|
|
|
|
|
|
by pydry
1367 days ago
|
|
|
"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. |
|
|
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...