Ed Davey calls for nuclear power plant military exclusion zones

The news this morning that the Russians had seized control of the Zaporizhzhia power plant in Ukraine has send shock waves across the world.

Ed Davey has said the the UK must take the lead and call for the UN Security Council to place military exclusion zones around nuclear power plants.

He says:

People all across Europe – including in Russia – will have woken up today with fear in their hearts, following the reckless shelling of Zaporizhzhia power plant. While thankfully it looks like disaster has been averted, it is vital that we now use every diplomatic lever available to prevent any further strikes on nuclear facilities.

We simply cannot allow what is already a dire humanitarian tragedy to deteriorate in this manner.

The UK has a seat at the UN Security Council – we must use it today, to try and declare a military exclusion zone around nuclear power plants.

* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • If the UN was in a position to enforce a military exclusion zone around nuclear power stations then presumably it would also be in a position to enforce a no-fly zone over the residential areas of cities.

    The UN lacks the power to enforce military exclusion zones.

    What is the point of the UN having policies which it cannot enforce. This is just “virtue-signalling”.

  • Brad Barrows 4th Mar '22 - 6:15pm


  • David Goble 5th Mar '22 - 9:42am

    Even if there were exclusion zones, I have very little doubt that Putin would ignore it. He would be quite happy to cause a nuclear accident, with radiation going all over Europe. He would then blame it on the Ukrainians!

  • Agreed about a military exclusion zone – just virtue signalling and WW3 if attempted. For me there is nothing ‘virtuous’ about that.

    I have read that the Russians have planned for just such an eventuality and have specialist army groups trained to take over and make nuclear plants safe in an emergency. While I cannot say for sure that is so, it makes sense so is probably true. Does the British Army have the same and if not, why not?

    Moreover, given the inevitable ‘fog of war’, to accuse Russia of “reckless shelling” is scaremongering unless evidenced. In reality, there is no way the Russians would want a radioactive release as their nearest borders are only 100 miles south or 170 miles east.

    Later reports say the only fire was in a training building some distance from any of the reactors. One report I found says Russian forces were fired at from a training building, put up flares to see what was what (it was night) and then returned fire setting the building on fire. TV coverage did indeed show flares, not shelling, so that’s probably right – but ‘fog of war’ so can’t be absolutely sure.

  • Helen Dudden 5th Mar '22 - 12:23pm

    Anyone with any common sense would not start a war without other peaceful avenues, tried first.
    The waste of human life is unforgiving.
    I wonder if Putin, had known the consequences of his actions would the war had been started.
    All this let’s Johnson off the hook, unless, things change we as a country remain in the vicious circle of wasted public funding like nothing before, and a government operating not in the real world.

  • Brad Barrows 5th Mar '22 - 1:59pm

    @Helen Dudden
    There were diplomatic efforts prior to Putin launching this invasion but his demands that Ukraine never join NATO and that NATO never station forces or weapons systems in Ukraine were completely rejected. So, realising he would never achieve those things through diplomacy, he is seeking to achieve his objectives militarily. I doubt Putin expected the opposition he would face from Russian speaking Ukrainians so he clearly miscalculated. I just wonder whether the USA and other western countries also miscalculated in thinking they could merely reject Putin’s demands and assume he was bluffing.

  • @Gordon –“Moreover, given the inevitable ‘fog of war’, to accuse Russia of “reckless shelling” is scaremongering unless evidenced. In reality, there is no way the Russians would want a radioactive release as their nearest borders are only 100 miles south or 170 miles east.”

    Didn’t learn the lesson of Chernobyl? In general the prevailing winds are from this region towards western Europe. I suspect Putin is playing a game – with serious intent, testing the West…

    I agreed with Richard, given what Putin has done to date, with respect to “the rules of war”, this would be yet another piece of gesture politic’s. One of the problems the UN has is that without the US and Nato, it is a little hamstrung as to what force it could deploy and have it backed with sufficient authority/reserve clout for it to be taken seriously.

  • @ Roland – For the last two days the winds in the area have varied between south-east or east. The forecast for the next few days is for very light winds which would mean any radiation released would stay in already-occupied areas. Later in the week, a south wind is forecast that would blow directly towards Crimea.

    Separately, reporting by our media is truly awful. For instance, last Thursday’s C4 News reported words along the lines of ‘shelling of Europe’s largest nuclear power station with four reactors’. It remineded me of Corporal Jones from Dad’s Army, with the reporter too horrified to think straight. Would this really suit the Russians? Of course not. Is it a brilliant bit of propaganda, given the clueless reporting? Yes, absolutely.

    I draw my own conclusions – tentative to be sure because of that fog of war, but looking for hard evidence before I lose my mind.

    Incidentally, four reactors don’t make it Europe’s largest. By that stage I had already seen pictures clearly showing six reactors. It later took me all of two minutes to find it on Google Earth and count six reactors. A small point to be sure, but symptomatic of the poor journalistic standards.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Alan Jelfs
    It's not a problem of planning. It is a problem of wealth inequality, where it is easier for some-one owning one home to afford two than it is for some-one ren...
  • David Langshaw
    Just a quick observation - there are a lot of "second homes" in London, although they probably don't often qualify as "holiday homes". Any legislation or other...
  • Michael BG
    Peter Martin, Thank you for letting me know that your second comment was rejected. Jenny Barnes, Indeed removing standing charges and having higher ra...
  • James Fowler
    @ Michael BG. Thank you for the calculations! It would be good to see the income tax threshold rise by something like that. Benefits should also rise rapidly. ...
  • Ruth Bright
    What a wonderful idea to show this film for such a cause. It is an unsparing watch....