Hacker News Reader

Comment by pydry | Hacker News Reader

It's probably not a popular view, but I suspect if the West or IAEA condemned Kyiv's shelling of Zaporizhia NPP in the last couple of months this probably wouldnt be happening.

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.

View on HN

> So, it's not really a surprise that theyve declared open season on nuclear power plants.

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.

Funny to see how fast posts get flagged as soon comments start to go the other side of the narrative

Certainly Russia has been shoveling a lot of propaganda, but it seems accepted fact that the shelling around Zaporizhia did damage some parts of the plant. You can find western media confirming damage to a dry storage facility, where casks of spent nuclear fuel are kept, and also radiation monitoring detectors. And the plant did have to shut down one of it's reactors.

I feel like your comment is underrated. That could indeed be one of the reasons for Russia countering in-kind.

Except by Russia, it isn't accepted the strikes were launched by Ukraine. And Russia hasn't provided any evidence to back up their claim, nor were they able to convince the UN delegation.

The UN seems to be admonishing both Ukraine and Russia for it, and deliberately not taking a position on who did it. Fwiw, I'm not a Russian shill...just this one particular event seems different than usual.

>Russia hasn't provided any evidence to back up their claim

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.

That wasn't convincing enough to be called evidence.

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

^ a very relevant quote given the preponderance evidence and your overwhelming reluctance to accept it.

Just saying "preponderance evidence" doesn't help your point. There isn't any evidence presented by you or Russia for me to consider accepting.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com