For decades, nuclear power plants have been protected from attack in theatres of war.

The Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions states that nuclear facilities must not become targets, even in scenarios of strategic military gain.

But for the first time in history, the taboo on attacking nuclear sites has been broken, and the lack of regard for nuclear exclusion zones by Moscow and Kyiv has set a dangerous precedent.

The latest incident at Zaporizhzhia late last week, when Russian troops reportedly set tire fires beneath one of the cooling towers in response to Ukraine’s incursion into its territory, underscored Putin’s willingness to resort to nuclear provocation.

In the eyes of the law, nuclear power plants are always considered civilian infrastructure, and jeopardising nuclear energy security causes blackouts, harms vital services including hospitals, and increases reliance on environmentally harmful fossil fuels.

With a potential conflict between Israel and Iran looming, how can we ensure that the Ukraine war is the last to involve the threat of harm to nuclear energy as a pawn?

There have been calls for new legal and political mechanisms to protect nuclear power stations during war in the future. However, new legislation could weaken the existing Geneva Conventions – and will only add complexity to the issue by permitting rogue states to pick and mix their legal participation.

The protection of nuclear facilities was once unanimously seen as fundamental – and the legal codes of Russia, Israel, and the United States present these vital facilities as safeguarded spaces.

When Moscow’s forces attacked the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant on March 4, 2022, Russia not only provoked global outrage but violated its own national policy.

Russia then launched an assault to capture the infamous decommissioned Chernobyl nuclear power plant and sarcophagus.

By March 9, Chernobyl had lost external power due to the fighting and became reliant on back-up energy generation. While the Chernobyl site is now back in Ukrainian hands, Zaporizhzhia remains occupied by Russian forces.

So what can be done?

Completely shutting down nuclear energy production is not a realistic or sensible option.

Currently, 50 per cent of Ukraine’s domestic energy is provided by fifteen nuclear reactors. Four of them are Russian-designed and all of them lie within reach of Russian-occupied territory.

Nuclear power stations are more robust than we give them credit for. They are designed to withstand terrorist attacks and aircraft strikes.

However, they are not prepared for the multiple accidental strikes and environmental harms that can arise during long-term conflict.

If Russia does not maintain Zaporizhzhia to a high standard, there is the real possibility that an accident or counter-attack could release radioactive Iodine, Caesium, and Strontium isotopes across both Russia and Ukraine.

Russia’s reckless behaviour threatens the safety and security of Eastern Europe. Putin’s decision to attack and capture Ukraine’s nuclear energy presents an unprecedented violation of international humanitarian law.

This law has been respected, even by states with ongoing rivalries. In 1988, India and Pakistan recognised the risks that could arise from targeting each other’s nuclear installations and agreed to exclude all facilities that use or store large amounts of radioactive material from attack, despite historical tensions and hostilities.

Ukraine has called for retaliatory sanctions against Rosatom, the Russian State Atomiс Energy Corporation, in response to the seizure of Zaporizhzhia.

Unfortunately, such sanctions are not possible, due to the harm that they could cause to the broader European energy infrastructure.

For example, there are fourteen nuclear reactors in the European Union that are entirely dependent on Russia for their fuel – and the global nuclear industry is not yet well placed to compensate for this deficit.

Until a strong plan is in place to end global reliance on the Russian nuclear industry, sanctions are just not a viable option.

However, there is some hope.

Untangling Europe from Russian nuclear industry could be achieved by developing nuclear fuel conversion, enrichment, and fabrication capabilities that were previously Russian in other places.

This process has already begun in Europe, as power stations sign new long-term contracts with non-Russian resource providers.

The move away from Russia is creating new economic opportunities in the sector for the US and Spain, for example the collaboration between energy giants Westinghouse and Enusa to fabricate fuel for Russian-designed reactors that has made Moscow redundant.

The end of Europe’s dependence on Russia should send a clear message that exploiting nuclear power plants during warfare has significant consequences.

It is time for the international community to take action and rebuild the decades-old safeguards around nuclear energy infrastructure in conflict zones.

Both Moscow and Kyiv need to cease their attacks which threaten nuclear energy infrastructure and commit to upholding the principles that have, so far, prevented disaster.

AfriPrime App link:  FREE to download...

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT

Safety at Ukraine nuclear plant deteriorates after nearby blast - IAEA

Safety at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is deteriorating following a drone strike that hit a perimeter access road on Saturday, according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general Rafael Mariano Grossi.

The Russian management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant said a Ukraine drone dropped an explosive charge on a road used by staff, the TASS news agency reported earlier.

Russia has been in control of the Zaporizhzhia site, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, since soon after it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The plant is dormant as Moscow and Kyiv have repeatedly accused each other of trying to sabotage its operations and endangering safety around the plant.

"Yet again we see an escalation of the nuclear safety and security dangers facing the [...] power plant," Grossi said.

"I remain extremely concerned and reiterate my call for maximum restraint from all sides and for strict observance of the five concrete principles established for the protection of the plant."

The impact site was close to the essential cooling water sprinkler ponds and about 100 metres from the Dniprovska power line, the only remaining 750 kilovolt line providing a power supply to the plant, the IAEA said.

An IAEA team visited the area on Saturday and reported that the damage seemed to have been caused by a drone equipped with an explosive payload.

The report said there were no casualties and no impact on any nuclear power plant equipment. However, there was impact to the road between the two main gates of the plant.

The attack comes as Ukraine continues an incursion into Russia, claiming to have taken control of 82 settlements over an area of 1,150 square kilometres (444 square miles) in the Kursk region since Aug. 6.

Moscow wants to discuss the attack on the Zaporizhzhia plant with the IAEA, Russia's RIA news agency reported, citing Roman Ustinov, the acting Russian representative in Vienna.

AfriPrime App link:  FREE to download...

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT