TODAY: Is Ukraine REALLY winning the war?
The mainstream media would have us believe that Ukraine IS going to win this war against Russia. The latest news coverage of the Ukrainian incursion into Russia at Kursk is the most blatant lying propaganda.
Stories about how happy are the Russian residents of Kursk, to have the Ukrainians there, treating them so kindly! Stories about how overwhelmed are Putin, and the Russian administration to see themselves losing the war at Kursk! Stories about how delighted is the Ukrainian population with this glorious victory now enthusing them about the inevitability and certainty of Ukraine’s coming victory!
And of course – the whole Russian intention in starting what was at first a “special military operation” was always to destroy democracy, invade NATO countries, and take over the world, wasn’t it? Nothing at all to do with ending Ukraine’s 8 year war against the Donbass area having autonomy, was it?
Anyway, leaving that purpose aside, we might remember that The U.S. Has Staged Operations With Extremists From Ukraine To Undermine Russia For Nearly 8 Decades. So, it’s no surprise that today’s media coverage of this war continues to toe the USA line.
But – coming back to today – this latest coverage of the Ukrainian incursion to Kursk is a remarkably egregious example of deceptive coverage of the news.
Admittedly – there is some truth in it. Some Ukrainians have undoubtedly been kind to the Russian inhabitants (the few not evacuated) of Kursk. Ukrainian soldiers have undoubtedly been brave and forceful. For some Ukrainians, the whole thing is probably a morale boost.
Now we come to the Russian propaganda about the Kursk invasion ? – 9700 Ukrainian Soldiers Killed Invading Russia, -the latest report from Russian military expert, Dr. Vladimir Kozin. So the losses are “around 80% of the entire invading force“ “Other losses include: 81 tanks, 39 infantry fighting vehicles, 70 armored personnel carriers, 576 armored combat vehicles …………………………..”
Even assuming that this article is propaganda from the other side – it is pretty shaking! What if there’s some truth in it?
And what was the purpose of the incursion to Kursk? It was not a military target. Was it to endanger or sabotage Kursk’s nuclear power station? The Ukrainians made a point of stating that it was not their plan for Ukraine to permanently occupy this area. It did take many troops away from the aim of repelling Russian troops from the crucial battle lines. Ukraine’s president has been accused of sacrificing towns on the eastern front for the headline-grabbing Kursk offensive into Russia.
The Western media has really been making a welter of this purported military success at Kursk. But that is looking more and more like a cover-up for the reality that Ukraine is not going to win this war, despite the frightening new developments towards USA and NATO supplying long range weapons and agreeing to their use. What? Ukraine Is Not Winning the War? The Narrative Turns – Now What?
Submission- Amelia King -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- a shoddy deal for submarines that might not even exist.
a projected$368 billion will be used to build submarines while teachers, students, nurses and doctors will be left in the dust.
If any damages relating to ‘nuclear risk’ occur, we’re paying the bill! How much debt are you willing to put us in?
Submission no.9 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
As a member of the Australian public, I cannot agree that AUKUS is a good idea for the
wellbeing of Australia as a whole.
Firstly, AUKUS is a horrifying idea in the sense that it is taking money away from the
Australia institutions that well and truly need it. The already underfunded sectors of
education1
, public health2
and climate action3
are put in further risk by AUKUS;
a projected$368 billion will be used to build submarines while teachers, students, nurses and doctors
will be left in the dust. These people are our citizens; why aren’t you listening to their
voices? Our public education systems have been left in shambles for a while now, and for
what? The idea of submarines? A fraction of 368 billion can be so much better used not only
to fund the education of students but also provide support for both the students and their
teachers, who are leaving the education industry at an alarming rate. Similarly, the public
health sector has little to no funding in areas such as preventative health4
, which is arguably the most important field we should be focusing on. Don’t even mention nurses, ambulance drivers, doctors and other technicians who are notoriously overworked and underpaid. How
long until the next pandemic? How long until we destroy public health completely and only
private fields remain? Who will pay for your submarines then? And finally, climate action.
You propose that paying for these submarines will bolster our future, and yet we burn in the
present. We are home to one of the great natural wonders of the world, and yet your inaction
and dependence upon foss fossil fuels will cause it to die. How does it feel to have the blood of
our land on your hands?
You claim that by building these submarines, we will grow our domestic workforce. The
truth of it is that we’re getting a shoddy deal for submarines that might not even exist. The
US and the UK can walk away from AUKUS with just a year’s notice; what then? Why are
you gambling with our money? If any damages relating to ‘nuclear risk’ occur, we’re paying
the bill! How much debt are you willing to put us in? Even if the US or the UK doesn’t back
out and somehow no damage occurs, who’s to say that the US will even deliver the promised
product? This is new technology being dealt with; we don’t know if it’ll even work! And
we’ll still be $368 billion in debt! But let’s be honest, if you cared so much about bolstering
our defence, you would’ve bought from France when you had the chance.
So, it really comes down to this: for how long will you choose capital over your people? No
matter how many jobs this AUKUS deal proposes for the Australian public, how can you go
forward with it in good conscious that this was the most utilitarian choice to make for our
country? Where do you suppose you’ll suddenly be able to produce the money we so
desperately need to be funnelled to the public when we’re 368 billion dollars in debt? Truly, I
have to wonder what the benefit of AUKUS might be. You’re a public servant, so fucking act
like it. Listen to what we’re all saying. Listen to our voices. Get rid of AUKUS.
1 https://www.aeufederal.org.au/news-media/news/2023/how-school-funding-fails-public-schools-report
2 https://www.phaa.net.au/Web/Web/News/Media-releases-2024/New-analysis-uncovers-reality-aboutGovernment-public-health-and-prevention-research-funding-
.aspx#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAcross%20the%20board%20health%20prevention,no%20funding%20attached%20
to%20it.
3 https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/
4 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020024000463?via%3Dihub
Submission- Andrew Gaines -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- could take us to war against China.
up to now neither the Australian public nor the Parliament has been given an opportunity to veto the AUKUS agreement.
by militarily aligning with the United States against China we could probably turn China into an enemy.
Proceeding down the path of AUKUS will not make us safer
Submission no. 8 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
This Agreement should not go forward
The question at hand is whether the Agreement on Cooperation Related to Naval
Nuclear Propulsion should be ratified. The agreement paves the way for Virginia
class submarines to be acquired by Australia, along with nuclear fuel and relevant IP.
The previous Liberal government and the present Labor government have both
committed Australia to AUKUS submarines. To my knowledge this was done without
a Parliamentary inquiry, and without considered public debate.
Which is to say, up t o now neither the Australian public nor the Parliament has been
given an opportunity to veto the AUKUS agreement. De facto, this Agreement
provide such an opportunity.
Should Australia ratify the agreement? The short answer is no.
War became obsolete with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. The obvious intention of the AUKUS program is to increase the United
States offensive capacity against China (after all these are attack submarines).
As a Chinese diplomat quipped, “Of course, your submarines are for sightseeing?”
Although the Labor government and the media portray China as a growing military
threat against Australia, two former Australian Prime Ministers, one of whom speaks
fluent Mandarin, assert that China is no threat to us
However, by militarily aligning with the United States against China we could
probably turn China into an enemy. And if the insanity of nuclear war erupts, well,
there goes Pine Gap, US bases in the Northern Territory, Port Kembla if that’s the
homeport for nuclear powered submarines… and who knows what else
In the greater scheme of things Australia, America, Russia, China and other countries
should be doing our best to tone down geopolitical military jockeying. The alternative
– highly likely in my view – is that at some point, whether through technological
accident or demented leadership on one side or another, things get out of hand, a
nuclear exchange occurs, and our globalized civilization is destroyed within a matter
of hours.
Proceeding down the path of AUKUS will not make us safer. This Agreement should not go forward.
Submission- Susan Benham-re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- financial and security concerns
Submission no. 3. I express strong concerns about the broad parameters of this document.
The serious nature of the contents of this treaty deserves adequate financial and security
protections for Australia which are lacking as it stands now.
Within the present document that outlines the procurement by Australia of nuclear powered
submarines from the US and the UK, the following clauses need to contain detailed
information that foreseeably protect Australia from future unreasonable claims by the US and
the UK
Article IV C I propose that any prices of Special Nuclear Material that do not have a
market price should be decided by Australia, US and UK – not only by US and UK as
currently exists in the agreement.
Any of the three countries is at liberty to end the deal with 12 months notice.
I propose that the consequences and subsequent liabilities following an exit should be
explicitly stated:
such that a clause be added to the agreement that provides for reasonable and adequate financial
compensation to Australia for irredeemable costs incurred until this point.
- Furthermore, Australia should not be liable to indemnify the US for ‘’liability, loss, costs,
damage or injury’’ relating to any of the nuclear submarines.
The clause should state ‘’may be liable for loss, costs, damage or injury to any of the US
nuclear submarines only if it can be unequivocably proven negligence by Australia was
involved’’. To not state this is egregious. - The extreme length of time for this Agreement is unacceptable: it is realistic that unforeseen
events / actions could occur within the next 51 years and unforeseeable financial demands on
Australia could be made.
I propose that the time limit for this Treaty be reduced to 35 years
Another Hunter Valley earthquake sounds alarms on Coalition’s nuclear scheme
Solutions for Climate Australia,
Elly Baxter, Senior Campaigner for Solutions for Climate Australia, 7 Sept 24 https://newshub.medianet.com.au/2024/09/another-hunter-valley-earthquake-sounds-alarms-on-coalitions-nuclear-scheme/65734/
The third earthquake in two weeks in NSW’s Hunter Valley today highlights the serious questions about the Liberal National Coalition’s plans for nuclear reactors they are still refusing to answer, says Solutions for Climate Australia.
The earthquake’s epicentre was again very close to the existing Liddell power station, where the Coalition aims to build at least one nuclear reactor. Solutions for Climate Australia Senior Campaigner Elly Baxter said the Coalition has not answered the many questions already raised about safety, emergency response, radioactive waste and water availability at the site.
“Five of the seven sites proposed by the Coalition as suitable for nuclear reactors experience earthquake activity,” Baxter said. “Their energy spokesman Ted O’Brien told ABC Radio Newcastle that a nuclear reactor at Liddell would not proceed if it was deemed unsafe, but what about the four other sites? If these sites are ruled out, where will the Coalition build their nuclear reactors? And will those communities be informed ahead of the federal election?
“Meanwhile, the safety issues we raised two weeks ago remain unanswered. Would local firefighting volunteers handle the nuclear material? What training would local firefighting volunteers receive in handling nuclear radiation? Who would train them? Would the army come in to help?
“How would iodine tablets be distributed to locals to try to reduce cancer risk? What would be the fallout zone and where would the local emergency staging area be? Where would nuclear refugees be accommodated?
“Would the Federal Government be responsible for the emergency management given under the Liberal National policy, the Federal Government would own the nuclear reactor?
“What would happen to the radioactive waste and who would be responsible for that? Where would the enormous volume of water come from to deal with the toxic, radioactive emergency?
“The safety issues highlighted by these earthquakes only compound our concerns that nuclear reactors will take far too long to build to protect Australians from the worst impacts of climate change.”
ENDS
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 