In 1975, an influential Stanford biologist named Paul Ehrlich (author of the misanthropic 1968 Population Bomb) stated that in his view, humanity’s acquisition of fusion energy was “like giving an idiot child a machine gun”. Ehrlich’s views were shared widely among the peculiar sect of scientists that have come to be known as neo-Malthusians. Ehrlich’s colleague John Holdren ruminated that developing fusion energy was undesirable because it would only enflame mankind’s “pave the planet and paint it green’ mentality.”

Third Industrial Revolution author and fringe activist-turned-international climate advisor to the UN named Jeremy Rifkind stated “the prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”

Across the many voices of this neo-Malthusian landscape, the mantra has been the same: fusion energy is always 30-40 years away and since the world will boil over long before this day arrives anyway, why bother dreaming about it when we could start covering the globe with solar panels now in order to de-carbonize society and stop the new Armageddon?

Today’s Green New Deal and G7 Green anti-BRI vision have at their heart this profound misanthropic view of humanity weaved into their programming. While many are attracted to the concept of a clean earth, the consequences of global decarbonization to pre-industrial levels as outlined by modern technocrats will be the unfortunate, albeit planned kill off of a large proportion of the world population… unless clean and abundant nuclear power with a focus on both fission and fusion processes drive that global energy transition.

Unfortunately, the power of the Pygmalion effect runs strong amongst today’s breed of Malthusian ideologue.

As soon as a Malthusian attains a position of economic or scientific policy influence, these ideologues loose no time in sabotaging government support for all energy programs which would render their abiding faith in “human overpopulation” irrelevant and wrong.

Holdren himself lost no time in cancelling the few dwindling U.S. fusion research initiatives during his time running U.S. Science Policy under Barak Obama. But Holdren was merely following on a long tradition of sabotage.

Take for instance the slashing of fusion power research begun under the Trilateral Commission controlled Presidency of Jimmy Carter which has continued unabated until the present day.

Not only did actual funding fall far below the minimum requirements to build and activate prototypes of new designs, but starting in 1977 the funding was increasingly redirected towards “zero-technological growth” forms of energy like windmill and photovoltaic cell technology. Even conventional domains of nuclear energy research like the closing of the fuel cycle using fast breeder reactors which the USA once championed were killed under Executive Order and buried under moratoria during the 1970s. One of the key figures in this attack on fusion was RAND Corp Energy czar James Schlesigner who amplified regulatory laws and cut funding in fusion despite milestones being reached in Los Alamos and Princeton in 1976. Schlesinger’s worldview as a priest of doom was defined in a 1960 book where he said:

“Economics is the science of choice in a world of limited resources…. We have gone around the world spreading the ‘gospel of plenty’ raising the level of expectations … [but] in the nature of things, these rising expectations can never be satisfied…. We must in our strategic policy return to the days before the Industrial Revolution … [and] prepare to fight limited wars.”

This new age of limited wars was ushered in both by Kissinger’s NSSM-200 in 1974 which called for converting America’s pro-development foreign policy as exemplified by Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace and Kennedy’s New Frontiers into a depopulation program.

Kissinger’s report didn’t mince words: “The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States…. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth.”

Meanwhile Kissinger’s Trilateral Commission colleague Zbigniew Brzezinski made this fantasy world a reality through the sponsorship of radical jihadi perversions of Islam that unleashed a new age of never-ending asymmetric warfare.

Leaders within the Muslim nations resistant to this agenda and desirous of developing nuclear energy (including the Shah of Iran, President Sedat of Egypt and President Bhutto of Pakistan) were summarily killed or overthrown. Other nations of the global south who yearned for energy independence and atomic power included Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines, India and all saw a top-down sabotage of their nuclear programs during the 1980s and 1990s.

Another zero growth Trilateral Commission priest named Paul Volcker had only recently been appointed to head the Federal Reserve despite his repeated calls for a “controlled disintegration” of the U.S. economy when in 1979, his 20% interest rate hikes made capital investments into multi-year nuclear builds financially impossible for investors (especially when combined with the mountainous environmental impact red tape which added years onto the wait times of new constructions. Under these conditions, interest payments outpaced the actual cost of production and by the mid 1980s over 130 planned new reactor builds were cancelled. While it is popular to parrot the belief that it was the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown which resulted in the bad press and cancellation of new builds, the fact is that even before that event, 46 reactor builds had been cancelled between 1972 and 1979.

In Canada, the Federal Government stopped all new nuclear construction by the mid 1980s and cut funding for all federal fusion initiatives by 1997. The Quebec-based Tokamak at Varennes which had produced super hot plasmas in magnetic confinement was dismantled for purely political considerations in 1998 after winning world prizes as the most advanced design of its kind.

Prototypes for Stellarators using magnetic pinch effects to concentrate the flux of plasmas into controlled high-density zones conducive to fusion reactions were also cancelled for budgetary considerations throughout the 1990s-2010s leaving scientists demoralized and without either means to build machines to test their ideas, or even the use of already existent machines to investigate the ideas of others.

In the Soviet Union, where the famous Kurchatov Institute had made Russia the world leader in fusion research during the Cold War, a Malthusian policy was applied under the masquerade of “Shock therapy” during the dark years of 1992-1999 looting and privatizations. Under the watch of World Bank economists, all advanced fusion research was cancelled as the nation was absorbed into the neoliberal zombie order of post-industrial feudalism. A generation of nuclear scientists was lost to the western brain drain as their mathematical skills became put to use in the new financial supercomputing algorithms for high frequency trading and derivative-ladden betting (see Quants).

As the emergent collapse of the western neoliberal order became ever more clear for many to see by the time of the housing market meltdown of 2007, the realization that humanity’s mission to finally overcome the Malthusian demands for entropy and degrowth began to take off among Eurasian nations. While the scientific community organized for a new international project centered in the South of France known as ITER, Chinese and Russian scientists worked hard to make up for lost time in their own nations. After reverse-engineering Russia’s T-7 tokamak (discarded into a trash heap with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1992), China began to acquire serious skills in plasma physics becoming ever more respected members of the ITER team.

Soon work on China’s own indigenous tokamak was begun in 1998 with the Experimental Advance Superconducting Tokamak in Hefei and in 2014 a demonstration reactor was begun called the “China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor” (CFETR) which will be ready to apply the results of China’s EAST reactor and the ITER in an official reactor.

Despite constant claims of “intellectual property theft” of western science pounded repeatedly into the heads of gullible fools, China broke all world records in May 2021, creating a 120 million degree Celsius plasma for 2 minutes followed by a 160 million degree Celsius plasma for 20 seconds. Although appearing to be short intervals, these times and temperatures had never come close to reality bringing humanity closer to the goal of generating more energy output than inputed.

Russia’s parallel tokamak program titled the T-15 MD will begin producing plasmas this year.

Additionally, Russia has also nearly finalized the world’s first fission-fusion hybrid reactor at the Tomsk Polytechnic University utilizing neutrons created from fusion reactions in order to create fissile U-233 fuel. Meanwhile President Putin has emphasized on numerous occasions that fusion research will be a driving national priority for Russia over the coming years.

Russia and China have taken nuclear energy diplomacy to a whole new level in recent months with both Xi Jinping and Putin having hosted the May 19 ceremonies unveiling the construction of four new nuclear reactors in China built using Russian technology totalling 37.6 billion kilowatt hours of power. For the first time in history, African nations have access to two major powers who are enthusiastic to offer the abused continent technology transfers and funding for nuclear power with Rosatom having signed active nuclear deals with seven African nations and opened active negotiations with 15 sub-Saharan nations for nuclear builds.

Anti-Malthusian offers not seen since the days of John F Kennedy are being extended with the Belt and Road Initiative all across the world and even western developed nations targeted for disintegration under a Great Reset are being offered the opportunity to work on new energy breakthroughs that Russia and China are driving forward with.

Most importantly, Russia and China’s new commitment to jointly build a lunar base over the coming decade as well as China’s ambitious commitment to mine helium-3 on the moon cannot be seen as separate from this far-sighted creative policy outlook that is increasingly defining the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

The best expression of this call for a new age of fusion energy cooperation and diplomacy needed to reverse our international slide into nuclear war was showcased by President Putin during a July 2019 Global Industrialization Summit which I will quote at length as we consider what pathways are necessary to overcome the misanthropic closed system logic of those prophets of doom that sit upon the alter of the World Economic Forum and lust over a dystopic technocratic age of depopulation and entropy.

“We will only succeed in fusion power and other fundamental tasks if we establish broad international cooperation and interaction between government and business, and unite the efforts of researchers representing different scientific schools and areas—if technological development becomes truly global, and does not get split up, or held back by attempts to monopolize progress, limit access to education, and put up new obstacles to the free exchange of knowledge and ideas.

By the way, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) serves as a prime example of open scientific and technological cooperation. Scientists are now planning to use it to achieve controlled thermonuclear fusion. Our country is actively participating in this project and is now prepared to suggest using Russia’s scientific infrastructure for joint research, joint scientific investigation, for the international scientific teams working on nature-like and other breakthrough technologies, including unique mega-science installations.

With their help, scientists will be able to literally see nature’s processes of creation. I would like to note that such an installation has become an essential part of the interdisciplinary center for nature-like convergent technologies, in operation for more than a decade at one of Russia’s largest scientific centers, the Kurchatov Institute…

For international research teams who want to work in Russia, and for hosting large-scale interdisciplinary projects and establishing international scientific clusters, we intend to come up with the most comfortable conditions and support mechanisms…

To accomplish these goals, we intend to use the potential of our major, partially government-owned companies. As you may know, I recently visited Italy and spoke to our partners; our colleagues, there, use partially government-owned enterprises. It might seem strange, but we are following the same direction—first, because this is an international task, and second, there exist state resources that we can use in key development areas…

I believe that in this era of tectonic changes and, sadly, of increasing uncertainty, absolute values—that is, creating better living conditions and opportunities for unleashing human potential—must be a priority. Impressive technological development should serve this purpose. This is where great responsibility lies with us for the future of our nation and the world in general—, and we definitely must work together.”

In the next installment, we will look at Chinese-Russian space diplomacy in greater detail as the other side of this anti-Malthusian program that requires reciprocal breakthroughs in both microphysics and macrophysics.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Some of the claims of Thunberg’s comments (as the daughter of wealthy successful parents in Western Europe, who sailed to give said speech on a heavily sponsored sea vessel) are shockingly offensive to a solid majority in the former Soviet Union.

Perhaps maybe one day people will be “suffering” and “dying” from climate issues but at present it is delusional to make this claim and a slap in the face to anyone going through real tangible suffering. How could some imaginary misery due to the environment made up in a teenage mind in an ivory tower compare to the loss of innocence suffered by an entire generation of Russian-speakers who had to fight, poverty, starvation and in some cases military conflict during the collapse of the USSR? The amount of naivety and Eurocentrism needed to truly believe in this worldview is stunning.

Her other claim that politicians’ lack of climate action has “stolen” her childhood could at best be viewed as dark humor as to this day children every day lose their childhood to artillery shells in the Donbass. It also goes without saying that during our lifetimes children all over the planet have lost their innocence in places like Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia etc. and I am sure the survivors would be thrilled to have “Climate Change” as the only problem in their lives.

Smugly dictating correct behavior from the West to the unwashed billions beyond is nothing new and it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise that Russian (or other Non-European) history is never taken into account but there are at least two developments happening now in Russia that environmentalists should take note of even if they hate this country for “giving America Trump”.

When it comes to producing energy (a key cause of pollution/carbon emissions) nuclear power is king and that king’s throne is in Russia. Nuclear power’s Energy Return on Energy Invested ratio is by far the best of anything we have on offer today. Not only does it produce a massive amount of electricity from fuel materials but it does so cleanly. If we all must go out and buy trendy electric cars, wouldn’t it help to have the means of making that electricity be cheap and clean? Burning coal defeats the purpose of having an electric car and things like ethanol and solar are a joke especially when we look at a new development in nuclear energy coming from Russia.

Source

Rosatom has been developing a means to possibly eliminate toxic waste entirely by moving (recycling) nuclear material between different types of reactors in what they call a Dual-Component Nuclear Power System. Essentially the uranium gets used by one reactor, then after usage can be put into a second reactor, then put back into the first again to repeat the process.

Source

This bears repeating to be clear… the Russians have a way to reuse nuclear fuel! Electricity here is plentiful and cheap now and will continue to be so thanks to “Dual-Component System’s” perfected use of uranium. The upcoming “energy crisis” may have already been averted as cheap seemingly endless power is coming and if recycling can guarantee us the ability to reuse materials cheaply and effectively (which is already happening even in Russia, with German cooperation) then humanity has a bright comfortable future ahead.

You would think that environmental/climate activists like Greta Thunberg would be absolutely thrilled by this news and yet there is a deafening silence because they either A) don’t care what the untermenschen are doing in their s***hole countries or B) their emotions irrationally blind them to the option of a nuclear future because atomic power is scary. After all it did create the Ghouls in Fallout.

It cannot be stated enough that humans are highly irrational and emotional. Much of our core political beliefs are based on feelings rather than reason, and both Russia and Nuclear Power feel wrong to Climate Change Crew. Even though it seems like an obvious winner, nuclear fusion just doesn’t fit their ideological vision of what being ecological would look like. They see tiny houses, bicycles, veganism and solar panels, not life kind of like it is today with new snazzy nuclear power plants. Especially when the technology for them comes from troglodytic Slavs with their backwards political beliefs.

Furthermore, acknowledging that a real answer to the the ecological questions of the future could already be here is very bad for one’s career as an activist. It is much better for them to always have that boogeyman of an eco apocalypse looming on the horizon, be it Global Warming, Global Cooling or just Climate Change.

The media circulated reports in early August that Moscow and Cairo had agreed on a contract to build Egypt’s first nuclear power plant. The Egyptian president’s official spokesman released a statement that «the Egyptian minister of electricity has presented the president with the final version of the contract to build the Dabaa nuclear plant [the site is not far from Alexandria – A.K.] and informed him that all the previously unresolved issues with the Russians have now been settled». 

A package of contracts governing the nuclear plant is expected to be signed this year – an integrated EPC contract covering the engineering, procurement, and construction work, a contract to provide the fuel for the plant’s entire operational lifespan, a service contract, and a contract to eventually retire the plant (the back end of the fuel cycle) at the end of its planned service life. The contract to build the nuclear power plant is worth an estimated total of $25 billion, which just might make it one of the world’s biggest nuclear plant construction projects. Back on Nov. 19, 2015, Egypt and Russia also signed an agreement stipulating that Russia would offer Egypt a government loan to build the Dabaa nuclear plant.

The Egyptian media views the contract with Rosatom as extremely advantageous for Egypt in several ways. First of all, all the equipment for the plant will be entirely Russian-made, thus preventing any potential sabotage of the construction by outside countries. Second, Russia is not burdening the project with any political fine print. Third, some of the plant’s components will be manufactured locally in Egypt. Fourth, the Russian nuclear experts will not be paid until after the plant is up and running, which is motivation to avoid any unnecessary delays in the work.

Egypt has long dreamed of building a nuclear plant, but those plans stagnated until Russia got involved. The idea first emerged in Egypt in 1960, but the 1967 Arab-Israeli war put the construction plans on hold.

After President Anwar Sadat took power in Cairo and the Egyptian-American rapprochement began, US President Richard Nixon promised to provide nuclear plants to both Egypt and Israel. However, later it became clear that the Americans wanted the right to continue to inspect the plant and retain real control of its operations. That didn’t go over well with the Egyptians. In 2006, the government of Egypt once again began to focus on the development of a domestic nuclear power industry, and it asked the Australian company WorleyParsons Limited to review the construction plans for the plant. That firm was unable to choose a construction site, and by the time its professional review was completed, the Arab Spring was already at hand, a riot had broken out on Cairo’s Tahrir Square, and the Egyptians had plenty of other things on their minds.

But without nuclear energy the country could be hit with electricity shortages in the next few years. Prior to the 1990s, most of Egypt’s electric power was generated by the Aswan hydroelectric dam that was built with the help and guidance of Soviet consultants.

The Aswan hydroelectric plant created enough electricity to satisfy Egypt’s needs for a long time. However, more time passed and the country’s growing population, which has tripled since the 1960s (it is currently estimated at more than 90 million) meant a growing need for electricity. Gas-fired thermal power plants gradually supplanted Aswan as the primary producers of Egypt’s electric power. But Egypt – always strapped for cash – is very aware that it could potentially sell its gas for export instead of burning it.

The shift to nuclear power is necessitated by yet another factor – the Nile is drying up. The water level in this great river is dropping at a disastrous rate. If this continues it will soon be impossible to operate hydroelectric power plants in Egypt.

The Nile’s water shortage could get even worse after the Renaissance dam begins operating in Ethiopia, home to a major tributary of the Nile. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam promises to be the most powerful hydroelectric power station on the African continent, with a storage capacity of 74 billion cubic meters. And then what will happen to the 55 billion cubic meters that Egypt is currently allotted each year? 

Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan have asked a group of consultants – representatives from the French companies BRL and Artelia – to draft a report on the possible impact of the construction of this dam. However, analysts with the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram believe that the Renaissance will be operational by 2017, regardless of the conclusions of the study.

Last March the presidents of Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia signed a declaration announcing their joint efforts to forestall any negative repercussions from the Renaissance dam, but in truth this document is in no way binding on Addis Ababa. Mohamed ElBaradei, the well-known Egyptian diplomat, politician, and former head of the IAEA, believes that the optimal solution would be to require Ethiopia to keep the dam open in the summertime, when water from the Nile is needed to irrigate fields in Egypt (85% of Egypt’s Nile water is used to irrigate fields and 15% for drinking).

After President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi took power in Cairo, in many respects Egypt began a return to its policy of Arab nationalism. Egypt under the administration of President Gamal Abdel Nasser had been the biggest champion of that movement. It is no coincidence that a very senior Arab journalist, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, who had been Nasser’s friend and cohort, became a presidential adviser to Sisi and the author of a number of his speeches. (Mr. Heikal died recently, in March 2016, at the age of 92.)

It should be noted that the new leaders of Egypt have taken a constructive position on Syria. Cairo opposed any quick overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, in effect supporting the operations of Russia’s Aerospace Defense Forces in September 2015. In March 2016 the moderate Syrian opposition convened a conference in Cairo that excluded the radical Islamists and set about to develop a model for a national reconciliation in Syria. In Libya, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government has backed the secular Libyan government based in Tobruk and headed by Abdullah al-Thani and General Khalifa Haftar, who are leading the fight against Islamic State terrorists.

By accepting the responsibility of building a nuclear power plant in Egypt, Moscow is reasserting a presence in the Middle East that now goes beyond mere military matters. Russia is not hesitating to dive right into the economy of that part of the world, thus raising its standing in the eyes of its Arab partners. It’s not surprising that a visitor to the Al-Monitor website, which is popular in the Arab world, had this to say about the nuclear-energy deal between Russia and Egypt: «Egypt is now closer than ever to Russia. Good work Putin».

The EU’s leaders are not in a hurry to listen to people’s demands, however. In fact, it seems that even the terrorist attacks in Paris and the rapid deterioration of the situation in the Middle East are not able to force the European Commission to give up its anti-Russian scenarios and phobias, which are looking more and more like blatant geopolitical insanity.

It is telling that the European Commission is openly interfering in the activities of national authorities in order to ruin any significant projects involving Russia, even if they are designed to bring undeniable benefits to both the countries themselves and the European economy as a whole.

A good example of this in the last few days has been the intention stated by the executive body of the European Union to prevent the Russian company Rosatom from expanding a nuclear power plant in Hungary. The European Commission announced the launch of a large-scale investigation into Hungary’s state aid plan to provide funding for the construction of two new nuclear reactors at the Paks II nuclear power plant project, which Rosatom is ready to construct. According to European Commission spokesperson Lucia Caudet, «the Commission raised concerns about the compatibility with the EU public procurement rules». And even though, in Caudet’s words, there have been «exchanges of information with the Hungarian authorities and a thorough assessment of the terms of the award [of the contract], the Commission still has concerns».

The main issue, however, is that the European Commission has suddenly become concerned that the Hungarian government may be providing excessive financial aid to develop its own nuclear power to the detriment of other players and companies.

Tellingly, none of these companies have so far shown any desire to actually finance the construction of the new nuclear reactors at the Paks II nuclear power plant with the exception of Rosatom. After the Hungarian parliament approved the state project to construct two new units at the Paks nuclear power plant in 2009, the French company Areva and the Japanese-US company Westinghouse indicated their willingness to take part in the tender alongside Rosatom. Neither company has taken any real steps in this direction, however. According to the information available, this is because they have realised the inadequacy of their own funding proposals compared with those offered by the Russian side.

This is in no way discouraging the European Commission, however. The logic of Brussels suggests that the Hungarian cabinet should bury the project rather than provide funding for a joint venture with Rosatom.

As is known, Rosatom signed contracts for the expansion of the Paks nuclear power plant (Soviet-designed) back in 2014. The total investment is estimated at €12.5 billion. It is worth mentioning that we are talking about Hungary’s only nuclear power station with four reactors. Its first unit was put into operation in 1982. Today, the amount of energy produced at the nuclear power plant accounts for over 40 per cent of Hungary’s energy mix. So far, the Russian and Hungarian governments have signed an agreement stating that Moscow will provide Budapest a loan of up to €10 billion to expand the nuclear power plant. The Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs Péter Szijjártó called the agreement «the business transaction of the century». The European Commission is willing to rob Hungary of this money, however, just to force Russia out of Central and Eastern Europe.

The intention of the European Commission to destroy any cooperation between Russia and Hungary in the nuclear energy sector from the very beginning is evidenced by an article in the British newspaper The Financial Times. According to the newspaper, the European Union decided to block the energy deal between Hungary and Russia to construct two units at the Paks nuclear power plant in March 2015. Quoting its own sources in Brussels, the FT states that the EU is opposed to close links between Budapest and Moscow in the energy sector since they may result in the Hungarian authorities refusing to continue with or even ramp up sanctions against Russia. In addition, the Hungarian newspaper Nepszava has stated that the European Commission is also unhappy about the fact that the Hungarian government is planning to purchase fuel for the nuclear power plant from Russia.

The European countries that believe they can get by without cooperating with Russia are «chasing ghosts», said Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, fairly accurately summing up the situation regarding relations between Russia and the EU.

And this does not just apply to nuclear energy, but to the «gas issue» as well, a subject that is much more relevant to Europeans.

(To be concluded…)

This event is a real milestone. It has great importance for Serbia as well as other states of Central and Eastern Europe. The power units will remain the property of Hungary. Russian investments will amount to around 12.5 billion euros. Hungary signed a 10-billion-euro loan agreement with Russia for an upgrade of its nuclear plant in Paks. According to the document, Russia is to design, build and commission blocks 5 and 6 at Paks nuclear power plant (NPP). The Russian government granted a loan for construction, equipment supply, operation, maintenance and commission of the blocks. The loan is to be repaid over 21 years of operation – from 2014 to 2025.

The following months the agreement remaineda major stumbling block in the bilateral relationship. Hungarian pro-Western political forces tying to impede the development of the relations between Budapest and Moscow did their best to stymie the nuclear cooperation between the two states.

They were supported by the European Commission to making political gambling prevail over economic benefits and common sense. Instead of supporting the projects to enhance European energy security, Brussels is trying to push Russia away from the energy sector with maniacal persistence. It does not care about who could substitute Russia with its technology and resources. For instance, the European Commission had previously launched an investigation to look into the legality of Hungary's contract with Russia to construct units 5 and 6 of the Paks nuclear power plant. The European Atomic EnergyCommunity (EAEC or Euratom) and antitrust regulators looked into the corresponding documents signed by the two sides. They said the agreement was not open to public due to security concerns while the contract to build nuclear units was signed without tender. At that, the investigation failed to provide any evidence to prop up such affirmations.

There is nothing to substitute Russian energy projects with. Russia can offer its experience and cheaper prices. It’s ready to sign long-term contracts unlike other competitors, including the United States, Germany and Italy.

All these advantages were taken into consideration when the Russia-Hungary agreement was signed. According to the document, Rusatom Service is to supply Hungary with 24 guide vanes for MCP-317 (ГЦН-317) type main circulation pumps. Paks is a Soviet design nuclear power plant. Its four VVER type reactors produce 2000 MW.

Thus, in case of Hungary common sense and economic expediency appear to prevail. At that, the Hungary’s neighbors, like Slovakia, for instance, face the same problems related to national nuclear energy programs. Some time ago, Slovakian Prime MinisterRobert Fico visited the Mochovce nuclear power plant.

The government plant's last two units are left unfinished waiting their turn to become up and running. The Prime Minister said Slovakia was waiting for «proposals» on finishing the job. According to Fico, the implementation of the project should be a priority for all. The construction work keeps on falling behind the schedule. This is the fault of Italian Enel, the largest Slovenske Elektrarne shareholder. Initially, it was planned to commission the third unit in late 2012 and the fourth in 2013.

Bulgaria is another East European country risking to be up to its eyes in debt as a result of refusal to comply with the energy agreements concluded with Russia. Sofia has suspended the nuclear plant construction at Belene. The decision was taken under US and European Commission pressure. Russia was to allocate funds for the implementation of the project.  Moscow being a strategic investor was unacceptable for the West and ruling Bulgarian elite. As a result, Russia filed a lawsuitto the International Courtof Arbitrationin Geneva charging Bulgaria with non-compliance. If Russia wins, Bulgaria will have to pay a fine exceeding its annual GDP. The Bulgaria's government has recently decided to start the construction of a new reactor in Kozloduy after it gave up on the construction of what was supposed to be the country's second nuclear power plant in Belene. Even if a Russian reactor is chosen to implement the project, the loss will amount to one fourth of GDP. Time is running out. The European Union wants NPP Kozloduy to be scrapped by 2019. So far, the Bulgarian government has not been able to find a way out of this predicament.

The same situation is faced by Serbia today. It is trying to eat the cake and have it. The government realizes it needs energy cooperation with Russia. At the same time, it does not want to irritate Brussels. As pressure continues to mount on the part of the United States and the European Union, the cabinet of Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic increasingly often shelves the joint projects. This is confirmed by the fact of investigation launched into the 2008 energy agreement between Russia and Serbia (just like in other cases, it was all done in strict accordance with «initiatives» of European Commission). Economic interests, including energy sector, are incompatible with politicization and political speculations. Normally, those who take part in such games have to suffer losses and hold the responsibility before their voters.

The fast pace of dialog between the two countries testifies to the active preparations for the summit among the Russian and Iranian leadership. The period of December 2013 – April 2014 saw an exchange of visits of foreign ministers and intergovernmental contacts in the area of economics. Among the latter, one should note the visit of Russian Minister of Energy Aleksandr Novak to Tehran. The productivity of the visit of the head of Russia's Ministry of Energy, who is also the co-chairman of the Permanent Russian-Iranian Commission for Trade and Economic Cooperation, was closely linked with earlier agreements between the parties on the highest political level. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Hasan Rouhani met on the sidelines of the SCO summit in Bishkek on September 13, 2013. The agreements reached at that time between Moscow and Tehran were not set down in a written document, but the idea of the «Bishkek Agreements between the two presidents» has become part of expert assessments and politicians' statements. The Iranian ambassador in Moscow, Mehdi Sanaei, described the Putin-Rouhani meeting as «a vivid event which in the future will be inscribed in the history of relations between the two countries». During a conversation with the president of the IRI on April 28, Minister of Energy Novak emphasized that the Russian president is personally monitoring the implementation of the agreements reached in Bishkek and paying special attention to relations with Iran in general. 

Within the scope of the agreements between Russia and Iran are the resolution of the dispute over shipments of Russian S-300 missile defense systems to Iran and construction of a second power producing unit at the nuclear power plant in Bushehr, Iran by Rosatom. Now the parties' attention is focused on an oil deal in which Russia could take on the unaccustomed role of a large importer of energy resources from the Middle Eastern region. A shift toward the resolution of any of these issues will bring the parties closer to progress in related areas as well. Moscow and Tehran are trying out the package method of achieving results, comprehensively encompassing all relevant areas of cooperation. For example, the following scenario is possible: Iran would withdraw its arbitration claims against Russia in connection with the breaking of the 2007 contract (for the delivery of five divisions of S-300 PMU-1 systems), after which the parties would launch extensive military technical and economic cooperation with an emphasis on energy. 

The Iranians are inviting companies from Russia to take part in projects for developing their railroad system. The package format for future agreements can be seen here as well. Russia could set up joint production of rails with its Iranian partners, supply rolling stock, and work on the electrification of the IRI's main rail lines. In 2012 Russian Railways completed the electrification of a 46-km line between Tabriz and Azarshahr. New projects are on the agenda for Russian rail workers and their Iranian colleagues.

The West's course of imposing sanctions against Russia objectively brings Moscow and Tehran closer together. One of the West's goals for its policy of isolating Iran in previous stages was maximally complicating its relations with Russia. This goal has not lost its relevance even after the process of improving relations between Western states and Iran started on November 24, 2013. Washington is reacting very nervously to the oil contract being discussed by Moscow and Tehran. After all, Iran will not simply send a certain volume of black gold north (Russian companies are prepared to acquire 500 barrels of oil a day from their Iranian partners) and receive needed goods for it; the possibility of Iran paying for other services from Russia with oil is also under consideration. For example, those related to the implementation of projects for building a second power producing unit at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, the laying of power lines from Russia through Azerbaijan to northern provinces of Iran, and the construction of new generating capacities for Iran and the modernization of existing ones. Russian-Iran projects in the field of electric power alone could amount to $10 billion (construction of a hydroelectric plant and export of 500 MW of electric power from Russia to Iran). 

Iran could pay for part of potential orders of Russian goods and services with oil in such projects under discussion as shipments of grain and technical equipment to Iran as well. Circumventing systems of paying for Iranian oil with «cold cash» is made necessary by the continued regime of harsh financial and trade limitations imposed on the IRI in relations with foreign partners. If you add the attempts of Russia and Iran to transition to using their own currencies in their payments, U.S. fears of «losing control of the situation» becomes even more pronounced. After all, if the Russian-Iranian oil contract is implemented, the total export of Iranian oil could exceed the threshold of 1 million barrels a day agreed upon in the interim agreement reached with the P5+1 on November 24, 2013.

As far as one can judge from statements made by Washington, the U.S. administration has no clear-cut plan with regard to improving relations with Iran or in its policy of pressuring Russia with sanctions with the goal of isolating it. In taking steps to hinder closer relations between Tehran and Moscow, the U.S. is reminiscent of a tightrope walker who has frozen midway across and risks losing his equilibrium. It is doubtful that it will be able to balance in this position for long. The Americans emphasize that the sanctions against Russia are a process of which even the interim results cannot be assessed. As for Iran, it has already built up a certain immunity to the problems which arise in connection with the imposition of sanctions. It also has experience in counteracting sanctions. 

By broadening and deepening their ties, Russia and Iran will demonstrate the futility of attempts by outside forces to affect this process. The relations of the two natural partners can be slowed, and even for a long time, but the superpower, which has lost its sense of reality, is unable to hinder their development. The sanctions which Washington would like to make a show of the United States' power will have the opposite effect; they only reveal the uncertainty of the American «tightrope walker's» steps in resolving acute international problems.

The politicization of Serbia's application to join the EU is obvious. This refers to the socioeconomic requirements being made of Belgrade and recommendations to revise the parameters of cooperation with Russia in the energy field, as they do not conform to the spirit of the European Union, the Energy Charter and the Third Energy Package. 

However, how can one talk about «nonconformity» if within the EU itself the approaches of individual countries to choosing an energy policy are increasingly different? The European Union is not a monolith. A number of its member countries have already made it clear that they do not plan to uncomplainingly follow the directives of Brussels in the energy field, although they do not call their EU membership into question (at least, not yet). At the very moment when the European Parliament members in Strasbourg were starting their discussions at their winter session, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban arrived in Moscow for a working visit… 

Over the past two decades, relations between Russia and Hungary have seen complicated periods. There have been both actions of the Hungarian government against Russian oil and gas companies (mainly against Surgutneftegaz) and attempts by Budapest to play a «double game» on the energy field. However, in the last few years relations have been improving. Viktor Orban's working visit to Moscow in January 2013 was a momentous occasion. At that time, during his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the head of the Hungarian government suggested that Russia participate in the modernization of Hungary's energy system. And now these plans are beginning to be implemented. 

According to Sergei Kirienko, the head of the state corporation Rosatom, nuclear energy is becoming an important area of bilateral Russian-Hungarian cooperation. «Negotiations with Hungary are in the active stage», stated Kirienko. This refers to Russia's participation in building two new power producing units at Hungary's Paks nuclear power plant (in addition to the existing four which were built with the help of the USSR) with a total output of 2500-3400 MW. The contract is valued at 10 billion dollars. «Over 40 percent of the work volume», according to V. Putin, «is to be done by the Hungarian side. This means that approximately three billion dollars will be allocated for supporting jobs in Hungary, and tax revenues alone will come to over a billion dollars.» 

And if one adds the agreements reached by Moscow and Budapest in late 2013 on strict adherence, regardless of possible complications, to the previously agreed-upon schedule for the construction of the Hungarian part of the South Stream gas pipeline and the start of Russian gas deliveries to Hungary in early 2017, one must acknowledge that cooperation between Russia and Hungary in the energy field is becoming a strategic partnership.

There are two main reasons for the progressive development of relations between Russia and Hungary. The first is connected with tension in the relations between Budapest and Brussels. Pressure from EU leadership on Hungary has become increasingly overt over the past few years, touching on both the state sovereignty of Hungary and the sentiments of its people. It is sufficient to recall the improvisations of German politicians with regard to the need to send paramilitary units to Hungary or the proposal discussed in the European Commission to impose sanctions on Budapest for peculiarities of Hungarian national legislation which did not please Brussels. 

In the eyes of Hungarians, all of this has significantly reduced the attractiveness, to put it mildly, of the European Commission's recommendations in other areas as well, including energy. Furthermore, why not follow the example of German business in this matter? In recent years it has been conducting an independent policy of cooperating with Russia in the energy field. This refers, in particular, to the recent withdrawal of the German energy holding RWE from the Nabucco project.

Furthermore, Russian-Hungarian cooperation has a good financial and economic basis. Russian proposals are simply more profitable, well-planned and serious than similar proposals from Western companies. This is proven by a simple fact: today Russia supplies 80% of oil and 75% of natural gas consumed in Hungary. 

As the Hungarian press acknowledges, among all the candidates for the contract, only Rosatom is prepared to provide appropriate preliminary financing for the project to develop the Paks nuclear power plant. At first the French company Areva and the Japanese-American company Westinghouse planned to take part in the tender, but Hungary never received any concrete proposals from them. The Russian corporation, on the other hand, proposed terms which serve the interests of the Hungarian side.

It must be said that Hungary's interest in developing atomic energy does not exactly suit the priorities of the European Union, where many are dreaming of a «shale revolution», which would bring Europe no less, but rather more, of an ecological threat than a nuclear plant. 

The Hungarian government's stake on the development of nuclear energy, observing, of course, all safety requirements, is an important step on a Europe-wide scale. As shown by Russia's cooperation with other countries, in particular Iran, Russian proposals fully meet safety requirements. So the energy alliance of Moscow and Budapest may serve as an example for other European countries.

Last week the Japanese nuclear energy watchdog declared a fresh toxic water leak at Fukushima may be a level 3 «serious incident», the gravest warning since 2011. BBC quotes Mycle Schneider, an independent nuclear consultant, who believes that the spent nuclear fuel rods contain more radioactive caesium than was emitted during the explosion at Chernobyl. New Fukushima leaks caused ocean and groundwater contamination creeping toward Pacific.

Unfortunately the structural error the US-Japanese reactor in Fukushima may have lasting negative effects on the future of atomic high tech. Now it is evident that cleanup will take longer than expected, not to speak of the expense. Global media is focused on blaming Japanese state company TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co.) but in reality it was Westinghouse-Toshiba’s reputation that took a huge dent. Responsible decision makers on nuclear affairs in BRICS countries tend to analyze the core of the problem. Who built the failed reactor in the first place? What are the alternatives?

Now Westinghouse is desperate enough to offer money directly to the governments in attempt to save shattered public image of the American nuclear industry on the international market. Latest example is the case of Temelin NPP project in the Czech Republic. Although involved in building in the United States, China and South Korea the US-Japanese corporation has not completed a single reactor since 1995. Even Finland and the United Kingdom are now eyeing Russian nuclear technology. «We won our key competitors – the U.S., France and Japan». concluded  Rosatom Corporation head Sergei Kiriyenko at the 1^st Annual Nuclear Construction Conference on August, 8.

Speaking at a seminar in Rio de Janeiro in June, 2013, Brazil’s nuclear expert and the president of Electronuclear energy company Othon Luiz Pinheiro stressed that Brazil needs to think of other solutions to the energy matrix, now quite dependent on hydropower. Eletrobras, Brazil’s biggest power utility company, schedules four to eight nuclear power plants by 2030. Rosatom is one of the qualified suppliers that are under evaluation, believes Pinheiro. After Fukushima Brazil is considering using only safe Rosatom’s reactors with Pressurized Water Reactor technology. Among other technologically advanced BRICS countries Brazil is especially motivated to implement nuclear solutions.

The Supreme Court of India gave a final nod to the commissioning of Kudankulam nuclear power plant (KKNPP) in May 2013. Earlier in 2012 Prime Minister Singh accused American and Scandinavian NGOs and sectarian «Christian» groups of fuelling protests near Kudankulam construction site. Three of the NGOs were using foreign funds received for social and religious purposes to fuel the protests, violating Indian foreign exchange regulatory rules. Nuclear energy is now considered in India as a sustainable source of energy. Delhi cannot afford to be a nuclear isolated nation, when most of the developed countries consider it as a major source of energy for their economic growth, the Supreme Court of India declared. The first 1,000-MW unit of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant is likely to be synchronized with the southern power grid by the end of this month.

Twin VVER-1000 reactors are currently operating in China at Tianwan on the Yellow Sea boast an innovative core-catcher safety net. Two more reactors are due to be completed there by 2019. However, in the future Chinese nuclear industry that is making rapid progress may become the main competitor of Russia’s Rosatom.

South Africa plans to increase the income of national enterprises by $15 billion and get an additional $3.5 billion in budget revenue in association with Russia’s Rosatom, the major stakeholder of Johannesburg’s nuclear program. South Africa has introduced the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) for 2010 to 2030, a 20-year projection on the country’s electricity supply and demand, envisages 9 600 MW of additional nuclear capacity by 2030. Speaking at the annual industry convention of the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa (NIASA) on Wednesday, Boris Arseev, the Vice-President of JSC Rusatom Overseas (a subsidiary of Rosatom), said: «IRP would allow to create 15,000 additional jobs in construction, service and operation of the new units, as well as several thousands of jobs in related industries».

Emerging nations are badly in need of nuclear energy. Political elites of the post-American world are determined to overcome the North-South development gap and maintain a sustainable model of economic growth with the help of nuclear technology. Russia, a fellow BRICS member state, can always be relied on for help.

The Supreme Court of India gave a final nod to the commissioning of Kudankulam nuclear power plant (KKNPP) one month ago. In its legal judgment India’s highest judicial authority stressed that «KKNPP is safe and secure and it is necessary for larger public interest and economic growth of the country». The holding of the Court on this delicate issue drew a line under several months of contradictory anti-nuclear protests. Many independent voices in India raised concerns about the use of Western-sponsored NGOs in the failed attempt to stop nuclear progress of the Indian nation. «Nuclear energy is now considered in India as a sustainable source of energy and India cannot afford to be a nuclear isolated nation, when most of the developed countries consider it as a major source of energy for their economic growth», the Supreme Court of India eventually declared. It is truly a landmark decision.

India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has worked hard to cut India’s overdependence on oil from the Gulf region, destabilized by the US and NATO military interventions. Nuclear power plays the key role in Delhi’s ambitions to secure 8% growth rate over the next 25 years. On February 24, 2012 Prime Minister Singh accused American and Scandinavian NGOs and sectarian «Christian» groups of fuelling protests near Kudankulam construction site. Three of the NGOs were using foreign funds received for social and religious purposes to fuel the protests, violating Indian foreign exchange regulatory rules. These NGOs use various smear tactics and modern social technologies speculating on the environmental fears of the population. Behind the ignorant mob stand the gloomy figures of Western sponsors. However, their neocolonialist mentality prevents them from understanding that India can protect its sovereign energy policy.

Kudankulam was constructed on a solid terrain keeping all the safety concerns in mind and under the supervision of top Indian experts. KKNPP reactors designed by Rosatom’s engineers have a double containment system which can withstand high pressure. Russian reactors are known to be very stable: for example, the Bushehr facility built by Rosatom specialists successfully passed a harsh stress-test during the latest 6.3-magnitude earthquake in Iran. Enhanced safety measures would be implemented in due course. Nuclear scientist and principal scientific adviser to the federal Government of India Rajagopala Chidambaram has confirmed: «We have learnt lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident, particularly on the post-shutdown cooling system». Therefore, any allegations of «technical flaws» at KKNPP should be regarded as a result of unfair business practices backed by the adversaries of Indian nuclear progress.

Russia, however, was the first nation to support India’s nuclear aspirations, despite international political pressure. Many nuclear experts in India remember US attempts to hinder the development of Delhi’s peaceful nuclear program. In the past the United States argued that Kudankulam deal violated non-proliferation guidelines, but suddenly dropped all these charges when American companies decided to enter Indian market. Russia’s leading role in Indian nuclear industry and Rosatom status of reliable partner in Kudankulam still makes restless many aggressive competitors and their associates in Delhi.

But the problem is also within. A hot topic in India’s nuclear policy is the implementation of the so-called «Nuclear Liability Act» to the KKNPP project on the national level. Expansive interpretation of this law provides Delhi with legal pretext for unprecedented contract tampering. In fact, it’s an attempt to retrospectively burden the contractor with indemnity insurance (in form of shared financial liability). Clause 7 of the act establishes a dangerous precedent that may affect not only Russian projects but also the willingness of other foreign companies to take part in Indian tenders. It’s unacceptable to change the rules of the game after it has already started. Casting doubts on bilateral nuclear cooperation between India and Russia may have a negative impact on their strategic partnership.

Such initiatives are unheard of in good industry practice and contradict the spirit of mutual trust in Russian-Indian economic relations. It is still questionable whether this provision could be applicable in this particular case. Bargaining over details should not create long-term regulatory risks, because Kudankulam has finally become the vital part of India’s emerging clean energy portfolio.