Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

What Can the United States Bring to the Peace Table for Ukraine?

PhotoCredit:https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/ukraine-russia-peace-talks-belarus-b2024774.html
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies

So far, the debate has revolved around what Ukraine and Russia can do to end the war and restore peace. However, given this war is not just between Russia and Ukraine, NATO, and the United States must consider what they can bring to the table to end it. The geopolitical crisis that set the stage for the war in Ukraine began with NATO’s broken promises not to expand into Eastern Europe, and was exacerbated by its declaration in 2008 that Ukraine would eventually join this primarily anti-Russian military alliance.

Then, in 2014, a U.S.-backed coup against Ukraine’s elected government caused the disintegration of Ukraine. Only 51% of Ukrainians surveyed recognized the legitimacy of the post-coup government, and large majorities in Crimea and in Donetsk and Luhansk provinces voted to secede from Ukraine. Crimea rejoined Russia, and the new Ukrainian government launched a civil war against the self-declared “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The civil war killed an estimated 14,000 people, but the Minsk II accord in 2015 established a ceasefire and … casualties declined substantially. But the Ukrainian government never resolved the political crisis by granting Donetsk and Luhansk the autonomous status promised in the Minsk II agreement. Now former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President François Hollande have admitted that Western leaders only agreed to Minsk II to buy time to build up Ukraine’s armed forces to recover Donetsk and Luhansk by force. Russia and Ukraine drew up a 15-point “neutrality agreement,” which President Volodymyr Zelenskyy publicly presented on March 27th, 2022. Russia agreed to withdraw from the territories it occupied since the invasion in exchange for a Ukrainian commitment not to join NATO or host foreign military bases. That framework included proposals for resolving the future of Crimea and Donbas.

But in April … Western allies … persuaded Ukraine to abandon its negotiations with Russia. U.S. and British officials said they saw a chance to “press” and “weaken” Russia, resulting in a prolonged and devastating conflict with hundreds of thousands of casualties. U.S. and NATO leaders now claim to support a return to the negotiating table … with the same goals. They implicitly recognize that nine more months of unnecessary and bloody war failed to greatly improve Ukraine’s negotiating position.

Instead of sending more weapons to fuel a war that cannot be won, Western leaders have a grave responsibility to restart negotiations and ensure that they succeed. Instead of risking nuclear annihilation, the U.S. could open up a new era of disarmament treaties.

For years, President Putin has complained about the large military footprint in Eastern and Central Europe. But in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. actually beefed up its European military presence. It increased the total deployments of American troops in Europe from 80,000 before February 2022 to roughly 100,000. It sent warships to Spain, fighter jet squadrons to the U.K., troops to Romania and the Baltics, and air defense systems to Germany and Italy.

Even before the Russian invasion, the U.S. began expanding its presence at a missile base in Romania that Russia objected to since 2016. The U.S. also built “a highly sensitive military installation” in Poland, just 100 miles from Russian territory. These bases have sophisticated radars … and interceptor missiles. The Russians worry these can be re-purposed to fire offensive or even nuclear missiles, exactly what the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union prohibited, until President Bush withdrew from it in 2002.

While the Pentagon describes the two sites as defensive and pretends they are not directed at Russia, Putin has insisted the bases are evidence of the threat posed by NATO’s eastward expansion.

Here are some steps the U.S. could put on the table to start de-escalating the rising tensions and improve chances for a lasting ceasefire and peace agreement:

—The U.S. and other Western countries could support Ukrainian neutrality with the security guarantees Ukraine and Russia agreed to last March.

—The U.S. and NATO could lift sanctions against Russia as part of a comprehensive peace agreement.

—The U.S. could significantly reduce the 100,000 troops it now has in Europe, and remove its missiles from Romania and Poland, handing over those bases to their respective nations.

—The U.S. could commit with Russia to resume mutual reductions in their nuclear arsenals, and to suspend plans to build more dangerous weapons. They could restore the Treaty on Open Skies, from which the U.S. withdrew in 2020, so both sides can verify the other is removing and dismantling the weapons.

—The U.S. could remove its nuclear weapons from the European countries where they are deployed: Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Turkey.

De-escalation would give Russia a tangible gain to show its citizens. It would allow the U.S. to reduce military spending and enable Europeans to take charge of their own security, as their people want.

— Reprinted and edited for space from Global Research, Jan. 26, 2023.
— Medea Benjamin is co-founder of CODEPINK, and the author of several books. Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist and researcher with CODEPINK.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

April 24, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Treaty Law ‘Enforcer’ Endures Prison, While U.S. Nuclear Bombs in Europe Give Putin an Idea

Dennis DuVall, pictured at the main gate to the nuclear NATO base Büchel in Germany, began a 60-day prison sentence in Germany on 23 March.

By John LaForge

You have to hand it to Dennis DuVall. At age 81, he’s on the cutting edge of the hottest of political and military issues — nuclear weapons — and has put life and limb on the right side of history.

On March 23, DuVall began a 60-day prison sentence in Germany for refusing to pay fines for nonviolent interference with the lawless stationing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Deutschland, at the Büchel air base. (U.S. H-bombs are also ‘forward deployed’ in Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey.)

DuVall recently wrote a ‘Büchel Manifesto’ where he says: ‘Nonviolent direct actions at Büchel NATO base … intended to stop, prevent, or disrupt German Tornado pilots of the 33rd Fighter-Bomber Wing and the U.S. Air Force’s 702nd Munitions Support Squadron from training to drop B61 thermonuclear bombs on targets in Russia.’

Now, with renewed alarm over the nuclear threats due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, DuVall is shining a spotlight on the risk escalation posed by the United States and NATO. It’s not just Russia that’s ratcheted up the chances of nuclear weapons’ use. It was blundering German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock who blurted out Jan. 24 in Strasbourg, France, ‘We are fighting a war against Russia …’

Two days after DuVall entered Bautzen prison, east of Dresden, Russia’s Vladimir Putin announced plans to station Russian nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, causing a loud if hypocritical reaction from the U.S. and NATO. Overnight, the imprisonment of a long-time Veteran for Peace and Air Force veteran of the U.S. war in Vietnam looked like a bellwether for a long-overdue debate on U.S. nukes stationed in Europe, because Putin said his March 25 announcement was a tit-for-tat.

According to Newsweek, ‘“… the United States has been doing this for decades. They have long deployed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allied countries,” said Putin.’ Then, after French President Macron declared, ‘In no case can nuclear weapons be deployed outside the territory of nuclear power, especially in Europe,’ the Russian Foreign Ministry asked with a smirk: ‘Is Paris’ demand “not to deploy nuclear weapons on foreign territory” addressed to Washington?’ according to Hindustan Times. In a related rejoinder, “Putin said he made this decision because the United Kingdom agreed to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds that contain depleted uranium,” Foreign Policy reported March 27.

German’s branch of International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms joined the debate March 29 noting in a press release, “Nuclear sharing violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the human right to life.”

Andrea Sasse of the German foreign ministry described Russian but not NATO’s nuclear sharing as “irresponsible”, “escalatory”, and “another attempt at nuclear intimidation”, the Guardian reported March 27. Germany’s hypocrisy is rich. Just last August, its UN Ambassador Thomas Göbel declared to the General Assembly in writing: “NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements, which include U.S. nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and Dual-Capable Aircraft provided by a number of European Allies, continue to be, fully consistent and compliant with the NPT.”

With tongue firmly in cheek, Putin’s announcement used the same falsehood as Amb. Göbel, and claimed that nuclear sharing could be done “without in any way violating our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

The Pentagon’s critique included a veiled reminder of the threat posed by its own H-bombs in Europe: ‘“We have not seen any reason to adjust our own strategic nuclear posture”, the U.S. Defense Department said in a statement’, Reuters reported March 26. It’s worth recalling that Gen. Tod Wolters, head of U.S. European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, testified to the Senate Feb. 25, 2020: “I’m a fan of flexible [nuclear weapons] first-use policy.” This ‘policy’ is the standing threat by the US and NATO to start nuclear attacks not in retaliation, but without first being so attacked.

In his obscure cell in Bautzen, DuVall is doing time for acting as if the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty were the law of the land. He’s a crime fighter for interfering with U.S./NATO’s plans for initiating nuclear attacks. He can take some credit for the fact that the “sharing” of U.S. B61 H-bomb’s, and “strategic” threats to use them, are in the news more than ever before. #######

— John LaForge is a co-director of Nukewatch and co-editor with Arianne Peterson of Nuclear Heartland, Revised: A guide to the 450 land-based missiles of the United States. An edited version of this comment was syndicated by PeaceVoice.org.

 

Filed Under: B61 Bombs in Europe, Direct Action, Nuclear Weapons, US Bombs Out of Germany, War, Weekly Column

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Weapons Profiteers are the Winners

By John LaForge

The only winners in the war in Ukraine are weapons manufacturers. This is according to William Hartung and Julia Gledhill for the Quincy Institute in April, Paula Reisdorf writing for CorpWatch in May, Shlomo Ben-Ami for Project Syndicate in September, and Jeremy Scahill for the Intercept in December. The numbers prove it.

Between February and April this year, Hartung and Gledhill note, the US committed to giving approximately $2.6 billion in military aid to Ukraine, bringing the Biden administration spending to more than $3.2 billion and rising, according to Pentagon reports (“How Pentagon Contractors Are Cashing in on the Ukraine Crisis”).

“Weapons companies were already receiving a massive amount of money from the US government before the war in Ukraine began — some $768 billion in 2021. In [May], the US Congress approved a $40 billion spending package for the Ukraine war, with a big chunk going to arms companies,” Reisdorf wrote (“Weapons Makers Profit Handsomely off Ukraine War”). That chunk amounted to $10 billion, with the lion’s share going to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman, according to Scahill’s piece, “The War Caucus Always Wins.”

BAE Corp. makes the M-777 howitzer. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon make Javelin anti-tank missiles; Raytheon makes Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Northrop Grumman produces the RQ-4 Global Hawk aircraft which is making surveillance flights over Ukraine.

Scahill reports that some of the latest contracts include: $1.2 billion to Raytheon to produce six National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in support of the efforts in Ukraine; $431 million for Lockheed to produce M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launchers to replenish those sent to Kyiv; and a separate $521 million for Lockheed to replace Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems going to Ukraine.

Reisdorf reports that by May Northrop Grumman’s stocks were up by about 16 percent, and shares of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies had increased by 28 and 20 percent respectively by March.

The Wall St. Journal updated the profiteering news November 24, noting that Lockheed shares are up 36 percent since the start of the year, General Dynamics’ are up 22 percent, and Raytheon jumped 12 percent.

Kristen Bayes, a spokesperson for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade in London told Sky News the transfer of weapons to Ukraine is “not problem-free,” and warned, “You might think you’re handing over weapons to people you know and like, but then they get sold on to people you don’t.” Even US Defense Sec. Lloyd Austin, has “acknowledged that some weapons given to Ukraine have also been ending up in the hands of Russians,” Bayes said.

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Who Deserves a Nobel Peace Prize in Ukraine?

By Medea Benjamin and Ariel Gold

 

In what was described as a harsh rebuke of Russia, the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Ukrainian human rights organization Center for Civil Liberties, along with Belarusian human rights advocate Ales Bialiatski and the Russian human rights organization Memorial. While at first glance, the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties might sound like a group that is well-deserving of this honor, Ukrainian peace leader Yurii Sheliazhenko wrote a stinging critique.

Sheliazhenko, who heads up the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement and is a board member of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, accused the Center for Civil Liberties of embracing the agendas of such problematic international donors as the US Department of State and the National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy supports NATO membership for Ukraine; insists that no negotiations with Russia are possible and shames those who seek compromise; wants the West to impose a dangerous no-fly zone; says that only Putin violates human rights in Ukraine; never criticizes the Ukrainian government for suppressing pro-Russian media, parties, and public figures; never criticizes the Ukrainian army for war crimes and human rights violations; and refuses to stand up for the human right, recognized under international law, to conscientious objection to military service.

Supporting conscientious objectors is the role of Sheliazhenko and his organization, the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement. While we hear a lot about Russian war resisters, as Sheliazhenko points out, even inside Ukraine, which is portrayed in Western media as a country entirely united in its war with Russia, there are men who don’t want to fight.

The Ukrainian Pacifist Movement was founded in 2019 when fighting in the separatist-ruled Donbas region was at a peak and Ukraine was forcing its citizens to participate in the civil war. According to Sheliazhenko, Ukrainian men were “being given military summonses off of the streets, out of night clubs and dormitories, or snatched for military service for minor infractions such as traffic violations, public drunkenness, or casual rudeness to police officers.”

To make matters worse, when Russia invaded in February 2022, Ukraine suspended its citizens’ right to conscientious objection and forbade men between the ages of 18 and 60 from leaving the country; nevertheless, since February, over 100,000 Ukrainian draft-eligible men managed to flee instead of fight. It’s estimated that several thousand more have been detained while trying to escape.

“The Knotted Gun,” by Carl Fredrik. Photo Credit: Reuters

International human rights law affirms people’s right, due to principled conviction, to refuse to participate in military conflict and conscientious objection has a long and rich history. In 1914 a group of Christians in Europe, hoping to avert the impending war, formed the International Fellowship of Reconciliation to support conscientious objectors. When the US joined WWI, social reformer and women’s rights activist Jane Addams protested. She was harshly criticized at the time but, in 1931, she became the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

In Russia, hundreds of thousands of young men are refusing to fight. According to a source inside Russia’s Federal Security Service, within three days of Russia’s announcement that it was drafting 300,000 more recruits, 261,000 men fled the country. Those who could, booked flights; others drove, bicycled, or walked across the border.

Belarusians have also joined the exodus. According to estimates by Connection e.V., a European organization that supports conscientious objectors and deserters, an estimated 22,000 draft-eligible Belarusians have fled their country since the war began.

The Russian organization Kovcheg, or The Ark, helps Russians fleeing because of anti-war positions, condemnation of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, and/or persecution they are experiencing in Russia. In Belarus, the organization Nash Dom runs a “NO means NO” campaign to encourage draft-eligible Belarusians not to fight. Despite refusing to fight being a noble and courageous act for peace — the penalty in Russia for refusing the draft is up to ten years in prison and in Ukraine, it is at least up to three years, and likely much higher, with hearings and verdicts closed to the public — neither Kovcheg, Nash Dom nor the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, were announced as Nobel Peace Prize winners yesterday.

The US government nominally supports Russia’s war resisters. On September 27, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declared that Russians fleeing Putin’s draft were “welcome” in the US and encouraged them to apply for asylum. But as far back as October 2021, before Russia invaded Ukraine, amid tit-for-tat US-Russia tensions, Washington announced it would henceforth only issue visas to Russians through the US Embassy in Warsaw, 750 miles away from Moscow.

To put a further damper on Russian hopes of refuge in the US, on the same day as the White House held its press conference where it encouraged draft-eligible Russians to seek US asylum, the Biden administration announced that it would be continuing into fiscal year 2023 its FY2022 global refugee cap of 125,000.

You would think that those resisting this war would be able to find refuge in European countries, as Americans fleeing the Vietnam war did in Canada. Indeed, when the Ukraine war was in its early stages, European Council President Charles Michel called on Russian soldiers to desert, promising them protection under EU refugee law. But in August, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asked his Western allies to reject all Russian emigres. Currently, all non-visa travel from Russia to EU countries is suspended.

As Russian men fled after Putin’s draft announcement, Latvia closed its border with Russia and Finland said it was likely going to be tightening its visa policy for Russians.

Had the Nobel Peace Prize awardees been the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian organizations that are supporting war resisters and peacemakers, it would have drawn global attention to the courageous young men taking this stand and perhaps opened more avenues for them to get asylum abroad. It could have also initiated a much-needed conversation about how the US is supplying Ukraine with an endless flow of weapons but not pushing for negotiations to end a war so dangerous that President Biden is warning of “nuclear Armageddon.” It certainly would have been more in line with Alfred Nobel’s desire to bring global recognition to those who have “done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies.”

— Medea Benjamin is co-founder of CODEPINK, and author of several books including War In Ukraine (with Nicolas Davies). Ariel Gold is the national co-director of CODEPINK and manages the group’s Middle East Program.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, War

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Threats in Ukraine: Real and Hyped

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair
By John LaForge

Is it possible that all the press about the highly elevated the risk of nuclear weapons being detonated in Ukraine is a lot of smoke? US political and military leaders have downplayed the risk of nuclear attacks in Ukraine many times.

The United States, Russia, France, China, and the United Kingdom possess most of the world’s nuclear weapons. Last January 3rd, these five states jointly declared, “We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Consequently the five governments should be racing to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and to redirect the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on nuclearism after defunding their vast nuclear weapons infrastructures.

Instead, most are spending enormous sums on expanding their nuclear arsenals, and publicly announcing plans for the “first use” of the devices under certain conditions. The spending and strategies flatly contradict their public pledge that nuclear weapons can’t win anything and must never be used.

Yet it is possible that the military and political authorities in control of nuclear weapons know they must not explode them. It could be that nuclear attack planners understand that the effects of such detonations boomerang and bite back, poisoning and killing their own forces, contaminating the sought-after territories and that of neutral states.

The White House, the Pentagon and other experts have repeatedly assured the world they don’t think nuclear attacks are likely.

November 30:“Why Zelensky thinks Putin won’t use nukes on Ukraine” (Axios)

November 2: “US sees no indications Russia readying nuclear weapons, White House says.” (Reuters)

October 24: “No indication Russia has decided to use nuclear weapon in Ukraine, says senior US official.” (The Guardian & Financial Times)

October 9: “White House Sees No Indication Russia Is Preparing Nuclear Attack After Biden’s ‘Armageddon’ Warning.” (Forbes)
October 9: “…the White House emphasized on Friday that the United States has seen no signs that Russia is gearing up to use nuclear weapons.” (New York Times)

October 9: “Pentagon spokesperson tamps down concerns over nuclear ‘Armageddon.’” (The Guardian)

October 7: “Pentagon: No sign Putin is planning to use nukes after Biden’s ‘Armageddon’ comment.” (Politico)

Sept. 30: “US has not seen acts indicating Russia contemplating nuclear attack.” (Reuters)

Sept. 28:“US believes it’s unlikely Putin will use a nuclear weapon but threat has ‘elevated.’” (CNN)

Sept. 24: “The US says Russia isn’t preparing to use nuclear weapons, yet.” (New York Times)

Sept. 16: “I don’t see Putin using nuclear weapons” [says] British military strategist Sir Lawrence Freedman. (Euromaidan Press)

When asked about it on October 28, 2022 before the Valdai Discussion Club in Moscow, even Russian President Vladimir Putin himself made clear that it’s useless to detonate nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Putin answered, “There is no point in that, neither political, nor military.”

The truly terrifying threat from nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war is the risk of an accidental or unintentional detonation. Nearby nuclear weapons are in the hands of Russia, France, Britain, and the United States, which deploy them on submarines, bombers, fighter jets and in “nuclear sharing” with NATO members Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, and Turkey — which station US B61 H-bombs at six separate bases. Computer glitches, false alarms, mistakes identifying shooters (as happened November 15 when Ukraine blamed Russia in error for a blast caused by one its own air-defense missiles striking Poland), or panicked commanders misreading communications, could all lead to catastrophe; a good reason to demand universal denuclearization.

The other truly consequential nuclear threats in Ukraine stem from the country’s 15 operational nuclear power reactors, those sitting-duck time bombs in this first-ever reactors-in-a-war zone conflict. These radiation grenades with their pins ready to be pulled should spark global anti-nuclear militancy — as did the Chernobyl reactor catastrophe in the same place 36 years ago.

 

— A version of this opinion ran at Counterpunch.org on November 21, and at L.A. Progressive December 2, 2022

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • …
  • 32
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2026 · Nukewatch