The security alarms activated in Europe since March, when the Russian Army took over the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe, have not stopped emitting increasingly thunderous signals as a result of the fighting in their vicinity, the disconnection and connection of several reactors that have not been fully clarified, and the exchange of accusations between the contenders. The warning made by Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the UN, in the sense that “any attack on a nuclear power plant is suicidal” has hardly had an effect in order to calm down the spirits, overheated in early August by the statements of Russian General Vitali Vasiliev: “The Zaporizhia nuclear power plant will be ours or nobody’s.” All this in the midst of the opinion shared by many military analysts about the war blockadewithout substantial changes in the fronts.
Hence, the trip to the plant of a commission of 14 experts from the International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEA), headed by its director general, Rafael Grossi, whose inspection work will begin before the end of the week, is moderately encouraging. The fact that Vladimir Putin has accepted the presence of the IAEA ‘in situ’ after long and complex negotiations in the United Nations should serve to evaluate at least four essential pieces of information: that there has been no leak of radioactive material, that the safety systems of the six reactors are working without problems, that they are the conditions in which the employees of the plant work are adequate and that the radioactive material declared by the Ukrainian authorities is found in Zaporizhia.
For the international mission to meet these objectives, the technicians posted to Ukraine must enjoy absolute freedom of movement and have their safety guaranteed, two conditions that the Russian occupier is supposed to be willing to respect, although the situation is too volatile to be in doubt. The negotiations held in the UN, in which Ukraine participated, characterized by the mutual mistrust and the desire to exploit the agreement politically, force caution, although it is evident that with the end of six months of fighting doubled, any progress in limiting the risks depends on the willingness of the parties to respect what was agreed upon.
Only independent monitoring of the situation in Zaporizhia can reassure the international community, which remembers what they the Chernobyl accident or the Fukushima disaster. The difference is that, in both cases, the nuclear power plants were not in the middle of a battlefield as is the case with the Ukrainian plant. Hence, no matter how explicit and precise the report that the IAEA commission may write up in its day, it is to be hoped that it will be enough to dissipate the reservations about the degree of security of the installation, what is truly transcendental is that both sides resign to lavish themselves in attacks that, willingly or unintentionally, can cause a real hecatomb. If possible, with a neutral zone or exclusion zone for military movements around the facility. But the strategy of final victory encouraged by Russian and Ukrainian propaganda and the absence of specific negotiations to stop the war entail the real danger that Zaporizhia will remain a target of the fighters.