TODAY. NATO/USA – dancing macabrely to World War 3?
The Danse Macabre consists of the dead, or a personification of death, summoning representatives from all walks of life to dance along to the grave, The effect is both frivolous and terrifying, beseeching its audience to react emotionally. – Wikipedia
I wonder did those lovely well-paid NATO representatives have a nice social time, too, in the Brussels Summit April 3 -4, surely a dinner, perhaps a dance? Well, they did, in a way, do a danse macabre, as they fell in like ninepins to the aims of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, and of my favourite sweetly spoken war-monger, Antony Blinken. ( All except Hungary, but they don’t count, as they’re on speaking terms with Russia.)
The danse macabre idea derived from the Middle Ages – when mass deaths happened from famine and plague – it was perhaps some kind of coping mechanism – and a way to face up to the fears of what was coming.
NATO representatives dutifully discussed $107b Ukraine military aid package, a multi-year financial commitment for Ukraine, dutifully agreeing that everyone must do more to ensure a Ukrainian victory against Russia, and “rock solid” that Ukraine will join NATO. “Our purpose at the summit is to help build a bridge to that membership,” – Antony Blinken.
NATO/USA aims to draw in “Indo-Pacific partners” – Australia, NZ. South Korea ,Japan, Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan. NATO/USA sees a Ukrainian victory as a necessity for global peace and freedom. And I guess that a Taiwanese victory over China will be visualised in the same way.
Did anyone raise matters like the situation of Ukrainian casualties, the crippling of Ukraine’s environment, economy, and social structure, the Russian success on the ground, the perils of Ukraine striking sites far inside Russia? Apart from Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó , did anyone suggest a negotiated end to the Ukrainian bloodbath?
The Ukrainian people are overwhelmed with the sufferings of fighting Russia on behalf of NATO/USA. But to NATO/USA – is it some sort of game of Russian roulette – how far can they push Russia? And is it preparatory to another game of Taiwan fighting China? And is it fun to toy with the chance of World War 3 ?
Matt Kean admonished by federal Opposition for criticising nuclear direction
NSW Shadow Health Minister Matt Kean has been admonished by Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor after he expressed concern over the Coalition’s direction away from renewables and towards nuclear power, reports NSW Political Reporter Julia Bradley.
The comments follow former NSW treasurer and energy minister Matt Kean’s public resignation from an organisation called Coalition for Conservation, which works with the Liberal Party on issues to do with climate change.
The Shadow Health Minister for NSW says he became “increasingly concerned with the direction of the Coalition for Conservation” after he claimed the institution became “increasingly focused” on nuclear power rather than renewable energy, Ms Bradley explained.
Mr Kean posted the resignation letter to his X social media page on Friday morning, claiming there is “no feasible pathway” for nuclear energy “to play any material role in helping Australia replace our coal-fired power stations in line with climate science.”
Shadow Treasurer and former energy minister Angus Taylor responded to the story with a statement expressing his disappointment a Coalition MP could not understand “Labor’s renewable only madness will fail”.
States reject Dutton’s push for nuclear power
Parker McKenzie, Apr 05, 2024
State politicians from across the political spectrum have rejected the federal Liberal Party’s push for nuclear power, citing cost, speed and technology as reasons to bet on renewables.
Despite being “open to the debate”, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said nuclear power wasn’t fit for Australia’s energy needs.
“Every single objective, independent analysis that has looked at this has said nuclear power would make power more expensive in Australia rather than cheaper,” he told ABC News.
“Why we would impose that burden on power consumers in our country is completely beyond me. Maybe one day in a hundred years time nuclear technology might evolve.”
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has previously praised Malinauskas for being “honest” about nuclear energy.
Labor premiers have unanimously rejected the nuclear energy push from Dutton, while influential Liberal state politicians have rejected Dutton’s energy policy.
Liberal dissent
Matt Kean, a former energy minister and treasurer in Dominic Perrottet’s NSW government, has resigned from a Liberal and National Party member-run renewable energy advocacy group because it supported nuclear energy over wind and solar.
“The reality is there is no feasible pathway [for nuclear energy] to play any material role in helping Australia replace our coal-fired power stations in line with the climate science,” Kean said.
“Large-scale nuclear reactors have proven costly and slow to deliver and [I] would refer you to the UK experience with the Hinkley Point C power station, and the fact that small modular nuclear reactors are not currently commercial anywhere in the world.”
“No feasible pathway:” Liberal MP Matt Kean quits Coalition-based charity because of its obsession with nuclear
Giles Parkinson, Apr 4, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/no-feasible-pathway-kean-quits-coalition-based-charity-because-of-its-obsession-with-nuclear/
Former NSW Liberal government energy minister Matt Kean has quit his role as ambassador of an environmental charity dominated by state and federal Liberal and National Party MPs, saying it had become obsessed with promoting nuclear power and is seeking to delay the rollout of renewables.
Kean says he is quitting the Coalition for Conservation (c4C) because of concerns about the direction of the charity, which has undergone a major shift in focus in the past year, coinciding – according to the AFR – with the growing involvement of patrol Trevor St Baker, the former coal baron and now nuclear investor and proponent.
“When the network was formed, I was an enthusiastic supporter, because I believe that it is the Coalition that should be the best custodians for our environment,” Kean wrote in a letter to the organisation’s chair, former federal Coalition minister Larry Anthony.
“It has become clear in recent times that the Coalition for conservation has increasingly focussed on nuclear power in the electricity system.
“In particular I was concerned to read an article in the Canberra times advocating nuclear power stations as an alternative to building new large scale transmission lines.
“While I recognise that one cannot rule out nuclear playing a constructive role in the Australian electricity system in the distant future, the reality is that there is no feasible pathway to play any material role in helping Australia replace our coal fired power stations in line with the climate science.”
The C4C appears to have undergone a rapid rethink on emissions reductions, dumping its previous support for renewable as the cheapest path to net zero in favour of nuclear.
It is a major major shift which has coincided – according to the AFR’s Rear Window column – with the growing involvement of one of the C4C two patrons, the billionaire Trevor St Baker, the former coal baron and now nuclear investor and proponent.
Kean is the architect of the plan to replace Australia’s biggest fleet of coal generators with wind, solar and storage, and whose work now forms the basis of the Federal Labor government’s Capacity Investment Scheme that will lead its own ambitious renewable energy targets.
His decision to quit the group highlights the growing divide between moderates in the Coalition, and the hard right, which has become obsessed with nuclear and is supported by a growing number of so-called “think tanks”, Murdoch media, and charities such as C4C.
The group’s recent activity on X and its own website have been focused entirely on nuclear, and it has joined the chorus of conservatives, including Coalition leader Peter Dutton and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, in attacking institutions such as the CSIRO and AEMO for their GenCost reports and renewable energy roadmaps.
Kean wrote in his letter that large scale nuclear reactors have proven costly and slow to deliver, particularly in the UK with the massive delays and cost overruns at the Hinkley point C nuclear power project.
He also noted that small modular nuclear reactors promoted by the charity as a solution to Australia’s energy challenges are not currently commercial anywhere in the world, and early stage demonstration projects have been cancelled or delayed into the 2030’s.
“Even if (nuclear energy in Australia) were possible, it would be extremely expensive and far more expensive than the alternative as set out in AEMO’s integrated system plan,” he wrote.
“I not only regard advocacy for nuclear power as against the public interest on environmental, engineering and economic grounds, I also see it as an attempt to delay and defer responsible and decisive action or climate change in a way that seems to drive up power prices in NSW by delaying renewables.”
Ukraine aid will bankrupt future US generations – congressman
https://www.rt.com/news/595344-ukraine-aid-bankrupt-us/ 5 Apr 24
America risks getting bogged down in “yet another forever war,” Republican Eli Crane has warned.
The US should end its financial support for Ukraine and instead focus on how Kiev can settle the conflict, Republican congressman Eli Crane has said. His comments come as House Speaker Mike Johnson said the chamber is likely to vote soon on providing Kiev with new funding.
Several months ago, US President Joe Biden proposed a supplemental security package that would earmark around $60 billion in assistance to Ukraine, but it has since remained stalled in Congress as Republicans demand more focus on security at the Mexican border.
On Sunday, however, Johnson signaled that the package could come up for a vote soon, with “some important innovations.” Among these, he said, is a possibility of extending a loan to Ukraine – an idea favored by GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump – as well as seizing Russian sovereign assets frozen in the US and transferring the proceeds to Kiev.
Since the start of the Ukraine conflict, the West has frozen around $300 billion in Russian assets, most of which are under European control. While numerous Western officials have proposed seizing the funds to finance Ukraine, many have pointed out that there is no legal basis for doing so. Moscow, for its part, has called the blocking “theft,” warning of retaliation if its funds were to be confiscated.
Some GOP members, however, have argued against aiding Kiev. In this vein, Eli Crane told Fox News on Tuesday that Washington is “funding what appears to be yet another forever war.” This effort, the Arizona congressman suggested, “will bankrupt future generations – all while disregarding our own security as our southern border remains open.”
“It’s absurd that overnighting more tax dollars to Ukraine is even a consideration. It should be totally off the table and replaced with a push for peace talks,” he added.
This sentiment was also shared by Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who suggested on Tuesday that any talk of loaning money to Ukraine sounds “absolutely ridiculous.”
“It’s… laughable to even try to tell the American people that Ukraine will ever pay us back!.. Why isn’t our government brokering peace in Ukraine?” she said.
The US has provided Ukraine with $113 billion in various forms of assistance since the start of hostilities. Meanwhile, Russia has repeatedly condemned Western arms shipments to Ukraine, saying these will only prolong the conflict, while making the West a direct participant in the hostilities.
US Secretary of State Blinken says Ukraine will be NATO member
Ukraine, if/when it enters NATO, will have “unresolved” territorial issues. Crime and the Donbass are in Russian hands and will remain in Russian hands. If Ukraine enters NATO with that being the case, border conflicts over that territory could spark war, which would then drag in NATO through Article V. Such a war would be extremely bloody and potentially escalate to nuclear armageddon.
Reuters, Thu, 04 Apr 2024 https://www.sott.net/article/490373-US-Secretary-of-State-Blinken-says-Ukraine-WILL-be-NATO-member
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Thursday that Ukraine will eventually join NATO as support for the country remains “rock solid” among member states.
“Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Our purpose at the summit is to help build a bridge to that membership,” Blinken told reporters in Brussels.
Comment: For now, this appears to primarily be belligerent rhetoric, because at least some analysts say that Ukraine can’t join whilst involved in a conflict and with ongoing border disputes.
However, Russia has discussed creating a demilitarised zone, and so it is possible that this will compel it to neutralise Ukrainian regions even further West than they would have otherwise. Furthermore, this speaks more to the desperation of the West, and to Russia’s upper hand, which it could maintain so long as it doesn’t, precipitously, escalate the situation. And, amidst all this, the West ruins itself, its position on the global stage, and its ability to provoke the rising multipolar world.
Footage, and relevant snippet from the X post, below:
Will Tanner:
Secretary of State Blinken says that Ukraine will be joining NATO This is insane. This is insane. This is intentionally starting WWIII to help Hunter Biden’s paymasters level of insane 1) Ukraine, if/when it enters NATO, will have “unresolved” territorial issues.
1) Ukraine, if/when it enters NATO, will have “unresolved” territorial issues. Crime and the Donbass are in Russian hands and will remain in Russian hands. If Ukraine enters NATO with that being the case, border conflicts over that territory could spark war, which would then drag in NATO through Article V. Such a war would be extremely bloody and potentially escalate to nuclear armageddon.
2) This is Putin’s red line. In the 90s, when the USSR fell, America promised the Russians that NATO wouldn’t expand to the East. Then, in Russia’s weakness (created in large part by Goldman Sachs helping the oligarchs loot the country through privatization), it expanded to the East, doing just what it promised it wouldn’t, much to Russia’s chagrin. But Putin, while upset, has made it clear that Ukrainian membership in NATO is his red line that would mean war, potentially nuclear. It is utterly unacceptable and would have been like Ireland or Canada joining the Warsaw Pact. That’s why he launched the war; by “demilitarizing” Ukraine by shelling its army into oblivion and by creating a constant conflict, he wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO without going to war with NATO. He thought we wouldn’t be so dumb as to bring it into the alliance if it is fighting a war with Russia.
More NATO involvement in Ukraine doesn’t bode well, as the following highlights:
NATO chief, Jens Stoltenberg, admitting that the war did start in 2014. And from that same year, 2014, NATO has been busy training and arming the Ukraine armed forces
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 