Der Spiegel asks: “Is the CIA hunting Assange’s supporters?”
This campaign is inextricably tied to war. Assange is being persecuted for exposing war crimes, under conditions where the US and its allies are preparing even greater horrors through their proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and their confrontation with China.
WSWS, Oscar Grenfell, SEP candidate for NSW Legislative Council, 27 February 2023
In a feature article published last Thursday, the well-known German weekly magazine Der Spiegel pointedly asked whether the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was “hunting” associates and supporters of Julian Assange.
The persecuted WikiLeaks publisher remains in Britain’s maximum-security Belmarsh Prison while the UK authorities seek to facilitate his extradition to the US. There, Assange faces 175 years’ imprisonment for exposing the war crimes committed by American imperialism and its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Over recent years, a wealth of material has been published laying bare the scope of the US campaign against Assange and its gross illegality. In October 2021, Yahoo! News issued an article, based on the statements of 30 former and current US officials. It asserted that the CIA and the Trump administration had plotted to kidnap or assassinate Assange while he was an internationally-recognised political refugee in Ecuador’s London embassy.
There are well-documented allegations that UC Global, the security company contracted by the Ecuadorian authorities to provide security to the embassy, was secretly collaborating with the US authorities. UC Global whistleblowers have attested to this, and the unlawful surveillance material, including videos of Assange’s privileged discussions with his lawyers, has been publicly released.
The Der Spiegel article provides additional information. It paints a picture of a global dragnet established by the US government and its agencies to target not only Assange, but also his collaborators. Much of the material is anecdotal, but the standing of those providing it, together with the context of established US state operations against WikiLeaks, makes for a persuasive case.
Summarising the material it collected, Der Spiegel writes: “At one point, a lawyer in London lost her laptop; at another, a journalist researching Assange’s case had medical data stolen. The office of Assange’s Spanish defence lawyers was broken into in a bizarre way. In Ecuador, a Swedish software developer has been held in the country for nearly four years on flimsy grounds. Elsewhere, Assange supporters who prefer to remain anonymous reported similar spooky incidents.
“That they are connected cannot be proven. Nor has it been possible to determine the authors beyond doubt in any case so far. It could be a matter of coincidences. ‘But who is to believe that?’ asks Assange’s lawyer Aitor Martínez, who is certain that it is a concerted campaign by U.S. authorities, whose often dubious methods WikiLeaks has exposed quite a few times. ‘It’s a vendetta against Julian Assange,’ says the Spaniard. And the focus is not only on companions and family members of Assange, but also on lawyers and journalists, who by law should be particularly protected from wiretapping.”
everal case studies are provided.
One concerns Andy Müller-Maguhn, a German collaborator of Assange and a computer expert. In addition to having met frequently with Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, Müller-Maguhn plays a pivotal role in WikiLeaks’ operations by managing funds for the organisation donated through the German Wau Holland Foundation.
The Der Spiegel report recounts that Müller-Maguhn discovered in March 2018 a high-powered spying device in a Southeast Asian apartment where he sometimes resides. The small surveillance implant had been expertly soldered into one of Müller-Maguhn’s secure mobile phones. Der Spiegel commented: “It is equipped with U.S. made chips and cannot be detected with a normal frequency locator.”
Other incidents followed, with Müller-Maguhn describing the situation as the “edge of surreality.” In one instance, “in June 2019, he was waiting for his wife in Milan when he spotted an ‘unkempt guy’ across the street pointing a telephoto lens at him through a plastic bag. ‘When he sees me looking at him,’ he takes off.”
In another incident…………………………….
The German citizen has filed a legal case against the spying in the German federal courts. His account is lent substantial credence by the fact that the US government has openly admitted to targeting him.
The US Federal Bureau of Investigations named Müller-Maguhn as a potential WikiLeaks courier in the 2016 Mueller report…………………………..
Lawyer targeted
Aitor Martínez, one of Assange’s Spanish lawyers, also appears to have been targeted. Der Spiegel pointedly notes: “For him, too, the series of oddities apparently began in the spring of 2017, when CIA chief Pompeo declared WikiLeaks an enemy intelligence agency.”
Pompeo made that declaration in response to WikiLeaks’ publication of Vault 7, a trove of CIA documents proving that the agency was running a global hacking operation aimed at gaining access to smartphones, televisions and even electric vehicles. The agency was also developing technologies to falsely ascribe its own illegal actions to other nations, such as Russia and Iran. The clear implication of Pompeo’s assertion was that WikiLeaks would be treated as an enemy state or a terrorist organisation.
…………………………………………..
In the most serious attack, masked men broke into Martínez’s Spanish legal office on the night of December 16, 2017. They appeared to be looking for something, which the lawyer suspects was a computer server that they did not find.
The timing suggests coordination with UC Global, along with the US authorities………………………………………………………………….
…………….the Justice Department, which is now overseeing Assange’s attempted extradition, was potentially tag-teaming with spying agencies in criminal operations such as attempted burglaries.
Significantly, Martinez stated that his apartment was broken into last year, but nothing was stolen. That would suggest that this gangster campaign against Assange’s associates continues, despite his imprisonment and the extradition proceedings.
Another individual whose story is recounted by Der Spiegel is Ola Bini, a Swedish computer expert. He was arrested in Ecuador, where he was working, almost simultaneously with the Ecuadorian government’s expulsion of Assange from its London embassy on April 11, 2019. Bini, who says he has never worked for WikiLeaks, but did meet with Assange at the embassy, was accused of hacking into Ecuadorian government communications and attempting to destabilise its government.
Bini has been subjected to a years-long legal ordeal. While an Ecuadorian court acquitted him in January, prosecutors have filed an appeal, so he cannot leave the country.
Der Spiegel recounted some of his experiences with surveillance:………………………………………..
Reports since 2019 have indicated that the Ecuadorian campaign against Bini has been coordinated with US officials.
The spying and dirty tricks perpetrated against WikiLeaks’ associates, including lawyers, underscores the fact that the persecution of Assange is the spearhead of a broader assault on democratic rights, with global implications.
This campaign is inextricably tied to war. Assange is being persecuted for exposing war crimes, under conditions where the US and its allies are preparing even greater horrors through their proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and their confrontation with China. As in the 20th century, war is incompatible with fundamental civil liberties, which governments erode in a bid to suppress widespread opposition to militarism among workers and young people.
The lawless campaign against WikiLeaks is yet another exposure of the fraud of Washington’s claims to be defending “democracy” and “human rights” in Ukraine or anywhere else. What emerges is an imperialist regime that will use all methods, including criminal, to stamp out opposition to its illegal wars and interventions.
The full Der Spiegel article can be read in German here. Investigative journalist Tareq Haddad has provided an English translation here. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/02/27/wydb-f27.html?pk_campaign=assange-newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws—
The ninth anniversary of the Ukraine war
At the end of 2021, President Putin made very clear that the three red lines for Russia were: (1) NATO enlargement to Ukraine as unacceptable; (2) Russia would maintain control of Crimea; and (3) the war in the Donbass needed to be settled by implementation of Minsk-2. The Biden White House refused to negotiate on the issue of NATO enlargement.
By Jeffrey Sachs, Mar 3, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/the-ninth-anniversary-of-the-ukraine-war/
We are not at the 1-year anniversary of the war, as the Western governments and media claim. This is the 9-year anniversary of the war. And that makes a big difference.
The war began with the violent overthrow of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, a coup that was overtly and covertly backed by the United States government (see also here). From 2008 onward, the United States pushed NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia. The 2014 coup of Yanukovych was in the service of NATO expansion.
We must keep this relentless drive towards NATO expansion in context. The US and Germany explicitly and repeatedly promised Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not enlarge “one inch eastward” after Gorbachev disbanded the Soviet military alliance known as the Warsaw Pact. The entire premise of NATO enlargement was a violation of agreements reached with Soviet Union, and therefore with the continuation state of Russia.
The neocons have pushed NATO enlargement because they seek to surround Russia in the Black Sea region, akin to the aims of Britain and France in the Crimean War (1853-56). US strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski described Ukraine as the “geographical pivot” of Eurasia. If the US could surround Russia in the Black Sea region, and incorporate Ukraine into the US military alliance, Russia’s ability to project power in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and globally would disappear, or so goes the theory.
Of course, Russia saw this not only as a general threat, but as a specific threat of putting advanced armaments right up to Russia’s border. This was especially ominous after the US unilaterally abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, which according to Russia posed a direct threat to Russian national security.
During his presidency (2010-2014), Yanukovych sought military neutrality, precisely to avoid a civil war or proxy war in Ukraine. This was a very wise and prudent choice for Ukraine, but it stood in the way of the U.S. neoconservative obsession with NATO enlargement.
When protests broke out against Yanukovych at the end of 2013 upon the delay of the signing of an accession roadmap with the EU, the United States took the opportunity to escalate the protests into a coup, which culminated in Yanukovych’s overthrow in February 2014.
The US meddled relentlessly and covertly in the protests, urging them onward even as right-wing Ukrainian nationalist paramilitaries entered the scene. US NGO spent vast sums to finance the protests and the eventual overthrow. This NGO financing has never come to light.
Three people intimately involved in the US effort to overthrow Yanukovych were Victoria Nuland, then the Assistant Secretary of State, now Under-Secretary of State; Nuland was famously caught on the phone with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, planning the next government in Ukraine, and without allowing any second thoughts by the Europeans (“F*ck the EU,” in Nuland’s crude phrase caught on tape).
Jake Sullivan, then the security advisor to VP Joe Biden, and now the US National Security Advisor to President Biden;
and VP Biden, now President.
The intercepted conversation reveals the depth of the Biden-Nuland-Sullivan planning. Nuland says, “So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note Sullivan’s come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So, Biden’s willing.”
US Film director Oliver Stone helps us to understand the US involvement in the coup in his 2016 documentary movie, Ukraine on Fire. I urge all people to watch it, and to learn what a US-regime change operation looks like. I also urge all people to read the powerful academic studies by Prof. Ivan Katchanovski of the University of Ottawa (for example, here and here), who has laboriously reviewed all of the evidence of the Maidan and found that most of the violence and killing originated not from Yanukovych’s security detail, as alleged, but from the coup leaders themselves, who fired into the crowds, killing both policemen and demonstrators.
These truths remain obscured by US secrecy and European obsequiousness to US power. A US-orchestrated coup occurred in the heart of Europe, and no European leader dared to speak the truth. Brutal consequences have followed, but still no European leader honestly tells the facts.
The coup was the start of the war nine years ago. An extra-constitutional, right-wing, anti-Russian and ultra-nationalist government came to power in Kiev. After the coup, Russia quickly retook Crimea following a quick referendum, and war broke out in the Donbass as Russians in the Ukraine army switched sides to opposed the post-coup government in Kiev.
NATO almost immediately began to pour in billions of dollars of weaponry to Ukraine. And the war escalated. The Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 peace agreements, in which France and Germany were to be co-guarantors, did not function, first, because the nationalist Ukrainian government in Kiev refused to implement them, and second, because Germany and France did not press for their implementation, as recently admitted by former Chancellor Angela Merkel.
At the end of 2021, President Putin made very clear that the three red lines for Russia were: (1) NATO enlargement to Ukraine as unacceptable; (2) Russia would maintain control of Crimea; and (3) the war in the Donbass needed to be settled by implementation of Minsk-2. The Biden White House refused to negotiate on the issue of NATO enlargement.
The Russian invasion tragically and wrongly took place in February 2022, eight years after the Yanukovych coup. The United States has poured in tens of billions of dollars of armaments and budget support since then, doubling down on the US attempt to expand its military alliance into Ukraine and Georgia. The deaths and destruction in this escalating battlefield are horrific.
In March 2022, Ukraine said that it would negotiate on the basis of neutrality. The war indeed seemed close to an end. Positive statements were made by both Ukrainian and Russian officials, as well as the Turkish mediators. We now know from former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett that the United States blocked those negotiations, instead favouring an escalation of war to “weaken Russia.”
In September 2022, the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up. The overwhelming evidence at this date is that the United States led that destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines. Seymour Hersh’s account is highly credible and has not been refuted on a single major point (though it has been heatedly denied by the US Government). It points to the Biden-Nuland-Sullivan team as leading the Nord Stream destruction.
We are on a path of dire escalation and lies or silence in much of the mainstream US and European media. The entire narrative that this is the first anniversary of war is a falsehood that hides the reasons of this war and the way to end it. This is a war that began because of the reckless US neoconservative push for NATO enlargement, followed by the US neoconservative participation in the 2014 regime-change operation. Since then, there has been massive escalation of armaments, death, and destruction.
This is a war that needs to stop before it engulfs all of us in nuclear Armageddon. I praise the peace movement for its valiant efforts, especially in the face of brazen lies and propaganda by the US Government and craven silence by the European governments, which act as wholly subservient to the US neoconservatives.
We must speak truth. Both sides have lied and cheated and committed violence. Both sides need to back off. NATO must stop the attempt to enlarge to Ukraine and to Georgia. Russia must withdraw from Ukraine. We must listen to the red lines of both sides so that the world will survive.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as Special Adviser to three UN Secretaries-General. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, and most recently, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism.
A coming wider war with Crimea in US sights
How is it that this evil woman, Nuland, is allowed to drive the US towards nuclear war with Russia?
There are two key signals of a possible US-NATO change in strategy that are perceptible if we understand that NATO, at least so far, does what the US says it needs to do.
New deliveries of special types of long-range ammunition to Kiev are the first signal. The second is the publicized switch by
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland to favoring a refocus on retaking Crimea in a new Ukrainian offensive.
US-NATO response to fall of Bakhmut is likely an assault on Crimea, which in turn will spark Russian attacks on Eastern Europe
by Stephen Bryen March 4, 2023 https://asiatimes.com/2023/03/a-coming-wider-war-with-crimea-in-us-sights/
Ukrainian forces are pulling out of Bakhmut and the battle for the small Donetsk city is nearly finished. So what happens next?
There appear to be two stages to the Bakhmut pullout. The first started perhaps a month ago, though that isn’t certain. The troops pulled out comprised foreign fighters and Yellow Armband troops.
The Russians say they have not seen any foreign fighters for about a month. Most of these were said to be from Georgia and Abkhazia. (Abkhazia is the area in Georgia carved out by the Russians and declared an independent entity.)
The Yellow Armband troops are professional and well-trained Ukrainian “heavy” military units. They have mostly been used on the flanks protecting the city of Bakhmut, trying to stop the Russian encirclement.
Within the city are so-called Green Armband troops. They are not well trained and are mostly recent conscripts. Mainly they carry small arms, which they fire from buildings and other covered positions. Many of them are underage or, alternatively, overage.
According to Yevgeny Prighozin, head of the Wagner Group paramilitary organization, the Green Armbands are starting to leave the city, having already pulled out from most of the eastern parts. Reports say they are either using a country road or walking across farm fields.
As it now stands, the end of the battle is at most a few days away, although the Ukrainians have launched a counteroffensive to the west and south of a town called Ivanivske. The operation may be meant to hold off a wider encirclement of Ukrainian forces that the Russians appear to have launched.
The Yellow Armband Ukrainian forces trying to relieve Ivanivske are deploying a number of infantry fighting vehicles, but so far few if any tanks. Whether Ukraine’s army can actually hold off a wider Russian operation remains to be seen.
But the Ukrainians are low on soldiers and ammunition, so it isn’t clear they can sustain a hard hit if that’s what the Russians intend to launch.
Up next: Crimea
The US and NATO likely see the handwriting on the wall if the Ukrainians continue to try and hold territory in the Donbas region.
While the US thinks that Russia failed to succeed in its original objectives in the Donbas and in forcing a governmental change in Kiev, the long-term picture looks troublesome as the Russians have not only improved their tactics but also appear willing to pay the price and grind down Ukraine’s army.
Likewise, it is by now clear that it will take more than a few years in the US and Europe to rebuild ammunition and equipment stocks, while the Russians seem to have put their defense manufacturing on a full-time, day-and-night basis to bring supplies to the front.
There are two key signals of a possible US-NATO change in strategy that are perceptible if we understand that NATO, at least so far, does what the US says it needs to do.
New deliveries of special types of long-range ammunition to Kiev are the first signal. The second is the publicized switch by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland to favoring a refocus on retaking Crimea in a new Ukrainian offensive.
“[W]e will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. Ukraine is fighting for the return of all of its land within its international borders. We are supporting them, including in preparing a next hard push to regain their territory…Crimea must be—at a minimum, at a minimum—demilitarized.”US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland
Nuland’s view is not supported fully by the State Department or the Pentagon, largely because of concern Russia may choose to attack Western supply lines in retaliation, leading to a broader war in Eastern Europe, starting with Poland and Romania.
Both Poland and Romania, one should recall, are historical Russian stomping grounds. Joseph Stalin decided to support the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact in August 1939 because the Soviet leader saw it as giving him part of Poland and Romania’s oil fields.
There is a famous story that circulated during the Cold War about a Polish soldier facing an invasion by Russian tanks on one axis and German tanks on the other. Standing there with one antitank weapon, what should he choose? Deciding to fire on the Russian tanks, the Polish soldier supposedly says, “Business before pleasure.”
Fast forward to the present, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is known to worry about a wider conflict but may well have lost out to Nuland, a major proponent of the Ukraine war who wants at a minimum regime change in Moscow.
The evidence that Nuland has won the argument starts with the fact Biden has announced a new long-range weapons program for Ukraine and is also sending mobile bridging equipment that could help the Ukrainian army attack Russian forces in a Crimea offensive.
Such an operation itself would start with long-range glide bombs – joint direct attack munitions (JADAM), HIMARS with long-range, ground-launched, small-diameter bombs (GLDSB) and artillery strikes. It would then develop into a land offensive against Crimea.
The operational problem is that this scenario would require fighter planes that can fly to high altitudes of around 30,000 feet before launching JDAMS, kits that fit on “iron” bombs to give them GPS guidance. But a bomb glides to its target, so to achieve standoff range high-flying aircraft are required.
This would require Ukraine to use its MIG-29s, but it has few of the fighters left. Thus the latest arms deliveries may include, in some form or another, Western aircraft probably flown by NATO pilots.
This would amount to a direct declaration of war, as both Blinken (who is against it) and Nuland (who is for it) understand. To launch such an offensive, for example as soon as this May, there’s no alternative to using Western aircraft.
There is bipartisan Congressional support for F-16s for Ukraine, although that support is for Ukrainians to fly them, which is unlikely in the next three months.
The Nuland threat to Crimea appears more and more to be a foregone conclusion: a US policy with existential implications for Europe and perhaps also for America.
The issue was decided by the new arms shipments (two separate announcements as late as March 3 US time). While no published decision has been made and Biden has been silent, the equipment being sent could only be intended for Nuland’s offensive on Crimea.
If there were a public announcement of a decision supporting Nuland, Blinken would likely have a heart attack – but the US is sending long-range bombs and artillery as well as bridging equipment essential to attack Crimea. If such an attack is not envisioned, the Ukrainians don’t need this kit.
Meanwhile, there seems to be very little coherent US opposition to the unfolding scenario of what could quickly become a general war in Europe.
Stephen Bryen is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute. Follow him on Twitter at @stevebryen
The West hasn’t gone after Russia’s nuclear energy. Here’s why
CNN, Story by Clare Sebastian 7 Mar 23
Much of Russia’s energy exports have been hit by Western sanctions since the country launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with a notable exception — nuclear power.
Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy monopoly Rosatom, which exports and enriches uranium as well as builds nuclear power stations around the world, has been in control of Europe’s largest nuclear plant in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region since Russian forces seized it a year ago.
Kyiv has accused Russian forces of turning the complex into a military base and using it as cover to launch attacks, knowing that Ukraine can’t return fire without risking hitting one of the plant’s reactors……
Petro Kotin, interim president of Ukraine’s atomic energy company, Energoatom, is worried about the militarization of the plant, but also a significant reduction in the number of qualified staff on site. The Russian press service for the plant told CNN that new employees are being recruited, “which ensures [its] safe operation.”…………….
Despite what Kotin described as the rising risk of a mistake or breach of safety protocols at the Zaporizhzhia plant, and repeated calls by Kyiv for sanctions on Rosatom, the Russian company remains largely unscathed, although the United Kingdom sanctioned its top management and several subsidiaries last month, and Finland terminated a power plant deal last May.
Experts say Rosatom remains protected by the vital role it plays in global nuclear power, and the fact it can’t easily be replaced.
The problem is a “Russian doll’s worth of interlocking dependencies,” says Paul Dorfman, chair of Nuclear Consulting Group and a long-time advisor to the UK government and the nuclear industry.
To start with, Rosatom is a key exporter of nuclear fuel. In 2021, the United States relied on the Russian nuclear monopoly for 14% of the uranium that powered its nuclear reactors. European utilities bought almost a fifth of their nuclear fuel from Rosatom. According to Dorfman, the European Union has made little progress since weaning itself off Russia’s nuclear industry.
Rosatom also provides enrichment services, accounting for 28% of what the United States required in 2021.
It has built numerous nuclear plants around the world and in some cases financed their construction. At the end of 2021, almost one in five of the world’s nuclear power plants were in Russia or Russian-built, and Rosatom is building 15 more outside of Russia, according to Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
Kacper Szulecki, a research professor at the Norwegian Institute of International affairs, says the cost of building a nuclear power plant is so high that it can only be financed by governments, and in some cases even they can’t afford it. In those cases, Rosatom has often stepped in, offering credit lines guaranteed by the Russian government and in some cases long-term contracts to provide fuel for or even run the plant.
Szulecki, who co-authored a recent paper on Russia’s nuclear industry, says the most extreme of these kinds of deals is the build-own-operate model. It was first used by Rosatom with Turkey’s Akkuyu power plant, which the corporation is building, fully financing and has committed to operating for its entire lifetime.
The Akkuyu nuclear power plant as its construction continues in November 2022 – Serkan Avci/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Such dependency can trump other considerations. For example, Hungary has been the European Union’s most vocal opponent of sanctions on Rosatom. It is also one of only several EU countries that rely on nuclear energy for more than 40% of their electricity and it has a long-term financing deal with Rosatom to build a nuclear power plant.
Experts say finding new suppliers to replace Rosatom in the global nuclear industry would take years.
That may be why, far from deterring future customers, Rosatom’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant has coincided with growth in the company’s foreign revenue. Its Director General Aleksey Likhachev told Russian newspaper Izvestiya in December that overseas revenue was on track to rise by about 15% in 2022 compared with 2021.
For his part, Kotin at Energoatom believes Rosatom is maintaining the equipment at the plant so poorly that the Russian occupation may cause irreversible damage.
If it continues for another year, “then I’m sure we won’t be able to restart this plant,” he said…………. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/the-west-hasn-t-gone-after-russia-s-nuclear-energy-here-s-why/ar-AA18hEL7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5ec87a4e668849fcb11470dd5d1a6c35&ei=14
Is nuclear power in a global death spiral?
Jim Green 3 March 2023 https://reneweconomy.com.au/is-nuclear-power-in-a-global-death-spiral/?fbclid=IwAR0wIw8QIyQA0qxkgFa0Sa_WVmAYGlnKG3_4zdJOqoj4UvbmM
Last year was the same for nuclear power as almost every other for the past 30 years: a small number of reactor start-ups and a small number of closures. There were seven reactor start-ups worldwide in 2022 and five permanent reactor closures, a net gain of 4.2 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generating capacity.
The fleet of mostly young reactors 30 years ago is now a fleet of mostly ageing reactors. Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) anticipates the closure of 10 reactors (10 GW) per year from 2018 to 2050.
Over the past decade (2013-22), there were on average 6.5 reactor construction starts annually — that’s a recipe for slow decline.
That said, there were 20 construction starts over the past two years, suggesting the possibility of a further period of stagnation.
Slight growth is also a possibility, if and only if China’s nuclear program accelerates. The 2022 World Nuclear Industry Status Report notes that from 2002-2021, there were 50 reactor start-ups in China and no closures while in the rest of the world there was a net loss of 57 reactors.
China’s nuclear program is modest — an average of 2.5 reactor start-ups per year from 2002-2021. But the pace has picked up with 11 construction starts over the past two years. China’s nuclear program has picked up pace and then lost steam twice over the past 15 years, so only time will tell if the latest acceleration persists.
In addition to sparing the nuclear industry from a global death spiral, China has shown the world how to grow the nuclear industry: with inadequate nuclear safety and security standards, inadequate regulation, media repression, whistleblower repression, the worst insurance and liability arrangements in the world, and rampant corruption.
Even in the most optimistic scenario for the nuclear industry, its share of global electricity generation will continue to fall. Nuclear power’s contribution to global electricity generation has fallen 46 percent from a peak of 17.5 percent in 1996 to 9.4 percent now.
The Golden Rule of nuclear economics
The growth of nuclear power in China contrasts with the stunning failure of reactor construction projects in the US, the UK and France.
In the US, the only reactor construction project is the Vogtle project in Georgia (two AP1000 reactors). The latest cost estimate of US$34 billion (A$50.6 billion) is more than double the estimate when construction began (US$14-15.5 billion). Costs continue to increase and the project only survives because of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts.
The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors) was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of around US$9 billion (A$13.4 billion).
In 2006, Westinghouse said it could build an AP1000 reactor for as little as US$1.4 billion (A$2.0 billion) — 12 times lower than the current estimate for Vogtle.
In the late 2000s, the estimated construction cost for one EPR reactor in the UK was £2 billion (A$3.6 billion). The current cost estimate for two EPR reactors under construction at Hinkley Point — the only reactor construction project in the UK — is £32.7 billion (A$58.6 billion). Thus the current cost estimate is over eight times greater than the initial estimate of £2 billion per reactor.
The only current reactor construction project in France is one EPR reactor under construction at Flamanville. The current cost estimate of €19.1 billion (A$30.1 billion) is nearly six times greater than the original estimate of €3.3 billion (A$5.2 billion). (Lower figures cited by EDF and others typically exclude finance costs.)
So the cost of reactors in the US, the UK and France stands at A$25 billion, A$29 billion and A$30 billion per reactor, respectively.
The ballooning cost estimates have increased 12-fold, 8-fold and 6-fold. Thus we can posit the Golden Rule of Nuclear Economics: add a zero to industry estimates and your estimate will be far closer to the mark than theirs.
‘Turbocharged’ renewables growth
Nuclear power’s stagnation contrasts sharply with the growth of renewables. Renewable expansion of about 320 GW last year was 76 times greater than nuclear growth of 4.2 GW. The same pattern was evident in 2021: nuclear capacity fell by 0.4 GW while renewable capacity growth amounted to 314 GW including 257 GW of non-hydro renewables.
Renewables (including hydro) accounted for 29.1 percent of worldwide electricity generation in 2022 according to the Electricity Market Report 2023 report by the International Energy Agency (IEA — not to be confused with the IAEA), more than three times nuclear’s share of 9.4 percent.
Nuclear has been overtaken by non-hydro renewables and has fallen below 10 percent for the first time in decades.
The growth of renewables is being turbocharged as countries seek to strengthen energy security, the IEA said in December when releasing its Renewables 2022 report.
The IEA projects that in 2025, renewable electricity generation will account for 34.6 percent of total global generation and renewables will have overtaken coal and gas.
The IEA projects that in 2027, renewable electricity generation will have grown to 38 percent of total global generation with declining shares from 2022-27 for all other sources: coal, gas, nuclear and oil. Wind and solar PV are projected to more than double to account for almost 20 percent of global power generation in 2027.
The IEA projects that China will install almost half of new global renewable power capacity from 2022–2027, with growth accelerating despite the phaseout of wind and solar PV subsidies. In China in 2021, wind (656 terrawatt-hours — TWh), solar (327 TWh) and hydro (1300 TWh) combined generated six times more electricity than nuclear (383 TWh).
The IEA projects that China, the US and India will all double their renewable generating capacity from 2022-27, accounting for two-thirds of global growth. Renewable generating capacity in Australia is expected increase by 85 percent.
IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in December 2022 that renewables were already expanding quickly, but the global energy crisis has kicked them into “an extraordinary new phase of even faster growth as countries seek to capitalise on their energy security benefits.
“The world is set to add as much renewable power in the next 5 years as it did in the previous 20 years,” Birol said.
“This is a clear example of how the current energy crisis can be a historic turning point towards a cleaner and more secure energy system. Renewables’ continued acceleration is critical to help keep the door open to limiting global warming to 1.5 °C.”
Nuclear risks in Ukraine
Meanwhile, there is an ongoing risk of a nuclear catastrophe in Ukraine. The IAEA (not to be confused with the IEA) has released a report noting that several of Ukraine’s five nuclear power plants and other facilities have come under direct shelling over the past year.
The IAEA report states:
“Every single one of the IAEA’s crucial seven indispensable pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security in an armed conflict has been compromised, including the physical integrity of nuclear facilities; the operation of safety and security systems; the working conditions of staff; supply chains, communication channels, radiation monitoring and emergency arrangements; and the crucial off-site power supply.”
Loss of off-site power, and thus reliance on diesel generators to power reactor cooling, dramatically increases the risk of nuclear fuel meltdown and significantly increases the risk of a nuclear disaster.
The IAEA report further states:
“Shelling, air attacks, reduced staffing levels, difficult working conditions, frequent losses of off-site power, disruption to the supply chain and the unavailability of spare parts, as well as deviations from planned activities and normal operations, have impacted each nuclear facility and many activities involving radioactive sources in Ukraine.
“The reliability of the national power infrastructure necessary for the safe and secure operation of the nuclear facilities has also been affected and, for the first time since the start of the armed conflict, all [nuclear power plant] sites, including the [Chernobyl] site, simultaneously suffered a loss of off-site power on 23 November 2022.”
In addition to the horrors that a nuclear catastrophe would inflict on Ukrainians, it would surely result in a global death spiral for nuclear power
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and lead author of a detailed submission to a current Senate inquiry into nuclear power.
Wind and solar output hits new records as heat waves sweep across country — RenewEconomy
The spate of heatwaves across Australia has coincided with some wind and solar output records. So how much storage will we really need? The post Wind and solar output hits new records as heat waves sweep across country appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Wind and solar output hits new records as heat waves sweep across country — RenewEconomy
Spanish wind giant commits to 4GW of new renewables a year, including in Asia Pacific — RenewEconomy
Spain-based wind energy giant wants to invest billions in the development of gigawatts of new utility-scale solar and wind – including in Australia. The post Spanish wind giant commits to 4GW of new renewables a year, including in Asia Pacific appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Spanish wind giant commits to 4GW of new renewables a year, including in Asia Pacific — RenewEconomy
Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor project running out of cash
3 March 2023 https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsrolls-royce-smr-faces-financial-problems-10648145
UK-based Rolls-Royce SMR says its £500m ($600m) small modular reactor (SMR) programme will run out of cash by the end of 2024, Reuters has reported. Alastair Evans, Government & Corporate Affairs Director at Rolls-Royce SMR noted: “We aren’t asking the government to make an order (for the nuclear units) today but we need to start negotiations on a deployment plan by the middle of this year. We are facing a cliff edge, by December 2024 the money will have run out.” This would put at risk UK government plans to use SMRs to boost energy security and achieve climate targets.
The 470 MWe Rolls-Royce SMR design is based on a small pressurised water reactor. The design was accepted for Generic Design Assessment review in March 2022 and Rolls-Royce SMR expects to receive UK regulatory approval by mid-2024. A Rolls-Royce-led UK SMR consortium aims to build 16 SMRs. The consortium – which includes Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall, Jacobs, Laing O’Rourke, National Nuclear Laboratory, the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and TWI – expects to complete its first unit in the early 2030s and build up to 10 by 2035.
Rolls-Royce’s SMR development business received a commitment of £210m from the UK government in 2021 but talks on how the projects would be funded are yet to start. Rolls-Royce’s new CEO Tufan Erginbilgic said recently that there was a sense of urgency in its engagement with government. “We built a capable team (and) without any project, sustaining that team will be a big challenge,” he told reporters after the group published full-year results. He noted that it was vital to move quickly, given that rival companies were developing similar technology.
“It is important that we engage therefore with the UK government urgently, and for a project that we can deploy as soon as possible,” he said. Rolls Royce and shareholders in the SMR business – advisory firm BNF Resources Ltd, US Energy company Constellation and Qatar Investment Authority have invested a total of around £280m.
This and the government money have been used to build the business, which employs some 600 staff across Derby, Warrington and Manchester. The funds have enabled it to start the regulatory process to approve the reactor design and identify sites for plants and factories. In November 2022, Rolls-Royce identified four sites with the potential to deploy multiple SMR units: Trawsfynydd (requiring agreement with Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) – and the Welsh Government); Sellafield (NDA land availability to be confirmed); Wylfa-South (requiring agreement with Horizon Nuclear Power); and Oldbury-North (also requiring agreement with Horizon Nuclear Power).
Rolls-Royce hopes to build the reactors in UK factories. In July 2022, the company announced six potential locations for the factory, shortlisted from more than 100 submissions from local enterprise partnerships and development agencies. They were: Sunderland in Tyne and Wear, Richmond in North Yorkshire, Deeside in Wales, Ferrybridge in Yorkshire, Stallingborough in Lincolnshire and Carlisle in Cumbria. David White, newly appointed Chief Operating Officer of Rolls-Royce SMR, said another two locations – Shotton in Deeside (Wales) and Teesworks in Redcar (North East) – had been added to the list.
The absurdities of AUKUS
I refuse to accept this spending without registering my protest, and I reject the ease with which we are expected to embrace this military madness.
Those who are pushing for war with China often know nothing about the country, while the academics and diplomats who are China specialists have been ignored.
Pearls and Irritations, By Marianne HansonMar 31, 2023
On 14 March, when the AUKUS nuclear powered-submarine details were revealed, I spent most of the day in the Emergency Department of a hospital in Brisbane, with a family member needing urgent medical care.
It took over 12 hours for my relative to get a bed in the ED and then several hours more before a doctor could see him. He was not given his regular medication – a potentially disastrous omission – because the nursing staff simply had no time to do so. They were rushed off their feet, with another 72 patients in Emergency to tend to at the same time.
These health professionals were obviously working under extremely difficult conditions with insufficient beds and a wholly inadequate number of staff.
Not once did their attitude shift from friendliness and genuine care to one of disregard or contempt for their patients.
The live broadcast in the ED room’s television of our Prime Minister smiling with Joe Biden and Rishi Sunak, proudly announcing the spending of 368 billion dollars to acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines was, by contrast, rather sickening. It seemed a betrayal of those who voted Labor less than a year ago who wanted a new direction in foreign policy and especially an end to Australia’s involvement in America’s disastrous wars.
Like me, they hoped that a focus on the things that really threaten Australia – environmental catastrophe, the lack of public housing and a record number of homeless people, declining health and education provisions – would take precedence over the smug militarism which the Morrison government had embraced.
The submarines announcement, with its accompanying regalia and carefully staged photos seemed to me to be giving the finger to the Australian public. Unlike staff in the Emergency ward who stoically and cheerfully continued to help the people who needed their care, here was a scenario on an American beach showing these three men almost as Hollywood stars. I could not see any sense of genuine care for the ordinary people ‘doing it tough’ back home, and certainly no acknowledged consideration of how that obscenely high financial commitment could benefit everyday Australians. (By the way, that figure is more than twice the cost originally estimated for the submarines.)
I refuse to accept this spending without registering my protest, and I reject the ease with which we are expected to embrace this military madness. I am also disturbed by those who believe that the only response to a growing China is the acquisition of hugely expensive attack submarines designed to sail up to the Chinese coast and launch missiles onto its mainland.
Set aside for one moment my belief that the threat of China attacking Australia has been wilfully manufactured and inflated by vested interests in Australia. Set aside the hysterical response by the West to what is normal behaviour for a rising power determined to secure its influence in its near-abroad, and which wants to reunite with a territory that the US, Australia and most of the world already recognises as a one of its provinces. Set aside the point that while China’s human rights record might be shocking, so too is India’s, a state with which we are happy to align ourselves.
Those who are pushing for war with China often know nothing about the country, while the academics and diplomats who are China specialists have been ignored. But the thing I find most troubling is the limited imagination on how we should respond to, and work with, a rising power in our region, and the use of ridiculous tropes on why the only option is to plan for war.
For example, on the ABC’s Q and A program on 27 March …………………………………………………………………
What about diplomacy? What about the usual tools of statecraft, such as ongoing negotiations and deepening trade ties? (which still allows us to criticise human rights abuses; ………………
Working with our regional partners and organisations to deepen engagement and build mutual security assurances?
None of these gets a look-in in the rubbish that passes for meaningful debate on AUKUS…………………. more https://johnmenadue.com/the-absurdities-of-aukus/
MONDAY, MARCH 6, *SNAP ACTION* Support Barngarla fighting the Nuke Waste Dump
https://www.facebook.com/events/654942649972536?ref=newsfeed
Richard Marles and the betrayal of Australian sovereignty
Therefore, in plain language, Australia has no control over access, use, or further disposition of US weapons or equipment stationed on Australian soil. This is a death sentence for our sovereignty, because it means America can attack a third country from these shores without the agreement or even knowledge of the Australian government, yet we will have become a target and will perforce suffer the retaliatory consequences, possibly even nuclear.
https://johnmenadue.com/richard-marles-and-the-betrayal-of-australian-sovereignty/ By Guest author Michael Callanan 28 Feb 23
It’s clear that Australian sovereignty is being seriously, perhaps fatally, imperilled by the policies of successive Australian governments populated by Austral-Americans.
Defence Minister Richard Marles’ address to parliament on February 9, entitled ‘Securing Our Sovereignty’, deserves a close reading.
It was delivered at a time when, in the minister’s own words, “it has never been more important to guard, reinforce and enhance our sovereignty”.
However, it’s clear that this vaunted sovereignty is being seriously, perhaps fatally, imperilled by the policies of successive Australian governments.
DM Marles defines sovereignty as “…the capacity of a people, through their government, to determine their own circumstances and to act of their own accord, free from any coercive influence”.
More specifically, he states that any “defence capability…which is not at the absolute discretion of the country which operates it does nothing to enhance sovereignty.”
True enough, but this is where the situation becomes rather confused. Recent treaties and agreements which have enhanced the “interoperability” of Australian and US forces, as well as allowing the “rotation” of military forces and materiel through Australian territory, have explicitly ceded both Australian control over those forces and materiel, and rendered opaque what might ultimately comprise these elements.
The 2014 Force Posture Agreement Article VII explicitly states that, “The prepositioned materiel of United States Forces, and Agreed Facilities and Areas designated for storage of such prepositioned materiel shall be for the exclusive use of United States Forces, and full title to all such equipment, supplies, and materiel remains with the United States. United States Forces shall have exclusive control over the access to, use of, and disposition of such prepositioned materiel.”
Therefore, in plain language, Australia has no control over access, use, or further disposition of US weapons or equipment stationed on Australian soil. This is a death sentence for our sovereignty, because it means America can attack a third country from these shores without the agreement or even knowledge of the Australian government, yet we will have become a target and will perforce suffer the retaliatory consequences, possibly even nuclear.
Marles states that a “defence capability…which is not at the absolute discretion of the country which operates it does nothing to enhance sovereignty”, implying he is referring to Australia. But this is a sleight of hand, because the significant defence capabilities in question will not be operated by Australia in any case, thanks to the FPA, and therefore can’t enhance our sovereignty, by his own fraught definition.
He reinforces this tendentious reasoning by implying that Australia is in the situation of having a “…high-end capability – the use of which is at the complete discretion of [our] country, [and which] contributes greatly to the capacity of [our] people to determine their circumstances and therefore contributes greatly to national sovereignty.
The problem of course is that we have nothing like “complete discretion” in the use of US weapons and forces positioned on our soil. In fact we have no control, and it seems quite probable that no Australian knows whether or not, at any given moment, nuclear weapons are “prepositioned” in this country. Naturally, any enemy would assume the worst and act accordingly.
Yet Marles is implying that we have somehow enhanced our own sovereignty by allowing foreign military forces and weapons into our country, over which we will have no control, as agreed in the FPA treaty.
Thus the above considerations make laughable Marles’ conclusion that “our partnerships build our national capability and security…and are anchored in Australian sovereignty”, and that “our cooperation with…our US ally, is managed through robust policy frameworks and principles that maintain and protect our sovereignty”. Sadly, however, the continuous repetition of a falsehood doesn’t make it any truer.
A further related fantasy in this regard is Marles’ assertion that “a fundamental principle underpinning these activities is the longstanding bipartisan policy of having no foreign bases on Australian sovereign territory.”
What else is a foreign base other than an area of land on which a foreign power positions forces and materiel over which it exercises sole and unfettered control, including the further disposition of that materiel?
Marles’ collusion in the fiction that “partner activities occur on a rotational basis, within Australian facilities or as a part of jointly operated facilities” is patently untrue, and demonstrably so, by reference to the FPA provisions.
His further claim that “our US alliance fundamentally strengthens, rather than diminishes, our sovereignty” is explicitly denied by the treaty law that is the FPA, and is a brazen misrepresentation of the truth.
Finally, some attention must be devoted to unmasking yet another pervasive and corrosive fiction, that of “our long-standing and bipartisan policy of ‘full knowledge and concurrence’”.
According to the Defence Minister, “‘full knowledge’ means Australia has a full and detailed understanding of any capability or activity with a presence on Australian territory, or making use of Australian assets”.
Clearly, as a matter of logic, this contradicts the Australian government’s compliance with the US policy of ‘refusal to confirm or deny’ the existence of nuclear weapons being carried by warships or planes arriving in Australia. One can’t “know” if one is kept in the dark. As such, “full knowledge” is a bald-faced deception.
According to Marles, “‘Concurrence’ means that Australia approves of the presence of a capability or function in Australia, in support of mutually-agreed goals”. Again, quite clearly, if ‘knowledge’ is absent then ‘concurrence’ is irrelevant. One can’t approve of something if one is unaware of its existence.
Defence Minister Marles is apparently a nice chap, intelligent and well educated, who’s clearly very enthusiastic about the possibility of enhancing our sovereignty by becoming further enmeshed in desperate US planning for a coming war with China.
As such, it’s hard to know how to account for the quite glaring contradictions between his public reassurances and the provisions specified in the treaties and agreements with the USA to which we are bound.
Shuttling between the possibilities of his being either seriously deluded or wilfully deceptive, one is at a profound loss to explain the manifest inconsistencies between Marles’ unreasonably optimistic faith in our once-great-and-powerful friend and the black-and-white reality of the ink on those pages which have signed away our sovereignty, and quite possibly a relatively peaceful and prosperous future.
Don’t ask the government about the next war
By Alison Broinowski, Feb 22, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/dont-ask-the-government-about-the-next-war/
This is war protest month, with more to follow. Will efforts against the Iraq war, that failed twenty years ago this week, succeed in heading off the next one?
On Sunday 19 February thousands protested at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC against US militarism, proxy warfare, and the threat of nuclear conflict. The ANSWER Coalition plans a March on 18 March, marking the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion. They will demand ‘Negotiations not Escalation’ in Ukraine, and an end to US militarism abroad.
In London a rally organised by Stop the War UK and others on 25 February will call for immediate talks to end the war in Ukraine. They oppose the Russian invasion, as well as NATO’s role in Ukraine, and nuclear war. No2Nato
In Australia, the ABC broke its discreet silence on 20 February with a two-part series of interviews by John Lyons with four non-ASPI defence experts, all of whom agreed that for Australia to join in an American war with China would be disastrous. Part 1 and part 2
And this week Greenleft publicised anti-AUKUS events in six Australian cities on 24 February. Protesters will gather outside the electorate offices of Penny Wong in Adelaide, Jim Chalmers in Brisbane, Richard Marles in Melbourne and Geelong, Pat Conroy in Newcastle, and Anthony Albanese in Sydney. Take action against AUKUS, militarisation on Feb 24
This belated upsurge of anti-war protest takes its cue from 15 February 2003, when 30 million people around the world marched in opposition to the prospect of war in Iraq. Many had never joined a mass demonstration before. They were ignored, and the US-led invasion went ahead on 20 March.
The protestors knew they were lied to by political leaders who claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear. The covert purpose of invading Iraq was to gain control of its oil, and assert US dominance over seven Middle East states: Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.
The war began, and spread to Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria, provoking retaliation from al-Qaeda and its Islamic State successors. All of the invaded countries, including Afghanistan and Iraq, remain blighted. Millions are dead or displaced. To achieve this, the world’s nations, led by the US, spent sums surpassing $2tn on weapons of war in the past year.
On 5 February 2003, the Australian Senate voted against the Iraq war. In the House of Representatives, ALP leader Simon Crean spoke fervently against Australian participation. Soon after, ignoring both Houses, Prime Minister Howard sent elements of the ADF to join the SAS who had already been dispatched in secret.
Crean’s successors, now in government, might reflect on his remarks, selected here.
Two weeks ago, prime minister, you committed Australia’s young men and women to a war not yet declared, knowing all along that you couldn’t pull them out.
You committed them without the mandate of the Australian people, the Australian parliament or the United Nations. You committed them solely on the say so of George W Bush. You haven’t consulted the Australian people. You haven’t consulted your party. But you have consulted President Bush.
You said you were sending these troops because it was in the national interest. I want to know, prime minister, which nation?
You said yesterday that you are going to Washington to inform George Bush of the views of the Australian people. Well let me tell you what those views are. The Australian people don’t want peace at any cost, but they don’t your war at any price.
The US alliance has endured for over 50 years. It has always had bipartisan support. But it does not mean that we have to agree with every policy position of every US administration.
The prime minister must stop treating the Australian people like mugs…Only Labor governments have been prepared to tell our allies no when it’s been in our national interests.
Eight months after the invasion of Iraq, the Sydney Morning Herald published an open letter to President George W Bush. It was signed by 41 ALP MPs and Senators, and was headed, ‘Mr Bush, here is why we opposed the Iraq war’.
The writers stressed the dangerous precedent the Iraq war was setting, and described it as a mistake. They wrote: ‘The ALP firmly believes that international conflict should, wherever possible, be dealt with peacefully and through international co-operation under the auspices of the United Nations. When all attempts for a peaceful resolution have been exhausted, United Nations sanction is vital if force is to be used.’
The signatories included parliamentarians Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong, then in Opposition.
As Foreign Minister, Penny Wong has recently abandoned peaceful resolution of conflict, and doesn’t mention UN Security Council resolutions authorising war. She has joined Defence Minister Richard Marles in lockstep with the US in a predictable slide into war over Taiwan or the South China Sea.
Three American generals have recently anticipated war with China in the next two to five years. If the US preference for proxy wars – as in Ukraine – is an example, Australia and Japan could be the proxy fighters against China, with similar prospects.
No Australian leader has supported the UN Secretary-General’s appeals to member states to stop inflaming worse wars. Instead, they are spending more extravagant sums on new weapons systems which will be provocative, and if they are ever delivered, probably outdated and unfit for purpose. The remaining option is nuclear: and Australia refuses to ratify the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which ICAN initiated.
This month, Senator Wong re-stated the government’s commitment to the status quo on how Australia goes to war. She told Parliament on 9 February that it will not change, just as Marles did in September 2022.
She compounded that with a self-contradictory statement about US nuclear weapons ‘stationed’ in Australia. Backing Defence Department Secretary Greg Moriarty, Senator Wong claimed that Australia adheres to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, and yet supports the ‘stationing’ of US B-52 and B-2 bombers in Australia without knowing if they are nuclear armed or not.
This, we now learn, has been going on quietly since at least 2005 (“‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ Top End nuke policy”, Australian, 16 February 2023: 2). As Crean said, the prime minister must top treating Australians like mugs.
Isn’t it exciting? The USA is letting Australia buy air-to ground missile for attacking China
US State Department clears $500 million in anti-radiation missiles for Australia
The AARGM-ER is a medium-range air-to-ground missile, employed for the suppression or destruction of enemy air defense systems.
By AARON MEHTAon February 27, 2023 https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/us-state-department-clears-500-million-in-anti-radiation-missiles-for-australia/
WASHINGTON — The US State Department has approved a potential Foreign Military Sale to Australia of Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles-Extended Range (AARGM-ERs), with a estimated price tag of $506 million.
Sales announcements are not final; Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases announced like these have been approved by the executive branch, and now Congress must weigh in or do nothing. Should the Hill not object — an almost unfathomable situation, given relations with Australia — the quantities and dollar values in the deals can change during negotiations with industry.
The AARGM-ER is a medium-range air-to-ground missile, employed for the suppression or destruction of enemy air defense systems. According to the Pentagon, the weapon is compatible with the F/A-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G, Tornado IDS/ECR, F-16 C/J and the F-35 joint strike fighter — the latter of which is set to be the core of Australia’s military aviation fleet for years to come.
Australia is seeking to buy up to 63 AARGM-ERs and up to 20 AARGM-ER Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs). Also included, per the announcement, are “Dummy Air Training Missiles (AARGM-ER DATMs), containers, component parts and support equipment; Repair of Repairables; software (Classified and Unclassified); publications (Classified and Unclassified); training (Classified and Unclassified); transportation; U.S. Government and Contractor engineering support; and other related elements of logistical and program support.”
This would be the second batch of AARGM-ERs approved by State for the Lucky Country in the last year. In June 2022, DSCA announced a $94 million agreement for 15 of the weapons.
Per the DSCA, “The proposed sale will improve Australia’s capability to meet current and future threats by suppressing and destroying land- or sea-based radar emitters associated with enemy air defenses. This capability denies the adversary the use of its air defense systems, thereby improving the survivability of Australia’s tactical aircraft.”
If the nuclear submarines aren’t ready in time – no worries – Australia will get lots of fun weaponry against China.
Mind the capability gap: what happens if Collins class submarines retire before nuclear boats are ready?
Nuclear subs are the first ‘pillar’ of Aukus, but defence experts are pointing to the second pillar – hypersonic weapons, AI and drones
Tory Shepherd, Guardian, 28 Feb 23,
“………….. The federal government is considering the defence strategic review and advice from the submarine taskforce on acquiring a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, but there are concerns that they will not be in service in time for a seamless handover from the Collins class.
The defence minister, Richard Marles, has been sounding increasingly positive that there will be no such gap.
“I’m feeling confident about our ability to deal with this,” he told Guardian Australia in January, adding it would be part of “the optimal pathway” to be announced soon…………….
Acquiring that fleet of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines is the first “pillar” of the Aukus partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, but the second pillar, which includes hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and underwater drones, will be needed in the short term.
It will be at least a decade before even the first submarine is delivered and some estimates even push the timeline out to 2050.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is expected to meet with both the US president, Joe Biden, and the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, in the US in March, to announce the governments’ plans.
Marles has emphasised the “genuinely trilateral” nature of the Aukus agreement between the three countries, leading to speculation a new hybrid submarine to replace the ageing Colins class fleet will be built using elements of both the US and the UK’s boats.
The life of the Collins fleet will be stretched out as much as possible with life-of-type extensions, but the boats are still set to be retired by the end of the next decade.
When former prime minister Scott Morrison announced he was scrapping the deal with France to build 12 boats in favour of the Aukus deal to build “at least” eight submarines in South Australia in 2021, he also announced plans to acquire various missiles, including hypersonic and precision strike guided missiles over the next decade.
On top of the missiles, there is a second pillar of Aukus that includes working with the UK and the UK on underwater drones, quantum technology, artificial intelligence and autonomous technology, advanced cyber capabilities, electronic warfare, and other innovations.
………………………… In a statement last year, the White House said the Aukus partners had made “strong progress” on the advanced capabilities. Trials of autonomous vehicles are set to begin this year, it said, and trials of quantum technologies for position, navigation and timing, would happen over the next three years.
Work had already started on autonomous and artificial intelligence-enabled systems to improve the speed and precision of decision-making processes, while the three countries were also strengthening their defences against cyber-attacks, sharing information on electronic warfare, developing advanced hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities.
The director of the Lowy Institute’s international security program, Sam Roggeveen, said there were other capabilities Australia could buy that could do “similar things” to submarines – such as sinking ships.
“One area we’re already getting into is mine warfare,” he said.
“But we’re also investing in anti-ship missiles that can be fired from the air and we’re even getting some land-based missile capability.”
Other options that have been floated include building entirely new air warfare destroyers equipped with more than 100 missile launching cells, in order to bolster firepower, or building an interim conventional submarine……………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/28/mind-the-capability-gap-what-happens-if-collins-class-submarines-retire-before-nuclear-boats-are-ready
Avalon Militarism
With this military bonanza unfolding on February 28, the Australian Defence Minister, Richard “Call me Deputy Prime Minister” Marles, has tooted his justifications for more hardware, more military merchandise and more engagement with the defence industry.
His address to the Avalon 2023 Defence and Industry Dinner revealed a boyish credulity typical in so many who lead that portfolio. The boys-with-toys credo becomes all seducing. Air forces, he noted, “are the coolest part of any military.” Trying to amuse, he called Top Gun Maverick “an important and insightful documentary.”
https://theaimn.com/avalon-militarism/, February 28, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark
The global pandemic was not completely catastrophic in its effects. It led to the cancellation, and postponement, of wasteful projects and events. It spared public money. But as the pandemic slides into the shadow of policymaking, bad habits have returned. The profligates are here to stay.
One such habit is the Avalon air show, a celebration of aeronautical militarism in the southern hemisphere best done without. In 2021, the organisers announced with regret that the event would be cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions and uncertainty. Last October, however, organisers promised a return to form in 2023. Those with tickets “can look forward to a whole new program with jaw-dropping aerial displays, a refreshed food and beverage offering, and live entertainment.”
Also known as the Australian International Airshow and Aerospace and Defence Exposition, Avalon2023 promises to “showcase” much in the “dynamic world of aviation, aerospace and space, new materials, fuels and ways of flying.”
The program features both a specialist dimension and complimentary conferences “open to any accredited Trade Visitor.” The specialist aspect will feature presentations from, among others, the Royal Australian Air Force, Australian International Aerospace Congress, Australian Association for Unscrewed Systems (AAUS), Australian Industry Defence Network (AIDN), and the Australian Airports Association.
With this military bonanza unfolding on February 28, the Australian Defence Minister, Richard “Call me Deputy Prime Minister” Marles, has tooted his justifications for more hardware, more military merchandise and more engagement with the defence industry. His address to the Avalon 2023 Defence and Industry Dinner revealed a boyish credulity typical in so many who lead that portfolio. The boys-with-toys credo becomes all seducing. Air forces, he noted, “are the coolest part of any military.” Trying to amuse, he called Top Gun Maverick “an important and insightful documentary.”
With that treacly tribute out of the way, Marles could get down to the business of frightening Australians and delighting the military industrial mandarins. Australia faced “the most challenging and complex set of strategic circumstances we’ve seen since the Second World War.” The “global rules-based order” had been placed “under immense pressure”, largely due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “The post-Cold War era – a period of democratic expansion and unprecedented integration of global trade and investment – is now over.”
The scriptwriter had evidently gone to sleep in drafting such words. The post-Cold War era was streaked by brutal invasions and interventions (Iraq and Libya, to name but two instances), supposedly by the rules-abiding types in Washington, London and Canberra. The Russian invasion did feature the imposition of will by a larger state on a smaller neighbour using “power and might”, but the US-led invasion that kicked the hornet’s nest of sectarian violence in 2003 came from the same stable of thought.
The speech then follows a familiar pattern. First, call out the Russians. Then highlight the Oriental Armed Scourge to the North. “In the Indo-Pacific, China is driving the largest conventional military build-up we’ve seen anywhere in the world since the Second World War. And much of this build-up is opaque.”
Australia’s security, assured by its remote location and geography, could no longer be taken seriously. “Today we face a range of threats – including longer-range missiles and hypersonics and cyber-attacks – which render our geographic advantages far less relevant.”
The enemy could do damage from afar, causing harm “without ever having to enter our territorial waters or our air space.” It was therefore important to place Australian defence upon the footing of “being able to hold any potential adversaries at risk much further from our shores.”
This was a rather devious way of laying the ground for more cash and larger budgets, ignoring the clear point that Australia has no truly mortal enemies, but wishes to make them as Washington’s obedient deputy.
One particular product is meant to take centre stage. The Australian Defence Force is lagging in the department of murderous drone technology. One promises to be unveiled at Avalon. As reported by the national broadcaster, “The unscrewed air system has been developed by BAE Systems Australia and is designed to be stored in shipping containers.” The device is allegedly capable of carrying a lethal payload in excess of 100 kilograms.
Australia’s Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Robert Chipman, has made no secret of his desire for low-cost killer drones. “We’ve seen a proliferation of low-cost drones and loitering munitions delivering both ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] and fires to great effect,” he told a Melbourne audience filled with foreign air force chiefs and senior officials, “they don’t replace the roles of contemporary combat aircraft, but they might serve as a useful complement.”
With that in mind, the RAAF was “considering the potential of low-cost drones that bring mass to our air combat system, and we’re considering what new measures are necessary to defend against them.” Such views thrilled the war mongering offices at The Australian, which expressed satisfaction that Australian military policy was finally “moving in the right direction.”
Chapman has been particularly busy in the leadup to the Avalon airshow, walking the tightrope of defence propaganda. Self-praise and capability must be balanced against a fear of achievement on the part of an adversary.
In an interview with the Australian Financial Review last week, the Air Marshal revealed that the RAAF had also joined the hysteria about targeting high altitude surveillance balloons. He also defended the merits of the F-35 fighter jet, praising their pilots as having “retained an edge over drones or other unscrewed platforms despite advances in technology.”
China, however, was causing jitters in the area of hypersonic missiles, capable of delivering a warhead at five times the speed of sound with extreme manoeuvrability. “I think China is in front when it comes to hypersonics […] and that is something we are actively working to address.” Thank goodness, then, for the Avalon Air Show, even if the organisers were not sagacious enough to invite both Chinese and Russian manufacturers.
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 