What is there to discuss? The article is just stating the obvious: that a news site called "Russia Today" is in cahoots with the Kremlin, the goverment of a country with state-controlled media and well-known influence on Western media.
There are reasonable and cost-effective alternatives to nuclear, to planes in many cases not so much. Also a plane crash doesn't leave whole towns uninhabitable for centuries or needs special places to store burned fuel
What does NATO want in the Arctic? Its fucking cold there