Russia strikes nuclear plant in south Ukraine, damaging power plant buildings
binsider.bond
binsider.bond
It is inconceivable to me to even wonder if we could shell the Zaporizha power pant. No, we do not want to repeat that tragedy and we love out country. We do not want to make it uninhabitable.
No, it is impossible that we put any military hardware near any of the nuclear plants (besides air defense systems far away from them).
It is very difficult for external observers to verify who shelled the plant, as you need specialized radars for that. Russia has them, and it would make this data public if it could prove that Ukraine did it.
The idea that Russia is using nuclear blackmail, but reframes it as “Ukrainians are doing it” is way more plausible for me.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/...
It doesnt seem in the slightest bit plausible to me that the Pentagon would try to justify the shelling if they didnt believe it happened.
The IAEA made no justification as to why they refused to attribute responsibility for the shelling. nor did they state in the report that they needed additional evidence to ascertain what happened. The report treated "who did it" as an unimportant detail despite knowing that it was the only reason they were invited.
Might've been why they were invited, I don't think that's why they went.
Their tweet of mission objectives [1], and their article over appeal made for the visit to the UN Security Council [2], merely stated motivation to "carry out ... activities in nuclear safety, security and safeguards and at the same time provide a stabilizing influence", and to "provide an independent risk assessment of the nuclear safety and security risks."
I've yet to read, in those 2 sources or others, assigning responsibility for the shelling in their objectives. Do you have sources that do?
B/c it sounds more like their scope was limited to assessing damage and establishing a presence to ensure safe operation of the plant.
[1] https://twitter.com/iaeaorg/status/1564097055798075393
[2] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/hostilities-at-zaporizh...
Russia was publicly furious about the shelling. The western reaction was either a perplexing "Russia shelled themselves" or "they asked for it by having their military there / shelling across the river from that location".
IAEA, as a supposedly independent agency, was invited in to have a look and they said nothing about the shelling of the plant at all in their report. Again, Russia was furious.
So, it's not really a surprise that theyve declared open season on nuclear power plants.
I feel like your comment is underrated. That could indeed be one of the reasons for Russia countering in-kind.
They did. They called for a UN security council meeting where they presented their evidence. Thats where they invited the IAEA to visit to see for themselves.
The IAEA investigated and subsequently refused to make any comment at all about who was responsible for the shelling. They didnt say that there wasnt enough evidence. They just didnt comment at all.
America has also commented. They said that they think it did happen.
It was already unlikely that Russia shelled themselves. The fact that they went to great lengths to try and prove Ukraine did it and got this vague "both sides" shit from a supposedly thorough investigation in response suggests that, on balance, they were telling the truth.
Now they've proved we're ok with it, they've done it too.
^ a very relevant quote given the preponderance evidence and your overwhelming reluctance to accept it.
I personally think it's reasonable Ukraine could have fired on targets near the plant – it wouldn't be a hard thing to accept if there was information pointing toward it.
So getting butthurt is an unsurprising justification for attacking nuclear power plants?
Don't store materiel inside the nuclear plant. Don't fire missiles from the nuclear plant. Don't use the nuclear plant for cover. Don't invade Ukraine. Problem solved.
I don't understand how any position Russia has in this context, matters at all. Just fucking go away. None of this would have happened if Russia didn't start a war of aggression against its neighbor.
Putin ruled out voluntary mobilization multiple times, which means that Russia is at a manpower disadvantage and cannot attack(the "voluntary" mobilization story is developing, but anyway Russia probably doesn't want to try to attack in winter). The mobilized Ukrainian soldiers are out of the civilian economy while they are deployed, so cannot contribute. Taking out power also increases civilian migration pressures. Seems like Putin is increasingly going to force NATO/Europe/US to support Ukraine with actual food/electricity/water/etc instead of loan forgiveness and weapons, which will probably be tough in winter.
The above strategy is obviously some sort of war crime, but question is what sort of response will come from US/NATO/Europe that would stop Putin from this pivot(if it is indeed ocurring).
The invasion is the war crime and should have been enough for the whole world to respond en masse to refuse allow it.
The world should do the same if the USA ever invades anywhere again as well.
What would be the motivation? What would they gain? It makes zero sense to destroy their own country. Russia, on the other hand, has several reasons to do so.
In general, when it comes to anything in war involving the word "nuclear," we would be unwise to plug our ear's to the enemy's motivations.
But that's what the situation is now. Putting any effort into reviewing their claims is a waste. It'll be a hell of an effort for them to rebuild their credibility.
EUFOR Ukraine, I would guess...
You're expecting countries with a history of war crimes to do more than condemning war crimes?
Russians camped at Chernobyl, after all. The people who made the decision to shell this reactor might not have much idea that nuclear power generation involves fission and radiation and those sciencey things.