nuclear-news

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

EU summit in Brussels: European powers intensify war drive against Russia

Ever more billions for war

Zelensky put Ukraine’s war costs for 2027 at €155 billion and demanded at least €70 billion in additional European support. With this money, Ukraine could produce two to three times as many drones and massively increase military pressure on Russia. The EU has already set in motion a €90 billion loan for 2026 and 2027. No decision was reached in Brussels on the new demands for billions; the Commission has been tasked with developing financing options.

Johannes Stern@JSternWSWS16 October 2026, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/10/17/gbsa-o17.html

The EU summit held on Thursday and Friday in Brussels was an expression of the dangerous escalation of the international war crisis. While the Trump administration, amid its conflict with the European powers, is seeking at least for the moment a certain accommodation with Russia, the EU governments, led by Berlin, are pressing for the continuation and expansion of the Ukraine war. They want to shoulder an increasing share of the financial and military burdens themselves and build Europe into an independent military power.

This is accompanied by an escalation that threatens to provoke a direct war between NATO and Russia, including nuclear war. At the same time, the summit discussions on rearmament, “competitiveness,” trade war and migration underscore that the war drive abroad is inseparably linked to intensified social attacks and authoritarian measures at home.

Conflicts between Washington and Europe

At the center of the summit was the demonstrative support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Following an agreement with Putin on Russian diesel supplies, Trump had eased sanctions and criticized Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries. He also demanded a change in Ukraine’s leadership. The European governments, by contrast, are determined to continue attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure and tighten sanctions.

European Council President António Costa declared on Friday, standing alongside Zelensky: “Now is not the time to withdraw support for Ukraine. Now is not the time to ease sanctions against Russia.” Instead, the EU must increase its support and pressure on Russia. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced preparations for a 22nd package of sanctions.

The German government is taking a particularly aggressive stance. Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that the EU must “once again … increase” its funding for Kiev in order to “provide lasting support” to Ukraine. This was necessary, he said, to defend “the political order of Europe.” The conflict with Washington now also concerns control over approximately €210 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets in Europe. According to reports, US negotiators want to use part of these assets in negotiations with Moscow. Merz brusquely rejected this: “That is our affair, and we will decide on it.”

Behind these differences lie rival geostrategic and economic interests. The European powers fear that Trump could conclude an agreement with Putin that would undermine their own war aims and influence in Eastern Europe. At the same time, Ukraine’s war effort remains dependent on American military technology and intelligence support. Reports of restrictions on the satellite-based Starshield system demonstrate this dependence particularly starkly.

Ever more billions for war

Zelensky put Ukraine’s war costs for 2027 at €155 billion and demanded at least €70 billion in additional European support. With this money, Ukraine could produce two to three times as many drones and massively increase military pressure on Russia. The EU has already set in motion a €90 billion loan for 2026 and 2027. No decision was reached in Brussels on the new demands for billions; the Commission has been tasked with developing financing options.

The political thrust of the Kiel study is revealing. Under a headline emphasizing that “only” €41.7 billion actually went to Ukraine, it stresses that spending on refugees does “not support the Ukrainian government in its defense.” This juxtaposition alone makes the political orientation clear: While support for refugees and other social expenditures face growing pressure for cuts, ever larger sums are to be mobilized for the war effort. Added to this are hundreds of billions more that are to flow into military budgets in the coming years.

Concrete preparations for a NATO-Russia war

Parallel to the summit, the military confrontation is intensifying. NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Alexus Grynkewich presented his “Theory of Victory” in Warsaw: “Block, Blunt, Break.” A potential attack is first to be repelled, then the opposing armed forces smashed, and finally the command, supply and production structures supporting them disabled. Grynkewich describes the strategy as defensive, but in a major war the planned operations could extend deep into Russian territory. He praised Germany as the “engine of NATO.”

At the same time, NATO conducted the nuclear war exercise “Steadfast Noon” in Italy this week, involving 17 countries, including German Tornado fighter jets. NATO describes it as a routine exercise without live nuclear weapons. Yet it rehearsed procedures for nuclear operations at a time when the risks of escalation are rapidly increasing.

Russia is responding to NATO’s constant provocations with nuclear threats. In early October, Putin warned that Russia could use its entire arsenal in the event of a blockade of Kaliningrad. Now, State Duma Deputy Alexei Zhuravlyov has told Lenta.ru that, in the event of a NATO attack, Russian nuclear strikes could target NATO headquarters, as well as US nuclear weapons bases in Germany, Belgium, Italy and Turkey. Zhuravlyov’s threat is not an official government statement. His remarks nevertheless demonstrate how concretely sections of the Russian establishment are discussing nuclear war in Europe.

Russian military commentators warn that NATO’s strategy could serve as a cover for “preemptive” strikes. They draw parallels to Hitler’s war of annihilation against the Soviet Union, which Nazi propaganda likewise justified as “defense” against an allegedly planned Soviet attack.

Regardless of NATO’s specific timetable for war, the mutual threats already demonstrate that an escalation could rapidly spiral out of control. In the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria are demanding additional NATO measures against Russia following drone attacks on merchant ships.

These sums have immediate social consequences. While debt rules are relaxed for rearmament, European governments are organizing historic cuts to social benefits and public services. Under the slogan of “competitiveness,” the EU summit adopted measures for deregulation, accelerated approval procedures and further economic restructuring. Jobs are being eliminated on a massive scale, wages cut and working conditions worsened.

The EU also wants to create new trade policy instruments to take tougher action, particularly against China. Merz stated that the Commission had been given a mandate to this end. Von der Leyen announced additional import restrictions.

Rearmament and social devastation

The migration debate at the summit also revealed its reactionary direction. Italy, Denmark and Poland attacked Spain’s planned legalization of the residence status of around 600,000 migrants. Discussions included tightening detention provisions in border procedures and suspending asylum applications in times of crisis. In the Middle East, against the backdrop of the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, the summit focused above all on securing trade and energy routes.

As the EU advances its global war offensive and reactionary domestic agenda, tensions among the European imperialist powers are growing. The dispute over the next EU budget for 2028 to 2034 exposed these rivalries. Net contributors, such as Sweden, are refusing the higher contributions being demanded, while the EU seeks to mobilize additional funds for strategic and military projects. No agreement has yet been reached.

The extreme escalation of war is also a response to growing social and political opposition in Europe. In France, Spain and other countries, mass protests and strikes are developing against social cuts, militarism and authoritarian measures. Confronted with the deep crisis of the established parties, the ruling classes are attempting to divert this opposition outward through war propaganda and nationalism and force the population to rally behind their war policies.

But this course will only further intensify social antagonisms. The gigantic military expenditures, the destruction of jobs and social benefits, and the increasing attacks on democratic rights will not extinguish the resistance of the working class and youth but further fuel it. At the same time, the escalating confrontation with Russia threatens to plunge all of Europe into a nuclear world war.

Europe’s response to the war and the crisis of its alliance with Washington is a gigantic rearmament program. “ReArm Europe” is intended to make possible up to €800 billion in additional defense spending by 2030, while the SAFE program provides €150 billion in loans. In Germany, defense spending is to rise to approximately €140 billion in 2027—and to well over €200 billion in 2029. The German government wants to build the Bundeswehr into Europe’s strongest conventional army.

The decisive task is to arm the growing opposition with an independent socialist perspective. The working class must organize independently of the established parties and unite its struggles across all national borders against capitalism, militarism and war. The nationalist and militarist project of the European governments must be opposed with the struggle for the United Socialist States of Europe.

October 26, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Campaigners warn Welsh island could be target in nuclear attack amid fears of ‘no safe evacuation’

22 Oct 2026, Dale Spridgeon, Local Democracy Reporter, Nation CYMRU

.

The campaign group raised its concerns in an open letter to the Secretary of State for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), Miatta Fahnbulleh MP.

Wylfa was selected by the UK Government in April and the nuclear project is being led by Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) and Rolls-Royce SMR in a £2.5 billion partnership

It’s expected to create 8,000 jobs across the UK, including 3,000 in North Wales.

DESNZ has stated the “highest standards” of safety and security surround the UK’s nuclear sites.

GBN-E said it “recognised” that the people of Ynys Môn had questions about the plans and “looked forward to discussing them openly and constructively.”

But the promises of new jobs and safety assurances have not reassured the anti-nuclear campaigners who have expressed their “deep concerns”.

Increasing threats

In their letter to Ms Fahnbulleh, they said: “Increasing threats of war mean that we will be targets for attack. Russia and Iran have both threatened us due to our interventions in Ukraine and the use of British bases for the bombing of Iran. Nuclear power stations are now regular targets for attack.

“How are we to be protected? How are we to get off the island in the event of an attack or nuclear accident?

“There are two bridges connecting us to the mainland, and even if there were three, there would be no safe evacuation possible, without the danger of accidents.

“RAF Valley is also on the island, making us a further target.”

They also believe that waste produced by the possible new nuclear reactors will also “serve as an ongoing target and risk” and would “remain on-site for at least 100 years, being too hot to remove”.

“Our future generations will be responsible for this; not a legacy we want to bequeath.”

They dispute claims “electricity generated at Wylfa would go to homes” adding: “how are we to know the end use of the electricity to be generated by these nuclear reactors.”

They also believe droughts and wildfires “have threatened the safety” of nuclear plants all over the world including at Sizewell B, this year.

“We implore you to reconsider pouring more money into these nuclear reactors, yet to receive the Generic Development Consent order, and instead concentrate our resources to upgrading the grid, as you propose, and using our excellent renewable energy sources.”…………………. https://nation.cymru/news/campaigners-warn-welsh-island-could-be-target-in-nuclear-attack-amid-fears-of-no-safe-evacuation/

October 26, 2026 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Britain still plans new nuclear sub every eighteen months

By George Allison, October 22, 2026, https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-still-plans-new-nuclear-sub-every-eighteen-months/

Ministers have confirmed that the intention remains to procure up to twelve SSN-AUKUS submarines, and that the investments needed to establish industrial capacity for a submarine every eighteen months from the mid-2030s have been made, according to an answer given in Parliament.

Andrew Rosindell, the Reform UK member for Romford, asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he would make it his department’s policy to increase total hull numbers in the submarine service.

Luke Pollard, the Minister of State for Defence, said: “As set out in the Defence Investment Plan (DIP), the Ministry of Defence intends to procure up to 12 SSN AUKUS submarines.

“The programme is currently midway through the Detailed Design and Long Lead (D2L2) phase and we anticipate that the number of submarines will be confirmed before the end of this phase in 2028.

“Through the DIP, the Government has made the investments necessary to establish the industrial capacity required to ultimately deliver a submarine every 18 months from the mid-2030s to ensure we can deliver an expanded SSN force.”

Britain currently operates seven Astute class attack submarines, and this publication reported the government’s commitment to build twelve new nuclear attack submarines when the plan appeared. A drumbeat of one boat every eighteen months would be the fastest sustained British submarine production rate since the Cold War, and the figure follows from the capacity being built at Barrow.

Barrow has been expanding through the Barrow Infrastructure Programme, with new build halls, a reconfigured yard and a recruitment effort that has taken the BAE Systems workforce there past twelve thousand. Rolls-Royce Submarines in Derby has doubled its site to produce reactors for both Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS, and the Sheffield Forgemasters work on large forgings feeds the same chain.

Confirmation of the final number before the end of the detailed design phase in 2028 ties the fleet size to what the yard can actually sustain. Senior officials told the Commons Defence Committee earlier this year that submarine fleet size was conditional on Barrow output, and a decision due in 2028 falls inside this Parliament.

Australia will build its own SSN-AUKUS boats at Osborne in South Australia to a common design, and the two production lines are intended to share a supply chain, which is part of the case for the industrial investment on the British side. Dreadnought holds priority at Barrow through the late 2020s, so attack submarine production builds up behind the ballistic missile boats.

Pollard confirmed in a separate answer the same day that steel will be cut on the first British SSN-AUKUS next year, and that the Preliminary Design Review for the class concluded on the first of July. Twelve boats remains an upper bound until the design phase closes.

October 26, 2026 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Scottish Greens set to vote on whether to support new nuclear power.

THE Scottish Greens are set to vote on whether to support new nuclear power
at their upcoming party conference. The Greens will meet in Inverness this
weekend for their autumn conference, where they will debate a motion
supporting the construction of new nuclear plants provided certain
conditions are met.

The English and Welsh Greens voted to drop their
opposition to nuclear power earlier this month. The party has long opposed
the construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland, describing it
as “outrageously expensive”, “unnecessary”, and arguing that it detracts
from renewable energy.

In 2022, co-leader Ross Greer – then the party’s
finance spokesperson – said: “Proposing new nuclear power stations as a
solution to today’s energy crisis is like thinking the solution to your
house being on fire right now is the construction of a billion pound fire
station in twenty years’ time.”

The National 22nd Oct 2026
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26661068.scottish-greens-vote-backing-nuclear-power-major-policy-shift/

October 26, 2026 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Walt Zlotow – Thank you Mr. President for stopping the flow of most US treasure to the Ukraine proxy war


Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL – 23 Oct 26

Former President Biden squandered upwards of $175 billion in direct and indirect aid to Ukraine in America’s senseless proxy war to weaken, destroy Russia.

Back in November, 2021, Russian President Putin reached out to President Biden one last time to avert military action against Ukraine massing troops to finish off Ukrainian Donbas separatists seeking autonomy and peace from their Kyiv masters. Included was Russia’s security demand that Ukraine not join NATO, a Russian red line it had been warning the US not to cross since America’s 2008 NATO membership pledge to Ukraine.

Biden’s response? Russia’s security concerns regarding Ukraine NATO membership and Donbas autonomy were not even on the agenda. Biden knew that meant Russia would launch an invasion which occurred 3 months later. He cared not one whit how many would die, believing that Russia would self destruct from US aid to Ukraine like Russia did in Afghanistan between 1979 to 1989.

Biden left office 3 years later with Ukraine in ruins with no chance of prevailing, Russia stronger than ever, and $175 billion of precious US treasure squandered on death and destruction in furtherance of America pretending it still ruled Europe, indeed the world.

Trump began his second term boasting he’d end the war on Day One. Six hundred forty days in, Trump still flails around seeking an end to Biden’s insane Ukraine proxy war so he can concentrate on polishing off Iran to please his Israeli masters.

But thankfully, he has largely cut off squandering endless tens of billions for the lost cause of defeating Russia to please the Russophobes that infest both the Republican and Democratic Parties, the military, the CIA; virtually the entire national security state. They are all supported by mainstream media which totally censures any pushback to the madness of continued war in Ukraine till the last Ukrainian soldier is dead.

There are many reasons to revile President Trump. But his cutting off squandering our precious treasure to continue the destruction of Ukraine in order to weaken, destroy Russia is not one of them.

October 26, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Israel’s Right Fights Over Who Gets To Rule The Jewish State

SCHEERPOST, October 22, 2026, Mohammad Al-Ayoubi, The Cradle.

Regardless of who becomes prime minister.

With a week to go before Israel’s 27 October election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his principal challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, are competing for the authority to govern a state whose Jewish identity neither contests. Their camps remain short of a parliamentary majority. Yet the political deadlock is already prompting discussion of arrangements both sides had presented to voters as unacceptable.

Recent polls put the prime minister’s bloc and the Zionist opposition close to a tie, with neither securing the 61 seats needed for a majority in the 120-member Knesset. Another election remains possible, especially while opposition leaders reject governing partnerships with Palestinian parties.

The struggle over who can assemble a coalition is sharpening a more fundamental competition: who can best defend Jewish security and administer the Jewish state.

Understanding that contest requires looking at the transformation of Israeli society, Suleiman Bisharat, director of the Yabous Center, tells The Cradle.

That shift toward the right took hold roughly a decade ago, rather than emerging only during the past two or three years. The electorate has continued moving toward the right and far right, narrowing the political ground on which the main contenders compete.

For Bisharat, the claim that Netanyahu represents the right while Eisenkot stands outside it misreads this transformation. Netanyahu represents the far right or extreme right; Eisenkot also belongs to the right and far right. Their rivalry concerns who can take a harder line on Jewish identity and the principles underpinning the state.

The right competes with itself

The campaign revolves around the identity of the state, enshrined in the 2018 Nation-State Law, and its religious-national character. These questions concern the future organization of a Jewish religious nation-state, including the relationship between its military, religious institutions, and political leadership.

Bisharat argues that Netanyahu and Eisenkot are competing to make their respective right-wing visions more convincing to far-right parties. Netanyahu brought extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir into his governing coalition after the previous election and is trying to work with the same electoral logic again. The two candidates’ rhetoric, despite their rivalry, remains within the same ideological orbit.

Dr Saad Nimr, a political science professor at Birzeit University, offers a similar assessment. These elections pit the right against the right, he tells The Cradle, with both contenders operating within the right and far right. He sees little substantive disagreement over the nature of the state: both invoke a Jewish and democratic nation-state.

Their dispute centers on its management. Eisenkot regards Netanyahu as an overbearing leader with whom he cannot work, Nimr says. But both pursue broadly the same direction and share the same general ideas.

Opposition to Netanyahu has brought together politicians whose disagreements over coalition partners exceed their differences over the state they seek to govern.

Netanyahu bargains for survival

Netanyahu enters the election under legal and political pressure, while remaining the dominant figure in his camp. His campaign turns the vote into a referendum on national security and the Jewish identity of the state, presenting him as the indispensable guarantor of both. His emphasis on the multi-front “War of Redemption” also serves to minimize his responsibility for the intelligence failures exposed by Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.

Appealing to his religious and nationalist base, Netanyahu uses the unfinished war to deflect scrutiny of his corruption trial and responsibility for 7 October, casting his removal as a threat to the state’s security and Jewish identity.

At the same time, Netanyahu has begun putting distance between himself and Ben Gvir. Likud signed a surplus-vote agreement with Religious Zionism, leaving Ben Gvir’s Jewish Power outside that arrangement. Netanyahu has also said Likud would retain the defense, national security, and justice portfolios, rejecting Ben Gvir’s ministerial demands.

Culture Minister Miki Zohar has gone further, publicly proposing a rotation government with Eisenkot, with Netanyahu serving first. President Isaac Herzog has also pledged to work to prevent another election. These signals leave open the possibility that Netanyahu’s pressure on Ben Gvir serves a second purpose: making room for an agreement with Eisenkot after the vote.

Nimr says Netanyahu may dispense with Ben Gvir if a broader political arrangement offers a better route to power. Much will depend on Likud’s seat count. With divisions running through the prospective coalitions, Netanyahu will calculate how many partners he needs and what he must concede to secure them.

If his bloc falls short, he will try to gather the necessary votes despite his partners’ conditions, including those of the religious parties. Nimr argues that Netanyahu’s overriding objective is a government he heads, even when the price conflicts with the preferences of his own party.

Eisenkot’s security alternative

Eisenkot has emerged as Netanyahu’s strongest challenger. A 16 October Maariv poll put him ahead on suitability for the premiership, with 48 percent support to Netanyahu’s 41 percent, and projected his Yashar party to win 21 seats against Likud’s 18. Other surveys differ in their margins, but repeatedly leave both camps without a governing majority.

Drawing on his tenure as military chief of staff between 2015 and 2019, Eisenkot presents himself as the candidate of security and unity. His program includes a state commission of inquiry into the October failures, a new national security doctrine, and a comprehensive service law covering Haredim and Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. For the Palestinians, the proposed obligation includes national civilian service, rather than universal military enlistment.

His alternative remains firmly within the state’s Zionist framework. He has made recognition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, adherence to the Declaration of Independence, and acceptance of service obligations conditions for coalition partners. He has excluded Palestinian parties on that basis.

Netanyahu and Eisenkot agree on preserving the Jewish state and its security doctrine. They disagree over who should lead it, which parties should share power, and who must serve in its armed forces.

The Haredi price of power

Shas and United Torah Judaism, polling at roughly 14–16 seats between them, sit at the sharpest point of disagreement. They remain central to Netanyahu’s coalition calculations, while their opposition to compulsory military service clashes with Eisenkot’s platform.

Their parliamentary weight makes any settlement over conscription inseparable from negotiations over the next government. Netanyahu has repeatedly sought to shield their constituency from the draft to preserve their support.

The legal basis for blanket Haredi exemptions was struck down in 2024. By October 2026, Israeli reporting put the total number of people classified as evading military service at around 110,000, approximately 80 percent of them Haredim.

The widening pool of draft evaders has made the religious parties’ exemptions increasingly difficult to separate from the burdens imposed on serving soldiers and reservists………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://scheerpost.com/2026/10/22/israels-right-fights-over-who-gets-to-rule-the-jewish-state/

October 26, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics | Leave a comment

Idaho could see nuclear boom as small modular reactors near reality; Twin Falls panel set for Oct. 27

As businesses and municipalities begin exploring small modular nuclear reactors, a panel and documentary come to the CSI campus to weigh Southern Idaho’s opportunities.

Lorien Nettleton, Idaho News 6 Oct 24, 2026

By:Lorien Nettleton

TWIN FALLS, Idaho — The pace of innovation for small nuclear reactors means Idaho could be faced with big opportunities and challenges as businesses and municipalities begin exploring the technology.

Idaho has been at the center of nuclear innovation for more than 75 years. About 17% of U.S. energy comes from nuclear, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Little to none of the nuclear power produced is in the Western United States, but Idaho Advanced Energy Consortium Executive Director Christi Gilchrist says that is about to change.

“I think the sky is the limit as we have been figuring out how to best deploy these as a nation,” Gilchrist said. “All those folks leaning in looking forward, we’re going to see an SMR deployed in Idaho in our lifetime.”……………………………………..https://www.kivitv.com/twin-falls/idaho-could-see-nuclear-boom-as-small-modular-reactors-near-reality-twin-falls-panel-set-for-oct-27

October 26, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Caitlin Johnstone – The Trumpanyahu Administration Is Preparing Another Iran Attack, And Other Notes

Caitlin Johnstone, 23 Oct 26, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-trumpanyahu-administration-is-179?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=221731326&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Well, it looks like they’re going to attack Iran again. Might be after the US midterms. Might be sooner.

President Trump is telling the press that he is done negotiating with the Iranians and that something will be happening “fairly soon”, while America’s other president, Benjamin Netanyahu, proclaims that the time has come to topple Tehran once and for all.

Haaretz reports that Netanyahu is calling for “preemptive strikes” on Iran, which is empire-speak for “attack completely out of the blue without any provocation or justification whatsoever”.

The New York Times reports that the US and Israel are preparing for an attack after the midterms, with sources claiming that “targets would likely include Iran’s energy infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and missile and drone arsenal” inflicted with the goal of collapsing the Iranian economy.

All this could perhaps be dismissed as empty bluster, except that NBC News is reporting that US troops are being evacuated from their posts in the middle east — exactly what happened in the lead-up to the US-Israeli attack on Iran last February.

Iran is warning that it will hit new targets and expand its strikes geographically in the event of a US/Israeli attack, saying “cables, data centers, artificial intelligence facilities, and numerous other sites will be destroyed” in order to damage US economic interests.

So I guess this is happening. Another brazen assault in an evil war of aggression that makes life harder for people all around the world.

The US empire must end.

Another choice quote from the Bell review on “antisemitism” in British schools which I missed in my write-up yesterday:

“British attitudes relating to Jewish people and Israel show two broad trends. AntiJewish attitudes are typically less prevalent and have remained more stable, whereas anti-Israel sentiments are more prevalent and have been increasing.”

The report explicitly acknowledges that hatred toward Jews is not on the rise, and that only anti-Israel sentiments are increasing. And yet they still published a 107-page review claiming that “antisemitism” is a major problem in British schools.

This tells you everything you need to know about what the word “antisemitism” actually refers to in today’s world. It just means criticism of Israel.

Hat tip to Nate Bear on Twitter for highlighting this quote.

Double Down News has a great report out explaining that the “antisemitism” review was based on heavily manipulated data, ultimately citing the claims of just 29 individuals to justify its outlandish claim that anti-Jewish discrimination is running rampant throughout the British school system.

Anyone who talks about “left wing antisemitism” like it’s a real thing should be immediately and permanently labeled a bad faith actor and an ideological enemy without any further discussion.

❖

Zionism is not a religion, it’s a political ideology which indisputably gives rise to apartheid and ethnic cleansing. You can tell me that your personal religious beliefs compel you to be a Zionist, but then I’ll say your religious beliefs are bad and you should change them. Your religion does not magically exempt you from the basic requirements of human decency.

It should not be taboo to say this. If your religious tolerance prohibits you from telling someone they shouldn’t espouse a racist political ideology which inflicts endless war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and abuse upon your fellow human beings, then you have too much religious tolerance.

October 25, 2026 Posted by | Iran, Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Jeffrey Sachs – A Framework for Peace in Ukraine

This proposed settlement—designed to help end a conflict that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and carries a continuing risk of confrontation—addresses the causes of the war rather than only its symptoms.

The trouble is – this would be difficult, tricky, time-consuming, to bring about. Just keeping on killing is so much quicker and easier – and indeed, fun, using all the newest toys. Negotiation is so boring – and old-fashioned stuff.


Jeffrey D. Sachs, Oct 20, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/framework-for-peace-in-ukraine

The war in Ukraine can be ended permanently on terms that protect Ukraine’s statehood, meet Russia’s security concerns, and lay the foundation for a durable European security order. As another round of negotiations gears up in Norway, I propose a settlement concluded as a single package, signed by Ukraine and Russia, adopted by a vote of the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, and guaranteed jointly by the five permanent members of the Council together with other states that choose to join. The proposal rests on the principle of indivisible security set out in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris.

The package would have four core commitments.

The first is Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, adopted in a constitutional law on the model of Austria’s law of 1955, which would return Ukraine to the founding choice of its Declaration of State Sovereignty of 1990. Ukraine would join no military alliance and host no foreign bases or forces, whether of NATO, the European Union, their member states, or Russia. Neutrality would not mean disarmament, and Ukraine would retain armed forces for its own defense.

The second is that Ukraine would pursue its candidacy for membership in the European Union as a permanently neutral state, with a neutrality protocol in its accession treaty on the model of Ireland’s, and Russia would affirm that Ukraine’s membership in the EU is consistent with Russia’s security.

The third is an armistice line drawn along the line of contact on the date of signature. Each side would exercise de facto jurisdiction on its side of the line, neither would recognize the other’s territorial claims, and both would renounce force in any future adjustment. This formula is compatible with both countries’ constitutions, which bar or severely restrict the cession of territory.1

The fourth is the end of NATO enlargement eastward. At signature the North Atlantic Council would declare that NATO will not admit Ukraine or other new members in Eastern Europe or the South Caucasus, withdrawing the Bucharest pledge of 2008.

The settlement would take effect as a permanent end of hostilities on signature, not as a temporary ceasefire, and its provisions would be implemented in stages under international verification. No element would be negotiated in isolation, and no party would be asked to make a concession in advance of signature.

The territorial arrangements are designed to address the concerns and claims of both sides. Ukrainian forces would withdraw from the part of Donetsk region that Ukraine now controls, which would become a demilitarized special zone. Russian forces would not enter it, the existing local civil administration would continue to function, and its final status would be left to negotiation. Russia would withdraw from the areas it holds in Dnipropetrovsk region and from the Kinburn Spit. A Northern Security Zone would be demilitarized on both sides of the Russian-Ukrainian border, and Russian forces would leave the areas they hold in Kharkiv and Sumy regions as Ukrainian forces withdraw from their side. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would remain under Russian control with IAEA safety oversight and would sell an agreed share of its electricity to Ukraine at cost.

A demilitarized belt would run along both sides of the armistice line, with heavy weapons and long-range strike systems withdrawn to agreed distances, and mutual ceilings on forces would apply in the border regions on both sides. In the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, commercial navigation would be free for all Ukrainian and Russian ports, and attacks on shipping and ports would be prohibited.

The settlement in Ukraine should also begin the repair of European security as a whole. NATO and Russia would agree on a moratorium on ground-launched intermediate-range missiles in Europe, refrain from deploying nuclear weapons in any additional state, and restore the NATO-Russia Council. Normal diplomatic relations would be restored on both sides. The parties would convene the first summit of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe since 2010 to entrust the OSCE with monitoring the settlement, verifying arms limits, and overseeing the provisions on rights.

Questions of language, education, culture, and religion would be resolved according to European standards, with the Russian language treated on the same basis as Ukraine’s other minority languages, and Russia would accept the same obligations toward Ukrainian speakers and religious communities on its side of the line. All obligations concerning extremism and incitement would be mutual and monitored by the OSCE. Prisoners of war would be exchanged on an all-for-all basis, detained civilians released, and separated children reunited with their families.

Sanctions would be lifted during 2027. Russia’s immobilized sovereign assets would also be released, and private property seized or immobilized on both sides would be restored. An international reconstruction fund administered by the European Investment Bank would finance reconstruction on both sides of the line, with contributions from all parties, Russia included, in a common effort rather than as reparations. Gas transit through Ukraine could resume wherever there are willing buyers, without any commitment by the European Union to purchase Russian gas.

A report of serious violation by an OSCE monitoring mission of unarmed observers from states outside NATO would trigger consultations among the guarantors and referral to the Security Council. Ukraine would lift martial law and hold elections under OSCE observation, and the newly elected Verkhovna Rada would ratify the settlement and adopt the constitutional law on neutrality, while the Russian Federal Assembly would ratify it at the same stage.

This proposed settlement addresses the causes of the war rather than only its symptoms. Europe has been largely absent from the design of the peace. By putting forward such a framework, European governments can take the lead in building Europe’s indivisible security and help end a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and carries a continuing risk of confrontation between nuclear powers.

October 25, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Nuclear Kills Kids – by Tony Webb

Tony Webb,, April 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.

Dr Tony Webb is a Fabian and a long-time community and environmental activist. He has worked on housing, unemployment, worker cooperatives, anti-nuclear, radiation and health, food policy, and energy/climate issues in the UK USA Canada and Australia. Along the way he picked up an MSc in Energy Resources Management and a PhD in Humanities.

(1) SOURCES……………………………………………………………….

October 25, 2026 Posted by | radiation | Leave a comment

State officials offered to store nuclear waste. Then residents found out.

As soon as details of the West Virginia proposal were disclosed, thanks to a public records request by the Charleston Gazette-Mail, the backlash was intense. Days after dismissing the report as “fake news,” Morrisey (R) withdrew the state from consideration altogether.

Wimer said everything about the site the state was proposing near Harpers Ferry was unworkable. The porous limestone is particularly ill-suited for storing toxic materials. Half the property is a federally protected conservation zone, forever honoring its status as a historic battlefield. The other half, she said, is underwater.

As soon as details of the West Virginia proposal were disclosed, thanks to a public records request by the Charleston Gazette-Mail, the backlash was intense. Days after dismissing the report as “fake news,” Morrisey (R) withdrew the state from consideration altogether.

Wimer said everything about the site the state was proposing near Harpers Ferry was unworkable. The porous limestone is particularly ill-suited for storing toxic materials. Half the property is a federally protected conservation zone, forever honoring its status as a historic battlefield. The other half, she said, is underwater.

West Virginia officials didn’t consult anyone on their proposal to host a “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus” for the Trump administration.

October 19, 2026, sed the plan to accept nuclear waste from other parts of the country. (Photos by Carlos Bernate/For The Washington Post)

By Evan Halper

HARPERS FERRY, W.Va. — The jagged limestone rocks of Old Standard Quarry have weathered many eras of history. The property was the site of a Civil War battle, then a quarry and is now a popular destination for bungee jumping, its dark green water fed by a natural spring.

Recently, the state proposed yet another use for the land: as storage for radioactive nuclear waste from around the country.

“I thought it was a joke,” said Pasha Majdi, president of the Jefferson County Commission. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

It wasn’t a joke. Without consulting residents or local officials, Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s energy office submitted a detailed pitch to the Trump administration offering the Jefferson County quarry and three other sites for a potential “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus.”

The Trump administration has said such campuses would need to agree to store spent nuclear fuel — one of the nation’s most vexing environmental problems — in exchange for federal support for research, development and production facilities that aim to modernize and grow the country’s nuclear power infrastructure.

The administration claims the campuses could create 25,000 jobs and generate tens of billions of dollars in private investment and tax revenue. Those economics are alluring to states eager for development.

Twenty-six expressed some manner of interest before the federal government chose Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Idaho and West Virginia as finalists.

“West Virginia is intentionally beginning with nuclear initiatives that are actionable and high‑value, particularly those tied to the spent and partially spent fuel stream and backend services, areas where the state can quickly demonstrate success and build momentum,” the state’s pitch promised. It assured that “West Virginia recognizes that for any project with potential community impacts, social buy-in and community alignment are foundational.”

But the way things played out in West Virginia underscored how community anxiety around nuclear waste is not easily overcome. That anxiety is why there is no comprehensive plan for permanently disposing of the tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel that already exists in the United States, much less for getting rid of the waste that could be generated with the quadrupling of nuclear power capacity President Donald Trump envisions.

As soon as details of the West Virginia proposal were disclosed, thanks to a public records request by the Charleston Gazette-Mail, the backlash was intense. Days after dismissing the report as “fake news,” Morrisey (R) withdrew the state from consideration altogether.

The Morrisey administration did not respond to requests for comment.

Energy Department spokesman Ben Dietderich said in an emailed statement that “the program has proven to be a huge success — with more than 25 states applying to participate — much of that success can be attributed [to] allowing states and local communities decide for themselves if an innovation campus is right for them.”

The West Virginia episode, though, left communities bewildered, the governor politically wounded and the nuclear waste problem unresolved.

The nuclear life cycle campus competition comes after the federal government tried — and failed — to create a repository for spent fuel for decades. Congress had designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the most suitable place for it. But local opposition derailed that plan.

Now, the focus is on finding a “consent-based” solution that would be developed in coordination with communities interested in developing facilities. Such a model has been successful in parts of Europe. It typically takes many years of deliberation and negotiation by the communities involved.

“I’m personally a bit skeptical that states are going to move as fast as the [Trump] administration wants or is expecting,” said Matt Bowen, a nuclear scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy who has been tracking the life cycle campus initiative.

The difficult conversations state officials need to have with the cities and counties that would host nuclear campuses are just getting underway. Nuclear industry officials say states taking a deliberative, democratic approach are getting genuine interest from communities that are viable candidates for a campus.

In West Virginia, though, state officials appear not to have communicated with each other or the towns they were offering up in their pitch. And their experience shows how quickly the process can go sideways.

Far from the fast-growing Harpers Ferry region, in economically struggling Boone County, the state’s nuclear pitch called for storing waste at what was once one of the largest mountaintop-removal coal mines in the country — an environmentally damaged site the state and local community have for years been seeking to convert into a redevelopment opportunity. The former coal-mining stronghold has lost nearly one-fifth of its population since 2010, as jobs disappeared.

But the nuclear campus proposal landed with a thud there, too. Local opposition quickly emerged. The area’s state representative expressed frustration on social media that the community had not been consulted and relief when the state scrapped the proposal.

The proposal had highlighted the potential benefits of a new state law, written for data center developers, that allows for fast-track approval of permits while bypassing local governments.

“It felt for many of us like: ‘Here we go again,’” said Christine Wimer, president of the Jefferson County Foundation, a conservation advocacy group. “This is the same old thing in West Virginia. People come here. They get the good stuff. We get taken advantage of.’”

Wimer said everything about the site the state was proposing near Harpers Ferry was unworkable. The porous limestone is particularly ill-suited for storing toxic materials. Half the property is a federally protected conservation zone, forever honoring its status as a historic battlefield. The other half, she said, is underwater.

“Limestone essentially works like a highway for waste,” said Cara Keys, a county commissioner, as she stood over the quarry. “You could put something here, and it could infect someone’s well 20 miles away. The fact that they thought this could be a nuclear waste dump is very concerning.”

Steve Pearson, editor of Jefferson County’s Observer Weekly newspaper, dove deep into the details of the proposal and emerged perplexed how it ever got submitted. “Even if you just wanted to build a warehouse, you could not do it there,” he said. “There is no land for it.”

Down the road from the quarry in Middleway, a remarkably well-preserved village of 18th- and 19th-century stone, brick and log buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, farmers were already exhausted trying to stop plans for a large water-bottling plant that developers are seeking to build over the vociferous objections of community leaders, who warn it would be an environmental mess. The news that the state hoped to store nuclear waste nearby left them stunned.

“I like to be left alone,” said David Liskey, 75, who has been in the area all his life. His ancestors started farming there in the mid-1700s. “People like it here the way it is. We don’t want what they are talking about doing.”

Gabby Wilson has only been in the area a short time, having recently relocated from North Carolina. But Wilson, the owner of Prismatic Art Studio in downtown Charles Town, was every bit as blunt as Liskey.

“It’s just gross,” she said of the nuclear campus proposal. “We moved here to get away from things like that.”

October 25, 2026 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Work begins in UK for arming new nuclear submarines at £7.75bn each

Work begins on Coulport building for Dreadnought submarines, 19th October, By Donald Erskine

WORK has started on a building which will arm the Royal Navy’s new multi-billion-pound nuclear submarines.

Naval Base Commander Clyde Commodore Andy Bray recently broke ground on a new facility at Royal Naval Armament Depot (RNAD) Coulport to support future classes of submarines.

Building 300 at the site will house the Vertical Embarkation System, or VES, a new facility used to load tactical weapons onto future Dreadnought-class deterrent submarines.

The House of Commons approved replacing the current submarines in 2016, despite opposition from anti-nuclear groups and campaigners concerned about the cost.

Built at a cost of £7.75bn per unit, four Dreadnought submarines will replace the current Vanguard ships, which constantly patrol the seas carrying ballistic missiles equipped with thermonuclear warheads.

The Trident system is designed to act as a deterrent to other nations with nuclear capability, as a first strike on the UK would not eliminate the ability to strike back, given some of the country’s weapons are continuously at sea.

The building is designed to receive, store, assemble, and maintain Spearfish torpedoes, the Royal Navy’s primary underwater weapon for both anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare. The VES will also be used to train personnel to handle the weapons…………………………………………………
https://www.helensburghadvertiser.co.uk/news/26648451.work-begins-coulport-building-dreadnought-submarines/

October 25, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Normality of Evil: Reflections on the “NAZA” Documentary

Yakov M. Rabkin 10/19/2026, https://www.juancole.com/2026/10/normality-reflections-documentary.html

Montréal Informed Comment, – Hannah Arendt’s characterization of Eichmann as representing “The Banality of Evil,” the subtitle of her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, shocked many people. It was later criticized in the wake of the discovery of her protagonist’s antisemitic pronouncements, unknown during his trial.

The new film NAZA, documenting the inner mechanisms of the Gaza genocide brings the concept of the banality of evil front stage again. Except that this time we have the testimonies of two dozen perpetrators who, unlike Eichmann, do not face a tribunal but share their experience mostly in a casual and relaxed manner, some with pride in their accomplishment, others with remorse. They sound like normal middle-class men and women conscientiously doing their challenging hi-tech job. These Israelis embody something different from the Nazis who tried to hide their crimes from their own people, whom they feared would not support them. The new film is about the normality of evil in a society that has largely accepted the genocide taking place less than forty miles south of Tel Aviv.

The twenty-four perpetrators interviewed in the film belong to elite intelligence units that harness the power of AI and total surveillance to destroy Gaza. They are not “Arab haters,” remarks one of the interviewees. Yet he believes he killed more women and children than the fiercest Arab hater. However abhorrent the ongoing West Bank pogroms against Palestinians by Zionist squatter-settler vigilantes taking place under the sympathetic gaze and occasional assistance of the IDF—the magnitude of mass murder of civilians in Gaza is incomparably greater.

The perpetrators come from privileged classes of upscale, glittering Tel Aviv, the visual background of the entire film. Among the leitmotifs of the testimonies are the readiness to obey orders and the delight of overcoming difficult technical challenges (technodélice, as the late Jean-Jacques Salomon defined it). “It was fun (kef),” admitted one of the perpetrators.

NAZA is a Hebrew acronym for collateral damage. The association with “Nazi” is not fortuitous; one of the perpetrators compares his experience with that of Nazis engaged in industrialized, albeit less sophisticated, mass murder in the early 1940s. When, like many young Israelis (and Jews from elsewhere), he was taken to visit Nazi extermination camps, he wondered how these Nazis could switch to normal life after killing thousands of people a day. Now, he admits, he knows. He would meet friends after a day of killing mostly women and children and enjoy his night out.

Initially, neither the Nazis nor the Zionists intended to commit genocide. In their exclusivist nationalist fantasies, German National Socialists wanted to expel the undesirables, to make the “purified,” expanded Germany great again and, in the case of the socialist Zionists in power in 1948 and 1967, when massive expulsions took place, to turn Palestine into a “Jewish state.” Both had land lust: the Nazis wanted fertile land in Eastern Europe ‘cleansed’ of most Slavs and all the Jews—while critics and political figures alike have described Israel’s territorial strategy as a pursuit of ‘a maximum of territory with a minimum of Arabs.’

From the turn of the 20th century, Zionist pioneers laid strong emphasis on breeding the intrepid and valiant New Hebrew Man who had broken with the victimhood of the past. In his eulogy for Theodor Herzl in 1904, Vladimir Jabotinsky, who established and shaped the now dominant stream of Zionism, defined the new creature thus:

Our starting point is to take the typical Yid of today and to imagine his diametrical opposite … because the Yid is ugly, sickly, and lacks decorum, we shall endow the ideal image of the Hebrew with masculine beauty. The Yid is trodden upon and easily frightened and, therefore, the Hebrew ought to be proud and independent.

It was only later, faced with resistance kindled by the settler movement, that Israelis assumed the role of innocent victims, forced to defend themselves. Visits to the Nazi extermination camps are essential components of the didactic tools used to forge hard-nosed fighters. No wonder most of them called the attack on southern Israel in October 2023 “the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.” Totally lost was the difference between powerless Jewish civilians targeted by the Nazis and the powerful Jewish state that had expelled and confined Palestinians in an open-air concentration camp in Gaza. Referring to the violence they unleash, the Israelis often use the expression ein brera (“there is no choice”), which preserves their self-image and justifies excesses. This is how the genocide has metastasized from Europe to West Asia.

The film’s protagonists explain how they use sophisticated technology to survey every telephone communication of the Palestinians. One of the phrases AI extracts from millions of conversations is “When does daddy come home?” This is how the decision is made to destroy the suspect’s home along with his wife and children. Behind their computer screens, those who determine such targets can later hear the cries of those wounded children who were waiting for their fathers a few minutes earlier.

Israel, many of whose politicians overtly advocate and pursue fascist policies, is justly proud of being a world leader in technological innovation, a “Start-up Nation.” Its qualitative edge over its neighbours, guaranteed in American law, involves close cooperation with the U.S. military-industrial-digital complex. Forthcoming legislation will formally embed the Israeli military in it. Unlike Ukraine, which serves mostly as a testing ground for Palantir and other Western facilitators of hi-tech warfare, Israeli scientists and engineers actively contribute to the development of new systems such as Lavender, which are widely used against the Palestinians. All this happens within the larger ecosystem of U.S. financial, material, and strategic support. Not only Washington, Berlin, and London but even Belgrade maintain the lifeline, or rather the deathline, of munitions, materiel, and cloud services to Israel. These enable it not only to oppress and kill Palestinians but also to attack other countries, doing, as Chancellor Merz of Germany candidly admitted, “the dirty work for all of us.” There is little doubt that Merz and his Western counterparts were aware all along of the methods that the new film exposes to the public.

Moreover, Israeli expertise in surveillance and population control is in demand around the world. This portends dangers to privacy and democracy elsewhere. Tools of total surveillance may tempt rulers concerned about potential social turmoil and even revolutions against the growing—and unprecedented—economic polarization. Sprouts of fascism have been noticed in a good part of the Political West. ICE activities to target undocumented immigrants in the United States may be just the beginning. The ruling classes’ need to protect their privilege foments connivance with Israel and thereby contributes to the country’s impunity.

Similarly, the penetration of Hezbollah with booby-trapped pagers, which led to the murder and mutilation of thousands of people in Lebanon and Syria in 2024, shows how vulnerable anyone may become by using deceptively inoffensive civilian gadgets. (NAZA does not mention this gruesome episode, which is the subject of another recent documentary.) Israeli officials have bragged that for them the stage is the entire world, and they are the main players on it. Ominously and proudly, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that everyone in the world carries a piece of Israel in his pocket.

The Nazi genocide of Jews, Slavs, and many others shocked Europeans mainly because the victims were fellow Europeans. Their genocides in Africa and the Americas had provoked no comparable revulsion. Another important cause of the shock is the rational organization of the Nazi genocide. Israelis in Gaza used hi-tech, including AI, to raise the level of organization to unprecedented levels. IDF specialists and snipers admit feeling like gods capable of killing people practically at will. Israeli media reported cases of depression when soldiers returned to civilian life. For some, the cause was the loss of the sense of omnipotence. They felt they were no longer gods but just nobodies lost in the crowd. Other IDF veterans experience depression in the face of world opprobrium, which they, convinced of their innocent victimhood, cannot comprehend and attribute to antisemitism.One of the Israelis interviewed in the film was assigned to the political wing, which had to use electronic media to besmirch, discredit, and undermine critics of Israel. (After NAZA was released in cinemas, Israelis promptly produced a fake misleadingly named “Naza: The Real Story. Full Film” in an effort to divert viewers from the original, which, unlike the fake, is so far not available online.) This operation contributes to repressive measures even against political, let alone material, support for the Palestinians in several European nations and in the United States. Criticism of Israel is criminalized as antisemitism. Israeli agents in these countries provide target data — most probably collected by the Israeli intelligence—to police, employers, and universities, which promptly move to intimidate, arrest, deport, sack, and expel the critics. While Israel undermines fundamental freedoms of speech and assembly in most Western countries, it nonetheless is losing the battle for public opinion.

Facing growing public disaffection in Europe and in the United States, Netanyahu promises to turn Israel into a “super-Sparta”—a heavily militarized, self-sufficient society capable of standing alone amid growing international isolation. Israeli politicians and military experts have long concluded that the official definition of Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state” is rent with tension between the two. Liberal democratic values —ostensibly cherished by Western democracies—have to yield to Jewish supremacy. Consequently, peace is no more than a temporary policy option for Israel. To paraphrase von Clausewitz, politics is the continuation of war by other means.

States are inanimate but are operated by individuals. While the psychological and political range among the Israelis is broad, the film NAZA illustrates the striking success of breeding the New Hebrew Man liberated from the moral constraints of Jewish tradition and humanity tout court.

One of Francisco Goya’s famous works is titled “El sueño de la razón produce monstruos.” It is usually understood as “when reason falls asleep, monsters appear.” But the Spanish sueño also means “dream” or “fantasy.” The Zionist state embodies the phrase “Wenn ihr wollt, ist es kein Märchen” (“When you will it, it is no fairy tale”), written by Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, over a century ago. (It bears a striking resemblance to the title of the Nazi cinematographic masterpiece Triumph des Willens, or The Triumph of the Will.) The project that appeared like a fantasy and a fairy tale came true by rational use of political, financial, and human resources. Israel’s actions show that instrumental rationality—a characteristic trait of modernity—can also produce monsters. Moreover, such monsters are convinced that they are normal, and so are most Israelis around them. This makes Israel a serious danger to the region, to the world and, of course, to itself.

Yakov M. Rabkin is Professor Emeritus of History at the Université of Montréal. His publications include over 300 articles and a few books: Israel in Palestine, Zionism Decoded in 101 Quotes Science between Superpowers, A Threat from Within: a Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, What is Modern Israel?, Demodernization: A Future in the Past and Judaïsme, islam et modernité. He did consulting work for, inter alia, OECD, NATO, UNESCO and the World Bank. E-mail: yakov.rabkin@umontreal.ca. Website: www.yakovrabkin.ca

October 25, 2026 Posted by | Israel, media, Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

Why trade is vital to understanding how Ukraine needs western capital to stay afloat and how Russia can pay for its war effort without new debt

Four graphs [on original]that tell a bigger story

Ian Proud, The Peacemonger, Oct 20, 2026

I have wanted to write an article for sometime about the differing fates of Russia and Ukraine since the onset of the conflict in 2014. The headline is that Ukraine has never made up the difference in increased trade with Europe having cut its trade with Russia to the bone since 2014. This has inadvertently meant that Europe has had to inject significant sums of capital into Ukraine just to prevent its currency from collapsing as the war has gone on. Russia has diversified its trade away from Europe such that its export model is as strong today as it was in 2014, giving it the liquidity it needs to underwrite the war effort.

Key finding:


  • Ukraine exported 24% less and imported 46% more in 2025 than in 2014. The war has driven up imports while exports never recovered from the signing of the DCFTA and have been hampered by the war effort.
  • The yawning trade deficit Ukraine has built since the war started has placed greater strain on European sponsors to provide the capital Ukraine needs to prevent its currency collapsing, in addition to providing funding to meet its fiscal requirements.
  • This funding challenge for Europe will persist after the war ends until Ukraine can become self-sufficient in boosting exports and/or attracting sufficient foreign investment to offset its trade deficits.
  • Russia’s export strength and consistent surpluses have been unaffected by war. After the Ukraine crisis started, Russia started to diversify its major energy exports away from Europe, allowing it to weather the progressive reduction of exports to Europe. Indeed, Russia gained a huge windfall in 2022 from surging energy prices. There is no evidence that sanctions have impacted Russia’s export model in a significant way.
  • Russia has already started to reaccumulate FX reserves after the oil price collapse of late 2014, until before the war started. Following the immobilisation of $300bn in Russian FX reserves, Russia started to accumulate reserves in monetary gold, to sanction-proof future earnings. Russia now has liquid reserves of over $420bn meaning the immobilisation of its foreign currency reserves is no longer an economically limiting factor.

Detailed analysis

Russia’s export model in which it runs consistently large trade surpluses has ensured it can generate the reserves of foreign currency and gold which have undoubtedly helped to bankroll the war in Ukraine. Ukraine’s trade deficit has yawned since the war started, requiring continual injections of European capital to prevent its currency from collapsing.

This helps to explain by Russia can sustain the war for longer; it doesn’t need to take on significant new debt, its debt remaining low at 20%. Ukraine can only fund the war and keep its national accounts in balance with European money that cannot be guaranteed long-term and which, in any case, has increased Ukrainian debt by an average of 20% of GDP each year since the war started. This is not sustainable.

The Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement of 2014 has disadvantaged Ukraine because it forced a choice away from trading with Russia.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

by encouraging Ukraine to trade with Europe and not with Russia, Europe has imposed a deadweight economic loss on Ukraine which took a sovereign decision to forgo a previously profitable trade relationship, to pursue a political goal of EU integration……………………………………………………………………………..

Dragged into a persistent and growth trade deficit by war, Ukraine needs continued injections of foreign funds to prevent its currency collapsing.…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………… While Russia would undoubtedly like to see the return of its immobilised assets after the war ends (big question mark) it has nevertheless built up a significant financial buffer to the tune of over $420bn in reserve assets in addition to those assets that remain frozen.

This deep well of reserves undoubtedly helps to underwrite Russia’s war effort without the need for significant borrowing. Russia’s debt today sits at around 20% of GDP.

In 2021 Ukraine’s debt sat at around 49% of GDP. Today it sits at around 110% of GDP……………………………………………… https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/why-trade-is-vital-to-understanding?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=221204744&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

October 25, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s Black Sea escalation threatens global trade, with risks of spiralling

Ukraine’s expanding Black Sea attacks are disrupting shipping, raising insurance costs, and threatening global food and energy trade. As “wild-card” Zelensky raises the stakes (angering the US), the risk of a wider confrontation grows.

Friday, October 16, 2026, https://infobrics.org/en/post/103298

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Black Sea shipping is in crisis, adding pressure to a global economy already absorbing Red Sea and Strait of Hormuz disruptions. Commercial vessels face rising risks, insurance costs have climbed, and tanker freight rates have surged.

Ukraine has stepped up attacks on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, ports, oil facilities, and vessels associated with Russian trade, expanding the conflict’s geographical scope. Grain, oil, fertilizers, and other commodities move through these waters, including shipments for non-belligerent countries.

S&P Global reported on October 9 that tanker freight rates rose sharply amid attacks, sanctions, and security concerns disrupting Russian energy exports. According to maritime security consultancy Ambrey, Kyiv expanded its campaign beyond naval assets and oil infrastructure to merchant ships trading with Russian ports.

In November 2025, attacks had already expanded to commercial vessels, particularly oil tankers, in the open sea. In May 2026, Ambrey attributed strikes on three Russia-linked tankers inside Turkey’s exclusive economic zone to Ukrainian naval drones.

By July, targeting expanded to dry-bulk carriers, general cargo, container ships, and roll-on/roll-off vessels. In September, insurers widened the high-risk zone. Ambrey data shows 45 merchant vessels struck outside the previous war-risk area in 12 months, 31 after July 1, 2026.

Ambrey’s finding is that Ukraine-attributed strikes (on Russia-linked shipping far offshore) helped drive insurers’ growing risk perception across the Black Sea.

Russia has responded by also conducting strikes in the Black Sea. As Modern Diplomacy puts it, Moscow has made any Black Sea truce conditional on Kyiv ceasing attacks on Russian energy infrastructure.

This is, after all, a proxy war of attrition, marked as it is by considerable military asymmetry. Russia possesses a larger population, defense-industrial base, strategic arsenal, air force, and navy, as well as greater resources for prolonged warfare.

Ukraine, despite developing formidable drone capabilities and long-range strike capacity, remains heavily dependent on Western assistance.

Global Firepower’s 2026 ranking places Russia second and Ukraine twentieth. The military asymmetry is therefore considerable.

The hard truth is that, notwithstanding any legitimate criticism one may have of Moscow’s campaign, Russia has refrained from employing its full destructive capabilities.

Such restraint, particularly in the war’s early stages, may have reflected not only humanitarian and military calculations but also (on Moscow’s end) awareness of historical and cultural ties between the two countries – which may have a psychological effect on decision-makers.

Kyiv, in contrast, since the 2014 ultra-nationalist revolution, has launched an anti-Russian campaign to distance the nation from Moscow. Even so, 42.6% of Ukrainians still regularly spoke Russian in December 2022, despite the war and media censorship restrictions.

Former US diplomat Chas Freeman and retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor have both argued that Moscow exercised restraint.

Poland’s Centre for Eastern Studies likewise noted in June 2022 that Russia had refrained from systematically destroying key infrastructure – while the US Congressional Research Service observed that the initial bombardment was more limited than expected.

For comparison, Bono Vox performed in Kyiv on May 8, 2022, less than three months after Moscow launched its campaign. One could hardly imagine Bono performing in Baghdad shortly after the US invasion! Or in 2011 Libya, for that matter.

The broader point here is that the Russian Federation retains substantial military advantages, despite Ukrainian advances, but Western support has enabled Kyiv to sustain a prolonged war of attrition – increasingly targeting Russian energy.

In August, Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian and Iranian-linked vessels in the Caspian Sea risked expanding the conflict into a vital Russia-Iran logistics corridor.

The attacks risked further “proxifying” the conflict by aligning Kyiv with US and Israeli interests against Tehran, potentially merging the European and Middle Eastern theaters – a scenario that never materialized.

In any case, Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure continue amid mounting political pressure, with Trump even saying it is “time for Ukraine to get new President.” I’ve commented before on Zelensky’s resilience, despite several reported plots against him.

The Ukrainian leader has shown a habit of acting unpredictably, sometimes behind his Western patrons’ backs. In 2023, leaked documents revealed wild Ukrainian plans that risked widening the conflict. More recently, attacks on Russian refineries drew attention amid rising diesel prices and reports of moves angering Washington.

This “wild-card” tendency risks triggering a dangerous spiral, with potentially disastrous consequences for Ukraine – and the global economy. Repercussions for food, energy, and fertilizer trade are already visible, while the danger of crossing red lines has arguably never been greater.

October 25, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment