Yeah. A large part of the difficulty is really with the underlying article, which has some interesting and meaningful content, but is also definitely written i

Yeah. A large part of the difficulty is really with the underlying article, which has some interesting and meaningful content, but is also definitely written in a scaremonger-y sort of tone. I do find the role of the power stations in the war to be surprising/confusing/suspicious. From the outside, it feels like Russia has invested an unreasonable amount of its resources in taking and then controlling the nuclear power stations, given that it has allowed them to continue to produce power. From a military perspective, I could understand the plants being a major military target to seize for the purposes of denying the enemy access to sufficient electricity, but I haven't seen any reportage suggesting that the plants power output have fallen dramatically (maybe it has, and I just haven't seen it?) It makes sense for Russia to prefer to capture rather than destroy the plants, both because Russia could find them useful if they "win", but also because one of the few surefire ways to produce an actual coordinated Western military activation would be for Russia to intentionally cause a nuclear catastrophe by destroying them, but why continue to operate them beyond the minimal level required to keep plant cooling operations going? Anyway, all to say it's all very interesting and very bad, but the article is still a scaremonger