The comments were made on Tuesday by Stian Jenssen, chief of staff for NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, and reported by the Norwegian newspaper VG. “I think that a solution could be for Ukraine to give up territory, and get NATO membership in return,” he said, adding that it should be up to Ukraine when and on what terms to negotiate.
Jenssen said the issue of Ukraine’s status after the war is being discussed within the alliance and that some countries have raised the possibility of Kyiv ceding some territory. The comments come as the Ukrainian counteroffensive is stalling, and Western officials are admitting it’s very unlikely to succeed.
The comments mark the first time that a high-level NATO official suggested Ukraine might have to cede territory to Russia. The US and NATO have backed Ukraine’s demands for peace, which include Russia withdrawing from all the territory it has captured since invading, as well as giving up Crimea, which has been Russian-controlled since 2014.
Jenssen’s suggestion drew a sharp rebuke from Ukraine. “Trading territory for a NATO umbrella? It is ridiculous,” Mykhailo Podolyak, an aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, wrote on X. “That means deliberately choosing the defeat of democracy, encouraging a global criminal, preserving the Russian regime, destroying international law, and passing the war on to other generations.”
Podolyak said the war could only end if Russian President Vladimir Putin is defeated. “Obviously, if Putin does not suffer a crushing defeat, the political regime in Russia does not change, and war criminals are not punished, the war will definitely return with Russia’s appetite for more,” he said.
Russia would likely not go for any post-war settlement that involves Ukraine joining NATO as long as it can keep fueling the war since one of its main motives for invading was Kyiv’s alignment with NATO.
Yes. The tax-payers of America and its allies are now locked in to a permanent spiral of weapons buying.
The United States’ and NATO’s weapons and training were supposed to turn the tide for Ukraine’s “stunning victory” against Russia.
That didn’t happen. But does the USA government REALLY care?
No. Why should they? The USA economy is going gangbusters. The big boys Northrop Grumman , Lockheed Martin. etc, are now perpetually selling new and more wonderful weapons of all kinds. They don’t have to worry about consumer demand.
It really is the perfect, winning economy. The so-called “consumers” don’t need to want the weapons, or even know about them As long as the war keeps going, this war economy keeps the profits rolling. No need for Ukraine to win – in fact, that would muck it all up – at least until we get Taiwan to have a war against China, with of course, the Taiwanese taking over the soldiers’ cannon-fodder, from the exhausted Ukrainians.
It’s a fail-safe system What could possibly go wrong?
Russia, the US, and China want to develop the Arctic. Here’s how Russia’s multifunctional nuclear vessel would expand shipping routes to Europe and Asia.
ussia is home to the only nuclear icebreaker fleet in the world, built to meet maritime transportation requirements through modern nuclear technology. The country’s aim of establishing an Arctic shipping route would open up its north coast to new projects, at a cost beyond money.
“The Russian shipbuilding industry has been growing for the past few years,” says Alexey Rakhmanov, president of Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation.
“This has especially happened in specific market segments, such as research vessels and nuclear-powered icebreakers, and niches such as the ice-resistant, self-propelled research platform North Pole.”
According to the Russian Government’s Northern Sea Route (NSR) Development Plan, the country aims to transport at least 150 million tonnes of crude oil, liquefied natural gas, coal, and other cargoes via its northern sea route per year, starting in 2030.
The Centre for Strategic and International Studies claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally identifies with Russia’s Arctic ambitions, seeking to use the Arctic narrative of man conquering nature as a distinguishing feature of contemporary Russian nationalism.
According to London-based think-tank The Polar Connection, increased mining and energy extraction, particularly on the Yamal Peninsula, relates to the NSR expansion.
The Arctic route, which offers a far quicker journey between northern Europe and East Asia than the conventional Suez Canal route, has also been proposed by Russia as an alternative global shipping route. However, this route’s distinctive challenges and risks have held back its otherwise rapid development.
Nuclear icebreaker fleets in the Arctic
In January 2022, multinational engineering and constructions company China Communications and Construction and Russian Titanium Resources agreed to co-operate on a mining project to develop a vertically-integrated mining and metallurgical complex for the processing of titanium ores and quartz sands from the Pizhemsky deposit in the Komi Republic, north-west Russia.
This project to create a national mining cluster would involve the construction of the Sosnogorsk-Indiga railway and the deep sea port of Indiga, in the Arctic region of Russia. This development will need reliable waterways, which only an icebreaker can provide.
Russia had plans, under the name Project 10510, to build a fleet of Lider-class nuclear-powered icebreakers and ships as part of its aim to improve Arctic shipping – though this strategy has since been downsized to a single vessel, called Rossiya, due to begin operations in 2027.
Authorities docked the nuclear-powered vessel Sevmorput in the Arctic region last year; a 34,600 deadweight tonnage (dwt) vessel carrying up to 1,324 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit). The ship will serve on the NSR, while Russia has built a new nuclear-powered icebreaker, Ural, (7,154 dwt) alongside it.
Shipbuilder Rosatomflot is a subsidiary of Russian state nuclear company Rosatom and JSC Baltiysjiy Zavod, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation. Recently, the company signed a contract for the construction of a unique, multifunctional nuclear service vessel that would operate from 2029. The vessel is designed to perform a full range of work on recharging nuclear plants of existing Russian nuclear icebreakers.
“A multifunctional nuclear-technical support vessel will ensure the proper functioning of a modern icebreaking group. Financing of its construction is assumed according to the scheme: 50% from the budget of the Russian Federation, 50% from the investment program of the State Corporation Rosatom,” Russian Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Victor Yevtukhov said in a press release.
Building an “Arctic economy” in remote parts of Russia
The Russian Government is trying to build a new Arctic economy. According to the government statement, the NSR is a “key element” in developing transport connectivity in Russia’s “most hard-to-access” territories. The leading Arctic companies, such as Vostok Oil, Novatek, and Gazprom Neft, intend to increase the volume of shipping in Arctic waters to over 190 million tonnes over the next few years. ………………………………
Arctic to look like “ice cubes melting in a glass of water”
…………………………. the main purpose of the icebreakers is simply to break ice. Broken ice melts more easily, becoming water that absorbs more sunlight. This causes an increase in local temperatures, thus leading to more ice melting.
The Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the world as the high sunlight reflectivity, or albedo, of Arctic ice is lost. Compared to ice, seawater absorbs more sunlight, meaning that water then warms up and evaporates more readily, itself becoming a greenhouse gas.
Small ships can have big effects in the Arctic. Non-profit US think tank the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy reported that an icebreaker ship passing through the ice for around 620 miles, which leaves an ice-free wake of 33 feet, would open an area of water of 3.9 square miles over the entire cruise.
Even though the Arctic Sea covers around 2,500 miles, all icebreaking harms the environment. Continuous use of icebreaker ships in the Arctic would lead to looking more like “ice cubes melting in a glass of water,” the report says.
Russian development through thawing sea ice
………………………………………………….. The Financial Times reported that according to data from NASA, the Arctic Circle’s ice sheet has shrunk by 13% over the past ten years due to the region’s unusually high temperatures, allowing for greater shipping access.
…………………………………….. As a result of global warming, seasonal sea ice in the Arctic is melting, and opportunities for human activity are expanding. These changes not only allow for growth in tourism, fishing, and military activities, but also enable oil and gas exploration, mining, and development in new regions.
Increased activity in the Arctic will impact marine life, which had previously been largely undisturbed. While Arctic ecosystems remain relatively poorly understood, Arctic industrialisation has already increased geopolitical tensions, which will undoubtedly worsen as the ice melts.
Russia’s criminal war in Ukraine intensifies as it grinds on, World War I style with heavy casualties on both sides. While President Joe Biden keeps repeating that NATO, mostly meaning the U.S., will expand military support for Ukraine “as long as it takes.” “As long as it takes,” is not a policy, it is deadly procrastination without any exit strategy.
Of course, Biden, who voted for Bush’s criminal war in Iraq as a Senator in 2003, along with hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, is experienced in “as long as it takes.” That invasion and occupation took over one million Iraqi lives, even more injuries and sicknesses and plunged Iraq into destructive chaos that persists to this day.
“As long as it takes” for a million Ukrainian lives lost and the comparable destruction of their country? For the war to escalate beyond Ukraine, into Russia and bordering countries?
Biden spends more time thinking about when he will say “Yes” to Ukrainian president Zelensky’s demand for more powerful weapons – Advanced Armored Vehicles, longer-reaching artillery, Abrams Tanks with depleted-uranium rounds. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warns such ammunition is “chemically and radiologically toxic heavy metal.” The Harvard International Review reports “Depleted uranium may pose a risk to both soldiers and local civilian populations. When ammunition made from depleted uranium strikes a target, the uranium turns into dust that is inhaled by soldiers near the explosion site. The wind then carries dust to surrounding areas, polluting local water and agriculture.”
Biden also supports providing Ukraine with F-16s which take many months to learn to fly and he has already sent Ukraine cluster bombs to match Russia’s cluster bombs so as to further endanger Ukrainians, including children, for years to come. The New York Times reports, “123 nations – including many of America’s allies – have agreed never to use, transfer, produce or stockpile cluster munitions.”
The Biden Administration has no diplomatic strategies, no demand for an immediate unconditional ceasefire followed by top-level peace negotiations. This war is expanding and becoming more lethal each day. Provocations are also escalating as armed Ukrainian drones appear over Moscow and more Russian missiles target Ukrainian civilians.
Congress, ignorant of history’s lessons from wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other military boomerangs of the U.S. Empire, rubber-stamp Biden’s demands without any thorough Congressional hearings to examine where this war is heading. Congressional Democrats did, however, make sure to block a proposed Inspector General’s Office to oversee the spending of tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars in U.S. military aid, watchdog corruption and investigate diversions of military supplies.
A culpable Congress is also going along with the Biden/NATO decision to put 300,000 soldiers “at high readiness” stationed in the countries on Russia’s borders and in Europe. Already, thousands of U.S. soldiers, modern artillery and warships are in that region.
Dictator Putin doesn’t have to stretch the truth far in his propaganda to alarm the Russian people. They remember the invasions by Germany in World War I and World War II that took more than 50 million Russian lives and that caused massive devastation in Russia, their country. They see a military alliance of Western countries, (NATO) including Germany, Finland, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria. They also see moves to include Ukraine.
In 1990 several Western leaders assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand. In 1991, when the Soviet Union started to formally dissolve and Soviet concerns about NATO increased. U.S. experts, including long-time expert George Kennan, warned of a red-line disaster. The Guardian notes that “Putin claims that [James] Baker, [former Secretary of State] in a discussion on 9 February 1990 with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, made the promise that NATO would not expand to the east if Russia accepted Germany’s unification.”
President Bill Clinton infuriated Russian President Boris Yeltsin by breaking with past U.S. assurances on NATO expansion.
As pointed out in a long Harper’s June 2023 article on Ukraine, “…at NATO’s Bucharest summit in April 2008, the U.S. delegation, led by President Bush, urged the alliance to put Ukraine and Georgia on the immediate path to NATO membership. German chancellor Angela Merkel understood the implications of Washington’s proposal: “I was very sure . . . that Putin was not going to just let that happen,” she recalled in 2022. “From his perspective, that would be a declaration of war.” America’s ambassador to Moscow, William J. Burns, shared Merkel’s assessment. Burns had already warned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” concluding that “Russia will respond.” (Why Are We in Ukraine? By Benjamin Schwarz, Christopher Layne).
Imagine the shoe being on the other foot, with Russia doing all this on our borders. Look how the U.S. reacted to 3000 lives lost on 9/11.
The media also hasn’t learned its history lessons. Coverage of the Ukraine War towers over its coverage of our illegal military invasions in the Middle East. Except they avoid reporting about peace advocacy by domestic and international groups.
While the New York Times’ readers are told about how domestic pets and athletes are faring in the Ukraine conflict, this newspaper of record ignores the voyage of the Golden Rule Boat, sponsored by Veterans for Peace, docking this year at ports on the west Gulf and eastern coast. The mainstream media ignored the rally by many peace groups on July 22, 2023, at Biden’s hometown in front of (Scranton, PA) the Army Ammunition Plant run by General Dynamics (See https://worldbeyondwar.org/scranton/).
Nor does the mass media probe the U.S. policy driving Germany into larger military budgets and weapons shipments to Ukraine, and ending the Nordic countries’ traditions of neutrality by bringing them into NATO. All these expansions provide huge business for the U.S. military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned us about. (https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address).
The expansions also scare the Russian public and increase popular support for the aggressor Putin and Russian troops. Roger Cohen’s long report in the New York Times on his trip through Russia shed some light on these feelings.
Our country should lead in peacemaking, in engaging the United Nations when its charter against offensive war is violated by any member country, and in observing our own constitutional mandates which reserve for Congress, not the Presidency, the power to declare war.
Instead, we expand a vast military budget (greater than the next ten countries combined, including China and Russia), operate military bases in over 100 countries, bristle with military threats or incursions in the backyards of many of these nations – in violation of international law, the UN charter (which we most prominently drafted in 1946) and federal statutes. All done in a bipartisan fashion, with astounding hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
Whether or not you are a veteran, I urge you to virtually attend the annual Veterans for Peace Convention on August 25 through August 27, 2023, to hear the views of people who abhor all wars in favor of stopping the slaughter and deliberately waging peace. (See, Veterans for Peace Convention Registration).
Otherwise, prepare for a war of attrition on both sides, which could last for years. Unless that is, it flares into a nuclear weapons war.
That should sober all hawks, including the consistent one in the White House.
Gordon Edwards’ phone is ringing off the hook. In between calls from journalists across Canada, he readily agrees to a lengthy interview about the idea of Hydro-Québec’s new CEO, Michael Sabia, to conduct a study to restart the Gentilly-2 nuclear power plant.
There’s a lot going on in Canada’s nuclear industry these days. Between the [breaking] news about Gentilly-2, and the public hearing held in Ottawa on Thursday on the project to dump a million cubic metres of radioactive and non-radioactive waste [in a gigantic mound] one kilometer from the Ottawa River, as well as the [billion dollar] radioactive contamination scandal in Port Hope, the President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility is in great demand and his days are full.
Despite his 83 years, the activist is in splendid form, and is doing everything in his power to continue his fight against nuclear power, which began in 1974.
Gentilly-2 is an issue with which he is very familiar, having supported the efforts of regional environmental groups, including le Mouvement vert de la Mauricie, which [successfully] called for the closure of the Bécancour nuclear power plant [Gentilly-2] in 2012.
Penalizing future generations
“People promote nuclear energy without seeing it as different from other forms of energy. But it’s not just another energy technology. The main product of a nuclear reactor is not electricity, but high-level [radioactive] waste, including plutonium, which remains in the environment for a very long time – hundreds of thousands, even millions of years – while the electricity produced is only available for a few decades. You only have a brief production of energy, but future generations will have to deal with the waste forever,” he sums up.
“You only have a brief production of energy, but future generations are going to be grappling with waste forever.” – Gordon Edwards
From power plants to bombs
“Radioactive waste is not just chemical compounds that can be incinerated. It’s [made up of unstable] atoms, elements, and you can’t destroy them. Nobody can destroy radioactive waste or neutralize it”, continues Edwards. This waste won’t cause the end of the world, but it can give rise to many serious illnesses, including cancer.
“We’re creating something that doesn’t exist in nature.” – Gordon Edwards
However, the biggest danger to the planet, he points out, is one particular byproduct produced by the power plants – plutonium, because it is used to make nuclear weapons.
Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years, he says. “We’re creating something that doesn’t exist in nature, because we cannot extract plutonium from the ground. Humans make it in nuclear reactors,” he explains.
One of the most expensive options
In response to the economic argument that nuclear power is necessary to meet the population’s energy needs, Gordon Edwards points out that “nuclear power is one of the most expensive options”. By opting for it, “you’re going to bankrupt yourself”, he assures us. Hydro-Québec, if it comes back to nuclear, is “betting on the wrong horse”, he believes.
According to him, serious studies show that wind and solar power “are three to four times less expensive than nuclear power, and it takes three to four times less time to deploy them.”
Gordon Edwards claims that the Gentilly-2 plant “never made financial sense”.
Grid stability?
The argument that the plant brought stability to the power grid is not valid, he says. “Hydro-Quebec never raised that argument before. They had to invent a reason to keep it open. It was the most expensive [base-load] power generation facility,” he says.
An alternative approach
There are strategies for making the energy transition without nuclear power, says Gordon Edwards. Based on the research of Ralph Torrie, an expert in renewable energy, [for example,] Mr. Edwards points out that “if all the electrical systems used to heat buildings in Quebec were converted to heat pump systems, we would save so much electricity that you could run the entire Quebec transportation sector on the electricity savings without having to add a nuclear reactor” [or any other electrical generating plant].
Oppenheimer was an obstacle to the H-bomb project,”.. “That’s why they had to discredit him. And Edward Teller [at left] was the one person, more than anyone else in the scientific community, who saw Oppenheimer as an obstacle. Teller had to blacken his reputation in such a way that no one would listen to Oppenheimer any more.
The release of the film Oppenheimer in cinemas this summer aroused the curiosity of one particular film buff, Montrealer Gordon Edwards, a world-renowned expert on nuclear issues. He’s the man the Canadian and Quebec media want to hear from when it comes to nuclear waste, atomic bombs or power plants like Gentilly-2, which Hydro-Québec is eyeing as a solution to its energy shortage.
For the president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, this film was like a trip back in time, because he had the opportunity to confront in person none other than Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb , during a 45-minute televised debate organized in Toronto in 1974.
Gordon Edwards began to become seriously involved in the anti-nuclear camp when India detonated its first nuclear bomb [in 1974]. The Government of Canada had earlier given India a 20 MW nuclear reactor for research, a reactor identical to the one [first built at Chalk River – a site currently making headlines because of the multi-billion dollar legacy of radioactive wastes there], he says. [India used the plutonium produced by that Canadian reactor as a nuclear explosive in its first atomic bomb.]
Plutonium and politics
“All nuclear reactors produce plutonium. It doesn’t exist in nature. It is the most commonly used explosive in the world’s nuclear arsenal,” he said.
“The first reactors were built for the sole purpose of producing plutonium for bombs. This is the case for [the first reactors at] Chalk River (in Ontario). The idea of turning nuclear energy into electricity came later.” — Gordon Edwards
Despite all the dangers it represents, nuclear energy has continued to develop in the world.
According to Gordon Edwards, one of the main reasons is the manufacture of nuclear bombs. “Nuclear weapons are so powerful. They play a very big role in international politics,” he explains.
A select club
The expert recalls that one of the reasons given repeatedly by Hydro-Québec [correction: by the government of Quebec] for not closing Gentilly-2 was that it wanted to maintain a minimum level of expertise in Quebec in the nuclear field.
According to him, “when you have a nuclear reactor, you belong to the nuclear club and you are invited to international meetings to which you would not otherwise be invited”.
“It gives political prestige to be part of the club of nuclear powers, that is to say people who have access to plutonium. You can rub shoulders with very powerful people, very powerful corporations.” —Gordon Edwards
Blackening the Oppenheimer Name
After viewing the Oppenheimer film, Gordon Edwards had nothing but good words for the production as a whole. However, he regrets that the film “does not state very clearly the real reason why Oppenheimer’s reputation was attacked.
“It almost is portrayed as petty revenge from people like Commissioner Strauss and Edward Teller when in fact it was all H-bomb related. They both wanted, and Teller in particular wanted, to proceed to build a whole arsenal of H-bombs, but Oppenheimer didn’t want that. Instead, Oppenheimer said, the time had come for the world to negotiate an end to nuclear weapons and bring them under international control and thus prevent an endless cycle of arms races.”
“Oppenheimer was an obstacle to the H-bomb project,” explains Mr. Edwards. “That’s why they had to discredit him. And Edward Teller was the one person, more than anyone else in the scientific community, who saw Oppenheimer as an obstacle. Teller had to blacken his reputation in such a way that no one would listen to Oppenheimer any more.
The film suggests that it was done for less important reasons,” he notes. Moreover, “the role played by Teller was greatly understated in the film. In fact, his role was much more significant in nullifying Oppenheimer’s influence,” he says.
A 70 km long anti-nuclear march ‘sent a powerful message’ according to its organiser.
The march from Trawsfynydd to the Eisteddfod in Boduan, Pwllheli, was organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Cymru, with support from anti-nuclear groups CADNO, People Against Wylfa B (PAWB), Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA).
Dylan Lewis-Rowlands, National Secretary of CND Cymru, said: “Communities and people all across Gwynedd showed their support as we discussed the issue of nuclear power with them – it’s link to military nuclear development, the billions in investment and years in time it has diverted from renewable and community owned energy generation and storage, and the implications nuclear development here in wales will have on the rest of the world.”
Sam Bannon, march organiser, added: “We sent a powerful message. As we marched through the Eisteddfod, people came out of their tent stalls to applaud. The strength of feeling was clear – and this is a strong message to decision makers.”
Dylan Lewis-Rowlands, National Secretary of CND Cymru, said: “Communities and people all across Gwynedd showed their support as we discussed the issue of nuclear power with them – it’s link to military nuclear development, the billions in investment and years in time it has diverted from renewable and community owned energy generation and storage, and the implications nuclear development here in wales will have on the rest of the world.”
Sam Bannon, march organiser, added: “We sent a powerful message. As we marched through the Eisteddfod, people came out of their tent stalls to applaud. The strength of feeling was clear – and this is a strong message to decision makers.”
Dylan Lewis-Rowlands, National Secretary of CND Cymru, said: “Communities and people all across Gwynedd showed their support as we discussed the issue of nuclear power with them – it’s link to military nuclear development, the billions in investment and years in time it has diverted from renewable and community owned energy generation and storage, and the implications nuclear development here in wales will have on the rest of the world.”
Sam Bannon, march organiser, added: “We sent a powerful message. As we marched through the Eisteddfod, people came out of their tent stalls to applaud. The strength of feeling was clear – and this is a strong message to decision makers.”
Dylan Lewis-Rowlands, National Secretary of CND Cymru, said: “Communities and people all across Gwynedd showed their support as we discussed the issue of nuclear power with them – it’s link to military nuclear development, the billions in investment and years in time it has diverted from renewable and community owned energy generation and storage, and the implications nuclear development here in wales will have on the rest of the world.”
Sam Bannon, march organiser, added: “We sent a powerful message. As we marched through the Eisteddfod, people came out of their tent stalls to applaud. The strength of feeling was clear – and this is a strong message to decision makers.”
“These events are crucial because they raise awareness and force those of us to think afresh on the issues at hand, and ask these difficult questions. For the last 10-15 years we’ve been sold this idea that nuclear is a fantastic element and the industry will create well paid jobs, save the environment, and all sorts of arguments which say it will help, but none of them stand up under scrutiny. These events give us the chance to push back against that whitewashing.
“There’s not enough being done to protect Wales from nuclear energy, our own government is promoting it and they’re trying to attract new nuclear into North West Wales. They’re selling nuclear energy as an ideal scenario for us which will solve all of our problems, without telling us the whole truth behind it.”
The fate of the massive nuclear power plant in the crosshairs of Europe’s largest war in decades has made for worrisome headlines since Russia launched its large-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly 18 months ago.
As fighting intensifies not far from the plant, fears of a disaster have not abated. On August 10, the main power line delivering electricity to the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant was disconnected twice, forcing it to rely on its last remaining off-site power line. The main line was reconnected by evening. In the meantime, though, Ukraine’s energy minister raised the prospect of a meltdown.
When writer-director Christopher Nolan told his teenage son about his plans for the movie Oppenheimer, his son told him, “That’s just not something anybody worries about anymore,” Nolan told the New York Times. With so much else to worry about, it’s no surprise that nuclear weapons no longer register as a threat to a generation that never felt the fear or moral weight of them. Climate change is the new focal point and for good reason. But if Nolan’s son is correct, when it comes to mitigating the dangers of nuclear power, especially for countries in and around war zones, politicians are off the hook. That’s a big mistake and one that could prove costly down the road.
Despite the shocking risks that Russian forces have created by their occupation and shelling of nuclear power reactors in Ukraine, the push to keep selling nuclear reactors, even in war zones, continues.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in January moved its Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight — the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been. It cited Russia’s threat of nuclear weapons use in Ukraine, its occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant “violating international protocols and risking widespread release of radioactive materials,” and the undermining of efforts to deal with climate change. But the global resurgence of interest in new nuclear, most notably among several of Ukraine’s neighbors, but also among countries in Asia and Africa, sets us all up for even more trouble.
Russia’s invasion and occupation of the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant on Mar. 4, 2022 was not the first time an operating nuclear plant had come under military attack; nor is it something unforeseen.
Since 1980 the Middle East has seen some 13 attacks on reactors (in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Israel), according to a July presentation by Henry Sokolski to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Luckily, these attacks by aerial bombing or missile strikes either failed or avoided massive radiation releases because the reactors were mainly small research reactors that weren’t operating. Only one, Iraq’s Tuwaitha research reactor, was actually operating when the US struck it in 1991. And, unlike Ukraine’s situation, none of the reactors attacked in the Middle East were large-scale commercial power plants or situated in heavily populated areas as is Zaporizhzhia.In all of these attacks, the aim of the perpetrator, whether the US, Israel, Iran or Iraq, was to destroy a facility seen as integral to a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Russia’s ground invasion and occupation of Zaporizhzhia, in contrast, demonstrates why commercial plants might become targets in future wars. Russia has used the plant to shield Russian troops and military personnel and equipment, gain control over Ukraine’s energy system, and provide a lever against European intervention through the threat of radiation contamination, according to a paper by the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies.
Wider Threats
The idea of using nuclear plants as pawns in war is hardly unique to Russia, however. In Asia, North Korea has over the past decade suggested that nuclear power plants in both South Korea and Japan could be fair game for strikes; similar suggestions or alleged threats have been reported out of both Taiwan and China against each other.
A US war manual actually permits attacks on nuclear plants if they serve military objectives, including their use to deny power to enemy forces or to pre-empt enemy forces from hampering the movement or advance of US or allied forces. And it rejects any military-civilian distinction, stating that “under customary international law, no legal presumption of civilian status exists for persons or objects.”
But attacking nuclear plants, and ignoring the distinction between civil and military targets, or people, totally ignores the 1949 Geneva Convention and protocols to that convention added in 1977. These protocols, signed and ratified by 174 countries, tightened rules regarding military conflicts and discouraged military actions against nuclear power plants. The fundamental idea was to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants — including both people and facilities — and to prevent any attacks that would cause widespread harm to civilians. The US, alongside Iran and Pakistan, signed but did not ratify the protocols, and a further 20 countries, including India and Israel did neither. In 2019, Russia withdrew from the convention’s Protocol I relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts.
It’s important to understand that while some features of existing plants might mitigate a combat type attack, nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand a deliberate state-sponsored military attack. Nuclear safety and security rules are crafted to address conceivable accidents or terrorist threats but don’t address how to prevent or respond to full-on military attacks. Steps can be taken to harden vulnerable areas of nuclear plants, such as spent fuel pools, and active air defense and anti-drone systems can be deployed, among other things, but these substantially increase costs.
As governments and industry continue their headlong advance into the climate change breach with the promise of “clean, safe and secure” nuclear energy they conveniently do close their eyes to this issue. Asked about the implications for nuclear energy of Russia’s attack on Zaporizhzhia, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi told the BBC, “The problem is that they are at war … The problem is not nuclear energy.” But that is precisely the problem — nuclear energy sites are attractive targets in war.
The US push for new nuclear business throughout central and eastern Europe, alongside competitors and sometime-collaborators in Canada, France and South Korea, completely ignores the inherent risks, given that these countries are already awash in nuclear energy. “Six of the 10 most nuclear-dependent countries are former Eastern bloc states. They all rely on nuclear power for more than 30% of their electricity, creating a vulnerability,” points out Sharon Squassoni, a former State Department official at George Washington University. The rationale is that nuclear will provide these countries a way around dependence on fossil fuels imports from Russia and other suppliers. But by opting for more nuclear these countries are swapping one type of energy insecurity for a far more dangerous version.
Stephanie Cooke is the former editor of Nuclear Intelligence Weekly and author of In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.
Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson provides a sobering analysis of Ukraine’s conflict with Russia, highlighting the inevitability of defeat, the tragedy of misguided support, and the profiteering motives behind the scenes
Washington, D.C., United States (TEH) – In a candid and unfiltered interview, retired US Army Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to the head of the US State Department Colin Powell, has laid bare the grim reality of Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. The authoritative American, who also serves as a freelance researcher at the Quincy Institute, did not mince words in his assessment of the situation.
“It was a disaster from the start. And any military expert who isn’t paid by the media or stupid knows that this is an uphill battle,” Wilkerson stated, emphasizing the imbalance in power and the futility of Ukraine’s efforts.
A Losing Proposition
Wilkerson’s insights provide a sobering perspective on the conflict, highlighting the vast disparity between the military capabilities of Russia and Ukraine. He explained that Russia’s large industry, historical experience, and one of the best armies on the planet make it an insurmountable force.
“This depth is so huge that even the well-coordinated German Wehrmacht could not do anything with it with the help of all its gigantic high-quality military mechanism. Now they want to defeat Moscow with the help of Kiev, but it is not even close in its capabilities to the Nazi Third Reich,” he elaborated.
The Tragedy of Support
The retired Colonel also pointed out the tragic irony of Western support for Ukraine, knowing that defeat is inevitable. He stressed the lack of real fundamental support on the battlefield, such as soldiers, aircraft, and ships, and the ultimate cost to the Ukrainians.
“They will lose, and this, in my opinion, is the whole tragedy. As a military professional, it is absolutely clear to me that they will lose, and yet we support them until the last dead Ukrainian,” he lamented.
Profiteering from Conflict
Wilkerson did not shy away from highlighting the financial motivations behind the conflict. He named defense corporations like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon as beneficiaries, profiting from the ongoing strife.
“There are other people who make money from this in other ways. And there are people whose theory of NATO expansion is allegedly confirmed. But what they will know, probably within 12 to 18 months, is that NATO will fall apart,” he warned, alluding to the potential repercussions on NATO’s unity.
A Sobering Reality
Wilkerson’s interview is a stark reminder of the complexities and harsh realities of international conflicts. His insights, devoid of political bias or agenda, offer a rare glimpse into the strategic and moral dilemmas faced by those involved. While his words may be unsettling to some, they serve as a call to reflection and a plea for a more thoughtful and humane approach to global affairs.
The fate of the massive nuclear power plant in the crosshairs of Europe’s largest war in decades has made for worrisome headlines since Russia launched its large-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly 18 months ago. As fighting intensifies not far from the plant, fears of a disaster have not abated.
On August 10, the main power line delivering electricity to the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant was disconnected twice, forcing it to rely on its last remaining off-site power line.
The main line was reconnected by evening. In the meantime, though, Ukraine’s energy minister raised the prospect of a meltdown.
Is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine about to cause a nuclear catastrophe?
Steven Nesbit, a nuclear power industry veteran who was president of the American Nuclear Society in 2021-22, told RFE/RL that the Zaporizhzhya plant has been in a precarious position since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. But the failure of the off-site power line did not make his assessment of the situation any more dire than it had been.
“I don’t see anything really new right now that should have people extremely concerned relative to the already undesirable situation,” he said, adding that the plant’s offsite power sources have been interrupted before due to the war.
“I would not be surprised if it happens again, but simply losing one of the off-site power sources for a period of time is not a reason for undue concern,” said Nesbit, who now runs his own nuclear consulting company…………………………………………………………
Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko said the plant was “one step away from a blackout — that is, the complete loss of external power,” and that this could lead to a “major catastrophe.”
Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant
The Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant is the largest in Europe and, before the war, supplied about 20% of Ukraine’s total electricity.
The plant would resort to diesel generators if all external power was lost, but if the generators were damaged by a Russian attack, he said, “the cooling of the plant would stop and the irreversible process of heating and melting of nuclear fuel” would begin.
“I think that’s a little alarmist,” Nesbit said in a phone interview on August 11.
The same day, Enerhoatom said on Telegram that the main power line had been reconnected the previous evening after being knocked out by Russian fire.
The diesel generators are well protected and have enough fuel to provide power to keep the cooling system going for an extended period of time while external sources are being restored, Nesbit said.
“The six units can share power among them. It’s a flexible and safe system,” he said.
The Zaporizhzhya plant has lost all external power at least twice in the past year.
…………………………………..The plant and the surrounding area are controlled by Russia, but it is being run by its Ukrainian engineers. In September 2022, Ukraine shut the station down to minimize risk of a catastrophe.
Five of the six reactors are in what is known as cold shutdown mode while one unit is being maintained at an elevated temperature — hot shutdown mode — to provide auxiliary steam and heating, the American Nuclear Society, which is monitoring information about the plant, said in July.
As a result, the level of heat production has been low and on-site equipment can provide enough of the water needed for cooling, the society, an international organization of engineers and scientists, said in a statement.
It called the threat of a large-scale release of radioactive material “speculative” but said that assessment does “not constitute an ‘all clear’ for safety risks at the plant site.”
Nesbit said it is of crucial importance that the reactors at the Zaporizhzhya plant have not been generating power for months, allowing the heating level associated with the reactor fuel to fall. The shutdown cuts by many orders of magnitude the amount of radioactivity that could potentially be released in the event of a major incident involving the reactors.
Still, tension is high.
The plant is located in the Zaporizhzhya region in southeastern Ukraine, where fighting is intense amid a counteroffensive that Kyiv launched in early June, seeking to push Russian forces back from territory they have taken and eventually expel them from the country altogether.
Zaporizhzhya is one of four regions of Ukraine that Moscow claimed last year had become part of Russia but does not hold in their entirety. The plant stands on the south bank of a wide stretch of the Dnieper River that was largely drained by the breach of the Kakhovka dam downstream, while Ukraine controls the north bank.
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved a rule today that will allow for the licensing of new nuclear reactors without requiring those reactors to have offsite emergency plans in place should disaster strike.
Below is a statement by Dr. Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
“Past natural and human-made disasters have taught us that having a robust and workable emergency plan in place is the key to minimizing human suffering and loss of life if the unthinkable happens. The NRC’s reckless decision today flies in the face of that experience. Concerns with the rule expressed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other authorities demonstrate how out of step the NRC is with experts on this issue.
Coupled with other troubling regulatory changes that the NRC has already made or is considering, this new rule will only increase dangers for the public from the next generation of nuclear plants. Additionally, the absence of offsite emergency planning will create burdens in the aftermath of a nuclear plant accident, extreme weather event, or terrorist attack that will fall disproportionately on those people and communities with the fewest resources.
“Some nuclear power advocates downplay the health risks of ionizing radiation, asserting that emergency evacuations following nuclear disasters are more harmful than exposure to the radiation itself and pointing to the casualties following the 2011 Fukushima disaster evacuations in Japan as an example. But the remedy for poorly executed evacuations is better emergency planning, not the elimination of emergency planning altogether.
“The cost of preparing for emergencies is relatively modest. And yet nuclear industry proponents have pushed to change the rules to facilitate constructing new nuclear reactors anywhere, even in densely populated areas where timely emergency evacuations might be extremely difficult or even impossible. People everywhere need to be aware of the NRC’s dangerous decision and its implications for their health and safety.”
– Iran is committed to resolving its nuclear dispute with world powers through diplomacy, the country’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian told reporters in a televised news conference on Monday.
“We have always wanted a return of all parties to full compliance of the 2015 nuclear deal,” Amirabdollahian said.
Indirect talks between Washington and Tehran to revive the nuclear agreement have stalled since last September.
Having failed to revive the pact, Tehran and Washington said on Thursday they had reached an understanding under which $6 billion in Iranian funds will be unfrozen from South Korea while five American nationals detained in Iran will be released.
The United States would also release some Iranians from U.S. prisons as part of the deal, Iran said.
Reporting by Dubai Newsroom; Editing by Toby Chopra
The bill the governor vetoed would have opened the door to negative environmental impacts and higher costs for consumers while jeopardizing progress toward Illinois’ clean energy future.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s veto of Senate Bill 76 on Friday solidifies his national reputation as an environmental leader. SB 76, which would have removed the ban on new nuclear power in Illinois, was moved forward without careful consideration, and signing it would have opened the door to increased risk, negative environmental impacts and higher costs for consumers, all while jeopardizing our progress toward Illinois’ clean energy future.
The original concerns about constructing new nuclear power plants that led the General Assembly to impose the current moratorium remain today and, in fact, those concerns are arguably greater now than they were in 1987.
We are no closer to a national solution for the disposal of dangerous high-level nuclear wastes. Illinois already has the most nuclear reactors in the country and bears the burden of storing this waste in our communities, including along the shores of Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. These wastes have significant safety risks and threaten our drinking water and communities. We should not add to the growing stockpiles of hazardous waste.
Nuclear power is also extremely expensive. Efforts in other states to build new nuclear plants are plagued with high-cost overruns and extensive delays. These exorbitant costs not only dwarf those associated with readily available clean energy technologies, but they also threaten to derail the progress Illinois is now making to deploy win-win solutions like clean energy, storage and energy efficiency programs.
Illinois should continue prioritizing these investments, which support good union jobs and pathways to prosperity for our marginalized communities, rather than encourage highly speculative proposals for new nuclear energy.
Illinois does not need the massive, decades-long rate hikes it would take to attempt to site and build new nuclear power plants that wouldn’t be available for over a decade. Illinois does need action and investment now in transmission, storage, energy efficiency and demand response solutions to ensure adequate capacity and protect consumers from spikes in fossil fuel prices.
Keep the focus on clean energy
While Illinois hosts roughly 11 gigawatts of nuclear power, over 700 gigawatts of additional power are awaiting interconnection approval from regional energy markets across the country. The majority of these resources waiting in line are solar, wind and battery storage — proven technologies that are already creating good jobs and delivering consumer savings. These smart solutions should remain our focus.
The rules, regulations and oversight for all nuclear plants are not up to date. SB 76 would have removed the moratorium on nuclear power without a full study and review of whether current rules and regulations are sufficient to site, build and operate a nuclear power plant safely. In addition, the siting laws for nuclear are completely insufficient. Any plant could be built anywhere at any time, with only approval at the federal level. The issue is even worse in the case of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors — small units that have been proposed to be deployed inside shipping containers within communities. Projects could, in theory, be deployed near residences, for example.
Our community is proud of the work we did together with Pritzker and the General Assembly to enact the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act in 2021. CEJA gives Illinois a roadmap to a clean energy future that generates high-quality jobs equitably and attracts global investments in our communities. To sustain that progress, we must stay the course in implementing that vision and reject proposals that would distract our resources from this framework. The veto of SB 76 will help Illinois implement this clean energy vision, and Pritzker’s veto should be upheld by the General Assembly.
Jen Walling is the executive director of the Illinois Environmental Council. Jack Darin is director of the Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club.
South Korea’s main opposition party announced on Monday its intention to lodge a formal grievance with the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in the upcoming week, regarding Japan’s proposed strategy to release water from the Fukushima site.
According to representative Woo Won-shik, who leads the Democratic Party (DP) committee that opposes Tokyo’s proposal to discharge treated water from the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean, the complaint will be formally submitted on Thursday, Seoul-based Yonhap News reported.
The DP asserts that the planned release, set to start as soon as late August, breaches several international agreements and lacks verified scientific safeguards.
The UNHRC assesses grievances originating from individuals, entities, or nations pertaining to instances of ongoing and severe human rights transgressions.
Alongside submitting the complaint, the DP intends to collect signatures from roughly 1.5 million citizens and deliver them to the office of the president.
Furthermore, DP members are making preparations for a visit to Japan by the end of this month to express their opposition to Tokyo’s scheme, subsequent to two prior visits made in April and July.
Japan is expected to release treated nuclear waste from the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant this month or early next month.
Japan’s water discharge plan, announced in April 2021, faced significant criticism from China, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, and international organizations, including the UN.
The US supported the proposal, following years of discussions on dealing with over 1 million tons of water stored at the Fukushima nuclear complex since the 2011 disaster.
