TODAY. The NATO statement – absurdity and collective suicide?
I know that I am sounding callous, but I can’t help noticing that Trump’s close shave with an assassination attempt has been a boon for the mainstream media – taking attention away from the foolish and disastrous farce of the NATO summit in Washington.
There they all were, the over-paid stuffed shirts in their suits, dutifully agreeing, as required, to a plan, led by Joe Biden who said in a recent interview “I’m running the world. “
I don’t think that Biden has dementia. That whole interview showed him to be rational and well-informed. But it also showed his determination to be the one. (Very much the same determination as Trump’s.)
And all the stuffed shirts fell in gladly. Much easier than thinking.
Some things are just too hard to think about, when you’re keeping your focus firmly on your well-paid, prestigious job, and how important you are.
Things like mindless unquestioning agreement to the Washington Summit Declaration, which was totally obsessed with continuing and winning the war in Ukraine according to Biden’s current policy — and at a time and on terms set by Ukraine and its allies, not by Russia.
All wars end with some kind of a negotiation. However, in 1945, world War 11 ended with the unconditional surrender of Germany, after the absolute crushing of Berlin, and suicide of the Nazi leadership, – and then the unconditional surrender of Japan, after two nuclear bombs had been dropped on two Japanese cities.
Is that what Biden wants for the ending of the Ukraine war? Russia’s unconditional surrender?
Most wars end in a negotiation between the two sides – and not after that kind of devastating WW11 victory. And in those negotiations, both sides get a say. Russia has made several offers to negotiate, but no way will the USA countenance any such talks. The NATO Summit was not allowed to consider any negotiations – and not one voice was raised to question this attitude!
The NATO Summit ignored real threats to world peace and stability, the genocide in Gaza, (depicted as Israeli self-defence) – and the heating climate and its effects.
The big thing seemed to be to idolise the ever-attention-seeking Zelensky in his military attire, and not to give a thought to the continuing bloodbath – as Russia loses many thousands of troops, but Ukraine with its smaller population, loses proportionately more troops and lacks the capacity to regenerate losses .
Our taxes pay these men (and the odd token woman) to strut the NATO stage, and to all happily, zombie-like, agree to the extraordinarily unwise plans of the Washington Summit Declaration
Things like:
- Ukraine’s “irreversible path” to de jure NATO Membership
- Military assistance to €40 billion annually to Ukraine. Minimum baseline funding of €40 billion within the next year, and to provide sustainable levels of security assistance for Ukraine to prevail (- Russia’s unconditional surrender?)
- transfer of NATO F-16 fighter jets from Denmark and the Netherlands to Ukraine,
- approval for F-16s to attack inside Russian territory.
- Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine
Russia’s “red line” has long been the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO. Putin has warned against attacks on sites within Russia, and has threatened the use of “tactical nuclear weapons”. Zelensky has previously supported negotiation plans with Russia, but the USA wouldn’t let this happen.
If you look at the map, you can see that on its Western side , Russia is pretty well surrounded by NATO countries, where of course, there can be military bases aimed at Russia. One of the largest is Ukraine – so of course, Russia does not want a NATO military base there – with weapons, possibly nuclear, aimed at Russia.
As pointed out by Joe Lauria – “NATO leaders haven’t demonstrated a willingness to give up any of their collective or individual power, which is devolving rapidly into collective and individual madness.
They don’t want to lose their role in Biden “running the world.” Even if realists in Washington prevailed over the neocons in arguing that Ukraine can’t win this war, NATO leaders proclaim they can’t afford to lose it. Not because Putin will be at the Eiffel Tower by Christmas, but because so many political careers in the West would be ruined.
From Keir Starmer to Olaf Scholz, to Giorgia Meloni, Emmanuel Macron and Joe Biden, a defeat in Ukraine would signify that they gambled their personal ambition — as well as their nations’ treasure and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men — and lost it all.
Instead of settling, they’re willing to drag us all into the existential crisis that could end it all. “
Renewables v nuclear: the facts point to one clear winner
July 12, 2024, Rod Sims, Professor, former chair of the ACCC https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/renewables-v-nuclear-the-facts-point-to-one-clear-winner-20240709-p5js95.html
Australia needs the trifecta: lowest cost, reliable and zero-emission electricity. Given that we now have a debate about the merits of two very different zero-emission technologies, renewables versus nuclear, we seem agreed on the need for zero-emission electricity.
When we seek lowest cost and reliable electricity, Australia’s huge natural advantage of best-in-world solar and wind, combined with a range of technologies to firm these, are clearly the superior option.
Solar and wind can supply power at about $60-80 a megawatt hour, much cheaper in some areas. When this is firmed so that we have 24/7 reliable electricity using, say, pumped hydro, batteries or gas-fired peaking generation, the cost rises to about $110MWh. This is all known technology and much in use in Australia today.
With recently built nuclear plants in the US, UK and the European Union, nuclear power comes in at $200-$300MWh, at best, based on running 90 per cent of the time, and that is in countries that already have nuclear power. In the CSIRO’s most recent analysis of nuclear power costs, it uses the capital costs in South Korea based on what is achievable from that country’s continuous builds of nuclear power plants and the benefits of learning as it goes. South Korea also produces most components of the nuclear value chain, so it has expertise on all aspects of the plant readily available.
On this basis, the CSIRO finds that nuclear is only 1.5 to two times more expensive than firmed renewables. However, it acknowledges that building initial nuclear plants could cost as much as 100 per cent more than it assumes in its analysis. It also acknowledges that South Korea’s costs are much lower than nuclear build costs in Western countries. For planning purposes, therefore, we should consider nuclear in Australia as at least three times more expensive than firmed renewables, not the 1.5 to two times used by CSIRO.
Of course, countries with old nuclear plants will have lower costs than those embarking on new nuclear builds. The average age of nuclear plants in France is close to 40 years. Even with this history, however, the latest nuclear plant in France – Flamanville – came in at four times the predicted price and 12 years late. Indeed, of the five third-generation nuclear plants built this century in Western counties, all have had huge cost and time overruns. Their experience should guide Australia now.
Coalition policy is to build the new plants by 2035-37, which is unrealistic, according to the vast majority of experts and recent experience in Western economies. Australia needs low-cost and reliable electricity now, and can’t wait up to two decades for nuclear to be built. Further, in Western countries with which we compare ourselves, the cost of nuclear power is trending higher on average as more is built. This contrasts with renewables, for which the costs have been continually falling – by about 90 per cent for solar and 70 per cent for wind since 2010.
An energy system largely dominated by wind and solar can be 24/7 reliable. Different regions, and indeed solar and wind, will have different run times. Further, they can be backed up by batteries and pumped hydro, which can charge up when power prices are extremely low in the middle of the day, and discharge in the evening peak when the sun is no longer shining. Absent this, we can rely on gas-fired peaking generation plants which, with their low capital costs yet high operating costs, are ideal to help fill gaps in power supply.
While pumped hydro and batteries will play increasing roles, for now the lights need never go out if we rely on gas-fired peaking generation. Extremely poor policy and planning over at least a decade has seen a gas shortage in Victoria, NSW and South Australia. If we face reliability problems in Australia, these are man-made, not an inherent part of using renewables as the core of our electricity system.
Further, we may or may not miss the government’s target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030, but this is irrelevant to the choice we face between renewables and nuclear. We would not get much nuclear power until the 2040s.
It is a shame that there is no embrace of the first best policy to get to net-zero electricity: putting a price on the damage caused by carbon emissions. Then we could allow various options to compete and the market to get us to where we need to go. Without a carbon price, however, we are left not with a market-determined decision but one dictated by government.
We are forced then to look at the facts and form a view. When this is done, renewables plus the many available options to firm them are the clear choice for Australia.
Rod Sims, a former chair of the ACCC, is a professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, and chair of the Superpower Institute. The institute was founded by economist Ross Garnaut, a director at Zen Energy, which is building the Western Sydney Pumped Hydro Project.
NATO Washington Summit Declaration – a delusional March of Folly
Just reading through this Declaration, it appears to me that NATO is preparing for war against the Russian Federation in the immediate future.
13 July 24
The NATO Declaration reminds me of Barbara Tuchman’s book The March of Folly describing the European Geopolitical Machinations leading up to the First World War. Its comments about Ukraine are delusional—detached from reality.
Maybe NATO itself will not becoming involved in hostilities against Russia in Ukraine, but this Statement is paving the way for NATO States to get involved in hostilities against Russia in Ukraine. Ultimately this will prove to be a distinction without a difference.
When implemented this Statement will make Ukraine a de facto NATO Member State with all the existentially dangerous consequences that would ensue from there. Its talking about Ukraine’s “irreversible path” to de jure NATO Membership is deliberately designed to rule out negotiations with Russia since Ukraine’s neutrality from NATO has always been the bottom line of Russia’s position, which is most reasonable.
Its comments about Russia are paranoid and delusional and existentially dangerous and irresponsible. Since the USA IS NATO, the Biden administration did the first draft of this Statement for the other NATO States to sign on to with some minor tweaks and emendations by them.
But still this Statement represents how paranoid, delusional, irresponsible, reckless and existentially dangerous the Biden administration is not only against Russia but also against North Korea, Iran and China, among others.
As this Statement admits the European Union has finally come out of the closet to reveal itself as the Political and Economic Arms of the NATO Military Alliance.
NATO is now moving into the Pacific where it is trying to replace and replicate the failed SEATO Pact. NATO is also moving into the Middle East where it is trying to replace and replicate the failed CENTO Pact. Its Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine makes it perfectly clear that the United States, NATO, and the NATO States have no interest in a negotiated resolution to the situation in Ukraine with Russia despite the recent overtures by President Putin that he was prepared to negotiate. Although Putin’s demands were maximalist, they can serve as a basis for opening peace negotiations among Russia, the United States, and Ukraine. This Statement definitively rejects those overtures.
– Official text: Washington Summit Declaration issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. 10 July 2024, 10-Jul.-2024 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm
Game of Mates. The Australian War Memorial and its military industrial conflicts of interest.
Why doesn’t Kim Beazley, chair of Australian War Memorial, which is undergoing a $550 million expansion, disclose his board roles with multinational arms companies? Who else is involved?
ELIZABETH MINTER, AND MICHELLE FAHY, JUL 12, 2024 https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/game-of-mates-the-australian-war?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=146535914&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The Australian War Memorial Council’s website makes no mention of chair Kim Beazley’s roles with multinational weapons companies Luerssen and Lockheed Martin and is coy about another Council member’s full-time role with French weapons multinational Thales, which has just been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
A recent report by the national auditor general into the development of the Australian War Memorial found serious deficiencies. Steps were taken to dodge ministerial oversight; conflicts of interest were not adequately documented and declared; known conflicts were not adequately managed; key personnel did not declare prior employment with tenderers; and there were deficiencies in the quality of advice to the minister.
One draft contract for $1.05 million was split into two contracts with the same supplier, with both contracts being signed on the same day. Another contract under an official order for a maximum value of $319,572 was later varied upwards to $999,999—one dollar under the $1 million threshold required for ministerial approval.
The Australian War Memorial’s purpose is to commemorate the sacrifice of those Australians who have died in war or on operational service and those who have served our nation in times of conflict. It was designed as a place of quiet reflection and contemplation.
‘Military Disneyland’
However, thanks to long-running sponsorship deals over the years with global weapons manufacturers, including BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Thales, the AWM is being transformed into what has been termed a military Disneyland, boastfully celebrating combat triumph with displays of military hardware and exhibitions.
We now honour our dead in a place sponsored by the companies that are so handsomely rewarded financially by the wars that kill our citizens
In its report, the Auditor-General further noted that an entity’s culture will be determined by the ‘tone at the top’ set by its leadership, noting that the AWM’s Council members and Senior Executive Service officers declare interests annually.
However, the Auditor-General stated that, ‘AWM did not undertake any specific probity planning or review its processes for Council and staff to reflect the increased probity risks arising from the scale and volume of the procurement activities relating to the [then] $498 million development project.’
Kim Beazley’s many roles
Should the public be told, for example, that Labor luminary Kim Beazley, the chair of the War Memorial Council, which is responsible for the conduct and control of the Memorial’s affairs, is an adviser to Lockheed Martin and that he was also on the board of Lockheed Martin Australia for almost two years (2016-2018) in between his roles as ambassador to the US and Governor of WA? Lockheed Martin manufactures the lethal F-35 fighter jet that Israel is using to drop bombs on Gaza.
Beazley’s 349-word profile on the website of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), where he is a distinguished senior fellow, similarly contains no mention of his roles with Lockheed.
ASPI’s mission is to contribute an ‘independent voice to public discussion’ and ‘bring alternative sources of advice’ to ‘key strategic and defence policy issues’. Beazley writes regularly for ASPI, including this article on naval shipbuilding earlier this year, but he and ASPI neglected to mention that Beazley is also on the board of Luerssen Australia, which has the $3.6 billion contract to build offshore patrol vessels for Australia’s navy.
Why is there no mention of Beazley’s close engagement with these two multinational arms companies in his 350-word profile on the AWM website? Beazley’s profile mentions his role as Governor of WA, his dedication to federal politics for nearly 30 years, his ministerial portfolios, his Companion of the Order of Australia honour, his advocacy for Indigenous people and the community, his educational achievements, his US ambassadorial role, his roles in academia, and his distinguished fellowships, all of which indicate a lifetime of public service.
The media release announcing Beazley’s role as Council chair on 2 December 2022 also omitted his Lockheed Martin and Luerssen roles.
Conflicts of interest
Also, why wasn’t the public told for a long time that another member of the War Memorial Council is a Key Account Manager with the French multinational weapons manufacturer Thales?
Daniel Keighran, a Council member for eight years, has been employed for at least five years by Thales, a sponsor (corporate partner) of the War Memorial and one of the top handful of suppliers to the Defence Department in Australia.
Thales was last week referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission after the national auditor-general released yet another excoriating report into procurement by the Defence Department, finding evidence of ‘unethical conduct’. Thales received a $1.2 billion contract to run two Commonwealth-owned munitions facilities in 2020 despite an assessment that found its bid was ‘deficient’, ‘high risk’ and did not offer value for money.
Until recently, there was no mention in Keighran’s Council profile of his Thales role, as is evident from a snapshot taken on February 22, 2024, by the Wayback Machine, which takes snapshots of websites over time.
While the Council has since updated Keighran’s profile, his full-time employment at Thales is still only obliquely referred to as a ‘current association’.
War Memorial Council
Sitting alongside Keighran and Beazley at War Memorial Council meetings are the chiefs of each military service, who are ultimately responsible for arms procurement. They are Chief of Army Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond; and Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Stephen Chappell.
Notwithstanding the deficiencies outlined earlier, the Auditor-General found that the management of the development project had been largely effective. In a media release, the Australian War Memorial welcomed ‘the positive findings of this report,’ which ‘illustrate the significant achievements, particularly across critical matters involving probity and transparency.’
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Matt Keogh, said the government was concerned by the report and that ‘an urgent briefing’ had been requested from the ANAO on its findings and recommendations, ‘and we will discuss these with the Australian War Memorial’s management as a priority’.
This article was first published by Michael West Media on 9 July 2024
US-made missile suddenly ‘transformed’ into a ‘Russian’ one and killed 40 civilians
One video clearly shows a SLAMRAAM (Surface Launched AMRAAM) missile falling and hitting a civilian building. This US-made weapon is based on an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) and is used by the much-touted NASAMS (Norwegian/National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System). However, the Neo-Nazi junta is insisting that the weapon in question is a Russian Kh-101 long-range air-launched cruise missile.
Drago Bosnic, InfoBrics, Tue, 09 Jul 2024, https://www.sott.net/article/493060-US-made-missile-suddenly-transformed-into-a-Russian-one-and-killed-40-civilians
On July 8, the Russian military launched large-scale strikes on various targets across Ukraine. According to the mainstream propaganda machine, one strike was “particularly deadly”, as it allegedly “killed 41 civilians” and “destroyed a children’s hospital”. Reuters says:
“Russia blasted the main children’s hospital in Kyiv with a missile in broad daylight on Monday and rained missiles down on other cities across Ukraine, killing at least 41 civilians in the deadliest wave of air strikes for months.”
The report tried playing into the emotional aspects with the graphic descriptions of parents and children affected by these “evil Russian strikes”. Reuters says that “parents holding babies walked in the street outside the hospital, dazed and sobbing after the rare daylight aerial attack”, while “windows had been smashed and panels ripped off, and hundreds of Kyiv residents were helping to clear debris”.
While on his way to the NATO summit in Washington DC, the Neo-Nazi junta frontman Volodymyr Zelensky claimed more than 170 people were injured, while around 100 buildings were damaged, including the aforementioned children’s hospital and a maternity center in Kiev, as well as children’s nurseries, a business center and homes. He also stated that “Russian terrorists must answer for this” and that “being concerned does not stop terror, condolences are not a weapon”. The Kiev regime announced a day of mourning for today, calling the strikes “one of the worst air attacks of the war”, insisting it “demonstrated that Ukraine urgently needed an upgrade of its air defenses from its Western allies”. Interestingly, they also claim that their air defenses allegedly “shot down 30 of 38 missiles”. Quite peculiar that the Neo-Nazi junta forces are “so successful” in shooting down Russian missiles.
At the same time, they still “urgently need” NATO-sourced SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems. The question is, which is it? Either the current air defenses are not enough, meaning that the reports about shootdowns are a blatant lie, or the reports are “true”, meaning that the Kiev regime forces don’t really need “better air defenses“. After all, they “regularly shoot down” two out of six 9-S-7760 “Kinzhal” air-launched hypersonic missiles. However, in all seriousness, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the sheer ridiculousness of propaganda in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. For instance, Reuters reports that it obtained “an online video showing a missile falling towards the children’s hospital followed by a large explosion” and insists that “the location of the video was verified from visible landmarks”. And indeed, there’s horrifying footage of children injured by the shrapnel and falling debris.
The political West is now also using the UN to spread the narrative about the “brutal Russian attack”. The United Kingdom called for a UN Security Council meeting, which will take place today to “discuss a Russian missile attack on Kyiv’s Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital that was part of a massive attack on July 8 that hit several cities across the country, killing at least 41 people and injuring at least 140”, according to the CIA front Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). So, once again, we’re seeing the UN being used for the political West’s “soft power” projection purposes. It should be noted that the reports about injuries to civilians are true, as the footage is certainly undeniable. However, there’s a “slight problem” with the narrative. Namely, the video that Reuters referenced is also indisputable evidence that Russia didn’t conduct the aforementioned strike on the children’s hospital in Kiev.
One video clearly shows a SLAMRAAM (Surface Launched AMRAAM) missile falling and hitting a civilian building. This US-made weapon is based on an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) and is used by the much-touted NASAMS (Norwegian/National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System). However, the Neo-Nazi junta is insisting that the weapon in question is a Russian Kh-101 long-range air-launched cruise missile. The mainstream propaganda machine is also pushing the same narrative, despite the fact that the Russian missile has a massive warhead weighing 400 kg, meaning that the explosion would’ve completely leveled any building, which was simply not the case with the one damaged by the SAM fired by the Kiev regime forces. What’s more, it’s highly likely that the Russian cruise missile has an upgraded warhead weighing 800 kg, meaning that the discrepancy is far worse.
In case such a missile hit any residential area, the death toll would’ve been in the hundreds, if not thousands. However, the mainstream propaganda machine doesn’t really care about such inconsistencies. All it cares about is its vaunted narrative. That’s precisely why they quote Zelensky’s statements about “Russian terrorists” while also openly talking about NATO’s and Neo-Nazi junta’s terrorist attacks against Russian schoolchildren as if it were a “completely normal thing”.
However, apart from the video evidence showing that Russia didn’t conduct the aforementioned strike, there’s also the history of other blatant lies by the Neo-Nazi junta. Namely, it regularly uses SAM systems without any consideration for civilians, such as in the case of Przewodow, a Polish village that was hit by 5V55K SAMs fired by the Kiev regime forces back in mid-November 2022. Two civilians were killed.
The Neo-Nazi junta was adamant that Russia “deliberately” attacked Poland. At the time, I argued that the location of the incident was nowhere near the engagement range of any Russian SAM system that uses the 5V55K missiles. All evidence suggested that the weapon was fired from an older iteration of the Soviet-era S-300 SAM system. At the time, the Kiev regime forces still operated several versions, with the vast majority belonging to the S-300P/PS/PT series. The missile in question has a maximum engagement range of approximately 45 km.
Updated versions of the post-Soviet era were never deployed in Ukraine, while the closest Russian air defense units are at least 150-200 km away, in Belarus, and operate much more advanced systems such as the S-400. Poland itself later confirmed that the Neo-Nazi junta lied, even leading to strained relations between the two. The latest incident is in no way different.
Comment: This attack is not in Russia’s playbook, but evidently a page out of Kiev’s.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 