International

Ukrainian Regulator Accuses Russia of Committing ‘Act of Nuclear Terrorism’

Published

4 years ago

March 11, 2022

Joe Klamar / AFP/Getty A Ukrainian regulator says Russia has committed "act of nuclear terrorism" by bombing the research facility at Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology. In this photo, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), points on a map of the Ukrainian Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant as he informs the press about the situation of nuclear powerplants in Ukraine during a special press conference at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria on March 4, 2022.

A Ukrainian nuclear regulator is accusing Russia of bombing a research facility containing a reactor and fuel cells, an action it considers “an act of nuclear terrorism.”

The Thursday rocket attack against the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology, which occurred around 8:20 p.m. local time, marks at least the third time that Russian forces have attacked Ukraine’s nuclear sites. Observers worry that such attacks could hint at Russia’s willingness to use nuclear retaliation to gain an upper hand in its invasion.

“Once again, the Russian Federation has committed an act of nuclear terrorism!!!” the State Inspectorate for Nuclear Regulation of Ukraine announced in a March 10 press release, according to Google Translate.

The regulator said that it is still surveying the full damage from the attack, which resulted in a fire. Prior to Russia’s invasion, the reactor’s core was loaded with fresh nuclear fuel cells, the regulator added in a report.

However, even though locals fear a potential “large-scale ecological disaster” from the attack, according to The Independent, a large nuclear accident at the institute is unlikely because the institute’s reactor lacks the neutrons needed to activate the fuel cells as well as any highly enriched uranium onsite, nuclear analyst Matthew Bunn told Physics Today.

The Ukrainian regulator added that a March 6 Russian attack on the institute damaged its air conditioner cooling systems and left surface damage on the institute’s main installation as well as its pump and cooling tower building.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that the March 6 attack resulted in no increased radiation levels though, Newsweek reported.

On March 3, Russia attacked the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. The attack hit a building adjacent to six reactors, resulting in a fire that was soon extinguished. None of the plant’s security or safety systems were compromised, and no reactors were hit.

Soon after the attack, Russian forces surrounded the plant, and the plant eventually resumed normal functioning. Russia later blamed Ukrainian saboteurs for starting the fire at the plant.

READ ALSO:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Russia resorted to “nuclear terror” in attacking the plant. Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba tweeted that if the plant blew up, it would be 10 times worse than the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. He urged the Russian military to cease fire immediately.

However, one nuclear researcher was doubtful that a fire at a nuclear plant could set off a radioactive disaster.

“A single fire located somewhere on the same site as a nuclear power plant cannot feasibly trigger a meltdown,” Edward Obbard, a senior lecturer and nuclear engineering program coordinator at The University of New South Wales in Australia, told the Australian Science Media Centre.

Obbard and other nuclear experts said that a greater risk would be a direct explosion upon a reactor or spent fuel pool by explosive ordnance, which could release radioactive material.

Similarly, damage to a nuclear plant’s cooling systems could result in the nuclear reactor fuel getting so hot that it burns through its containment chamber, causing a nuclear meltdown and a widespread release of radiation, Newsweek reported.

Though U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said there was no indication of elevated radiation levels at the plant, the U.S. Department of State announced that it was “assessing” whether the attack constituted a war crime. The United Nations also convened an emergency meeting after the Zaporizhzhia attack to discuss its implications.

After its invasion, Russian forces also took control of Chernobyl, the site of the 1986 nuclear disaster that killed 31 people and left radioactive pollution in the region.

Near the beginning of the invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin also commanded his military to raise the readiness level of his nation’s nuclear forces. The vague command alarmed international observers, but others have doubted that Russia will risk any sort of nuclear attack.

Olga Oliker—the European program director for the International Crisis Group, a think tank on global crises—believes that Russia would only use a nuclear weapon if it found itself in a direct war with NATO forces. Oliker said it was “unlikely” that Russia would use one against Ukraine.

Other experts have doubted that Putin would deploy nuclear weapons because of their toxic effect on the region.

U.S. President Joe Biden has said that Americans shouldn’t worry about the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia. Both the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have said there is no need to change their own nuclear alert levels, despite Putin’s command.

However, in 2018, the Pentagon warned in its nuclear posture review that Russia could use a battlefield nuclear weapon to “‘de-escalate’ a conflict on terms favorable to Russia.” That is, it could feasibly use a small-range nuclear weapon to get its enemy to stop fighting back.

Putin could also launch a nuclear weapon if his military received a false alarm about another nation deploying a nuclear assault, Jeffrey Lewis, a senior scholar at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, told NPR.

Newsweek contacted the IAEA for comment.

Newsweek

Related Topics:Featured nuclear Regulator Russia terrorism Ukrainian

Up Next

Russia strikes western Ukraine targets, renews push toward Kyiv

Don't Miss

Russian economy in ‘shock’ from unprecedented economic war – Kremlin

International

Hamas Accepts US-Backed Disarmament Plan as Trump Unveils Gaza Peace Roadmap

Published

2 days ago

July 31, 2026

Trends Admin

Hamas Accepts US-Backed Disarmament Plan as Trump Unveils Gaza Peace Roadmap

A landmark agreement could reshape the future of Gaza, but Israel’s official response remains pending as key details hang in the balance.

In a significant diplomatic breakthrough, the Palestinian group Hamas has formally accepted a United States-backed proposal aimed at ending the 10-month-long war in the Gaza Strip. The agreement, unveiled by U.S. President Donald Trump, outlines a phased roadmap that includes the group’s complete disarmament and a gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territory. The announcement, made on Friday, marks one of the most substantial developments since the October ceasefire. However, the deal remains conditional, and Israel has not yet issued an official response, leaving the international community in a state of cautious optimism.

Under the proposed framework, Hamas has agreed to surrender its weapons to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) , a Palestinian governing body established under the Trump-administration-led Board of Peace initiative. The disarmament process is designed to be phased and verifiable, beginning with an initial phase where Hamas police forces are expected to hand over light weapons to the NCAG within the first two weeks. This would be followed by a second, more extensive phase lasting between 200 and 350 days, during which the full decommissioning of heavy weapons, tunnels, depots, and weapons production facilities would take place under strict international oversight. The roadmap follows a “zero trust” model, meaning each phase of disarmament must be independently verified before the next step of Israeli military withdrawal can proceed. Echoing this cautious approach, Nickolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace’s High Representative for Gaza, emphasized that “withdrawal must move in lockstep with decommissioning,” underscoring the need for synchronized and carefully monitored implementation.

For Hamas, the decision represents a difficult but necessary concession aimed at alleviating the suffering of Palestinian civilians. Ghazi Hamad, a member of the group’s negotiating team, described the move as a sacrifice made for the sake of the people in Gaza, to save them from continued killing and displacement. He further clarified that Israel will not intervene in the disarmament process, which will be solely managed by the NCAG. However, a senior Hamas official stressed that full implementation of the agreement depends on Israel fulfilling its prior commitments under the initial ceasefire, which include ending all military attacks, withdrawing forces to October 2025 positions, and significantly increasing humanitarian aid deliveries into the besieged territory.

READ ALSO:

As of this report, Israel’s government has not formally responded to the proposal, and its position remains a critical unknown. An Israeli political source indicated that the current framework does not “satisfactorily” address Israel’s core demand for the complete demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip. The source also reiterated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent meeting with President Trump in Washington did not include discussions on the Gaza conflict, casting doubt on the level of Israeli engagement with the plan. Another major sticking point is the so-called “Yellow Line” buffer zone, with an Israeli official insisting there would be no withdrawal from this area before Hamas is fully disarmed. Despite these reservations, the U.S. has expressed confidence that Israel will ultimately adhere to the 20-point plan, with one official noting that President Trump would be “very, very disappointed” if it did not.

The agreement was brokered by a coalition of international mediators, including Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, who have been engaged in months of difficult negotiations. Egypt’s state-linked Al-Qahera News reported that Cairo is expected to host another meeting to advance discussions on the second phase of the truce, signaling continued diplomatic momentum. A diplomatic source familiar with the negotiations emphasized the roadmap’s commitment to unity and order, stating that “there will be no exceptions for certain weapons or certain people,” and that the goal is to establish “one authority, one law, one weapon.” The roadmap also includes a verification mechanism designed to monitor compliance by both parties, ensuring accountability and transparency throughout the entire process.

Despite the diplomatic progress, hostilities have persisted on the ground, underscoring the fragility of the current situation. Gaza’s health authorities reported that Israeli airstrikes on Thursday killed at least four people, including two children, even as negotiations advanced. The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire, with widespread displacement, acute food insecurity, and a collapsing healthcare system that has left thousands without access to basic medical care. The success of the agreement hinges not only on political will from all parties but also on tangible, on-the-ground improvements in the daily lives of Palestinian civilians, many of whom have been displaced multiple times since the conflict began.

The focus now shifts from negotiation to implementation, with the Board of Peace confirming in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that the NCAG will “soon begin a phased transition toward full authority.” Key milestones to watch include Israel’s official response to the proposal, which could shape the entire trajectory of the deal; the actual start of the weapons handover process; the deployment of an International Stabilization Force to work alongside a new Palestinian police force; and meaningful progress on humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts that could help stabilize the region. Each of these steps carries significant weight and will be closely monitored by the international community.

This agreement represents a rare moment of compromise in a conflict marked by decades of violence and deep-seated mistrust. However, the path forward is fraught with challenges, and the “zero trust” approach reflects the profound suspicions that persist on both sides. Any misstep, whether a delay in weapons handover or a disagreement over troop withdrawal, could unravel the entire framework and plunge the region back into conflict. For now, the world watches and waits, with hopes pinned on a process that remains as fragile as it is historic. As Mladenov aptly put it, “What happens next matters even more. Implementation and verification have to be real.”

Hamas Accepts US-Backed Disarmament Plan as Trump Unveils Gaza Peace Roadmap

International

At least 43 migrants die as 49,000 cross into Spain’s Ceuta enclave

Published

2 days ago

July 31, 2026

Trends Admin

At least 43 migrants die as 49,000 cross into Spain’s Ceuta enclave

At least 43 migrants have died during a massive and chaotic attempt to enter Spain’s North African enclave of Ceuta from neighbouring Morocco, as tens of thousands of people crossed the border by land and sea.

Spanish authorities estimated that about 49,000 migrants entered Ceuta within 24 hours, creating an unprecedented pressure on the enclave’s security agencies, emergency services and reception facilities. The scale of the influx was significant for a territory with a population of about 80,000 people. (reuters.com)

Many of those attempting to reach Ceuta reportedly entered through coastal routes, with some swimming around border barriers from the Moroccan side. Others moved towards land crossings and border fences separating the Spanish territory from Morocco.

The large movement included men, women, children and families, according to reports from the area.

Authorities said several people died during the dangerous crossings, while emergency teams carried out rescue and recovery operations along the coastline.

The reported death toll has increased from the initial figure of 18 as authorities continued to assess the situation and recover bodies. The number may be subject to further updates as rescue and identification operations continue. (The Guardian)

READ ALSO:

Spanish and Moroccan authorities moved to contain the situation by reinforcing security around the border and coordinating efforts to prevent additional large-scale crossings.

Spain deployed additional security personnel to support the Civil Guard, while military units and armoured vehicles were positioned in areas around the border.

The Spanish government said it had regained control of the situation, with many of those who crossed into Ceuta returning to Morocco as authorities worked to restore normal movement around the enclave. (reuters.com)

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez described the mass crossing as a serious challenge and called for coordinated action to protect the border while addressing the humanitarian consequences of the crisis.

The development has also drawn attention from European leaders, with concerns raised over border security, migration management and the safety of people attempting dangerous crossings. (The Guardian)

The cause of the sudden surge remains unclear.

Authorities are expected to examine whether misinformation, organised migration networks, economic pressures or other factors contributed to the unusually large movement towards Ceuta.

The crisis comes after Ceuta experienced increased migration pressure in the weeks leading up to the mass crossing. Spanish authorities had earlier reported a rise in the number of people attempting to enter the enclave by swimming from Morocco. (El País)

Ceuta and the nearby Spanish enclave of Melilla are located on the northern coast of Africa and share land borders with Morocco.

The two territories are among the main routes used by migrants seeking to enter Spain and, by extension, the European Union.

Migration attempts through the area have frequently resulted in deaths and injuries because of strong currents, difficult sea conditions, border barriers and overcrowding during large movements.

The latest incident has renewed calls for stronger cooperation between Spain and Morocco, improved border management and safer measures to protect people undertaking dangerous migration journeys.

Humanitarian groups have also stressed the need to ensure that people in vulnerable situations, including children and families, receive emergency assistance and access to appropriate protection.

Authorities are expected to provide further updates on the number of deaths, injuries, missing persons and people who remain in Ceuta as emergency and border-control operations continue.

At least 43 migrants die as 49,000 cross into Spain’s Ceuta enclave

International

Houthis Launch Missile at Saudi Arabia as Regional Tensions Escalate Amid US-Iran Strikes

Published

1 week ago

July 25, 2026

Trends Admin

Houthis Launch Missile at Saudi Arabia as Regional Tensions Escalate Amid US-Iran Strikes

Iran-backed Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility for a missile attack targeting Saudi Arabia, hours after Saudi forces carried out air strikes against Houthi-linked positions in western Yemen, marking a significant escalation in cross-border hostilities amid broader regional tensions in the Middle East. According to the group’s Ansarollah media outlet on Telegram, the missile attack early Saturday triggered fires in the Saudi city of Jizan, with Saudi authorities reportedly issuing emergency alerts across the province following the incident, sending residents scrambling for safety as air raid sirens sounded through the night. The attack followed Friday’s Saudi air raids on Houthi targets in the Yemeni port city of Hodeida and the nearby Kamaran Island, which the Houthis had vowed to retaliate against, demonstrating the rapid cycle of escalation that has come to characterise the conflict. The exchange of fire underscores the fragility of the ceasefire that had previously reduced hostilities but failed to produce a lasting political settlement, leaving both sides poised for further confrontation.

The latest exchange of hostilities came as the broader Middle East experienced its first night in two weeks without reported air strikes by either the United States or Iran, raising hopes of a potential de-escalation after weeks of intense military confrontation that had pushed the region to the brink of all-out war. The US military refrained from announcing fresh attacks on Iran after carrying out 13 consecutive nights of strikes, during which it hit dozens of Iranian military targets including coastal surveillance and air defence sites, military logistics infrastructure, and maritime capabilities, inflicting significant damage on Tehran’s military assets across the region. During the same period, Iran launched drone attacks against US military installations and bases across the region, and largely halted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz after the re-escalation of attacks, crippling one of the world’s most vital maritime chokepoints and disrupting global oil supplies. Tehran has signalled it could prod its Houthi allies in Yemen to close the Bab al-Mandeb strait at the mouth of the Red Sea if Washington attacks Iran’s infrastructure, according to sources cited by Reuters, further complicating the security landscape in the region and threatening to expand the conflict into a wider maritime confrontation.

READ ALSO:

Meanwhile, an Omani delegation arrived in Tehran for discussions on the security of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, signalling ongoing diplomatic efforts to address the crisis even as military tensions escalate on multiple fronts. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held telephone talks with Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi to discuss recent regional developments and the security of commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, exploring potential avenues for de-escalation through backchannel diplomacy. Oman, which oversees the southern coastline of the strategic waterway, has historically served as a mediator between Iran and Western nations, and its involvement suggests a potential opening for dialogue amid the escalating tensions, offering a glimmer of hope that a diplomatic solution might still be possible.

Speaking at the White House on Friday, US President Donald Trump said diplomatic engagement with Iran was ongoing while warning that military action remained an option, striking a dual-track approach to the crisis that reflected the complexity of the situation facing his administration. “We are talking to them. I think they’re being serious. I think … they are being by far the most serious that we’ve seen them, but that doesn’t mean we get there,” he said, expressing cautious optimism about the prospects for a negotiated settlement while acknowledging the significant hurdles that remain. Responding to questions about his strategy for ending the conflict, Trump outlined two possible paths forward: “There’s a military exit where we just keep going just the way we are, and we can even make it a heavier dose, and it’s knocking out everything they have. Or there’s a smarter strategy that you make a deal,” he said, adding emphatically: “We’re locked and loaded. We’re ready to go.” The president’s remarks reflect the delicate balance Washington is attempting to strike between applying military pressure and pursuing diplomatic resolution, with both options remaining firmly on the table.

Elsewhere, the US military disclosed that it disabled a tanker in the Gulf of Oman on Friday after the vessel allegedly attempted to evade Washington’s blockade on Iranian ports, intensifying the maritime dimension of the conflict and underscoring the growing risks to commercial shipping in the region. Navy Captain Tim Hawkins, spokesman for US Central Command, told AFP that the crew repeatedly ignored warnings after attempting to run the blockade at least four times prior, demonstrating a pattern of defiance that ultimately led to the military response. “US forces on scene disabled the ship after firing into its engine room,” Hawkins said. “The ship is no longer transiting to Iran,” he confirmed, indicating that the vessel had been rendered inoperable and turned back from its intended destination. The ship became the second commercial vessel disabled by US forces since the blockade was reinstated earlier this month, with the US military also forcing 12 other vessels to change course, signalling a determined effort to enforce economic pressure on Tehran through maritime interdiction operations. The incident highlights the escalating confrontation at sea, where Washington is seeking to enforce strict economic pressure on Tehran through maritime interdiction operations, raising the stakes in an already volatile region.

READ ALSO:

Growing concerns over threats to commercial shipping in the Red Sea linked to Houthi activities had pushed crude oil prices above $100 per barrel earlier in the week, marking their highest level since May and raising fears of global economic disruption as energy markets reacted nervously to the escalating tensions. However, prices retreated on Friday, with Brent crude futures falling by more than $4 to just above $96 per barrel, as markets reacted to the successful transit of two Chinese-chartered supertankers through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, alleviating some of the immediate supply concerns that had driven prices higher. The volatility in oil markets underscores the fragility of global energy supply chains amid the ongoing conflict, with traders remaining on edge as they monitor developments in the region closely.

Following the reported missile exchange, Ansarollah media condemned Saudi operations in Yemen, accusing Riyadh of targeting civilian facilities and vowing further retaliation in a statement that signalled the conflict was far from over. “The Saudi enemy’s targeting of civilian facilities in Hodeida and Kamaran island constitutes a dangerous escalation,” the group said, adding: “We affirm that these recent crimes will not go unanswered,” indicating that further attacks against Saudi targets could be expected in the coming days. Saudi officials had not issued an immediate response to the Houthi claims at the time of this report, leaving the situation on the ground unclear and the international community anxiously awaiting further developments.

The United States and the United Kingdom are expected to host a conference in London next week focused on security in the Strait of Hormuz, according to sources cited by Reuters, as Western nations seek to coordinate a response to the growing maritime threat and build an international coalition to protect commercial shipping in the region. The meeting is expected to be attended by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, underscoring the high-level attention being devoted to the crisis and the urgency with which Western powers are treating the situation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also scheduled to meet President Trump at the White House on Tuesday as diplomatic efforts continue amid persistent regional tensions, with the Israeli leader expected to discuss coordination on Iran policy and regional security arrangements.

Analysts suggest the proposed London conference reflects US efforts to secure international backing for its position, as Washington finds itself at a disadvantage in the ongoing confrontation with Tehran, having failed to rally broad international support for its maximum pressure campaign. However, European nations have expressed concerns about being drawn into direct conflict, with some insisting that any successful maritime security arrangement requires the cessation of hostilities between the US and Iran, a condition that remains elusive given the current trajectory of the conflict. The reluctance of key European allies to fully commit to Washington’s approach highlights the diplomatic challenges facing the United States as it seeks to build a coalition to address the maritime security crisis.

The renewed hostilities come despite a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding signed by the United States and Iran in June, which sought to halt military operations, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and pave the way for ending the conflict within 60 days, representing a brief window of hope for a peaceful resolution. The agreement later collapsed after renewed Iranian attacks on shipping in the strait and subsequent US military strikes, leaving both sides back at square one and raising questions about the prospects for a durable resolution to the crisis as trust between the parties evaporated. As of the time of this report, the situation remains highly volatile, with all parties maintaining their military postures while diplomatic channels continue to operate in the background, offering no clear path forward. The international community watches with bated breath as the Middle East teeters on the edge of a wider conflagration that could have profound implications for global security and energy markets, with the coming days likely to determine whether the region can step back from the brink or plunge deeper into conflict.