|
|
|
|
|
|
by meeuwer
949 days ago
|
|
|
> 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... |
|
|
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.")