[meeuwer]

Here's a funny weird little fact. The IAEA inspectors and even Mr. Grossi himself have been documenting and even 'hearing' shelling 'on a regular basis' while present on the ZNPP premises. But they've never attributed the shelling to either of the parties, not once. [1]

Isn't that unusual given how quick all the officials and media are to blame just one side of the conflict (we know which one) for everything, with or without evidence?

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aiaea.org+znpp+shellin...

[ceejayoz]

> Isn't that unusual given how quick all the officials and media are to blame just one side of the conflict (we know which one) for everything, with or without evidence?

Does it really matter who's doing the shelling? The shelling is fundamentally happening because Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of aggression.

(The IAEA is likely not all that equipped to determine the source of artillery fire. That's not really their thing.)

[meeuwer]

> The safety and security officials will allow the agency to possibly perform a forensic evaluation of shelling that has occurred at the plant, Bloomberg reported. This evaluation could be used to hold attackers of the plant responsible for the damage it has received. [1]

It's unclear what happened to the planned 'forensic evaluation', but somehow there was no further interest in holding attackers responsible.

> Does it really matter who's doing the shelling?

Sure it does. The entire good guys vs bad guys narrative falls apart when your, cough, ally is the one attempting "nuclear blackmail" against you. I for one don't want to help things escalate to the "together into the abyss" stage [2], not for any reason, least of all because someone's intergenerational vendetta went off the rails.

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/international/3615324-internation...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Glasl%27s_model_of_c...

[ceejayoz]

> The entire good guys vs bad guys narrative falls apart

It really doesn't. There'd be precisely zero shelling near the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant if Russia hadn't invaded anyone. They clearly bear the lion's weight of responsibility here, and they additionally have a vested interest in using the plant as cover for their forces.

The IAEA isn't going to rock the boat, as criminal responsiblity isn't their mission; keeping the plant safe is. Getting thrown out by the Russians won't help that mission any; any criticisms are going to be... cautious.

(Like the ones in https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-192-iae...; "The IAEA experts also need access to all six turbine halls together. However, they were only granted partial access to the turbine hall of reactor unit 2 on 27 October, after earlier the same month receiving similarly restrictive access to the turbine halls of units 1 and 4.")

[meeuwer]

And again moving the moral goalposts. One minute it's an existential struggle between good and evil, the next minute it's "well, it's a gray area, you actually are allowed to shell nuclear power plants, everything that's gonna happen is on your enemy anyway, and as a bonus we'll keep our mouth shut about any inconvenient evidence, mkay?". Seems more like one sports team versus another one looking to bend the rules a little.

That's my problem. One can't have their moral cake and eat it too.

[ceejayoz]

No, it’s not a moral grey area. Russia shouldn’t be in Ukraine. They bear the responsibility of that invasion.

[justsomehnguy]

I assume you have a similar standing on the presence of USA in Middle East? Or this doesn't work this way for you?

[andreygrehov]

> Does it really matter who's doing the shelling? The shelling is fundamentally happening because Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of aggression.

Well, I guess nothing really matters because "Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of aggression"? I encourage we go with Five whys [1] to dive deeper into the why of them doing it. Maybe we'll find something new. Justifying everything with "they invaded first" is, apologize, fucking stupid.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys

[ceejayoz]

Go for it.

There's shelling near the nuclear plant.

Why? Because there are troops fighting there. Why? Because Russia invaded Ukraine. Why? Because Russia wanted to weaken NATO. Why? Because Russia isn't managing to compete for a sphere of influence on merits. Why? Because Russia has long lost trust as it attempts to expand its sphere of influence via force in other places like Georgia.

[jacquesm]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

[meeuwer]

> ... it should be clear that "just asking questions" only applies when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, and where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance. If, for example, someone phrased their political argument as a series of questions — but provided sources to back up said questions, or has raised logical arguments in said questions — then it is not enough to dismiss the argument as "just asking questions".

So, the IAEA and Grossi either can't establish where the shells are fired from (hard to believe given the prolonged and intensive nature of the shelling and the amount of evidence) or are hesitant / not allowed to incriminate the party they believe is responsible.

[jacquesm]

No, they can but it isn't relevant. Let me spell it out for you: no Russian invasion: no shelling of plant.

[andreygrehov]

> no Russian invasion: no shelling of plant

If we apply the same logic of no A : no B, then "Russian invasion" would be the B in some other equation, e.g., no A : no Russian invasion. What would that A be?

[jacquesm]

You're not making any sense.

[andreygrehov]

You sound fairly confident in all of your responses, but as soon as the question leads to anything less convenient, you bail. I encourage you to spend less time watching/reading the mass media news.

[meeuwer]

First, no need to be rude. Second, a certain Mr. Stoltenberg would like to add a prequel to your non sequitur: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf5xEBwBhds

[jacquesm]

I'm not rude, merely precise.

NATO never would have accepted Ukraine but now that Russia has invaded Ukraine if the Russians get kicked out it might just happen. See also: Finland, Sweden.

Note that since you claim you are Dutch: it's amazing that given your access to news sources that you should be carrying water for a party that does not exactly have your best interests at heart, and I'm saying that as someone who has lived in a country under Russian occupation.