That nuclear power plant cost roughly $10 billion and took thirty years from planning to commissioning. Wind turbines cost around $1.5M per MWp and have a capacity factor of about 0.3 or so, so those same ten billion could have bought roughly an equal amount of wind power which could've most likely been built a bit faster than 30 years time. Of course you need to add some storage for baseload capacity which will increase cost a bit, but then again you don't need to save money for decommissioning a radioactive hunk of steel and concrete when the plant reaches EOL, you don't have risks of nuclear proliferation, and no radioactive waste, and you don't lose 2GW of generation at once for ten days when a couple of turbines need some repairs, like when that power plant's transformers exploded.

Southern Belarus seems to be pretty well suited for solar power too, which might even be a little bit cheaper than wind turbines.

Nuclear is not terrible for saving CO2, but the benefits are not as dramatic as you make them seem.

Baseload is the demand side of the equation. Sure, no single wind or solar farm can meet localized baseloads over a 24 hour period, like a single nuclear or hydro station can. However, given distributed solar and wind turbines at sites across 1000s of kilometres, working in conjunction with high voltage 700+ kV transmission, it is possible. Hence my assertion that the problem is social/political, and not a technical/physical limitation.

It is a priority problem at the core.

We need large scale green energy build out projects like we did for fossil fuels.

That is more of a grind rather than a big bang quick reward.

Think of it like leveling up to make ones character super robust as opposed to a few high power weapons.

Risks go way down, agency improves and future people thank us rather than regret us.