UN Watchdog Warns Russia Bombardment Endangers Ukraine's Nuclear Security, Calls for Restraint (cnbc.com) 89
The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog on Wednesday warned Russia's onslaught of Ukraine is raising the risk of nuclear accidents, calling for restraint from all actions that could jeopardize the safe operations of Ukraine's nuclear facilities. From a report: It comes as Russia's war with Ukraine enters its seventh day, with fighting raging across the country. The International Atomic Energy Agency said Russia's invasion of Ukraine marks the first time a military conflict has taken place amidst the facilities of a large and established nuclear power program -- which in this case includes the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986. "The situation in Ukraine is unprecedented and I continue to be gravely concerned," IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said in an introductory statement to the 35-nation Board of Governors. "The safety and security of nuclear facilities, and nuclear and other radioactive material, in Ukraine must under no circumstances be endangered."
Article 5? (Score:1, Flamebait)
If Russia strikes a reactor, and the fallout blows over to a NATO country, would that be sufficient to invoke Article 5?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
why do you people seem so hellbent on invoking Article 5? why do you want us to go to war? wtf is wrong with you?
Re:Article 5? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because we have two full generations of people, that have only experienced our fighting wars where the enemy has zero capability of striking back at anything but our troops in the theaters and often only limited capability at that - we send drones or use air strikes against their fighters on the ground.
They have no idea how consequential a serious escalation with a foe like Russia could be. Its just beyond their imagination.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what US domestic propaganda said, but it wasn't true. USSR was always scared of being annihilated by US nukes, and desperate to have capability to strike back. Unlike USSR, US didn't (and still doesn't) have a policy of never using nukes first.
Re: (Score:3)
Except hitler did not have nukes. The biggest fools are the people thinking they can win a nuclear war, which sadly seem to be more and more.
So where do we draw the line? Do we let Russia do anything they want because they have nukes? Russia "accidentally" causes a nuclear catastrophe in Ukraine (again) but they have nukes, so we'll what, send a strongly worded letter? We are hitting them with sanctions but what if Putin comes out tomorrow and says end them or else! Do we risk it? If he decides to attack Estonia next, do we just go "yea, even though they are NATO and EU member, Putin has nukes so we're just going to let this slide because we don
Re: (Score:2)
The line is, territory of Nato. Last time I checked, Ukraine is not it.
So you are OK staring entering a war that would likely escalate to a full on nuclear exchange over Latvia? You would risk the lives of billions including yourself and your family for Estonia? Both are NATO members after all.
Re: (Score:2)
NATO is military force, which could find unfolding destruction of Ukraine not acceptable for the sake of keeping present world order afloat alone. Leave nuclear option aside - Putin is already sick to opt it, like he is using banned vacuum bombs right now. We have this one madman, who thinks, he is entitled to set war there after pouring out his vomit of excuses - there is nothing normal already. While he does have nuclear toys next. Ukraine is only defending itself, and many well understand, that helping i
Re: (Score:2)
there are reasons Russia attacked Ukraine
Sure! The problem is, them are not good enough to pass as reasonable and justified.
Don't introduce mess here, it would suffice to take Donbass. Which evolving I was closely following.
The rational bit was involving setting state-wide language to be Ukrainian. All-right, not comfortable for those, who were
barely even recalling, they reside in the country, called Ukraine. Still, of the options, this was taken. Imperfect, yet not
bombardment by far, isn't? Then, Russia took part in this game - negating borders a
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just identified the line for the US at least. NATO is a mutual defense pact. If a member nation is attacked we have to defend them. If non member nation is attacked - yeah its "well we will try sanctions, and maybe send you anti-tank weapons and small arms and wish you best of luck"
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just identified the line for the US at least.
I'm not trying to identify the line for the US, I wanted to know where the line was for Motox.
If a member nation is attacked we have to defend them.
Do we? Article 5 isn't some magical force that physically compels countries to war. It is words on paper. At the end of the day, that's all the force they actually hold. If the US, UK, France, and Germany decide they do not want to start a potential civilization ending nuclear war over one of the NATO member former soviet block countries, well, I guess if they survive they can send a strongly worded letter to N
Re: (Score:2)
Do we? Article 5 isn't some magical force that physically compels countries to war. It is words on paper.
NATO is lots more than article 5. In a sense it's a direct reaction to the phony war at the start of WWII where countries with treaties didn't engage immediately when Hitler began invading. NATO includes commitments to be armed and also joint command. That means that the multinational reaction to an invasion of a NATO country will be under way well before political discussion even begins. That's one reason NATO has to be clear about not getting involved in the attack side of wars of aggression. As it is NA
Re: (Score:1)
Let's look at your argument
If Hitler has nukes, we shouldn't confront him when he attacks a country.
See the problem?
Nukes only work as a defensive argument, "You shouldn't attack a country that has nukes".
But they do not work as an offensive argument, "Any country with nukes can attack anyone they want."
Russia put nuclear war on the table when they invaded Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
He just tweaks such an argument. He is lying all along - from denying he was present in Crimea, to sending troops "in special ways" to Easter Ukraine since 2014, to the planning of present war while denying he is to enter Ukraine. Just yesterday his military instructions were uncovered, approved January of this year, while preparation had to take place year or more before. All, while he was craving for the guarantees of his security, himself setting war scene. Did you know he bans and punishes for the use o
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me, what authority Putin has over Ukraine? The same Ukraine has over Russia, which is bar none! Just like the given aggression and bombardments - it has no right to act so, period. Russia makes friends with China? Guess, what was the say from Ukraine? That is, was there? You get it, hopefully. Enough of lies and ignorance. War crimes will be carefully accounted.
Re: (Score:2)
Had enough of it, thank you. All irrelevant by now.
There is Ukraine, sovereign state within its borders. That will suffice for the future, would you, please, respect, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't miss understand I am fulling in support of stopping Russia. I think we should have done sanctions sooner, I think we should have done harsher sanctions, including embargoing Russian oil.
I am all for breaking the Russian economy entirely and with a little luck turning it into a failed state and maybe eventually installing some western friendly leadership once the dust settles.
What I don't want is a shooting war with them. Because I don't want to see more of Europe looking like Ukraine does today and I
Re: Article 5? (Score:3)
The problem with a failed Russia is who knows where the nukes and other materiel end[s] up... What we want is Putin deposed from within. Any other outcome invites disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, b/c using the Libyan model, North Africa really did well with all those war materials loose for anyone to grab. Failed states don't tend to do well. Hell a failed state might invite, China to invade and grab as much real estate as they think they can. Also a humiliated people just leads to resentment and 30 year
Re: (Score:2)
But they came shooting, what is it worth, you not wanting it?! They demanded security while loading every gun at their disposal. And aiming westwards. And shooting. And again, and yet again. Your wish looks silly. This is dangerous, blatant, aggressive bandit, who does not care to stop. You have one cure left - shoot him down ASAP.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I see massive multinational all-out shooting wars being unthinkable due to having been consigned to the ash heap of history as a good thing.
Don't worry, there's still a few of us that were alive and literate during the cold war to help guide them along.
Re: (Score:2)
So they'd like to go back to conscription, marching hundreds of thousands of young people off to help turn parts of Europe into rubble, and many of them to return in coffins, to watch taxes go through the ceiling to pay for it all, and for the strong possibility of nuclear counterattacks if Russia is on the brink of losing.
On the other hand, all these weekend warriors that masturbate with an AR-15 in one hand and the Turner Diaries in the other might actually get to experience the real repercussions of an a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian UN ambassador was basically presenting alternative reality in his speech, there was no-one there to negotiate with. And practically speaking, you can only negotiate with Putin anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't negotiate with Putin. He is nothing now. Liar. Cheater. Aggressor. Only his dumbed folks may still need that, for the world he ceased to exist.
Re: Article 5? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My feeling is that Poland, Hungary organizations one of ex Soviet Union states now part of Nato will instigate an attack against Russia and drag the West into a confrontation.
If they instigate it, NATO isn't on the hook. And even if they don't, do we really, really think the US, France, Germany, and the UK will sign up to go into a probable nuclear conflict over Hungry or Poland? Yes, we have an obligation under article 5 but what are they going to do, sue us?
Re: (Score:2)
do we really, really think the US, France, Germany, and the UK will sign up to go into a probable nuclear conflict over Hungry or Poland? Yes, we have an obligation under article 5 but what are they going to do, sue us?
And just like that, Putin eliminates NATO.
Re: (Score:2)
do we really, really think the US, France, Germany, and the UK will sign up to go into a probable nuclear conflict over Hungry or Poland? Yes, we have an obligation under article 5 but what are they going to do, sue us?
And just like that, Putin eliminates NATO.
Essentially, yes. At least for the former USSR members. It wouldn't shock me at all if the western powers chose to turn their backs on them when faced with a nuclear response by an obviously not as stable as we originally thought Russia.
Not saying I support it, but I would not be surprised if it happened.
Re: (Score:2)
You turned to talk nonsense. Luckily, at least NATO soil does mean it, there is nothing relative about that. One just needs to set back mad Putin for good, no nuclear needed. Kiss of novichok, and he gets, what's his own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biden is not my president, possibly it is yours. At the very least, he is key figure for NATO, incomparable with many other cheap words, may be said, inclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too complicated for you? It was twisted a bit on purpose.
Biden has a say in NATO. Take this simple as a wooden plank message. Got it? Then let's move to the next stop.
And Biden has said it not once these very days, if he
"will NOT enter into a war over one of the former soviet block countries".
That's it. You can pour what you have to say, unfortunately, it is much less relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You only look silly yourself, when you attempt to paint another with crap.
What could you be at all talking, if you miss fundamental statements by Biden to defend every centimetre of NATO soil.
Reputation and future of NATO is at stake, you can't even grasp that. Just go away.
Re: (Score:3)
Article 5 is a defensive aspect of the treaty. Opening fire on Russian troops across the border would pretty explicitly not invoke Article 5. And do you think that Poland and Hungary are suicidal. They want to prevent the Russians from invading, not give them some reason to actually do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, if the US (and NATO) had acted much more quickly and definitively by preparing and positioning to defend Ukraine with robust military action to counter an invasion, attacking Russia would likely have been unnecessary as Putin would have found his "40 miles conveys" in small pieces shortly after they crossed the border and, more importantly, Russian aircraft which crossed the border dealt with swiftly and brutally. The goal would have been not to set foot or cause damage in Russia so Russia would have
Re: (Score:2)
He was allowed too much, sure. That's what was feeding his feeling of nonpunishable superiority. Until we face complete monster now.
Re: (Score:2)
The UN General Assembly just voted by a very wide margin to condemn Russia. The international community, with a few notable hold outs, is absolutely terrified of the notion of a large power gobbling up its neighbors through naked force. It's possible that if Russia doesn't find a way to back out of this that it even might be expelled from the Security Council, leaving China as its sole defender.
Diplomats walking out on Lavrov is nothing compared to the crippling sanctions that even Germany and Switzerland h
Re: (Score:2)
So, what solution do you suggest?
Russia is escalating the conflict every day - that's on Russia. Has Putin shown any sign of capitulating? Not that I've seen - just a high degree of ineptness lack of insight that has resulted in him being unable to achieve his goals of conquest as quickly or cheaply as he had hoped.
Perhaps every country should just cede 15% of their remaining land to Putin every year since he has nuclear weapons?
The minimum acceptable solution is that Russia withdraw all troops from the Ukr
Re: (Score:1)
Any idea that russia will give up their nuclear weapons is irrational thinking. If you insist on that, you might as well push the button now.
As you say, there is room for negotiation.
There's also room for equipping and funding the hell out of Ukrainians.
Re: (Score:1)
Walking out instead of sitting and listening to the russian foreign minister lie o their face *is* a diplomatic signal.
Re: (Score:2)
It is past diplomacy, when one party sends troops to conduct bombardments of another. From relative, but still, peace. Troops have to turn around and march home. What Russia demonstrated so far was cynical, blatant conduct, full of preceding lies. Nobody is missing more of such, as this is below what diplomacy itself is. It is Russian axe-work, "topornaya rabota".
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, maybe I'm replying to a Russian troll (in all likelihood I probably am, which would explain the poor grasp on reality and the English language).
I asked merely if radioactive waste clouds drifting into/over a NATO country would be sufficient to invoke Article 5. I neither said nor implied that I wished for Article 5 to be invoked. It's merely a theoretical question - is an attack on one country, which can be reasonably expected to have direct secondary effects on a neighboring country, considered to be
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, maybe I'm replying to a Russian troll (in all likelihood I probably am, which would explain the poor grasp on reality and the English language).
Lol. Internet people should stop calling others " troll" when they debate about conflicts between nations. At least you expressed some doubts, good point but first sentence was totally unecessary. Also if english is not your native language, it doesn't mean you are Russain or Chinese.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't refer to a person as a likely Russian troll merely because they're trolling ("wtf is wrong with you" is very clearly a trolling statement, and not part of reasonable conversation about dissenting viewpoints). I also don't infer that the person is Russian (or Chinese?) because of not being a native English speaker.
However, we know that Russia has a broad disinformation campaign, which includes having people troll various forums trying to sow discord. The fact someone is an apparent non-native speak
Re: Article 5? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the gibberish that you are saying. If Ukraine was mistreating its citizens as you describe they would not be defending it but instead welcoming the invaders. Instead they are opposing the invaders. What Putin claims Ukraine is doing is not necessarily the truth because Putin likes more often than even Trump.
Re: Article 5? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Chernobyl was taken on the first day towards the end.
Zaporozhie was taken yesterday or on Sunday (can't remember off the top of my head).
Voznesensk was taken this morning.
So the only way a nuclear plant can receive a "Russian" bomb is if that bomb is deliberately fired from a Ukrainian gun exactly as they have been threatening for the last 8 years. Do not shoot the messenge
My prepper neighbors are ecstatic (Score:3)
Finally their dreams come true.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Stay tuned. We're working on dialing it back quite a bit further quite a bit faster very soon.
Re: (Score:2)
The dumbest thing about "preppers" is that they are extremely unprepared. Somehow they have it in their head that gasoline will be obtainable in the near future instead of relying on renewable energy sources.
Re: (Score:3)
Ugh, there were people actually cheering Putin on at a "white supremacy rally" in the US. It makes no sense, except that the neo-nazi types love a strong-arm bully like Putin. I really don't want to bother to find out what the rationale is, it's twisted and that's enough.
Also some Republicans, despite the Republican party's long distrust of Russia, are cheering on Putin. It's nonsense. What do they think, that their enemy is Biden, and Putin is opposed to Biden, therefore Putin is their friend? Or they ag
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't noticed how white and racist Russia is yet, huh? Really puts Putin's bullshit about going into Ukraine to stop Nazis into perspective once you do
They have control of Chernobyl so that is big issu (Score:2)
They have control of Chernobyl so that is big issue
Re: (Score:2)
Of that we should probably be grateful actually. You don't generally bombard territory you control. Chernobyl being firmly in Russian hands means no mid-level commander will decided it might be worth risks of lobbing artillery fire into the general vicinity.
Re: (Score:1)
no mid-level commander will decided it might be worth risks of lobbing artillery fire into the general vicinity.
Depends which of the 7 sides you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
There are still large reactor complexes elsewhere in Ukraine. Half of Ukraine's electricity comes from nuclear generation.
Re: They have control of Chernobyl so that is big (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is zero chance Russia wants to harm a reactor. That would be the definition of self-sabotage. However, some of the rogue/unaccountable nationalist extremists elements in Ukrain might in an effort to frame Russia.
Maybe the reverse would be true. Russia under Putin has been widely known for it false flag operations. In fact, wasn't the invasion itself of Ukraine based on the idea of an imminent threat from the West? NATO has always been a threat but in the decades of its existence hasn't invaded Soviet or Russian territory, although during the Clinton years managed to encroach on Russia's supposed Slavic sphere of influence, the then disintegrating Yugoslavian state. Estonia and the other Baltic states were already "
Re: They have control of Chernobyl so that is big (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They have control of Chernobyl so that is big (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)