Jubilation at Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb – but is this joy justified?
A web, or a trail to Armageddon?
Noel Wauchope, 3 June 25, https://theaimn.net/jubilation-at-ukraines-operation-spiderweb-but-is-this-joy-justified/#google_vignette
The news media is agog with the glorious success of drones sent deep inside Russia to damage 41 planes. Ukraine claims that these were A-50 surveillance planes, the supersonic Tu-160 and Tu-22 bombers, and the massive Tu-95s, which were developed to carry nuclear bombs and now launch cruise missiles.
The damage is estimated to be $7billion. The targets reached inside Russia included Belaya airbase over 4,000km) from Ukraine, and three other distant airbases. the complex operation was planned in secret, over 18 months.
It was such a clever operation, involving smuggling of drones into Russia and placing them inside containers, which were later loaded on to trucks. Remotely activated mechanisms opened the containers allowing the drones to fly out and make their distant attack.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy praised the “absolutely brilliant” Ukrainian drone attack’ – “produced by Ukraine independently”.
Wow! We’re all delighted, aren’t we, at this surprise, this ingenuity, done all alone by Ukraine – such a demonstration of how the clever Ukrainians will beat the stupid boorish Russians?
There are just a few questions that I would like to see posed, in the corporate media.
I hardly know where to start. Can we believe that:
- This was done over 18 months completely without the knowledge of Ukraine’s European partners, in particular Great Britain, France and Germany, who were all consulting with Ukraine over that period, and especially in the last few weeks?
- Without the knowledge of the USA, while Senators Lyndsay Graham and Richard Blumenthal, in Ukraine in the past week where they coordinated intensely with the Ukrainian government?
- Why was this attack timed exactly at the time of the Istanbul peace talks between Ukraine and Russia?
- Did Zelensky not understand that this would at least cast a damper on those talks, upsetting Russia – a bit like the effect on USA if someone attacked US Air Force B-52H bombers and B-2 bombers ?
- Well, if Zelensky did understand that, was his intention to sabotage the talks, and provoke Russia into a retaliation, which might bring Europeand even the USA into the war?
The jubilation of the media seems to completely ignore Russia’s stated policy on its use of nuclear weapons, updated in 2024 – nuclear weapons would be authorised for use in response to “attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions”.
We don’t know how Russia will respond to this remarkable and unprecedented attack.
We don’t know how President Trump will respond.
What is clear is that the Istanbul peace talks have been wrecked, and a whole new phase now opens in the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It started out with the intention of a limited attack – the Russians still call it a Special Military Operation. Now Putin has no other option than to declare it a full scale war.
Nuclear policy was at odds with Lib philosophy: Paterson
Phillip Coorey, AFR, 3 June 25
Opposition finance spokesman James Paterson has put the Coalition’s nuclear power policy to the sword, saying lifting the moratorium on the energy source and leaving the rest to the private sector was more consistent with Liberal Party philosophy than building and owning generators.
The move, which cements last week’s deal to water down the policy as part of the new Coalition agreement, has killed off the prospect of nuclear power in Australia, at least in the medium term.
Clean Energy Investor Group CEO Richie Merzian said that because of time and cost, there was no appetite in the private sector to invest in nuclear power even if the moratorium was lifted.
But the Grattan Institute’s Tony Wood said nuclear power, especially small modular reactors, could be back in play within 20 years if the current policy of renewables firmed by gas and batteries doesn’t go as planned……….
The Coalition went to the last election promising to build and operate seven nuclear power plants – two small modular reactors and five large-scale plants – from 2035 onwards. The total system cost, which included the mix of nuclear, renewables and gas, was modelled at $334 billion.
Amid deep misgivings by Liberals about recommitting to the policy, last week, as part of a new Coalition agreement, Liberal leader Sussan Ley and Nationals leader David Littleproud agreed that any ongoing commitment to nuclear energy be confined to lifting the moratorium.
The plan to build seven nuclear power plants would be subject to a review of all policies to be undertaken in the wake of the Coalition’s heavy defeat on May 3, but Paterson said on Monday the old policy was unlikely to ever be revisited.
“The answer for the Liberal Party going forward on this is probably not to take what we did to the last election, which is a government-initiated and managed and run program where taxpayers would finance and build them,” he said.
“But instead go for a more traditional Liberal approach, a more market-based approach, which is repeal the prohibition on nuclear power, and then leave it up to the energy industry to decide if they want to invest in nuclear.
………………………………. With Labor opposed to nuclear, that means the renewables rollout would continue unabated for another six years, making the economic case for nuclear less compelling.
“None of the investors in the CEIG, which is 50 per cent of new energy generation, are interested in nuclear in Australia, full stop,” Merzian said.
“That includes major investors who own nuclear assets overseas.”
The objection was not philosophical, but based on time and cost, he said.
“It’s too late to go down that route, it’s just a non-starter.”………………………….. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/nuclear-policy-was-at-odds-with-lib-philosophy-paterson-20250602-p5m42i
Nuclear news – but not from the nuclear-military-industrial-media complex
Some bits of good news – Kyrgyz Republic unveils 800,000-hectare ecological corridor for biodiversity. The EU ratified the global ocean treaty Australia’s grid ‘greener than ever’.
TOP STORIES. Legacy of US nuclear weapons tests in the Marshall Islands created global radiation exposure: new study.
US protects Israel as Netanyahu vows to ‘take over’ Gaza, using hunger as as weapon.
Desperation Time in Ukraine End-Game.Putin’s demands for peace include an end to NATO enlargement, sources say – ALSO AT ……..
https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/02/1-a-putins-demands-for-peace-include-an-end-to-nato-enlargement-sources-say/Revealed: Nato
rearmament could increase emissions by 200m tonnes a year.
Climate. Earth is heading for 2.7°C warming this century- We may avoid the worst climate scenarios – but the outlook is still dire. Almost 40% of world’s glaciers already doomed due to climate crisis – study. World faces new danger of ‘economic denial’ in climate fight, Cop30 head says.
Noel’s notes Time to give up the pretense about Ukraine winning the war. A tale of two dodgy domes.
AUSTRALIA. Marles’ misstep: welcome to the backlash. ‘Fork in the road’: How a failed nuclear plot locked in Australia’s renewable future. Liberals put nuclear power policy to the sword. Turnbull says ‘stupid’ Nationals picking ‘fight over nothing’ as Liberals weigh nuclear.
Albanese ramps up Gaza rhetoric as Zionist narrative erodes.
Nuclear Items
ATROCITIES. Israel’s aid plan for Gaza is a key part of its strategy to expel Palestinians. Extermination as negotiation: Understanding Israel’s strategy in Gaza.
Gaza’s Hospitals ARE The Target.
| ENERGY. Solar puts Australia in fast lane to 100% renewables. |
| ENVIRONMENT. David Lowry: Nuclear power has no role in “clean energy” because it isa very dirty technology! -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/29/1-b1-david-lowry-nuclear-power-has-no-role-in-clean-energy-because-it-isa-very-dirty-technology/Davis-Besse Report Reveals Constant Pollution, Flawed Monitoring, and Unending Nuclear Waste. |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. Sorry If This Is Antisemitic But I Think It’s Wrong To Burn Children Alive.Poll: 82% of Israelis want to expel Palestinians from Gaza; 47% want to kill every man, woman, child. Pope Leo XIV Renews Call for Gaza Ceasefire, Laments Israeli Killing of Palestinian Children. |
EVENTS. Veterans Launch 40-Day Fast to Protest Israel’s Starvation of Gaza.
7 June – Sizewell C Outrage Rally.
12 June – Nuclear War: A Scenario – join an online discussion with international best-selling author Annie Jacobsen.
| HEALTH. Ending nuclear weapons, before they end us. |
| HISTORY. The health impact of nuclear tests in French Polynesia – archive, 1981 |
| LEGAL. Enough Is Enough- Israel Is Committing War Crimes- Former Israeli PM. New Israeli Law Allows Palestinians as Young as 12 to Be Imprisoned for Life.Czech Nuclear Power Plant Deal with KHNP Likely Postponed until after October, due to court ruling. |
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Protest against Chalk River nuclear waste disposal project -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/30/2-b1-protest-against-chalk-river-nuclear-waste-disposal-project/
Anti-nuclear weapon campaigners picket Plymouth MP’s office ahead of Devonport demonstration.
| POLITICS. Nuclear power is back- Will it work out this time? Labour ministers under pressure as viral video shows broken promises to nuclear veterans. Lincolnshire County Councillors move to pull the plug on nuclear waste site talks. Lincolnshire County Council leader Sean Matthews defends stance on nuclear waste site amid criticism from Tories. Reform leader hits back after Tories saying he’s gone back on nuclear waste site promise. Disappointing but predictable: UK Government minister’s reply on nuke treaty. Trump’s nuclear vision collides with Trump’s actual policies.Trump’s executive orders could endanger America’s nuclear renaissance . |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. How Donald Trump Discovers the Art of Political Negotiation. Trump’s role in provoking Russia’s destruction of Ukraine should not be ignored. Trump warns Netanyahu off Iran strike as nuclear talks continue. Iran rejects IAEA report alleging increased enriched uranium stockpile. Does Tehran want the bomb?Why the US Won’t Be Able to Help Build Taiwan’s Nuclear Future. |
| SAFETY. Rise in nuclear-related incidents deeply worrying. Experts warn Trump’s nuclear blitz could trigger ‘Next Three Mile Island’. ENSURING A MELTDOWN – Trump’s reckless nuclear orders. |
| SECRETS and LIES. How does the nuclear industry get away with its persistent, repetitive lies? France spent €90,000 countering research into impact of Pacific nuclear tests. Watchdog probes Springbank baron over nuclear firm meeting. |
| SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. Elon Musk promises more risky launches after sixth Starship failure. SpaceX loses contact with its Starship on 9th test flight after last 2 went down in flames. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Trump’s new ‘gold standard’ rule will destroy American science as we know it. China unveils world’s first AI nuke inspector. |
| WASTES. UK government’s Spending Review needs to allocate nuclear clean-up funds – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/31/1-b1-uk-governments-spending-review-needs-to-allocate-nuclear-clean-up-funds/ Dysfunctional: review reveals South Copeland GDF partnership at war. Councillors move to end nuclear waste talks. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. Here’s what they don’t tell you about ‘massive Russian strikes on Ukraine’. Ukraine drone strikes hit nuclear bombers deep inside Russia. Israeli Military Says It Will Occupy 75% of Gaza Within Two Months, ‘Concentrate’ the Civilian Population. US Has 500 Troops in Taiwan in Major Challenge to China. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. The 2026 bill for the Ukraine war is already in the mail. Ukraine ‘can’t afford’ it if US quits conflict – top Zelensky aide. Donald Trump’s Fool’s Gold. Gaza “a Gaping Wound on Humanity:” Spain Convenes Int’l Conference to call for Arms Embargo on Israel. Roads to War: The EU’s Security Action for Europe Fund. Europe’s defence without the U.S.: What does the new cost report say? Britain to buy fighter jets to carry nuclear weapons-ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/02/1-b1-britain-to-buy-fighter-jets-to-carry-nuclear-weapons/ |
‘Fork in the road’: How a failed nuclear plot locked in Australia’s renewable future
The Age By Nick Toscano, June 1, 2025
hen Australians went to the polls and voted Anthony Albanese back as prime minister, they also voted for something that will outlive the next election: the power industry’s guaranteed switch from coal to renewable energy.
What they didn’t vote for were state-owned nuclear reactors, forced delays of coal-fired power station closures and a slew of other Coalition promises widely viewed as threats to the country’s era-defining challenge of cutting harmful emissions while keeping electricity supply and prices steady.
Although times remain testing in the energy sector, a feeling of relief is clear. “The nuclear conversation is dead and buried for the foreseeable future,” said an executive at one of Australia’s biggest power suppliers, who asked not to be named. Even as the Nationals keep arguing for a nuclear future, any genuine suggestion that atomic facilities could still be built in time to replace retiring coal plants after the next election rolls around was now downright “ridiculous”, said another, adding that renewable energy was on track to surpass 60 per cent of the grid by 2028. “That’s great for the energy sector – it simplifies the path forward,” they said.
Make no mistake, a seismic shift across the grid has been well under way for years now. Australia’s coal-fired power stations – the backbone of the system for half a century – have been breaking down often and closing down earlier, with most remaining plants slated to shut within a decade.
At the same time, power station owners including AGL, Origin Energy and EnergyAustralia are joining a rush of other investors in piling billions of dollars into large-scale renewables and batteries to expand the share of their power that comes from the sun, wind and water. The federal government has an ambitious target for renewable energy to make up 82 per cent of the grid by 2030.
Moving to a system dominated by less-predictable renewables will not be easy. It will take much greater preparation to match supply and demand and require the multibillion-dollar pipeline of private investment in the transition to continue. But ousted opposition leader Peter Dutton, before losing the May 3 federal election and his own seat, hatched a plan to change the course dramatically. A grid powered mainly by renewables would never be able to “keep the lights on”, Dutton insisted.
Instead, he declared, a Coalition government would tear up Australia’s legislated 2030 emissions-reduction commitments, cut short the rollout of renewables, force the extensions of coal-fired generators beyond their owners’ retirement plans and eventually replace them with seven nuclear-powered generators, built at the taxpayer’s expense, sometime before 2050
For Australians who wanted to see urgent action to tackle climate change – and investors at the forefront of the shift to cleaner power – the campaign to dump near-term climate targets in favour of nuclear energy came at the worst possible time. Some likened it to a “near-death experience” for the momentum of the shift to a cleaner, modern energy system that would have wiped out investor confidence and killed off billions of dollars of future renewable projects.
“When you reflect on the significance of energy in the campaign, it’s reasonable to say this was a fork in the road,” said Kane Thornton, outgoing chief executive of the Clean Energy Council……………………………………………..
Dutton argued for months that nuclear plants would be the best way to keep prices down, even though almost no one agreed with him.
“I’m very happy for the election to be a referendum on energy – on nuclear,” he said.
In the end, the idea proved too toxic for voters. It delivered big swings against Dutton’s candidates in electorates chosen to host reactors, while support for Labor grew in many of the places selected to develop massive offshore wind farms, which the Coalition had planned to scrap.
The decisive election result “locks in” the government’s ambitious push for an electricity grid almost entirely powered by renewables, said Leonard Quong, the head of Australian research at BloombergNEF.
“The Labor Party’s landslide victory … is a win for climate, clean energy and the country’s decarbonisation trajectory,” he said…………………………………………..https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/fork-in-the-road-how-a-failed-nuclear-plot-locked-in-australia-s-renewable-future-20250523-p5m1qa.html
In Australia’s post-US future, we must find our own way with China
Hugh White, 2 June 25, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/02/australia-post-america-future-china
The Canberra establishment thinks we must depend on Washington more than ever in today’s hard new world. That misses a vital point, Hugh White writes in this Quarterly Essay extract.
Thanks to US regional strategic primacy, Australia has been virtually immune from the threat of direct military attack since the defeat of Japan in 1945. Now that is changing. In future it will no longer be militarily impossible for China to attack Australia directly. And not just China: other major regional powers, especially India and eventually perhaps Indonesia, will have the potential to launch significant attacks on Australia.
That does not mean we now face a serious threat of Chinese military attack. Today the only circumstance in which Australia could credibly find itself under attack from China would be if Australia joined the US in a war with China over Taiwan. Reports that Australia is a target of Chinese cyber and intelligence operations do not show that Beijing poses a military threat to us any more than our cyber and intelligence operations targeting China provide evidence that we pose a military threat to them.
It is harder to say whether China might become militarily aggressive towards us in future. We cannot assume that it will from its military buildup alone, because countries often expand their armed forces to defend themselves rather than to attack others.
But, equally, we cannot rule out the possibility that China might decide to use armed force against Australia in decades to come. Some aspects of China’s naval buildup, especially its sustained investment in aircraft carriers, which would have no useful role in a US-China war over Taiwan, suggest that it wants to be able to conduct long-range power-projection operations, which could encompass Australia.
Nonetheless, it does seem unlikely. For one thing, it is a little hard to imagine what China’s purpose might be in attacking Australia, given that we are not an easy country to invade. And if we get our defence policy right it should be possible for us to raise the cost to the point that it is not worth China’s while.
This all means that, while we should not ignore it, we should not allow the distant possibility of a Chinese military threat to dominate our thinking about China. There are many other dimensions to what is a very important, complex and ultimately inescapable relationship.
It is also a relationship of a completely unfamiliar kind. Other than our two great allies, Australia has never before encountered a country as large, as powerful, as influential in our region, as important to us economically, and with close heritage connections with such a large proportion of our population, as China.
Once we abandon the illusion that the US is going to manage China for us, we will realise that we have no choice but to find our own way. This will not be comfortable or easy. China is ruthless, demanding and completely transactional – though no more than other great powers. Over the past decade, in Canberra and around the country, exaggerated fears and a desire to stay in step with Washington have crowded out serious thinking about China itself and how the complex range of interests we have in our relationship with it can best be balanced. We have less deep expertise on China now than we had 30 years ago. That has to change.
Our second big task is to rethink our relationship with the US. In the decades before the mid-1990s, there was an assumption that – in a Whig-view-of-history way – Australia was gradually but ineluctably emerging from dependence to independence as we left our colonial and imperial past behind and embraced our Asian future. That died away around the time John Howard became prime minister in 1996, when it seemed to many people that the future was America’s, and that Australia’s future was to become ever more tightly entwined with it, strategically, economically and culturally.
This was the time when a US-Australia free trade agreement seemed both essential and sufficient to guarantee Australia’s economic future, and when America’s place as the world’s dominant military power seemed unchallengeable. The economic illusions of that era were soon overtaken by the hard realities of China’s rise but the strategic illusions have survived. Indeed, they were strengthened by the “war on terror” and have been intensified again by the rising fear of China. So we clung on and stopped imagining we could do anything else.
It is often said, for example, that the intelligence relationship is so close and so important to both sides as to be indissoluble. Don’t bet on that. US access to Pine Gap as a location for its satellite ground station is valuable but far from essential. Our access to US intelligence under the Five Eyes arrangements is very beneficial and, in some ways, irreplaceable, in that it provides intelligence we could not get in other ways. But that does not mean we could not get by without it. We certainly could.
As things get tough with Washington over the months and years ahead, there will be a temptation to try to placate Donald Trump and earn his favour by meeting his demands for increased defence spending, or by siding with the US in its economic war by cutting links with China.
There may be good reasons to increase defence spending but trying to buy Trump’s favour is not one of them. Likewise, that futile goal would in no way offset the many powerful arguments against joining a US-led anti-China economic coalition. There are no favours we can do Trump which will keep the US strategically engaged in Asia and committed to Australia’s defence.
We need to bear these cold realities clearly in mind as we think about our future relations with Washington. The first step is to recognise that the end of the alliance as we have known it for so long does not mean the end of the relationship. We have been close allies for so long that it is hard to imagine what other form our relationship might take.
But with careful management, a new, beneficial post-alliance relationship can evolve, just as our relations with Britain evolved after it withdrew from Asia in the late 1960s. We continued to have close and productive defence and security links, drawing some strength from our shared history together.
Singapore offers another instructive model. It is not a US ally but it has an excellent relationship with Washington, including deep defence links. We should aim for a post-alliance relationship like that with the US in the years ahead – and we should be building it now. That does not mean severing ties with Washington but it does mean changing the relationship fundamentally.
Above all, it means acknowledging that the security undertakings in Anzus can no longer be the foundation of our strategic policy, or of our relationship with the US. The Canberra establishment is shocked by any suggestion that we should walk away from the Anzus commitments. They think we can and must depend on the US more than ever in today’s hard new world.
But that misses the vital point. It is not Australia but the US that is walking away from the commitments it made in the Anzus treaty in very different circumstances 75 years ago. That was plain enough under Joe Biden. It is crystal clear today under Trump.
This is the lesson we must draw from Washington’s failure to defend Ukraine, from its crumbling position in Asia and from US voters’ decisive rejection of the old idea of US global leadership to which we still cling. Our best path now is to recognise this and start acting accordingly.
- Hugh White is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. This is an edited extract of Hard New World: Our Post-American Future, published in Quarterly Essay
Marles’ misstep: welcome to the backlash
June 2, 2025 Michael Taylor https://theaimn.net/marles-misstep-welcome-to-the-backlash/
Defence Minister Richard Marles’ support for US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s call for increased Asia-Pacific security contributions, particularly to counter China’s military build-up, has sparked significant backlash.
Prime Minister Albanese has reportedly been upset by Marles’ stance. Albanese recently criticised a security think tank report warning of Australia’s unpreparedness for regional conflict, showing his sensitivity to escalating military rhetoric. Marles’ alignment with Hegseth, especially amid pressure from the Trump administration to raise Australia’s defence spending to 5% of GDP (from the current 2.02%), directly contradicts Albanese’s more cautious approach. This has created tension within the government, with Albanese likely viewing Marles’ comments as undermining his authority and Australia’s independent foreign policy.
Australians, too, are frustrated. Many see this as a repeat of Peter Dutton’s failed strategy of aligning closely with the Trump administration, which contributed to his election loss. Scores of comments on X reflect this sentiment, with some calling Marles’ approach “America-friendly” and a betrayal of national interests. Others argue that the focus on military spending – potentially at the expense of social programs, community infrastructure, and welfare – prioritises US agendas over domestic needs. For instance, there’s concern that funds could be better used to build a better society rather than fueling what some see as a provocative stance against China.
China, predictably, has reacted strongly. Beijing issued statements condemning Hegseth’s rhetoric as “defamatory,” accusing the US of being the true hegemonic power destabilising the Asia-Pacific. China also dismissed comparisons between Taiwan and Ukraine as “unacceptable,” asserting Taiwan as an internal affair. Marles’ call for transparency on China’s military build-up, made at the Shangri-La Dialogue, was met with silence from Beijing, which instead sent a low-level delegation to the summit, signaling its displeasure. China’s criticism extends to the broader US-led push, including the AUKUS pact, which Marles defended as “on track” despite regional unease.
Additionally, an overwhelming number of commentators on social media have criticised Marles for potentially escalating tensions with China. They argue that Australia should avoid provocative actions – such as sending warships near China’s coast – and focus on diplomacy rather than aligning with a US administration that has slashed Pacific aid and abandoned the Paris Agreement, moves that Pacific nations have also criticised.
Overall, the criticism paints Marles’ alignment with Hegseth as a risky move that alienates his own government, frustrates Australians wary of US influence, and provokes China, all while regional stability hangs in the balance.
The backlash reflects deep concerns about the implications of Marles’ stance, both domestically and regionally. The tension with Albanese, public frustration, and China’s response highlight the complexity of Australia’s position in this geopolitical context.
Time to give up the pretense about Ukraine winning the war.
31 May 25, https://theaimn.net/time-to-give-up-the-pretense-about-ukraine-winning-the-war/
The war in Ukraine has reached a new, and very dangerous phase. Not that it wasn’t dangerous before. But the toll of militarism was being paid by the deaths and the sufferings only of soldiers and their communities of Ukraine and Russia.
That’s OK by the shareholders in U.S. and other weapons companies, and by warhawks and the virtuous Russian-haters of Western culture. But it’s another thing when the deaths and sufferings might now extend to European people, to the British – and heck, – to World War 3 and all of us.
The change is that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pledged on 28th May to help Ukraine develop its own long-range missile systems that would be free of any Western-imposed limitations on their use and targets. So Ukraine could hit Moscow. Now Merz did back off in this, a bit, but later suggested that Taurus missiles might be delivered to UKraine. Germany would put up the money.
This would be a revolutionary change in the Western policy on the war in Ukraine.War-monger though he was, President Joe Biden saw the danger in escalating the war in this way, and for over 2 years refused Ukraine’s demand for long-range missiles. He changed his mind on this only at the last minute in December 2024. Then Trump, on taking office, paused weapons shipments to Ukraine. Now, characteristically, Trump has a confusing attitude on this – probably means “It’s OK as long as Ukraine pays up for them“.
Now, there are lots of impediments to Ukraine actually getting long-range missiles that could strike deep inside Russia. One big impediment is that the USA would have to be involved in missiles from Germany being used – this would necessitate U.S. software and technical support.
Lavrov on Germany’s Taurus Missiles: Approval for Ukraine’s Long-Range Strikes? | Times Now World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L8ARMiQmdE
cuSo, should we really worry about this bold initiative by the German Chancellor?
I think, yes. It’s a wake-up call. If we all think that it’s now OK for long-range missiles to hit deep inside Russia, well, I guess we don’t mind if Russia sends the same into Ukraine and beyond ?
Is anyone in the West paying attention to the facts on the actual progress of this war? Global Conflict Tracker now says:
“Russia still occupies roughly 20 percent of the country after gaining over four thousand square kilometers of territory in 2024. Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian cities…. Since January 2022, Ukraine has received about $407 billion in aid, including over $118 billion from the United States. Fighting and air strikes have inflicted over 40,000 civilian casualties, while 3.7 million people are internally displaced, and 6.9 million have fled Ukraine. 12.7 million people need humanitarian assistance.“
But never mind. The corporate media is still telling us that Ukraine can, and must, beat Russia. And they’re also telling us that Russia doesn’t want a negotiated settlement.
And why is it that Russia does not seem to want a negotiated settlement?
Well, that’s because the new “Coalition of the Willing”, led by Britain and France, supports Volodymyr Zelensky’s underlying demands for ending the war:
Zelensky’s underlying demands:
- Ukraine membership of NATO
- return of all Russian-occupied territories, including the Donbass and Crimea
- Western troops in Ukraine for security
- payment of reparations, war crimes trials for the Russian leadership
All of these are unacceptable to Russia – especially NATO membership – a definite “Red Line”
There have been previous negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. In the Istanbul talks of March-April 2022, the two parties were on the verge of an agreement, in which Russia made concessions, and Zelensky did not insist on NATO membership. The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul talks by refusing to provide Ukraine with security guarantees and encouraging Zelensky to keep fighting instead.
Now Russia is in a militarily winning position, and has no inclination to submit to those underlying demands, nor to agree to a temporary ceasefire which would allow Ukraine to develop weaponry and troops.
But there is no suggestion from our bold, confident, Western leaders – Sir Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, that it might be best to pay more attention to the actual military situation, and less to the theatrical posturing of Volodymyr Zelensky. An unlikely source of common sense is America’s President Donald Trump – who actually does want peace, with his focus on making himself and his cronies richer, rather than on fighting Russia.
And the general public? Weary of it all, stunned into a sort of mental paralysis as we observe the barbarities going on in Gaza, the West en masse seems to be just sleep-walking into the military and economic disaster of a continuing war in Ukraine.
As with all wars, the media plays a huge role – glorifying that consummate media performer Zelensky, and regaling us with the civilian horrors suffered by Ukrainian civilians. (And they ARE really suffering). Of course, not a word about suffering Russians. Russian atrocities are publicised – both real ones, and fabricated. But if you see any news item about atrocities done by Ukrainians – you assume automatically that it must be a lie.
In fact, I’ve noticed that there is a powerful argument for the untruth of anything that shows any positive activity by Russians. If you mention it to any Westerner, it will be refuted because “After all, this news is just Russian propaganda“. You see, it doesn’t matter if the news is factual – it must be false, coming from Russia. In reality, of course the Russians are using factual news as propaganda. As well, they do have a sophisticated programme of misinformation as well. And so do we in the West, in all likelihood, when we consider America’s Central Intelligence Agency and its long history of disinformation.
So, it is a media mess. It’s tragic that Zelensky, elected on a pledge to honour agreements ensuring the autonomy of the largely Russian-speaking Donbass provinces, quickly went along with Europe and USA’s historic fear and hatred of Russia.
Never mind that Russia was on “our side” in the last big war, and largely won that war in Europe, at the price of some 27 million Russian lives. The Soviet Union did defeat the Nazis in Ukraine. But all that is forgotten, as Western leaders look solemn and statesman-like, pronouncing on coalition-of-the -willing plans for a big war in the air, with ever more powerful missiles, ending of course, in a glorious victory over Russia (and sorta bad luck that Ukraine is completely demolished along the way).
I don’t know what it might take for the public to wake up to the suicidal path on which these macho “statesmen” are leading the West, and “helping” Ukraine. A previous Coalition of the Willing” “helped Iraq”, and that hasn’t turned out so well.
It would be a good start if some in the corporate media could get away with telling the facts on the dismal situation of Ukraine in this war. Expanding the war sounds so noble and easy to decide on. Much more difficult would be a measured progress in negotiation, recognising the legitimate needs of each side.
Sorry If This Is Antisemitic But I Think It’s Wrong To Burn Children Alive
Israel has done more to promote hatred toward Jews in the last year and a half than Stormfront has in its entire existence. No white supremacist propaganda will ever be as effective at spreading hatred against Jews as openly mass murdering children under a Star of David flag.
Caitlin Johnstone, May 28, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/sorry-if-this-is-antisemitic-but?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=164612152&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Israel is burning children alive in Gaza. And call me an antisemitic Jew-hating Nazi terrorist lover if you must, but I happen to believe that’s wrong.
❖
Now that it’s been made clear that Israel’s goal in Gaza is the complete ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians, Israel apologists have been shifting from bleating about hostages and Hamas to arguing that ethnic cleansing is actually fine and good. Which makes sense; that’s really the only argument they can make at this point.
❖
Never forget that the US Congress gave Netanyahu dozens of standing ovations during a single speech while he was in the middle of perpetrating history’s first live-streamed genocide. This is who they are. It will always be who they are.
Israel has done more to promote hatred toward Jews in the last year and a half than Stormfront has in its entire existence. No white supremacist propaganda will ever be as effective at spreading hatred against Jews as openly mass murdering children under a Star of David flag.
❖
Support for Israel used to be the overwhelmingly dominant opinion in the western world. Luckily that’s changing, but the fact that this was the case until Israel exposed itself shows you really can’t just go along with majority opinion on any issue. You need to think for yourself.
Ignore what the crowd says. Ignore people who scream at you for disagreeing with their position. Look at the raw facts as free from your own cognitive biases as you are able, and have the courage to stand on your own if necessary.
❖
Gaza is such an easy moral issue to get right that there’s no way anyone who gets it wrong isn’t a shitty person in other areas of their life as well. I feel sorry for anyone who has interpersonal relationships with Israel supporters, because they’d suck to be around.
❖
World Food Programme director Cindy McCain is saying that she’s seen no evidence of Hamas stealing aid entering Gaza. Israel’s one and only argument for continuing to block aid to Gaza is being publicly debunked by a member of one of the most pro-Israel families in US politics.
The US has reportedly delivered some 90,000 tons of weapons to Israel since October 2023.
I mostly focus on the Gaza genocide these days, but sometimes figures like this make me zoom out a few clicks and think about how bat shit insane our civilization is as a whole. Just think how much good we could do in the world if we weren’t pouring resources into evil shit like this.
❖
Murdoch-owned publication The Australian came after me the other day for tweeting “Two Israeli embassy staff getting shot in Washington DC is less newsworthy than tens of thousands of Palestinians being killed in Israel’s genocidal land grab. It is less important. It deserves less attention. It is not the main story. Israel’s genocide in Gaza is the main story.”
They called me a “journalist” in scare quotes, which I guess is supposed to be an insult, but coming from the Murdoch press it can only be seen as a compliment.
❖
According to the official western narrative, Americans becoming violently radicalized by a US-backed genocide is a bigger issue than the US-backed genocide.
According to the official narrative, university protests against a transparent ethnic cleansing operation are a greater concern than the transparent ethnic cleansing operation.
According to the official narrative, western Zionist Jews feeling emotionally upset about opposition to a modern-day holocaust is a more urgent problem than a modern-day holocaust.
All of our institutions are backwards and evil. Our media. Our politics. Our education system. Our manufacturers of mainstream culture. This should be clear to everyone by now.
Every historical evil we were taught never to repeat is being repeated by our own rulers.
Everything we were taught to fear about the countries that the western empire hates is true of the western empire.
Every dark future we were warned about in dystopian fiction is true of the dystopia we are living in presently.
We live in a nightmare of a civilization, under an empire that is fueled by human blood. The closer you examine it, the uglier it gets.
This cannot be allowed to continue. It must not be allowed to continue.
The empire must fall.
Albanese ramps up Gaza rhetoric as Zionist narrative erodes
Michael West Media, by Emma Thomas | May 26, 2025
Anthony Albanese is finally outraged at Israel’s aid blockade, while the Zionist lobby is losing the argument in the NSW Parliament’s antisemitism inquiry. Emma Thomas with the story.
Right-wing Zionist groups, claiming to represent all Australian Jews, have attempted to control the narrative around antisemitism. Last week’s parliamentary hearing into antisemitism in NSW suggests they might be losing control.
Last Monday’s hearing began with David Ossip of the NSW Board of Deputies claiming to speak on behalf of “the Jewish community more broadly”. When statements made by other members of the Jewish community revealed that claim to be false, Ossip reportedly declared that the inquiry was “‘hijacked’ by fringe Jewish groups.”
“Far right hate group”, the Australian Jewish Association (AJA), expressed similar concerns about “Jewish antisemitism”, which it attributes to “A tiny fringe group claiming Jewish heritage [that] parrots anti-Jewish rhetoric, [and is] rejected by the broader Jewish community”.
Sky News later chimed in, with one commentator on an all-non-Jewish panel claiming that those “fringe” Jewish speakers “don’t actually represent Jewish people.”
Would-be gatekeepers
A member of the anti-Zionist Jewish group, Tzedek Collective, told MWM, while anti-Zionist Jews have long copped antisemitic abuse from Zionists, the NSW inquiry showcased a newer phenomenon:
“Zionist efforts to deny anti-Zionist Jews’ Jewishness itself”.”
The AJA’s contention that anti-Zionist activists were “claiming Jewish heritage” was a case in point. Asked by a committee member whether the AJA was “trying to pass doubt upon whether those groups really are Jewish”, AJA president, Robert Gregory, responded, “I wasn’t trying to cast doubt, but there has been well-documented examples where various people who’ve presented themselves as Jewish anti-Israel activists were then exposed as not actually having Jewish background.”
When the committee member followed up by suggesting that sounded like an attempt to cast doubt about other speakers’ Jewish heritage, Gregory responded, “We haven’t made that suggestion, but, as I just mentioned, it has been exposed in different cases internationally that that in fact is the case – that people were claiming Jewish identity and are not. I’ll just repeat: We didn’t, in our submission, make that point about any particular person, if that’s what you are implying.”
Attempts to deny someone’s Jewish heritage by equating heritage with political and ethical beliefs is “chillingly reminiscent of German race science from the 1930s”, said another speaker, whose Jewish relatives were murdered by the Nazis at Sobibor extermination camp. It is “the height of antisemitism,” he said.
Delegitimising disagreement
Although questions about the Jewishness of the Jewish speakers, along with the Jewish groups they represent, were seemingly settled, many speakers highlighted other Zionist efforts to delegitimise political disagreement within the Jewish community.
By labelling parts of the community as “fringe”, Zionist organisations were attempting to “delegitimise my existence, my family’s existence and the existence of all the anti-Zionist Jews that I know”, Cathy Peters of Jewish Voices of Inner Sydney said.
Founder of Jewish Women 4 Peace, Stephanie Cunio, said that “to be called a fringe is despicable” given that her group includes people “from rabbis’ wives to far-left people” who oppose “killing and murder”. A regular attendee of Emanuel Synagogue, Cunio told the inquiry:
“Our Jewish values are not fringe.“
Among those Jewish values are commitments to freedom and resistance against injustice, said Shulamit Kirovsky of Tzedek Collective, not stifling dissent and silencing those “who speak out against Israel’s crimes of illegal occupation and genocide.”
Dr Na’ama Carlin, executive member of the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), told the committee that “delegitimising our views or deciding who can and who can’t talk for a community is not the way forward.”
Dr Na’ama Carlin, executive member of the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), told the committee that “delegitimising our views or deciding who can and who can’t talk for a community is not the way forward.”
Chris Rath’s “Piers Morgan moment”
Antisemitism cannot be addressed through a “politics of condemnation”, according to the JCA’s Dr Michael Edwards. “I think that ultimately gets us nowhere, deciding who can’t speak based on what they do or don’t condemn.”
Liberal Party committee member, Chris Rath, seemed to disagree, especially after Israeli-Australian Allon Uhlmann, a member of the group Jews against the Occupation ’48 (JAO48), told the inquiry that he did not consider Hamas and Hezbollah to be antisemitic. “They have a major problem with Israel and the Zionist state”, he added. …………. https://michaelwest.com.au/albanese-ramps-up-gaza-rhetoric-as-zionist-narrative-erodes/
Here’s what they don’t tell you about ‘massive Russian strikes on Ukraine’
Zelensky, backed by his Western sponsors, is not held accountable for the reckless escalation he fuels. Worse still, this impunity undermines any real incentive for dialogue. Why negotiate when your side is never blamed?
Moscow is doing what must be done to protect its civilians from Kiev’s campaign of terror
By Nadezhda Romanenko, political analyst, 26 May 25, https://www.rt.com/russia/618166-russia-ukraine-drone-strikes/
In the current media frenzy surrounding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, a glaring double standard continues to distort public perception: the nature and impact of drone warfare. Western outlets, politicians, and NGOs are quick to pounce on Russia for retaliatory actions, yet remain eerily silent about Ukraine’s increasingly reckless and escalatory drone campaign. This selective outrage has not only undermined serious dialogue on peace – it has shielded Ukraine from accountability as it wages what can only be described as a campaign of terror against Russian civilians.
Drone war reality: Civilian targets in Russia
Over the past few weeks, Ukraine’s use of drones has surged in both frequency and range. On a near-daily basis, dozens – sometimes hundreds – of drones are launched toward Russian territory, many targeting civilian infrastructure or flying indiscriminately toward dense urban centers like Moscow. While Russia’s air defense systems have performed admirably in intercepting the majority of these threats, the falling debris poses an unavoidable risk to civilians, including children and the elderly. Russian regions far from the frontlines have been forced into a state of constant vigilance, air raid alerts disrupting the normalcy of everyday life.
What’s most alarming is the strategic logic – or lack thereof – behind these strikes. Unlike military-grade precision operations, Ukraine’s drone attacks appear designed less to achieve tactical objectives and more to instill fear. The targets are often electrical substations, communication towers, or simply proximity to residential areas. This cannot be framed as mere collateral damage; it is a campaign whose effects are felt most deeply by civilians.
Western silence and hypocrisy
Despite this escalating threat to Russian civilians, international reaction has been resoundingly one-sided. There is no UN condemnation of Ukraine’s drone strikes. There are no emergency meetings in Brussels, no CNN specials about Russian children running to bomb shelters. Instead, the focus is singular: Russia’s every response is dissected, denounced, and demonized. The same countries that cheer on Ukraine’s technological advancements in warfare turn a blind eye to the human cost – so long as the humans in question are Russian.
This selective outrage creates a moral vacuum in which Ukraine is emboldened to continue its drone war with impunity. Zelensky, backed by his Western sponsors, is not held accountable for the reckless escalation he fuels. Worse still, this impunity undermines any real incentive for dialogue. Why negotiate when your side is never blamed?
Russia’s measured response
What is most striking in this dynamic is Russia’s restraint. Despite the volume and severity of the attacks on its territory, Moscow’s drone strikes remain focused on disrupting military logistics and strategic assets within Ukraine – often near the frontlines. Russia has refrained from matching Ukraine’s willingness to launch indiscriminate aerial barrages deep into population centers. If anything, it has used this period to demonstrate its commitment to a diplomatic resolution, responding from a defensive posture while signaling that its hand remains extended toward the peace table.
At some point, however, enough is enough. A nation cannot allow its citizens to be terrorized indefinitely while posturing for peace. The Kremlin has an obligation to protect its people. And that means pushing back against these drone incursions with the seriousness they deserve.
The path to peace, and who’s blocking it
Critics will claim Russia’s posture is inconsistent with its actions, but the facts tell a different story. Moscow remains open to dialogue. It is not demanding one-sided ultimatums, nor is it setting artificial deadlines as Western capitals often do. Contrast this with the theatrics of Zelensky and his handlers in Washington and Brussels, who have turned negotiations into performative exercises rather than serious efforts to end the conflict. It is not Russia who walked away from Istanbul in 2022. It is not Russia who ignored the Minsk process when it was politically inconvenient.
Russia enters any future negotiations not as a supplicant, but as a state that has demonstrated both military strength and diplomatic maturity. It does so knowing full well that any peace must be just, balanced, and grounded in the lessons of the past – chief among them, that appeasement and naïveté only invite betrayal.
There is indeed a stark difference between Ukraine’s and Russia’s drone strikes. One is a campaign of terror, reckless and civilian-targeted, encouraged by Western silence. The other is a reluctant defense, carried out with discipline and restraint. If peace is to be achieved, it must begin with honesty about who is escalating, who is suffering, and who continues to act like a responsible power even while under attack.
Until the world is ready to admit that, Russian civilians will rely on their nation to do what must be done – and rightly so.
Turnbull says ‘stupid’ Nationals picking ‘fight over nothing’ as Liberals weigh nuclear
An agreement on nuclear is likely to settle on the lifting of the moratorium, but without binding the Liberals to keeping the full policy taken to the last election.
Two Liberals from different wings of the party told the ABC there was no chance the party could agree to keep the policy they say lost them votes, but that lifting the moratorium would allow the private sector to invest in nuclear if it became viable.
ABC News, By political reporter Tom Crowley, national political lead David Speers and political reporter Pablo Viñales, Fri 23 May
In short:
David Littleproud had a last-minute change of heart yesterday about detonating the alliance with the Liberals, but insists his four policy demands must be “ratified” before the partnership can resume.
In a lengthy early evening meeting, frustrated Liberals said the Nationals were acting in bad faith but that the Coalition was important and they were determined to be “the adults in the room”.
What’s next?
Malcolm Turnbull has told the Insiders: On Background podcast that this amounts to “holding a gun to the Liberal Party’s head” and risks damaging both parties if Sussan Ley is seen to capitulate to Nationals’ pressure.
Resentful Liberals have unloaded on the Nationals for holding them to ransom over a series of policy demands, which former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has likened to “holding a gun to [the] head” of the party he once led.
But while a lengthy Liberal phone hook-up late on Thursday ended without a clear timeline for resolution, colleagues agreed with leader Sussan Ley that the Coalition should be salvaged, and a nuclear deal seems likely.
Mr Littleproud had a last-minute change of heart yesterday on detonating the alliance, hitting pause just hours away from enacting a split when Ms Ley agreed to consider his four policy demands.
Irritated Liberals said they believed their junior partner was acting in bad faith but agreed to be the “adults in the room”, as one put it, and will meet again today to discuss their position.
‘Back off’, says Turnbull
Mr Turnbull, who as prime minister regularly clashed with Nationals on climate and energy, said the minor party should “back off” and the Liberal Party should not agree to any policies so soon after a heavy election defeat.
“Policies are of academic interest only until such time as we get close to an election … This is a fight about nothing. They’ve just done enormous harm for no purpose at all, the Nationals, by blowing it up in this way,” he told the ABC’s Insiders: On Background.
“It’s really, really unwise [and] stupid politically … The National Party is treating the Liberal Party with zero respect and trying to stand over them, and if Sussan Ley goes along with it … everybody will be saying this is just another case of the tail wagging the dog.”
Liberals frustrated but ready to talk
There is disagreement between Ms Ley and Mr Littleproud about exactly what led to Thursday’s stay of execution, announced by the Nationals leader yesterday in a chaotic press conference in the corridors of Parliament House.
Ms Ley said talks resumed after Mr Littleproud agreed he would respect cabinet solidarity, but Mr Littleproud insisted this was never in doubt and talks resumed because the Liberals agreed to consider “ratification” of his demands.
In a phone call with Liberal colleagues on Thursday afternoon, Ms Ley discussed the possibility of a limited agreement on nuclear energy, supermarket divestiture, a $20 billion off-budget regional fund, and better connectivity in the bush.
The proposal was for those policies to be carved out of what was going to be a comprehensive review of everything the Liberals took to the election………………………….
Nuclear agreement likely on moratorium
Liberals who spoke to the ABC were broadly confident the Nationals’ demands could be met.
An agreement on nuclear is likely to settle on the lifting of the moratorium, but without binding the Liberals to keeping the full policy taken to the last election.
Two Liberals from different wings of the party told the ABC there was no chance the party could agree to keep the policy they say lost them votes, but that lifting the moratorium would allow the private sector to invest in nuclear if it became viable……………….
But Nationals colleagues are on the record calling for the nuclear policy to be retained in full, while Matt Canavan, who challenged Mr Littleproud for the leadership, is among the voices advocating for the net zero emissions target to be dropped entirely…………………….
Mr Turnbull said it was important that the Coalition be reformed, or else there was “no prospect of forming a government”.
Turnbull declines to endorse Ley, savages Dutton
The former prime minister, who has been a vocal critic of his party since leaving politics after his ousting, blamed longtime rival Tony Abbott and his conservative allies for the Coalition’s calamitous election defeat.
“The angertainment ecosystem in which the right wing of politics exists nowadays, they got what they wanted. They got Peter Dutton as the leader and they got control of the party, and they have burned it to the ground,” he said………………………………………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-23/turnbull-says-nationals-picking-fight-over-nothing/105325522
This week’s antidotes to the corporate nuclear news
Some bits of good news – A welcoming haven for those fleeing strife and insecurity: Uganda’s unique refugee policy.One of Australia’s rarest birds returns to fire-ravaged habitat after 42 years.
TOP STORIES. Trump’s Golden Dome: Star Wars is Back – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPRroMsiJ4M
The Western Media Brought Gaza To This Point.
The nuclear divide: Why are women cautious of nuclear energy?
Japan’s Fukushima nuclear wastewater ‘pose major environmental, human rights risks’ – UN experts.
Atomic bombs destroyed their lives – now they want Russia to pay.
Climate. Is the COP30 climate summit already in crisis, with six months to go? – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/26/1-b1-is-the-cop30-climate-summit-already-in-crisis-with-six-months-to-go/
Sea level rise will cause ‘catastrophic inland migration’, scientists warn.
Tropical forests destroyed at fastest recorded rate last year.
Noel’s notes. A tale of two dodgy domes.
AUSTRALIA. Nuclear power blows up Coalition’s political marriage. David Littleproud cites nuclear energy disagreement as major factor in Coalition split. Nuclear power may have cost the Coalition 11 seats in the federal election.
Rudd talking the AUKUS talk in Washington, but is the US walking?
Nothing to See Here: Australia’s Hidden Arms Trade With Israel.
Why US Interference in Australia Must Stop.
NUCLEAR ITEMS.
| ATROCITIES. The Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza: Israel’s Operation Gideon’s Chariots. |
| CIVIL LIBERTIES. UK’s Geological Disposal Facility Community Partnership operates under restrictive government guidance and the management of Nuclear Waste Services- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/21/2-b1-uks-geological-disposal-facility-community-partnership-operates-under-restrictive-government-guidance-and-the-management-of-nuclear-waste-services/ |
ECONOMICS. Nuclear has highest investment risk; solar shows lowest, say US researchers.
| EMPLOYMENT. Top nuke officials admit staffing challenges after DOGE layoffs, hiring freeze. Nuclear weapons woes: Understaffed nuke agency hit by DOGE and safety worries. |
| ENERGY. Solar Power Set to Surpass Nuclear Generation This Summer. Two stories: Denmark’s soaring renewable success and global nuclear construction disaster. We did the math on AI’s energy footprint – Here’s the story you haven’t heard – EXCERPTS AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/23/2-b1-we-did-the-math-on-ais-energy-footprint-heres-the-story-you-havent-heard/ We still don’t know how much energy AI consumes -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/22/1-b1-we-still-dont-know-how-much-energy-ai-consumes/ |
| ENVIRONMENT. Welcome to Britain’s biggest building site-There’s a ‘fishdisco’.ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/22/1-b1-welcome-to-britains-biggest-building-site-theres-a-fishdisco/ |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. The World Cannot Know True Peace Until We Have Reckoned With What We Did To Gaza. |
| EVENTS. 27 May – Book launch, both in person and online – herehttps://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/events/radiation-whistleblowers-20th-century 29 May – UNLEASHING THE ATOM Zoom 8pm EDT Register Here. 7 June – Sizewell C Outrage Rally |
| INDIGENOUS ISSUES. First Nations warn of conflict if Ontario proceeds with Bill 5. |
| POLITICS. I wrote a speech for Trump’s Golden Dome defense – Get ready to feel something. Trump’s “wins” on nuclear power are losses for taxpayers and public safety. Donald Trump’s nine-word question to aide about executive order raises alarm bells. Trump sets out aim to quadruple US nuclear capacity. US nuclear sector intensifies lobbying in bid to prevent subsidy cuts – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/21/2-b1-us-nuclear-sector-intensifies-lobbying-in-bid-to-prevent-subsidy-cuts/ Civil society says nuclear deserves no place in Prime Minister Carney’s “Energy Superpower” project. Reactor closure marks Taiwan’s nuclear exit. Calls for new UK Reform-run council to confirm end to nuclear waste proposal. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Europe self destructing in efforts to continue Ukraine’s self destruction . Trump’s man in London backs Aukus partnership with UK and Australia. Is Trump negotiating the U.S. into war with Iran? Trump’s Break with Israel: Genuine Shift or Political Theater? US should never have intervened in Ukraine – Trump. US House seeks to create another Ukraine disaster in Georgia. |
| SAFETY. Experts Warn Trump Attack on Nuclear Regulator Raises Disaster Risk. White House weighs overhaul of Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rise in nuclear incidents at Faslane naval base, that could leak radioactivity. |
| URANIUM. Trump Admin Fast Tracks Anfield’s Velvet-Wood Uranium Project in Push for US Energy Independence. Revealed: three tonnes of uranium legally dumped in protected English estuary in nine years. |
| WASTES. Govt Eyes Reuse of Fukushima Soil at PM’s Office. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. Republican Calls for Gaza to Be “Nuked” Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Staging for a Strike?– US Quietly Moves Bombers as Israel Prepares to Hit Iran. ‘Dad’s Army’ to return FOR REAL as UK military plans defence against Russian invasion. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Trump’s Golden Dome Is a Combover. Canada wants to join Golden Dome missile-defence program. Trump says. NNSA completes assembly of the first B61-13 nuclear gravity bomb ahead of schedule. |
Rise in nuclear incidents at Faslane naval base, that could leak radioactivity
Rob Edwards, The Ferret, May 25, 2025
There have been 12 nuclear incidents that could have leaked radioactivity at the Faslane naval base since 2023, The Ferret can reveal.
According to the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the incidents at the Clyde nuclear submarine base had “actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment”.
But the MoD has refused to say what actually happened in any of the incidents, or exactly when they occurred. There were five in 2023, four in 2024 and three in the first four months of 2025 – the highest for 17 years.
Campaigners warned that a “catastrophic” accident at Faslane could put lives at risk. The Trident submarines based there were a “chronic national security threat to Scotland” because they were “decrepit” and over-worked, they claimed.
New figures also revealed that the total number of nuclear incidents categorised by the MoD at Faslane, and the neighbouring nuclear bomb store at Coulport, more than doubled from 57 in 2019 to 136 in 2024. That includes incidents deemed less serious by the MoD.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) described the rising number of incidents as “deeply concerning”. It branded the secrecy surrounding the incidents as “unacceptable”.
The MoD, however, insisted that it took safety incidents “very seriously”. The incidents could include “equipment failures, human error, procedural failings, documentation shortcomings or near-misses”, it said.
The latest figures on “nuclear site event reports” at Faslane and Coulport were disclosed in a parliamentary answer to the SNP’s defence spokesperson, Dave Doogan MP. They show that a rising trend of more serious events – first reported by The Ferret in April 2024 – is continuing.
There was one incident at Faslane between 1 January and 22 April 2025 given the MoD’s worst risk rating of “category A”. There was another category A incident at Faslane in 2023.
The MoD has defined category A incidents as having an “actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment” in breach of safety limits.
The last category A incident reported by the MoD was in 2008, when radioactive waste leaked from a barge at Faslane into the Clyde. There were spillages from nuclear submarines at the base in 2007 and 2006.
There were also four “category B” incidents at Faslane in 2023, another four in 2024 and two in the first four months of 2025. The last time that many category B incidents were reported in a year was 2006, when there were five.
According to the MoD, category B meant “actual or high potential for a contained release within building or submarine”, or “actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment” below safety limits.
The MoD also categorised nuclear site events as “C” and “D”. C meant there was “moderate potential for future release to the environment”, or an “actual radioactive release to the environment” too low to detect. D meant there was “low potential for release but may contribute towards an adverse trend”.
The number of reported C incidents at Faslane and Coulport increased from six in 2019 to 38 in 2024, while the number of D incidents rose from 50 to 94.
At the same time the number of incidents described by the MoD as “below scale” and “of safety interest or concern” dropped from 101 to 39.
The SNP’s Dave Doogan MP, criticised the MoD in the House of Commons for the “veil of secrecy” which covered nuclear incidents. Previous governments had outlined what happened where there were “severe safety breaches”, he told The Ferret.
“The increased number of safety incidents at Coulport and Faslane is deeply concerning, especially so in an era of increased secrecy around nuclear weapons and skyrocketing costs,” Doogan added.
“As a bare minimum the Labour Government should be transparent about the nature of safety incidents at nuclear weapons facilities in Scotland, and the status of their nuclear weapons projects. That the Scottish Government, and the Scottish people, are kept in the dark about these events is unacceptable.”
Doogan highlighted that the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority had judged many of the MoD’s nuclear projects to have “significant issues”, as reported in February by The Ferret. The MoD nuclear programmes would cost an “eye-watering” £117.8bn over the next ten years, he claimed.
He said: “If the UK cannot afford to store nuclear weapons safely, then it cannot afford nuclear weapons.”
Anti-nuclear campaigners argued that the four Trident-armed Vanguard submarines based at Faslane were ageing and increasingly unreliable. They required more maintenance and their patrols were getting longer to ensure that there was always one at sea.
“The Vanguard-class submarines are already years past their shelf-life and undergoing record-length assignments in the Atlantic due to increased problems with the maintenance of replacement vessels,” said Samuel Rafanell-Williams, from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
“There is a crisis-level urgency to decommission the nuclear-capable submarines lurking in the Clyde. They constitute a chronic national security threat to Scotland, especially now given their worsening state of disrepair.”
He added: “The UK government is placing the people of Scotland at risk by continuing to operate these decrepit nuclear vessels until their replacements are built, which will likely take a decade or more.
“The Vanguards must be scrapped and the Trident replacement programme abandoned in favour of a proper industrial policy that could genuinely revitalise the Scottish economy and underpin our future security and prosperity.”
Nuclear accident could ‘kill our own’
Dr David Lowry, a veteran nuclear consultant and adviser, said: “Ministers tell us the purpose of Britain’s nuclear weapons is to keep us safe.
“But with this series of accidents involving nuclear weapons-carrying submarines, we are in danger of actually killing our own, if one of these accidents proves to be catastrophic.”
According to Janet Fenton from the campaign group, Secure Scotland, successive governments had hidden information about behaviour that “puts us in harm’s way” while preventing spending on health and welfare.
She said: “Doubling the number of incidents while not telling us the nature of them is making us all hostages to warmongers and the arms trade, while we pay for it.”…………………………………
In 2024 The Ferret revealed earlier MoD figures showing that the number of safety incidents that could have leaked radiation at Faslane had risen to the highest in 15 years. We have also reported on the risks of Trident-armed submarines being on patrol at sea for increasingly long periods. https://theferret.scot/nuclear-incidents-radioactivity-faslane/
Nuclear power may have cost the Coalition 11 seats in the federal election
even if a Coalition government managed to repeal the legal ban, there is no realistic prospect of privately-funded nuclear power plants. That’s why the Dutton Coalition proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear plants.
“Support for nuclear reactors seems to be melting down in the regions who’ve been told they are hosting them. These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.
Jim Green, May 25, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-power-may-have-cost-the-coalition-11-seats-in-the-federal-election/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKfkqFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFhajFIaEp5YUgwblJ2b1dnAR4mAGGM8t3q6FAYGZAUFRhTYWueycBG8grfFPPDMidaGksemNdmgxN8O11QUA_aem_osPG4UnoECyz8P69zj0Wug
On the day after the Coalition’s disastrous performance at the May 5 federal election, Nationals leader David Littleproud said nuclear power was not responsible for the Coalition’s historic loss.
Ted O’Brien, head salesman for the nuclear policy and now deputy leader of the Liberal Party, refuses to concede that the nuclear policy cost the Coalition votes, saying it would be “premature” to judge.
In fact, a vast amount of evidence clearly shows that the nuclear policy cost the Coalition many votes. It may have cost the Coalition around 11 seats, as discussed below.
If not for the swing away from the Coalition for other reasons, the nuclear policy could have cost the Coalition many more seats. In the seat of Dickson, for example, nuclear power was clearly unpopular but Peter Dutton would likely have lost his seat regardless of the nuclear policy.
Voter rejection of nuclear power was evident to the South Australian Liberal Party, which abandoned its pro-nuclear power policy and abolished the position of ‘Shadow Minister for Nuclear Readiness’ two days after the federal election. State leader Vincent Tarzia acknowledged that nuclear power has been “comprehensively rejected” by the electorate.
There is some understanding within the Coalition that the nuclear policy cost them votes and seats. But there’s no willingness to vent this issue publicly since the Coalition seems likely to agree to retain its pro-nuclear power policy, albeit in a watered-down form which involves promising to repeal legislation banning nuclear power but without the commitment to build seven nuclear power plants at taxpayers’ expense.
While there’s no willingness to publicly discuss the vote-killing nuclear elephant in the room, an unnamed Coalition MP told the ABC that the nuclear policy “definitely cost us votes, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.”
The MP flagged a compromise: the Nationals could be persuaded to stick with a net zero policy and in return the Liberals would accept the (watered-down) nuclear power policy. But that is the same compromise that got the Coalition into this mess in the first place.
There are any number of problems with the proposed compromise. Coalition candidates will go to the next election with a nuclear target on their political backs, just as they did at this election.
There is no chance of nuclear power making the slightest contribution to emissions reductions before 2050 despite the conservative mantra that Australia can’t reach net zero by 2050 without nuclear power.
The ABC reported: “Two Liberals from different wings of the party told the ABC there was no chance the party could agree to keep the policy they say lost them votes, but that lifting the moratorium would allow the private sector to invest in nuclear if it became viable.”
But even if a Coalition government managed to repeal the legal ban, there is no realistic prospect of privately-funded nuclear power plants. That’s why the Dutton Coalition proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear plants.
Malcolm Turnbull told the ABC that taxpayer-funded nuclear power was a “truly crazy idea” and lifting the legal ban is acceptable given there is “no prospect of anyone in the private sector ever building a nuclear power plant here.”
The evidence that the nuclear power policy cost the Coalition votes and seats is summarised below and a detailed analysis is posted online.
National attitudes
A RedBridge poll of around 2,000 Australian voters in May 2024 found that support for nuclear power exceeds opposition among Coalition voters, those aged over 65, those who earn more than $3,000 per week, those under no financial stress, and those who own their own home.
Support is outweighed by opposition in every other category: non-Coalition voters, those aged under 65, those earning less than $3,000 per week, those under financial stress, and those who don’t own a home.
The Murdoch / News Corp. press released polling results on April 19 showing that the nuclear policy was “driving a collapse in the Coalition’s primary vote in marginal seats across Australia.”
The RedBridge-Accent poll in 20 marginal seats found that 56 percent of respondents agreed with Labor’s claim that the Coalition’s nuclear power plan will cost $600 billion and require spending cuts to pay for it, while only 13 percent disagreed. RedBridge director Tony Barry said the issue was “smashing the Liberal brand” and “atomising the primary vote.”
The Adelaide Advertiser and other News Corp. publications reported on May 1, four days before the election, that 41 per cent of 1011 respondents to a Redbridge-Accent national poll ranked concerns about the Coalition’s nuclear power plan among their top five reasons for deciding to oppose a particular party. Only one issue topped nuclear power as a vote-changing turn-off.
Liberals Against Nuclear polling
Polling commissioned by the Liberals Against Nuclear group provides further evidence of the political poison of the Coalition’s nuclear policy. The group summarised some of its commissioned research a week before the election:
Liberals Against Nuclear: polling
Polling commissioned by the Liberals Against Nuclear group provides further evidence of the political poison of the Coalition’s nuclear policy. The group summarised some of its commissioned research a week before the election:
“A new uComms poll shows leading Liberal frontbencher Michael Sukkar could lose his seat at the coming election if the Party persists with its unpopular nuclear plan.
“The poll, commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear, shows Labor and the Coalition tied at 50-50 in two-party preferred terms in Deakin. However, the same polling reveals that if the Liberals dumped their nuclear policy, they would surge to a commanding 53-47 lead.
“The polling follows a broader survey across 12 marginal seats that showed the Liberal Party would gain 2.8 percentage points in primary vote if it abandoned the nuclear energy policy.
“An earlier poll in the seat of Brisbane found the nuclear policy was a significant drag on Liberal candidate Trevor Evans’ support.”
Thus the nuclear policy may have decided the result in Deakin and cost Michael Sukkar his seat. Assuming a national swing comparable to that found by Liberals Against Nuclear polling in 12 marginal seats – a 2.8 per cent drop in the Coalition’s primary vote — the Coalition may have lost around 11 contests because of the nuclear power policy:
* Aston (Vic) — ALP retain — the Coalition’s two-party preferred vote was 46.6 per cent as of 21 May 2025
* Banks (NSW) — ALP gain — 47.6 per cent Coalition two-party preferred
* Bendigo — ALP retain — 48.5 per cent
* Bullwinkel (WA) — ALP retain — 49.5 per cent
* Deakin (Vic) — ALP gain — 47.2 per cent
* Forde (Qld) — ALP gain — 48.2 per cent
* Hughes (NSW) — ALP gain — 47.1 per cent
* Menzies (Vic) — ALP gain — 48.9 per cent
* Moore (WA) — ALP gain — 47.0 per cent
* Petrie (Qld) — ALP gain — 48.9 per cent
* Solomon (NT) — ALP retain — 48.7 per cent
A Resolve poll for Nine newspapers in April 2025 found that 31 per cent of respondents cited nuclear power as one of their biggest concerns about voting for the Coalition, up 5 per cent from the previous poll.
In October 2024, nuclear power regained its status as Australian’s least popular energy source, overtaking coal. Two months later, nuclear was still Australia’s least popular energy source.
The 2024 National Climate Action Survey of more than 4,000 respondents found that 59 per cent wanted to keep the legal ban on nuclear power in 2024, up from 51 per cent in 2023. Sixty-six per cent of women and 51 per cent of men supported the ban.
Polling released by the pro-nuclear group WePlanet Australia found that support for nuclear power dropped from 55 per cent in February 2025 to 42 percent in late April while opposition increased from 34 per cent to 44 per cent. Net support fell from +21 per cent to -2 per cent in less than three months. The poll found majority opposition among those aged 18-34 (38:48) despite countless claims in recent years that young Australians support nuclear power.
Attitudes in rural and regional areas
Many polls over the past 20 years demonstrate opposition to a locally-built nuclear power plant. For example the 2024 National Climate Action Survey found that 73.5 per cent of participants were moderately to extremely concerned about the possibility of a nuclear plant being built within 50 kilometres of their homes.
Only 11.2 per cent were ‘not at all concerned’. In contrast, about 80 per cent of respondents viewed wind and solar favourably with the majority expressing little or no concern if such projects were established nearby.
A poll conducted by SEC Newgate for News Corp. in mid-2024 found 39 per cent support for nuclear power among regional Australians. Asked to rank 12 energy options, regional Australians ranked nuclear power at number eight.
Building large-scale wind farms and solar farms and new transmission lines in regional areas was more popular across all states than building nuclear power plants on coal sites connected to existing transmission lines.
An April 2025 YouGov poll of 1,622 respondents found that regional and rural Australians support renewables over nuclear by a considerable margin: 50 per cent preferred more wind, solar and batteries compared to 30 per cent who preferred nuclear power.
Polling in March 2025 by 89 Degrees East for the Renew Australia for All campaign found little support for nuclear power in some of the regions targeted for nuclear power plants by the Coalition.
Just 27 per cent of respondents supported “developing large-scale nuclear energy infrastructure” in Gladstone, 24 per cent in the rest of Central Queensland, 24 per cent in Bunbury, 22 per cent in Central West NSW which includes Lithgow, 32 per cent in the Hunter, and 31 per cent in Gippsland. The poll also found that just 13 per cent of respondents thought nuclear reactors would bring down their bills the fastest compared to 72 per cent for renewables.
Responding to the 89 Degrees East polling, RE-Alliance national director Andrew Bray said:
“Support for nuclear reactors seems to be melting down in the regions who’ve been told they are hosting them. These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.
“We see multiple polls from Porter Novelli, CSIRO, 89 Degrees East and more showing strong support for renewable energy on local farmland, between 66 per cent and 71 per cent. Now the polling shows us support for nuclear reactors in these regions is between 22 per cent and 32 per cent.”
For more information on public attitudes towards nuclear power in Australia, see the detailed analysis posted online.
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the EnergyScience Coalition.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 