Why? Nuclear disaster is bad, but how would it ensure that a country can _never_ join NATO or the EU?
Ukraine already had the Chernobyl disaster on their soil, and I don't see that one as keeping them out of either organisation _forever_.
Why? Nuclear disaster is bad, but how would it ensure that a country can _never_ join NATO or the EU?
Ukraine already had the Chernobyl disaster on their soil, and I don't see that one as keeping them out of either organisation _forever_.
> Why? Nuclear disaster is bad, but how would it ensure that a country can _never_ join NATO or the EU?
> Ukraine already had the Chernobyl disaster on their soil, and I don't see that one as keeping them out of either organisation _forever_.
And didn't the EU pay a lot of money to help them build a new containment building for it?
It's a bizarre leap to say a nuclear disaster would disqualify a country from joining NATO or the EU.
2:1
Both USA and USSR nuked themselves a whole lot more when testing nuclear weapons. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
Doesn't matter too much for the point I made in any case:
If a nuclear disaster were to happen in Ukraine now, NATO and EU would also not blame it on Ukraine.
And, of course, Russia could do much blowing up with conventional weapons, too.
However: for a nuclear power like Russia, blowing up nuclear reactors only makes sense if they can make it look like an accident.
Otherwise: just use your nukes.