
Russian Strikes On Nuclear Plants May Presage Tactics In War With NATO
Russia's ongoing attacks on nuclear power plants in Ukraine might foreshadow similar battle tactics in a future war with NATO, says a British expert who has written about the Kremlin's defense strategies.
Invading Russian troops seized two Ukrainian nuclear power outposts in the early days of the war—the first time ever that an extreme-risk atomic station has been captured by armed force—and they continue dangerous military maneuvers, including drone strikes, around both.
The invaders, who still forcibly control the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, might booby trap the site to transform it into the world's most colossal 'dirty bomb,' says Simon Bennett, a scholar at the University of Leicester, in England.
Dr. Bennett, author of the book Atomic Blackmail? The Weaponization of Nuclear Facilities During the Russia-Ukraine War, tells me in an interview that if Russian leader Vladimir Putin one day faced defeat in his bid to conquer Ukraine, he could surround each of the Zaporizhzhia plant's six reactors with mines, and remotely detonate the devices, creating clouds of nuclear fallout that speed across Europe.
Nuclear experts at the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration, which have jointly set up a Ukraine Task Force, say: 'Russian personnel have occupied and controlled Ukraine's Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) since Russian forces seized the site on March 4, 2022.'
While remotely monitoring the site, these American experts state in a report that: 'Russia's placement of military equipment and explosive mines around ZNPP has jeopardized the safety and security of the plant, the lives of Ukrainian staff who operate the plant, and the security of the surrounding area.'
'Multiple mines have exploded around ZNPP,' they warn, 'some set off by animals, contributing to a dangerous atmosphere at the site.'
Guards of honor stand sentinel in front of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant to commemorate the ... More staff who died during explosion and meltdown of one of the site's nuclear reactors back in 1986. Nuclear watchdogs are now warning of the risk of a new disaster as Russia pelts two of Ukraine's atomic stations in drone attacks. (Photo by Sergei SUPINSKY / AFP) (Photo by SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images)
Russia's armed occupation of the nuclear outpost, Bennett says, enables the Kremlin to engage in 'atomic blackmail'—against not only Ukraine, but all of Europe—with just the threat of weaponizing the uranium-rich complex.
He points out that a massive explosion and meltdown of one reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear outpost a generation ago generated radioactive clouds that swiftly crisscrossed national borders.
'As demonstrated by the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown and radionuclide release,' he tells me, 'plumes of radioactive debris can travel many hundreds of miles.'
'Chernobyl's plume reached Cumbria in England, where it contaminated farmland.'
That means Putin and his defense chiefs would be courting extreme peril—including to Russia—if they were to sabotage the Ukrainian power plant and trigger the meltdown of even one of its reactors.
'Should any of Ukraine's nuclear power plants be hit—even the plants in the far west of the country—there is a real possibility that, if there were a persistent westerly wind, the plume would reach Russia's heartlands,' Bennett says.
Ironically, he adds, Russia's current advances in its missile blitzes against Ukraine, and its glacial battlefield gains, could prevent Putin from transforming Zaporizhzhya into a super-size radiological bomb.
Moscow has been blitzing Ukraine with its missiles, even as the Kremlin stages drone attacks on ... More Ukrainian nuclear power complexes. (Photo by NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA / AFP) (Photo by NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA/AFP via Getty Images)
Yet if the tides of war change, Bennett predicts, and Moscow's military forces ultimately face being routed from Ukraine, the Kremlin commander-in-chief might opt to cover the democratic enclave in radioactive plumes created by the destruction of its atomic power stations.
'If cornered and facing unrest at home (raising the prospect of him being forced from office), he [Putin] may decide to do what Hitler did in 1945 when he [the Nazi leader] issued his infamous Nero Decree – destroy everything, including his own people, in a final act of machismo and spite,' Bennett says.
The Kremlin is playing with nuclear fire by continuing to pelt the Zaporizhzhya and Chernobyl nuclear complexes in drone assaults, even as Putin sporadically shoots off threats to deploy his arsenal of nuclear warheads against any NATO nation that directly intervenes to help Ukraine repel the Russian invaders.
On Valentine's Day this year, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that a drone attack 'caused a fire on the building confining the remains of the reactor destroyed in the 1986 Chernobyl accident.'
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said the strike 'underlines the persistent risks to nuclear safety during the military conflict.'
The attack on Chernobyl, which pierced the high-tech shield positioned over the reactor that had exploded in the world's worst nuclear disaster ever, so far has not triggered a new release of radiation, Grossi said.
The twin-shelled shield cost more than $1.6 billion—contributed by a coalition of nations aiming to protect Ukraine and the European Union from a renewed spread of radiation, The New York Times reported. The shield appeared to be deliberately targeted, perhaps as a run-up to more intense Russian strikes on the site in the future.
Grossi said the aerial assault 'once again demonstrated that nuclear safety remains under constant threat for as long as the conflict continues.'
Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to deploy his nuclear warheads against any Western ... More power directly intervening to halt his invasion of Ukraine, even as he steps up "atomic blackmail" against Europe by occupying a Ukrainian nuclear power complex and surrounding it with mines. (Photo by Gavriil GRIGOROV / SPUTNIK / AFP) (Photo by GAVRIIL GRIGOROV/SPUTNIK/AFP via Getty Images)
'There were no reports of casualties,' he said, yet added: 'The IAEA remains on high alert.'
Just weeks ago, Grossi said the IAEA team stationed at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhya plant, where the nuclear safety guardians remain despite the escalating wartime dangers, reported hearing hundreds of rounds of small arms gunfire that ripped through the night.
The crossfire followed 'a clear escalation in drone strikes during this war, also affecting Ukraine's nuclear power plants and potentially putting them in further danger,' added Grossi, a longtime diplomat and disarmament scholar with a doctorate in international relations from the University of Geneva.
Dr. Bennett, meanwhile, predicts the Kremlin's quest to extend Russia's borders will not stop at Ukraine, and that Putin's dream of recreating the Soviet Union could escalate to spark a new global war.
'The Russian president has been determined to recover Russia's lost glory,' Bennett says. 'He has made it his life's work. It's a personal crusade.'
'Russia has been preparing the ground for a confrontation with the West since Putin became Russia's president.'
Bennett's prophecy of an ever-expanding war that begins racing across Europe like a wildfire in some ways echos and amplifies a warning issued by NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte in the run-up to the NATO summit in June.
'There is great worry in many circles of NATO,' Rutte said.
'We have heard the Chief of Defense in Germany, a couple of weeks ago, and many other senior military leaders speaking about this, and also senior intelligence community people speaking about, that between 3, 5, 7 years from now, Russia will be able to successfully attack us.'
NATO chief Mark Rutte has warned that Russia could attack a NATO state within the next three to ... More seven years (Photo by)
As the Kremlin counts down toward its confrontation with the Western Allies, Bennett muses, it is likely already creating its masterplan for victory.
Moscow's attacks on Ukraine's atomic stations, he says, could be mere precursors, testing varying battle stratagems to lay the groundwork for the destruction of nuclear stations positioned in NATO nations in the future.
Could Moscow already be mapping out pre-emptive missile strikes on British and French nuclear reactors that in turn contaminate the continent and its citizenry with mortal doses of radiation?
Bennett says it's 'more likely that Russia would seek to sabotage critical national infrastructure, including nuclear power plants, from within using sleepers,' or Kremlin intelligence agents who have adopted new identities, complete with foreign passports and elaborate cover stories, across Western nations.
'Russia has had over a decade (the origins of the current war can be traced back to Russia's 2014 invasion of Crimea) to insert sleepers into critical national infrastructure installations such as nuclear power plants, gas-powered stations, airports, ports, communications hubs.'
'I think it likely that Russia has in place sleepers across any state it considers hostile,' Bennett adds, 'which, of course, would include NATO member states.'
'Which means that Russia has a head start on us.'
'It is easier to infiltrate liberal democracies than it is to infiltrate authoritarian states like Russia.'
'The former are open,' he says. 'The latter closed.'
'The UK's National Security Act is a belated response to this threat which, as I said, has been building.'
This act, Bennett adds, aims to counter 'threats to national security from espionage, sabotage and persons acting for foreign powers,' including the sleepers deployed by Putin, a onetime KGB espionage operative.
Putin was stationed in East Berlin when he watched—in agony—as pro-democracy demonstrators pulled down the machine gun-guarded Berlin Wall and freed the millions of East Germans who had been captured behind the shoot-to-kill barricade.
Tanks approaching a checkpoint area of the Berlin Wall. Vladimir Putin, a KGB agent stationed in ... More East Berlin until the fall of the Berlin Wall, now dreams of recreating the Soviet Union and its satellite states (Photo by)
As this democracy movement ricocheted across Eastern Europe, and communist rulers were toppled like dominoes, these satellites of the Soviets crossed into new orbits around NATO, after the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics itself crumbled.
Putin's fever-pitch passion since then has been to turn back time and revive the Soviet empire, even if that means Russian tanks and troops reinvade Eastern Europe and other post-Soviet realms.
Peering into the storm-cloud future, Bennett predicts the next world war will erupt within the next decade, even as Putin's sleepers are activated to sabotage atomic stations and 'agencies such as the police service, the fire and rescue service … [and] defense contractors.'
Elena Grossfeld, an expert on Russia's intelligence and defense operations at prestigious King's College London, points out that Putin, a world master of espionage and sabotage, like his Soviet forebears Lenin and Stalin, has already had more than two decades in power, ample time to despatch sleeper agents across the West.
And the top-echelon sleepers turned out in Putin's 'illegals program,' she tells me in an interview, form just one class of spies.
Other agents include Russians recruited during the mass exodus of intellectuals and technocrats since Putin's rise to power and foreigners lavishly bribed to join the Kremlin's intelligence corps.
'With multiple sabotage operations in Europe, Russian intelligence has been using a variety of agents.'
Yet the size of Putin's shadow army of spies across Europe and the U.S. is difficult to estimate, she says.
If even a handful succeed in infiltrating European or American nuclear power outposts, the potential could arise for this fifth column to sabotage the plants with the outbreak of a war.
'Damaging adversary infrastructure is aligned with Russian military and intelligence approaches,' Grossfeld says.
And, whether in Ukraine now or in some future target of Moscow's aggression, she adds, 'The potential destruction of a nuclear power plant could be used to benefit Russia's military plans - as in, creating a denied territory, or some other purpose.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gangs promoting small boats crossings on social media face jail under new crackdown
Gangs promoting small boat Channel crossings on social media will face up to five years in prison as part of a new crackdown announced by the government. An amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill – currently going through parliament – will introduce a new, UK-wide offence to criminalise the creation of material for publication online which promotes or offers services facilitating a breach of UK immigration law. This could include small boat crossings, the creation of fake travel documents like passports or visas, or explicitly promising illegal working opportunities in the UK. While facilitating illegal migration is already a crime, the government said the proposed changes would 'add another string to law enforcement's bow, better enabling them to disrupt the gangs while they are publicising people smuggling activities and provide an additional tool when building a case against those peddling this content'. Approximately 80 per cent of migrants arriving via small boats told officials that they used social media during their illegal journey to the UK, including to locate or communicate with an agent or facilitator associated with an organised crime group, according to Home Office analysis. Individuals caught by the offence could receive a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine. It comes after the number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel topped 25,000 in record time, after some 898 people made the journey in 13 boats on Wednesday – the third highest daily number of crossings this year. The home secretary said ministers are 'determined to do everything we can' to prevent people smuggling gangs from helping people to make the dangerous crossing. 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral', said Yvette Cooper. 'These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media.' She added: 'We have to stay one step ahead of the ever-evolving tactics of people-smuggling gangs and this move, part of our Plan for Change to boost border security, will empower law enforcement to disable these tactics faster and more effectively, ensuring people face proper penalties.' Rob Jones, director general of the National Crime Agency, said: 'We know many of the people-smuggling networks risking lives transporting people to the UK promote their services to migrants using social media. 'The majority of migrants arriving in the UK will have engaged with smugglers in this way. This is why we work with social media companies to target smugglers' accounts, and we've increased the pace of takedowns.' In 2025 so far, 25,436 people have made the dangerous journey across the Channel – up 51 per cent on this point last year (16,842) and 73 per cent higher than at this stage in 2023 (14,732), according to PA news agency analysis. It is the earliest point in a calendar year at which the 25,000 mark has been passed since data on Channel crossings was first reported in 2018. Last year, the figure was passed on 22 September, and in 2023, it was on 2 October. With Nigel Farage's Reform UK surging in the polls, the figures come as a fresh blow to Sir Keir Starmer, whose pledge to tackle small boat crossings is a central pledge of his mission for government. The high numbers of crossings come despite the prime minister announcing a major 'one in, one out' returns deal with France last month. While it is hoped the deal will bring the spiralling numbers under control, the crossings have so far continued at pace.


CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: For Trump, Russia's nuclear saber-rattling may be a useful distraction
There's something faintly undignified about a president of the United States being goaded by a minor Russian official into making nuclear threats on social media. But that's exactly what President Donald Trump has now done by ordering the repositioning of two US nuclear submarines, allowing himself to appear rattled by the hollow saber-rattling of Dmitry Medvedev, an outspoken but long-sidelined former Russian president. In a series of bombastic posts on social media, Medvedev, who has styled himself as a virulent anti-Western critic in recent years, slammed Trump's soon to expire deadline on Russia for a peace deal in Ukraine, saying that each new ultimatum was a 'step towards war' – not between Russia and Ukraine, but 'with his own country.' The US president should remember 'how dangerous the fabled 'Dead Hand' can be,' Medvedev wrote, in a provocative reference to Russia's Soviet-era automatic nuclear retaliation system, which can initiate the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles if it detects a nuclear strike. Trump's own secretary of state, Marco Rubio, played down the Russian's recent posts, pointing out that Medvedev isn't a decision-maker in Moscow anymore. It is a view shared by many Russians, for whom Medvedev is widely seen as politically irrelevant, with little authority, let alone the power to launch a nuclear strike. It begs the question as to why Trump would even engage with what he himself described as 'foolish' statements, and issue such a strident public response which ratchets up the rhetoric between Washington and Moscow. One possible answer is that it's a convenient way for Trump to appear tough on Moscow, singling out a public figure often dubbed 'little Dima' in Russia because of his small stature, without directly confronting the real power in the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin, or indeed making any concrete changes to the US nuclear posture. Trump said his order for two nuclear submarines 'to be positioned in the appropriate regions' came in case Medvedev's 'foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' But there are multiple US nuclear submarines, armed with hundreds of nuclear warheads, patrolling the world's oceans on any given day. Given the multi-thousand-mile range of the missiles they carry, as well as the vast size of Russia, it is unlikely any repositioning would make a significant difference to their ability to strike Russian targets. But, as ever, the timing is key. Trump's Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, in his dual role as a makeshift Russia mediator, is set to hold more talks with the Russian leadership in the coming days. He is likely to again press for a ceasefire as a deadline set by Trump, for the Kremlin to agree to peace in Ukraine or face stiff tariffs, is set to expire. Few realistically expect the Kremlin, which has stubbornly insisted on achieving its stated military objectives before ending the Ukraine conflict, to back down. The latest escalating nuclear rhetoric is unlikely to change that hardline position. But, again, as Trump weighs – and possibly backs away from – the potentially self-damaging impact of imposing secondary sanctions on countries such as India and China who buy Russian oil, as he has threatened to do, the phantom of increased nuclear readiness may prove to be a useful distraction. In fact, creating a distraction from mounting political problems at home may be a welcome byproduct of the escalating nuclear rhetoric. Talk of mounting nuclear readiness towards Russia, which has more atomic weapons than any other country in the world, could overshadow more trifling domestic matters, like the Epstein scandal, for instance. Of course, any mention of nuclear escalation between the world's biggest nuclear superpowers rightly attracts serious attention. But the broader relationship between Washington and Moscow, though under renewed pressure, is nowhere near nuclear confrontation. And while the seemingly flippant use of nuclear threats by both nations may be concerning, it does not signal that a nuclear confrontation is on the way.


CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: For Trump, Russia's nuclear saber-rattling may be a useful distraction
There's something faintly undignified about a president of the United States being goaded by a minor Russian official into making nuclear threats on social media. But that's exactly what President Donald Trump has now done by ordering the repositioning of two US nuclear submarines, allowing himself to appear rattled by the hollow saber-rattling of Dmitry Medvedev, an outspoken but long-sidelined former Russian president. In a series of bombastic posts on social media, Medvedev, who has styled himself as a virulent anti-Western critic in recent years, slammed Trump's soon to expire deadline on Russia for a peace deal in Ukraine, saying that each new ultimatum was a 'step towards war' – not between Russia and Ukraine, but 'with his own country.' The US president should remember 'how dangerous the fabled 'Dead Hand' can be,' Medvedev wrote, in a provocative reference to Russia's Soviet-era automatic nuclear retaliation system, which can initiate the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles if it detects a nuclear strike. Trump's own secretary of state, Marco Rubio, played down the Russian's recent posts, pointing out that Medvedev isn't a decision-maker in Moscow anymore. It is a view shared by many Russians, for whom Medvedev is widely seen as politically irrelevant, with little authority, let alone the power to launch a nuclear strike. It begs the question as to why Trump would even engage with what he himself described as 'foolish' statements, and issue such a strident public response which ratchets up the rhetoric between Washington and Moscow. One possible answer is that it's a convenient way for Trump to appear tough on Moscow, singling out a public figure often dubbed 'little Dima' in Russia because of his small stature, without directly confronting the real power in the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin, or indeed making any concrete changes to the US nuclear posture. Trump said his order for two nuclear submarines 'to be positioned in the appropriate regions' came in case Medvedev's 'foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' But there are multiple US nuclear submarines, armed with hundreds of nuclear warheads, patrolling the world's oceans on any given day. Given the multi-thousand-mile range of the missiles they carry, as well as the vast size of Russia, it is unlikely any repositioning would make a significant difference to their ability to strike Russian targets. But, as ever, the timing is key. Trump's Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, in his dual role as a makeshift Russia mediator, is set to hold more talks with the Russian leadership in the coming days. He is likely to again press for a ceasefire as a deadline set by Trump, for the Kremlin to agree to peace in Ukraine or face stiff tariffs, is set to expire. Few realistically expect the Kremlin, which has stubbornly insisted on achieving its stated military objectives before ending the Ukraine conflict, to back down. The latest escalating nuclear rhetoric is unlikely to change that hardline position. But, again, as Trump weighs – and possibly backs away from – the potentially self-damaging impact of imposing secondary sanctions on countries such as India and China who buy Russian oil, as he has threatened to do, the phantom of increased nuclear readiness may prove to be a useful distraction. In fact, creating a distraction from mounting political problems at home may be a welcome byproduct of the escalating nuclear rhetoric. Talk of mounting nuclear readiness towards Russia, which has more atomic weapons than any other country in the world, could overshadow more trifling domestic matters, like the Epstein scandal, for instance. Of course, any mention of nuclear escalation between the world's biggest nuclear superpowers rightly attracts serious attention. But the broader relationship between Washington and Moscow, though under renewed pressure, is nowhere near nuclear confrontation. And while the seemingly flippant use of nuclear threats by both nations may be concerning, it does not signal that a nuclear confrontation is on the way.