Chris Hedges: Craig Murray on the ‘Slow Motion Execution’ of Assange
And I saw, 100% for certain, that the judge came into court with her ruling already typed out before she heard the arguments, and she sat there almost pretending to listen to what the defense was saying for now and what the prosecution was saying for now. Then she simply read out the ruling.
Chris Hedges: She’s like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland giving the verdict before she hears the sentence.
SCHEERPOST, September 17, 2023
Julian Assange continues to fight extradition to the United States to face prosecution under the Espionage Act, a growing chorus of voices is rising to demand an end to his persecution. Hounded by US law enforcement and its allies for more than a decade, Assange has been stripped of all personal and civil liberties for the crime of exposing the extent of US atrocities during the War on Terror. In the intervening years, it’s become nakedly apparent that the intent of the US government is not only to silence Assange in particular, but to send a message to whistleblowers and journalists everywhere on the consequences of speaking truth to power. Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who was fired for exposing the CIA’s use of torture in the country, joins The Chris Hedges Report to discuss what Julian Assange’s fight means for all of us.
TRANSCRIPT
Chris Hedges: Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, was removed from his post after he made public the widespread use of torture by the Uzbek government and the CIA. He has since become one of Britain’s most important human rights campaigners and a fierce advocate for Julian Assange as well as a supporter of Scottish independence. His coverage of the trial of former Scottish first minister Alex Salman, who was acquitted of sexual assault charges, saw him charged with contempt of court and sentenced to eight months in prison. The very dubious sentence, half of which Craig served, upended most legal norms. He was sentenced, supporters argued, to prevent him from testifying as a witness in the Spanish criminal case against UC global director, David Morales, being prosecuted for installing a surveillance system in the Ecuador embassy when Julian Assange found refuge that was used to record the privileged communications between Julian and his lawyers.
Morales is alleged to have carried out this surveillance on behalf of the CIA. Murray has published some of the most prescient and eloquent reports from Julian’s extradition hearings and was one of a half dozen guests, including myself, invited to Julian and Stella’s wedding in Belmarsh Prison in March 2022. Prison authorities denied entry to Craig, based on what the UK Ministry of Justice said were security concerns, as well as myself from attending the ceremony.
Joining me to discuss what is happening to Julian Assange and the rapid erosion of our most basic democratic rights is Craig Murray.
And to begin, Craig, I read all of your reports from the trial which are at once eloquent and brilliant. It’s the best coverage that we’ve had of the hearings. But I want you to bring us up to date with where we are with the case at this moment.
Craig Murray: Yeah. The legal procedures have been extraordinarily convoluted after the first hearings for the magistrate ruled that Julian couldn’t be extradited, on essentially, health grounds. Due to the conditions in American prisons, the US then appealed against that verdict. The high court accepted the US appeal on extraordinarily dubious grounds based on a diplomatic note giving certain assurances which were conditional and based on Julian’s future behavior. And of course, the US government has a record of breaking such assurances, and also, those assurances could have been given at the time of the initial hearing and weren’t.
Chris Hedges: I don’t think those assurances have any… It was a diplomatic note. It has no legal validity.
Craig Murray: It has no legal validity. It’s not binding in any sense. And as I say, it is in itself conditional. It states that they may change this in the future. It actually says that –
Chris Hedges: Well, based on his behavior.
Craig Murray: – Based on his behavior, which they will be the sole judges of.
Chris Hedges: Of course.
Craig Murray: And which won’t involve any further legal process. They will decide he’s going into a supermax because they don’t like the way he looks at guards or something. It’s utterly meaningless. And so the US, having won that appeal so Julian could be extradited, it was then Julian’s turn to appeal on all the points he had lost at the original extradition. Those include the First Amendment, they include freedom of speech, obviously, and they include the fact that the very extradition treaty under which he’s being extradited states that there shall be no political extradition and this is plainly a very political case and several other important grounds. That appeal was lodged. Nothing then happened for a year. And that appeal is an extraordinary document. You can actually find it on my website, CraigMurray.org.uk.
I’ve published the entire appeal document and it is an amazing document. It’s an incredible piece of legal argument. And some of the things it sets out like the fact that the US key witness for the charges was an Icelandic guy who they paid for his evidence. They paid him for his evidence and he is a convicted pedophile and convicted fraudster. And since he has said he lied in his evidence and he just did it for the money. That’s one example of the things you find. The documentation is not dry legal documentation at all. It’s well worth going and looking through Julian’s appeal. That appeal ran to 150 pages plus supporting documents.
For a year, nothing happened. Then two or three months ago it was dismissed in three pages of double-spaced A4, in which the judge, Judge Swift, said that there were no legal arguments, no coherent legal arguments in this 150 pages and it followed no known form of pleading and it was dismissed completely. And the thing is that the appeal was written by some of the greatest lawyers in the world. It’s supervised and written by Gareth Pierce, who I would say is the greatest living human rights lawyer. Those people have seen the film In the Name of the Father, starring Daniel Day-Lewis…………………………………….
She’s won numerous high-profile cases. She has enormous respect all around the world and this judge, who is nobody, is saying that there’s no validity to her pleadings which follow no known form of pleading. This is quite extraordinary.
Chris Hedges: Am I correct in that he was a barrister, essentially, for the defense ministry? He was served the interests of the UK government and that’s essentially got him his position. Is that correct?
Craig Murray: Exactly. He was the lead barrister for the security services. Well, he was a banister who specialized in working for the security services.
……………………………………………………And I saw, 100% for certain, that the judge came into court with her ruling already typed out before she heard the arguments, and she sat there almost pretending to listen to what the defense was saying for now and what the prosecution was saying for now. Then she simply read out the ruling.
Chris Hedges: She’s like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland giving the verdict before she hears the sentence.
……………………………..On the most basic level, the evisceration of attorney-client privilege because UC Global recorded the meetings between Julian and his lawyers, that in a UK court, as in a US court alone, should get the trial invalidated
Craig Murray: In any democracy in the world, if your intelligence services have been recording the client’s attorney consultations, that would get the case thrown out. ………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….at times it seemed as though they were deliberately doing things as slowly as possible.
Chris Hedges: Well, this is what Neils Melzer, the special repertoire on torture for the UN, said that he called it, a slow motion execution, were his words.
………………………………..Craig Murray: It was because of my advocacy for and friendship with Julian. That’s why they put me in jail. I was in the cell, my cell was 12 feet by eight feet which is slightly larger than Julian’s cell, and I was kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, sometimes 23.5 hours a day for four months. And that’s extremely difficult. It’s extremely difficult. But I knew when I was leaving, I had an end date. To be in those conditions as Julian has been for years and years and no idea if it will ever stop, no idea if you’ll ever be let out alive, let alone not having an end date, I can’t imagine how psychologically crushing that would be……………………………………………………………………………….
Craig Murray: The immediate thing that will happen is that Julian’s lawyers will try to go to the European Court in Strasbourg –
Chris Hedges: To the European Court of Human Rights.
Craig Murray: – The European Court of Human Rights to submit an appeal and get the extradition stopped, pending an appeal. The worry is that Julian would instantly be extradited and that the government wouldn’t wait to hear from a European Court.
Chris Hedges: Explain to Americans what it is and what jurisdiction it has in the UK, the European Court.
Craig Murray: Yeah, the European Court of Human Rights is not a European Union body. It’s a body of the Council of Europe. It has jurisdiction over the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees basic human rights and therefore it has legally binding jurisdiction over human rights violations in any member state of the treaty. So it does have a legally binding jurisdiction and is acknowledged as such, normally, by the UK government. They’re very powerful voices within the current conservative government in the UK which wants to exit the convention on human rights. But at present, that’s not the case. The UK is still part of this system. And so the European Court of Human Rights has legally binding authority over the government of the United Kingdom purely on matters that contravene human rights.
Chris Hedges: And if they do extradite him, they’ve essentially nullified that process, the fear is that, of course, the security services would know about the ruling in advance. He’d be on the tarmac and shuttled in, sedated, and put in a diaper and hooded or something and put on a CIA flight to Washington. I want to talk about if that happens. It’s certainly very possible. What we need to do here, and I know part of the reason you’re in the US, is to prepare for that should it take place. You will try and cover the hearings and trial here as you did in the UK but let’s talk about where we go if that event occurs.
Craig Murray: Yeah. The first thing to say is that if that happens, on the day it happens, it will be the biggest news story in the world; It would be a massive news story. So we have to be prepared. We have to know who, from the Assange movement or who from his defense team, who’s going to be the spokesman, who are going to be the spokespeople, who are going to be offered up to all the major news agencies? We have to affect the story on day one. Because if you get behind the story – And we know what their line will be. They’ll put out all these lies about people being killed because of WikiLeaks, about the American insecurity being endangered, we know all the propaganda that they will try to flood the airwaves with – So we need to be ready and ahead of the game to know who our people are, who are going to be offered up to interview, who are going to proactively get onto the media, and not just the alternative media like this media, but onto the so-called mainstream as well, and get out the story…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Chris Hedges. ………………….my reading of it is that they don’t care how they look. And part of it is to send a message. It doesn’t matter what nationality you are, it doesn’t matter where you are. WikiLeaks is not a US-based publication, it doesn’t matter where you are. If you expose the information that Julian and WikiLeaks exposed, we’re going to come for you. Isn’t that the message?
Craig Murray: That’s absolutely right. And this, again, it’s amazing they don’t see the dangers in this claim of universal jurisdiction. …………………….
This claim of universal jurisdiction is extraordinary. And what’s even more extraordinary is they’re claiming universal jurisdiction but Julian is under their jurisdiction because he published American Secrets even though he’s not an American and he wasn’t in America. And at the same time, while they claim jurisdiction over him, they’re claiming he has no First Amendment rights because he’s an Australian.
The combination of we have jurisdiction over you, you have all the liabilities that come with that but you have none of the rights that come with that because you’re not one of our citizens, that’s pernicious. It’s so illogical and so vicious. …………………………………………
Chris Hedges: I want to close because there’s been noise out of Australia. The ambassador, Carolyn Kennedy, said that they might consider a plea deal. I have put no credence in it. It’s all smoke but I wondered what you thought.
Craig Murray: Yeah. It’s an attempt to placate Australian public opinion. Public opinion in Australia is extremely strong. Over 80% of Australians want Julian released and allowed to go home to Australia. Blinken came there and made some very hostile and un-diplomatic remarks at a time when Australia was allowing the US to base nuclear weapons on its side. Caroline Kennedy came out… It’s a lie, frankly. There has been no approach from a justice department or from the State Department to doing any plea deal. It’s purely smoke and mirrors to try to distract the Australian public. Caroline Kennedy was lying to the Australian public. That’s pure and simple.…………..
Build renewables, not nuclear’: energy execs reject reactors.
Australia must focus on developing a huge pipeline of renewable energy as it can’t afford to wait for small modular nuclear reactors to become cost-competitive.
THE AUSTRALIAN Colin Packham Energy reporter
Australia must concentrate on developing a massive pipeline of renewable energy as it can’t afford to wait for small modular nuclear reactors to mature and become cost-competitive, energy executives have urged.
“The economics are clear: we need to act now to build wind, solar and batteries, not wait for a more expensive solution that won’t be available for more than a decade, at the earliest,” said Jason Willoughby, the chief executive of Andrew Forrest-owned renewables developer Squadron Energy.
“Renewables are the cheapest form of new-build electricity, including with the investment required in transmission infrastructure.
“The consequences and costs are too great not to act.
“Australia simply can’t afford to wait.”
Australia is struggling to meet its ambitious plans to replace its ageing coal power stations with renewable energy, and the federal opposition has proposed converting coal-fired power sites into small modular nuclear reactors to ease the transition.
Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen recently released modelling showing that 71 small modular reactors would cost $387bn.
He said each megawatt of nuclear-generated electricity would have a capital cost of $18.1m – about $5.4bn per reactor – much higher than $1m for large-scale solar and $2m for onshore wind.
Energy experts said estimates for developing nuclear in Australia matched recent modelling internationally, although some expect costs to fall.
Robin Batterham, chair of the Net Zero Australia Steering Committee and emeritus professor at the University of Melbourne, said that if costs fell nuclear power could become a viable and cost-effective alternative………………………………………………………… ‘Build renewables, not nuclear’: energy execs reject reactors
Replacing Australia’s retiring coal power stations with small nuclear reactors could cost $387bn, analysis suggests
The figure adds fuel to the growing political dispute over the pace and form of Australia’s energy transition
Daniel Hurst https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/18/replacing-australias-retiring-coal-power-stations-with-small-nuclear-reactors-could-cost-387bn-analysis-suggests
The federal government says it would cost as much as $387bn to replace Australia’s retiring coal-fired power stations with the form of nuclear power proposed by the Coalition.
The figure, produced by the energy department, is the projected cost of replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has previously suggested that Australia “could convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmission connections which already exist on those sites”.
However, he has not been explicit about how much of the coal-fired electricity output would be replaced with nuclear-sourced energy – an uncertainty that makes projecting the cost difficult.
The figure adds fuel to the growing political dispute over the pace and form of Australia’s energy transition.
The government said the new analysis showed a minimum of 71 small modular reactors – providing 300MW each – would be needed if the policy were to fully replace the 21.3GW output of Australia’s retiring coal fleet.
“According to the 2022-23 GenCost report modelling under the current policies scenario, this could cost $387bn,” a government summary said.
“This is due to the estimated capital cost of $18,167/kW for [small modular reactors] in 2030, compared to large scale solar at just $1,058/kW, and onshore wind at $1,989/kW.”
The government said this would represent “a whopping $25,000 cost impost on each Australian taxpayer”.
The minister for climate change and energy, Chris Bowen, said the opposition wanted to promote the benefits of “non-commercial” small modular reactor technology “without owning up to the cost and how they intend to pay for it”.
“Peter Dutton and the opposition need to explain why Australians will be slugged with a $387bn cost burden for a nuclear energy plan that flies in the face of economics and reason,” Bowen said.
“After nine years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all the Coalition can promise is a multi-bullion-dollar nuclear-flavoured energy policy.”
Dutton identified Liddell as a possible site for a small modular reactor when he gave a pro-nuclear speech in July.
At the time, Dutton said he saw nuclear “not as a competitor to renewables but as a companion” and he wanted “an Australia where we can decarbonise and, at the same time, deliver cheaper, more reliable and lower emission electricity”.
He called on the government to consider removing legislative prohibitions on new nuclear technologies – a step the former Coalition government didn’t attempt during its nine years in power – “so we do not position Australia as a nuclear energy pariah”.
Dutton further accused Bowen of burrowing “so deeply down the renewable rabbit hole that he refuses to consider these new nuclear technologies”.
“The new nuclear technology train is pulling out of the station. It’s a train Australia needs to jump aboard.”
The estimates released by the government on Monday are partly based on the costs for small modular reactors outlined in the CSIRO’s GenCost report.
That report notes that global commercial deployment of small modular reactors is “limited to a small number of projects and the Australian industry does not expect any deployment here before 2030”.
The report notes some uncertainty around the projections.
“Nuclear SMR current costs are not reported since there is no prospect of a plant being deployed in Australia before 2030,” said the CSIRO report, released in July.
“However, some improved data on nuclear SMR may be available in future reports and projected capital costs for SMR have been included from 2030 onward.”
The federal government has set a goal of 82% of electricity coming from renewable energy by 2030, up from about 35% today.
To achieve this, the federal government has committed $20bn in low-cost finance for “rewiring the nation” – updating transmission lines – but is facing pushbacks from rural communities.
Protesters call on Labor to protest Fukushima nuclear waste dumping
Jim McIlroy, Gadi/Sydney, September 18, 2023 https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/protesters-call-labor-protest-fukushima-nuclear-waste-dumping
Protesters took a stand against the dumping of Fukushima’s nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean on September 16. The action was organised by the Sydney Candlelight Action (SCA), based in the Korean community, and was part of a global day of action.
Speakers from the Korean community and other groups condemned the Japanese government and called for international pressure to stop further dangerous radioactive contamination.
Vivian Pak from the Candleight Alliance called on the Prime Minister and environment minister to oppose Japan’s decision.
She also condemned the South Korean government for “not only assisting Japan over the dumping of the nuclear contaminated water but also actively encouraging the ultra right-wing government of Japan to increase its military presence in the region”.
Peter Boyle from Socialist Alliance condemned Labor for endorsing the dumping of the Fukushima nuclear waste as “safe”.
The Australian Embassy in Tokyo even staged a “Fukushima fish and chips” dinner as a public relations stunt in support of the nuclear wastewater release.
Boyle said the Australian government was a “bad Pacific neighbour” because it is undermining a nuclear-free Pacific by supporting the dumping of nuclear waste, dumping nuclear waste on Aboriginal land and entering the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal.
Katti Jisuk Seo, a Korean-German who now lives here, said while enjoying her first scuba dive on the Great Barrier Reef the news about the toxic waste came through.
“Japan is sending its radioactive waste on a trip around the world,” she said.
“Japan plans to release 1.3 million tons of radioactive contaminated wastewater into the ocean over the next decades: that’s enough to fill at least 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
“From the Pacific it will reach beaches and seas globally, entering fish, marine plants, other sea creatures and mammals throughout the marine food chain. Via evaporation, through rainfall, it will find its way back onto the lands across our planet.”
David Rho, the rally MC, called on the Japanese government to “accept an independent assessment of the Fukushima wastewater, and to release the true test result”. He said AUKUS represented further nuclear escalation in the region and must be opposed.
Risk assessment and the nuclear cultists
Damian Meagher From Facebook page Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch 17 Sept 23
Risk assessment is a complex subject, but nuclear cultist would have you believe it is a simple straightforward matter. There are at least two aspects of risk that they always ignore.
The first is the issue of risk consent.
Some risks in life are ones that consenting adults decide to take. For example, they might go rock climbing or skydiving, or some other adventure sport. Or they might smoke, drink to excess or have an unhealthy diet.
These are examples of risks that they have decided to take.
There is another type of risk though. Risks that are imposed on a person.
Your neighbour might bring home an ill trained guard dog and allow it to roam the streets without supervision. A food manufacturer may include dangerous ingredients in their product and not disclose this fact. A person might drink and drive and cause an injury to another person.
These are examples of risks that exist, but that are imposed on a person who has NOT consented to that risk.
All risks can be analysed both as to the probability of the risk as well as what consequences the risk poses. The risk of being involved in a minor car accident at some point in your life is rather high, but the likely consequences are minimal.
Proper risk management assesses BOTH the likelihood of a risk AND the potential consequences.Poor nuclear cultists don’t use this method, as it immediately highlights a significant problem that nuclear faces.While the likelihood of an accident is low, the consequences can be catastrophic. The victims of such an accident did not consent to this risk. It is imposed on them.
Chernobyl (an accident that cultists like Goronwy Price prefer to ignore) had impacts both health and economic, right across the northern hemisphere. The victims had the risk imposed upon them. This is fundamentally unjust. N-Cultists are happy to put other people at risk regardless.
Antarctic sea-ice at ‘mind-blowing’ low alarms experts
2
The sea-ice surrounding Antarctica is well below any previous recorded
winter level, satellite data shows, a worrying new benchmark for a region
that once seemed resistant to global warming. “It’s so far outside anything
we’ve seen, it’s almost mind-blowing,” says Walter Meier, who monitors
sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center. An unstable Antarctica
could have far-reaching consequences, polar experts warn. Antarctica’s huge
ice expanse regulates the planet’s temperature, as the white surface
reflects the Sun’s energy back into the atmosphere and also cools the water
beneath and near it. Without its ice cooling the planet, Antarctica could
transform from Earth’s refrigerator to a radiator, experts say.
BBC 17th Sept 2023
In 2023, the risky part of Andreyeva Bay nuclear cleanup starts
Donor countries agree to fund an additional study on how to extract the damaged spent nuclear fuel from Tank 3A.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology/2017/12/2023-risky-part-andreeva-bay-nuclear-cleanup-starts by Thomas Nilsen
Read in Russian | Читать по-русски
Take a closer look at this photo and you will understand the scoop of the most challenging and risky work to be done at the Cold War storage site for submarine nuclear fuel on Russia’s Kola Peninsula. For 35 years, highly radioactive fuel assemblies have been stored in these rusty, partly destroyed steel pipes where concrete of poor quality was filled in the space between. Some of the fuel assemblies are stuck in the canisters, while some of the canisters are stuck in the cells.
Message is clear: Do not try to lift any of the assemblies before you are sure nothing falls out.
At a recent meeting in London, donor countries discussed the progress after the first nuclear fuel assemblies were shipped away from the other tanks in Andreeva Bay towards Mayak in June.
The experts all agree it is necessary to conduct a whole range of work to prepare Tank 3A for unloading. Additional €100,000 was granted for the study. Another €675,000 was granted to study another messy challenge in Andreeva Bay; the smashed spent fuel assembles on the floor of the former water-pool storage in Building No. 5, the information portal Russian Atomic Community reports.
Unloading work at Tank 2A and 2B will go on until 2023 before possible work on unloading the dangerous mess at Tank 3A can start.
Andrey Zolotkov, a nuclear expert with the environmental group Bellona says YES with capitalized letters when asked by the Barents Observer via Skype whether Tank 3A poses the biggest risk in the cleanup work.
Equal to Chernobyl
The British nuclear engineering company Nuvia has calculated the total radionuclide inventory in the three tanks to be equal to the remains of Reactor No. 4 inside the Chernobyl sarcophagus. Some 22,000 spent fuel assemblies are stored in the tanks, coming from 90-100 reactor cores powering the Soviet Navy’s Cold War submarines sailing out from the Kola Peninsula from the late 1950s till 1982. Nuvia says it is some six tonnes of fissile uranium-235 in the fuel, about two times the amount of fissile material inside the exploded Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine.
Tank 3A does also pose the highest risk for radiation doses to working personell and ways to do the job with robotics has to be developed. Nobody want people to stay too long near the destroyed assemblies and get exposed.
Another deemed challenging job ahead is to locate and secure the six damaged spent fuel elements on the floor of Building No. 5 in Andreeva Bay. The building served as a storage-pool for the spent fuel assemblies before 1982, but due to a water-leak and rusty wires, many fuel assemblies fell to the floor. That was the reason why the assemblies were hastily moved over to the tanks 2A, 2B and 3A. In that process, however, six damaged fuel assemblies and some uranium powder from others were left on the floor. Today, they pose a serious radiation hazard risk.
Funding from Europe and Canada
The nuclear cleanup work in Andreeva Bay on the Barents Sea coast is financed by the so-called Northern Window of the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP), a cooperative program with Russia’s State Nuclear Corporation Rosatom.
Norway has over the last two decades financed infrastructure improvements in Andreeva Bay making the removal of spent nuclear fuel possible.
The NDEP’s funded work started in 2003. Additional to the European Union, nuclear legacy cleanup work in North-West Russia is funded by Sweden, Finland, Belgium, France, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Andreeva Bay is located about 55 kilometers from Russia’s border to Norway in the north.
Ukraine could get long-range missiles armed with U.S. cluster bombs.
WASHINGTON, Sept 11 (Reuters)
The Biden administration is close to approving the shipment of longer-range missiles packed with cluster bombs to Ukraine, giving Kyiv the ability to cause significant damage deeper within Russian-occupied territory, according to four U.S. officials.After seeing the success of cluster munitions delivered <https://www.reuters.com/world/us-cluster-munitions-ukraine-expected-fridays-800m-aid-package-2023-07-07/> in 155 mm artillery rounds in recent months, the U.S. is considering shipping either or both Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) that can fly up to 190 miles (306 km), or Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) missiles with a 45-mile range packed with cluster bombs, three U.S. officials said.
If approved, either option would be available for rapid shipment to Kyiv.
Ukraine is currently equipped with 155 mm artillery with a maximum range of 18 miles carrying up to 48 bomblets. The ATACMS under consideration would propel around 300 or more bomblets. The GMLRS rocket system, a version of which Ukraine has had in its arsenal for months, would be able to disperse up to 404 cluster munitions.
With Ukraine’s push against Russian forces showing signs of progress, the administration is keen to boost the Ukrainian military at a vital moment, two of the sources said.
The White House declined to comment on the Reuters report.
The decision to send ATACMS or GMLRS, or both, is not final and could still fall through, the four sources said. The Biden administration has for months struggled with a decision on ATACMS, fearing their shipment would be perceived as an overly aggressive move against Russia.
Kyiv has repeatedly asked the Biden administration for ATACMS to help attack and disrupt supply lines, air bases, and rail networks in Russian occupied territory.
Last week Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said he and Secretary of State Antony Blinken had discussed the U.S. providing the long-range missiles and he hoped for a positive decision.
“Now is the time,” one of the U.S. officials said as Ukraine’s forces are attempting to pierce Russian lines just south of the city of Orikhiv in an attempt to divide Russian forces and put its main supply lines under threat. ATACMS or GMLRS with this capability would not only boost Ukrainian morale but deliver a needed tactical punch to the fight, the official said.
The U.S. plan is to include the grenade-packed weapons in an upcoming draw from U.S. stockpiles of munitions, according to the four U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the plan.
At present Ukraine has only one U.S.-furnished cluster munitions, the 155 mm rounds that were announced in July.
The new weapons would augment Ukraine’s current 45-mile range GMLRS rounds, a version that blasts out more than 100,000 sharp tungsten fragments, but not bomblets.
Made by Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), ATACMS come in several versions some of which can fly four times GMLRS’ range, and their use could reset battlefield calculus……………………………………………..
President Joe Biden may ultimately decide against, or delay a decision on the transfer.
Cluster munitions are prohibited by more than 100 countries. Russia, Ukraine and the United States have not signed onto the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans production, stockpiling, use and transfer of the weapons.
They typically release large numbers of smaller bomblets that can kill indiscriminately over a wide area. Those that fail to explode pose a danger for decades after a conflict ends.
Washington has committed more than $40 billion in military assistance to Kyiv since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of its neighbor on Feb. 24, 2022.
Reporting by Mike Stone in Washington; Editing by Chris Sanders and Lisa Shumaker https://www.reuters.com/world/us-eyes-long-range-missiles-armed-with-cluster-bombs-ukraine-officials-2023-09-11
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 