Ukraine

Status Report on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

The Russians have stolen the largest nuclear power plant in Europe.

Nataliya Gumenyuk, with the help of Angelina Kariakina, Inna Zolotukhina, and Hanna Sylayeva, prepared a report for the Reckoning Project, which documents Russian warcrimes in Ukraine. [CW: The report contains descriptions of torture by the Russians of plant operators. I do not include any of that description in this post.]

The Russians have occupied the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant since early in the war. They have militarized the plant, storing equipment there and having mined its perimeter. The six reactors are shut down, which lessens the potential for a meltdown, but the reactors and spent fuel pools must continue to be cooled with water. The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam destroyed the reservoir behind the dam, which was the plant’s main source of cooling water. Water is now being drawn from wells, but those wells are not sustainable.

The plant is being run with many fewer workers than in peacetime. Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy organization, is on site. The plant was built during Soviet times, but it has been modified since then. Workers have been tortured by the Russian occupiers, and they are working under forced conditions.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Mariano Grossi, has been visiting the plant and recently met with Vladimir Putin and the head of Rosatom to try to achieve stability at the plant and transparency about what is happening there. He has been partially successful, but he will have to continue to pressure the Russians as long as they are occupying the plant.

The plant is relatively stable, but the continuing occupation and war in the area make that stability precarious. It’s one more of the atrocities Russia is inflicting on Ukraine.

Photo: The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in better days.

Cross-posted to Lawyers, Guns & Money

Does Putin Want A Ceasefire?

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Anton Troianovski, Adam Entous and Julian E. Barnes claim today in the New York Times that Vladimir Putin is looking for a ceasefire (gift link Content warning: photos of dead Russian soldiers). The dek beneath the headline says “Despite its bravado in public, the Kremlin has indicated its interest in striking a deal to halt the war — so long as it could still declare victory,” but I don’t see much indication of the last, although one might assume that to be the case.

The rest of the article is not much better supported. The primary sources are “ two former senior Russian officials close to the Kremlin and American and international officials who have received the message from Mr. Putin’s envoys.” It’s customary for sources in these circumstances not to be identified, so that’s not unreasonable. Later in the article, other “American officials” are cited as sources. There no distinctions or numbers when “American officials” are quoted.

Let us consider the claims made. Quotes are from the article.

Read More

Revising The History Of The 1990s

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Revisionist history of the 1990s is in full swing. Here’s the latest.

New materials have surfaced that support my preferred point of view! Let me give you a selection! The article gives the impression that reams of newly declassified documents support the idea that, in this telling, the United States bent over backward to avoid offending Russia during the 1990s. I don’t think that the assembled quotes actually tell that story, especially since references are spotty. The article gives little context for the quotes.

The documents relating to diplomacy over time in an urgent situation will contain a great many statements of a great many views. It is good for those views to be discussed in the formulation of policy, but what matters is what actually was done. What matters even more is where we are today.

Along with others, the author assumes that Ukraine’s retention of Soviet nuclear weapons would be a deterrent against Russia while Ukraine developed into today’s state. Another assumption is that the US and Europe could have offered security guarantees that would deter Russia. These assumptions have been refuted before. The context of the world situation in the 1990s is ignored. I’ll repeat some of that context here.

Read More

Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Dreams

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

US talks continue with Saudi Arabia on a deal that involves their relationship with Israel and the nuclear power/ weapons capabilities that the Saudis want thrown into the deal. Saudi Arabia has long sought a nuclear fuel cycle capability, although it has little of the infrastructure or resources to support the technology. The obvious reason for their desire is to match Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility that Iran could build a nuclear weapon.

Time out for a disclaimer: Whatever Iran’s rhetoric or recent actions on the subject, I think it unlikely, for reasons I’ve listed before, that Iran will build nuclear weapons any time soon, unless they perceive a new and serious threat from other nations.

The Saudis would like to be prepared to counter Iran. If things were to happen quickly, they might be able to buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan, but, for any nation, the surer route is to be able to control the supply chain within their country.

Read More

Zaporizhzhia Followup

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

It looks like the immediate concern about a Russian-caused incident at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is dying down.

We’ve had a number of scares of this kind throughout the war. It’s important to keep in mind the most likely scenarios, which I outlined earlier this week.

Read More

The Danger At Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Ukrainian warnings are becoming more urgent that the Russians plan an incident at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The warnings have been coming for about a week. The latest is that explosives have been rigged on top of two of the reactor buildings to simulate Ukrainian shelling of the plant. Other accusations are that the plant or the pond that holds the cooling water for the plant are mined.

The Russians are countering with accusations of their own.

Rafael Mariano Grossi, the Director General of the IAEA, has visited the plant recently, and two IAEA staff have been stationed at the plant. He says that the parts of the plant he has seen are not mined, but he has not seen everything he wants to see. He plans to go back in the near future.

Read More

Ukraine Before The Offensive

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Over at Lawyers, Guns & Money, Rob has provided material to read in preparation for the Ukrainian offensive. This is more of a situation report.

The Ukrainian government holds its plans for the offensive very close. They apparently are not sharing them even with the US government. So nobody outside of Ukraine knows what is going to happen, no matter what any rando bluecheck may claim.

Russia has been expending missiles on Kyiv since the “attack” on the Kremlin of a hobbyist-type drone carrying a firecracker’s worth of explosives. Ukrainian air defense has been quite effective, and a Patriot took down a Russian Kinzhal missile, one of Russia’s supposedly super weapons introduced by Putin along with a couple of things that didn’t pan out. It looks like Russia’s supply of missiles is running down, along with other equipment.

The May 9 parade in Moscow is reported to have included one (1) tank, an antique. However, antiques are being mobilized to Ukraine. A number of military experts say that Russia will have to mobilize more men soon, but there aren’t many signs of that.

Public opinion in Russia seems to be softening on support for the war, but it hasn’t turned against Vladimir Putin.

Read More

The Latest Classified Document Leak

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

There has been too much happening this week for me to do a deep dive into the latest leak, which showed up on a Discord in early March but was only noticed this week. And then another tranche of documents came out. I’m basing this mostly on the latest NYT article (gift link) and random tweets I’ve seen.

The fact that the material is a month or more old limits the damage. None of what is revealed in the documents, or at least what has been reported, seems like a big deal. Most of it has been reported qualitatively. In some cases, numbers have been attached that are pretty much what has been guessed at. I’m agreeing with Adam Silverman at Balloon Juice on this.

Read More

If Ukraine Had Kept Soviet Nuclear Missiles

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Bill Clinton has joined the chorus of “If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, Russia would never have invaded.” Bill never was good at foreign policy. He was right in 1994, and he’s wrong now.

What people mean when they make that claim is “If Ukraine in January 2022 (or January 2014) had nuclear weapons that could be used against Russia, then Russia would never have invaded.” This claim is based on two big assumptions: that a Ukraine that retained the nuclear weapons on its territory in 1994 would have followed the same path as the Ukraine that signed the Budapest Memorandum, and that Ukraine could have repurposed those weapons into a defensive stand against Russia. I’ve written about this in the past.

For a history of what actually happened, check out Mariana Budjeryn’s “Inheriting the Bomb: The Collapse of the USSR and the Nuclear Disarmament of Ukraine.” It’s the most complete history of these events. Let’s consider how Ukraine might have developed if it had kept those nuclear weapons.

Read More

Putin Threatens To Put Nuclear Weapons In Belarus

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Vladimir Putin yesterday said that Russia is building a storage facility for nuclear weapons in Belarus, to be completed July 1. He was vague on when warheads would be delivered.

There’s a vigorous discussion on Twitter among experts trying to parse Putin’s meaning and intentions. There are a number of opinions, but I think some things are being left out. I won’t quote everyone who’s made a good point – I was more offline than on yesterday and couldn’t follow closely.

Some of the discussion centers around a sentence in the Putin-Xi statement released in conjunction with Xi’s visit to Moscow. That sentence urged avoiding nuclear threats and use in Russia’s war on Ukraine. Part of Putin’s and Xi’s normal rhetoric is a rejection of what they feel is US hegemony and a limit on their actions. That would include “the liberal international order” of treaties. They would like free rein to do whatever benefits their power. Conflicts with what has been said before are not an issue for them.

Read More