[windock]

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.

[pydry]

"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."

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.

[mzarate06]

> 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.

[1] https://twitter.com/iaeaorg/status/1564097055798075393

[2] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/hostilities-at-zaporizh...