A Moscow-installed official in the Russian-controlled Ukrainian Oblast of Zaporizhzhia on Monday accused Ukraine of shelling the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and areas around the plant, the Russian news agency Tass reported.
The official said that Ukraine launched 25 strikes using US-provided M777 howitzers that and that some hit the ZNPP and Energodar, the city where the facility is located. The claim hasn’t been confirmed, but the ZNPP has been the site of frequent shelling over the past few weeks.
Ukraine has accused Russia of shelling the ZNPP, but the plant and the territory around it have been controlled by Russian forces since March, giving Moscow little reason to attack the facility. The ZNPP is located on the southern shore of the Dnieper river, and Ukraine controls territory on the other side of the river. Russia insists Ukraine has been doing the shelling and has been calling for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to send inspectors to the ZNPP.
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Monday that the UN has the capability to support an IAEA delegation to the ZNPP. Dujarricsaid said that “in close contact with the IAEA, the UN Secretariat has assessed that it has in Ukraine the logistics and security capacity to be able to support any IAEA mission to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant from Kyiv.”
Igor Vishnevetsky, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s top official for arms control, warned that an IAEA delegation traveling through Ukrainian-controlled territory would be dangerous. “In this case, anything could happen if the IAEA delegation went across the front line,” Vishnevetsky said.
Vishnevetsky said that Moscow had proposed the IAEA could travel through Russian-controlled territory under the protection of the Russian military. Russia had accused the UN of preventing the IAEA from visiting the ZNPP at an earlier date, a claim the UN rejected. “The UN Secretariat has no authority to block or cancel any IAEA activities,” Dujarric said.
With the ongoing propaganda, none of my neighbors, family, or friends is remotely concerned about bombing an actual nuclear plant as long as it’s blamed on Russia. I suspect the IAEA feels the same way.
They don’t know it’s happening, because western coverage insists there are two sides to the story, who is to say what’s true? Thus Ukraine’s bombardment of a huge nuclear plant turns into Russia is doing it too, or it’s Russia’s fault for not surrendering or existing at all. Ukraine has to be the good guys, so whatever they do must be right. No news needed, we already know the story.
It’s a sad state of affairs. I’ll bet those same neighbors, family, and friends took the danger 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 seriously when Russia took the facility from Ukraine in March.
I think the IAEA does care. But this is a difficult balancing act for them. They don’t want the kind of attention that Amnesty International got when it published credible information that Ukraine and the US did not want released.
It’s hard to back the IAEA. Seems like a puppet. The JCPOA being a perfect example. Parroting US/Israel talking points.
That’s because You only back Pro Russian narratives here.
If they are narratives that say Russia has legitimate security concerns that must be seriously dealt with through diplomacy than yes, you are correct.
But Ukraine has zero legitimate security concerns, right?
Their concerns don’t matter, only Putin’s.
Putin’s only concern was how to absorb the whole of Ukraine and parts of other neighboring countries back into the Russian Federation. Had he been successful in Ukraine, you can be sure, Moldova, Kazakstan and Georgia would’ve been next because there is no shortage of legitimate security concerns when it comes to have excuses to take the good land off of weaker countries.
Kazakhstan doesn’t have to be “absorbed.” Like Belarus, it’s just a Russian satrapy.
If NATO doesn’t push eastward, nobody feels threatened, nothing happens!
If you remember why U.S. almost went to war with USSR in 1962, you will understand Russia’s concern.
When the CSTO (aka Russia and its satrapies) “pressed westward” with the admission of Serbia and Iran as “observer states” in 2013, would that in retrospect have been a reasonable justification for invading either of those states, versus just some gum-flapping about the highly unlikely possibility of Ukraine eventually becoming a NATO member state?
Were they surrounding anyone with those additions? Where are those countries located? Were their motives the same? I can’t see how that can be comparable.
I named the countries. You can look at a map, right?
As for motives, the motives are the same as NATO’s: To keep member states as de facto satrapies under the “defense” umbrella of empires (in the case of NATO, the US empire; in the case of CSTO, the Russian empire).
Yes, I can look at a map. Seems proximity is a factor.
I have no doubt Russia’s motives aren’t exactly what I’d call noble, but there is no comparison with NATO’s aggression.
In what universe is there “no comparison” between two empires both constantly trying to extend their political reach and hone their military grasp?
The question is not whether there’s a comparison, it’s whether there’s a difference.
If there IS a difference it’s that after the conquest and occupation of Chechnya, the Russian empire became more cautious and tentative for a little while. Which, as it is now learning in Ukraine, was a good idea.
Then there’s a difference. The magnitude of the aggression is fucking obvious. One IS just a much smaller player.
Ukraine has security problems brought on by the US/NATO. They are being used to “weaken” Russia as Austin and Biden have admitted. I can’t help it if you ignore that and parrot the MSM.
Don Julio:
Many back a variety of narratives here. The point is to have a discussion about the issues that concern us and given that this is an antiwar website, anything having to do with war, fits the bill…
Except when Putin invades a country. Then the antiwar spirit gets flushed and the invaded country becomes the bad guy when all it wanted was to be free of Russia in first place.
So I guess I should blame Palestine because Israel has ‘legitimate security concerns.’
DJ:
No, you should not blame Palestine… I don’t think you need to be so acerbic. I take your point and thanks for taking the time to reply. -Donna
If the Palestinians were allowing the US to use them as sacrificial lambs to “weaken” Israel, then you might have a point. But, otherwise, you don’t.
Would Zelensky use nuclear weapons against Russia? That’s the big question.
I suspect he is trying to force Russia to shut down the plant. If Russia pulls the rods before the cooling system is destroyed, we won’t have another Chernobyl.
It did not escape me that the very first thing Russia did in this war was to take Chernobyl out of play.
I also think Zelensky knows that if Zaporizhzhia melts down, Rivne will also melt down almost immediately. He’s playing a very dangerous game.
Please explain a bit more about Rivne and Chernobyl. Are you aware of what went on at Chernobyl?
what do you mean “take chernobyl out of play” ?
it has been inactive for a long time although there are still a management team there.
Fascist Ukrainians do not care if there is a world war 3 or if a nuke plant melts down poisoning all of Eastern Europe for 10,000 years. All they have is their hatred and ethnic cleansing. True tribal scum!!!
The Banderite Nazi’s are currently shelling a nuclear facility using the weapons we supplied and using targeting information we supply.
Kiev forces used a British-made Brimstone missile in one of their recent attacks on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Also the US M777 howitzers are being used.
This is criminal insanity beyond belief. This is nuclear terrorism. They also found Bio Weapons in Ukraine, Bio terrorism.
It doesn’t need to; Rafael Grossi is a Washington whore.