the permitted annual exposure limit and ‘let go’ if they reached that limit.  The practice offered some protection to the company’s full -time employees whose skills would be needed on an ongoing basis and whose exposures needed to be kept below the limit.   The meeting was well attended , rowdy, with a lot of questions and discussion which spilled over into the carpark after the meeting closed.  I noticed one man hanging back from the circle and invited him to join and share his thoughts.  As I recall them the essence was:

“I will be going in to apply for work tomorrow.  I understand what you shared about the risks . . . no safe level of exposure and chance of getting cancer perhaps 20 years from now . . .  It will put a roof over my family’s heads and food on the table . . . BUT my wife and I have had all the family we want.  If we hadn’t, what you shared about the genetic risks, the damage to our children and future generations . . . no I wouldn’t be going . . . “

It is a sad fact that workers, both men and women will choose, often from necessity, to put their health at risk from the work environment.  What is however consistent in my experience of working on radiation and other occupational health and safety issues is that they are far more concerned, cautious and likely to prioritise safety when it comes to risks to their children.

We now have solid evidence(1) that workers in nuclear power plants routinely exposed to radiation face significantly increased cancer risks, risks of cardiovascular disease including heart attacks and strokes, dementia and potentially other health effects. There is also an increased risk of genetic damage that can be passed on to their children and future generations. But perhaps most significant of all there is now solid evidence of increased rates of leukaemia in children living close to nuclear power plants.

To put it simply and in language that will resonate with workers and their families in the communities around the seven nuclear power plant sites the federal Liberal-National Coalition proposes to build if elected to government, nuclear kills kids.  It matters little whether or not these nuclear plants can be built on time, within budget, make a contribution to climate change, reduce electricity prices, or secure a long-term energy future; these nuclear power plants will likely kill kids who live close by. They cannot operate without routine releases of radioactive material into the environment and our young will be exposed and are particularly susceptible to any exposure that results.  

Now add to that if you care that women are more susceptible than men; that workers in these plants face greater exposure and health risks than adults in the community; that nuclear plants have and will continue to have both major accidents and less major ‘incidents’ resulting in radiation releases, community exposures and health damage. Add also that quite apart from the workers and others exposed when these plants need to be decommissioned, the radioactive wastes resulting from perhaps 30-50 years life will need to be safely stored and kept isolated from human contact for many thousands of years longer than our recorded human history.    And, again if you care, also add in the concerns around proliferation of nuclear weapons which historically has occurred on the back of, enabled by and sometimes concealed by countries’ developing so called peaceful nuclear power.

All these arguments add weight to the absurdity of Australia starting and the world continuing down this nuclear power path.  But if we want a single issue that strikes at the heart of human concerns it is this – and forgive me saying it again, it needs to be repeated many times until the electorate in Australia hears it loud and clear – Nuclear Kills Kids. 

SOURCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………

December 12, 2025 Posted by | health | Leave a comment

Japan rejects EU plan to steal Russian assets – Politico.

09 Dec 2025, https://www.sott.net/article/503419-Japan-rejects-EU-plan-to-steal-Russian-assets-Politico 

The bloc wants to use Moscow’s funds immobilized in the West to cover Ukraine’s budget deficit.

Japan has reportedly dismissed a European Union initiative to tap frozen Russian sovereign assets to help finance Ukraine’s massive budget shortfall.

Brussels hopes to issue a so-called “reparation loan” backed by Russian funds immobilized in the West – a plan that Moscow has denounced as outright theft. Belgium, where most of the money is held by the Euroclear clearinghouse, has refused to greenlight the proposal unless other nations agree to share associated legal and financial risks.

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has said broader international backing, particularly from non-EU countries holding Russian assets, would bolster the European Commission’s case for what he called the effective confiscation of a foreign state’s funds. But at a meeting of G7 finance ministers on Monday, Japan’s Satsuki Katayama made clear her government would not support the plan due to legal constraints, Politico reported, citing EU diplomatic sources.

Officials told the outlet they believe Japan’s stance aligns with that of the United States, which also opposes the EU approach and views the frozen assets as leverage in negotiations with Moscow.

France has reportedly likewise declined to touch any assets held on its soil, while Canada and the UK have signaled possible participation if the EU ultimately pursues the scheme.

Ukraine’s parliament last week adopted a 2026 budget with a staggering $47.5 billion deficit, expecting foreign donors and creditors to fill the gap. Roughly half that anticipated support – an estimated $23.6 billion – remains uncertain pending the fate of the EU loan plan.

Ukrainian media noted that lawmakers pushed the budget through despite unresolved questions over foreign financing, in part to project stability following the removal of Andrey Yermak, formerly the most powerful aide to the country’s leader, Vladimir Zelensky. Yermak was dismissed as a corruption scandal engulfed Kiev’s political establishment.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, Japan, politics international | Leave a comment

Israel’s biggest con trick: Hiding the true numbers it has killed in Gaza

10 December 2025, https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2025-12-10/israel-con-numbers-killed-gaza/

Israel has penned us all into a ‘debate’, one entirely divorced from reality, that relates only to those killed directly by its bombs and gunfire – not the genocide it is waging by other means

The biggest con trick Israel has managed to pull off over the past two years is imposing entirely phoney parameters on a “debate” in the West about the credibility of the death toll in Gaza, now officially standing at just over 70,000.

It is not just that we have been endlessly bogged down in rows about whether Gaza’s medical authorities can be trusted, or how many of the dead are Hamas fighters. (Despite Israeli disinformation campaigns, the Israeli military itself believes more than 80 per cent of the dead are civilians.)

Or even that these “debates” always ignore the fact that, early on, Israel wrecked Gaza’s capacity to count its dead by destroying the enclave’s governmental offices and its hospitals. The 70,000 figure is likely to be a drastic under-estimate.

No, the biggest con trick is that Israel has successfully penned us all into a “debate”, one entirely divorced from reality, that relates only to those killed directly by its bombs and gunfire.

The truth is that far, far larger numbers of people in Gaza have been actively killed by Israel not through these direct means but through what statisticians refer to as “indirect” methods.

These people were killed by Israel destroying their homes and leaving them with no shelter. By Israel destroying their water and electricity supplies and their sanitation systems. By Israel levelling their hospitals. By Israel starving them. By Israel creating the perfect conditions for disease to spread. The list of ways Israel is killing people in Gaza goes on and on.

Imagine your own societies levelled in the way Gaza has been.

How long would your elderly parents survive in this hellscape?

How well would your diabetic child fare, or your sister with asthma, or your brother with cancer?

How well would you cope with catching pneumonia, or even a common cold, if you hadn’t had more than one small meal a day for months on end?

How would your wife deal with a difficult childbirth if there were no anaesthetics, or no hospital nearby, or a barely functioning hospital overwhelmed with victims from Israel’s latest bombing run.

And what would be the chances of your baby surviving if its mother could produce no milk from her starvation diet? And if you could not give the baby formula feed because Israel was blocking supplies from entry into the enclave? And if, anyway, the contaminated water supply could not be mixed into the formula powder?

None of these kinds of deaths are included in the figure of 70,000. And all precedents show that many, many times more people are killed through these indirect methods than directly through fatal injuries from bombs and bullets.

According to a letter from experts in this field to the Lancet, studies of other wars – most of them far less destructive than Israel’s on the tiny enclave – indicate that between three and 15 times more people are killed by indirect, rather than direct, methods of warfare.

The authors conservatively estimate an indirect death toll four times greater than the direct death toll. That would mean, at a minimum, 350,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza through Israel’s actions.

The reality is likely to be even worse. That is without even mentioning the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been left with horrific injuries and psychological trauma.

Israel’s war planners know exactly how this direct-to-indirect ratio works. Which is why they chose to destroy nearly every home in Gaza, to bomb the power, sanitation and water facilities, to level the hospitals, and to block aid month after month.

They knew this would be the way Israel could carry out a genocide while offering its allies – western governments and its army of lobbyists – a “get out of jail card” for their active complicity.

Donald Trump’s so-called “ceasefire” is just another layer of deception in this endless game of smoke and mirrors. The UN’s child protection agency, Unicef, reports that less than a quarter of aid trucks are getting into Gaza, past Israel’s continuing starvation blockade, despite Israeli commitments agreed as part of the “ceasefire”. Apparently, this doesn’t register as a gross ceasefire violation. It goes unnoticed.

Unicef reports further that in October alone, at the start of the “ceasefire”, nearly 18,000 new mothers and babies had to be hospitalised in Gaza from acute malnutrition.

The genocide isn’t over. Israel may have slowed the rate of direct killings it is committing by bombing Gaza, but the indirect killings continue unabated. And so does the Israeli-engineered “debate” in the West, one designed to obscure and excuse the mass murder of Gaza’s population.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

Cashing in on war: Why stealing Russia’s assets actually makes things worse for the EU.

 

The loan is also, implicitly, seen as an invitation to keep the war going – thus not only keeping the Kiev regime afloat but complicating the prospects for a comprehensive settlement.

03 Dec 2025 , https://www.sott.net/article/503422-Cashing-in-on-war-Why-stealing-Russias-assets-actually-makes-things-worse-for-the-EU

For bloc taxpayers, it could mean Brussels has walked them into a fait accompli where they simply have to stump up for funding a corrupt regime in Kiev.

After a week of humiliation in which her much-touted plot to sequester Russian assets to fund Kiev’s war chest was outright rejected by both Belgium and the European Central Bank, European Commission boss Ursula von der Leyen has told EU member states they have two choices, both of which would send cash to Kiev’s coffers.

According to the embattled EC president, either EU countries will have to borrow cash for Ukraine and make their taxpayers foot the bill, or allow her to push through her – potentially illegal – “reparations plan” and kick the repayment can down the road.

Let’s take a look at what all the talk is about.

Russia’s frozen assets: How much is where?

It is known that Belgium-based clearinghouse Euroclear holds some €180 billion in Russian central-bank funds. Reports that Luxembourg held some €20 billion in Russian assets was denied by the country itself, which claimed it holds “less than €10,000.”

Switzerland, which is in neither the EU nor G7 and thus not subject to von der Leyen’s demands, has declared some 7.45 billion Swiss Francs (€8 billion).Germany has refused to disclose what it holds, citing data protection laws. Japan is thought to hold some €30 billion, while former French Finance Minister Bruno de Maire has spoken about immobilizing some €22.8 billion. The US is believed to hold around $5 billion.

What are the Russian assets frozen in the EU?

The assets mainly consist of European short- and mid-duration bonds that have mostly already come due. When the bonds matured, the principal was paid. Because Euroclear wasn’t prepared to hold that much money itself, the proceeds were invested by Euroclear’s house bank in an account at the European Central Bank. The money is earning interest that legally belongs to Euroclear, although in ordinary circumstances the clearinghouse would send those funds (minus fees) to the client (the Russian central bank).

What is the proposed reparations loan?

The plan entails the EU loaning Ukraine up to €140 billionusing the Russian assets as collateral. Technically, this would involve Euroclear making an interest-free loan of the same value as the Russian assets it holds.

The EU would sign for the cash and give it to Kiev where it would ostensibly be used to fight the war and cover budget expenses, although past experience indicates that much of it could end up in offshore accounts belonging to insiders close to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky.

The sweetener for Kiev is that Ukraine only has to pay back the EU in the highly unlikely event that Russia loses the war and agrees to pay Ukraine reparations. In that case, Kiev would then have to pass those reparations back to Brussels, which would pay back Euroclear, which, in turn, would be able to honor its liability to the Russian central bank.

Why is Belgium afraid to go through with the scheme?

Continue reading →

December 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why this nuclear energy stock could face a meltdown in 2026

by Devesh Kuma, Dec 9, 2025, https://invezz.com/news/2025/12/09/why-this-nuclear-energy-stock-could-face-a-meltdown-in-2026/

  • Nuclear stocks soared in 2025 as AI-driven energy demand boosted investor enthusiasm.
  • Licensing deadlines, dilution, and execution challenges threaten its 2027–2028 targets.
  • High valuation and rising losses make this stock one of the most vulnerable nuclear plays in 2026.

At a time when the stock markets across the world are focusing on artificial intelligence, long-term players are also looking at sectors that will power the future of the AI space, most notably nuclear energy.

The year 2025 was massive for nuclear energy stocks, which saw exponential growth on the backs of AI boom and high-profile partnership.

Oklo stock (NYSE: OKLO) exploded nearly 379% in 2025 on soaring enthusiasm for small modular reactors, but is facing sharp headwinds next year in the form of regulatory approvals, dilution risks, and execution challenges.

As Oklo races against a July 2026 Department of Energy deadline and faces a fresh $1.5 billion share offering, 2026 will reveal whether the company’s promise is genuine or merely speculative froth.

Will Oklo stock clear the final hurdles?

Oklo’s entire business model hinges on clearing one of the nuclear industry’s most daunting challenges: winning approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while delivering a first-of-a-kind reactor on time and on budget.

The company completed Phase 1 of the NRC’s pre-application readiness assessment in July and plans to submit its Combined Operating License Application by late 2025, but the real tests arrive in 2026.

The agency is expected to issue a draft evaluation of Oklo’s Principal Design Criteria in early 2026, a shortened timeline compared to traditional reviews, yet still unproven territory.

Any regulatory surprise or request for additional design modifications could cascade into months of delays, directly threatening the company’s stated goal of reaching commercial operation at Idaho National Laboratory by late 2027 or early 2028.

What amplifies the risk is that Oklo remains entirely pre-revenue and dependent on federal support.

Cash burn is accelerating, with operating losses widening from $17.8 million in Q2 2024 to $28 million in Q2 2025, even as the company boasts a $683 million cash buffer.

Sky-high valuation and the reversal risk

The market has priced in perfection. Oklo’s stock has swung wildly from a low of $17.42 to a peak of $193.84 in 2025.

Analyst price targets diverge sharply, ranging from $14 to $175, reflecting deep uncertainty about whether the company can justify a $16.3 billion market capitalization without any revenue streams visible before 2027 at the earliest.

In his latest article in The Motley Fool, analyst Adam Spatacco outlined that the nuclear energy sector has already priced in a lot of future optimism.

In 2026, I think investors will witness sharp corrections across a number of nuclear energy stocks, with Oklo being by far the most vulnerable in my opinion.

Oklo’s aggressive dilution, boosting share count by roughly 50% since 2024, creates a precarious scenario.

Even if the Aurora reactor succeeds, the accumulated shareholder dilution may offset long-term returns.

Investors should weigh Oklo’s long-term promise against the near-term gauntlet of approvals and capital raises.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

Venezuela and the colonial enterprise

By Ben Laycock | 11 December 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/venezuela-and-the-colonial-enterprise,20471

When small nations resist the United States, democracy becomes a game of pressure, writes Ben Laycock.

U.S. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP claims his belligerence towards Nicolás Maduro is in the noble cause of restoring democracy to Venezuela, but history shows us that the U.S. is no friend of democracy in Latin America.

The U.S. is renowned for interfering in the democratic process in every single country south of the border of America. It is common knowledge that it is nigh on impossible to maintain power in any Latin American democracy if the U.S. decides it is time for you to go.

The way the world economy works like this rich countries make products that poor countries need, like technology. To afford those products, poor countries must offer something the rich folks need. This is usually minerals or fossil fuels. If the rich folks don’t like the way you run your country, basically, if you don’t run your country the way they tell you to, they use their immense economic power to cripple your economy by cutting off the most vital thing you need, finance. The rich folks control the money supply. They turn off the tap. Your country goes broke, the people get angry and throw you out. The U.S.-backed mob get in, the tap is turned on again. The anger of the masses subsides, the status quo returns, without a shot being fired, all perfectly democratic.

A nation cannot maintain its independence via democratic means if the powers-that-be object to that independence, as they so often do.

The only way to maintain your independence is to suspend normal democratic rights and be prepared to defend your country via military means. If you take this drastic course of action, you will face the approbation of the entire “democratic” world. You will no longer be seen as a legitimate state. That is when they really turn the screws, imposing an economic blockade on your struggling little country. This forces you to turn to less popular regimes for life support, thus placing you firmly in the enemy camp, ripe for full-scale military invasion.

The U.S. imposed an extremely strict economic blockade on Cuba in 1962. That blockade is ongoing, the longest economic blockade in history. No company that trades with Cuba can trade with the U.S., full stop.

But only a fool would think these actions have anything to do with democracy. Here in the rich world, democracy is a game we play. If we are losing the game, that’s when things get serious. The USA is going through the painful process of shedding long-held notions of democracy at this very moment.

Donald Trump’s best friends are not leaders of democracies: Mohamed Bin Salman, his present best friend, is a Prince. Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf states are monarchies, ruled by kings. His other bosom buddy is Benjamin Netanyahu, a man who runs a brutal military dictatorship over many of his subjects, divided along racial lines. Israel reserves democratic rights for Jews only, plus a small minority of arabs that they neglected to exterminate long ago (something they have come to regret). The rest of their subjects are subject to military dictatorship. All Jewish people are allowed to vote, no matter where they live in Palestine. Arabs citizens are allowed to vote unless they live in Gaza or the West Bank. There are 9.5 million citizens in Israel (this includes Jewish settlers in the West Bank), two million of them are Arabs. Until recently, there were over two million people living in Gaza. (The I.D.F. is going to extraordinary lengths to reduce that number). There are 2.5 million people living in the West Bank. That makes a total population under Israeli control of 14 million, 9.5 million of whom have the right to vote, the other 4.5 million are living in an extremely brutal military dictatorship, and have been for generations.

So we can say that the land of Israel is 63 per cent democracy and 37 per cent military dictatorship.

This is not so different to how Australia was run until quite recently.

Our nation began as a military dictatorship. Eventually, the invaders and settlers were allowed to vote, while the indigenous population continued to be ruled by a brutal military dictatorship right up until 1967. The “blackfullas” were seen as the enemy, to be shot on sight. The last recorded massacre was the Conniston Massacre in 1928. It is a rule of thumb for any self-respecting colonising power to keep the local indigenous population out of the democratic process until you have reduced their numbers to the point where they no longer pose a threat to your idea of “civilisation.”

A colonial enterprise must reduce the ratio of locals to interlopers. This is achieved by two simultaneous methods: Reducing the population of locals via extermination, whilst flooding the place with immigrants from “the home country.”

When Captain Cook arrived in Australia, there were around one million blackfullas. This number was swiftly and efficiently reduced to a far more manageable size. In Tasmania, the number of full-blood blackfullas was reduced to zero. In Victoria, it was reduced to three. Yet it still took nearly 200 years before the interlopers felt safe enough to grant the last indigenous remnants their democratic rights.

To return to Palestine. The interlopers arrived en masse around 1947-8. They immediately set about adjusting the ratio of locals to invaders (following the colonial textbook to the letter) via a campaign of mass terror. The Zionists expelled over one million Palestinians from their homes, at gunpoint, with nothing more than they could carry on their backs. They then blew up their homes and planted booby traps so they could never return. This is how the state of Israel was founded, on ethnic cleansing. Since that time, some 80 years ago, the Palestinians have lived under brutal military rule, but until now, there has been little attempt to get rid of them altogether. That policy has changed. The Arab Palestinian cohort is growing faster than the Jews. Partly because the Arabs are outbreeding the Jews about 3-1, well done team! But also because Israel is no longer such a popular place to come and live, for obvious reasons. The Israeli regime is aware that it cannot maintain a Jewish state once the Arab population approaches parity. So they are now talking about expelling the Arabs from the Israeli enclave, as well as from Gaza and the West Bank. In their eyes, this would reduce the threat of violence that is putting off potential immigrants, whilst freeing up new lands to give them, problem solved!

December 12, 2025 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Schemes of Bankruptcy: The United Nations, Funding Dues and Human Rights

 Increasingly shrivelled and shrunken, the UN’s far from negligible role in seeking to conserve peace, flawed as it can be, or distributing aid and protecting human rights, risks vanishing into history.

11 December 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/schemes-of-bankruptcy-the-united-nations-funding-dues-and-human-rights/

The United Nations, in turning 80, has been berated, dismissed and libelled. In September, US President Donald Trump took a hearty swipe at the body’s alleged impotence. “What is the purpose of the United Nations?” he posed to gathered world leaders. All it seemed to do was “write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words and empty words don’t solve war.” Never once did he consider that many of the wars he has allegedly ended have not so much reached their pacific terminus as having gone into simmering storage.

While harsh geopolitics has become violently fashionable and sneery of international law, an organisation whose existence depends on solidarity, support and cooperation from its often uncooperative Member States, is seeing itself slide into what has been described as a “worsening liquidity crisis.” The crisis was given much stimulus by the organisation’s US$135 million deficit as it entered 2025. By September’s end, it had collected a mockingly inadequate 66.2 per cent of the year’s assessments.

In October, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, in speaking to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly responsible for the entity’s budget, warned that the organisation was facing a “race to bankruptcy” unless Member States forked out their dues. Last year, arrears totalled US$760 million. With the need to return credits worth US$300 million to Member States at the start of 2026, some 10 per cent of the budget would be emptied. “Any delays in collections early in the year [2026] will force us to reduce spending even more … and then potentially face the prospect of returning US$600 million in 2027, or about 20 per cent of the budget.”

While discussing finances can induce a coma, some preliminary discussion about the structure of contributions to the UN is necessary. Assessed or mandatory contributions for 2025, measured by the “capacity to pay” formula, comprised the regular budget of the organisation covering administrative and operational costs (approximately $US3.7 billion); funding for international tribunals ($US43 million); the Capital Master Plan covering the renovation of the UN headquarters in New York; and peacekeeping operations (US$5.4 billion). Voluntary contributions are self-explanatory enough, comprising optional donations from Member States and various other entities for humanitarian and development agencies, in addition to sustaining the broader UN system.

States discharging their obligations in making contributions to the regular budget receive proud mention in the Honour Roll of the UN. Those not doing so risk losing their vote in the organisation if their financial lethargy continues for two years or more after the due date of contributions – not that this injunction has been well observed. The United States remains famously tardy, and under Trump, boisterously so. As the body’s primary contributor to the regular budget – assessed as 22 per cent in 2025 – and 26 per cent to the peacekeeping budget, this is particularly galling.

Since January, the current administration has savaged funding to various UN bodies. On his first day of office, the President signed an executive order withdrawing his country from the World Health Organization due to its “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”

The UN Human Rights Council was the next fashioned target, with February’s withdrawal from the body justified on the basis that it had “protected human rights abusers by allowing them to use the organization to shield themselves from scrutiny”.  In sympathy for Israel, funding was also frozen to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), citing the allegation that employees had been “involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel.”

Revealing its crass, impulsive philistinism, the Trump administration proceeded to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in July. “UNESCO,” declared State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, “works to advance divisive social and cultural causes and maintains an outsized focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, a globalist, ideological agenda for international development at odds with our America First foreign policy.” Amidst all of this, the parochial agenda was made clear: UNESCO, in admitting Palestine as a Member State was “highly problematic, contrary to US policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization.”

Washington has been singular in this regard only in terms of scale. China and Russia are also conspicuous in being late with their contributions while other Member States have simply pared back their UN contributions for reasons of defence and domestic expenditure. War mongering is proving catching, while peacemaking, despite the boasts of the US President, is falling out of vogue. A most conspicuous area to suffer has been human rights.  

In October 2025, the International Service for Human Rights identified an ongoing campaign to defund the UN human rights agenda being waged in the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee. In a report using material gathered from 37 diplomats, UN officials and experts, along with data analysis of UN documents and the organisation’s budget from 2019 to 2024, the ISHR identified a campaign of “coordinated obstruction” by Member States steered by China and Russia. Coupled with Washington and Beijing’s “failure to pay their assessments in full and on time (respectively)”, the UN’s means of funding and implementing its human rights programs has been stymied.  

Most to suffer has been the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which finds itself $90 million short of what it needs for 2025. Some 300 jobs have already been shed by the organisation. “Our resources have been slashed, along with funding for human rights organisations, including at the grassroots level, around the world,” warns UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk. “We are in survival mode.”  

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), responsible for humanitarian aid and crisis, has had to resort to the beggar bowl. Facing its own budgetary razor, the body is seeking US$23 billion as a matter of immediacy, with the hope that it will save 87 million lives. “Ultimately, in 2026,” the body announced on December 8, “the aim is to raise a total of US$33 billion to support 135 million people through 23 country operations and six plans for refugees and migrants.”

While wobbly, scarred by imperfections and marked by contentiousness, an organisation built from the ashes of murderous global conflict in 1945 risks becoming the very model of impotence Trump claims and no doubt wishes it to be. In this, he can count on a number of countries, friendly or adversarial to the US. Increasingly shrivelled and shrunken, the UN’s far from negligible role in seeking to conserve peace, flawed as it can be, or distributing aid and protecting human rights, risks vanishing into history.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, politics international | Leave a comment

Zelensky’s rush to elections is an effort to cling to power and keep the money flowing

Signing a peace deal that takes NATO off the table will kill his chance of re-election

Ian Proud, The Peacemonger, Dec 11, 2025

In a recent interview with Politico, President Trump said, ‘they’re (Ukraine’s government) using the war as an excuse not to hold an election.’

This is not a new criticism. Republican figures who have long opposed open-ended financial aid to Ukraine have often targeted Zelensky’s lack of a democratic mandate. This includes Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, a long-standing critic who once labelled Zelensky an ‘unelected dictator’ in a video prior to the US Presidential elections.

Always a slick media operator, Zelensky has responded to the US President’s criticism by offering to hold a plebiscite while Ukraine remains under martial law, if European states and the US can guarantee security. Mainstream media have, predictably, seized on this as further proof of Zelensky’s democratic credentials and his commitment to deliver peace under the most difficult circumstances of war.

However, only around 20% of Ukrainians favour an election prior to any peace deal, according to an August poll, compared to 75% who believe elections should happen after the war. Until recently, Zelensky used this data to shoot down critics who called him out as anti-democratic. Now, he’s willing to sidestep the will of his people and go to the polls while war is still raging.

Trump’s criticism doesn’t, in my eyes, represent a challenge to hold elections now, but first to sign a peace deal with Russia, paving the way for elections upon the cessation of martial law.

Right now, only, 20.3% of Ukrainians would vote for Zelensky, a drop of 4% since October polling, in the light of collapsing support for the war effort and the ongoing corruption scandal.

That still makes Zelensky the most popular candidate from a long list, his closest rival being former military commander Zaluzhny. Although the same poll suggests that a new political party headed by the current Ukrainian Ambassador to London would defeat Zelensky’s Servant of the People faction.

The New York Times’ recent investigation has shown Zelensky’s government has actively sabotaged oversight, allowing corruption to flourish. This story was eye-opening both for the depth of the investigation and its source – a newspaper that had hitherto backed the Ukrainian President’s endeavours to the hilt. Now, rather than sitting above the issue, blind to the activities of his closest political allies, Zelensky is increasingly viewed as an integral part of Ukraine’s corruption problem.

He may be gambling on running for the polls early to increase his dwindling chance of clinging on to power. Despite the logistical challenges, a vote under martial law might work in his favour.

………………………………………………………………………………. In a country as corrupt as Ukraine, anyone who seriously believes that Zelensky wouldn’t attempt to rig the vote in his favour is, I fear, worryingly naïve.

And holding elections under martial law would also allow the war train to keep rumbling forward, and the billions from Europe to keep flowing in

At no point since he rejected the draft Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022 has Zelensky appeared like he wanted to see the war conclude. High on promises from Joe Biden, Boris Johnson and others to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, greeted as a hero wherever he travelled, Zelensky watched the billions in foreign aid roll into his country, while his closest aides grew rich and purchased Bugattis and other hypercars that tool around Monaco, according to Donald Trump Jr in recent televised remarks.

All of Zelensky’s pronouncements since mid-2022 have sought to position himself as on the side of the angels, to situate President Putin as the aggressor, to keep western leaders at his back every step of the way, and to keep the money flowing.

A natural actor, he has a line for every occasion.

‘No one wants peace more than me.’

‘Putin doesn’t want peace.’

‘Putin refuses to talk to Ukraine.’

‘Only pressure on Russia will force Putin to make compromises.’

‘Ukraine can win!’

Yet for over two years, after a failed summer counter-offensive that the UK military helped to plan, it has been clear that Ukraine cannot win.

Even if you gave Ukraine the same amount of foreign funding that was provided in previous years, that would at best allow it to continue to lose slowly on the battlefield.

But fighting to the last Ukrainian appears a better bet politically, for Zelensky. A peace deal in which, at the very least, Ukraine gives up its aspiration to join NATO will be catastrophic politically for Zelensky, almost certainly ruining his chance of re-election. He knows it. Everyone in Ukraine knows it. And, of course, Putin knows it

Meanwhile, Russia can afford to wait it out…………………………………………………………. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/zelenskys-rush-to-elections-is-an?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=181320366&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

December 12, 2025 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Nuclear power? Its account is (almost) OK

In France, it has been decided that widespread electrification will mean a nuclear revival. But the feasibility and viability of this revival are questionable. Technically, industrially… and also economically and financially. Laure Noualhat delivers a damning indictment of the cost of nuclear power for the coming years and envisions France defaulting on its debt due to this investment choice. A provocative statement designed to shock: intrigued, the public might be inclined to watch her documentary, ” 
Nuclear Power Will Ruin France, ” or read her book of the same name to discover figures recently validated by the Court of Auditors. Perhaps even underestimated.

Science involving nuclear power is nothing but the ruin of the state.

This new nuclear perspective rests on a risky gamble, devoid of any studies or clearly established facts. The long-awaited third multi-year energy program (PPE) has not yet been published, but the decision is already considered final: 
three pairs of EPR2 reactors have been announced, with four more expected to follow. And the current dithering at the highest levels of government will not allow for the swift publication in the Official Journal of the implementing decrees for the corresponding laws passed in 2019 and 2021, relating to renewable energies and nuclear power. While the second PPE was largely dominated by the question of the pace of reducing the share of nuclear energy in electricity production, this third version intends to prioritize nuclear power, while curbing the development of wind and solar power.

Plans drawn up without much detail regarding the financial arrangements. A vague understanding of the economic impact of such investments in France. This is the general observation, which is hardly reassuring given the sums involved.

Aside from the future design and construction of new reactors ( whose final design is not yet complete ), the nuclear sector faces expenses related, for example, to the annual operating costs of the existing fleet. While considered minor compared to the initial investment and expected to decrease continuously, these costs are actually increasing each year for an aging fleet due to so-called “refurbishment” investments and safety upgrades (the “major overhaul” plan). These are all bills to be paid, essential for ensuring the fleet’s operation beyond 40 or 50 years and beyond, and considerably larger than initially anticipated.

This is clearly considered in the numerous reports conducted by the Court of Auditors (CC) on EDF ( 
2012 report , 
updated in 2014 , 
2021 report ). Given the difficulty of extracting the precise elements for a comprehensive analysis of the situation from EDF’s financial reports, the Court’s reports prove to be a valuable journalistic contribution. Valuable, but still incomplete. The Court of Auditors itself admits that the reports are systematically produced with little cooperation from the national company: the CC emphasizes that projections sometimes had to be established “without EDF’s data,” disregarding “hidden costs,” “concealed amounts,” and “difficult calculations,” despite the various accounting methods that are always prone to significantly altering the evolution of the different parameters.

So much so that the CC finally admits to having to put forward the figures ‘with caution’, not without difficulty since EDF is playing with the withholding of sensitive information…………….

From this murky situation, Laure Noualhat takes on the almost sacred mission of reconstructing the future burden of nuclear power in France. And, in addition to the costs of the EPR2 reactors, it turns out that costs are also rising through operating expenses, maintenance investments, the cost of future expenses (decommissioning, waste and spent fuel management), changes in the fleet’s production, the level of economic lease payments…

This interview returns to the investment problems raised, the growing financial consequences of this technology, deemed totally unreasonable by Laure Noualhat.

Published in the  Reporterre  media collection  , the bias with which the book could be accused easily falls away: the figures are corroborated by the Court of Auditors itself.

The goal would therefore be to find €200-250 billion, a conservative estimate reconstructed by Laure Noualhat. This is equivalent to the investment costs for the construction of the 58 existing civilian reactors (€106 billion in 2018; the two reactors at Fessenheim have since been shut down ). However, the national electricity provider remains heavily indebted (by approximately €54 billion) and cannot claim to finance the new nuclear program on its own. Furthermore, the cost has increased by 100% since the announcement in 2019 (the initial estimate was €52.7 billion). Undoubtedly, all of this will require guarantees from the State.

However, there is nothing very attractive about it for investors given the hypothetical financial returns which could be considered insufficient over a period running from the construction phase to the operation phase, i.e. more than 60 years.

The costs of existing reactors will increase, particularly in the event of generic defects, combined with the risks associated with the aging of the fleet that will inevitably come to light. This growth will be difficult to control and anticipate. Therefore, given the significant investments it may require, this issue has become urgent, as it will severely impact the budget.

 The risk of insufficient performance of the nuclear fleet is among the most critical in the group’s risk assessment. It is directly affected by the occurrence of generic faults, which can reduce fleet availability while they are being addressed. This risk has been assigned the highest impact level and a control level ranging from medium to low.

It’s an open secret that all this is because the premature aging of internal materials and components has been known since 1986. The Energy Regulatory Commission itself noted that EDF believed that with the aging of the fleet, generic hazard problems would become more structural: this was the case during the episode of stress corrosion cracking discovered quite by chance, and there is reason to fear that others will occur.

Indeed. Just recently, an ASNR meeting revealed that new cracks measuring 2 to 3 millimeters had been detected and confirmed at the Civaux nuclear power plant on reactor 2 (1450 MW). The piping of the affected RRA circuit (the primary circuit under normal operating conditions) has reportedly already been dismantled and sent for analysis, suggesting that the cracks were detected well before this announcement. This specter of renewed stress corrosion cracking raises concerns about the technical and technological control of this accelerated aging process under irradiation and extreme operating conditions (temperature, pressure).

An already outdated figure

The Court of Auditors’ investigation into EDF is far from over. A new 
report was just published at the end of September 2025. The findings are alarming: EDF faces a massive investment challenge of €460 billion over 15 years…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Protected like few others, supported by the political class, the nuclear sector deviates from certain minimal procedures in terms of accounting and transparent financing. It is decidedly not subject to any of the economic rules that prevail in other industrial sectors.

The aim of this investigation, led by Laure Noualhat, was to shed more light on the expenses generated by undebated political decisions. Mission accomplished.

Will these colossal investments put an end to the new nuclear program in France? https://homonuclearus.fr/nucleaire-compte-presque-bon/?utm_source=Homo+nuclearus&utm_campaign=3e0276f781-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_02_12_08_27_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_338d2a581d-3e0276f781-433658419

December 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »