For weeks, Krivyi Rih has lived with the weight of a looming disaster. More than a month earlier, 14 Russian cruise missiles struck the Karachun hydroelectric dam for three days, just outside the industrial city in south-central Ukraine—the place where President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was born. Local authorities reported that the Iskander and hypersonic weapons breached a reservoir door, allowing water to rush downhill at about 240 liters per second toward two districts connected to the reservoir. The deputy mayor, Sergiy Milyutin, warned that the blast likely aimed to flood those neighborhoods and cause mass panic, even potentially triggering a civilian catastrophe rivaling Hiroshima in scale for the 150,000 residents of those two counties.
A hundred houses were inundated and roughly twenty streets evacuated, yet the danger remained dangerously close. Had sealing the door with 100 tons of stone and clay taken longer, the situation could have deteriorated into catastrophe. “If we had delayed by 24 hours instead of 16, two districts would have been submerged and water would have reached the second floor,” explained Oleksandr Vilkul, the city’s military administrator and an engineer who led the operation. The near miss underscored how precarious the moment was.
Ukraine remains a high-risk theater of war, and the stakes extend beyond the belligerents. Since the invasion began, Russia has repeatedly raised the specter of nuclear weapons, a reality that U.S. intelligence assesses as a real arsenal, not a bluff. The possibility deepens amid ongoing threats and the Kremlin’s recent moves after declaring the annexation of four Ukrainian regions. President Vladimir Putin emphasized that the threat is tangible, a reminder that the risk of escalation endures.
Zaporizhzhia: the radioactive tinderbox
But the danger goes beyond the immediate flooding. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest, has been a flashpoint for months. Russian forces have controlled the facility since March, while Ukrainian workers continue to operate several reactors under tense conditions. Both sides accuse the other of artillery strikes, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly warned that the situation is unsustainable. The plant remains a focal point in the broader conflict and a reminder of the fragility of critical energy infrastructure in wartime.
In recent weeks, the plant’s six reactors were shut down temporarily, but one unit continued to receive cooling power to prevent overheating. Then, as of Monday, it briefly reconnected to the internet only to be cut again by external emergency generators after successive bombardments that damaged the surrounding electricity network. Ukrainian officials describe ongoing attacks on substations feeding the high-voltage lines to the plant, amplifying concerns about a broader energy crisis in the region.
Emergency preparedness and response
All factors surrounding the plant have elevated the nuclear threat from a distant fear to an immediate concern for Ukrainians and the international community. Kyiv and several regions activated contingency plans to anticipate possible population displacements and abnormal radiation levels. From a crisis center, planners say there is a three-month horizon to rethink and adapt strategies for any scenario. Taras Tyschchenko, a member of the Zaporizhia Crisis Center, reports that the team operates under the Military Administration with responsibility for monitoring radiation levels and coordinating evacuation routes as needed.
The province maintains six brigades dedicated to constant radiation monitoring and the exploration of safe exit routes. Officials emphasize that evacuation is not the first instinct after a blast; instead, decisions about when and how to relocate residents rest with authorities and the president. Shelters or windowless rooms are recommended for those who must shelter during elevated radiation periods, with guidance on safer alternatives once radiation levels recede, typically within 48 hours in many scenarios.
Between Krivyi Rih and the region’s shelters lie reminders of a Cold War era—underground bunkers that today serve as critical refuges for thousands. One shelter in a city park sits underground with reinforced concrete and earth covering, designed to protect hundreds of people during emergencies. Krivyi Rih, home to hundreds of thousands and a large internally displaced population, faces ongoing challenges as bombing continues to affect the area. The doors are open at times, and some residents have sought safety away from intensified shelling.
Blackmail and resilience
Officials acknowledge the danger of this strategy being used as leverage. While a full shelter designed to block impurities is not a guaranteed shield, some facilities have stocked potassium iodide as a precautionary measure. Authorities are also mapping potential evacuation routes in anticipation of any escalation. Yet Deputy Mayor Milyutin remains cautious: Russia is using the nuclear threat as a geopolitical tool, but the consensus within Russia remains mixed. The danger lies not in bravado but in how the fear translates into action or inaction among the population.
To avert panic, authorities stress preparedness without prompting mass exodus. The goal is to maintain practicality and resolve—ensuring that Ukrainians understand how to respond while avoiding unnecessary flight. For many, the tragedy has intensified anti-Russia sentiment, a stark reminder of the human cost of the conflict.
Related posts:
{“rewritten_html”:”Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, noted a dramatic reduction in the workforce at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. Only about three to four thousand of the ten thousand employees remain on site, a stark contrast to the plant’s full operational capacity. This situation has drawn international attention as the IAEA monitors the safety and security of nuclear facilities amid ongoing tensions in the region. The head of the agency underscored how the personnel depletion is affecting the plant’s ability to maintain steady operations and oversight. He emphasized that looking after nuclear safety requires a robust and consistent workforce, and he conveyed concern over the exodus of staff and the dwindling on-site presence. Grossi spoke as the IAEA leader about the current staffing reality and how it could influence safety measures and the plant’s resilience in difficult circumstances. He acknowledged that many workers had left the area and that the remaining personnel were pressed to continue essential functions under challenging conditions. These statements reflect the IAEA’s ongoing assessment of the situation at the largest nuclear installation in Europe by unit count and installed capacity, a distinction that has positioned Zaporozhye NPP as a focal point in regional energy security discussions. The plant sits on the left bank of the Dnieper River near Energodar and has been under control of the Russian military since March, a status that has complicated normal governance and daily operations. Officials from Energodar have repeatedly alleged that the site has suffered bombardment from forces of Ukraine, which has added to the intensity of the information environment surrounding the facility. The IAEA continues to pursue and verify information regarding the safety protocols and incident reports to ensure accurate situational awareness for member states and international observers. Grossi reiterated that he has a plan for establishing a safety zone around the Zaporozhye facility. This proposed exclusion area, if realized, would aim to reduce exposure to potential hazards and create a clear buffer that supports uninterrupted safety monitoring and response capabilities. He described the plan as an essential step toward mitigating the risk of a nuclear accident and strengthening international oversight of the site during a period of heightened risk. The IAEA chief also touched on the difficulty of identifying those responsible for any hostile actions that may have occurred around the plant. In a September statement, he indicated that determining the exact perpetrators behind the alleged bombing was not possible at that time, reflecting the complexity of obtaining verifiable information in a conflict zone and the challenges of attribution in such incidents. The agency remains committed to transparency and steady communication with the international community as it continues to assess safety conditions, verify claims, and support collective efforts to prevent any escalation that could compromise nuclear safety. The broader context includes ongoing debates among international actors about the appropriate safeguards, the role of international law in protecting critical infrastructure, and the responsibilities of involved parties to prevent damage to facilities with potentially far-reaching consequences for regional and global energy stability. Throughout these developments, the IAEA emphasizes that safeguarding nuclear facilities requires not just technical expertise but also stable staffing, reliable procedures, and clear, verifiable information. The agency’s leadership continues to call for careful assessment, continuous monitoring, and practical steps that can be implemented to reduce risk while respecting the realities on the ground. By maintaining emphasis on safety culture, procedural clarity, and international cooperation, the IAEA seeks to support a safer operational environment at Zaporozhye NPP and contribute to a broader framework that protects communities dependent on nuclear energy in North America and beyond. This ongoing discourse reflects a shared concern about safeguarding critical energy infrastructure in a volatile geopolitical landscape, with the IAEA positioned as a central voice in promoting verifiable safety standards, reliable oversight, and proactive risk mitigation. The situation remains dynamic, and the organization continues to update its assessments as new information becomes available, inviting careful scrutiny from member states and stakeholders around the world. In its communications, the IAEA strives to balance the need for transparency with the constraints of operating in a conflict area, aiming to provide accurate, timely, and actionable guidance to ensure the highest possible level of nuclear safety under challenging conditions. The overarching goal remains clear: to prevent a nuclear accident and uphold the integrity of the world’s nuclear safeguards regime, even in the face of disruption and uncertainty. This commitment underscores the IAEA’s mission to protect people and the environment while supporting safe, secure, and peaceful use of nuclear technology. Attribution: IAEA statements and public briefings related to Zaporozhye NPP safety and staffing conditions.”} Ukraine faces widespread power outages amid missile strikes and infrastructure damage Lviv Explosions Reported Amid Ongoing Air Alerts Across Western Ukraine Is Nuclear War a Real Threat in Ukraine and Beyond? An executive summary Do Sunflowers Follow the Sun? The Surprising Science of Heliotropism Nuclear Energy in Spain: Stability, Transition, and Tax Pressures Ukrainian authorities monitor potential Russian strike near Kryvyi Rih while NATO expands regional security Spain’s Nuclear Debate Revisited Safety Protocols Sustain Focus at Zaporizhzhia Amid Ongoing Tensions Spain’s Nuclear Future: Policy, Lifespan, and the Push for Extended Reactor Operations Nuclear rhetoric and cautious U.S. responses in a volatile era Security Council Claims of a Radioactive Cloud Targeting Europe After Khmelnitsky Strike