I’m Ukrainian.
Everyone here has a relative or friend who participated in the cleanup of Chernobyl. There were hundreds of thousands people doing this job for years.
This tragedy is one of the defining tragedies of our history. Everyone learns about it in school.
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.
"And I don't want to say that the Ukrainians haven't fired in that vicinity either because I think there's probably a likelihood that they have, but in good -- in a number of cases, it's returning fire of the Russians who are firing from those locations."
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.
> The report treated "who did it" as an unimportant detail ... 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Seems to be a confirmation of the thesis that is emerging after last week Kharkov's debacle: Russia is starting to pivot to the tried and tested strategy of supply line sabotage to try and win.
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).
It's of course ridiculous, together with all the other reasons Russia has given for then having to "protect" Ukraine by invading them and raping, torturing, murdering and deporting their children.
It is certainly plausible, Ukrainians have made no secret of them stationing troops / weapons in civilian buildings, their argument being that since they are defending against aggression on their homeland they can station them wherever they want(and it is a perfectly legitimate argument). I wouldn't really trust Russian MoD either though.
No. Not rule out. Since they've aimed at a lot of infrastructure, it's reasonably to assume that they knew it's critical infrastructure and wanted to hit that.
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.
Readit News
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.
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.
I feel like your comment is underrated. That could indeed be one of the reasons for Russia countering in-kind.
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).
EUFOR Ukraine, I would guess...
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.
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.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment