FIFTH PANEL: “ENERGY SECURITY: HOW THE FULL-SCALE RUSSIAN INVASION AFFECTED THE ENERGY SECURITY AROUND THE WORLD, AND HOW TO OVERCOME ITS CONSEQUENCES TOGETHER”
The discussion on the state of energy security in the world took place during one of the panels of the international conference “Crimea Global. Understanding Ukraine through the South” today. The panel focused on examples of Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian nuclear facilities and energy infrastructure, as well as on the terrorist seizure of the largest nuclear power plant in Ukraine and Europe – Zaporizhzhya NPP.
During the discussion, Viktoria Voitsitska, Secretary of the Committee on Fuel Energy, Nuclear Policies and Security at International Center for Ukrainian Victory (ICUV), noted that although the political will of Ukraine’s global allies seems to be protecting Ukraine from Russia’s use of tactical nuclear weapons against it, none of the allies has the ability to solve the problem of Russian capture of Ukrainian nuclear power plants. Also, the decisive steps to get rid of dependence on energy cooperation with the Russian authoritarian regime, which is committing acts of nuclear terrorism, are lacking globally. Ms. Voitsitska emphasized the unprecedented seizures of Zaporizhzhia and Chornobyl nuclear power plants, as well as the devastation caused to the cooling system of the Kakhovka reservoir by the dam blowing. According to the ICUV Energy Advocacy Secretary, even an attempt to cause a nuclear disaster should be a “red line” for the world.
The discussion also touched upon missile attacks on Ukraine, which, according to the conference organizers. Russia has carried out over 870 missile attacks on Ukraine since full-scale invasion in February 2022. In this regard, Ms. Voitsitska recalled last year’s loss of electricity and heat in Ukrainian settlements: “Ukraine is preparing for perhaps, the most challenging winters in history. The Russians will continue to target our critical infrastructure, including the energy structure, and all principles that can ensure the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear facilities.”
Olga Babiy, a member of the National Commission for State Regulation in Energy and Utilities, focused on the need to change international safety rules regarding the handling of nuclear facilities in case of capture. In her opinion, the mechanisms of international law in such cases do not work during wartime. “Russia’s impunity after its terrorist attacks on Ukrainian nuclear facilities sends a signal to all terrorists around the world to act in a similar manner,” the member of the Ukrainian National Commission said.
Ms. Babiy also stressed the importance of changing the world’s sanctions policy against the Russian state atomic energy corporation, Rosatom, to a more effective one to eventually end other countries’ dependence on cooperation with Russia in the nuclear energy sector.
Oksana Ishchuk, the Executive Director of the Center for Global Studies “Strategy XXI”: expanded this idea: “Europe is extremely dependent on Russian nuclear fuel. So is America. And a lot of nuclear facilities operate thanks to Russian fuel. They are also customers that use reactors developed in the Russian Federation. This results in the most powerful financial flows that not only fuel these nuclear technologies, but also fuel the war, co-financed from these financial streams. Everything must be done to stop these flows.”
To achieve this, according to Ms. Ishchuk, Ukraine’s allies should: stop the operations of joint ventures with Russia in nuclear energy sector; stop the construction of nuclear facilities in cooperation with Russia, as well as decommission reactors that use Russian technology; include Russian nuclear power plants in sanctions packages; halt all ongoing projects where Rosatom is a party or contractor, involving “Rosatom’s” subsidiary and parent companies in the allied countries of Ukraine, as well as their licenses to operate in Ukraine’s allied states; these countries should also ban the supply of Russian uranium ore; stop sales of nuclear energy technology to Russia; exclude Russia from international projects constructing new reactors; and, in general, reduce the degree of dependence on Russian energy carriers. The gradual implementation of these prohibitions over a period of 3-5 years, according to Ms. Ishchuk, would provide time for reorientation toward alternative sources and supply chains for nuclear fuel. In addition, Oksana Ishchuk recalled the problem of blocking sanctions against Russia by some of its European allies.
Oliver Della Costa Stunkel, political analyst and professor at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation’s School of International Relations (FGV), agreed that getting rid of dependence on the Russian energy factor will take time. He also noted that although Brazil condemns Russia’s military aggression, it is pragmatically increasing its own dependence on Russian oil. Other countries, he said, have generally taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the war because of their economies’ dependence on Russian energy. Moreover, energy prices in Latin America have risen since the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In Mr. Della Costa Stunkel’s opinion, Russia’s war against Ukraine has forced the world to rethink many issues of security and global order. And one of the ways out of energy dependence on Russia may be the development of “green” energy and the development of the rare earth elements market.
Ruhi Neog, a nuclear security specialist and CEO of The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS), suggested that policy recommendations to help Ukraine are easy to say but difficult to implement. As an example, Ms. Neog mentioned the treaty between India and Pakistan on non-aggression against nuclear facilities in both countries, which has been in place for several decades. However, she noted that the existence of a “red line” does not mean it will not be crossed. She also expressed concern that the use of nuclear weapons is no longer a taboo subject in the world.
Dr. Can Kasapoglu, Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute and Director of Defense Research,
at Economic and International Policy Studies (EDAM), expressed confidence that the Russian attacks and hostilities on the Zaporizhzhya NPP and Chornobyl NPP,may seem irrational, but they align with Russia’s military plan. He also emphasized that Russia did not did not provide troops with radiological, chemical, and biological protection during these operations. Mr. Kasapoglu commented on this as follows: “Military unprofessionalism is worse than barbarism”.
Dr. Kasapoglu expressed doubt that Russia would use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine. However, he said that he did not rule out such a strike on the Black Sea for demonstration purposes, as well as a military strike on nuclear power plants.
According to Gian Kasapoglu, one of Ukraine’s problems is that it does not shape the agenda for the international community on nuclear safety issues. He was opposed by Oliver Della Costa Stunkel, who believes that Ukraine has much more influence than other countries. He emphasized the importance of such events as the international conference “Crimea Global. Understanding Ukraine through the South”.
During the discussion, Ms. Ruhi Neog also noted that nuclear safety experts rarely interact with each other. She believes today is the right time to start such cooperation.