Showing posts sorted by date for query ATOMIC ENERGY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query ATOMIC ENERGY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

Moscow Tells Baltics NATO Will Not Come To Their Rescue – Analysis


By

Whether Russian President Vladimir Putin will launch an attack on the Baltic countries, as many now fear is possible, remains uncertain (seeStrategic Snapshot, June 8, 2025; see EDM, September 4, 2025, May 8;Novaya Gazeta Evropa, June 5). Moscow is pushing a propaganda line that has consequences not only for the Baltics but for all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Senior Russian officials are now very publicly declaring that the three Baltic countries, all members of NATO, cannot count on the alliance to come to their aid if Moscow attacks them, as Article 5 of the treaty requires, because they, not Russia, are the aggressor (Re:Baltica, June 4). Such a claim—one arising from Putin’s assessment of NATO’s current state amid changes in U.S. policy and divisions in Europe—will intimidate some alliance members and pave the way for further Russian aggression unless NATO unequivocally rejects it (see EDM, February 2).

As Russia’s war against Ukraine grinds on in its fifth year with no path to a Russian triumph clear, many are speculating that Putin will try to get a victory elsewhere to recover his image as a strongman who always wins. Among the places where experts have most often suggested he might attack are islands in the North Atlantic and Baltic Seas with complicated legal regimes (see EDM, June 11, August 15, September 24, 2024,September 16, 2025).

In recent months, however, speculation about a new vector of Russian aggression has focused increasingly often on the possibility of a Russian move against one or more of the Baltic countries, given their former status as Russian possessions. Their current membership in the Western alliance is especially irritating to Putin and is something he would very much like to change (Novaya Gazeta Evropa, June 5). Such suggestions have become increasingly frequent given Russian provocations such as the recent redirection of Ukrainian drones onto Latvian territory by Russian forces (Window on Eurasia, June 1).

The Baltic countries have responded in three ways. They have taken the lead among Western countries in supporting Ukraine, have sought new security relations with their immediate neighbors, such as Poland, and with the new NATO members Finland and Sweden, and have built up their own defense capabilities (see EDM, February 2). They have done so, however, in every case with confidence that Article 5 of the NATO Charter remains in place. This article specifies that an attack on any NATO country will be treated as an attack on all and that NATO’s leaders will consult with one another on how to respond. Until recently, most Baltic leaders and many observers in the West have stressed the first part of that arrangement and assumed that the alliance would respond vigorously and militarily to any Russian move against a NATO member state. Now, however, given changes in U.S. policy and divisions among some European NATO members, there is an increasing tendency to question the open-ended nature of Article 5, which promised to consult on what to do in the event of an attack rather than to respond immediately and forcefully, as many had assumed.

Unsurprisingly, Moscow has sought to exploit these divisions. That approach reached a new high on May 19 when Vasiliy Nebenza, Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations, pointedly told the Latvians that their support for Ukraine and opposition to Russian actions there meant that “NATO membership will not protect you” in the event of a Russian action against the Baltics because the Baltics themselves will have provoked it. The U.S. representative at the UN Security Council, Tammy Bruce, responded by criticizing Nebenza for his attack on another UN member state and insisted that Washington would continue to fulfill its responsibilities as a NATO member (Facebook/dw.russian, May 19). Whether that will be enough to stop this Russian campaign and the actions it appears to be pointing toward remains to be seen.

Anastasija Tetarenko-Supe, a Latvian foreign policy expert and journalist, points out that Nebenza’s words are especially troubling. They were not an isolated move but part of what she calls “a perfect storm” of Russian actions against the Baltic countries (Re:Baltica, June 4). On the same day the Russian diplomat made his remarks at the UN Security Council, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) released a report saying that Ukrainian military personnel were already in Latvia to prepare drone strikes against Russia and that Moscow “knew the coordinates of the relevant ‘decision-making’ centers” (SVR, May 19). This is something Russian Telegram channels had earlier claimed, but it now has the imprimatur of the Russian government, even though it is quite clear that, similar to many other Russian statements on such subjects, it is itself a provocation and untrue.

Titarenko-Supe says major Russian propaganda channels and state-affiliated news wires amplified support for the Nebenza–SVR version of events. These outlets particularly included  “TASS, Readovka, Voekony Russkoy Vesny, Solovoyev, Skabeyeva, [and] ANNA,” among others. Channels targeting Baltic audiences then picked it up, including “Baltnews, Sputnik Lithuania, Sprats in Exile, The Latvian Bump, Shadows of the Baltics, Baltic Anti-Fascists and The Baltic Bridge.” She explained, “Some of these are linked to former RT (formerly Russia Today) contributors who once lived in the Baltics, as well as local activists who fled to Russia” (Re:Baltica, June 4).

Some channels went even further, portraying denials by Latvian officials not as rebuttals but as “proof” that the SVR had struck a nerve. Titarenko-Supe says, citing Latvian disinformation researcher Mārtiņš Hiršs’s conclusions, that what Moscow is doing is consistent with its past actions on other issues. The Kremlin floods the media with its version in the hopes that volume will outweigh the facts and that journalists seeking to be balanced will report its version of events, one that makes Latvia the aggressor and Russia the defender of international law, alongside more accurate reporting that shows just the reverse is true. (For Hiršs’s study on such patterns, see Echoes from Kremlin: New Platforms, Old Narratives, July 2025.)  

Echoing Hiršs, Titarenko-Supe argues that Moscow’s “objective” has been to spread fear while recasting the Baltics from bystanders to participants. This makes Russian threats appear less like aggression and more like a response” and “to weaken support for Ukraine and erode trust in Latvian democratic institutions by suggesting that governments conceal the truth, the media lies and the truth is told by Russia—or [a] Tiktoker broadcasting from Belarus” (Re:Baltica, June 4). One could add to this list of Russia’s goals the reduction in trust in NATO and its Article 5 guarantees, a development that would threaten far more than Latvia and the other Baltic countries and make Europe an even more unstable place unless and until NATO makes it crystal clear that it will not be deterred from fulfilling its Article 5 guarantees by Russian threats and propaganda campaigns.


French NATO jets destroy mystery drone over Latvia as Ukraine war intensifies

French NATO fighter jets stationed in the Baltic region shot down a drone that had entered Latvian airspace on Monday, marking a rare interception under the alliance’s Baltic Air Policing mission. It follows a series of similar incidents linked to the war in Ukraine as Moscow and Kyiv step up drone strikes on each other.


Issued on: 08/06/2026 - RFI

A French Rafale fighter jet flying a NATO mission shot down a “foreign” drone over Latvia on 8 June 2026 (illustration) AFP - CHRISTOPHE ARCHAMBAULT

Latvia’s military said in a statement that the unmanned aerial vehicle had crossed into its territory "as a result of Russian electronic warfare", without specifying its origin.

Officials suggested the drone may have been diverted from its intended course amid ongoing interference linked to the war in Ukraine.

Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze praised the operation, writing on social media platform X: "Thank you, our French Allies, for taking down the drone that flew into Latvian airspace!"

According to Lithuanian military spokesperson Gintautas Ciunis, two French jets deployed at the Siauliai airbase in northern Lithuania were scrambled and neutralised the drone at around 10:00 local time.

Drone incident near French carrier in Sweden points to possible Russian link

The incident is the first confirmed case of NATO aircraft intercepting and destroying a drone over Latvia as part of the Baltic Air Policing mission, which has operated since 2004 to safeguard the airspace of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, both Russian and Ukrainian drones have crashed in the Baltic states and beyond, raising concerns over airspace security and the risk of escalation.

FILE - A Romanian Air Force F- 16s military fighter jet, left, and a Portuguese Air Force F- 16s military fighter jets participating in NATO's Baltic Air Policing Mission operate over the Baltic Sea, Lithuanian airspace, on May 22, 2023. The United States has given its approval for the Netherlands to deliver F-16s to Ukraine, the Dutch defense minister said Friday, Aug. 18, 2023 in a major gain for Kyiv even though the fighter jets won’t have an immediate impact on the almost 18-month war. (AP Photo/Mindaugas Kulbis, File) AP - Mindaugas Kulbis


On 19 May, a Romanian jet stationed in Lithuania shot down a Ukrainian drone over Estonia after it strayed off course, while a day later Lithuania issued its first public air alert when another drone approached Vilnius.
Escalation

Elsewhere, Moldova reported on Monday that a drone had crashed and exploded on agricultural land near the eastern village of Lopatna after entering its airspace overnight.

Authorities said no injuries were reported and suggested the drone was most likely of Ukrainian origin, though officials in Chisinau stressed that Russia ultimately bears responsibility for such incidents.

Moldova has had its airspace breached dozens of times since the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022.

Zelensky to urge EU leaders to speed up Europe’s drone shield plan

Moldovan President Maia Sandu said the country needs to strengthen its anti-drone and jamming systems.

"We must begin producing drones capable of intercepting and shooting down other drones," she said in an interview over the weekend.

Romania, an EU and NATO member bordering both Moldova and Ukraine, has also seen two drones explode on its territory in recent weeks.

Officials across the region warn that Russian electronic warfare systems are increasingly disrupting navigation, causing drones to veer into neighbouring countries.
Nuclear storage unit hit

Moscow and Kyiv have intensified drone strikes on each other in recent months, as US-led diplomatic efforts to end the war – now in its fifth year – remain stalled and sidetracked by the conflict in the Middle East.

On Monday, a Ukrainian drone strike on a passenger train killed one of its drivers and wounded the other, Sergey Aksyonov, the Moscow-installed head of the Crimea region wrote on Telegram.

France, UK, Germany back face-to-face Ukraine-Russia ceasefire talks

The attack came hours after Russia fired waves of drones and other munitions at Ukraine, with one of the attacks damaging a nuclear storage facility near the Chernobyl disaster site, Ukrainian officials said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it was dispatching a team to inspect the damage, calling the incident "deeply concerning".

Tuesday, June 09, 2026

World Nuclear News

Renewed Bruce 3 back in service


Just days after it was reconnected to the grid, Canada's Bruce unit 3 has officially returned to service - more than seven months ahead of schedule.

Company officials and ministers were among those who gathered to mark the return to operations of Bruce 3 (Image: Bruce Power)

The Major Component Replacement (MCR) which the Candu unit has undergone saw robotic tools used on a reactor face to rebuild a Candu reactor for the first time. The project also saw Bruce Power and its partners set a Candu refurbishment record for calandria tube removal by completing it 11 days ahead of schedule.

Unit 3 began its Major Component Replacement outage in March 2023 and was originally scheduled to return to service in January 2027. It was reconnected to the grid in the early hours of 3 June, since when Bruce Power continued with power ascension and the final testing and approvals required for commercial operation. Its early completion "is the most expedient refurbishment in Ontario to date and reinforces the province's position as a global leader in nuclear energy", according to Ontario's Ministry of Energy and Mines.

"The Unit 3 MCR project was delivered safely and successfully, continuing Ontario's track record of delivering nuclear refurbishments on time, on budget and with quality by a skilled workforce, industry partners and a robust Made-in-Canada supply chain," Bruce Power said.

The refurbishment means the unit's life has been extended by more than three decades. 

The Major Component Replacement projects are part of Bruce Power's Life-Extension Program to refurbish Bruce units 3-8, to enable the site to operate into the 2060s (units 1 and 2 have already been refurbished). Unit 6's MCR was completed ahead of schedule and under budget in 2024, and, with unit 4's MCR already under way, this represents the midway point for the programme, the company said. Each MCR builds on those that have gone before: unit 3's successful return to service, with key phases completed ahead of schedule, has been supported by innovation and continuous improvement; record-setting execution in critical work programmes, reflecting advancements in tooling, planning and workforce expertise; and ongoing improvements in efficiency and quality driven by lessons learned from earlier refurbishments.

Provisions built into Bruce Power's refurbishment agreement with Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator will ensure that Ontario's citizens benefit from savings realised during the Life-Extension Program and operation of the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. Bruce said it is expecting to return about CAD150 million (about USD108 million) to the Independent Electricity System Operator as a result of its performance. 

"With unit 3 now back in service and providing safe, clean, reliable and affordable electricity to the province, we continue to demonstrate that large-scale nuclear projects in Ontario can be delivered safely, efficiently, and with real long term financial benefits for ratepayers," said Eric Chassard, President and Chief Executive Officer, Bruce Power. "This achievement reflects the dedication of our workforce, our skilled trades partners, and the strength of our made-in-Canada nuclear industry."

Bruce Power's Life‑Extension Program directly and indirectly supports some 22,000 jobs annually and contributes billions of dollars each year to Ontario's economy.

"When Ontario successfully completed the world's largest nuclear refurbishment at Darlington ahead of schedule and under budget, critics said it couldn't be done again. Yet again, we are proving them wrong," the province's Minister of Energy and Mines Stephen Lecce said.

Australian thorium to fuel Ampera energy system


US-based Ampera has announced that its factory-built, scalable, supercritical nuclear energy system will be fuelled by thorium procured from Australia and produced in-house by the company, as it aims to vertically integrate the entire fuel value chain.
 
(Image: Ampera)

Thorium is a slightly radioactive element that is more than three times as abundant in the Earth's crust as uranium. Although not fissile (capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction in the same way that uranium-235 does in a conventional nuclear reactor), it is 'fertile' - upon absorbing a neutron, it transmutes to fissile uranium-233 - so could be used to 'breed' uranium-233 in reactor fuel. 

Ampera says it is developing subcritical thorium-based microreactor systems that are energy dense and do not require refuelling. Through its proprietary TRISO fuel platform, neutron-source technology and advanced additive manufacturing, it aims to deliver scalable, factory-built, rapidly deployable, emission-free power for data centres, defence, industrial and maritime applications.

In February, Ampera formed Ampera Australia Pty Ltd to expedite the procurement and import of thorium to the USA. This followed the October 2025 announcement by the governments of the USA and Australia of a framework for securing supply in the mining and processing of critical minerals and rare earths.

"Our strategy is to secure thorium directly at the source and vertically integrate the entire fuel value chain, from mineral supply through advanced fuel production," said Ampera founder and CEO Brian Matthews. "Thorium offers a compelling combination of abundance, energy potential, economics, and safety, making it an ideal fuel for Ampera's advanced microreactors and a promising resource for the broader nuclear industry."

The company says its broad fuel platform is built on "proprietary processes protected by trade secrets and more than 60 patents for nuclear fuel manufacturing, including proprietary jetting technology used to produce high-quality safe tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel kernels."

"Thorium is the future for ultra-safe, clean power production," Matthews said. "By producing TRISO thorium kernels in the United States, we can ensure ample access to the needed fuel supply as we scale up and also minimize price volatility risk."

In February, Ampera submitted a formal letter to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicating its desire to begin the pre-application process for its factory-fabricated, containerised microreactor, and in April, it entered into a strategic collaboration with Monaco-based shipping company Scorpio Tankers Inc to jointly develop and commercialise advanced microreactors for marine, shipping and related maritime applications. The same month, Ampera opened its global headquarters in Florida. It has said it plans to produce TRISO thorium kernels at another location in the state.

Dummy fuel successfully loaded in Akkuyu 1


The loading of 163 dummy nuclear fuel assemblies in Turkey's Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant’s first unit is a key part of the commissioning process.
 
(Image: Akkuyu Nuclear JSC)

The dummy fuel is designed to be an exact replica of nuclear fuel in design, weight and dimensions, and its loading is key to checking systems for loading the real fuel as well as confirming readiness for the next stage of commissioning operations.

The dummy fuel does not contain any nuclear materials and its loading precedes the cold and hot running tests of reactor plant equipment during the commissioning process for new units, before the reactor starts up.


(Image: Akkuyu Nuclear)


(Image: Akkuyu Nuclear)

The loading of the fuel dummies was carried out under the supervision of Turkey's Nuclear Regulatory Authority.

Sergei Butckikh, CEO of Akkuyu Nuclear, said: "The completion of loading of dummy fuel assemblies at Akkuyu NPP Unit 1 is a full rehearsal for loading nuclear fuel. Using the dummies, we work out procedures for handling nuclear fuel in conditions as close to operational as possible, and confirm the readiness of equipment and personnel for the next pre-launch stage."

Background

Akkuyu, in the southern Mersin province, is Turkey's first nuclear power plant. Rosatom is building four VVER-1200 reactors, under a so-called BOO (build-own-operate) model. According to the terms of the 2010 Intergovernmental Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, the aim was for the commissioning of the first power unit of the nuclear power plant to take place within seven years from receipt of all permits for the construction of the unit.

The licence for the construction of the first unit was issued in 2018, with construction work beginning that year. The first steam generators were shipped to the site - for unit 1 - in August 2020. Nuclear fuel was delivered to the site in April 2023. The aim is for unit 1 to begin supplying Turkey's energy system during 2026.

When the 4,800 MWe plant is completed, it is expected to meet about 10% of Turkey's electricity needs.


Work is taking place on all four units - first concrete for unit 4 (right) was poured in August 2023 (Image: Akkuyu Nuclear)

Turkey has plans for a second nuclear power plant, at Sinop, and has also been in talks with China about plans for a third plant, in the Thrace region in the country's northwest.

The country is also developing plans for small modular reactors, with the aim of adding 5 GWe of capacity by 2050 - which would mean the equivalent of at least 16 individual SMRs.

SMRs to be considered at Romanian port


Emirati multinational logistics company DP World has launched a feasibility study into how small modular reactor technology could help meet the long-term energy needs, growth and decarbonisation of the Port of Constanța in eastern Romania.
 
(Image: DP World)

"As ports electrify and grow, DP World sees access to reliable, low-carbon energy as critical to future competitiveness," the company said. "Rising demand from electrified equipment, shore power, AI data centres, residential heating and industrial activity is placing greater pressure on existing energy systems, driving demand for stable and scalable power. Nuclear energy, including SMRs, has the potential to provide consistent, low-carbon electricity for port operations and wider industrial use."

DP World has signed an agreement with French research organisation Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives (CEA) and strategy specialist TerraWater Institute to launch a feasibility study into the use of SMRs at the Port of Constanța. At the mouth of the Danube-Black Sea Canal, the port links sea routes into Eastern and Central Europe, with deep-water access for larger vessels.

The study will model projected energy demand at the port from 2030 to 2050, evaluate integrated low-carbon energy systems, and assess the technical, strategic and economic feasibility of nuclear-based solutions. It will also examine safety standards and considerations for surrounding communities, drawing on CEA's expertise in SMR design and nuclear safety.

DP World said the study is intended to inform future decision-making on how best to meet long-term energy needs for the port and the wider economy. Any future development would be subject to further technical assessment, regulatory review and stakeholder engagement, it noted.

"DP World sees the transition to a net-zero economy not only as an environmental imperative, but as a driver of future growth across global trade," said Nicholas Mazzei, VP Sustainability – Europe, DP World. "Nuclear SMRs are not just energy projects for our ports, they are a competitive infrastructure differentiator. This study will help us better understand how nuclear energy can strengthen operational resilience and help meet rising demand. Across Europe, nuclear energy is increasingly recognised as a resilient and cost-effective solution with the potential to underpin the next generation of industrial activity and the supply chains."

Myrto Tripathi, General Director, TerraWater Institute, added: "Ports sit at the intersection of industry, energy systems, and communities. This study is about understanding how future low-carbon energy systems could be designed to meet complex and evolving demands, while maintaining high standards of safety and environmental performance. For energy as for everything, offer should not shape demand and should provide opportunities rather than dictate terms. Industries' needs have to be understood, assessed and met, while decarbonising. This is the only energy paradigm we should strive for and what we are aiming to demonstrate with this study, thanks to nuclear."

"This study brings together expertise in nuclear technology and energy systems to assess how small modular reactors could be integrated into a real port environment," said Stéphane Sarrade, Directeur des Programmes Énergies at CEA. "By working with DP World and TerraWater, we are applying advanced modelling and analysis to better understand how these solutions could support reliable, low-carbon energy for ports."

In September last year, DP World signed a memorandum of understanding with US-based micro-nuclear technology developer Last Energy to establish the world's first port-centric micro-nuclear power plant at London Gateway in the UK. A proposed PWR-20 microreactor - to begin operations in 2030 - would supply London Gateway with 20 MWe of electricity to power the logistics hub, with additional capacity exported to the grid.

Fuel manufactured for Kudankulam 4's initial loading


Nuclear fuel for the initial loading of India’s Kudankulam unit 4 has been manufactured at Elektrostal Machine-Building Plant, part of Rosatom's TVEL fuel division.
 
The product has been accepted by the Indian plant operator (Image: TVEL)

Under the contract agreed in 2024 with the Russian state nuclear corporation, TVEL will supply fuel for the lifetime of the VVER-1000 units, which comprise units 3 and 4 at the plant.

The Kudankulam site, near the southern tip of India, is already home to two Russian VVER-1000 pressurised water reactors - owned and operated by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd - which have been in commercial operation since 2014 (Kudankulam unit 1) and 2017 (unit 2). Four more are currently under construction in two phases: construction of units 3 and 4 began in 2017, with the work on units 5 and 6 beginning in 2021. Two further units - Kudankulam 7 and 8, larger AES-2006 units with VVER-1200 reactors - have been proposed as a fourth phase of the plant.

The first nuclear fuel was delivered for unit 3 in December. It was manufactured at Rosatom's Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant.

Rosatom says that during operation of the first two units, its specialists, together with Indian specialists "have significantly improved their efficiency through the introduction of advanced nuclear fuel and extended fuel cycles. Since 2022, the Kudankulam NPP has been supplied with advanced TVS-2M nuclear fuel. It ensures more reliable and cost-effective operation of the power units due to its rigid structure, a next-generation anti-debris filter, and a higher uranium mass".

It has also led to the time between refuelling shutdowns being extended from 12 months to 18 months. Units 3 and 4 will operate with 18-month fuel cycles from the start.

According to World Nuclear Association information, India currently has 24 operable nuclear reactors totalling 7,943 MW of capacity, with eight reactors - 4,768 MW - under construction. A further 10 units - some 7 GW of capacity - are in pre-project stages.

India has a target to expand its nuclear energy capacity to 100 GW by 2047. It plans to achieve this by a two-pronged approach, with the deployment of large-capacity reactors as well as small modular reactors (SMRs). In August last year Minister of State Jitendra Singh outlined to the country's Parliament the three types of SMR that are being designed and developed by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre for demonstration: the 200 MWe Bharat Small Modular Reactor (sometimes referred to as BSMR-200); a 55 MWe small modular reactor (SMR); and a 5 MWt high-temperature gas-cooled reactor for hydrogen production by coupling with suitable thermochemical process for hydrogen production.

Orano starts construction at Mongolia uranium project


A ceremony at the Zuuvch Ovoo site marked the start of the construction phase for implementation of the project in Mongolia.

(Image: Orano)

"Yesterday, in the presence of Mr Batjargal Ochirpurev, Governor of the Dornogobi province, Mr Ganburen Gansukh, Governor of the Ulaanbadrakh sum and Mr Manlaijav Gun-Aajav, Secretary of the Nuclear Energy Commission, we celebrated a decisive milestone in the implementation of this strategic project led by Orano and its subsidiary Badrakh Energy, alongside our Mongolian partners," Orano Chairman Claude Imauven said on LinkedIn. 

"As our two countries celebrated the 60th anniversary of their diplomatic relations in 2025, Zuuvch Ovoo illustrates our shared commitment to developing a strategic project that creates sustainable value for Mongolia and the Dornogobi Province," he added, before thanking the Mongolian authorities, Orano's partners, and the teams at Badrakh Energy and Orano "for their commitment to this exemplary cooperation".

Mongolia has substantial uranium resources - as of 2023, according to World Nuclear Association's information library, its 144,600 tU of uranium resources put it 10th in the world. Although it has been mined there in the past - in conjunction with Russian interests - no  uranium has been mined in Mongolia since the mid-1990s when mining at the Dornod mine, operated by a subsidiary of Russia's Priargunsky Industrial Mining & Chemical Union, ceased.


Image: Orano

Orano Mining has been present in Mongolia for more than 25 years, and has been carrying out exploration in the Gobi Desert since 1997, according to information from the company. The Zuuvch Ovoo deposit was discovered in 2010. In January 2025, Orano and the Government of Mongolia signed an investment agreement to develop and operate the project, in the south-eastern Dornogovi province.

The project will use in-situ leach (ISL, also known as in-situ recovery, or ISR) methods, demonstrated in pilot operations in 2021-2022. Development is planned to take 4 years. The project will have a nominal production capacity of about 2,500 tU per year for a 30-year estimated lifespan, creating 1,600 direct and indirect jobs.

Under the terms of the investment agreement, more than 51% of the direct benefits generated by the project will be received by the Mongolian state.

KHNP says EC has dropped foreign subsidy probe into Czech project

The European Commission has informed Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power that it will not initiate an in-depth investigation under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation regarding the Dukovany nuclear power plant project in the Czech Republic.
 
Dukovany (Image: CEZ)

The Czech government selected Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) as its preferred bidder in July 2024 for two new units near the current Dukovany nuclear power plant, about 200 kilometres southeast of Prague. Two more units at the Temelín nuclear power plant are also being considered. The engineering, procurement and construction contract was signed in June 2025, for two APR-1000 units at a projected cost of CZK407 billion (USD18.6 billion). The aim is to start construction in 2029.

France's EDF, which had been eliminated from the bidding process, launched legal challenges against the contract decision. The company's objections to the tender process included the belief that the KHNP offer price and the inclusion of a guarantee that the construction would not be delayed or become more expensive, would be "unfeasible without illegal state aid given the prices in the nuclear industry". EDF said that if their rival bidder had state support it would breach European Union rules. KHNP rejected EDF's claims and said "we emphasise that we have not received any subsidies that could damage or distort fair competition in relation to the project".

In response, the European Commission (EC) launched a preliminary review of KHNP and 'Team Korea' - the winning consortium of Korean companies that includes KHNP - in February 2025 to independently examine matters related to the new nuclear power plant project in the Czech Republic. The EU Extraterritorial Subsidy Regulation is a system designed to assess whether financial contributions provided to companies by non-EU countries distort competition in the EU market.

"KHNP and Team Korea faithfully cooperated with the preliminary review process by submitting relevant materials and explaining necessary matters in accordance with the request of the EC," KHNP said. "As a result, the EC completed the preliminary review and finally notified KHNP on 5 June that it had decided not to initiate an in-depth investigation."

"This decision is an official judgement made by the EU after directly reviewing the relevant issues," Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan was quoted as saying by The Chosun Daily. "It is a result of confirming that KHNP and Team Korea have faithfully complied with international norms and EU laws and systems while pursuing the project."

Czech Industry and Trade Minister Karel Havlíček said on social media platform X, that the EC decision "to close the preliminary review under the Regulation on distortive foreign subsidies affecting the internal market ... is good news for this project and for the development of the nuclear industry and the future assurance of energy security in the Czech Republic and the European Union".

There has been a separate EC review taking place relating to the Czech new nuclear plan - in April 2024 the EC approved the original Czech government funding plan for a single new nuclear reactor at the Dukovany nuclear power plant site, but in October last year the Czech Republic officially notified the EC it had expanded its plans to two new nuclear units. The following month, the EC announced it had launched an inquiry into Czech funding plan for new nuclear. At the time it said it had doubts about whether it was fully in line with EU State aid rules and wanted to ensure that "no more aid than necessary is ultimately granted. In particular, the Commission has doubts on whether the proposed package achieves an appropriate balance between reducing risks to enable the investment and maintaining incentives for efficient behaviour, while avoiding excessive risk transfer to the State".

Ceremony to mark first concrete for Uzbekistan SMR


A groundbreaking ceremony and the symbolic pouring of first concrete have taken place to mark the official start of construction of the first small modular reactor in Uzbekistan.
 
(Image: Valery Sharifulin/TASS/Kremlin.ru)

The presidents of Uzbekistan and Russia, meeting in St Petersburg, joined the event via video link, with International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi among those attending in person.

Azim Akhmedkhadzhaev, Director of the Uzbekistan Atomic Energy Agency, said: "Today, we are not simply laying the first concrete for the nuclear power plant's foundation. We are laying the foundation for a bright and sustainable future for the Republic of Uzbekistan. This integrated nuclear power plant will symbolise a new technological stage for our country - a stage of energy independence, industrial growth, and environmental security."

"Uzbekistan is confidently moving to the forefront of the global energy sector, strengthening its sovereignty and opening new horizons for innovative development. We are building more than just a power plant - we are laying the foundation for a new era of prosperity, technological leadership, and well-being for future generations of Uzbeks."


The IAEA's director general was at the ceremony (Image: Uzatom)

First concrete followed the Committee for Industrial, Radiation, and Nuclear Safety under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan issuing a licence on 4 June to the general contractor for the construction of the nuclear power plant unit's first unit, a Russian-made RITM-200N.

The planned plant

A contract signed in May 2024, during a visit to the country by Russian President Vladimir Putin, was originally for the construction of a 330 MW capacity nuclear power plant featuring six units of the RITM-200N water-cooled small modular reactor (SMR), which is adapted from nuclear-powered icebreakers' technology, with thermal power of 190 MW or 55 MWe and with an intended service life of 60 years. The first unit was scheduled to go critical in late 2029 with units commissioned one by one.

In 2025 a supplemental agreement to the contract for the new nuclear power plant - in the Jizzakh region - covered the decision to change its contents to two gigawatt-scale VVER-1000 units and two SMRs. This increased the proposed capacity to more than 2,100 MWe, compared with the previous 330 MWe.


Concrete work at the site began in March (Image: Rosatom)

Excavation work began in October last year for the pit for the first of the SMRs at the site. About 1.5 million cubic metres of soil were excavated during the digging of a pit 13 metres deep. In March this year, Rosatom said that about 900 cubic metres were being poured during the concrete foundation work for the reactor building. That was due for completion in April and it said that the foundation has since been levelled and waterproofed before the pouring of the first concrete for the reactor building's foundation slab.

What the presidents said

President Putin said: "The fact that Russia and Uzbekistan are implementing such a truly flagship high-tech project is a shining example of the friendship and alliance between our two countries ... the project will provide related orders for many Uzbek companies: new jobs will be created, and local contractors will be actively involved in installation, material supply, transportation, and other services. In total, approximately 15,000 people are expected to be employed at the construction site.

"Importantly, Russia will not only build the nuclear power plant but also provide its Uzbek partners with a preferential export loan and support throughout the plant's entire lifecycle. This includes commitments for long-term reactor fuel supplies, servicing and maintenance, and spent nuclear material management. Essentially, with our country's assistance, a national high-tech nuclear industry is being developed in Uzbekistan."

President Shavkat Mirziyoyev said: "Today, we are launching not just the next stage of an infrastructure project, but are participating in an historic event. We are ushering in a new era of technological, industrial, and scientific development for our country. In Uzbekistan, the foundations are being laid for the development of a new field - modern nuclear energy - an industry that symbolises advanced scientific capabilities, cutting-edge engineering expertise, and a strategic vision for the future.

"It is important to note that this project ... is unique in the world; it combines the latest advances in small-scale nuclear generation and large-scale baseload energy."

The IAEA's Grossi noted the uniqueness of the project - which features the first export order for any SMR - and added: "I see investors from other countries here, and they're interested in this project. This project will also contribute to the development of the digital economy, data centres, and other opportunities."

Andrey Petrov, First Deputy Director General for Nuclear Energy at Rosatom, said: "Uzbekistan is embarking on a path of accelerated high-tech development, and Rosatom is honoured to be part of this historic process. Once operational, the nuclear power plant will be able to meet up to 14% of the country's energy needs. Moreover, the nuclear city project we proposed to Uzbekistan will create a new community. The nuclear power plant will be more than just a small town; it will be a true science city - a showcase for cutting-edge nuclear and related technologies."

A Personal TomDispatch Farewell (of Sorts)

by | Jun 8, 2026 |  Antiwar.com

Editor’s Note:   Tom Engelhardt has been an important part of Antiwar.com for 22 years.     His TomDispatch site has contributed 1,469 articles to our site.   His list of authors includes many of the best in the antiwar movement.   The presence of TomDispatch articles helped make Antiwar.com what it is today. The staff of Antiwar.com sends much love and a great thanks to Tom for everything he has done for the us and for the antiwar movement.

[Final Note from Tom: Yes, I began TomDispatch 24-and-a-half years ago and, today, I’m finally putting up my own last piece, at least as the editor-in-chief of this site. Very soon, the superlative Nick Turse will be running TomDispatch under the auspices of The Intercept (though I’ll undoubtedly continue to lend a hand). It’s been a long run. I only wish I could say that, so many years later, this world was a better place… Sigh, no such luck. (Anything but, in fact!)

There are so many people to thank, including all the remarkable authors I’ve published. I couldn’t even begin to list them here, though I’d love to thank each of them from the bottom of my heart. And what a mess their pieces might have been if Christopher Holmes hadn’t shown up online to lend an eternal hand or my old friend Annette Liberson-Drewry hadn’t done the same, both proofing the stories in a fabulous and never-ending manner. And let me not forget Annelise Whitley, who was always there, as (until relatively recently) was Erika Eichelberger! 

And I can’t even begin to thank the scads of wonderful writers who kept this site afloat all these many years! I only wish I could still thank Mike Davis, Barbara Ehrenreich, Eduardo Galeano, Todd Gitlin, Chalmers Johnson, David Rosner, Jonathan Schell, and Howard Zinn, who are now gone from this world of ours, not to speak of so many TD authors (far too many to name) who are still deeply alive and kicking on this all-too-strange Trumpian planet and many of whom, I hope, will continue to write for this site under Nick Turse.

I can’t even imagine what my world would have been like if Hamilton Fish hadn’t called me so long ago. He suggested turning the emails I had begun sending out to friends in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on my city and Washington, D.C., containing articles that struck me at media sites around the world and my own little explanatory introductions, into a website that he (not I) called TomDispatch. And what would I have done if the Nation Institute (which then became the Type Media Center) hadn’t supported me all these years?  They — and Taya McCormick-Grobow, in particular — were simply fantastic! And how would I have lasted if so many TomDispatch readers hadn’t so generously contributed money to keep this site alive?  

And so, nearly a quarter of a century (and many exclamation points!!) later, I find myself in a world that would have been unimaginable, even in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when life on this planet became ever stranger. Sadly, then, let me bid farewell not on a planet gloriously or even passingly better, but Trumpianly worse than I ever might have imagined. And let me also offer a small bow of thanks to the many thousands of wonderful readers who have followed this site, sent its pieces around, contributed money to keep it going, and made my life matter. And let me also offer my thanks to all the other sites that reposted TD pieces so wonderfully over the years. Thank you so, so much.

Oh, and if you feel in the mood, I now have my own Substack ready for me, where, after a little time off, I hope to keep writing the odd thing — perhaps the equivalent of my TD introductions — about this ever-stranger planet of ours (as I will also, I hope, continue to do at Nick’s version of TomDispatch from time to time). To subscribe to my new Substack, just click here. And as I used to do so regularly in another life on another planet (or so it now seems to me), I’m soon going to pick up the book manuscript of an old friend (and well-known writer) and begin editing it. And with all of that in mind, here’s my final piece as the guy who created and ran TomDispatch all these years, the last of the hundreds (certainly 300 or more!) I’ve personally written since 2001 at this site. Tom]


Once Upon a Time (and Not Any Time Either!)

My Strange Tale of How the War on Terror Came Home in the Age of Donald J. Trump

By Tom Engelhardt

Okay, here’s what this old man remembers nearly a quarter of a century later.

I was living in New York City (as I still am) when, on September 11, 2001, two hijacked planes full of passengers hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, killing almost 3,000 innocent people. Until that moment, of course, such a thing would have been beyond inconceivable, no less watchable on TV, in the United States of America. Had someone written up such a plot with Osama bin Laden and crew in the cast of characters, it would have been treated as the worst kind of unpublishable science fiction.

But, of course, it did indeed happen and, in some strange sense, in its wake (an all-too-appropriate word under the circumstances), our world did indeed seem to flip upside down. That was, of course, after President George W. Bush responded early that October by — god save us! — invading Afghanistan (which, at least to me, was a shock and a half in its own right) and launching his disastrous “Global War on Terror.” Sometime in the weeks that followed, my memory (not exactly trustworthy at almost 82 years of age) is that I saw an article deep inside the print New York Times (which, by the way, I still read daily on actual paper) noting that U.S. soldiers were by then fighting in parts of Afghanistan where the troops of the Soviet Union had struggled endlessly (and lost badly) during that imperial power’s disastrous Afghan war of the previous century, which did indeed help take it down. And that, too, in some grim fashion, stunned me. Talk about mistakes that history had all too clearly signaled should never happen again (and again and again)!

I was at the time (even if barely) online and so I copied that piece into an email and sent it out with a note to a small set of friends. And somehow that began the process that led to TomDispatch.

I soon realized that, thanks to the online world, I could actually read around the globe — the British Guardian, Le Monde Diplomatique, etc. — and that out there in the rest of the universe, there were other ways this ever-stranger world of ours was being looked at than the ones that largely dominated attention here in the U.S., post-9/11. And so, as I began stumbling across ever more pieces that seemed to offer different perspectives on our increasingly eerie world, I started emailing them to a growing list of friends and acquaintances. And after a time — to my complete surprise — people I hardly knew or didn’t know at all emailed me that they wanted to be added to my list. And with those send-outs, I began including little introductory explanatory notes or sets of comments (which launched the future TomDispatch form with my eternal little introductions — literally thousands of them over these nearly 25 years — to every piece I posted at TD except my own).

And I remember exactly the moment when I suddenly realized that something out of the ordinary was happening not just in the ever-stranger world out there, but to me, too. Susan Sontag, a writer I had long admired but didn’t know from a hole in the wall, suddenly emailed me out of the blue and asked to be added to what would become the TomDispatch email list (though it wasn’t yet called that). I was stunned. And soon, I was sending out to — I no longer remember exactly how many — but certainly several hundred people (with more being added every week). And that was the moment when someone I hardly knew (though he, too, was on my mailing list), Hamilton Fish of the Nation Institute, called me out of the blue and asked if I might, in the future, be interested in turning those emails of mine into a website that he then did indeed set up for me and that he — not I — called “TomDispatch.”

Initially, at the new site, I simply did what I had been doing in my emails. I continued to find interesting pieces published elsewhere about our ever stranger and more disturbing world, wrote little introductions of my own, and then put in their headlines and first paragraphs with a link to the full piece wherever it had first appeared. At some point, however, I started writing longer commentaries of my own on a world that seemed to grow stranger by the week. Then it suddenly occurred to me that I knew a surprising number of writers whose voices, I thought, were distinctly needed in the strange post-9/11 world we were already living through.

After all, among other things, I had been an editor, first at Pantheon Books for 15 years in the previous century and later, in this one, at Metropolitan Books, the publishing house my old friend (and Pantheon coeditor) Sara Bershtel had set up. I had, for instance, published Chalmers Johnson’s remarkable book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire at Metropolitan in 2000 to essentially no attention, minimal (and not particularly good) reviews, and few sales. Osama bin Laden’s assault on New York City and Washington, D.C., however, turned that book into a nationwide bestseller and put that title word of his into the language in a big-time fashion (and he would indeed write for TomDispatch memorably in the War on Terror years that followed).

The War on Terror Comes Home, A Terrible Science Fiction Novel

And yes, Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 attacks were indeed a nightmare, but this country responded to them almost unimaginably badly by creating a full-scale, seemingly never-ending set of further nightmares in Afghanistan and Iraq (and, of course, over the years from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to Somalia in Africa, not to speak of all those global CIA “black sites” meant for the torture of Global War on Terror prisoners). And out of all those nightmares and so much more (none of which I ever would have imagined possible once upon a time) came the presidencies (and who would have believed that there could be two of them!) of Donald (the mad duck) Trump.

From the start, TomDispatch was witnessing and reporting on America’s distinctly imperial fate. I was watching with both horror and fascination as the greatest power (perhaps ever) on planet Earth (once the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991) was somehow going down, down, down, without even a helping hand from an opposing imperial power. After all, early in this century, China had yet truly to rise and now that it has, it’s not acting like a typical imperial power of history. It has (at least as yet) not launched its own version of a Global War on Terror and its leaders seem remarkably intent not on colonizing the rest of Asia in some unexpected fashion, but on making a fortune producing the world’s green energy machinery (including, at the moment, 80% of global solar energy panels), even if they’re also still outdoing every other country on this planet — despite Donald Trump’s efforts — in burning fossil fuels and pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere).

In some strange fashion, I watched and recorded at TomDispatch just how my country was playing out its grim version of the predictable decline of all imperial powers, historically speaking, in a distinctly up-close-and-personal fashion. And of course, in 2016, this country gave decline a remarkable new meaning on an increasingly strange and disturbed planet by electing Donald J. Trump as president.

As my version of TomDispatch ends (and Nick Turse’s launches), I find myself at my advanced age (with my friends beginning to die around me) in a world I simply could never have imagined. Don’t even get me started on artificial intelligence, which, as Bernie Sanders has pointed out, could someday “replace humans in controlling the planet”! Unreligious as I may be, I’m with the Pope on AI — though perhaps even more so. My own feeling is that no genuine intelligence could have been senseless enough to create such an obvious nightmare to come.

And the War on Terror Comes Home Yet Again in the Form of Donald Trump

In a sense, it might even be possible to think of Donald Trump as the possible final chapter in this country’s global war on terror. Think of him, in fact, as the way that war came home, big time! In his own fashion, he could hardly have been more of a terror and, to make matters so much worse, in 2026, a year expected to be the second hottest in recorded history, he seems remarkably intent on making war not just on Iran, or any other random country like Somalia or Nigeria, but on this very planet itself. Even his anti-immigrant agenda is, as the Guardian recently reported, ensuring that ever more fossil fuels go into the atmosphere via the stunning number of planes deporting those immigrants, helping make ever more areas of the planet ever hotter, and — of course! — ensuring that ever more people will end up as — yes! — migrants.

In short, whether it’s climate change, Iran, or you name it, Donald Trump (the second time around) is already giving heat new meaning.

And none of this (not a bit!) would I have believed in November 2001 when all of it began for me. Had you tried to show me such a future then, I would have simply laughed you out of the room and gone about my business.

In a sense, you might say that the war on terror simply never ended, since my country has never stopped bombing other countries around the world, the latest (but undoubtedly not the last), of course, being Iran. And I suspect that, without that “war,” Donald Trump would have been inconceivable.

I’m at an age where my friends are indeed beginning to die and it pains me that, when I go, I’ll be leaving such a mess of an all-American planet to my poor grandchildren. They truly deserve better. And once upon a time (if I even imagined them coming into this world of ours), I might have hoped that someday in the then-distant future I would have signed off TomDispatch by claiming that I was indeed leaving them on at least a modestly better planet than when I began so long ago.

No such luck, of course, and that makes me sad indeed. I mean, we already knew that we were truly on the planet from hell when, on his third try, Donald Trump actually managed to garner 49.8% of the popular vote and win another four unbelievable years as president of the anything but United States.

Yes, anyone (even I) certainly could have hoped for better. In fact, I certainly did — even if such hopes proved unrealistic indeed. Of course, one can (and should) still hope that the next great imperial power, obviously China (if, in fact, there are to be more great powers on this ever less great planet of ours), might indeed prove more reasonable and less Trumpian. At least, that country’s leadership plans to make a fortune off the decarbonization of Planet Earth by producing the equipment, from electric vehicles to solar panels, needed to green this world of ours (even while continuing to pour record amounts of fossil fuels into the atmosphere).

Let’s also not forget that other former great power, Russia, which continues fighting its miserable war in Ukraine into its fifth year, while, of course, pouring ever more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (as all wars now do), while only recently launching actual nuclear missiles (though with dummy warheads instead of nuclear payloads) against Ukraine. (Just what we need on this planet of ours, of course — the threat of actual nuclear warfare!)

Yes, all in all, we humans are truly a strange (and strangely unnerving) crew and, worse yet, over the decades from atomic warfare to full-scale war on the planet itself, we seem eerily driven to develop the means to be ever more destructive. And with that grimly in mind and only wishing things were better, let me sign off on almost 25 years at TomDispatch. Sigh…

Tom Engelhardt created and runs the website TomDispatch.com. He is also a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of a highly praised history of American triumphalism in the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture.  A fellow of the Type Media Center, his sixth book is A Nation Unmade by War.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel, Songlands (the final one in his Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky’s novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, and Ann Jones’s They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return from America’s Wars: The Untold Story.