3 ms·

> The safety and security officials will allow the agency to possibly perform a forensic evaluation of shelling that has occurred at the plant, Bloomberg report

> 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-international-nuclear-agency-getting-wider-powers-to-probe-attacks-on-ukraine-power-plant/ https://thehill.com/policy/international/3615324-internation... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Glasl%27s_model_of_conflict_escalation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Glasl%27s_model_of_c...

ceejayoz 3y ago
> The entire good guys vs bad guys narrative falls apart 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-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine 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.")
- meeuwer 3y ago
  And again moving the moral goalposts. One minute it's an existential struggle between good and evil, the next minute it's "well, it's a gray area, you actually are allowed to shell nuclear power plants, everything that's gonna happen is on your enemy anyway, and as a bonus we'll keep our mouth shut about any inconvenient evidence, mkay?". Seems more like one sports team versus another one looking to bend the rules a little. That's my problem. One can't have their moral cake and eat it too.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    No, it’s not a moral grey area. Russia shouldn’t be in Ukraine. They bear the responsibility of that invasion.
    - justsomehnguy 3y ago
      I assume you have a similar standing on the presence of USA in Middle East? Or this doesn't work this way for you?
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        I wouldn’t really equate Ukraine with Hussein or the Taliban, but yes, the US bears huge responsibility for the mess there.
        justsomehnguy 3y ago
        It's amusing what you can't spill 'USA shouldn't have been in ME'.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        “I am mad you didn’t answer the question I didn’t ask.” No, the US shouldn’t be in the Middle East in a military capacity. It hasn’t done the world much good there.

ceejayoz 3y ago

> The entire good guys vs bad guys narrative falls apart 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-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine 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.")

meeuwer 3y ago
And again moving the moral goalposts. One minute it's an existential struggle between good and evil, the next minute it's "well, it's a gray area, you actually are allowed to shell nuclear power plants, everything that's gonna happen is on your enemy anyway, and as a bonus we'll keep our mouth shut about any inconvenient evidence, mkay?". Seems more like one sports team versus another one looking to bend the rules a little. That's my problem. One can't have their moral cake and eat it too.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  No, it’s not a moral grey area. Russia shouldn’t be in Ukraine. They bear the responsibility of that invasion.
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    I assume you have a similar standing on the presence of USA in Middle East? Or this doesn't work this way for you?
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      I wouldn’t really equate Ukraine with Hussein or the Taliban, but yes, the US bears huge responsibility for the mess there.
      - justsomehnguy 3y ago
        It's amusing what you can't spill 'USA shouldn't have been in ME'.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        “I am mad you didn’t answer the question I didn’t ask.” No, the US shouldn’t be in the Middle East in a military capacity. It hasn’t done the world much good there.