Why investing in new nuclear plants is bad for the climate

 the climate crisis demands urgency and requires such large investments that cost efficiency is of key importance.

Joule, Luke Haywood Marion Leroutier Robert Pietzcker, July 21, 2023

There has been a strong push to promote increased investments in new nuclear power as a strategy to decarbonize economies, especially in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US).

The evidence base for these initiatives is poor. Investments in new nuclear power plants are bad for the climate due to high costs and long construction times. Given the urgency of climate change mitigation, which requires reducing emissions from the EU electricity grid to almost zero in the 2030s (Pietzcker et al.¹), preference should be given to the cheapest technology that can be deployed fastest.

On both costs and speed, renewable energy sources beat nuclear.  Every euro invested in new nuclear plants thus delays decarbonization compared to investments in renewable power. In a decarbonizing world, delays increase CO₂ emissions.

Our thoughts focus on new nuclear power plants (not phasing out existing plants) in the US and Europe. In Europe, new nuclear power plants are planned or seriously discussed in France, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. We do not focus on China, where government-set electricity prices and subsidized capital costs make it more difficult to contrast the profitability of different types of energy sources.

Nuclear energy is expensive

The cost overruns on recent nuclear projects are dramatic. In an international comparative assessment of construction cost overruns for electricity infrastructure, Sovacool et al. ² find that nuclear reactors are the investment type with the most frequent and largest cost overruns, alongside hydroelectric dams. 97% of the 180 nuclear reactor investment projects included in their analysis suffered cost overruns, with an average cost increase of 117% per project. 

More recently, the current estimate of the construction costs of the French Flamanville project stands at €13.2 billion up from an initial €3.3 billion (figures that do not even include financing costs, which the French audit office estimated at €4.2 billion up from an initial €1.2 billion) and those of the recently opened Finish Olkiluoto at €11 billion instead of €3 billion. “Construction costs are high enough that it becomes difficult to make an economic argument for nuclear,” Davis  finds. Similarly, Wealer et al.conclude that “investing into a Gen III/III+ nuclear power plant … would very likely generate significant losses.”

Why is nuclear so costly?

Construction costs are driven by safety. Nuclear accidents remain a possibility—and damages may be global. Rangel and Lévêque note that huge damages occurring at “low and uncertain probability” make it difficult to determine whether safety investments are cost-effective. The nuclear plants built relatively quickly in previous decades had lower safety. requirements. Policy makers’ preferences for safety makes sense given that nuclear power plant operators’ private insurance coverage is typically very limited.

Beyond construction costs, the cost of capital is a critical parameter for evaluating the viability of nuclear power. First, the very long construction times and delays generate particularly large financing costs for a given interest rate. Portugal-Pereira et al. report an escalation of capital costs worldwide due to increasing construction delays for the last generation of nuclear reactors constructed since the 2010s. The French court of auditors estimates that the cost of the French nuclear power plant Flamanville will increase from €13.2 billion to €20 billion once financing costs and delays are taken into account. Second, the historically high risk of default translates into higher interest rates. These two factors make the profitability of nuclear projects very dependent on financing conditions.

Finding an economic rationale for continued investment in new nuclear requires optimism regarding costs………………………………………….

Costs are not projected to come down very much even for the six new reactors planned to be built by 2035 (estimated to cost €52 billion in total, or €8.6 billion per reactor). The most recent EPR construction, Sizewell C in the United Kingdom, is also one of the most expensive projects at around €23 billion (£20 billion). This pattern of increasing costs over time has generated some interest in the literature (Lovering et al.⁷ and Eash-Gates et al.⁸). 

 Most of the candidate explanations (in particular, increased safety regulations) do not provide grounds for optimism for the future. In a wide-ranging review of different technologies, Meng et al.⁹ find nuclear power to be a “notable exception” where progress is overestimated with actual costs consistently higher than expected.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) may not be an exception: their advantages in terms of lower complexity may not translate into sound economics given lower energy production.  Glaser et al ¹⁰ note that even optimistic estimates require many hundreds of reactors to be built before electricity produced is cost-competitive compared with larger reactor designs. The potential of modularity to reduce costs appears limited in practice.

Nuclear power is not cost-competitive with renewables

Despite poor profitability, nuclear power is advanced as a good investment to fight climate change. However, today, the challenge for nuclear profitability does not come from coal or gas but from renewables. It is hard to overstate how strongly the costs of renewables have decreased (see Figure 1 on original) . Few publications have anticipated these cost decreases, and public debate is often based on outdated cost assumptions.

Baseload and flexibility

…………………………………….Shirizadeh et al. ¹² find that costs of storing variable renewable electricity production appear manageable, with storage costs of less than 15% of total costs associated with a fully renewable electricity grid for France. Pietzcker et al.¹ find that new nuclear constructions would not decrease the costs of achieving EU climate targets. Shirizadeh and Quirion ¹³ find that a 100% renewable system is very cost-effective for France. 

Taking into account wider economic impacts does not favor nuclear

………………………………….adding non-market benefits to the equation implies that non-market costs should also be considered. This is not easy: how should we account for nuclear waste? Nuclear waste is the unresolved problem of the nuclear industry. Cheap long-term storage for anthropogenic radioactive substances is elusive despite worldwide, decades-old efforts. In absence of any proven low-cost permanent storage technology, nuclear waste will have to be retreated regularly and stored in facilities above the ground. 

Costs would arise for many thousands of years. The importance of costs and benefits for future generations in today’s decisions has been a controversial topic for climate change policy, and it appears even more relevant for nuclear waste. Krall et al. ¹⁴ argue that SMRs may actually “exacerbate the challenges of nuclear waste management.”

Third, uranium mining causes pollution and radioactive exposure. As a report of the EU’s Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks notes, “almost 100% of the total eco-toxicity and human toxicity impacts over the whole nuclear life cycle is connected to mining and milling … While mining and milling is regulated [within the EU], 90% of what the EU need globally comes from 7 countries (none in Europe).” In Niger, for example, the systematic neglect of health and safety procedures in countries producing uranium for EU consumption persists despite evidence of “grave environmental impacts and rampant institutional failures.” ¹⁵

Finally, the continued development of nuclear energy could contribute to the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as the risk of nuclear power plants being targeted in armed conflict, a permanent risk in Ukraine today.

Building new nuclear takes time we do not have

The business case and economics may be poor, but in light of the very real threat of climate catastrophe, should we not invest in all alternatives to fossil fuels? The problem is that building nuclear plants is slow and delivery is uncertain.

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency—organizations promoting the use of nuclear energy—assume construction times of around one decade, ¹³ whereas renewables can come online in a fraction of that time. Given lags in planning and regulatory approval, any new nuclear plants would come online too late to help decarbonize our economies on time. However, even this time frame appears optimistic:………………………………………..

Conclusion: In solving the climate crisis, new nuclear is a costly and dangerous distraction

………………………………………………………………..  the climate crisis demands urgency and requires such large investments that cost efficiency is of key importance……………………………… If governments and economic actors believe that nuclear power will come online at a certain date, they will not make alternative plans, and without alternative plans, the current carbon-intensive electricity system will remain in place—rendering climate targets unachievable.

References (many) ………………………..  https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(23)00281-7

July 27, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Will the small states of Oceania be able to maintain their independence in the face of a new Sino-American Cold War?

The ‘friends to all, enemies to none’ strategy is living its last days as the US and China press the island nations to take sides

By Timur Fomenko, a political analyst,  https://www.rt.com/news/580174-friends-to-all-enemies-to-none/ 23 July 23

Papua New Guinea is a gateway between continents. The island, being effectively cut in half, demarcates an artificial boundary between Asia and Oceania. In the past several centuries, the broader island has been carved upon between almost every colonial power going, having been ruled at various points by the Dutch, Spanish, German, Japanese and British empires. Even after gaining its formal independence from Australia in 1975, these legacies continue to scar the island, with half of it still belonging to Indonesia, known as West Papua, which is now a source of unrest and insurgency.

The history of constantly fluctuating overlords only demonstrates the country’s perceived strategic and military importance. That’s because whoever dominates it has direct access to both Australia and the Pacific, and can project into Asia itself. It is of little surprise that Papua New Guinea (PNG) became one of the most gruesome fronts of the Pacific War in World War II, which subsequently brought it firmly into the hands of the Anglosphere, where it has remained ever since, making it an effective dependency of Australia in terms of aid and humanitarian assistance.

Despite this, the island has nothing to show for centuries of colonial dominion, or from being a subordinate of the English-speaking world as a black Melanesian country. It is one of the world’s poorer nations, and is in desperate need of infrastructure to develop itself. Because of this, it has developed a foreign policy it describes as ‘friends to all, enemies to none’, which seeks to attain and exploit as many development opportunities as possible and better sustain its own strategic autonomy. This of course, has drawn interest from China, who sees the islands as an important partner as a post-colonial, Global South country. Thanks to PNG being part of the Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing has built airports, highways, sea ports, and telecommunications infrastructure across the country. 

Port Moresby, in turn, sees Beijing as a critical economic partner that can help bolster its own infrastructure and development, the two countries recently having negotiated a free trade agreement. But that doesn’t mean trouble is not afoot. While China seeks to bolster economic relations with the country, the US has other ideas; that is, to forcibly transform Papua New Guinea into a military outpost for the purpose, of course, of containing China. Recently, Washington was able to pry a Defense Cooperation Agreement out of the country, which will give the US access to its bases. 

PNG, of course, denies that the is specifically opposing China, and does not rule out security cooperation with Beijing itself. However, it is also a reminder that the country’s weak and vulnerable position, along with its historical subservience to the West, means it does not have the power or political privilege to resist these kinds of overtures, and instead must seek a more delicate balance. In response to this, China is likely to increase its engagement with the country; for example, the Bank of China is working to establish a presence there. 

Growing competition over Papua New Guinea also comes amid China’s successes in its relationship with the Solomon Islands, which switched allegiance from Taipei to Beijing in 2019. On July 11, the two countries finally signed a security cooperation pact, which has met with vitriol from Western media and politicians.

What this demonstrates is that the Pacific region has become a ‘cold war’ theater between China and the US, with the latter working through its ally, Australia. The US, after all, has long attempted to make the Pacific an ‘extended backyard’ or ‘ranch’, a large open space over which it seeks to be the exclusive military power. But now, China is expanding into it, and this has led to the emergence of strategic competition.

However, these Pacific countries do not really want to take sides – they are tired of being tossed from one master to the other. This means the fundamental challenge for countries such as Papua New Guinea is to gain benefits to strengthen itself, while nonetheless avoiding subservience. This means it has a fight to continue its ‘friends to all, enemies to none’ approach, while tensions rise and both powers start demanding it take sides on various issues. But if worst-case scenarios can be avoided, and the pace of investment in the country from all sides accelerates, the end product may be that competition could ultimately make PNG and the island countries a lot better off, and therefore a lot more capable of exerting their own will.

July 27, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are supported by ideology alone

The ”tech bro” libertarian culture that valorizes new technology, loathes regulation, and embraces the marketplace has spawned a new generation of, according to the Washington Post, “nuclear bros.”

The media has become an echo chamber, with each outlet clambering over the next to crow about the great benefits of nuclear power in misleading language that suggests this technology is already entirely proven out.

The end of Oppenheimer’s energy dream

iai news, Allison Macfarlane Allison Macfarlane is the director of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia and former chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 21st July 2023

Nuclear energy is both lauded as a baseload renewable power and decried as risky, expensive and outdated technology. Small modular reactors have received billions in venture capital and unprecedented media attention, but are they a red herring, with philosophy, rather than science, driving our fixation? Professor Allison Macfarlane explores the current sombre state of the technology, where it is falling short, and what philosophy is driving the interest in this unpromising tech.

From the inception of Oppenheimer’s harnessing of the power of the atom, first as a device for war, and later, as a means of peaceful energy production, nuclear energy has possessed both promise and peril. With large nuclear power plants struggling to compete in a deregulated marketplace against renewables and natural gas, small modular reactors (SMRs) offer the promise to save the nuclear energy option. In the past few years, investors, national governments, and the media have paid significant attention to small modular nuclear reactors as the solution to traditional nuclear energy’s cost and long build times and renewable’s space and aesthetic drawbacks, but behind the hype there is very little concrete technology to justify it. By exploring the challenges facing small modular reactor technology, I will demonstrate that this resurgence in nuclear energy speaks to the popular imagination, rather than materializing as actual technological innovation.

News broke last week that Oklo, a company that has designed an advanced micro-nuclear power plant, will go public via a merger with AltC Acquisition Corporation. Co-founder of AltC Acquisition and Chair of Oklo’s board, Sam Altman, hopes to raise US$500 million with this offering. Oklo’s news is a sample of the almost-constant barrage of excitement around the potential of small modular reactors (SMRs) to help mitigate climate change.

But can they?

The Oklo story is intriguing, since its license application to build and operate its Aurora design reactor was outright rejected by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the country’s nuclear safety regulator (full disclosure: I was Chairman of the NRC from 2012-2014). And note that such rejection is an accomplishment: the NRC rarely outright rejects an application, instead working with licensees until they either get the application right or decide to walk away. In this case, Oklo refused to fill “information gaps” related to “safety systems and components.”

Most of these designs are just that: designs. Very few of the proposed SMRs have been demonstrated and none are commercially available.

There are many new SMR companies in the U.S., Canada, U.K., Europe, China, and elsewhere, and the reactor designs themselves are numerous as well. There are smaller versions of existing light water reactors, like those in the U.S., France, Japan, and elsewhere. There are more “advanced” designs like sodium-cooled fast reactors (like Oklo and Bill Gate’s company Terrapower’s design), high-temperature gas reactors, and molten salt reactors.

…………………………….. One U.S. company, NuScale, is the only SMR design in the US to received “design certification” from the NRC. NuScale has an agreement with UAMPS, a consortium of utility companies, to build the first NuScale reactors in Idaho in the U.S. But NuScale won’t build the already-certified design in Idaho; the company has a new application at the NRC to build a larger, and presumably more economic, model of the reactor. Nonetheless, cost estimates for the reactor have risen from US$55/megawatt electric (MWe) in 2016 to $89/MWe in 2023, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Many of the non-light water SMR designs will likely be even costlier, based on recent analyses. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study suggests that SMRs will run significantly higher in cost than large light water reactors, especially in per MW comparable “overnight” costs (how much it would cost to build a new reactor if one could do so overnight) and operations and maintenance costs.

Advanced reactors do not solve the problems of nuclear waste and may, in fact, exacerbate the problem.

Recent construction experience in the US and Europe does not herald success for SMR new builds. The two French-design evolutionary power reactor (EPR) builds have been far over budget and schedule. The EPR in Finland was originally supposed to cost 3 billion euros and open in 2009. It finally began producing electricity in 2023 at a cost of 11 billion euros. There is a similar story in France, where the EPR at Flamanville was set to begin operation in 2012 at a cost of 3.5 billion euro. Instead, it is still under construction and costs have ballooned to 12.4 billion euros.

And Europe is the rule, not the exception. US – based Westinghouse’s AP-1000, a robust design with passive safety features has suffered similarly. The two units under construction in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017, after an investment of US$9 billion. The two AP-1000 units in Georgia were to start in 2016/2017 for a price of US$14 billion. One unit started in April, 2023, the second unit promises to start later in 2023. The total cost is now over US$30 billion.

SMR designers appeal to factory construction to avoid some of the pitfalls of large reactor construction (thus the “modular” in Small Modular Reactor). But the AP-1000 should provide a cautionary tale: ……………………………………

One of the reasons SMRs will cost more has to do with fuel costs. Most non-light water designs require high-assay low enriched uranium fuel (HALEU), in other words, fuel enriched in the isotope uranium-235 between 10-19.99%, just below the level of what is termed “highly enriched uranium,” suitable for nuclear bombs. Currently, there are no enrichment companies outside of Russia that can produce HALEU, and thus the chicken-and-egg problem: an enrichment company wants assurance from reactor vendors to invest in developing HALEU production. But since commercial-scale SMRs are likely decades away, if they are at all viable, there is risk to doing so. Use of HALEU will also result in increased security and safeguards requirements that will add to the price tag.

The ”tech bro” libertarian culture that valorizes new technology, loathes regulation, and embraces the marketplace has spawned a new generation of, according to the Washington Post, “nuclear bros.”

HALEU fuel is needed to offset the smaller size of the reactor core, which results in increased neutron leakage – and neutrons are the initiators of fission reactions that release the energy harnessed as electrical power. Smaller reactor sizes can also result in comparatively more waste volume, next to existing large light water reactors. In fact, a recent U.S. National Academy of Science analysis noted that advanced reactors do not solve the problems of nuclear waste and may, in fact, exacerbate the problem. Some reactor designs will produce significantly more high-level waste by volume that current light water reactors, other designs will produce waste the requires chemical processing prior to disposal. These types of issues are relatively little examined and will add to the final price tag of the new technology.

With all these potential drawbacks and delays, why would anyone invest in an SMR company? I put a similar question to Ray Rothrock, a venture capitalist, at a meeting of a committee of the National Academy of Engineering that was studying the potential of these new reactors (and of which I was a member). If these reactors won’t be commercially available for a decade or more, how do investors make money? His response? “Even before they sell [energy], they go public and that’s how early investors make money…it fits the model – the company hasn’t made money, but the investors have made money.” He goes on to say that going public opens the door to much more money that is needed.

But all of this in the future. If SMRs are not ready to deploy in the next ten years, what are the implications? There are two significant ones. The first is that, given the development timelines for these new reactor designs, they are not likely to have a significant impact on CO2 emissions reductions for decades, and as a result their relevance to the climate argument shrinks.

The media has become an echo chamber, with each outlet clambering over the next to crow about the great benefits of nuclear power in misleading language that suggests this technology is already entirely proven out.

More significantly, if, as a recent study showed, that SMRs will be significantly more expensive than solar photovoltaic (PV) and on-shore wind, and even geothermal, what will the marketplace look like in 20 or 30 years, when renewables will presumably be even cheaper?

………………….. So why there so much hype around new nuclear power technologies that so far, largely, don’t exist and will likely be very costly? The need to decarbonize energy production plays a role

The advent of large amounts of available venture capital in the past decade is another factor. One analyst told me, “there’s a lot of stupid money out there right now [for investing].”

The ”tech bro” libertarian culture that valorizes new technology, loathes regulation, and embraces the marketplace has spawned a new generation of, according to the Washington Post, “nuclear bros.” Naomi Oreskes notes that an appeal to nuclear power to address our energy needs in a warming world reflects our “technofideism,” the faith that technology will solve our problems. 

In the nuclear celebratory mood of the moment, there is little patience or political will for sober voices to discuss the reality that new nuclear power is actually many decades away from having any measurable impact on climate change – if at all.  https://iai.tv/articles/the-end-of-oppenheimers-energy-dream-auid-2549

July 27, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Discarding Illusions,Ending Wars

Eighteen months later Ukraine is in ruins. Its latest counteroffensive achieved nothing. In the last three weeks, an estimated 26,000 Ukrainian soldiers died in pointless attacks against world-class Russian defenses  ‘in depth.’

The attempt to extend NATO’s “new globalist world order” to Russia has failed.

 By Colonel (ret.) Douglas Macgregor, US Army, THE KENNEDY BEACON JUL 20, 2023 https://thekennedybeacon.substack.com/p/discarding-illusions-ending-wars?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1712557&post_id=135282964&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

From the moment the war in Ukraine started, Western reporting on the war was a radical repudiation of the truth. Washington and its NATO allies always knew that NATO expansion to Russia’s borders would precipitate an armed conflict with Moscow, but NATO’s ruling globalist class did not care. For them, Russia in 2022 was unchanged from the weak and incapable Russia of the late 1990s. The risk of failure seemed low. Ergo, Russia could be bullied into submission.

Americans and most Europeans did not bother to question or analyze. Widespread strategic ignorance about Russia and Eastern Europe ensured that most Americans and even West Europeans would react quickly and viscerally to the Western media’s distorted images and lies about Russia. At the same time, tolerance for criticism of Washington’s role in fashioning the corrupt and deceitful conduct of the Volodymyr Zelenskyy Regime and its war was disallowed in the press

Washington’s ruling class was cheered when it dismissed Russian proposals for talks on any grounds that did not recognize NATO’s right to transform Ukraine into a base for U.S. and Allied Military Power aimed at Russia. Ukrainian flags sprouted from the lush grounds of America’s wealthier neighborhoods like flowers in an arboretum and wonders in the form of limitless military assistance, miracle weapons, and cash were promised to President Zelenskyy––promises that strategic reality did not justify.

In 2022 the Biden Administration no longer possessed the military and economic strength to wage high-end conventional warfare that it had in 1991. Waging a major war 10,000 miles from home on the Eurasian continent is impossible without the support of truly powerful Allies on the model of the British Empire during WWII. Washington’s NATO allies are military dependencies, not formidable strategic partners.

Whereas Russian Military Power is still structured for decisive operations launched from Russian soil, U.S. Military power is geared to project limited air, naval, and land power thousands of miles from home to the periphery of Asia and Africa. American military power consists of boutique forces designed for safari in Africa and the Middle East, not decisive combat operations against great continental powers like Russia or China.

Eighteen months later Ukraine is in ruins. Its latest counteroffensive achieved nothing. In the last three weeks, an estimated 26,000 Ukrainian soldiers died in pointless attacks against world-class Russian defenses  ‘in depth.’ (Defenses ‘in depth’ mean a security zone of 15 -25 kilometers in front of the main defense, that consists of at least three defense belts twenty or more kilometers deep.)

By comparison, Russian losses were minimal.

Today, more than 100,000 Russian troops are conducting offensive operations along the Lyman-Kupiansk axis. These forces include 900 tanks, 555 artillery systems and 370 multiple rocket launchers. It does not take much imagination to anticipate the breakthrough of these forces to the North where they can encircle Kharkiv.

Once Russian Forces surround the city, they will become an irresistible magnet for Ukraine’s last reserve of 30-40,000 troops. Ukrainian Forces attacking to the East to break through to Kharkov will present the combination of Russian space and terrestrial-based ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets and Precision Strike Aerospace, Artillery, Rocket, and Missile Systems with a target array that only a blind man could miss.

None of these developments should surprise anyone in the West. Building a Ukrainian army on the fly with a hotchpotch of hastily assembled equipment from a multitude of NATO members and an officer corps of many courageous, but inexperienced officers had little chance of success even under the best of circumstance.

Wars are decided in the decades before they begin. In war, the sudden appearance of “Silver Bullet” technology seldom provides more than a temporary advantage and strong personalities in the senior ranks do not compensate for inadequate military organization, training, thinking, and effective equipment. A new, leaked memorandum from sources inside Ukraine illustrates these points:

“Units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are at such terrible states of degradation that soldiers are abandoning their posts, and whilst not mentioned in these documents, a flood of videos have been published from Russian sources claiming Ukrainian service personnel are surrendering at the first opportunity owing to the belief that they are being treated  as ‘nothing more than cannon fodder.’”

Events on the ground are beginning to overtake the carefully orchestrated charade in Kiev. There is little that pontificating retired generals and armchair military analysts can do to halt the inevitable. Moscow understands that the war will not end without Russian offensive action. Whatever the Washington’s original goals may have been, theybeen they are unrealizable. Russian Forces will soon fall on the Ukrainian forces with the momentum and the impact of an avalanche.

In view of these points, before all of Ukraine’s manpower is annihilated, or a “Coalition of the Willing” from Poland and Lithuania marches into Western Ukraine, Washington can arrest Ukraine’s downward spiral into total defeat, and Washington’s own irresponsible drift into a regional war with Russia for which Washington and its allies are not prepared.

Cooler heads can prevail inside the beltway. The fighting can stop, but a ceasefire, and the diplomatic talks that must proceed from a ceasefire, will not occur unless Washington and its Allies acknowledge three critical points:

First, whatever form the Ukrainian State assumes in the aftermath of the conflict, Ukraine must be neutral and non-aligned. NATO membership is out of the question. A neutral Ukraine on the Austrian model can still provide a buffer between Russia and its Western Neighbors.

Second, Washington and its Allies must immediately suspend all military aid to Ukraine. Doubling down on failure by introducing more equipment and technology the Ukrainian Forces cannot quickly absorb and employ is wasteful and self-defeating.

Third, all U.S. and allied personnel, clandestine or in uniform, must withdraw from Ukraine. Insisting on some form of NATO presence as a face-saving measure is pointless. The attempt to extend NATO’s “new globalist world order” to Russia has failed.

The point is straightforward. It is time for Washington to turn its attention inward and address the decades of American societal, economic, and military decay that ensued after 1991. It’s time to reverse the decline in American national prosperity, and power; to avoid unnecessary overseas conflict;and to shun future interventions in the affairs of other nation states and their societies. The threats to our Republic are here, at home, not in the Eastern Hemisphere.

July 27, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CIA-Linked Security Company Targeted Former Ecuador President Who Granted Assange Asylum

By Kevin Gosztola / The Dissenter

In addition to targeting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a CIA-linked private security company based in Spain allegedly spied on former Ecuador president Rafael Correa.

Spanish newspaper El País reported that UC Global director David Morales instructed his employees to collect information from Correa’s 2018 meetings with Latin American leaders that included the “former presidents of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay—Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Dilma Rousseff, and José Mujica.”……………………………………………………………………..

News media that partnered with Assange and WikiLeaks on the publication of documents at issue in the U.S. case—the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde—have ignored what has been learned about UC Global and the CIA.

But the uncovered evidence is important and relevant to the U.S. Justice Department’s unprecedented effort to pursue an Espionage Act trial against a journalist and publisher.

 https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/24/cia-linked-security-company-targeted-former-ecuador-president-who-granted-assange-asylum/

July 26, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment