3 ms·
>* The IAEA pointedly avoided mentioning the shelling (not clear why). This is the first I've heard this, any good sources on why/how they managed to avoid men
by yucky 4y ago
>* The IAEA pointedly avoided mentioning the shelling (not clear why).
This is the first I've heard this, any good sources on why/how they managed to avoid mentioning the very reason they were there in the first place?
Because knowing the position of the International community on who is right/wrong in this war, it seems very telling that the IAEA would ignore the shelling of the nuclear plant unless their findings suggest Ukraine really was at fault and they wanted to provide cover.
Or am I missing something..?
- pydry 4y agoI misspoke above - they did mention shelling offhand and in the abstract but they made zero comment about: * whom they thought was responsible. * any attempts they made to discover who was responsible. * any evidence they had seen, not seen, asked for or not been given access to. If their genuine, honest conclusion was "we are still not sure who did it" then the appropriate response would be to admit that and to lay out the evidence they had seen. For whatever reason they chose to boil their assessment down to "shelling happened" and avoid pointing fingers. I can see why Russia interpreted that as a green light to shell Pivdennoukrainsk.