Ukraine, Russia accuse each other of planning to attack Europe's biggest nuclear plant

Both sides of this local conflict are beastly and neither can be trusted. I wish they’d sort this lark out and stop the bloodshed.

Attacking a nuke plant is just the kind of thing the nihilistic Russians would do. Putin will have to be taken out by any means, should it happen.

The IAEA conducted a spot check on the plant in the last 24 hours. They found no evidence of these bombs on the roof.

Turns out Kyiv was lying to the world yet again.

The most important takeaway from this article is the fact the IAEA has staff at the plant.

This is the single most provable fact.

Secondly, ongoing inspections have found no activity related to explosives.

This is the second most provable fact.

And the third most provable fact is that the Russians have already blown up a huge dam and inundated vast areas with water. They are nihilists, causing trouble just because they can, with no care for anything or anyone, even their own troops.

Citing the latest intelligence reports, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy alleged Tuesday night that Russian troops had placed “objects resembling explosives" on top of several of the plant's power units to “simulate” an attack from outside.

Planting seeds on people's minds. Evidently taken root instantly on some

JEToday  07:10 am JST

And the fourth most provable fact is it is large complex and the IAEA staff don't have permission to inspect all of it.

And the third most provable fact is that the Russians have already blown up a huge dam

Good it's provable.

Let's see the proof

falseflagsteveToday  06:43 am JST

Both sides of this local conflict are beastly and neither can be trusted. I wish they’d sort this lark out and stop the bloodshed.

You don't have to follow it, comment on it, or push for Ukraine to surrender everyday.

Their are IAEA inspectors on site and they have publicly stated that the Russians are managing the facility responsibly.

The ones who continually decry the storage of military equipment on site?

More Ukraine propaganda.

nothing found and no evidence.

Whom to believe, the defender who would have to deal with the aftereffects for generations, or the invader who lied about invading and who has committed war crimes too numerous to mention?

Gosh, that's a tough one.

Actually, it isnt.

The Russians are liars.

IAEA staff have been granted unconditional access to the plant from day 1, including unrestricted access. There is no evidence that Rosenergoatom (or its parent company) has obstructed in any way.

This is the third most provable fact.

Citing the latest intelligence reports, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy alleged Tuesday night that Russian troops had placed “objects resembling explosives" on top of several of the plant's power units to “simulate” an attack from outside.

Of course this false allegation could be the very reason the Russians are suspecting that Ukraine is planning to attack the plant

JJEToday  07:29 am JST

IAEA staff have been granted unconditional access to the plant from day 1, including unrestricted access. There is no evidence that Rosenergoatom (or its parent company) has obstructed in any way.

This is the third most provable fact.

You sure about that?

https://news.yahoo.com/iaea-requests-access-inspect-znpp-203500114.html

Given the brutish nature of Russia, do you really believe they are free to wander wherever they want?

As the article says IAEA "experts have requested additional access to the rooftops of two reactor units, as well as turbine halls and some parts of the cooling system at the plant to confirm the absence of explosives".

Nothing in the article even remotely suggests it will not be forthcoming. The more inspections the better.

This means that to disprove the crazed allegations, they will conduct an irregular inspection just to debunk the nutty explosive theory. It's not a waste of time because it exposes dishonesty in certain quarters. On Telegram I saw there was an inspection in the last 24 hours (mentioned above), so it's safe to assume the 'additional access' was granted - in the absence of facts to the contrary.

This is the fourth most provable fact.

This means that to disprove the crazed allegations, they will conduct an irregular inspection just to debunk the nutty explosive theory. It's not a waste of time because it exposes dishonesty in certain quarters. On Telegram I saw there was an inspection in the last 24 hours (mentioned above), so it's safe to assume the 'additional access' was granted - in the absence of facts to the contrary.

Of course they would want to disprove the allegation beyond all doubt if they can to prove that zelensky is lying.

What if something did happen

So, if they’ve had unconditional, unrestricted access from day 1, they don’t need to ask for expanded access.

I'm wondering though why the media didn't publish the pictures zelensky must have of the objects resembling explosives that were put on top of the power units

Haaa NemuiToday  07:48 am JST

No, that is distorting the context and the actual story.

The article makes it abundantly clear the IAEA said they requested the additional access in direct response to allegations that have been made by Kyiv - since found false.

The authorities complied and facilitated that access. Gossi said it was to "rooftops of reactor units 3 and 4, as well as turbine halls and cooling system facilities".

It's important to note that the article does not mention in the slightest any obstruction or even a vague hint of non-cooperation now, before or in the future.

This is the fifth most provable fact.

No, that is distorting the context and the actual story.

No it isn’t. You said they’ve had unconditional unrestricted access from day 1. That’s clearly not the case. They may have been granted access at each request, but needing to request it absolutely means their access to certain areas has been restricted.

So blowing up the dam ( partially responsible for the water supply for the nuclear plant) didn't get NATO to enter the war directly.

The Ukrainian offensive is a failure.

Now Zelensky comes on TV again says Russia blew the Dam and now plans on blowing up the Power plant and calling for NATO to act a d send troops.

Funny how the article left out that last part where Zelensky says the western nations and NATO need to now stop Russia.

Find his full speech listen/read it for yourselves

Haaa NemuiToday  08:11 am JST

Clearly this stepped-up inspection regime was in DIRECT response to the allegations made by Kyiv, and as such included procedures and areas that are not part of the regular routine of monitoring the operation of the plant - such as looking for mines.

I don't know how they get on the roof (it could require a long ladder of some machine to raise someone up there), or the access to other areas, which may require some engineering solutions in terms of having to power down stuff to make it safe or just plain open it, which could be more complex than a door key. Look at a picture of the joint - the roof seems fairly high to me.

They have "conducted regular walkdowns across the site" - so it's clear they can go anywhere.

Indeed the article makes no mention that there has been any obstruction. Period.

So Zelensky gets bad new from the offensive, then gets bad news from the USA saying probably no F-16s before at least Christmas if really lucky, no support facilities, no technical support, no repair or maintenance facilities within Ukraine and it is not possible to use NATO countries bases.

He is meeting with NATO soon.

So failed offensive, no F-16s, so plan B attack Nuclear plant or claim Russia is going to do it and say NATO needs to join the war.

They have "conducted regular walkdowns across the site" - so it's clear they can go anywhere. 

Not from day 1.

Indeed the article makes no mention that there has been any obstruction. Period.

The referenced article doesn't, but at the beginning they had to negotiate to be allowed on site. So no, it has not been obstruction free.

Haaa NemuiToday  08:32 am JST

From Day 1, the new management continued to operate and supply data, including from a remote monitoring system, to the IAEA.

There was no non-cooperation. None.

Indeed the elephant in the room was that it was Kyiv that objected to the IAEA visiting, setting up a presence and monitoring the ongoing operation, back in May of last year.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ukraine-says-any-IAEA-visit-to-occupied-Zaporizhyz

This is the sixth most provable point.

REFRESH - In late May of last year, Ukraine heavily objected to the IAEA even visiting the plant.

And the world replies with: I wonder who it is that’s planning this… OH, RUSSIA PERHAPS?!

Indeed the elephant in the room was that it was Kyiv that objected to the IAEA visiting, setting up a presence and monitoring the ongoing operation, back in May of last year.

Ok, this from the article you posted.

It says that the power plant and the city of Energodar contain Russian military forces and weapons, with fighting taking place nearby and, it says, evidence of Russian missiles flying directly over the plant: "Therefore, the proposal to conduct an IAEA mission is unacceptable for Ukraine until the deoccupation of the Zaporizhzhia industrial site and the city of Energodar.

So, not out of objection to a visit, but out of concern for the security of IAEA staff.

And earlier this month he told Members of the European Parliament that both sides agreed on the importance of a visit but not under the other's flag.

both sides...

So, yes, there were actually conditions from the Russians... from day 1. Your provable points are completely disprovable.

Common sense dictates that if the new managers of the plant had objected to or obstructed the IAEA, they simply wouldn't have a presence there and we'd be hearing it in the media.

Moreover, there are no public statements from the IAEA indicating anything but full and ongoing cooperation.

Here is a simple exercise in logic:

Who wants NATO to get into the war directly, Ukraine or Russia?

Would blowing up Europe's largest nuclear power plant get NATO involved or keep it out?

So applying simple logic, blowing up the plant does not benefit Russia and could get NATO to send troops and that benefits Ukraine again

Here is a simple exercise in logic:

Who wants NATO to get into the war directly, Ukraine or Russia?

Would blowing up Europe's largest nuclear power plant get NATO involved or keep it out?

Your assertion is incorrect. In this conflict, Russia's actions resemble those of a terrorist state. By committing numerous war crimes, they aim to sow fear among the Ukrainian people. This strategy lacks logic, ultimately leading to their defeat. Furthermore, their attempt to destroy the Power Plant in order to hinder any counteroffensive reflects their irrationality and misguided thinking. Anyone who considers this a mere conspiracy is, at best, ignorant and, at worst, complicit in Russia's assault on a sovereign nation.

Would blowing up Europe's largest nuclear power plant get NATO involved or keep it out?

There is zero evidence to indicate that NATO would directly enter the war in response to anything that happens at the plant.

What do we know would actually happen if the plant blew up? Huge swaths of Ukraine would be rendered uninhabitable for generations to come, that is for sure.

Which side is likely to be more concerned with that actual outcome, Ukraine or Russia?

Russia will only care about that if it thinks part of its territory will be hit by the radiation. If the Ukrainian counteroffensive in  Zaporizhzhia succeeds and the Russians realize that will no longer be "their" territory, I highly doubt they would think twice about blowing the plant up if they thought it would slow the Ukrainians down.

rainyday

Today 10:23 am JST

Perfect strawman.

Ukraine is failing in it's offensive even it admits this.

So why again will Russia risk its Crimean territory?

Because if radiation flows out Crimea is right next door.

Removing Russia's main naval base.

As for no guarantee NATO will get involved.

Guess you missed the latest Biden administration interviews and announcements where they literally say a nuclear weapon or disaster would need intervention.

Yes they snuck in "Disaster " right after saying weapons.

Allan

Today 10:20 am JST

Sure and Russia is willing to sacrifice it's precious naval fleet and base in Crimea that would be affected.

Seriously!?!?!

I haven't seen a single rational explanation as to what benefit Russia gets from blowing up the plant.

All we got were the same platitudes.

"Russian is evil" Putin is crazy" vengeance" etc...

Russia/Putin has been extremely careful to avoid any excuse for NATO to enter the war.

They avoid hitting targets near NATO country borders.

To be exact the only time missiles landed outside Ukraine and Russia was by Ukraine and proven fact Ukraine still to this day refuses to admit to!

even more so when Russia knows the NATO meeting is very soon and Ukraine is desperate for something, anything to show actual offensive progress, or an excuse for why not, or a future danger so they can get even more money and weapons.

Russia isnt going to do anything until at least after that meeting. despite Ukraine needing/hoping so and pushing this false narrative.

Prigozhin is already back in Russia, picking up his weapons that were "seized".

Fell hard for that coup ruse, huh?

Fell hard for that coup ruse, huh?

Fell hard for the Kremlim Copium line, eh?

The idea that this was some kind of 4D chess played to put Wagner on the Northern flank through disception (when they could have just picked up and moved) is so laughably farcical (I guess you didn't notice the exploding helicopters and the Russians digging up the M-4 highway either?) as to cause one to question the basic competence of anyone so foolish as to admit that they believe it.

So why is the supposed coup plotter who was forced into exile back already with all charges dropped and his weapons returned?

explain that one.

The idea that this was some kind of 4D chess played to put Wagner on the Northern flank through disception (when they could have just picked up and moved) is so laughably farcical

Not as farcical as thinking Russia will blow up a nuclear power plant in some strange act of revenge, causing a nuclear disaster that would affect the territory it holds, it's Crimean Naval Base, etc ..

Perfect strawman.

A strawman is when you invent another person with a weak argument and engage with arguments that hypothetical person raises rather than the actual arguments the person you are debating makes. I didn't do that, I directly responded to your points.

Ukraine is failing in it's offensive even it admits this.

Whether or not Ukraine's offensive is failing is debatable. If you think Ukraine is failing 3 weeks into an offensive because they've only captured a couple of hundred square km (or whatever the exact measure is at this point), I'm curious to hear your assessment of the Russian winter offensive which lasted much longer and captured less territory.

To my knowledge the Ukrainian government has never said that its offensive is a failure. I've certainly seen them making statements to the effect that it is difficult and hasn't yet resulted in a breakthrough, but that isn't the same as them saying it is a failure. That is just you cheerleading the Russians, not reality.

So why again will Russia risk its Crimean territory?

Because if radiation flows out Crimea is right next door.

Removing Russia's main naval base.

Yup. I'm no expert on nuclear fallout, but from what I've read the areas that would be affected, outside the immediate vicinity of the plant which would be screwed either way, is largely dependent on which way the winds blow the cloud at the time of a radiation release (those of us who were in Japan in 2011 probably remember this quite well). If its blow south, Crimea is at risk. If it blows West, the rest of Ukraine and Europe are at risk, etc etc. So if one wanted to weaponize the plant, and one didn't care about the surrounding region, one could simply time an explosion to coincide with weather conditions that minimized risk to territory you cared about while maximizing that of your opponents. This logic could work both ways of course, but the Ukrainians are far more likely to care about what happens to Zaporizhzhia - the area that will absolutely get hit no matter what - than the Russians are. And the Russians are the ones actually in control of the plant and able to engineer such a disaster if they wanted.

I'm not saying the Russians are going to do that, but I find your argument, which amounts to little more than "no matter what, the Ukrainians did it", to not be very persuasive.

As for no guarantee NATO will get involved.

Guess you missed the latest Biden administration interviews and announcements where they literally say a nuclear weapon or disaster would need intervention.

Yes they snuck in "Disaster " right after saying weapons.

This seems to be a very broad interpretation on your part, just because Biden said this or that doesn't mean that the United States/NATO is "guaranteed" to get involved if there was a provocation at the plant.

Mind you, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing if he did. If the Russians are totally innocent as you claim and have no ill intentions towards the plant then there is no need for them to worry about NATO involvement. On the other hand, if they are considering using the plant as a kind of weapon of mass destruction that could threaten not only Ukraine but the rest of Europe as well, then yeah someone bloody well ought to be making it crystal clear to the Russians that there will be consequences to them from doing so. I'm not as willing to trust everything the Kremlin says about how saintly they are as you are, sorry.

I haven't seen a single rational explanation as to what benefit Russia gets from blowing up the plant.

The rational explanation would be that in the event that the Ukrainians acheive a breakthrough in their offensive and were threatening to cut off their lines of supply to Crimea (by severing the land bridge across occupied Zaporizhzhia), setting off a nuclear disaster at the plant before the Ukrainians took it over would create chaos for the Ukrainians and derail their offensive, giving the Russians time to withdraw and re-group.

I think this isn't a likely scenario to play out, but its not true to say that there are no scenarios in which blowing up the plant wouldn't be a rational choice that produced a benefit to the Russians (or an individual Russian commander who is making such decisions).

Yes on the first point, hell no on the second. I'm quite happy not seeing nuclear missiles in any of the world's skies.

Attacking a nuke plant is just the kind of thing the nihilistic Russians would do. Putin will have to be taken out by any means, should it happen.

I cannot see the strategic value in blowing up a NPP you are already in control of, threatening the lives of your own soldiers in the nearby vicinity and having the prevailing winds blow radioactive material over the parts of Ukraine you have recently tried to bring back into the fold of your territory and even Russia itself.

Never mind the bigger excuse it would hand over to NATO to invoke Article 5 and make it easier to have more weapons or possibly soldiers into the conflict.

Never mind the fact you would ruin significant parts of the land bridge you are trying to keep open and the loss of Crimea and your Black Sea Fleet.

If you can believe this is a serious strategy, I would love to hear the merits of it?

Sounds very 'Gulf of Tonkin' to me.