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.
A tale of two dodgy domes
24 May 25 https://theaimn.net/a-tale-of-two-dodgy-domes/
Reuters on May 21st 2025 outlined Donald Trump’s plan for a Golen Dome missile defense shield:
The aim is for Golden Dome to leverage a network of hundreds of satellites circling the globe with sophisticated sensors and interceptors to knock out incoming enemy missiles after they lift off from countries like China, Iran, North Korea or Russia.
A network to knock out intercontinental ballistic missiles during the “boost phase” just after lift-off – Once the missile has been detected, Golden Dome will either shoot it down before it enters space with an interceptor or a laser, or further along its path of travel in space with an existing missile defense system that uses land-based interceptors stationed in California and Alaska.
Beneath the space intercept layer, the system will have another defensive layer based in or around the U.S.
Reuters names several companies that will build this system, with Elon Musk’s Space X as a frontrunner, but does not give details on the costs – estimates go from $175 billion upwards.
There is much scepticism about this plan.
I particularly enjoyed Rex Huppke ‘s sarcastic offering “I wrote a speech for Trump’s Golden Dome defense. Get ready to feel something”.
Huppke ‘s speech extols Trump’s popularity, and his promise that the system will be up an running in less than 4 years.
Huppke then studies “Golden” and “Dome’. He advises as much gold as possible to be used in the new structures, in keeping with Trump’s previous buildings. But suggests that the dome should be an unusually shaped dome – a flat-rectangular -shaped dome to fit in with the shape of America.
It’s all easy to fund, by simply cutting services to ungrateful Americans – “large is good, we love large” — cuts to Medicaid and Medicare while also adding trillions to the debt – “they’ll know their hunger is worth it for our protection.” As everyone knows, everything I’ve ever built is perfect and infallible.
Huppke does sum it up beautifully. Other commentators have questioned the extreme cost, the impracticality, the weapons proliferation risks of the Golden Dome project. Based on Israel’s “Iron Dome” this project has to cover an area 490 times the size of Israel.
So – it’s a dodgy dome that is attracting a lot of questions and criticism.
Now for that other dodgy dome that has attracted even more questions, and over many years. Yes, it’s Donald Trump’s own ever-evolving personal dome at the top of his head.
The hair has always been important to Trump. Like the spray-on tan, it goes to portray his image young, virile, strong, can conquer anything. Seth Rogan reported recently, comparing Donald Trump to Samson:
“He felt as though his power rested in his hair” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs0MAkJY-Q
Trump’s hair has been a source of wonder for many years. He’s been reported as having taken hair regrowth drug Propecia (finasteride) and had flap procedures. In flap procedures small areas of bald scalp are removed and patches of hair-covered skin are used to replace the bald areas, requiring careful combing over of bald patches. Trump’s scalp reductions were even mentioned by Ivana Trump in their 1990 divorce. A scalp reduction involves removing areas of bald patches and stretching hair-covered skin over them.
Dr. Gary Linkov, a plastic surgeon and hair loss expert, told the Daily Mail in August that he guesses Trump has had five hair transplants thus far in his lifetime.
I think, in its latest iteration, Trump’s hair is a metaphor for his dome idea, and whatever else is going on in his head. Past versions have appeared with his hair thick, combed in various ways, dyed in various shades of brown and gold. Now it’s described as ghostly white, a fluffy white cloud – with a lot of scalp peeking out.
The hair is looking thin, wispy, without real substance. It’s doubtful if he can keep up that strong confident appearance, as the head of the world that he’s supposed to be.
This White Dome sits atop the strange brain that has just conjured up the Golden Dome – neither of them are really to be trusted.
Rudd talking the AUKUS talk in Washington, but is the US walking?
by Rex Patrick | May 23, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/rudd-talking-the-aukus-talk-in-washington-but-is-the-us-walking/
A new FOI reveals Kevin Rudd has been talking the AUKUS talk, with success. Yet no amount of talk will help the US walk the AUKUS walk. Rex Patrick on the project status.
A Freedom of Information request looking into what Ambassador Kevin Rudd and his Washington staffers had been doing on AUKUS since he took up his post in March 2023 shows that he was pretty busy.
When he arrived at his Embassy post, the US Congress had already passed the Australia-United States Submarine Officer Pipeline Act. That was the first US legislative action to support AUKUS, allowing Australian submarine officers to train with the US Navy, to gain expertise in nuclear-powered submarines and to set them up to serve on their subs.
But there was a lot more work to be done. The FOI shows that AUKUS was a priority that Rudd took on with his characteristic eagerness and focus. Between March and July 2023, he met with President Biden and over 40 members of Congress of both political persuasions, with a focus on those who were members of the Armed Services Committee or Foreign Relations/Affairs Committees.
In amongst tens of private or close-knit lunches, dinners and meetings, he also spoke at a House Foreign Affairs Committee roundtable on 18 April, had drinks with twelve Republican Members of Congress on 5 July and hosted an ‘AUKUS and US-AUS International Cooperation’ dinner at the Australian Embassy with seven Senators on July 11.
By then, the Embassy was declaring victory in cables back to Australia regarding AUKUS support in Congress.
Transfer legislation passes
Further Embassy work saw a swath of other laws change in support of AUKUS, including laws in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act allowing for the conditional transfer in the 2030s of three Virginia-class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy.
The conditional elements of the law are that the transfer cannot take place if it would cause a degradation of US undersea capabilities or is inconsistent with US foreign policy and national security interests. Furthermore, the law requires the President to certify the US is making sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments to meet the combination of US and Australian requirements.
And therein lies the problem.
The US Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that, before a transfer of submarines can occur, the US Submarine Industrial Base needs to be producing one Columbia-class nuclear missile submarine and 2.3 Virginia-class attack submarines per annum.
Currently, the Columbia submarine program, the US Navy’s highest priority program, is running between 12 and 16 months behind schedule.
Virginia-class submarines are being built at a rate of 1.2 boats per annum, way below what’s required. At the same time, the number of commissioned US submarines either in depot maintenance or idle (awaiting depot maintenance) has increased from 11 boats (21% of the attack submarine force) to 16 boats (33% of the attack submarine force).
And that is why the Albanese Government has committed $4.7B to uplift the capabilities of the US Submarine Industrial Base. The US is also injecting billions, with a plan to get to a build rate of two Virginia-class submarines by 2028.
The big picture
The problem is that, when one stands back and looks at past US performance, even with the money being spent, hitting a build rate of 2.3 Virginia-class submarines a year is fanciful.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified to the House of Representatives Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee on March 11 this year, stating,
The Navy has no more ships today than when it released its first 30-year shipbuilding plan in 2003.
This stagnation has occurred despite regular demands and plans for a substantial increase to the Navy’s fleet size and a near doubling of its shipbuilding budget (inflation-adjusted) over the past 2 decades.”
GAO described the situation in more detail stating that; in the 2000s attack submarines took six years to build and cost around $US3B, they now take nine years to build and cost around $US4.5B (only a third of the increase can be attributed to shipbuilding inflation); destroyers used to take five years and cost $US1.9B to build and now take nine years and cost $US2.5B (the lead ship of the new Constellation class frigate program has an estimated 3 years delay, with construction stalled; aircraft carriers used to take eight years to build and now take eleven years.
Over the period 2019 to 2040 it is estimated that the US Navy will have lost 234 ship service years due to shipbuilding delays and between 2027 and 2030 the US fleet will be smaller by 20 ships, mostly attack submarines.
Both the CRS and GAO have advised Congress that it’s not just a money problem; there are systemic issues right across the board.
The CRS testified that it has taken a long time to get into this situation and that it will take a long time to “right the ship”.
Talking cross-purposes
This brings us back to an exchange in the Australian Senate between the man in charge of AUKUS, Vice Admiral Mead, and Greens Senator David Shoebridge in June last year.
Shoebridge was asking what happens if the US can’t deliver; will we get our $4.7B back? Mead was answering that the US was fully committed. Shoebridge was in effect asking, ‘what happens if the US can’t walk the AUKUS walk’. Mead was answering, ‘they’re talking the AUKUS talk’.
Politics over engineering?
Over the years we’ve seen Australian politicians make promises about, and commit public money to, Defence projects that have subsequently gone off the rails and cost the country dearly in terms of money spent, unavailability of military capability and the undermining of national security.
It doesn’t matter what politicians in Australia or the US say; it matters what the experienced project managers and engineers say. In addition, our Defence is, at best, very short of experienced project managers; rather, they have flag-ranked officers who’ve never run projects but need somewhere to go after successfully commanding a ship or unit.
The warning signs for AUKUS are apparent right now. Australia is an island state that needs submarines and, based on the actual states of US shipyards,
“the current trajectory of AUKUS is a likely loss of our submarine force altogether.“
The Government recently announced that the Collins Life of Type Extension will be scaled back, and is refusing to develop a Plan B. Plan B is no submarines, after spending $4B not buying French submarines and pouring almost $5B into the US Submarine Industrial Base.
In any normal organisation which has accountability to shareholders, someone would have been fired by now. But no-one ever gets fired in upper echelons of the Defence force
Trump’s man in London backs Aukus partnership with UK and Australia
The new US ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens used his first public speech to praise the trilateral security alliance.
David Hughes, Jndependent, UK, Monday 19 May 2025
Donald Trump’s new ambassador to the UK has used his first public speech to back the Aukus partnership with Britain and Australia.
Warren Stephens highlighted how “vital the US-UK relationship is to our countries and to the world” at an event in Parliament attended by Sir Keir Starmer.
Mr Stephens said the Aukus partnership, which is developing a new fleet of nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines for the UK and Australia, would help maintain a “free and open Indo-Pacific”………………………………………..
Mr Stephens also highlighted the economic opportunities from the project: “Government works best when we get out of the way and let our businesses innovate, compete and collaborate to improve people’s lives……………………… https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/australia-aukus-trump-london-barrow-b2754029.html
Sea level rise will cause ‘catastrophic inland migration’, scientists warn
Sea level rise will become unmanageable at just 1.5C of global heating and
lead to “catastrophic inland migration”, the scientists behind a new
study have warned.
This scenario may unfold even if the average level of
heating over the last decade of 1.2C continues into the future. The loss of
ice from the giant Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets has quadrupled since
the 1990s due to the climate crisis and is now the principal driver of sea
level rise.
The international target to keep global temperature rise below
1.5C is already almost out of reach. But the new analysis found that even
if fossil fuel emissions were rapidly slashed to meet it, sea levels would
be rising by 1cm a year by the end of the century, faster than the speed at
which nations could build coastal defences. The world is on track for
2.5C-2.9C of global heating, which would almost certainly be beyond tipping
points for the collapse of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets. The
melting of those ice sheets would lead to a “really dire” 12 metres of
sea level rise.
Guardian 20th May 2025,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/20/sea-level-rise-migration
1 This month
7 April – WEBINAR – Australia and the Doomsday Clock – Preventing nuclear war through NoFirstUse and other policies
Online | Tuesday April 7, 4:00-5:30pm, Australian Eastern Time / 8:00-9:30am Central Europe Time
– Access the registration link
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 