Fixation on UK nuclear power may not help to solve climate crisis

Waste and cost among drawbacks, as researchers say renewables could power UK entirely

Paul Brown 10 May 24,  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/10/fixation-on-nuclear-power-in-uk-may-not-help-to-solve-climate-crisis

In the battle to prevent the climate overheating, wind and solar are making impressive inroads into the once dominant market share of coal. Even investors in gas plants are increasingly seen as taking a gamble.

With researchers at Oxford and elsewhere agreeing that the UK could easily become entirely powered by wind and solar – with no fossil fuels required – it seems an anomaly that nuclear power is still getting the lion’s share of taxpayer subsidies to keep the ailing industry alive.

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are backing as yet unproven small modular reactors (SMRs) as an indispensable part of the answer to the climate crisis and are running competitions to get this industry started. These reactors, from tiny ones of the type that power nuclear submarines, to scaled-up versions that can, in theory, be factory produced and built in relays to provide steady power, are all still in the design stage.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States points out, whichever model is chosen they have all the drawbacks of existing nuclear power stations; expensive, even without cost overruns, and the still unsolved waste problem. The biggest disadvantage, the group says, is that even if the technology worked it would be too little, too late, to keep the climate safe.

May 12, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Biden’s war on Gaza is now a war on truth and the right to protest

media has carefully refocused attention, dealing exclusively with the nature of the protests – and a supposed threat they pose to “order” – not addressing what the protests are actually about.  

As ever, establishment journalists have been essential to distracting from these horrendous realities. 

The student protest movement has been remarkably peaceful

The media’s role is to draw attention away from what the students are protesting – complicity in genocide – and engineer a moral panic to leave the genocide undisturbed

JONATHAN COOK, MAY 10, 2024, First published by Middle East Eye

As mass student protests quickly spread to campuses across the United States last week, and others took hold in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, the western media gave centre stage to one man to arbitrate on whether the demonstrations should be allowed to continue: US President Joe Biden. 

The establishment media reverentially relayed the president’s message that the protests were violent and dangerous, treating his assessment as if it had been handed down on a tablet of stone. 

Biden declared the protesters had no “right to cause chaos”, giving the green light for police to go in with even greater force to clear the encampments.  

This week, Biden raised the stakes further by suggesting the protests were evidence of a “ferocious surge” of antisemitism in the US. 

According to reports, more than 2,000 protesters have been arrested after some university administrators – under growing pressure from the White House and their own wealthy donors – called in local police. 

In approving the crushing of dissent, Biden contradicted himself: “We are not an authoritarian nation where we silence people or squash dissent. But order must prevail.”

One small problem went unmentioned: Biden was not a disinterested party. In fact, his conflict of interest was so gigantic it could, like the damage to Gaza, be seen from outer space. 

The students were calling on their universities to pull all investments from companies that are assisting Israel in carrying out what the World Court has called a “plausible” genocide in Gaza. Those weapons are being supplied in huge quantities largely thanks to the decisions of one man. 

Yes, Joe Biden. 

Law-breaking Biden

The “order” the US president wants to prevail is one in which his decisions to block any ceasefire and arm the slaughter, maiming and orphaning of many tens of thousands of Palestinian children go unchallenged. 

Biden has been so indulgent of Israel’s destruction of Gaza that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government crossed the president’s supposed “red line” this week. Israel launched the initial stages of its long-threatened final assault on Rafah in southern Gaza. Some 1.3 million Palestinians have been huddling in makeshift tents there. 

Biden could easily have forced Israel to change course at any point over the past seven months, but chose not to, even as he feigned concern about the ever-rising death toll among Palestinian civilians. Only under growing popular pressure, fuelled by the protests, has he finally appeared to pause arms shipments as the attack on Rafah intensifies.    

The White House has authorised vast shipments of arms to Israel, including 2,000lb bombs that have levelled whole neighbourhoods, killing men, women and children outright or leaving them trapped under rubble to slowly suffocate or starve to death.

Late last month Biden signed a further $26bn of US taxpayers’ money to Israel, the majority military aid – just as mass graves of Palestinians killed by Israel were coming to light. He has been able to do so only by flagrantly ignoring the requirement in US law that any weapons supplied not be used in ways likely to constitute war crimes. 

Human rights groups have warned his administration repeatedly that Israel is routinely breaking international law. 

At least 20 of Biden administration’s own lawyers are reported to have signed off on a letter that Israel’s actions violate a host of US statutes, including the Arms Export Control Act and Leahy Laws, as well as the Geneva Conventions.  

Meanwhile, the State Department’s investigations show that, even before Israel’s destruction of Gaza began seven months ago, five Israeli military units were committing gross violations of the human rights of Palestinians in the separate enclave of the Occupied West Bank. 

There, Israel doesn’t even have the one-size-fits-all excuse that the abuse and killing of Palestinian civilians are unfortunate “collateral damage” in an operation to “eradicate Hamas”. The West Bank is under the control of the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas, not Hamas.

Nonetheless, no action has been taken to stop the arms transfers. US laws, it seems, don’t apply to the Biden administration, any more than international law does to Israel.

Protest quicksand

In denying students the right to protest at the US arming of Israel’s plausible genocide, Biden is also denying them the right to protest the most consequential policy of his four-year term – and of at least the last two decades of US foreign policy, since the US invasion of Iraq. 

And it is all happening in a presidential election year.

The students’ immediate aim is to stop their universities’ complicity in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza. But there are two obvious wider goals.

The first is to bring attention back to the endless suffering of Palestinians in the tiny, besieged enclave. Until this week’s attack on Rafah, the plight of Gaza had increasingly dropped off front pages, even as Israeli-induced famine and disease tightened their grip over the past month. 

When Gaza has made the news, it is invariably through a lens unrelated to the slaughter and starvation. It is details of the interminable negotiations, or political tensions over Israel’s Rafah “invasion”, or plans for the “day after” in Gaza, or the plight of the Israeli hostages, or their families’ agonies, or where to draw the line on free speech in criticising Israel.

The students’ second goal is to make it politically uncomfortable for Biden to continue providing the weapons and diplomatic cover that have permitted Israel’s actions – from slaughter to starvation, and now the imminent destruction of Rafah. 

The students have been trying to change the national conversation in ways that will pressure Biden to stop his all-too-visible law-breaking. 

But they have run up against the usual problem: the national conversation is largely dictated by the political and media class in their own interests. And they are all for the genocide continuing, it seems, whatever the law says.

Which means the media has carefully refocused attention, dealing exclusively with the nature of the protests – and a supposed threat they pose to “order” – not addressing what the protests are actually about.  

Last Sunday, the head of the UN Food Aid Programme, Cindy McCain, warned that northern Gaza was in the grip of “full-blown famine” and that the south was not far behind. Dozens of children were reported to have died of dehydration and malnutrition. “It’s horror,” she said.  

The head of Unicef pointed out last week, a few days before Israel ordered the evacuation of eastern Rafah: “Nearly all of the some 600,000 children now crammed into Rafah are either injured, sick, malnourished, traumatized, or living with disabilities.” 

A separate UN report recently revealed it will take 80 years to rebuild Gaza, based on the historic levels of materials allowed in by Israel. On a highly unlikey, best-case scenario, it will take 16 years. 

As ever, establishment journalists have been essential to distracting from these horrendous realities. 

The students are caught in a protest equivalent of quicksand: the more they struggle to draw attention to the Gaza genocide, the more the Gaza genocide sinks from view. The media have seized on their struggle as a pretext to ignore Gaza and turn the spotlight on to their protests instead.

Feeling ‘unsafe’

The student protest movement has been remarkably peaceful – a fact that is all the more obvious when compared to the Black Lives Matter protests that swept the US in 2020, with Biden’s approval. 

Four years ago there were many episodes of property damage, but that has been all but unheard of in the student protests, which are mostly confined to encampments on university campus lawns………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/bidens-war-on-gaza-is-now-a-war-on?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=476450&post_id=144499809&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

May 12, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australia doesn’t need nukes: International Energy Agency boss

AFR, Hans van Leeuwen, Europe correspondent, 10 May 24

Paris | Australia does not need to join the global nuclear energy renaissance, and should focus on its advantages in renewable energy, the head of the International Energy Agency says.

In an interview with AFR Weekend in Paris, Fatih Birol, one of the world’s most influential energy officials, challenged the Coalition’s plan to make nuclear power a centrepiece of Australian energy policy.

“When I look around the world, nuclear is making a strong comeback. I have been a proponent of nuclear for many years,” he said.

“But if there is a country that has a lot of resources from other sources, such as solar and wind, I wouldn’t see nuclear as a priority option. I’m talking about Australia now.”

The IEA supported France, Britain and Japan making a renewed push on nuclear, Dr Birol said. But the time frame for starting a nuclear industry from scratch, as Australia would have to, was too long. “For Australia, we have other priorities to push,” he said.

He said this also applied to small modular reactors, which are less costly to build but are not yet commercially proven.

“If we get these small, modular reactors technologically and economically competitive by the mid-2030s, it would be good news,” he said.

But for Australia, “you’ve seen a lot of untapped potential in solar and wind – in Australia I would put the priority on those technologies”.

Dr Birol said he was aware that energy security and the clean-energy transition was a hotly contested issue in Australia.

“In Australia you have a lot of discussions on those things. I hope the discussions can be made more factual, less emotional and political,” he said.

Dr Birol, who has led the IEA since 2015, has turned the Paris-based agency into a major champion of the energy transition and the net zero agenda…………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/australia-doesn-t-need-nukes-international-energy-agency-boss-20240510-p5jcge

May 11, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

‘The stakes could not be higher’: world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns.

Top climate figures respond to Guardian survey of scientists who expect temperatures to soar, saying leaders must act radically

• Climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target

Damian Carrington Environment editorFri 10 May 2024 00.00 AESTShare

The world is on the verge of a climate abyss, the UN has warned, in response to a Guardian survey that found that hundreds of the world’s foremost climate experts expect global heating to soar past the international target of 1.5C.

A series of leading climate figures have reacted to the findings, saying the deep despair voiced by the scientists must be a renewed wake-up call for urgent and radical action to stop burning fossil fuels and save millions of lives and livelihoods. Some said the 1.5C target was hanging by a thread, but it was not yet inevitable that it would be passed, if an extraordinary change in the pace of climate action could be achieved.

The Guardian got the views of almost 400 senior authors of reports by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Almost 80% expected a rise of at least 2.5C above preindustrial levels, a catastrophic level of heating, while only 6% thought it would stay within the 1.5C limit. Many expressed their personal anguish at the lack of climate action.

“The goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C is hanging by a thread,” said the official spokesperson for António Guterres, the UN secretary general. “The battle to keep 1.5C alive will be won or lost in the 2020s – under the watch of political and industry leaders today. They need to realise we are on the verge of the abyss. The science is clear and so are the world’s scientists: the stakes for all humanity could not be higher.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/09/world-is-on-verge-of-climate-abyss-un-warns

May 10, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Don’t Believe the Washington War Machine: Putin Is Not Going to Invade Another NATO Ally

May 06, 2024, By Rebekah Koffler, president of Doctrine & Strategy Consulting, former DIA intelligence officer.  https://www.newsweek.com/dont-believe-washington-war-machine-putin-not-going-invade-another-nato-ally-opinion-1897533?utm_source=AM+Nukes+Roundup&utm_campaign=71082f760d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_07_25_12_19_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_547ee518ec-71082f760d-391880373

The primary reason for continuing to flow billions of dollars in cash and weaponry to Ukraine for what is clearly becoming another Afghanistan, is that if we don’t, Putin will march through Europe, invading a NATO country such as Poland or the Balkans. In this case, the U.S. would have to deploy armed forces to fight off the Russians to defend the Europeans. These are the talking points that the Washington Establishment politicians and their fellow commentariat members in the media have been using to convince the American people to continue parting with their hard-earned money. In fact, even Speaker Mike Johnson, who as a rank-and-file Right-wing Congressman opposed the funding of Ukraine’s war effort, recently signed off on another massive foreign aid package, $95 billion worth, the bulk of which is designated for Kyiv.

“I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed,” said Johnson, justifying the spending of another $61 billion on a what serious analysts assess as a unwinnable war. “I think he might go to the Balkans next. I think he might have a showdown with Poland or one of our NATO allies,” asserted Johnson.

But is it true?

Evidence indicates that this justification for depleting U.S. treasury and weapons arsenal represents a lack of understanding of Putin’s thinking and Russia’s security strategy—and the incompetence of our national security apparatus. At worst, it is a lie fed to the American people for some other reason.

Here’s why Putin is highly unlikely to invade a NATO nation:

Many in the West view Putin as a reckless dictator with imperial ambitions. As someone who spent her intelligence career studying and analyzing Putin’s thinking and Russia’s war-fighting doctrine and security strategy, I’m here to tell that while Putin is a typical Russian dictator, he is entirely rational.

Putin invaded Ukraine to enforce his version of the Monroe Doctrine, to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, and to restore the strategic buffer zone on which Russia relied for its security for centuries. No sane military commander would allow an adversarial alliance to situate itself along more than 1,000 miles of its border.

Putin never made it a secret what his goals were for Ukraine as well as other former Soviet states, such as Belarus, Moldova, and Georgia. In every public speech or official writing, the Russian strongman clearly declared that post-Soviet nations, including Ukraine, were off limits for Western influence; accepting them into NATO would be crossing Russia’s red line.

Moreover, every strategic planning document of the Russian Federation, such as its Foreign Policy Concept, National Security Strategy, Military Doctrine and the like, in every iteration since 2000 and in some cases since 1993, codify Moscow’s strategic goals of re-integrating the post-Soviet neighbors into a supranational alliance that Moscow calls The Eurasian Union.

By contrast, no plans to “integrate” or take by force a NATO member nation have been declared in any Russia’s official doctrinal documents or official speeches made by Putin or the Kremlin.

As a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer and one of top three analysts on Russian Doctrine & Strategy who worked with the CIA‘s National Clandestine Service, I had access to the most sensitive intelligence—including Top Secret intelligence, with code word sub-compartments and red stripes indicating for President’s Eyes Only. There was no intelligence revealing or suggesting that Putin had designs on Europe beyond the post-Soviet states. We’ve conducted multiple wargames simulating a Russia-US/NATO war and in all of the scenarios, a local conflict between Russia and its post-Soviet neighbor escalated into a war with the U.S. and NATO. No scenario included Russia attacking a NATO country that it did not consider as part of its strategic buffer zone.

In fact, none of the Intelligence Community’s annual threat assessments that are published at the unclassified level by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, including the one for 2024, include analysis suggesting that Putin would invade a NATO member.

If such intelligence existed, you can be sure that it would be declassified immediately. Wouldn’t the powers that be want the American people to be on board with continuing to fund another forever war? The intelligence agencies, in the past several years, have routinely declassified even highly sensitive intelligence if it serves the purpose of the political class. They also routinely leak intelligence to left-leaning media, such as The Washington Post and the New York Times.

To the contrary, several U.S. intelligence assessments contradict the Washington Establishment’s narrative that Putin would invade a NATO member. An invasion of a NATO country would undoubtedly trigger Article 5 Collective Defense, which would require the deployment of NATO forces to defend the invaded NATO member. Claims that Putin would want a war with NATO on his hands is unequivocally disputed by the following statement from the 2024 Annual Threat assessment by the intelligence community, that “Russia almost certainly does not want a direct military conflict with U.S. and NATO forces and will continue asymmetric activity below what it calculates to be the threshold of military conflict globally.”

The following excerpts from the 2024 assessment entirely refute the idea that Russia has the military and economic capacity to invade a NATO country, triggering a war with NATO:

“Russia has suffered more military losses than at any time since World War II—roughly 300,000 casualties and thousands of tanks and armored combat vehicles.”

“Moscow’s military forces will face a multi-year recovery after suffering extensive equipment and personnel losses during the Ukraine conflict.”

“The Russian military has and will continue to face issues of attrition, personnel shortages, and morale challenges.”

“Russia’s GDP is on a trajectory for modest growth in 2024 but its longer-term competitiveness has diminished in comparison to its pre-war outlook.”

Finally, U.S. and NATO leaders knew as early as in 2013 and possibly earlier about Putin’s plans to restore Russia’s strategic security perimeter. As a former senior official in the U.S. intelligence community, I personally briefed President Obama’s White House national security staff on Putin’s plans and Russia’s war-fighting strategy multiple times. I also briefed countless top U.S. military commanders and Pentagon officials, as well as NATO ministers and military leaders, including just months prior to Putin’s invasion of Crimea in 2014.

As vice president at the time, the go-to person on Ukraine policy, and the architect of the failed Russia “reset” strategy, Joe Biden had to be made aware of those briefings. If anyone in the U.S. and NATO senior leadership thought that Putin would invade a NATO country, why didn’t they beef up there defense spending prior to Russia’s attack on Ukraine in 2022? To this day, the majority of NATO nations fail to spend the two percent of GDP guideline on defense.

Putin is clearly a typical Russian dictator and a bad dude. But he is not suicidal. Invading a NATO country is not part of his agenda.

If Washington elites are hell bent on continuing to fund another forever war, impoverishing ordinary Americans, as inflation is raging in our homeland, they should pick a more clever excuse.

May 10, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

TODAY. What is special about “Turning Point -The Bomb and Cold War”?

“This is the most important turning point of the human race.“

EPISODE 1 – The Sun Came Up Tremendous

This Netflix series is well researched, and visually brilliant. What makes it so different, and remarkable, is its study of the psychological aspect, especially the powerful effect of mass psychology.

Like all historical documentaries, it’s all about the men. However, Ironically, Lisa Meitner, discoverer of nuclear fission, does get a mention. But still they don’t mention that this illustrious nuclear physicist was invited to join the Manhatton Project, but refused – “would have nothing to do with a bomb”

By the way – this documentary uses authentic film and dialogue. I was impressed to see how accurately the ‘”fictionalised” version – the film “Oppenheimer”, had portrayed the people and the events – uncanny likenesses in several cases.

**********************************************

Cold war – it’s a state of conflict with a nuclear-armed opponent, functionally hostile to each other where you can’t get at each other. We’re in a new cold war with the Russians.

The Ukraine war brings the return of the cold war.

*************************************

Cold war at its peak, touched every country. The Cold War set off an arms race, for the first war that could destroy civilisation. The Bomb disrupted international relationships. It brought new scale of awfulness. There have been close shaves – we were lucky.

“once humans stop seeing each other as humans, the most horrific acts are possible”

This episode covers the history of the bomb, from the discovery of nuclear fission by Lisa Meitner and Otto Hahn 1938. That lead to Oppenheimer forming the idea of the bomb

With the rise of Hitler came the fear of a 1000 year Reich armed with atomic bombs? Einstein was alarmed and encouraged Roosevelt to develop the atomic bomb. Germany and Russia formed a non aggression pact. Then the Japan dictatorship joined them.

The 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour hastened the Manhattan Project in USA to build the bomb Russia joins Britain, France and USA – as Germany invades Russia. The USA sends weapons to Russia.

In 1942 control of Manhattan Project was turned over from the scientists to the military . General Groves picks Oppenheimer. Secrecy ++. Aim was to beat Hitler

Roosevelt dies April 1945. Truman knows nothing about the Manhattan Project. Henfy Stimson, Secretary of war warns President Truman in a ‘memo – “What is the world going to look like, after an atomic bomb is used?”

This is the most important turning point of the human race.

Truman’s next task :- the war against Japan could last for months, years, How to galvanise public opinion – the enormous task of making the Americans hate the Japanese enough. to fight them in a war. Germans were depicted as sinister enemies – but they were still seen as icy human beings- but the Japanese were portrayed as a sub-species.

Leading up to the bomb- USA fire-bombed Tokyo – 87000 killed -people burned like matchsticks. Then Battle of Okinawaa – 12000 US soldiers killed

Truman needed to find a way to end a war without an invasion – at the lowest cost to American lives. Already there’d been 65 million deaths in WW2. People thought of a quick ending as a deliverance. The hastily tested the atomic bomb in the Mexican desert -Trinity test. New Mexicans werecnot evacuated, At a girls’ dance camp 40 mikes away- white ash – “hot snow” – their health seriously affected;

There was general relief that the bomb worked.

Oppenheimer reacted – “We knew the world would never be the same – I am become death – the destroyer of worlds”.

The Potsdam conference brought up the idea of the arrangements for the end of the war in Japan. Following the division of Berlin., Truman didn’t want division of Japan, was keen to get the war over. Churchill said, on hearing of the atomic bomb – “Now we can tell the Russians where to get off”

Truman sought unconditional surrender from Japan. There was a prevailing hatred between the US and Japan.

We see and hear the tragic personal stories of Japanese-Americans – in concentration camps – the racial factor against Japan

Atomic bomb was aimed to convince the Japanese to surrender. Hiroshima was not a military site – 90% civilians.

Here again -compelling Personal stories. Excellent film footage of the bombing and its results. The fireball had a core temperature of several million degrees – ferocious heat unleashed on the city – survivors burnt – severe burns. Rivers littered with corpses. horrendous injuries due to black rain.

Nagasaki Fat Man was a plutonium bomb. Again – Fearful shots of injuries.

Truman initially was thrilled – but learning of reports from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, changed – ordered no further bombs with president’s authorisation.

The dispute over Truman’s choice to use the atomic bomb. Truman’s advisor Stimson wrote that Japan was effectively beaten. No need to use the atomic bomb.

It was dropped in non-military cities The atom bomb was the first strike in the cold war? When the Russians came in, that would end the war. It was not a question of ending the war. It’s a brutal question of ending the war without the Russians The USA desperately wanted to end the war before the Russians got to Japan.

That is certainly not the dominant point of view. There was overwhelming support, especially in the USA for the use of the bomb. A strong feeling of vengeance,

But then – from 1946, there were voices, including senior military voices, that the use of the bomb was not necessary

The wartime alliance with the Soviet Union broke down quickly

The Soviet Union now controlled half of Europe. In a strong position? The bomb introduces a whole new element of uncertainty into the balance of power. Stalin’s decree: 2 weeks after the Hiroshima bombing Stalin signs a decree “Build the bomb as soon as possible”

USA, Europe Russia lurch towards the cold war – A cold war, not a hot one, because these weapons could never be used

Now instead of direct war – there would be economic rivalry, and proxy wars across the world. The driving force became fear.

May 9, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

12 years behind schedule, France’s Flamanville 3 nuclear plant gets regulatory approval for trial period

 Electricite de France SA got regulatory approval to start up its new
nuclear reactor 12 years behind schedule after the utility faced
construction problems ranging from concrete weakness to faulty pipe welds.
The green light for commissioning of the Flamanville 3 nuclear plant
located in Northwestern France allows EDF to load the fuel in the reactor,
proceed with trials, then begin operations, the Autorite de Surete
Nucleaire said in a statement on Tuesday.

Further approvals will be
required when reaching key milestones during the trial phase, the regulator
added said. Once connected to the grid, the 1.6-gigawatt plant called a
European Pressurized Reactor will join EDF’s fleet of 56 reactors in
France, which accounted for about two-thirds of the country’s power
production last year.

 Bloomberg 7th May 2024

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/edf-gets-approval-to-start-long-delayed-nuclear-plant-in-france-1.2069909

May 9, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NATO escalation in Ukraine threatens nuclear war with Russia

Now, however, Macron says NATO aims not to seek a negotiated peace, but to force the Russian military to assume that NATO may adopt the most aggressive possible policy. This includes possibly launching not only a large-scale land invasion of Russia, but also—since France, Britain and the United States all refuse to rule out initiating the use of nuclear weapons in a war—a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russian forces in Ukraine or on Russian cities.

It is high time for Biden and his NATO colleagues to tell the people that their pursuit of “victory in Ukraine” means risking nuclear war

Alex Lantier, 6 May 2024 https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/05/07/qtgn-m07.html

There are growing indications that NATO’s war against Russia is entering a new stage of escalation that threatens to lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Top NATO officials are publicly talking about resorting to missile strikes and ground war against Russia, while Russian officials are warning they may launch counter-strikes on NATO countries.

Last week, 100 artillerymen and surveillance specialists of the French Foreign Legion were deployed to the front lines at Slavyansk in Ukraine, according to a report by former US Undersecretary for Defense Stephen Bryen in the Asia Times. Bryen said a further 1,500 French Foreign Legionnaires could soon deploy to Ukraine. He wrote that one consequence of this is “potentially triggering a pan-European war.”

While the French Foreign Ministry denied Bryen’s report, it is in line with President Emmanuel Macron’s previous calls for a ground war with Russia. Macron and other top NATO officials are now reasserting these comments in an aggressive press campaign. Last week, in The Economist, Macron again demanded that NATO be ready to send ground troops to Ukraine:

If the Russians were to break through the front lines, if there were a Ukrainian request—which is not the case today—we would legitimately have to ask ourselves this question.

This weekend, the Italian daily La Repubblica reported on further NATO war plans. It cited secret NATO agreements allegedly defining two “red lines,” Belarus’ entry into the war and a Russian “provocation” targeting Poland, Hungary or the Baltic States. If either of these “red lines” were crossed, NATO would mobilize 100,000 troops across Eastern Europe, from the Baltic states to Romania.

Also, last Thursday, UK Foreign Minister David Cameron went to Kiev, where he said Ukraine has the “absolute right” to use British long-range missiles to bomb Russia.

This weekend, Macron told the French financial newspaper La Tribune that NATO must create total uncertainty about its actions in Russia’s military command:

President Putin has constantly brandished the nuclear threat. Faced with such an adversary, it is such an act of weakness to give a priori limits on one’s own actions! We must on the contrary deny him any idea of what we might do. This is how we can deter him from taking action.

Macron’s statements illustrate the mood of utter recklessness prevailing in ruling circles. During the Cold War, US and Soviet officials installed an emergency hotline between the White House and the Kremlin, fearing that nuclear war could erupt accidentally if one side misread the intentions of the other and believed the opponent had launched a nuclear strike. On September 26, 1983, this nearly occurred, when Soviet early warning systems falsely indicated that US forces had launched nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union.

Now, however, Macron says NATO aims not to seek a negotiated peace, but to force the Russian military to assume that NATO may adopt the most aggressive possible policy. This includes possibly launching not only a large-scale land invasion of Russia, but also—since France, Britain and the United States all refuse to rule out initiating the use of nuclear weapons in a war—a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russian forces in Ukraine or on Russian cities.

Whether or not French troops are already deployed in Ukraine, the Kremlin is clearly taking these reports seriously. The “strategic ambiguity” Macron said he wanted to build in NATO relations with Russia has been established. Increasingly convinced that NATO may catastrophically escalate the conflict, Russian officials are calling to prepare the most drastic measures in response, creating conditions for a disastrous escalatory spiral in the war.

Yesterday, the Kremlin announced that it would hold military exercises simulating the use of nuclear weapons. Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov called the nuclear exercises a response to an “unprecedented stage in the escalation of tensions initiated by the French president and the British foreign secretary,” including “an intention to send armed contingents to Ukraine—that is, to actually put NATO soldiers in front of Russian troops.”

Extraordinary warnings emerged after the Russian foreign ministry summoned the British and French ambassadors yesterday to protest the statements of Cameron and Macron.

It warned UK Ambassador to Russia Nigel Casey that Cameron’s statements made Britain “a de facto party to the conflict” between Ukraine and Russia, the Guardian wrote. “Casey was told that in response to Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory with British weapons, any British military facilities and equipment on the territory of Ukraine and abroad could be targeted,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Yesterday, on his Telegram channel, former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev bluntly stated that if NATO continues on its course, Russia could bomb Washington, Paris and London amid a “world catastrophe.” Medvedev wrote:

There is some kind of total degradation of the ruling class in the West. This class really does not want to logically connect elementary things. Sending your troops to the territory of Ukraine will entail the direct entry of their countries into the war, to which we will have to respond. And, alas, not only in the territory of Ukraine.

In this case, none of them will be able to hide either on Capitol Hill, or in the Elysée Palace, or in 10 Downing Street. A world catastrophe will come.

On May 4, introducing the International Committee of the Fourth International’s (ICFI) May Day online rally, David North warned of the danger that the NATO war against Russia in Ukraine could escalate into a nuclear world war. Citing US-UK pledges to arm NATO’s Ukrainian puppet regime with long-range missiles that can strike major Russian cities, North said:

But what if Putin, invoking the precedent set by President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, declares, paraphrasing Kennedy’s warning, that attacks on Russian territory by Ukraine with missiles supplied by NATO “will be regarded as an attack” by NATO upon Russia, “requiring a full retaliatory response” upon NATO countries?

It is high time for Biden and his NATO colleagues to tell the people that their pursuit of “victory in Ukraine” means risking nuclear war and describe in necessary detail what will happen to their countries and the world if the confrontation with Russia goes nuclear.

There was no trace of exaggeration in this warning, which has been confirmed in barely three days.

The strongest possible appeal must be made to workers and youth around the world: If the working class does not intervene against the capitalist governments to stop this escalation, one or another confrontation will ultimately escalate into nuclear war.

The greatest danger is that masses of workers and youth are not fully aware of the urgency of the risk of a catastrophic global war. They must be alerted and mobilized through an international movement of meetings, protests and strikes, aiming to build a mass, socialist anti-war movement in the international working class.

May 9, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment