Ukraine conflict. Now the Zapparasia plants, all six of them, one on very, very low power in order to maintain some credibility,

under the control of the Russian forces.

What have we learned?

Apparently, we've learned that Ukraine needs more power plants.

And the proposal now with European money, the EU money, is to build four new plants at

Kamal Nitti, two with using a Soviet design with parts from Bulgaria and two using Westinghouse as AP 1,000.

There is no comment about the danger of putting a nuclear power plant in the midst of a

battlefield, nor is there anything that we gain from the

EU how they have learned that Zapparizia is a vulnerability, permanent vulnerability, and so are all the power plants in Germany, in Poland, in the

rest of the EU.

I welcome Henry Sikoski, the Executive Director of the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center,

who has been my guide on this trouble since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine.

Henry, a very good evening to you, it would appear that the EU has learned nothing, and I'm not quite sure whether the US has learned nothing. A nuclear power plant in the midst of a combat zone or one that can become a combat zone is more dangerous to the side that depends upon the

energy than it is to the enemy.

Good evening to you, Henry.

Good evening.

I suppose if you're Ukrainian, you've come to the conclusion, apparently, that

Zapparasia may not be a plant that can be restarted.

Number one. Number two, you need a massive amount of electricity to replace it.

Number three, well we know what we know about nuclear, so let's just do it again.

And I think it's certainly easier at one level to just do that than it is to try to figure out how

to rely on, I don't know, natural gas, renewables, and other things, because you have to restructure the grid.

...