“We’re getting dangerously close to a nuclear accident,” IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said following multiple attacks against the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said attacks against Europe’s largest nuclear power plant have put the world “dangerously close to a nuclear accident”.

Without attributing blame, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said his agency has been able to confirm three attacks against the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant since 7 April.

“These reckless attacks must cease immediately,” he told the Security Council on Monday. “Though, fortunately, they have not led to a radiological incident this time, they significantly increase the risk … where nuclear safety is already compromised.”

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    What secret sauce? Numbers. NATO has a half million troops. Thelargest air and Navy. Russia don’t want none of that.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      NATO has a half million troops.

      Ukrainian Defense Ministry statistics say the country’s military had nearly 800,000 troops in October. That doesn’t include National Guard or other units. In total, 1 million Ukrainians are in uniform, including about 300,000 who are serving on front lines.

      This, after over two years of continuous conflict.

      A new influx of NATO soliders would still be operating under the same failed military strategy. They’d be faced with the same stacked up Russian defense - layer after layer of land mines and bunkers and artillery support - that will eviscerate those 500,000 NATO troops unless they can figure out how to dance between shards of shrapnel.

      Russia don’t want none of that.

      If NATO states committed their full allotment of troops to the Ukrainian front, that would mean pulling soldiers out of the African and Middle Eastern and East Asia conflict zones. That would mean more Revolutionary Governments joining Niger and Mali and Burkina Faso, more uncontested rocket strikes in the Gulf of Adan, and more opportunities for Chinese naval vessels to encircle Taiwan.

      All so Zelensky can… what? Retake Bakhmut? The city that didn’t matter?

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Half a million is only combat ready troops, NATO has 3.5 million military and personnel total.

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m unsure where you think NATO troops are currently active. The US has 11 carrier battle groups, only one of them is in the Red Sea, etc.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              The US has 11 carrier battle groups, only one of them is in the Red Sea

              One in the Red Sea, three more in the Mediterranean, and one in the Persian Gulf. All focused on the batch of crises spilling out of the region.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        A new influx of NATO soliders would still be operating under the same failed military strategy. They’d be faced with the same stacked up Russian defense - layer after layer of land mines and bunkers and artillery support - that will eviscerate those 500,000 NATO troops unless they can figure out how to dance between shards of shrapnel.

        Not sure you understand the tactics of the United States. That’s exactly what Iraq did in gulf war 1. How did that work out for them? Maneuver warfare beats that everyday.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s exactly what Iraq did in gulf war 1

          The US had air superiority in Gulf War 1. Modern Russian air defense is far superior to anything Saddam was able to buy from Donald Rumsfeld back in the 80s.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Iraq had Russian air defenses.

            We quickly gain air superiority. Russia can’t even get it in Ukraine.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Iraq had Russian air defenses.

              They had some dated Soviet tech at the end of its lifecycle and a bunch of AA guns without reliable radar targeting support.

              We quickly gain air superiority.

              By attacking through Saudi Arabia, which was an Iraqi blind spot.

              Russia can’t even get it in Ukraine.

              Despite a wealth of NATO arms flowing into Ukraine, they can’t get it either. And Russia’s air force still exists.